Castrating sex offenders? (moral, punishment, moral, verse, death penalty)

[GeneCosta]

I have a problem with the theory behind castrating sex offenders. Actually, many.

First, would it even be wise to castrate every convicted sex offenders? What if there is no DNA that supports the victim's claim? We know juries and judges aren't perfect. What if we castrate an innocent person? That's an injustice only less damaging than killing an innocent person.

To a smallere extent, we can even say some people are charged because of faulty DNA testing. What then if someone innocent is given the cut?

What about women? A first-time male sex offender could make the arguement having his penis cut off while a female sex offender loses nothing is a form of discrimination, which, I'd agree with, is.

Is it constitutional? How can people who oppose the death penalty use the 8th amendment and then discard it later on?

Is it amoral?

[Booko]

There was a celebrated case in my old hometown of a man belonging to "the" rich family in town who was a sex offender. Anyone else would've been tossed in the klink for years. Instead he was sentenced to "chemical castration" -- shots of Depoprovera that would suppress his sex drive.

While the questions of unequal treatment of the law were valid, the treatment did seem to work.

Perhaps that would be preferable for such cases. At least it's reversible if you find out there's a mistake! You just stop getting shots is all.

I'm not especially fond of justice that can't be reversed, given how our legal system works in practice.

[Mestemia]

think of the deterance such a law would create.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by PolyReverend

think of the deterance such a law would create.

Would it? There doesn't seem to be so much evidence of deterrence for murder where capital punishment is present.

[standing_on_one_foot]

Deterance isn't necessarily the best way to determine how just or fitting a punishment is. Death penalty for theft would also be a deterance, but is it right?

I have a few problems. One, as mentioned above, it's possible to get the wrong person. Two, it seems to assume that a sex offender's sex drive is the entire cause of the problem. Is that really true in all cases? We might not like to think that a person could do things like that, that it's somehow all hormonal, but sometimes people are just awful human beings. Three, if this is being presented as an alternative to other punishment, I'm just not convinced it's the absolute best approach.

[Majikthise]

Rape, from what I understand , is not about sex so much as control. I don't beleive castration would be at all effective. But I don't say this in any way to protect the rights of sex offenders, I find them loathsome and not deserving of the title "human".
The death penalty would be more effective for some of the more severe sexually classified crimes. If for no other reason but to ensure there is one less out there.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Booko

Would it? There doesn't seem to be so much evidence of deterrence for murder where capital punishment is present.

I disagree.
There is al manner of evidence that the death penalty is a deterant.

I do not know how many times I have heard a suspect state that they crossed a state line or two because the state they lived in has the death penalty.

If the death penalty wasn't a deterant like those against it claim, then why would they care about making sure they commit those crimes in a state without the death penalty?

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Majikthise

Rape, from what I understand , is not about sex so much as control. I don't beleive castration would be at all effective. But I don't say this in any way to protect the rights of sex offenders, I find them loathsome and not deserving of the title "human".
The death penalty would be more effective for some of the more severe sexually classified crimes. If for no other reason but to ensure there is one less out there.

If a person commits a crime with a gun, is not one of the rules for his probation that he does not come into contact with a gun?

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by PolyReverend

I disagree.
There is al manner of evidence that the death penalty is a deterant.

I do not know how many times I have heard a suspect state that they crossed a state line or two because the state they lived in has the death penalty.

If the death penalty wasn't a deterant like those against it claim, then why would they care about making sure they commit those crimes in a state without the death penalty?

I guess that explains why the U.S. is leader among Western nations in murders and executions.