'Chemical castration' for pedophiles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15100393

In South Korea, convicted paedophiles can now face a controversial punishment known as "chemical castration".

------

Thoughts?

If it were up to me, I would just chop off the dicks & balls of the motherfuckers. No anesthetics.

Can it be reversed?

Does it have damaging side effects?

I ask because should a miscarriage of justice occur (and they frequently do) and this be done on an innocent person how would you compensate them if they are screwed up by this procedure?

Also the link between sex drive and child abuse has not be proved.

It could create an impression of safety which may not exist.

This sort of thing used to be done to homosexuals (back when that was illegal) and it led to awful side effects and suicides.

Containment seems to be the safer option (if someone is later found to be innocent you can compensate them as much as that is possible and set them free).

Bingowings said:

Can it be reversed?

Does it have damaging side effects?

I ask because should a miscarriage of justice occur (and they frequently do) and this be done on an innocent person how would you compensate them if they are screwed up by this procedure?

Also the link between sex drive and child abuse has not be proved.

It could create an impression of safety which may not exist.

 +1

Bingowings said:

Can it be reversed?

Does it have damaging side effects?

I ask because should a miscarriage of justice occur (and they frequently do) and this be done on an innocent person how would you compensate them if they are screwed up by this procedure?

Also the link between sex drive and child abuse has not be proved.

It could create an impression of safety which may not exist.

This sort of thing used to be done to homosexuals (back when that was illegal) and it led to awful side effects and suicides.

Containment seems to be the safer option (if someone is later found to be innocent you can compensate them as much as that is possible and set them free).

Dug a bit more about it. It seems the treatment would last at least 15 years, so if not reversible per se, it's not permanent.

Side effects: Possible heart disease after a very long exposure to the drugs.

---

I see what you're getting at and I agree, the chance of someone being wrongly accused is significant simply because no law system in the world is perfect. Even an angry ex-wife could accuse her ex just to get back at him; extreme, I know, but it could happen.

Would it be better to administer the drugs only to repeat offenders? Possibly although I believe the parents of that one second molested child wouldn't agree.

Same thing should be done with rapists IMO. All this will no doubt cause controversy as the death penalty does, what I will never understand is how human rights activists still defend or try to defend these people when they're clearly not human and should have no rights at all.

I'm of the belief that there are no evil people, only evil acts.

What makes people do things defined as evil (and not everyone is agreed on what is evil) are numerous and complex.

That doesn't detract from the impact of acts defined as evil or necessarily detract from the need to face the consequences of being responsible for whatever it is that you do but there is a capacity for evil in everyone, especially under unique circumstances.

Evil is human nature doing things you and probably others don't like.

To call that not human is to miss the problem of evil.

It also cheapens all the good that humans do.

To struggle to avoid evil, to struggle to do good even at personal cost and even if you fail, that's human.

You don't find cats feeling remorse about the birds they kill.

Just wondering, are there cases where any doubt can be practically ruled out? ESPECIALLY if the criminal admits his guilt (as it happens often)?

Would it be fair to introduce such punishments just for those cases, with the more dubious wrongdoers getting off lightly?

Bingowings said:

I'm of the belief that there are no evil people, only evil acts

That's a common cliché, but it isn't accurate - some people's minds ARE wired in a way that drives them to do evil all the time.

They may still be "some good" in them, just as the Hamas do charitable work, but that doesn't change the fact that the "evil" is a fundamental part of their personality.

This is like saying there are no insane people, only cognitive delusions. No talented musicians, just good albums. Makes any sense?

What makes people do things defined as evil (and not everyone is agreed on what is evil) are numerous and complex.

Sadism and lack of empathy being two of them.

And now you're doing it yourself :DTo struggle to avoid evil, to struggle to do good even at personal cost and even if you fail, that's human.

To struggle to avoid evil, to struggle to do good even at personal cost and even if you fail, that's human.

he birds they kill.

Evil is human nature doing things you and probably others don't like.

So if I don't like you wearing a goatee, does it justify me saying it's evil?

To call that not human is to miss the problem of evil.

Yea, it's a Scotsman fallacy - it doesn't hold up logically, obviously, but I still accept that sentiment as an expression of sane idealism (which is admirable until it gets too wide-eyed and reality-denying).

To struggle to avoid evil, to struggle to do good even at personal cost and even if you fail, that's human.

Bingowings said:

Well, yeah. I know you know it wasn't literal, maybe a better way to express it would be to say they're among the lowest of the low.

It would indeed be impossible to define evil as, everyone would have a different opinion but there are certain things most people would agree on I think, like with pedos and rapists.

You'd find people more divided on opinion on murder for example. I believe I would absolutely be able to kill someone if in self defense or defending a loved one from imminent danger of death or extreme harm. Never been in that situation so I don't know for sure, but to molest a child or rape crosses every line established by...I want to say every, but lets say almost all societies.

And I'm not calling them evil because I don't want to turn this into a religious thing, just sick bastards, unstable people, etc.

I'm not against the measures taken in SK, but it sure is tricky when you have a legal system far from perfect.

How is evil a religious term?

Bingowings said:

You don't find cats feeling remorse about the birds they kill.

I'm struggling with the comparison of cats and pedophiles.

Pedocat... the new meme.

A cat hasn't the capacity to make moral and ethical decisions in the same way that most humans do.

It has animal instincts and reflexes as humans do but it has a very different sense of society (if any) it has a very different sense of self and empathy (if any).

There can not be an evil cat but a cat can do things that humans find loathsome enough to be classed as evil (like pulling a beloved pet to pieces or injuring a child or an old person).

All humans at sometime for some reason will have a distorted sense of society, self or empathy compared to the norm.

This increases the probability of committing acts of evil but it doesn't create certainties.

Sometimes people have a permanent distortion of one or many of those factors.

Being sexually attracted to children isn't evil, it's dangerous because it makes criminal acts more likely but there are good people with these impulses who go out of their way to seek help to control them at risk to themselves, not enough sadly but such people do exist.

Sex between children and adults is considered evil largely because of subjective cultural taboos (different societies have and have had different ideas about what is acceptable at different times, the goal posts of evil are moveable).

Generally a child lacks the intellectual and emotional maturity to give consent.

It is therefore a form of rape even if the child claims to be consenting.

Humans become mature enough to give consent at different times but in order to protect the broadest spectrum of people law makers have to set arbitrary ages of consent which should only be moved after research and careful legislation.

Some people who abuse children aren't sexually attracted to them, they are attracted to thrill of breaking a taboo or inflicting cruelty.

Some people who molest children are opportunists who see an avenue for sexual release which is easier to obtain and control than a preferred adult.

In some of these cases laws and safeguards are going to be more effective as preventative measures than others.

A sexual sadist is more likely to be turned on by breaking laws and navigating around obstacles than a sexual opportunist, who is more likely to seek easier gratification elsewhere.

Ultimately containment is the best solution.

If such people are identified they should be kept away from children for a long as possible.

twooffour said:

How is evil a religious term?

Brain fart. I somehow translated it wrong in my head and soon after posting realized it. I won't edit it, but for all intents and purposes, please ignore that.

Ok, ok :)

It's just an argument I've seen people make sometimes - that "evil" is a cartoony outdated term associated with "religion" and "simplistic thinking", and we have evolved beyond that or whatever.
So I thought.. but yea :)


It has animal instincts and reflexes as humans do but it has a very different sense of society (if any) it has a very different sense of self and empathy (if any).

Cats have been observed to show grief towards other cats (who dieded) and, I think, humans, too.

Generally, I'd consider a cat more capable of "evil" than, say, a spider (those have been observed to vary in personal behaviors, but you couldn't call that personality).
Advanced animals already have the same recognizeable instincts of empathy, aggression etc., but you can't blame them for failing to apply moral philosophy to their actions, that I agree with.

twooffour said:

Cats have been observed to show grief towards other cats (who dieded) and, I think, humans, too.

Generally, I'd consider a cat more capable of "evil" than, say, a spider (those have been observed to vary in personal behaviors, but you couldn't call that personality).
Advanced animals already have the same recognizeable instincts of empathy, aggression etc., but you can't blame them for failing to apply moral philosophy to their actions, that I agree with.

It would be impossible to draw much in the way of meaningful conclusions about cat self image/empathy etc without being a member of catkind (which we routinely physically castrate to prevent the evil smell of their spray, though some people believe that to be an evil practice).

It's difficult enough to do that with humans but you can at least learn to listen and ask questions in their languages...some of the time.

And in answer to your previous question there have been many cultures that would deem a goatee beard wearer evil.

And others that see it as evil not to have a beard (ladies mysteriously are exempt from these rules).

As far as we can tell a cat is no more capable of being evil than say an olive.

Neither are human, neither can be expected to understand human morals, ethics or laws.

But humans can believe them to be agents of Satan which is of course as probable as a human being an actual agent of Satan. 

1) First, you can observe animal behavior - if they tend to help other animals without a clear reward for themselves (such as in the case of dolphins), you can conclude them to have compassion.

Second, compassion in humans can be verified in the brain - where the observation of another being experiencing something (say, painful) is accompanied by the activation of the same regions that are also activated when the subject experiences said thing himself.
Don't know whether they've done that with animals, but that would be a way to go on without knowing what it's like to be a bat.


2) I asked whether I would be justified to think that, not what some stupid backward superstitious cultures "thought".
The point being, we don't like a lot of things, but calling someone "evil" (I mean in the real sense, not the "he has evil eyes" kind) requires some kind of infliction of pain and suffering, i.e. a strongly negative personal experience on someone else.

Reminds me when the Amazing Atheist once said something to the effect of "evil is whatever stands in the way of my/your perfect" world, and I was screaming at the screen... lol.


3) Now that's just silly.
An olive has no personality at all. Bacteria or insects could be described as "programmed biological mechanisms". Advanced animals such as killer whales / dolphins, or primates, or cats'n'dogs, already resemble too many typically human displays of individuality and personality, and WE EVOLVED FROM THEM.

One dog is peaceful and non-aggressive, another will bite out your guts if left off the leash, unprovoked - but nvm that, they're like two olives.

...

4) In that sense, yea, if you wanna define good and evil on a purely intellectual basis, then yes.
But we don't put this limit on humans (some aggressive psychopath who happens to have no conception of "ethics" and just acts on his drives is still evil in our books), so why do that with animals?

Shockingly I do not sport a goatee beard (I'm currently sporting what the other half frequently describes as a bloody mess of a beard) but you can call it evil if you like.

As for anthropomorphising observed non-human behaviour it's fun, it might have some practical applications but it's not really scientific.

I like to believe certain animals have human-like feelings but at the end of the day it's almost impossible to approach anything like certainty.

I behave as if they might as a mixture of personal taste and caution.

Besides animals have enough qualities worthy of consideration on their own merits without the need to attribute human properties to them.

Anything you want to add to them is your own affair. 

1) And I would be an idiot for doing so - which was my whole point to begin with. :)

2) Well, I refer to my two points above:
How would you call direct observations of altruism (as well as unjustifed aggression) in animals? If you want to avoid anthopomorphizing them, you'll have to take the word and invent some other word for it.
"Altruismwithxes", maybe? What would be the point? It would be still a cognitive mechanism with the same observable effect, just like everything within our own minds.

If they did a measurement of brain functions as I've described, what would you conclude? And how would it not be scientific?

The only question here seems to be the hard problem of consciousness, but that's another thing completely.
Maybe dogs are all zombies? Or they feel compassion, but it's a completely different sensation of "compassion" than ours? So what?



3) Well, it's not so much adding "human properties", as finding common properties.
Apes have arms and legs, does that mean attributing human properties to them? Apes have hierarchical social structures and also follow authority figures and engage in rivarly. Are those "human properties", properties we share with them to a degree, or some other mysterious unknowable hovering phenomenon thing that looks like something human but really is something completely else?

Three guesses which approach seems most reasonable to me ;)


But yea, this thread is about pedomen, not pedobears - so continue this line of discussion with caution, and not at the expense of personal taste :D

twooffour said:

 

That's a common cliché, but it isn't accurate - some people's minds ARE wired in a way that drives them to do evil all the time.

 

If a criminal's mind is just wired that way, can they really be punished for doing something they have no control over? The threat of the death penalty or chemical castration wouldn't be a deterrent to someone "wired" to commit criminal acts, and deterrence is usually the primary reason given for instituting harsh punishments.

The trouble with attributing criminal behavior to hard-wiring is that it puts them in the same class as the mentally disabled. They have a disorder, a "malfunctioning" brain, which forces them to behave in ways they are not capable of changing. They become victims of their own malfunctioning brain, no more responsible for the crime they commit than a person who has a stroke while driving and kills a pedestrian.

Additionally, I don't believe you can call a person hard-wired to misbehave "evil". The word implies a willful/conscious/deliberate choice to disregard moral code and cause harm. Someone hard-wired like you suggest can't help it. Would it be appropriate to call an autistic person an "asshole" for ignoring you? They can't help it either.

Not trying to start an argument, just putting some thoughts out there.

asterisk8 said:

Not trying to start an argument, just putting some thoughts out there.

Then get out of off-topic ;-)

TV's Frink said:

asterisk8 said:

Not trying to start an argument, just putting some thoughts out there.

Then get out of off-topic ;-)

Go frink yourself. ;-)

Methinks that castration - of any sort - would fail to be a foolproof measure against child molestation.

I heard of a case where a man became a rapist, targeting and assaulting countless women. Thing was he was impotent - unable to "get it up" from complications arising from diabetes - and it was noted that he became a rapist primarily because of his inability to achieve sexual satisfaction.

So castration, in some cases, could serve to make things worse.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Methinks that castration - of any sort - would fail to be a foolproof measure against child molestation.

I heard of a case where a man became a rapist, targeting and assaulting countless women. Thing was he was impotent - unable to "get it up" from complications arising from diabetes - and it was noted that he became a rapist primarily because of his inability to achieve sexual satisfaction.

So castration, in some cases, could serve to make things worse.

I thought this "chemical castration" was about reducing the sexual DRIVE?

asterisk8 said:

twooffour said:

 

That's a common cliché, but it isn't accurate - some people's minds ARE wired in a way that drives them to do evil all the time.

 

If a criminal's mind is just wired that way, can they really be punished for doing something they have no control over? The threat of the death penalty or chemical castration wouldn't be a deterrent to someone "wired" to commit criminal acts, and deterrence is usually the primary reason given for instituting harsh punishments.

The trouble with attributing criminal behavior to hard-wiring is that it puts them in the same class as the mentally disabled. They have a disorder, a "malfunctioning" brain, which forces them to behave in ways they are not capable of changing. They become victims of their own malfunctioning brain, no more responsible for the crime they commit than a person who has a stroke while driving and kills a pedestrian.

Additionally, I don't believe you can call a person hard-wired to misbehave "evil". The word implies a willful/conscious/deliberate choice to disregard moral code and cause harm. Someone hard-wired like you suggest can't help it. Would it be appropriate to call an autistic person an "asshole" for ignoring you? They can't help it either.

Not trying to start an argument, just putting some thoughts out there.

1) Come on, I said it in response to "there are no evil persons, just evil acts".
Obviously, there are different personalities with different "preferences", and someone who wants to do evil all the time and does so is different from someone who couldn't ever do it, at least under "normal" circumstances.

2) However, if you wanna take this into a discussion about free will and responsibility, listening to Sam Harris' "free will" lecture may be of help.

The basic idea being, the reason a person commits evil acts is still that person's central personality.
If someone has a blackout and suddenly realizes he committed a murder on autopilot, this act would be inconsistent with his overall personality, while those of a normal offender would be consistent with it and make "him" more responsible.

So there's no way any of that affects responsibility, but yea, if you wana deny that our personalities and actions result from our brains, then good luck with that.

I just stated the obvious - that someone who shows complete lack of empathy or a strong drive towards sadistic acts, obviously has a brain that causes this, which makes them different from the "normal" person".
If you wanna claim that someone is less responsible for a murder just because his personality makes him derive satisfaction from that, then again, good luck with that.

3) Threats or chemical influences obviously influence our thoughts and actions.
Suggesting anything else would be simplifying the brain.

4) Well, maybe the problem lies with my usage of the word "wired"? I was basically just trying to be a smartass, my main point being that there, indeed, "evil persons", the brain kinda being the obvious place where it's decided.
I'm not talking specifically about mental disorders, nor am I talking about some kind of unalterable brain features that stay there no matter what.

A gullible dumb person may become critical and intelligent, by improving memory, acquiring self-reflection, asking questions, being able to absorb more information etc. (I myself have difficulties to focus on complex texts, and am often too lazy to memorize/write down sources or question them) - and by the end of that process, the brain will be physically different from what it was before, as well.

Same with anything having to do with morality, "moral code", or how much emphasis one puts on empathy, etc. etc.



But yea, again, someone who wants to murder people and would say that it's alright for him unless he gets caught, and I can go fuck myself, is obviously different from, well, you.
Why can't I call such a person evil for all intents and purposes? Or are all supposed to be complete blank states who just go through life "committing acts"?