POLL: Surgical Castration?!

Remove all ads!

Background for the survey:

The state legislature for Oklahoma is considering a bill that would place surgical castration as an option for judges when meting out punishment in sexual assault cases.

Details:

• Only for cases of 1st and 2nd degree rape, and forcible sodomy
• Can only be used if the person has been previously convicted of a sexual assault
• Crime must be substantiated with DNA evidence

These are the only details I have been able to find on the bill so far.

So the question is, would you support such a bill?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 28 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Surgical Castration?! (28 votes.)

Surgical Castration?! (Choose 1)
* No way! I cannot support forced surgical castration no matter the circumstances. - 21% (6)
* I would support such a bill, but only if it was only to be used in more extreme cases as a last resort. - 32% (9)
* Sounds good to me, get the scalpel out! - 46% (13)

 

I was going to post as to how there's no way this could be true, and that Darkwolf didn't provide any links, etc.

But uh... I guess it is true.

Here's the press release on the Oklahoma State Senate site Although, here it says, "chemical castration" rather than surgical. Sounds scary.

Incidently if they actually go by the criteria listed in that article, I'd give it a big OK.

 

Sorry ArtE, but that is an old, old article. Keating isn't even Governor anymore.

I am not sure if this is a new bill, or modifications of the old one, but on the local talk radio station they definitely stated "surgical castration". They could be wrong, and so far I haven't been able to find anything in writing about this.

[ April 21, 2004, 15:24: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

whoops, lol. Well I never liked that guy anyway. Maybe those yokels should update their website. So what is the deal currently with the bill?

One strike, you're out?
Repeat offenders?
Michael Jackson look-alikes?

Who gets castrated, how and why?

EDIT: found a more recent article... and there's that "chemical" word again. Youchy. Seriously though, eight states already allow for castration? Is that true?

[ April 21, 2004, 15:27: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

Cut away.

Take weapons away from criminals.

Start a prison choir...all tenors.

 

Chemical castration has been around for years. Basically, it involves getting estrogen injections into your testicles (ouch!). It's reversible, because as soon as the estrogen injections stop, your testicles start functioning normally again. A similar thing is done for men who wish to undergo sex-change operations. The estrogen injections repress male sex drive, and also eliminate common male traits, such as growth of facial hair, increased muscle mass, etc.

While I could support chemical castration (although I certainly think it would fit at least the "unusual" part of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause) I cannot support surgical castration. Even if there is a 1% chance that a mistake is made in DNA identification, since it's not reversible, I couldn't condone it.

You see, with DNA identification, it's actually uncommon to get a case like OJ Simpson's where the match is so good that there's only a 1 in 10 billion chance of it being wrong (incidentally, there aren't 10 billion people in the entire world, which means that chances are there was NO ONE else that DNA could have belonged to). It is much more common to get matches of 90%, 95% or 99%. Typically, juries have not convicted people with a 90% or 95% certainty on DNA evidence. However, most juries DO convict people if the DNA comes back that they are 99% certain there is a match.

OK, 99% is pretty good, but seeing as how there are hundreds (if not thousands) of sexual assault and rape cases every year, they are still going to be wrong some of the time. The reasoning behind why you get convictions at 99% at not 95% is probably due to the "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" law. I guess 90% or 95% still leaves reasonable doubt, while 99% does not.

Another point is that this has probably never been done yet, if the first law on the books is from 1996. Think about it. If it only applies to people being paroled who have multiple convictions, how many people does that really apply to? If you've been incarcerated for rape or sexual assault in the past, get out, and do it again, I can only imagine that two-time offenders get pretty stiff sentences. If Kobe Bryant is convicted, he could conceivably get life for his frist conviction. So I imagine that a second conviction would land you in prison for decades, if parole was even possible.

 

Good going ArtE!

It does mention chemical for first time offenders, and then surgical for a second offense.

WOW that is a slippery slope. Part of me wants to jump on and say go for it, but part of me wonders about what I have read about sexual assault being like all other forms of assault, more about violence than sex. Where is the line between justice and vengence?

Does this fall under cruel and unusual?

Edit: Aldeth must have posted his while I was writing mine. I was interupted, and it took a couple minutes to get back, so I missed his post until mine was up. He does a much better job of stating what my concerns are as well. Sorry to gravy train off of you Aldeth.

 

i suppose the tag "Hacken Slash" does offer a clue as to your preference for surgical over chemical castration here. would I be correct in assuming that you would prefer the use of, say, a meat cleaver over that of a scalpel for such surgery?

but i guess i have to agree with Aldeth here (must be the mallet o' thinking). lopping off body parts for criminal offenses seems just a little bit medieval to me, like cutting off someone's hand for stealing a loaf of bread. and if there is a mistake, it's not like you could just say sorry and sew the parts back on again. even the chemical castration seems like it could be easily abused; remember Alan Turing, who committed suicide after going through chemical castration, at that time simply because he was gay.

 

Nah...I'm not blood thirsty...just pratical and I like to K.I.S.S.

Give them mega doses of estrogen to chemically castrate them, and the first inmate who develops cancer will sue and own the State. Then the rapist will be leasing office space to your Governor.

Think, man.

If we'd have dealt with some of these sicko predators like this sooner, there would be a large number of little girls still alive in our world. You wanna worry about a victims rights...there's your victim. But, unless you have a little girl or are one...you just don't care.

 

Save the victims, punish the criminals.

Do what it takes.

 

'kay, guess I owe Hacken a reply...

one answer would be to ask when one intervenes. unless some kind of monority report style pre-emptive castration program is put into place (i.e. catching the perps through telepathy and removing their "weapon" before they even have a chance to commit a crime), the only little girls that would be saved would be those victimized by a repeat offender (i.e. a previously convicted sexual predator). I don't have any stats on this, but I would guess that the vast majority of victims of molestation, though hear less of them, were victimized by a relative or family "friend" who had no previous criminal record (and more than likely, would never face a trial).

this is not to downplay the crimes committed by repeat offenders; it's just to suggest that such crimes aren't as common, which is why they tend to generate news when they happen. as it is, convicted sexual offenders *do* lose alot of their civil rights; they're generally kept under tight surveillance, and there are, I think, a number of states where their criminal record can be accessed by the public. while convicted sexual predators who strike again certainly wouldn't have been able to had they been castrated (just as executing someone convicted of a violent crime would cut down at least on *that* individual's ability to commit another crime), and while castration might (or might not) have some deterent effect, it seems to me that at some point a balance has to be struck between the rights of victims and the demands of an open civil society. should Pete Townsend, for example, be castrated for downloading child pornography, if we follow the argument that many child molesters began with pornography (and besides, it's generally far easier to prove in criminal court that a file exists on a hard drive than it is to prove that an act of molestation happened; note how all of the catholic priests accused of molestation are taken to civil rather than criminal courts). certainly some little girls would be saved from victimization if we castrated child pornographers, but I tend to think that the long term damage of bringing such draconian measures to bear on civil society would be an increase, rather than a decrease in victimization, on account of the damage done to the openness of society. and I like to think (or hope) that the more open a society it is, the more healthy it is, and so the less likely such criminal acts will occur (which ultimately means: less victims...)

yuck. new topic please...

 

This is a really tough one, as it introduces a slippery slope.... you start with castration for sexual offenders, but how far do you go? What next?

That being said, if it was monitored correctly, I'd vote in favour. Some criminals can be rehabilitated, whatever disorder they have can be remedied. But for those who can't, something has to be done. Seems like a pretty barbaric way to go about it, but the people have to be protected from the truly depraved.

Jaguar put it best: whatever it takes, to whomever has earned it.

 

Whatever it takes to whoever deserves it?

That is not how our justice system is built, and the clue is in the name: Justice system. Cruel or unusual punishments should not be used because they will tend towards extracting retribution, not justice.

As far as the idea of castration as a possible punishment, I would advocate using it as a voluntary option for criminals in the categories Darkwolf named as an alternative to life or long term prison sentences. Just a thought anyway.

 

I'm with Viking on this one, a voulentary system if any system. I think a voulentary system is actually used in Denmark with chemical castration but I might be wrong.

I consider invoulentary castration (especially surgical) as cruel and inhuman punishment equal to cutting hands or legs from people.

 

I think you guys are confusing punitive actions with changes to your status as a result of your crimes.

I'll try to explain...if I use a handgun to commit an armed robbery, and are convicted of the charges, I will lose the right to own and legally register a handgun ever again. That change of status does not obviate my need to be punished for my crime...prison time and restitution are still pending...and should not be reduced one iota because I can no longer "bear arms".

Another example...If I am convicted of multiple DUI's, I will lose the priveledge of having a drivers license for a very long time (maybe forever)...this is not my punishment...only my status change...just the revokation of my license does not serve as adequate punishment. As a proven drunk driver I no longer have the "right" to drive...but that is not the punishment for my crime. I still owe Prison time, community service, fines...whatever the justice system determines.

In the case of a repeat sexual offender...offering castration in lieu of prison time is insanity...these are people who don't belong in society, whether bearing a d**k or not. All we are doing by castration is to remove from them their "weapon of choice", and eliminate the possibility of them using that weapon in a future crime...A crime which could lead to a death sentence for them.

It's really a merciful approach...to both the perpetrator and victim.

You need to worry less for the rights of a criminal scum, and focus on the rights of the victim.

 

The thing that really led me to support this was the little bit about "Repeat offenders." If the person was actually innocent of the crime and was still put in prison once... it's very unlikely that such an innocent person would be wrongfully convicted of sexual crimes twice. It just strikes me as near-impossible.

This bill, if passed, would certainly cut down on the sex crime, if only by preventing third offenses.

However, the "chemical" bit of this sort of makes me raise an eyebrow. Surgical castration would seem to be a bit more logical.

 

To compare the right to bear arms or drive a car to state sanctioned mutlilation of sex offenders is neither helpful nor relevant.

The rights to bear arms or drive cars are priveliges and as such we can take those away, no problem.

To mutilate anyone as punishment or in retribution would clearly be against the human rights convention and national law in any western country including the US:

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It would be akin to cutting off the hands of thieves which will of course solve the problem of theft, but has no place in within a justice system.

Thus in my mind this can only be done on a voluntary basis.

To trade this off against part of a long term sentence would seem sensible since there is no longer any fear of re-offending. To suggest that this is a soft option is up to you, just ask yourself how you would feel about it.

[ May 03, 2004, 13:01: Message edited by: Viking ]

 

Again I would have to agree with Viking here, guns or cars can't in any way be compared with the removal or disabling of actual body parts.

As for sexual offenders not having a place in society I can only say that rehabilitation has worked here in Finland so far and only very few of those convicted actually do their crime again.

 

I wonder, as time passes, and more people are castrated, will the studies show that this action really changed their behavior? As I stated before, my understanding of rape is that it is not driven by sexuality, but by violence. Will these people just alter their MO and keep on committing violent crimes, or will they be somehow reformed by this action?

I am not really all that big on reform of criminals. To be honest I think that this is another case of our needing to feel good about ourselves, so we pour countless amounts of money and unbelievable efforts into this humanitarian task. However, just like communism, socialism, and pacifism, it just doesn't seem to succeed in reality (though I suppose it depends on your definition of success). Maybe we are still too barbaric for such altruistic concepts to work. Maybe in a couple hundred years people will think of our time the way we think of the Crusades and the Inquisition.

 

Depends really what kind of rape, there are two kinds as far as I know it. The ones done by those who are probably drunk and just won't believe the word "NO" and then those done with the purpose of inflicting pain. The later of course is definently based on violence.

This is entirely possible and has been proven, of course some criminals can never be "cured" or rehabilitated to the society but at least most of them can, in Finland punishments of crimes are quite low and renewal of more serious crimes (such as rape or murder)is extremely rare.