CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It definitely would get rid of the problem, but that sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me!!! (I'm just kidding, it's a good idea. Just don't do it to me)
It's a damn shame that, although you recognize it as cruel and unusual instincitvely, you won't stand up for the rights of these citizens simply because they're part of a vilified section of society.
I know, the pedophile lovers out there might try to argue that it's cruel and unusual punishment or that pedophiles are just victims. but, innocent children out there are the only true victims to this humanist way of thinking.
if you're raping little kids, you don't deserve a dick. sorry dude.
"the pedophile lovers out there might try to argue that it's cruel and unusual..."
Fuck your ad-hom. How about Constitution lovers might try to defend, uhh...the constitution? Oh, but yes, appeal to emotion should win over temperance, prudence, and safeguarding against government tyranny.
It's actually very usual to stone people to death too, in plenty of other countries, why don't we just take up those practices, since they're not unusual. Why don't we stop treating women as equals, since most of the world doesn't. I mean, nobody would think we're that bad, because hey, lots of other people do it too!
Is this seriously your argument? That we should set the standard for our laws and punishments by comparison to that of third-world nations?
Lack of pain does not mean it's not cruel. Waterboarding doesn't actually hurt the person being interrogated, but we consider it torture. That is, unless you want to change the defintion of torture or cruelty based on what you can justify to the majority.
The bottom line is, if it is unsafe to release someone into society, we should not do so. That's it. Were we not jailing people for victimless crimes, we would have plenty of room and funds to incarcerate legitimate offenders and threats to society as long as necessary.
Another thing is that you conflate "sex offender" to equal "child molester". A 19-year old with a 17 year old girlfriend is a sex offender if they fuck. So you're talking about castrating people based on arbitrary distinctions based on age.
Not only that, but you're relying on the justice system to never be mistaken, and castrate someone who was not guilty in the first place.
At least with the death penalty, the person is dead, so they don't have to suffer for their entire life because of government ineptitude when its found they've been wrongfully convicted.
And last, but certainly not least, to put it quite plainly, a person doesn't have to have testicles to commit a sex offense. And btw, what would you do with female sex offenders? Cut out their ovaries?
This is a knee-jerk, mob rule, emotional reaction. Nothing more.
Not necessarily castration per se, but granting Government the ability to perform life-altering medical procedures on its citizens against their will is just a bad precedent to set.
It seems to me, that any time technology allows us to move forward, and really improve the human experience for everyone, while at the same time saving tax payer money, time, jail space, etc.
There's some fear based backlash.
There are some things that need to be understood about sex offenders:
1. Sex offenders have something wrong in their mind. It's not a choice, and it's not something they can change about themselves. Should they control their urges? Yes. Should they be severly punished if they do not? Absolutely.
But anyone that thinks one of these people can actually change who they are on their own is mistaken.
2. Sex offenders for the most part do not want to act out these urges, they feel they cannot help themselves, and would love nothing more than to rid themselves of these urges.
Now a couple things about castration:
1. Chemical castration is painless.
2. It's reversible.
So what are the reasons a pedophile should not be castrated?
It's good for future victims. It's painless. It's the only sure way to change a person's sexual desires. And in cases where it's found that the accused is actually innocent, unlike the death penalty, this punishment/preventive measure, is 100% reversible. On top of all that it would save tons of money considering the costs of prisons, lawyers, etc.
If we weren't incarcerating individuals for victimless crimes (like prostitution and drug possesion), and if we reformed our prisons and made inmates provide their own sustenance and such, we would greatly reduce the financial burden to the taxpayers, while simultaneously creating a great deal of extra space and funds which we can use to keep legitimate threats to society incarcerated as long as need be.
This is what parole boards are put in place to evaluate.
The truth is, people who push these types of statues are not really interested in saving taxpayer money, or public safety. These are talking points for politicians who can rally votes by appearing "tough on crime" while trampling on the Constitution. It's a shallow, hollow appeal.
and your argument fails at point 1. Sex offenders have something wrong in their mind..................soooooooo how does cutting of their balls do anything to correct the problem in their mind?
Cutting out your stomach won't make you stop preferring vanilla to chocolate ice cream. This argument is no different.
2. Then we help them by removing them from society and incarcerating them. Problem solved.
Also, you claim "it's good for future victims", which basically admits that it will not prevent future offenses, so what do you hope to prevent or accomplish by mutilating American citizens?
And if you think there won't be a ton of appeals before this type of thing is allowed to happen (just as with the death penalty), then you are sorely naive.
And again, I'd like someone on this side to address what we do with FEMALE sex offenders.
Point out which parts I misread or misquoted, and I'll address them.
And I've done plenty of research, and have been on this side of this argument (and aginst the death penalty as well) for a number of years.
Here's some research for you:
75% of sexual predators are male and 25% are female.
86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren't believed, so the crimes go unreported and don't get prosecuted.
Considering these facts, arrest statistics for child sexual offenders by gender are meaningless.
The American Humane Association which was responsible for gathering data from the yearly reports provided by the 50 U.S. states child protective agencies from 1973 through 1987 on child sexual abuse. They found that approximately 20 percent of substantiated cases of child sexual abuse during that time period had been perpetrated by females.
What you're trying to do is create a separate standard for the prosecution of males vs. that of females. Even if we ignore the cruel & unusual part, this is inherently unconstitutional.
If we weren't incarcerating individuals for victimless crimes (like prostitution and drug possesion), and if we reformed our prisons and made inmates provide their own sustenance and such, we would greatly reduce the financial burden to the taxpayers, while simultaneously creating a great deal of extra space and funds which we can use to keep legitimate threats to society incarcerated as long as need be.
I agree, but what does that have to do with castration?
The truth is, people who push these types of statues are not really interested in saving taxpayer money, or public safety. These are talking points for politicians who can rally votes by appearing "tough on crime" while trampling on the Constitution. It's a shallow, hollow appeal.
Again, read that article I linked. Castration is not being harder on crime. In fact, some sex offenders want to be castrated. It’s not harder or easier, just a better way to deal with the problem.
75% of sexual predators are male and 25% are female.
86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren't believed, so the crimes go unreported and don't get prosecuted.
Considering these facts, arrest statistics for child sexual offenders by gender are meaningless.
The American Humane Association which was responsible for gathering data from the yearly reports provided by the 50 U.S. states child protective agencies from 1973 through 1987 on child sexual abuse. They found that approximately 20 percent of substantiated cases of child sexual abuse during that time period had been perpetrated by females.
What you're trying to do is create a separate standard for the prosecution of males vs. that of females. Even if we ignore the cruel & unusual part, this is inherently unconstitutional.
So? Again, like I’ve said, if a heart medicine works on a black man, but not a white man, is it unconstitutional to give the medicine to the black man? Of course not. Just because something does not work for everyone, does not mean it should not be used by anyone.
and your argument fails at point 1. Sex offenders have something wrong in their mind..................soooooooo how does cutting of their balls do anything to correct the problem in their mind?
Because the chemicals produced in the testicles effect brain function. And again, nothing is cut off.
Point out which parts I misread or misquoted, and I'll address them.
You said: Also, you claim "it's good for future victims", which basically admits that it will not prevent future offenses, so what do you hope to prevent or accomplish by mutilating American citizens?
That does not admit it will not prevent future offenses at all, just the opposite actually. “It’s good for future victims,” means that there would not be future victims.
And again… there is no mutilation involved in castrations.
And again, I'd like someone on this side to address what we do with FEMALE sex offenders.
And again, why? Just because something works on one group, but not another, is not a reason to not use it where it works.
As I am thouroughly confused by the vehement objections to my point of view, and find it hard to believe I could possibly be arguing from the same base of knowledge (correct or incorrect) as my rebutters, this is what I'm basing my arguement on:
Chemical castration is the administration of medication designed to reduce libido and to reduce sexual activity, usually in the hope of preventing rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders from reoffending. Recidivism rates are very high among sexual offenders once released[1], thus a humane method of treating them has been sought other than life long imprisonment or surgical castration. Chemical castration is not surgical castration (when testes are removed through an incision in the scrotum)[2] nor is it a form of sterilization. Unlike actual castration, no permanent physical change is caused in the body by the administration of Depo-Provera (Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) to "chemically castrate" a sex offender (for this reason, the term "chemical castration" has been called a misnomer[3]). Depo-Provera is an FDA-approved birth control drug that quells the sex drive of sex offenders; it lowers testosterone levels in males by decreasing androgen levels in the bloodstream. In theory, this reduces the compulsive sexual fantasies of some types of sex offenders. Side effects from the drug have been rare and "are believed to be fully reversible with cessation of treatment.[3] In addition, SSRI antidepressants such as Seroxat, Prozac, or Zoloft may be used, since they are well-known to cause sexual dysfunction in users[4].
I'm not arguing from the perspective of revenge, or as a panacea for all cases. Simply an additional tool.
And I will be rebutting this point on the other side.
Sex offenders have psychological problems. No amount of therapy can fix this. Drugs cannot fix this either. Repeat sex offenders should be punished for life. Sending them to jail for some time allows them to get out of jail later on. And the majority of sex offenders, especially pedophiles, will commit the crime again once out of jail.
What better ways to teach them a lesson. But isn't it a little too "humane" considering the damage they could done in their victims. Sometimes they could damage life and future of their poor victims and I think that castrating them wouldn't be enough to punish them.
If you were a lawyer, and someone was arrested for saying something you completely disagreed with, would you help protect their first amendment rights?
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
-Voltaire
Past injustices do not justify current actions. We are a much more enlightened society then we were in olden days, and I would like to think that we are more enlightened then those societies that stone women for cheating on their husbands. We used to burn witches...does that make it okay to continue? We used to trade slaves...should we reinstitute that too? Progress is what separates us from barbaric traditions.
Wow. Eschewing Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punsihmen for bloodlust and vengeance. Emotional appeals and mob rule are the order of the day here, it seems.
Actually, modern day castration is not cruel at all. It's virtually painless, and the person castrated loses all sexual urges over a fairly short time, so it's not even like having an itch you can't scratch.
Many sex offenders actually wish to be castrated. They want it because they don't feel they can stop their deviant behavior on their own.
One man who had never even acted on the impulse, but always had a sexually deviant desires, approached his doctor about medical castration.
Unfortunately too many people are stuck in a medival frame of mind when it comes to the issue,
Or are just backward puritans who seem to enjoy human suffering,
And the subject is almost always dismissed out of hand as "cruel and unusual." Or "bloodlust."
Impulse and attraction are products of the mind, not the gonads.
Castration will not eliminate the attraction, and you don't have to have balls to sexually molest someone. Do you think there are no female sex offenders? YHour argument is completely short-sighted.
Again, if they can't be trusted to be in society, don't let them back into society.
Problem solved, no question of cruelty, no possibility of future crime...simple, easy solution. But it doesn't satisfy the bloodlust of those who decry, yet again, that Constitutional rights need to be trampled "for the sake of the children".
You're talking about forcing people to become eunuchs, and you claim I'm a 'backward puritan who seems to enjoy human suffering'? You've got your logic backward there, buddy.
1. There's no blood involved in castration at all. So even if I had a "bloodlust" a castration would hardly satisfy it.
2. I never claimed you were anything. I claimed the ideaology behind your arguement was either based on a medival idea of what castration is, or on some puritan idealism. I actually leaned toward a medival idea, as I don't think you're a puritan (I could be wrong though.)
3. You're right kind of, that impulse attraction is a product of the mind, but it's almost exclusively fueled by male chemicals like testosterone.
Why the vast vast vast majority of sex offenders are men, and even the one's that are women are usually BS cases, because I don't know a 13 year old boy alive that does not wanna get laid by a hot teacher.
Anyway, point taken, some sex offenders are girls. But if a heart medicine works on Africans, but not Caucasions, does that mean Africans shouldn't be given the drug? Of course not.
So castration would only work on 50% of the population. Better than 0%.
4. Again, I feel your entire arguements stems from a misconception of modern castration.
Modern castration is relatively painless, it's reversible... let me repeat that, it's reversible (no one is actually getting anything cut off,) and it does show conclusively that it greatly curbs, if not completely eliminates, sexual desire.
Now, you say, throw them in jail and keep them there.
And that would be fine.
But that's not what we do. Sex offenders see very little time in jail, if any. Even repeat offenders. You're changing the arguement by postulating a non-existant punishment as the status quo, then saying that's enough.
And jail is more expensive.
And throwing someone in jail is no less "trampling on the Constitution" than castration. Some would argue more so. But the law of the land is pretty clear that, once one breaks the laws of the land, their Constitutional gaurantees are minimized for the good of the many.
So really, it's not much of an issue from a Constitutional stand point... And again, it's reversible, just incase it's found to be unconstitutional later.
"There's no blood involved in castration at all. So even if I had a "bloodlust" a castration would hardly satisfy it."
I have to disagree with you there. The majority of the population seem to find sex offenders the very lowest of the low., and the tyranny of the majority always shines through with paedophilia and rape cases, with over the top solutions proposed from nothing but purely emotional standpoints. There certainly is a large element of bloodlust involved in these types of cases.
"I never claimed you were anything. I claimed the ideaology behind your arguement was either based on a medival idea of what castration is, or on some puritan idealism. I actually leaned toward a medival idea, as I don't think you're a puritan (I could be wrong though.)"
Please don't fall into the trap of personally attacking others that do not agree with your viewpoint. Use logic and fact to show why they are wrong.
"Again, I feel your entire arguements stems from a misconception of modern castration. Modern castration is relatively painless, it's reversible... let me repeat that, it's reversible (no one is actually getting anything cut off,) and it does show conclusively that it greatly curbs, if not completely eliminates, sexual desire."
It's also what is known as "the magic cure." That term is given to treatments which claim to be the solution to a problem, and thus draw resources and attention away from alternative (and what I would consider more permanent) treatments such as psychological rehabilitation. Chemical castration will require lifelong coerced administration of drugs that have shown to have a huge detremental effect on health over long periods of time, as well as meaning that the person has a lifelong sentence imposed against their right to procreate.
You'll argue that the treatment is reversible, but why would you reverse a chemical castration if the person hasn't been given adequate rehabilitation? Even if they were given rehabilitation, it would be useless as they would have treated the symptoms of a person who was temporarily releaved of their sexual desires and thus not have actually fixed the root cause of the issue. The issue would be masked, ignored, and once again the person would become a repeat offender.
Not to mention that fact that large doses are required to be effective in men. Most men will receive 400 mg to 500 mg per week. In some cases, men given oral doses as high as 700 mg/day have still reported regular sexual arousal and fantasies.
The idea of chemical castration seems like a good one, but put under real scrutiny it begins to fall apart. There is unfortunately no "magic cure."
What is required is real change within the criminal system to not only punish criminals, but properly rehabilitate them. Punishment takes criminals off the street for a small period of time. Properly administered rehabilitation takes criminals off the street for their entire life.
I agree that our very first action should be to rehabilitate. This is an area where our justice system is lacking (I know you're not from the U.S., but we have similar justice systems) and needs to be greatly improved. Changing criminals would be an amazing step forward in improving society.
What is important about this debate is that it has to do with repeat offenders. That means they have gone through the system once already, served their time, and decided to continue committing sexual crimes. This means either a) no rehabilitation program is in place, or b) The current rehabilitation program didn't work. Recently we had a debate on this site about a quote: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results." Here I think that it's applicable. If the system didn't work once, try something else.
As for which sexual offenders should be castrated, I think that is an important issue to address. Obviously if a 22 year old get's caught sleeping with a consenting 17 year old, he shouldn't be castrated; however if someone violently rapes someone, or molests children under 12 years old then I think castration might be the best option.
Chemical castration is far more humane and just as effective as physical castration. It addresses only one part of the problem. A habitual offender must still endure constant monitoring and psychological treatment. A sexual offense is in a sense a mandatory life sentence without the confinement. There's no need to be cruel about it, that makes you only marginally better than they are.
And as promised, this is my arguement against the point I made on the other side:
Though generally considered more humane than surgical castration, chemical castration has attracted a number of critics.
The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the coerced administration of any drug, including antiandrogen drugs for sex offenders. They argued in 1997 that forced chemical castration was a "cruel and unusual punishment", and thereby constitutionally prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. They also stated that it interfered with the right to procreate, and could expose users to various health problems.
Large doses are required to be effective in men. Most men will receive 400 mg to 500 mg per week. In some cases, men given oral doses as high as 700 mg/day have still reported regular sexual arousal and fantasies.
Okay, so the issue is not as cut and dry as I originally thought.
Still though, if you were a sexual offender, would you rather be castrated chemically, or live with the knowledge you may rape someone, and consequently spend time in jail?
I for one would ask for the drugs, but to each his own.
