Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?

Most sex crimes are not about sex; they're about violence. I think that most offenders would find some other way to inflict their agression on others.

Also, some sex offenders are women.

I agree with boomerang. A lobotomy would be much
more effective. (I'm kidding).

I thought the clown avatar was retired in Cav's honor.

Tis a bit disconcerting.

Right. It would have been a nice gesture in honor of Cav.

What they're talking about, corgilover, if nobody has told you yet, is that the avatar you've picked is one that was used by a beloved member of this site who died earlier this year.

Coincidentally, he called himself "cavfancier" after the dog breed he loved so your name along with the avatar is, as gus says, a bit disconcerting.

Not your fault. You're new here and had no way of knowing this.

Many of us thought the image had been retired.

According to the shrinks, Arson is the only purely sexual crime.

Really, Noddy? That is very interesting.

What is the connection?

The metaphorical glow and explosion. Frequently arsonists are caught masterbating beside their fires--and even more frequently they are in the middle of the watching crowd admiring their work.

This is why photographs are taken of bystanders at fire scenes.

Good friggin' lord! I certainly would not want to be a member of that crowd.

Is it raining? I thought I felt a drop.

I oppose any type of irrevocable punishment for any crime. This is not from any feeling for the guilty. Rather, there too many cases of wrongful imprisonment. Actually, one is too many.

Repeated Sex Offenders usually have at least one witness for the crime--unless the charge is murder.

And your point is...........

Castrating paedophiles is cruel and unusual punishment. And it's pointless, when you can just as easily keep them in prison, away from children.

I concur Agrote,
....Some things you don't do because, it just ain't right. There are things you might do if you came upon the perp in the act, or shortly after, but after time has passed, civil people just can't allow themselves to stoop to the level of the person youl loathe. That's why I consider proponents of capital punishment as cold blooded, vicarious murderers. A notch below people who do their own killing.

And since it doesn't work, what's the point of doing it? We don't know what motivates them and we don't know how to cure them. So the only thing we can do is lock them up until they die in prison or we find a way of curing them.

Incarcerationis actually cheaper too. Americans must have their blood. Although to fair, I do believe I read somewhere there has been shifting of opinions.

Absolutely.

Then of course, there's the case of the paedophile whose paedophillic tendencies were caused by a tumour in his brain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2345971.stm

If we were to have chemically castrated him, when all he needed was an operation to remove the tumour... Well, you get the idea.

Very true, but I do not consider proponents of capital punishment murderers. There comes a time when you have to think, "you know, just because they were able to get away with it in this life, doesnt mean they will escape it in the next life". It is not really our place to judge life or death. If the court system sentences them to death, then so be it... most likely they will die of old age and the state will spend money fighting there appeals, and like Agrote said, it is cheaper to just keep them in prison. I have a friend who was shot and killed while standing outside the Pomona courthouse, and the person who killed him did it just to try and gain the respect of some scumbag gang he was trying to join. I would love to see this 16 year old kid pay, but really it is not my place to judge him. Another good point is that some people convicted are truly innocent, and therefore and sort of permanent punishment, in my opinion, is not good.