Turkey On The Brink Of Chemically Castrating Paedophiles and Rapists

[LeftEyeNine]

ANKARA, Turkey – Turkey's ruling party has proposed legalizing chemical castration as punishment for repeat rapists or pedophiles in a wide-ranging overhaul of sex abuse laws, according to a draft seen Thursday by The Associated Press.

The controversial proposal is part of a government-backed bill that foresees increased prison terms for sex offenses, especially against children. It was submitted to parliament on Wednesday but it was not known when it would reach the floor for debate.

The bill would require testosterone-supressing drugs for "habitual and persistent" sex offenders and make the procedure a condition for probation for others. Sex offenders would also be submitted to behavioral therapy.

It also would almost double maximum prison terms served for sex offenses to 10 years. Convicted pedophiles would serve up to 18 years in prison while sexual abuse of children by parents, stepparents, siblings or guardians would be punishable by 27 years.

Full article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_eu/eu_turkey_sex_offenders).

Our kuuuuuuuuute Moder4tez Islamz0rz government's scientifically dubious draft law's public-lynch-lusted orientation aside, as most of what is definitely wrong is forced to swallow in Turkey, AKP's (ruling party) sick politicians claim that such sentence is practiced in some European countries as well as in a couple of states of USA.

I'd say "how and under which circumstances" which would change a lot about their claims and I'd like to know what kind of practice is executed in your country, if something similar, how such decision was reached and is being practiced under what kind of conditions ?

Thanks in advance.

[Greyblades]

I'm not a doctor, but wont castrating them with chemicals only stop them from procreating and not stop them from being able to have sex?

[LeftEyeNine]

The doctors that tried to shed some light so far practically explained that such treatments which have to be repeated every month will lower their testosterone levels, hence theoretically dragging their lust for sex downwards.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm not a doctor, but wont castrating them with chemicals only stop them from procreating and not stop them from being able to have sex?

Suppressing testosterone levels vastly reduces sex drive - the theory being that while they could have sex, they would have little interest in it.

[LeftEyeNine]

I'd like to repeat, by the way:

Which States of USA and countries has this as a form of punishment please ?

[Greyblades]

Hmm... I know I didnt get this from a realy good source, Law and order, but dont some rapists rape more for the pleasure gained by the victims pain than the actual sex? I'd be abit concerned that even without the sex drive they might rape just for that instead of any sexual feelings.

[Idaho]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think I saw some research that said this treatment wasn't really effective in stopping any impulse to commit these crimes. I could be wrong though.

[rory_20_uk]

Depending on the chemical used (either to competitively inhibit testosterone or kill the cells that make testosterone) the treatment would either have to be repeated or be a once off.

One's sex drive / libido / ability to have erections will dramatically fall without testosterone. But of course if the reasons for the crimes are not merely sexual desire but are a more complicated psychological matter it might not be enough. Some paedophiles / rapists have in some cases have requested surgical castration as they themselves view re-offence as highly likely without it.

Even if one were innocent, one might prefer having a monthly injection and otherwise be free than to languish in a Turkish jail (I stress this is a relative rather than an absolute preference). If the case is won, then they can just stop the injections.

~:smoking:

[LeftEyeNine]

God.

Which country has such exercise ?

:stare:

[rory_20_uk]

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration)

Unless you are expecting country experts int he field, I suggest you use dear old Google / Bing etc...

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

I believe we have voluntary chemical castration here.

But the turkish government aren't too far off, because there's a growing demand from the populist right all over europe to make such treatment mandatory. Like most conservative policies, it's nothing more than a quick fix to sate the bloodlust of the population, while accomplishing none of the stated objectives.

[Major Robert Dump]

It is not used in the United States at all, in any state. The method is available as a means of vouluntary treatment, but not as punishment. ** actually, it looks like a couple of states use it for serious, aggravated offenses, but I seem to recall those laws being challenged

The law has been proposed several times over for a vast number of offenses, and always fails bar the repeat, habitual offenders. Can't give statistics for other states, but Oklahoma last year exonerated something like 12 people after testing DNA evidence, those were all either rapes, murders or both. If states think the financial payouts to wrongly convicted persons are high now, wait until you take their balls, even if only chemically.

All states are behind on DNA test work load, and many old cases that are tested are done with donated funds and manpower by voulnteer groups. LAw enforcementisn't exactly a go-getter when it comes to testing 20 year old evidence that may exonerate someone. This is also the most logical argument against the death penalty. People may argue that we have never executed an innocent person, I will point that that we likely have, it has just never been proven because once the guy is dead, prioroty shifts to exonerating people still alive.

If you take into consideration the shady, ambiguous nature of some of the statutory rape laws and sex crime laws, chemical castration of "sex offenses" must be carefully approached and only used for serious, aggravated offenses. For example, indecent exposure makes one a sex offender, however, that charge can stem from something like pissing in an alley or a stripper showing something she is not supposed to. To give an actual example, my neighbor in Thackerville is a sex offender. The charge and conviction seemd odd, so I pulled his file and what happened is he got into a fight with his heffer wife (she was charged with battery) and while they were throwing punches at each other he punches her in the tit, and it swelled badly and had to be drained, hence a charge of sexual domestic battery. Such a thing does not warrent castration, but this man is now a lifetime registered sex offender for essentially punching an udder.

***After reading the above posted wiki, I may be wrong about its use, although it is limited to very serious crimes

[Fragony]

Use a couple of bricks instead to cut costs

[Major Robert Dump]

Rubber bands would be more humane

[Greyblades]

...Oh god, the mental images...

[Strike For The South]

Riding the coatails of Poland are we?

I could've sworn there was a study down showing that the rates of recidivsim were nearly indentical for those that were and weren't

Of course no one will beileive my damn sciencing with all the fancy words. Call me a glutton for punishment

[Strike For The South]

A recurrent pattern of sex offending suggests the ingrained nature of deviant sexual interests. Orchiectomy alone, without attendant psychological change, may be insufficient to mitigate sexual recidivism in a person who is in the community and subject to temptations.


http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/16


Does it outweigh the moral and ethical questions? maybe, maybe not

I'm sure it gets whatever Turkeys eqiuivalent to reactionary white trash all hot and bothered though

[Rhyfelwyr]

I believe introducing the death penalty for paedophiles would reduce their rates of re-offending to 0%. However, I do not have a scientific study to support this claim, so I guess it is worthless on these forums..

[Strike For The South]

I believe introducing the death penalty for paedophiles would reduce their rates of re-offending to 0%. However, I do not have a scientific study to support this claim, so I guess it is worthless on these forums..

When you make such a claim the onus would be on you to support it

Don't get all butthurt,

[rory_20_uk]

The main problem I have with the death penalty is that the incidence of mistrials / abnormal results is too high considering the inability to overturn having someone shot several times through the chest.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

The main problem I have with the death penalty is that the incidence of mistrials / abnormal results is too high considering the inability to overturn having someone shot several times through the chest.

~:smoking:

So you apply the same logic to this?

[rory_20_uk]

If it were permanent, then yes. But as it is reversible if someone is found innocent the treatment can be stopped (if you'd rather be an inmate and a known "kiddie fiddler" be my guest...)

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well it's not like you can give them the years back they lost either jail/having injectiosn due to wrong convictions either.

[rory_20_uk]

No. But assuming you don't want to scrap the whole prison service in case there is occasionally a miscarriage of justice one has to accept that some people will loose some time in their life - but that's better than the rest of their life.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Well it's not like you can give them the years back they lost either jail/having injectiosn due to wrong convictions either.


True, but I would think they would be profoundly grateful they still have thier reason to live.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No. But assuming you don't want to scrap the whole prison service in case there is occasionally a miscarriage of justice one has to accept that some people will loose some time in their life - but that's better than the rest of their life.

~:smoking:

Equally, you could say you can't just scrap the whole death penalty just in case there are a few miscarriages of justice.

I guess this is where we stop being idealistic and have to balance justice with the limits/room for error in the justice system.

Wherever we draw the line will be somewhat arbitrary. Although personally I still support the death penalty for the worst criminals when the case against them is overwhelming.


True, but I would think they would be profoundly grateful they still have thier reason to live.

But it's not about what they want.

[Greyblades]

Edit: ignore this, I misread the last post.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Due to some high profile cases in New York over the last 15-20 years of convicted & released pedo's repeating their crimes, New York can & does keep some of the worst repeat offenders locked up even after they max out their sentences. As far as I'm concerned if there's DNA evidence linking the perp to pedophilia he should be offered a seat on Old Sparky.

[Greyblades]

By DNA evidence do you include DNA found at the crime scene or only that found on the victim?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I believe introducing the death penalty for paedophiles would reduce their rates of re-offending to 0%. However, I do not have a scientific study to support this claim, so I guess it is worthless on these forums..

You would end up with more than a few dead innocent people.

CR

[Centurion1]

and more children saved.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You could keep them just as safe by locking the pedophiles in prison for life.

CR

[Centurion1]

how often does that work?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You tell me; list some cases where pedophiles escaped prison and attacked children.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

You would end up with more than a few dead innocent people.

CR

And your still going to have more than a few lives wasted away in prison, that's not a relevant argument to use against the death penalty.

tbh peadophiles would be better off with the death penalty than prison anyway.

[Centurion1]

i mean life sentences rarely seem to be so...... as im sure your aware of.

[Greyblades]

We could just give them a life sentance, tell thier fellow inmates at the prison what they are and let the deal with it. I don't believe we realy should risk executing falsely accused, even if the only result is a prison shanking and a slightly less stained concience.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And your still going to have more than a few lives wasted away in prison, that's not a relevant argument to use against the death penalty.

tbh peadophiles would be better off with the death penalty than prison anyway.

What? What?

Innocent people being killed because of systemic faults in our legal system isn't an argument against the death penalty?

How can that not be relevant? How could anything in the world be more relevant?

We should just accept that innocents get killed, because even if they don't get kill they'll have to spend years in prison?


i mean life sentences rarely seem to be so...... as im sure your aware of.

That can be changed without involving the death penalty.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

What? What?

Innocent people being killed because of systemic faults in our legal system isn't an argument against the death penalty?

How can that not be relevant? How could anything in the world be more relevant?

We should just accept that innocents get killed, because even if they don't get kill they'll have to spend years in prison?

What? What?

Innocent people being jailed because of systemic faults in our legal system isn't an argument against prison sentences?

How can that not be relevant? How could anything in the world be more relevant?

[Ser Clegane]

Well - for an innocent person in jail there is at least the possibility to correct the mistake (happens often enough) - kind of difficult when the death sentence has been applied.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I had thought that Ser Clegane's logic was obvious. You can release a person from jail.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

And so what. You can't give people back the time they lost in prison. Many innocent people will still serve full life sentences anyway.

So must we do away with prison sentences completely going by your logic?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Um, no. That's not my logic at all.

That is your silly Reductio ad absurdum argument.

"And so what."?

Bah. I can hardly express my contempt for your cavalier attitude towards innocent people being executed. Since even without the death penalty, innocent people found guilty would go to jail for at least some time, it doesn't matter if they get executed as well?

You may not be able to give innocent people back the time they spent in jail, back you can give them freedom and the rest of their lives back.

I can't believe I have to point this out, but killing someone takes everything from them, forever.

CR

[Centurion1]

people spend YEARS on death row. its not like we execute them in days.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Fine, CR, you want to limit the justice system by its flaws/weaknesses, do that. I think it is pretty arbitrary that you want to cripple the entire justice system in case of injustice through the death penalty but not injustice through unlawful imprisonment. Plus do you think people just walk out of prison and its a case of "great I've got my life back"? Not to mention the fact that even without the death penalty innocent people will spend life behind bars without ever having their sentences overturned.

Bah!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Arbitrary? I do not think I define it the same way you do.

First point; there is no justice system, just a legal system.

Second; how in the world is the legal system "crippled" if we don't use the death penalty?

Third; of course people don't just walk out of prison, when freed for being innocent, and go right back to their normal lives. They are almost always joyous, though. I also support large payments to innocent people who were jailed.

Fourth; you keep bringing up the fact that innocent people may still spend years, even the rest of their lives in jail. Just because injustice will remain even if we stop innocent people from being executed doesn't mean we shouldn't stop innocent people being executed.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

1. bah

2. because crimes that deserve the death penalty don't get it

3. the impact of prison on a person's life, especially given the fact that it can be the rest of their life for them, makes it seem to me that the risk of wrongfully imprisoning innocent people is as serious/very nearly as serious as wrongfully executing them. This is where you are being arbitrary. Where is it serious enough to not risk it and having to remove it completely from the legal system?

4. is there even a point there or are you just using emotion language about not stopping executing innocent people?

[Samurai Waki]

And yet nobody stops to think what are prisoners doing for us, I'll tell you what they're not doing for us, not being entertaining... Who needs chemical castration when you can make them do glorious combat for our amusement?

[Centurion1]

^ this.

i tihnk we should put prisoners to work the industrial capacity they hold is immense..... and for terrible pay.... mwahahahaha

[Greyblades]

Indeed, a prisoner should have to work to live, make them tend fields if they want to eat, gather water if they want to drink and if they want heat and light make them gather fire wood, or if your feeling eco friendly; crank a generator. Thousands of able bodied prisoners are sitting in cells right now wasting away, they should at least be able to pay for themselves, taxes should not be spent to keep them alive when the rest of humanity have to work to be able to even live. Then again, I'm a student living off my parents so I really shouldn't be talking.

[Cute Wolf]

Put them in experimental cryogenic tubes instead of directly killed, you'll need only the cost of liquid N, and if used en masse is cheaper than prisons. Oh yeah, if they are clearly deserve death penalty, one should just drop that convict's frozen body from a tower, as the cryogenic suspended organisms are quite brittle.

[Fragony]

i mean life sentences rarely seem to be so...... as im sure your aware of.

We have a little trick for that. A life sentence is in fact really a life sentence here, but it's hard to give. For the really bad ones we have longstay, mandatory psychiatric treatment after sentence has been served, it's very unlikely you will ever be released from that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

1. bah

2. because crimes that deserve the death penalty don't get it

So? Those who would have gotten the death penalty will spend the rest of their life in prison and then die. They're not getting off.


3. the impact of prison on a person's life, especially given the fact that it can be the rest of their life for them, makes it seem to me that the risk of wrongfully imprisoning innocent people is as serious/very nearly as serious as wrongfully executing them. This is where you are being arbitrary. Where is it serious enough to not risk it and having to remove it completely from the legal system?

If an innocent person does have to spend the rest of their life in prison that would be bad. But by not executing them there's the possibility they will be released and be free. And I'm betting the innocent people would rather not be executed.


4. is there even a point there or are you just using emotion language about not stopping executing innocent people?

I was trying to point out that, although innocent people may still spend years in prison even if we get rid of the death penalty, we should still get rid of the death penalty.

CR