Paedophiles and Chemical castration.

[piltymon]

So what do we do? Please think carefully!

[grego]

Castrate them!

[steeljack]

seems to me this is just a way of excusing child molesting by saying its a medical condition ........"its not my fault, I have a medical condition , give me a pill and I wont do it again " total rubish .... if they are locked away they dont need any medications , and if they are medicated and out on the streets where is the punishment ?

[Margaret Pilkington]

There is some talk that the names of people who are working alone with children will be available for parents to check if they have any convictionc for sexual offences, however, I don't think this will be workable....for a variety of reasons......the police freely admit they do not have the manpower to conduct investigations and this was proved with the Ian Huntley case.
Humberside police knew he had been accused of sexual offences against a minor, but failed to convey this to the police force where Huntley later went to work as a school caretaker.

[piltymon]

Originally Posted by grego

The paedophiles would scream about their Human Rights, well what about the rights of the children. Maybe if this was brought in more people with these urges would seek help, also think that the sex offenders register should be made available for all to view.

In America the sex offender register is open to everyone and it doesn't do a damn thing. I think that if we are going to discuss the subject though we should realise that with every crime there are differing degrees. I would personally shoot a man that rapes a child but where do you draw the line? And what lines should we as the people draw? It's easy to say castrate them all but do we ever think about individual cases? There is a difference between kissing you daughter on the forehead and french kissing her. Would anybody care to define the limits. I know what is right and wrong and obviously the paedophiles don't. Shouldn't we prevent before we prosecute?

[Margaret Pilkington]

No-one (to my knowledge) is talking about de-criminalising sexual offences.
What they ARE talking about is delivering a medical treatment which will remove sexual urges from these men.....but only to those who volunteer for the treatment....and I can't see that being many.

[Margaret Pilkington]

And there is no talk of the paedophiles who opt for treatment being let out of jail earlier because they have opted for treatment......well, not at this stage anyway.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Piltymon have you any thoughts on how to prevent before prosecuting.

[piltymon]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

No-one (to my knowledge) is talking about de-criminalising sexual offences.
What they ARE talking about is delivering a medical treatment which will remove sexual urges from these men.....but only to those who volunteer for the treatment....and I can't see that being many.

I think that you missed my point. I'd rather see them more criminalized. What they do is heinous but, there are different levels of each offence. I think we're passed take em out and flog them are we not?

I personally would make the injections of the inhibitor compulsory but, who do you inject?

[Margaret Pilkington]

The point I was making was in response to the post by steeljack....
and in answer to your question 'who do we inject'.....i suppose the logical answer would have to be anyone who is found guilty of such an offence.
At least chemical castration is not final......and if proved wrong, libido would return once the medication was stopped......now surgical castration would be the end for the offender.

[grego]

Originally Posted by piltymon

In America the sex offender register is open to everyone and it doesn't do a damn thing. I think that if we are going to discuss the subject though we should realise that with every crime there are differing degrees. I would personally shoot a man that rapes a child but where do you draw the line? And what lines should we as the people draw? It's easy to say castrate them all but do we ever think about individual cases? There is a difference between kissing you daughter on the forehead and french kissing her. Would anybody care to define the limits. I know what is right and wrong and obviously the paedophiles don't. Shouldn't we prevent before we prosecute?

Regarding the register, I think it would give me peace of mind, I'd certainly like to know if a convicted paedophile lived close enough to be watching my kids but I also understand that there are people out there who haven't been convicted so really you never know.
I dont think anyone kissing their daughter on the forehead would ever be called a paedophile I think the limits are common sense and are anything of a sexual nature. I agree with Steeljack paedophiles should be properley charged and locked up. I'm not convinced that paedophiles would volunteer for chemical castration.

[Nickelson]

if they are caught the shud have there thing chopped off dirty paedophiles

[piltymon]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

The point I was making was in response to the post by steeljack....
and in answer to your question 'who do we inject'.....i suppose the logical answer would have to be anyone who is found guilty of such an offence.
At least chemical castration is not final......and if proved wrong, libido would return once the medication was stopped......now surgical castration would be the end for the offender.

I'm not trying to be facicious here but, what offence? Molestation? Rape? Buggery?

[Margaret Pilkington]

But chopping off their 'thing' as you put it would not abate their sexual desires, and they could still sexually abuse a child by other means......chemical castration means that their sexual desires are diminshed or wiped out.....that is a huge difference.

[grego]

Originally Posted by piltymon

I'm not trying to be facicious here but, what offence? Molestation? Rape? Buggery?

I think they are all sexual offences and all should carry the same sentance.