what chemical castration (or so my abnormal psychology professor lead me to believe) refers to is this:

sex offenders (most of whom are male) are 70%-80% likely to commit the same sex crime again within a few years after their release from prison. chemical castration is a procedure where the sex offender is injected with estrogen which somehow affects his ability to stand. ahem. :) nothing is actually cut off or removed in some way. chemical castration has been a 10 year practice in europe but is coming into its own in the US.

the opposition: the constitution of the US prevents a criminal being punished twice for the same crime. jail time plus the chemical castration is like being punished twice. then there's the whole "does the judicial/correctional system have the right to go that far to prevent future crime?"

all the information above i have not personally verified so don't start quoting me on this. i only just heard of this concept today so i know nothing concrete about it. i just wondered what all of your thoughts on this was.

Castration of prisoners is nothing new. The United States had a eugenics policy in the beginning of the 20th century where people who were either criminals or mentally insane were all castrated in an effort to remove those genes from the gene pool. It was believed by some at that time that some people have a genetic propensity to commit crime. If one removed that gene from the collective, there would be almost no crime.

what chemical castration (or so my abnormal psychology professor lead me to believe) refers to is this:

sex offenders (most of whom are male)

Sex offense includes such crimes as public indecency (urinating in public, public sex, etc).


chemical castration is a procedure where the sex offender is injected with estrogen which somehow affects his ability to stand. ahem. :) nothing is actually cut off or removed in some way. chemical castration has been a 10 year practice in europe but is coming into its own in the US.


It also requires continued application and a study in Brazil indicated that individuals could still commit rape while chemically castrated.

Never mind that only a small subset of sex crimes have anything whatsoever to do with sex (as odd as that may sound). Power, control, and things of that nature kick in. Chemical castration doesn't remove these and does remove a potential outlet for them.

jail time plus the chemical castration is like being punished twice.

This is a severe misinterpretation of double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment does not disallow two separate types of punishment be applied for the same crime, hence why the death penalty is constitutional (see section 3 clause 2).

Going back after you have sentenced them might qualify as double jeopardy, but not sentencing them to such in the first place.

then there's the whole "does the judicial/correctional system have the right to go that far to prevent future crime?"

You are thinking of Amendment VIII: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Props to you Llywelyn for knowing your stuff.
In Canada were in the stages of 'thinking' about the chem castration', but Im not sure I beleive that its a good idea. for one Llywelyn said, its not a 100% effective. I mean sex offenders are also abusive in some cases as well as 'power' hungry, and other things, but thats besides the point. There is also other ways to get .... the abuse out. *Im not even going to get into that* but in europe some of the side effects are just as disgusting as the crimes. Id have to dig out some of my human rights books to see the exact articles *which I think I might do after Im off line* but damn. Its a lose lose situation. But as my proffessor once said, its an evil price for an even more evil crime. And since criminal pusnishment isnt around much...
Im on the fence thats really all this has to do with anything.
sorry in a weird mood :confused:

Yeah, the estrogen can mess up alot more than a hard-on. And if it's not as reliable....

I don't think it's a good idea.

Besides, would there be a law to prevent these men from going out and getting penile implants? See, it solves nothing.

A sexual predator doesn't need a properly functioning penis to commit a violent sexual assault. In many child molestation cases, the assailant has used foregin objects.

Chemical castration is injections of Depo Provera, injectable estrogen;one option of horomonal birth control for women. It blocks the production of testosterone, in men. It's suppse to diminish their sex drive. see here (http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/29/castration/)

Since rape and sexual assault are more about control and humiliation for the offendor, rather than sex, I don't see how this would work.

Everyone else already said it, so I won't.

But castration (even in the sense of severing the penis) will not stop them. If nothing else it will only further enrage them and lead them to be more violent.

I say life in prison or death row... whichever hurts them more.

I may be considered a bit extreme for these views but i believe anyone who commits any sexual crime against a child (13 or under) should receive the death penalty. same with extreme rape cases such as those involving sodomy or foreign objects large enough to cause damage. Other rape cases should be punished by life in prison with no possibility of parole. we as a society should have no mercy for those who prey on the weak.

offtopic: invisible shadow, just wanted to say i like your signature. i've seen the sg sigs and they're ok but yours is a nice twist. props to ya.

Yeah, I would call that an extreme solution. However, I do agree that we should have (do have, here in the U.S. anyway) stiff punishment for crimes against children. There was a guy I used to work with, convicted child molestor who served 13 years. I think he should still be there.

Chemical castration wouldn't work, as others have pointed out, so I say chop it off, chop it all off.

Chemical castration wouldn't work, as others have pointed out, so I say chop it off, chop it all off.

That sounds like a wonderful idea. In fact it's brilliant.

Because, most rapists already have erectile problems or other physical sexual dysfunctions, so removal of the penis will force them to use other objects... and let's take a poll... who prefers a limp penis to a broken broomstick?

Castration in any sense will not work.
Thank you, come again. ;)


EDIT:
...my abnormal psychology professor...
I'm surprised no one else said this... I just now noticed it. Is your class abnormal psychology, or are you saying your professor is abnormal? ;) (Sorry. couldn't resist, Blue.)

the class course is abnormal psychology; study of the mental disorders and related topics (sex offenders are classified as "abnormal" hence why we would take a look at chemical castration). the professor himself is a bit of a flake, which is why he put this topic on the debate list he made the day before he passed it out to the class as potential debate topics. there's really nothing to debate here, is there?

i think for my debate, i'll persuade my group to do the culpability of the mentally ill.

That sounds like a wonderful idea. In fact it's brilliant.

Because, most rapists already have erectile problems or other physical sexual dysfunctions, so removal of the penis will force them to use other objects... and let's take a poll... who prefers a limp penis to a broken broomstick?

Castration in any sense will not work.
Thank you, come again. ;)

Okay fine, give them the death sentence. That solves the problem. :D And none of this death row crap, they are sentenced to death and then spend the last 24 hours of their life in a pit in the ground before being lead to a public execution. ;)

What about the 18 year old guy and 17 year old girl who fall deeply in love and want to get married, and they end up having sex and getting caught. According to your standards the 18 year old guy is gonna get the chair, and you've just ruined two lives, congrats. You always have to have exceptions due to the severity of the crime, and the willingness of all parties. Not all sex crimes are violent, and the majority of them a quite minor that no one really cares about anyway, so they just get a small fine or a few days in jail.

What about the 18 year old guy and 17 year old girl who fall deeply in love and want to get married, and they end up having sex and getting caught. According to your standards the 18 year old guy is gonna get the chair, and you've just ruined two lives, congrats. You always have to have exceptions due to the severity of the crime, and the willingness of all parties. Not all sex crimes are violent, and the majority of them a quite minor that no one really cares about anyway, so they just get a small fine or a few days in jail.
Well, for starters that's not a crime in most places.

And secondly, if they were really in love they could get married, in which case the law does not apply.
Thirdly, that's an incredibly miniscule percentage of sex crimes... I'll have to look it up, but I'm betting it's not even worth considering.
Fourth, this was about forcible rape and child molestation, not consensual (albiet illegal) sex between young adults.

What about the 18 year old guy and 17 year old girl who fall deeply in love and want to get married, and they end up having sex and getting caught. According to your standards the 18 year old guy is gonna get the chair, and you've just ruined two lives, congrats. You always have to have exceptions due to the severity of the crime, and the willingness of all parties. Not all sex crimes are violent, and the majority of them a quite minor that no one really cares about anyway, so they just get a small fine or a few days in jail.

How on earth does the above scenario equate to a sex crime? Having sex with a minor, if that's what you are implying (the legal age of consent is 16 in Australia, FYI), isn't what I'm talking about...I'm talking about rapists and people who sexual abuse others. Those people should be thrown into a pit and then shot at a public execution. Screw rehabilitation, it doesn't work. *shrugs* JMHO.

How on earth does the above scenario equate to a sex crime? Having sex with a minor, if that's what you are implying (the legal age of consent is 16 in Australia, FYI), isn't what I'm talking about...I'm talking about rapists and people who sexual abuse others. Those people should be thrown into a pit and then shot at a public execution. Screw rehabilitation, it doesn't work. *shrugs* JMHO.

Indeed, but you did not specify. You only said sex offenders. People who go streaking are classified as sex offenders.

Indeed, but you did not specify. You only said sex offenders. People who go streaking are classified as sex offenders.

They are? I never knew that, Though, now that I think about it I don't know what I thought they were called if they weren't classified as sex offenders.

By still, I don't see how an 18 and 17 year old in a loving relationship would make the 18 year old a sex offender if they had sex...is the legal age of consent 18 overseas?

Indeed, but you did not specify. You only said sex offenders. People who go streaking are classified as sex offenders.

Actually, she never once said sex offenders or rapists. :p

Also, streakers aren't required to register with the city/county when they move there. ;)

Actually, she never once said sex offenders or rapists. :p

Also, streakers aren't required to register with the city/county when they move there. ;)

Thank you! I was wondering when I said sex offender, and you're right, I just looked, I didn't say it, not once! :D

Stachatory rape is intercourse between a legal adult and a minor, hence the 18 year old guy and 17 years old girl, and its a crime wether it was consentual sex or not in the United States. And in North Dakota at least one of the people getting married has to be 21 before it can be considered legal. I think there are a couple other states with similar laws. If you were to acctually enfore the death upon sex offenders (begining post makes it assumed thats what everyone is talking about unless otherwise stated) then my graduating class would have been about 35 people instead of 58. When enforcing something you should take a look at the circumstances and severity, thats why all punishments arn't equal. Not all murderers have a visit with Sulfur Cyanide, most get 25 to life in prison.

Stachatory rape is intercourse between a legal adult and a minor, hence the 18 year old guy and 17 years old girl, and its a crime wether it was consentual sex or not in the United States. And in North Dakota at least one of the people getting married has to be 21 before it can be considered legal. I think there are a couple other states with similar laws.

Kansas being one of them. There is no age 21 for one age requirement, though. The stachatory rape laws are the same. One must be at least 18, to marry, two minors cannot legally marry. Also, the under age party must have written parental consent to marry. The legal age of consent (to have sex) is 16, but they may only legally have sex with a 16 or 17 yr old, not 18/18+, and no younger. Kindof tricky; though it's largely unenforced. Usually if charges are pressed, where these conditions are violated, it was for an assault, or rape and stachatory rape is then charged as well. Usually if both are at least 16, no one will complain except sometimes the parents of the minor do. FYI, though a little off topic.

...is the legal age of consent 18 overseas?
Well, with you stuck on that little island that pretends to be a continent, I'm not sure which "overseas" place you refer to.

So here's this.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
(most every country, including homosexual ages... which is really odd that they differ from heterosexual)

As for the US, it ranges from 16 to 18.. I think.
Some countries it's as low as 14.

Well, with you stuck on that little island that pretends to be a continent, I'm not sure which "overseas" place you refer to.

So here's this.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
(most every country, including homosexual ages... which is really odd that they differ from heterosexual)

As for the US, it ranges from 16 to 18.. I think.
Some countries it's as low as 14.

Little island? Pretends to be a continent? Pfft, whatever! :P

Sigh, in most places an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is not statutory rape even if the age of consent is 18.

In most places, at least in the US, there is a 2 year age gap that's allowable. Yeesh.

Sigh, in most places an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is not statutory rape even if the age of consent is 18.

In most places, at least in the US, there is a 2 year age gap that's allowable. Yeesh.

Granted. But even if the law is being broken, it's very rarely enforced, and usually by parents of the younger child who are not happy with the relationship. Which to me seems rather... immature. "We don't like the fact that we're such shoddy parents that you're having sex with someone way older than you, so rather than discuss this like adults, we're going to have him sent to jail."

In Canada, the consentual age is 14, in which you can can have sexual intercouse, regardless of the age of the other party involved. The only time the 2 years of age apart comes into play, is if the person is under 14 but over 12, in which case the accused may not be commiting an offense if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the person. However, there are some exceptions, such as *coughanalcough* :o intercourse is not legal, and cannot be legally consented, under the age of 18, and I think that's just crazy.

"Sexual offense" is just too vague, and any extreme punishment would somehow how have to be attached to a specific incident. I don't like the castratrion idea because as everyone else already pointed out, there is way more involved in a sexual assualt, then just the sexual aspect. I'm sure that for the most part it's the embarrassment, and controlling that turns them on, not the actual sex. It has nothing to do with their balls, and would serve no other point then just cruel and unusual punishishment.

Now, if you really want to stop them, why not do something more useful like cut off there hands or blind them or something stupid like that. It would serve relatively the same purpose, but would probably halt any opportunity, even if it wasn't specifically dealing with the problem.

In Canada it's only 14? That's crazy?

Offtopic, but in defense of the Australian, sometime look at a world map. Approximate the size of Australia with your hand or something, and compare it to the United States. Australia is a LOT bigger than people think; most people think it is a small island the size of Alaska or so, but it's much, much bigger. The same person who told me about the map swears they have farms the size of [the state of] Massachusetts, but I don't believe that!

Yes! Make it optional. Life in prison or chemical castration? Tough choice, but perhaps not for a someone willing to commit a sex offense.

Yes! Make it optional. Life in prison or chemical castration? Tough choice, but perhaps not for a someone willing to commit a sex offense.

I believe that the current laws we have are too lenient, you always hear about convicted rapists getting out of prison and doing it again. I think prison is ok for the first offence, but it should be a long sentence. I'm not talking consenting statutory rape, where the minor is either less than 2 years younger, or less than a year from 18 and the adult is no more than 5 years older. I'm talking violent rapists, and even pedophiles. For the second offense, thre is a thing called chemical castration, where the male is injected with basically, womens birth control, and this suppresses a hormone, making them unable to get their jollies on. The problem with this however, is that the convict could simply stop going in for treatments. For a third offense, I believe it should be mandatory castration, after all, if someone has done this three times, it's almost certain they'll do it again. My boyfriend, said life imprisonment was a good punishment for multiple offenders, that way they'd be possibly violated in jail, and thus hav to go through th same suffering that their victims had to. It's good, however I think it should be taken a bit farther, and that if there were convivted, and sentenced to life, they should have their crime tattooed to their forehead, i.e. a child molestor would have pedophile, or even a description such as, Tommy was a 7 year old boy. The second could indeed prove quite lengthy, but anything tatooed on your forehead would get read, and it would the other convicts in mind of their own child, or family member who could have the same thing happen to them. Let those who already have no prospects of getting out, take care of punishing themselves.

Sorry if it didnt make much sense, I'll try to edit it when I'm more awake

I believe that the current laws we have are too lenient, you always hear about convicted rapists getting out of prison and doing it again.
yes, i very much agree. the law is far too lenient. im sure if the president/prime minister of the country everyone's from had a daughter/son or brother/sister etc who got raped, they'd change the laws fast as hell...make the punishments twice as hurtful.
i think they should get the death penalty though. rape has to be one of the worst things in the world so i think it deserves a very bad punishment and the people who rape others don't deserve tax payer's money to be kept alive in jail basically. it makes the victims feel awful that they know some of these people get out of jail after a short time coz "they're sorry" and all that shit (which may be true in some cases but they have to pay the price) then go do it again! rapists dont deserve sympathy. victims do. it's the victims who deserve tax payers money, not the rapists.

If they are sentenced to life, they should stick it out, some rapists and pedophiles don't survive long in jail anyhow. While the possibilty of the person who ripped your world apart comming back to do i again, for me the thought that thy would go through practically the same kind of torture, only more than onc, would make it more gratifying them them just being dead without really being punished. Once theyre dead, they wont care or ever have remorse.

Any criminal profiler, police detective, or psychiatrist worth their degree will tell you, that "pedophilia", has one of the highest recidivism rates of any crime on the planet. This is primairly because the behaviour, gives the perpetrator both a physical AND a psychological "thrill". For lack of a better term. So while the chemical injections and/or medication may quash the physical aspect of said behaviour, it does absolutely NOTHING for the psychological. As a result, they re-offend, to at least meet one of the two "thrills" they experience with committing the offence.

The only thing that has proven to stop the behaviour, is permanent incarceration. Simply because, they can't get to children in prison.

im not so sure id go for this i mean theres not proof it would work and could just be a waste of time

Any criminal profiler, police detective, or psychiatrist worth their degree will tell you, that "pedophilia", has one of the highest recidivism rates of any crime on the planet. This is primairly because the behaviour, gives the perpetrator both a physical AND a psychological "thrill". For lack of a better term. So while the chemical injections and/or medication may quash the physical aspect of said behaviour, it does absolutely NOTHING for the psychological. As a result, they re-offend, to at least meet one of the two "thrills" they experience with committing the offence.

The only thing that has proven to stop the behaviour, is permanent incarceration. Simply because, they can't get to children in prison.

Wow, you have done your homework D1g1TaL Gh0sT! :D
Very well written, and very accurate.
Only solution: permanent incarceration or death.
And being that I work in a prison, I would choose the latter for them.

Sadly the age of consent in Missouri is 14 if the adult party is younger than 21 (a 20 year old and a 14 year old is perfectly legal, until next year...) If the adult party is older than 21 the age of consent changes to 17. I view that as a very bad system of rules. I think 16 is a much better age to set both caps on.

On to the actual topic... if serious sex offenders are locked up for life or are given capital punishment, you had better get a national age of consent, or else a whole lot of people are moving to Missouri. Secondly, my father is considered a serious sex offender. Worse I have two sisters for the same reason. I am the youngest at age 18. The oldest is 21. That I see a problem with.

Sex offenders should have their dicks cut off, in my opinion.
Simple as that.

Sex offenders should have their dicks cut off, in my opinion.
Simple as that.

The problem, is not completely in their "dicks".

See my previous post. :confused:

A sexual predator doesn't need a properly functioning penis to commit a violent sexual assault. In many child molestation cases, the assailant has used foregin objects.

Chemical castration is injections of Depo Provera, injectable estrogen;one option of horomonal birth control for women. It blocks the production of testosterone, in men. It's suppse to diminish their sex drive. see here (http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/29/castration/)

Since rape and sexual assault are more about control and humiliation for the offendor, rather than sex, I don't see how this would work.

Umm actually Depo Provera is an injectable PROGESTERONE, not an estrogen. Birth control pills are estrogen-based (some with added progesterone) but Depo Provera is most definitely progesterone.

Umm actually Depo Provera is an injectable PROGESTERONE, not an estrogen. Birth control pills are estrogen-based (some with added progesterone) but Depo Provera is most definitely progesterone.

Actually, no. Depro provera uses synthetic progesterone, and you will still need a replacement of this, in order to counteract such side effects.

From the Depo Provera Patient Product Information:

"DEPO-PROVERA Contraceptive Injection contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a chemical similar to (but not the same as) the natural hormone progesterone that is produced by your ovaries during the second half of your menstrual cycle..."

Just, you know... cuz I like to look things up :)

From the Depo Provera Patient Product Information:

"DEPO-PROVERA Contraceptive Injection contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a chemical similar to (but not the same as) the natural hormone progesterone that is produced by your ovaries during the second half of your menstrual cycle..."

Just, you know... cuz I like to look things up :)

Damn, yours sounded so much cooler then mine. :p


I took Dep-provera about 2 years ago, and the side-effects were pretty severe. I had absolutely no sex drive, depressed, and constantly felt like I was going to throw up. Honestly, just the side effects alone, could have been my birthcontrol. :p <cheeze>

This increased risk was reported as 26% (relative risk) or 1 new case of breast cancer for every 100 women being treated for 5 years (absolute risk).

I like to look things up too. :D

The reason that these side effects are more common with depo provera is because of the overdose on medroxyprogesterone, and the fact that alot of prescriptions we take on a daily basis, still contain estrogen.

I took Dep-provera about 2 years ago, and the side-effects were pretty severe. I had absolutely no sex drive, depressed, and constantly felt like I was going to throw up. Honestly, just the side effects alone, could have been my birthcontrol. :p <cheeze>

The reason that these side effects are more common with depo provera is because of the overdose on medroxyprogesterone, and the fact that alot of prescriptions we take on a daily basis, still contain estrogen.

Yeah, I've heard horror stories about Depo. I'd seriously considered going on it until I'd talked to people who used it... then decided they hated it. I never knew that was why, though.

Well I recon give it a shot & see
Then again I'd class allot of sex offenders esp the really brutal rapists should get life in prison or the death penalty (ok we don't have that here down under) because they destroy thier victoms mentally even causing suicide to some so yeah that's my 2 cents

Well I recon give it a shot & see
Then again I'd class allot of sex offenders esp the really brutal rapists should get life in prison or the death penalty (ok we don't have that here down under) because they destroy thier victoms mentally even causing suicide to some so yeah that's my 2 cents

what was that 2 cents on again? :p

From the Depo Provera Patient Product Information:

"DEPO-PROVERA Contraceptive Injection contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a chemical similar to (but not the same as) the natural hormone progesterone that is produced by your ovaries during the second half of your menstrual cycle..."

Just, you know... cuz I like to look things up :)

Well, scuse me! :( I was just pointing out that it is NOT estrogen. Because estrogen can cause femininization, I didn't even want that argument to come up that oh no we're subjecting these poor men to femininization! (Although maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea, considering how few female sex offenders there are.)

Damn, yours sounded so much cooler then mine. :)


Um just a thought...but maybe it's because hers made sense. :)

Seriously, thanks guys for clearing me up on this. I wasn't being argumentative, it's just that subjecting a man to estrogen would be exceedingly cruel and unusual, and that's not what they do.

That said, I'm not sure if I think chemical castration is adequate. I have taken Depo Provera before and it didn't really diminish my sex drive at all. So could someone please tell me how this is supposed to "castrate" a man? And I have to admit what D1g1tal Ghost said has merit. The problem is not merely in their "dicks." It's in their mind, heart, and soul, and I just don't believe it can be fixed with a Depo shot.

Edit: I'm not questioning that Depo can diminish a man's sex drive, I just want somebody to explain how if you can. Thanks!

I didn't even want that argument to come up that oh no we're subjecting these poor men to femininization! Those poor men, we are discussing would have been convicted of repeatedly raping innocent women, sometimes men, and even little kids. I say do whatever you have to, so that people get the picture that if thy do it, it will severly change their lives for the worst.

EDIT: and could you please make your sig a bit smaller? It ruins the margins.

Those poor men, we are discussing would have been convicted of repeatedly raping innocent women, sometimes men, and even little kids. I say do whatever you have to, so that people get the picture that if thy do it, it will severly change their lives for the worst.

Oh and I totally agree, but you know that your average liberal would object to that kind of punishment in the extreme. I say castrate them, burn them at the stake, do whatever the hell you want to them, they're crappy anyway. But much of our society would find that cruel, unusual, and completely unacceptable. Sigh. Oh well a girl can dream, can't she?

Well, scuse me! :( I was just pointing out that it is NOT estrogen.

I wasn't trying to knock you. I just figured I'd look it up to see, since I was curious :)

Um just a thought...but maybe it's because hers made sense. :)

Wow, you really need someone to spell it out for you don't cha? ;)

Actually, no. Depro provera uses synthetic progesterone

You're right though, I can see how that would be hard to decipher.. :/

you will still need a replacement of this, in order to counteract such side effects.

Sorry, FA. I so wasn't trying to be hostile. I don't want to fight with you, I really don't. but it was that part of the post I didn't understand. I'm sure I'm just having a dull day (not to mention a pissy one). I apologize, but will you explain that? Pretty please, with butter-flavored fairy on top?

Sorry, FA. I so wasn't trying to be hostile. I don't want to fight with you, I really don't. but it was that part of the post I didn't understand. I'm sure I'm just having a dull day (not to mention a pissy one). I apologize, but will you explain that? Pretty please, with butter-flavored fairy on top?

I was talking in accordance to depo provera and not chemical castration. I was saying that if you are taking this drug, you will still need progesterone replacement. Alot of people use replacements to counteract with such side effects.

And the butter-flavoured fairies are mine, and not to be eaten.

Edit:you are generally a little too not nice, don't take it personal, i like you, but dont be a bitch when ya dont have to

And thanks. My first neg rep, and I would really like to know what exactly it was for.. :(

Bringing this back for discussion because...

In today's "Commercial Appeal" (Memphis paper), a mentally challenged woman(the newspaper uses the word "retarded") just concieved her 10th baby. Once the baby comes due in October, the court ordered the woman to be sterilized.

The reasoning behind it: 1) The woman is not able to care for one baby, let alone 10. 2) Taxpayers are subsidizing the children, who are also mentally challenged.

the article does discuss the issues of individual rights vs state orders.


My position:
I support the decision of the court because this person cannot understand what she is doing, nor why it's creating such hardship on the community. Because she is not able to reason, society has the right of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) by limiting the burdeon this woman places on the community. Sterilization is necessary from this woman's history.

Bringing this back for discussion because...

Just out of curiosity, does this article even mention who fathered any of these 10 children? I agree with Miles D's opinion, but I would also include forcing the father to care for his child instead of the state tax-payers.

Just out of curiosity, does this article even mention who fathered any of these 10 children? I agree with Miles D's opinion, but I would also include forcing the father to care for his child instead of the state tax-payers.


8 different men. out of 10 babies.

edit. Excuse me. All 10 are from different fathers.

Here is the article text (it wouldn't let me link it).

Court orders sterilization
Retarded woman's rights and taxpayer cost enter the cycle

By Aimee Edmondson
Contact
June 27, 2004

Loretta McGee giggles and nods when you ask whether she wants to be sterilized.

Ask her anything else, and she'll likely answer the same way.





The mentally retarded 33-year-old is pregnant with her 10th child.

The first nine cost taxpayers thousands each month, and the court says it's time Loretta stops making babies.

A Memphis judge said Loretta should use long-term birth control, a court order signed Friday says.

That judge, Juvenile Court Referee Claudia Haltom, agreed with a state-appointed therapist's recommendation.

Loretta's lawyer, Christine Stephens, wants her client permanently sterilized after she has her baby in October.

Loretta's mother has tried to get her to take birth control pills, standing over her in the bathroom, watching her swallow.

But there's no guarantee the medication is going down. Her daughter just can't take pills, said a frustrated Dorothy Wise.

They tried Depo-Provera injections, but Wise said Loretta hated the side effects.

"She swoll up. It made her tired," said Wise, 56.

Loretta's kids have been before juvenile court for delinquent or unruly behavior 36 times in five years.

Four are mentally retarded.

And when Loretta showed up pregnant at a juvenile court hearing Tuesday, the birth control issue came up - a subject usually taboo in court.

Wise said her daughter's birth control just has to be permanent.

She cares for Loretta, another retarded son, and seven of Loretta's children in a rented four-bedroom house off Lamar and American Way.

The two whom Wise can't control are in state custody.

"The good Lord's got to be helping me out. It's got to be Him," said Wise, plopping down on her front stoop to watch three of Loretta's kids play hide-and-seek in the overgrown lawn.

The question is, will TennCare pay for Loretta's procedure?

It's too soon to tell, but TennCare does pay for tubal ligation, vasectomies and birth control pills.

Officials couldn't say late Friday how much the procedures cost or how many TennCare has paid for.

Some doctors perform a tubal ligation immediately after childbirth or on an outpatient basis with a local anesthesia.

The cost generally falls between $1,000 and $2,500, according to Mayo Clinic literature on the Internet.

But some civil rights activists worry that a retarded woman won't understand the court order and her right to choose.

"The suggestion in and of itself coming from the court is coercive," said Hedy Weinberg, head of the American Civil Liberties Union in Tennessee.

A judge can't force someone to take long-term birth control or be sterilized for her caretakers' convenience. There must be a medical necessity - if the mother's life is endangered, for example.

If Loretta protested, her mother could have her declared incompetent in Probate Court before the forced sterilization occurs.

Wise can't imagine it would come to that.

Loretta can't take care of herself, much less her children, who range in age from 4 to 17.

She rarely speaks, but when she does, it's to ask for something she wants. Like a cigarette from her mom.

Loretta's kids have different fathers. None has contact with his child.

And all alone, Wise said, she has a hard time controlling the kids Loretta already has.

April, 17, is the oldest. She dropped out of school in 10th grade and has a 9-month-old baby.

Tyrone, 16, is in a Nashville group home for mentally retarded boys who commit crimes.

He was convicted of assault, vandalism, aggravated burglary, criminal trespassing and evading arrest in November.

Tanaka, 14, has also been in and out of juvenile court for a host of infractions, including truancy, vandalism and fighting. She's in foster care.

Christopher, 13, also mentally retarded, has 10 delinquent complaints and was just released from the maximum security Shelby Training Center. He was there for disorderly conduct, vandalism and assault.

Ashley, 12, has been to juvenile court five times.

Derrick, 10, has been to juvenile court for assault and vandalism.

Olivia, 7, hasn't started kindergarten.

Wise said the child got ringworm on her scalp that took months to cure. By then, it was too late for Olivia to start the school year.

Loretta got the judge's attention in November, when Tyrone was placed in state custody.

Haltom, who won't comment on the case, ordered the Department of Children's Services to counsel the family.

Loretta's sterilization came up at a hearing last week that was originally scheduled for Haltom to ensure DCS was doing its job.

A state-contracted therapist began in-home counseling this year, at a cost of $2,100 per month.

Wise receives $2,256 a month in disability checks for Loretta, her son, and Loretta's retarded children.

They get $276 a month in welfare benefits and $303 in food stamps.

Tyrone's bed in state corrective custody costs $3,313 a month. Tanaka's foster home care is $4,363.

After weeks of counseling the family, therapist Sheridan Batchelor told the court the home is now well-run.

"There is a lot of love and patience in the household."

Loretta can't comb the kids' hair, but she can bathe them and wash their clothes.

Things are easier, but Lord, Wise prays, don't let Loretta have any more babies.

"It's really important to me and the judge."

Hey, I read that article too (I'm from Memphis). Should they have done it? Yeah. She didn't have the mental capacity to consent to sex. A subsequent article mentioned that if you asked her if she wanted and ice cream cone, she'd say yeah. If you asked her if she wanted to go to jail, she'd say yeah. And if you asked her if she wanted to have sex (even if you were a woman), she would say yes. She doesn't have the mental capacity to really know what yes and no mean, or to consent to sex, so what those 10 different men did to her was called RAPE. I don't know if permanently sterilizing her might not increase her chances of getting raped (after all, no baby, no evidence), but the state shouldn't have to pay for more and more children, since she doesn't know what she's doing anyway. Btw, the person who called for her sterilization the loudest was her own mother.

<3 Mary

Amazing isn't it? I have a theory that the human species is begining to devolve because Survival of the Fittest has been flipped upside down. The least intelligent people are the ones contributing to the gene pool in the greatest abundance.

killing male hormones for pedophiles (http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/29/castration/)
All right I have a link to a article about how California is going to use chemical castration or reduction of hormones. I feel this is a horrible idea. It might even make those pedophiles even worse. I can tell you this much about hormones with out the male hormones men get the feeling of inferiority. So what’s better then a child whose smaller then them to hurt so they feel more stronger about them selves. I really strongly recommend they rethink this. Seeing pedophiles dont do it for a sexual thing. Its a control issue so taking there hormones away takes that much more control from them. Any male in that situation who wasn’t originally a pedophile could potentially become one. Especially if they were blamed but innocent. They may just go that direction cause every one believes that’s what they were. Combination off loss of control and false accusations. Sometimes will lead people to things they might not have done normally. Seeing they have no real idea of what direction they should go in terms of sexual identity it could add to the confusion going through there mind. Seeing pedophilia is just like rape its for control its not out of the question that it would make it worse and not help. I can tell you I am so strongly against this its not even funny. What do you think will it make pedophiles get worse. Or even create them.

Seeing pedophiles dont do it for a sexual thing. Its a control issue

ok and you know this how???

Any male in that situation who wasn’t originally a pedophile could potentially become one. Especially if they were blamed but innocent. They may just go that direction cause every one believes that’s what they were. Combination off loss of control and false accusations. Sometimes will lead people to things they might not have done normally. Seeing they have no real idea of what direction they should go in terms of sexual identity it could add to the confusion going through there mind. Seeing pedophilia is just like rape its for control its not out of the question that it would make it worse and not help. I can tell you I am so strongly against this its not even funny. What do you think will it make pedophiles get worse. Or even create them.

ok 1 these drugs are meant to limit a mans sexual drive not make them want to have sex more, if you take away a male's testosterone there goes his sexual urge with it

the way your saying it is a pedophile is just a man who likes to have control over children thats why he does it, but a pedophile is a person who conducts sexual acts on children for pleasure yes i know there is a control factor there too but that control factor would also be used in a sexual manor


would allow judges to order first-time child molesters to take a hormone-suppressing drug upon their parole from prison.

Repeat offenders would be required to either take the drug, Depo Provera, or undergo physical castration. Both actions would block the production of the male hormone in the testes that generates sex drive.



by what i can tell by that, they are given the drug as a once off when they leave jail and if they recomit they are required to either be on the drug permently or be physically castrated, but either way there is no sex drive

http://samvak.tripod.com/pedophilia.html

It isn’t about control. Then why was the pedophile that molested me always trying to get me to do the things he wanted me to do. He even got some of the people in the community in on it or at least tried. I got a article that explains some of the reasons why it is about control.

"The pedophile is on a quest to reassert control over his life. Studies have consistently shown that pedophilia is associated with anomic states (war, famine, epidemics) and with major life crises (failure, relocation, infidelity of spouse, separation, divorce, unemployment, bankruptcy, illness, death of the offender's nearest and dearest).

It is likely - though hitherto unsubstantiated by research - that the typical pedophile is depressive and with a borderline personality (low organization and fuzzy personal boundaries). Pedophiles are reckless and emotionally labile. The pedophile's sense of self-worth is volatile and dysregulated. He is likely to suffer from abandonment anxiety and be a codependent or counter dependent."


So if he cant control his life. He can control a Childs life and his sexual desires or other things on that end. I do believe by adding to that it will just aggravate the situation and make it worse. For instance taking his hormones away. Let me describe the pedophile who molested me. He believed that it was actually acceptable what he did to me. Like it was perfectly ok to try to pin a child down and proceed to pull his pants down so he could penetrate. He had total control over me during that time. He lost control when I bite him. You can not tell me its not about control.

http://samvak.tripod.com/pedophilia.html
So if he cant control his life. He can control a Childs life and his sexual desires or other things on that end. I do believe by adding to that it will just aggravate the situation and make it worse. For instance taking his hormones away. Let me describe the pedophile who molested me. He believed that it was actually acceptable what he did to me. Like it was perfectly ok to try to pin a child down and proceed to pull his pants down so he could penetrate. He had total control over me during that time. He lost control when I bite him. You can not tell me its not about control.


I'm in total agreement its not about hormones and its not about control. Take the example of in a way its a desire of taste, everyone has things that they prefer the most and unfortunatly sexual abuse on children in one about them. Well if its the case of using hormones to control peoples actions then why hasn't it been done for the many murders who do do it for control and to make themselves feel better. Instead they would rather put money into making the sick B*****d's into the victims, when they are clearly not. They should do something more useful.

They should make them suffer the same emotional torture that there victims do, it has taken me years to understand what happend to me and its now reciently happend to someone I hold very dear to me, and now I have to see her go through the pain and suffering that is infortunatly very close to home.

Some hormones.....

For instance taking his hormones away. Let me describe the pedophile who molested me. He believed that it was actually acceptable what he did to me. Like it was perfectly ok to try to pin a child down and proceed to pull his pants down so he could penetrate. He had total control over me during that time. He lost control when I bite him. You can not tell me its not about control.

i understand this but why did he do it, he did it because he has the urge to have sex with children

if you remove his sex drive he wont want to have sex with anybody

You don’t get it. For pedophiles its not about sex. Its all about the control and fear of the child. As long as if the child is afraid of them. They get satisfaction whether it is through sex or just having the child touch them in well you know were. You see they don’t even need to get sexual satisfaction for them to continue it. Believe me even if they do use it. Have you heard of steroids guess what they can get them any were. So that would just cancel out the effect. So it doesn’t even matter. Cops cant watch pedophiles 24/7 I wish they could but they cant so they can go any were to get steroids then.

I dont know that I necessarily agree with the idea of chemical castration. Some people react differently to drugs, plus, all you'll need is some knucklehead to have a reaction to the drugs and you've exposed the State to a huge amount of liability.

I know in some law enforcement circles, the idea of monitored RFIDs was tossed around. These would work like home-detention anklets, but in reverse. Exclusion zones would be set up around places like schools, playgrounds, anywhere that children generally congregate. They also looked at mobile devices that a teacher could carry on field trips that would warn, and then 'violate' the sex offender if he got too close to the kids.

The device specs also allowed for GPS-based monitoring by a local agency. The monitoring wasn't live, but you could use cell towers to "ping" the device and it would inform LE officials as to the wearer's whereabouts.

Unfortunately, groups like the ACLU went absolutely apeshit over the RFID idea... the feeling was that a sex offense conviction was essentiall a home-detention life sentence, and no other group of convicts had to face that. Conversely, some also argued that these could be applied to any crime, so that burglars and murderers would also be trackable, and golly, wouldn't that be terrible? I thought such an idea would be brilliant for parolees... no more checking in with a parole officer, just have the system check your whereabouts at random intervals to make sure you're where you should be.

As for the violent/child sex offenders... I'm all in favor of the old scarlet letter deal. Tattoo their crime right on their face for all to see, and make it a felony to hide or alter the mark.

The thought of forced sex turns my stomach. It also severely pisses me off.

Chemical castration? Not severe enough.

Forced sex should be a crime that instantly strips the criminal of their U.S. citizenship.
...Not that it would be a severe blow to them, but it would open up the doors for a deserving punishment, one that would normally be considered "cruel and unusual".

I personally feel that rapists should be lined up, made Bubba's bitch, and then [edited]. (sorry, figured that it walked the "death threat" line)

...except for Bubba. He's useful.

Done.

I personally feel that rapists should be lined up, made Bubba's bitch, and then [edited]. (sorry, figured that it walked the "death threat" line)

...except for Bubba. He's useful.

Done.

Speaking of "Bubba"...isn't this an implication of...well, of just another version of the rapists you speak of? Bubba may be useful, but "he" is just another one of them.

Is this the way in which a rapist should pay his penance?

Who punishes this Bubba?

The thought of forced sex turns my stomach. It also severely pisses me off.

Chemical castration? Not severe enough.

Forced sex should be a crime that instantly strips the criminal of their U.S. citizenship.
...Not that it would be a severe blow to them, but it would open up the doors for a deserving punishment, one that would normally be considered "cruel and unusual".

I personally feel that rapists should be lined up, made Bubba's bitch, and then [edited]. (sorry, figured that it walked the "death threat" line)

...except for Bubba. He's useful.

Done.

And how would we strip them of their U.S. citizenship? Do we just send them off to Africa and stop worrying about if they will rape someone there?
A convicted rapist can't vote anyway, and they are under a bit of scrutiny, so I don't really see what else there is to do.

One more thing. If they do repeat the offence while chemically castrated. There would be no DNA evidence so they could then theoretically get away with it. With out consequence.

<sarcasm>Because of course semen is require for any sort of conviciton which is why we don't even have charges like molestation, and even if we did have molestation charges nobody would ever been convicted of that. </sarcasm>

Thank you Diamon

*IMO*

I don't think it's fair to say that all people who rape someone are going to be a repeat offender. I'd say if the rape was violent enough or if there was a repeat offender then of course something like castration should be the punishment. But punishing a first time offender with any thing other than jail time is a little extream. They need a chance to clean up and get help before we take away every thing they have. Most rapists have had horriable childhoods and most get better after they get help. Tracking them like animals and their ability to have children is not helping.

Aside from that wouldn't taking away their ability to produce semen enourage them to rape more people?

I am against chemical castration, but for different reasons than it being "too extreme".

Most rapists have had horriable childhoods and most get better after they get help.

But I was just wondering how you came up with that?

Believe it or not, though, there are a lot of rapists out there who aren't mentally unstable.

And there are also a lot of people who've had horrible childhoods and do not rape.

I am against chemical castration, but for different reasons than it being "too extreme".



But I was just wondering how you came up with that?

Believe it or not, though, there are a lot of rapists out there who aren't mentally unstable.

And there are also a lot of people who've had horrible childhoods and do not rape.
That's one of my points. Not every rapist (or even person) is the same and it's wrong to presume that. And where I came up with the thing about them getting better after help was merely what I've seen growing up on these streets.

How do you know a lot of rapists are mentally stable?

<sarcasm>Because of course semen is require for any sort of conviciton which is why we don't even have charges like molestation, and even if we did have molestation charges nobody would ever been convicted of that. </sarcasm>
Well they say there is no physical evidence. Even if you bite the guy. Leave teeth marks in him. Even then there still is not even enough evidence to arrest the person get that one! So of course take there sperm away then they never have to arrest them. <sarcasm>They are free of course its what we want isnt it. </sarcasm>

Well they say there is no physical evidence. Even if you bite the guy. Leave teeth marks in him. Even then there still is not even enough evidence to arrest the person get that one! So of course take there sperm away then they never have to arrest them. <sarcasm>They are free of course its what we want isnt it. </sarcasm>
DNA doesn't just come from semen, what about hairs? skin cells? spit? blood? etc... Tons of rape cases don't even have sperm to convict.

That's one of my points. Not every rapist (or even person) is the same and it's wrong to presume that. And where I came up with the thing about them getting better after help was merely what I've seen growing up on these streets.

Yes, because a rapist is a person, and like any other person, each one might be different. But when a person commits a crime such as rape, aside from punishment coming into the picture, they need to be kept from doing it again. Is it society's job to rely on the rapist's word (or his counselor's word) that he won't do it again? And what if he does and ruins someone else's life? Would you agree with letting a convicted child molestor, who's received counseling and is supposedly "better", work around children? Would you let him/her work around your child? Why or why not?

How do you know a lot of rapists are mentally stable?

*saw that one coming*

Because it doesn't take a mentally unstable person to be selfish, nor does it take a mentally unstable person to do another wrong. Rape is an extremity in which to do someone wrong, but some people don't give a #### about how much they may be hurting someone else. How come a lot of times it's made out as if the rapist is the victim? Is it because it's so hard to accept that we live in this kind of world, in which this kind of crap sanely runs about? Is it so much easier to believe that anyone who can commit such wrongdoing is "insane" and it's not their fault?

And aside from punishment, we need to watch out for the innocent as best as we can. Mentally unstable or not, shouldn't rapists and child molestors be kept so there's a guarantee they won't harm anyone again?

And, to stay on topic, chemical castration isn't the answer for that. Prison or (for those found to be insane) a mental institution is.

I'm in favor of physical castration at this point - but only for repeatedly violent sex offenders (not those dudes who urinate in public). In addition to imprisonment. So that just in case they get out.

Because they often do. A study (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/psatsfv.txt) done by the US DOJ in 1992 showed that the average sentence for rape was 9.8 years, and that average time served was 5.4 years (56% of time sentenced). That's not very long before you're back out on the streets.

I don't know. Maybe I'm overreacting. But what crime, besides murder, is worse than rape?

I support chemical castration. Pedophiles should have this done, as IMO, no pedophile can be cured. Rapists, also. The safety of the oublic is more important than some rapists sex life, is all I can say.