Mind Over Matter: Chemical Castration For Paedophiles
“PAEDOS TO BE CHEMICALLY CASTRATED.” So says the Mirror’s front-page headline.
“Reid plans to give perverts jabs that stop stick desires.” (Pic: Beau Bo D’Or)
Nothing like bit of direct action to please the voters. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. And what’s tougher than the Home Secretary fit for purpose and armed with a rusty needle?
But does chemical castration work? Does it alter the criminal’s mind so they no longer lust after minors? Will it stop recidivism? Does one injection do the job or will the criminal need a lifetime course of the stuff?
On that last point, the Mirror says paedophiles will need a large dose of drugs at the start of their treatment and then weekly and monthly top-up injections.
This is treatment rather than punishment. This is a chance for the paedophile to curb their criminal desires and not return to prison.
And the Mirror says it works. Readers learn of “studies” that show rates of reoffending by those who have undergone the treatment in Scandinavia and the US have fallen from 43 percent to just five per cent.
Make it a mandatory condition of parole and chemical castration may curtail the crime. A Home Office spokesman says those who volunteer for the scheme will have to continue the treatment if they want to avoid a return to jail.
But what happens when the jail term is served and they are free? Will the criminal still be injected? And if they are not, will their desire, inhibited by drugs, return with a vengeance?
In the US, the drug of choice is Depo-Provera. It contains progesterone which acts on the brain to inhibit hormones that stimulate the testicles to produce testosterone. Sexual desire is lessoned. The man can still have sex but will not want to. He may still fantasise about molesting children but will not feel inclined to do so.
There is a good argument in a favour of chemical castration. But we routinely hear how devious paedophiles are. The castration alters the body but not the mind. And how many will want to take the drug? Not all those convicted of the crime will…
Posted: 13th, June 2007 | In: Tabloids Comments (15) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
June 16th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Lets not insult animals, and just call these beings for what they are: paedophiles.
As the death sentance has been removed from our scale of punishment here in the UK , then the next level or replacement should be as human guinea pigs.
But unless and until they are proved to be guilty of such heinous crimes, and their victims are real and not supposed, I think its best to keep an open mind as to Madeleine and her whereabouts.
No one knows what has happened to her, and conjecture is not the same as proof.
I really hope she is returned alive and well to her family, and they have seriously learned a lesson.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Me_too…what an odd post. Is it coincidence about the name or are you trying to make apoint. Its not apprecaited.
Do you call a two year sentence, with 1 year for good behaviour a repayment of debt to soceity? I don’t. And a year or two in prison doesn’t rehabilitate someone and ensure it doesn’t happen again. These people are far more likely to reoffend than a petty thief.
Yes there are women paedophiles and they deserve life imprisonment just as the men do,
The point is, the danger needs to be removed. Children need protecting from these animals. If chemical castration has been proven to suppress their desires then it should be a compulsory treatment.
I really, really really cannot understand what kind of people are defending the rights of paedophiles, men or women. Why? What about the poor victims? Have you forgotten about their rights?
You are going to have to explain very clearly to me why you think these people should not be stopped using any method available, because I really don;t understand.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
A little girl told me that Joanne touched her in a bad place. Well, when I say little, she’s 13, and she hates her teacher Joanne. She used to hate some other teachers, but they all got de-bollocked for telling her to stop punching people^W^W^Wtouch them. The only reason Joanne is still “at large” is because it’s harder to get a woman done with a few well-timed shrieks.
If someone has paid their debt to society, then chemically injecting them every few weeks isn’t the answer to anything, except some people rabid desire to do unto others as they would never have done to them…
June 15th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
actually I think female paedos are worse than male ones. A lot of men are more conditioned into caring for their young, but women are born to do that.
perhaps guinea pig trials for both.
But I also feel the powers that be must sort out the register, after all condemning a boy of 16 forever for sleeping with his 16 yr old girlfriend is another matter entirely.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Yeah right. What about female paedophiles? should they have their fannies filled in with polyfilla?
June 14th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I agree anonymous. They should be kept in high security prisons, an island is a good idea where drusgs testing can be carried out on them.
It seems to me at the moment that there isn’t really a deterrent for paedos. With Jim Gambles comments about not sending them to prison, now they must be thinking they can do what they want and at the end of it be offered a little bit of help!
We need to take a much harder line and send a message that while help is available, this will stop not be tolerated irrespective of whether the offender ‘wishes he wasn’t like that’.
I feel so infuriated with the namby pamby approach we take to violent sexual criminal these days.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
the right to a miserable end.
still think the best option is as a drugs trial guinea pig.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Phil, you’re right. That’s really the only cure. But we’re too humane for that. Bleeding hearts claim that pedophiles have rights.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
The urge for a pedophile doesn’t come from their nads. It comes from thier minds. There are pedophiles that have had medical castration and still get the urge to abuse a child. There really is no way to stop them and certainly no way to rehabilitate. They need to be kept away from society.
Don’t want to kill them until they’ve killed? Then give them the injection, cut their nads off and then send them off to Pedophile prison. Make a place for others like them. An island with guards where they can live away from the rest of the world until they die. If they kill, then they should be killed. Pedophiles should never get a second chance!
June 13th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Chemical castration seems a good thing to try. But to stem abuse we should ensure that children are listened to, talked to and heard…
June 13th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
How do we stop these people abusing children? One shot to the head.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I’d just like to see them get their nads chopped off for the hell of it. And forced to take drugs that supress their libido.
What do you suggest then Anorak? If we cant inject them, cant chop off their nads, cant kill them, can’t imprison them, cant do anything really? How do we stop these people abusing children?
June 13th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Losing the testicles does not alter the mind. Although it might the agressive criminals angrier and vengeful. You can still offend with no balls. What of females who have prayed on children?
June 13th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
The ‘rights’ of paedophiles amaze me. Having this as a ‘voluntary’ action sends a very odd message.
If a convicted, but ‘free’ paedo declines the drug, is he saying “No thanks, I’d like to retain my sexual urges if that’s alright” What does he mean by that?
Are we knowingly allowing a paedophile to indulge his urges, simply because he exercised his right to decline treatment? Isn;t that tantamount to admitting that in the future you will probably offend in some way (even if indirectly, such as looking at images)?
So they have the right to decline? Does the child have a right to decline the abuse? they might have the right, but paedos dont respect rights.
So why do they expect us to respect their rights? And what kind of people are defending their rights? Defending the rights of a paedo, is treading over the rights of a child.
Basically, in my opinion, if this treatment is available and it works, it should be absolutely compulsory for any man convicted of paedophilia, molestation or any inapprioriate secual act involving children.
And I too would like to see them lose their nads. Cheaper, guaranteed and well deserved.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:20 am
On a similar note, I didn’t want to neuter my dog, but did want to curtail his appetite, so tried chemical castration. It does work, for a time, but is very expensive, for a 90lb dog 4 years ago it was £60+ per injection, and it was necessary every 5 weeks, any longer than that and the urges came back with a vengeance.
There is also the fact these people do need to be monitored and or tagged, but even so its not punishment, just deprivation of ability to practice their desires.
How it would work longterm I shouldn’t think anyone really knows especially in the animal kingdom, because it is seen as short term remedy.
Perhaps a condition of parole might be to remove the pituary? gland, and their testicles to make damn sure