Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles

[Yorick]

If I do a certain illegal thing, the government gets give me a punishment that's pretty much the equivalent! Dead murderers and raped rapists for everyone!

You'd prefer we all spent thousands of dollars keeping those kinds of people in cages?

At a certain point, one's crimes outweigh their potential benefit to society, and it's time to remove them from the world.

 

[Sheepo]

Okay, I've done quite a bit of research on capital punishment (in the distant, distant past), and the general consensus is typically that capital punishment costs far more than life imprisonment (perhaps that's outdated or been misproven). There's also the irreversibility of it. There's also, my personal belief, that no person is beyond rehabilitation. However, those are all really practical details that help back up the fact that we shouldn't do it because we have principles and our standards should be higher than that. And if I'm wrong, there's always Dexter Morgan.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Indeed, to be done fairly the death penalty always ends up costing more on average than life imprisonment. And in any case one of the key arguments for it is deterrence - it makes people less likely to commit crimes - but deterrence doesn't work very effectively in the real world, where a) everyone assumes that it won't happen to them, and b) many many murders are committed on the spur of the moment.

 

[Yorick]

I'm curious to find out how capital punishment is more expensive than life in prison. To my knowledge the ingredients for a lethal injection can be put together for about $85. Does the extra all come from appeals and separate living areas?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Lethal injection is bullshit. Bullet to head $.10

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yes. It's the time they spend on 'death row' and the lawyers' fees incurred in the multiple appeals you probably should give them the right to before you permanently revoke all their liberties. You could of course deny them these appeals and conditions. But you would be walking a very fine line.In the long run it would save more money to just imprison less people for stupid offences like drug possession or perhaps don't operate dumb expensive privatisation schemes.

 

[Yorick]

I guess that makes sense.

There's also, my personal belief, that no person is beyond rehabilitation.

I don't want to steer this conversation too far off track - though I suppose this does still work in this thread - but you realise that the only way rehabilitation works is if the person in question wants it to?

And a lot of the people who come to mind as being killers, by way of mental instability, or it just being what they believed, I mean, how much can anyone really change that? These pedophiles for instance, are being told "Hey. What you feel is wrong."

It's a terrible analogy, but I can't come up with a better one at the moment, but one can draw a parallel to homosexuality. For years and years and years and years it was "Homosexuality is wrong. It's a sin." - and homosexuals would often try to live lives that they weren't happy in because it was what was "right".

I'm certainly not saying sex with a man is the same thing as sex with a child, because that's retarded. But what I am saying is that it might not be something that can be forced. As I understand this case, Poland is chemically castrating pedophiles who have been convicted. Is this going to fix the problem, or just make them more careful?

There have been instances in history where someone was right and society disagreed, and people use that as ammunition. "Well, Galileo was right that the Earth wasn't at the center of the universe. Well, Columbus was right that the Earth was round."

People feel what people feel. I'm not saying it's right or wrong either way, just pointing out that it might not be something that can be so simply changed.

 

[theotherguy]

Nobody should be subject to any punishment other than jail time or fines, and possibly community service or parole.

Physical alteration of someone's body who has allegedly committed a crime is a grave error in human rights.

On that note, capital punishment is an abomination which should be banned by all nations.

 

[VirusType2]

You can justify whatever you like in any way you desire, it doesn't change the fact that punishment and crime prevention are completely different things. It's not about justice, it's about protecting innocent children.

Similarly, only idiots compare armed police shooting someone in a hostile situation to capital punishment.

I really don't give a shit about the human rights of pedophiles, and I'm sure you'll find the vast majority of people agree. The human rights of potential victims are far more important. Curious how nobody here seems to be too concerned about those rights.

Next thing you know, it will be retards. They are less than human after all, right RepiV? Then next it will be people that have debilitating problems like epileptics, that prevent a person from working and cost the state money. Seriously RepiV, just **** yourself.

 

[kineaesth]

Next thing you know, it will be retards. They are less than human after all, right RepiV? Then next it will be people that have debilitating problems like epileptics, that prevent a person from working and cost the state money. Seriously RepiV, just **** yourself.

Congratulations on making a perfect 'slippery slope' argument, Virus. Your debating skills are as keen as ever.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Not a very good argument, considering people with mental disabilities do not always purposely harm others...

 

[VirusType2]

What? Oh, sorry, In my rage I thought he said they are less than human. I guess that was Polish Government that said that.

Still:

I really don't give a shit about the human rights of pedophiles, and I'm sure you'll find the vast majority of people agree. The human rights of potential victims are far more important.

You're right though guys. I should have just remained speechless. Replace the word pedophile in his sentence with anything else. Convicted terrorist (not necessarily actually guilty), for example.

 

[15357]

You know, we should get over our differences and focus on developing ways to make money out of punishing criminals. We could harvest their organs and sell them, have them work to repent, etc.


Human rights are for humans.

 

[Planetary]

The Wikipedia article pretty much says it all. Since the chemical effects are temporary and reversible, versus surgery, it's no different from a prison sentence, except only your balls are incarcerated.
More studies should be done though, see if it's effective as hoped.

On the other hand, surgical castration would prevent such genes (if there are any) from propagating. Pedophilia would be gone in a generation.

But if many more similar behaviors (like violence) turn out to be genetic, that raises the question of whether those people should be castrated as well. We'll just have to see how this works out in Poland.

 

[Wanted Bob]

snip

Oh, for sure I disagree with what he said, just not to that extent.

In any case, I highly doubt pedophelia is associated with genetics. If anyone has proof stating otherwise I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[VirusType2]

On second thought, I'm not even sure if there is a difference between "less than human" and "don't deserve human rights".

surgical castration would prevent such genes (if there are any) from propagating. Pedophilia would be gone in a generation.

Because being attracted to young bleeders is super god damn unnatural.

Girls are sexually mature at around 10 to 12 years old. Clearly, it's just a strange occurrence that anyone would be attracted to healthy young ladies who are able to reproduce. How the hell do you think humans got where we are?

There are two definitions of pedophile anyway, so this is a really frustrating debate to have. Therefore, I'm leaving, and I think you're all stupid.

One last thing: don't confuse child molester with 'a kidnapper and a murderer', because these are all separate things. From what I've heard, half the time it's their own family member that committed the crime and obviously didn't mean any harm. I think in most cases the harm is permanent psychological damage, and not "intestines reamed out with a toilet plunger."

 

[repiV]

So I'm attracting insults now for not defending child molesters. Or for not drawing the distinction between people attracted to children, and people who molest children (who actually would care to make that point? noone outside hl2.net..)

This forum never fails to amaze me at times.

With all your "ooman rights" bull, how about the human rights of children to not be molested? If you want to keep your bollocks, don't rape children. Simple enough. You can't rehabilitate a child molester.

 

[Raziaar]

I think we can avoid the insults between veterans, guys.

 

[kineaesth]

such genes (if there are any) from propagating. Pedophilia would be gone in a generation.

Oh god we have a scientist in this thread now guys, watch out or he'll get you with his incredible scientific reasoning D:

There is no gene for paedophilia.

not drawing the distinction between people attracted to children, and people who molest children (who actually would care to make that point? noone outside hl2.net..)

Please. Paedophiles, for one.

 

[repiV]

Please. Paedophiles, for one.

I find that a distasteful conversation to have. If people want to bone 10 year olds, that's something they should keep buried away in the back of their mind. It's not something you'd discuss openly unless you wanted to be an outcast, is it?

The English language is also an ever-evolving thing. In modern usage, "pedophile" means "child molester". That's just the way it is.

 

[kineaesth]

In modern usage, "pedophile" means "child molester". That's just the way it is.

I'll stick to the usage defined in the DSM, I think. ANYWAY NON SEQUITER

The problem is that you're really really reminding me of RakuraiTenjin. Which is a bad, bad thing.

 

[Raziaar]

I find that a distasteful conversation to have. If people want to bone 10 year olds, that's something they should keep buried away in the back of their mind. It's not something you'd discuss openly unless you wanted to be an outcast, is it?

The English language is also an ever-evolving thing. In modern usage, "pedophile" means "child molester". That's just the way it is.

To be fair, that's not what it means. It still retains the definition it once had. No new definitions have been added to mean child molester. People believing something to be true, like this, does not make it true. Pedophile still means child lover.

 

[repiV]

To be fair, that's not what it means. It still retains the definition it once had. No new definitions have been added to mean child molester. People believing something to be true, like this, does not make it true. Pedophile still means child lover.

That may be so, but in the minds of the vast majority of people, "pedophile" means "child molester". Language is defined by common usage first and foremost. Arguing over the definition is just a weird thing to do, as either one of those things is rightfully a taboo anyway.

 

[kineaesth]

That may be so, but in the minds of the vast majority of people, "pedophile" means "child molester". Language is defined by common usage first and foremost. Arguing over the definition is just a weird thing to do, as either one of those things is rightfully a taboo anyway.

More logical fallacies! A paedophile is seperate from a child molestor. Sure, sometimes they're the same, but they are not synonyms.

 

[Raziaar]

That may be so, but in the minds of the vast majority of people, "pedophile" means "child molester". Language is defined by common usage first and foremost. Arguing over the definition is just a weird thing to do, as either one of those things is rightfully a taboo anyway.

Well, in the minds of a huge number of Americans, Arab and Muslim mean terrorist as well. Doesn't make it so. Pedophile doesn't mean child molester. This is coming from me, somebody who isn't a fan at all of pedophilia.

 

[repiV]

More logical fallacies! A paedophile is seperate from a child molestor. Sure, sometimes they're the same, but they are not synonyms.

Like I said, when the vast majority of people use the word "pedophile", they refer to child molesters. It's no different to using the word gay to describe homosexuality. It eventually ended up in the dictionary when the dictionary people caught up with the language, and exactly the same thing will happen here.

 

[Eejit]

Human rights are for humans.

Criminals are all human too.

So I'm attracting insults now for not defending child molesters. Or for not drawing the distinction between people attracted to children, and people who molest children (who actually would care to make that point? noone outside hl2.net..)

So are pyromaniacs the same as arsonists?
There's a difference between having an impulse or compulsion to do something illegal and acting on it.

You can't rehabilitate a child molester.

You base this opinion on what exactly?

 

[Laivasse]

So I'm attracting insults now for not defending child molesters. Or for not drawing the distinction between people attracted to children, and people who molest children (who actually would care to make that point? noone outside hl2.net..)

Noone outside hl2.net...? Apart from maybe the police, people who work in the judiciary, jurors and so forth. They have to spend a lot of time and energy making that distinction or else they'd be prosecuting people on the basis of thoughtcrime.

With all your "ooman rights" bull, how about the human rights of children to not be molested?

I've never understood the logic of the 'what about the rights of the victim' kind of statement. The rights of the victim not to be molested/blown up/killed are enshrined in the law and the rights of the perpetrator to violate those rights are not. Obviously there is a risk that those rights will be violated, inasmuch as crime exists and it occasionally happens. There is no need to legislate further and further until all risk to everyone in society disappears.

 

[VirusType2]

I've never understood the logic of the 'what about the rights of the victim' kind of statement. The rights of the victim not to be molested/blown up/killed are enshrined in the law and the rights of the perpetrator to violate those rights are not. Obviously there is a risk that those rights will be violated, inasmuch as crime exists and it occasionally happens. There is no need to legislate further and further until all risk to everyone in society disappears.

I don't understand it either. And it's hypocrisy since RepiV thinks that we've made the world too safe, holding back the development of the human race because of it.

Meanwhile, he speeds around on his motorcycle doing 160 Miles per hour, endangering others. What about the rights of the potential victims RepiV?

I'll just send you in to a spin about how nobody is in danger but yourself, but we all know that's bullshit, sir. Without going into great detail at all the possibilities, how about the cost to taxpayers when we organize crews to clean up and pull your body out of a tree? The cost to your family for your funeral and all.

Lets just get to the main point: Pedestrians. Don't these innocent people have rights to be free from harm from your reckless joyriding (that belongs on a race track and not on public transportation systems)? Think of the children.

 

[kineaesth]

Less off-topic personal attacks, please.

 

[VirusType2]

I'm not trying to make this personal, but I guess I've been out of line a few times RepiV. I apologize, for what it's worth. I think they were relevant points to make anyway.


Getting back on topic here. Granted, if it's a pill that you take that lowers your libido, that is otherwise harmless, then that is a lot more reasonable than castration or death, obviously. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, even. In wikipedia it said that many people do this voluntarily, because they don't want to be that way.

It's just some of the comments in here.

To me, it seems it's always the Father that thinks all gays should be rounded up and locked away, or the Mother that thinks anyone attracted to children should be put to death... who come to find out their sweet, good natured son or daughter is gay or attracted to children.

Put to death? Life sentence? Castration? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. You might as well start cutting off the hands of someone caught stealing. (I think that point has already been made however)

 

[repiV]

So are pyromaniacs the same as arsonists?
There's a difference between having an impulse or compulsion to do something illegal and acting on it.

Yes I know that, an important distinction. The point is not whether or not they're different, but firstly that the term "pedophile" is used today to describe a child molester (go read any newspaper, broadsheets included), and secondly that it's a weird technicality to argue over anyway. What are you trying to do, trying to reclaim the word for all the honourable, upstanding "child lovers" out there?

You base this opinion on what exactly?

Reoffending rates and personal experience.

Noone outside hl2.net...? Apart from maybe the police, people who work in the judiciary, jurors and so forth. They have to spend a lot of time and energy making that distinction or else they'd be prosecuting people on the basis of thoughtcrime.

People dealing with legal cases don't use common language.

I've never understood the logic of the 'what about the rights of the victim' kind of statement. The rights of the victim not to be molested/blown up/killed are enshrined in the law and the rights of the perpetrator to violate those rights are not. Obviously there is a risk that those rights will be violated, inasmuch as crime exists and it occasionally happens. There is no need to legislate further and further until all risk to everyone in society disappears.

I couldn't agree more. I also don't see what's so objectionable about preventing a convicted sex offender from committing further offences. Whether or not Poland's approach is correct is debatable, but why anyone would actually care about what happens to one of those scumbags is beyond me.

Capital punishment might be wrong, but it doesn't mean I would care if a serial killer gets executed. I don't understand why you're all so up in arms about this, when the matter of the victims has not even been discussed.

I don't understand it either. And it's hypocrisy since RepiV thinks that we've made the world too safe, holding back the development of the human race because of it.

Not really, dealing with criminals effectively doesn't really count as the nanny state.

Meanwhile, he speeds around on his motorcycle doing 160 Miles per hour, endangering others. What about the rights of the potential victims RepiV?

I'll just send you in to a spin about how nobody is in danger but yourself, but we all know that's bullshit, sir. Without going into great detail at all the possibilities, how about the cost to taxpayers when we organize crews to clean up and pull your body out of a tree? The cost to your family for your funeral and all.

Lets just get to the main point: Pedestrians. Don't these innocent people have rights to be free from harm from your reckless joyriding (that belongs on a race track and not on public transportation systems)? Think of the children.

a) I'm not in danger and nor is anyone else, because I ride safely
b) Rural roads and motorways don't have pedestrians
c) Pedestrians cause the vast majority of pedestrian-motorcycle accidents anyway
d) You're being a douchebag

 

[Eejit]

Yes I know that, an important distinction. The point is not whether or not they're different, but firstly that the term "pedophile" is used today to describe a child molester (go read any newspaper, broadsheets included), and secondly that it's a weird technicality to argue over anyway. What are you trying to do, trying to reclaim the word for all the honourable, upstanding "child lovers" out there?

Perhaps simply trying to keep to a higher standard of English than that used by the tabloids? Misuse of the word is common but that doesn't mean we should participate in it.

Reoffending rates and personal experience.

Reoffending rates are high, but they're hardly 100% as you were implying. Below 50% across the board I believe.

 

[VirusType2]

c) Pedestrians cause the vast majority of pedestrian-motorcycle accidents anyway

I don't buy this. In The USA at least, pedestrians always have the right of way. I'm not trying to nitpick, especially so far off topic.

I just don't agree with you on anything in here so far, so I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

 

[repiV]

Perhaps simply trying to keep to a higher standard of English than that used by the tabloids? Misuse of the word is common but that doesn't mean we should participate in it.

I disagree that it's misuse of the word, because what is correct is defined by common usage. How else does the language evolve? Some regional dialects are extremely "incorrect", by your definition. Eventually apostrophes will probably disappear from the English language altogether, because less and less people understand how to use them properly. It's just how it works.

After all, nobody just decided one day that we should stop speaking Ye Olde English. It just changed over time as people used the language in their own way.

Reoffending rates are high, but they're hardly 100% as you were implying. Below 50% across the board I believe.

I would be very surprised if they were that low. Mostly they probably never get caught.

I don't buy this. In The USA at least, pedestrians always have the right of way.

Technically, they do here, but that's not going to work in court if they step into the road in front of traffic. Anyway, how is this relevant? I don't ride fast in the presence of pedestrians and I don't know why would you get that impression (or why it is relevant to this topic). I live in a rural area, usually when we go for a blast it's 6am on a Sunday morning on deserted roads in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Eejit]

I disagree that it's misuse of the word, because what is correct is defined by common usage. How else does the language evolve? Some regional dialects are extremely "incorrect", by your definition. Eventually apostrophes will probably disappear from the English language altogether, because less and less people understand how to use them properly. It's just how it works.

After all, nobody just decided one day that we should stop speaking Ye Olde English. It just changed over time as people used the language in their own way.

Over time, sure. But for how long has the misuse of the word been common? A decade at most? And it still isn't universal.

A century from now you might be right, but at the moment it's still just a rather prevalent mistake.

I would be very surprised if they were that low. Mostly they probably never get caught.

Simple doubt in the scientific studies without any real basis is insufficient to dismiss the point. The rate is nowhere near 100%. When you said rehabilitation was impossible you were wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8370860

 

[Laivasse]

it's a weird technicality to argue over anyway. What are you trying to do, trying to reclaim the word for all the honourable, upstanding "child lovers" out there?

...

People dealing with legal cases don't use common language.

'Paedophile' and 'child abuser' are hardly legalese though. A proper understanding of the definitions could help to avoid the hysterical reactionism that leads to paediatricians getting mobbed. Also, I don't consider the distinction between someone who has committed a serious sexual offence and someone who hasn't to be a negligible one.

I couldn't agree more. I also don't see what's so objectionable about preventing a convicted sex offender from committing further offences. Whether or not Poland's approach is correct is debatable, but why anyone would actually care about what happens to one of those scumbags is beyond me.

Capital punishment might be wrong, but it doesn't mean I would care if a serial killer gets executed. I don't understand why you're all so up in arms about this, when the matter of the victims has not even been discussed.

I think rather than caring for the perp, people are instead offended by the dangerous or invasive precedent that such punishments might set for society, or what it would say about our value system if we were to exact the greatest possible retribution in every instance, when simple incarceration would suffice instead.

I don't think people omit talking about the victim because they don't care, but rather because there's not much new that can be said, plus it's emotionally charged territory which shouldn't be the sole factor in how the crime is dealt with in law.

 

[Sulkdodds]

'Paedophile' and 'Child Molester' aren't synonymous yet, and even if they might be in future, to suggest they mean the same now is to appropriate a reasonable linguistic argument in order to unjustly collapse a distinction which is (as Laivasse notes), pretty important. It's nice that you think it shouldn't matter whether a person has committed a crime or whether they simply have the potential to, but in the interest of the rule of law that might just be an important difference to keep in mind.

It's in that interest that people worry about this. There's another distinction you are failing to bother with, repiV: the distinction between 'caring' about the person who is executed (although one might justly do so), and 'caring' about the breach in human rights or whatever that is made when they are. Obviously the people who passed this law don't care about even that, which is one of the things that makes it rather disturbing, even if it would appear to prevent reoffending fairly reliably.

 

[Tagaziel]

This is bullshit.

Once again the politicians prove they are incompetent ****tards incapable of producing laws that actually help society, instead opting to earn fast popularity points with the least educated and most retarded elements of Poland's social structure.

It's a mystery to me as to why this proposal was even created (apart from the obvious "pander to the masses' lowest instincts"). Sexual crimes are not on the rise, remaining on generally the same level, and mutilating sex offenders is a horrifying invention, especially in a country that belongs to the European Union and claims to follow the European cultural heritage.

The quality is also lacking, the new modification lacks precision and careful weaving of regulations, making criminalising deeds that are obviously not harmful to society (15 year old has sex with a 14 year old for example) possible. Hell, the new modification penalizes seduction, that is, getting a girl to have sex with you with presents, cash or promises. What's next, making homosexuality and adultery a crime again?

Furthermore, it's now going to be illegal to contact underage (<15 years of age) children via instant messaging software and getting them to meet you, if you make so much as a single lie (for instance, you lead a boy scout team and call an emergency gathering under false pretenses to give the members a pleasant surprise. Or arrange a date between your brother and a girl he has a crush on. Or....). It's bad because it doesn't account for the intent - the very fact of using a lie to meet an underage person makes you a criminal. There is no reason for this regulation to exist in the current form - it's harmful to society and instead of cracking down on internet pedophiles, it will crack down on innocent people.

Now, it also penalizes the very fact of preparation to commit an act of pedophilia. But, what is preparation? Taking a shower, buying a condom, taking a walk... this is absurd, penalizing any action that can be interpreted as preparation and opens the gate to persecuting innocent people, who ere snitched on by someone wanting them to be persecuted. A vicious neighbour? Vengeful spouse you're divorcing? Now they have the ability to **** up your life forever.

And then there's the penalization of "promoting publically actions of a pedophilic character". It may not be the best translation, but you should get the gist of it - this leads to the criminalisation of even mentioning that pedophilia can have positive effects, or at least not completely negative, such as in professional sexuology publications or even in fiction. Poor Vladimir Nabokov, I think we won't be seeing Lolita in libraries or bookstores anymore.

I have to agree totally with J. Warylewski, that the authors of this law are paranoids, obsessed with pedophiles hiding everywhere, in the cupboard, under the floor, hell, even in your fridges.

Seems a common trend in Poland - you have a splinter in your toe, they hack off your foot. You broke a finger, they saw off your arm. Headache? Tough luck, let's blow off your head.

 

[kineaesth]

Now, it also penalizes the very fact of preparation to commit an act of pedophilia.

It looks like Rakurai and his 'Rape items are cause for investigation of rape' philosophy has made it in to the upper echelons of Polish government! How could you have let this happen, Mikael.

This is bullshit.