Child Rapist to be Castrated in exchange for lighter sentence.... - Page 3

The source from those stats was published in the salon.com article that I already posted. Pretty easy to find if you clicked on the link I already provided. Anyought, the article said that overall in the US the re-offend rate was in the teens. I think it should be up to psychiatrists to discern when this treatment may be appropriate. I'm guessing failure rates happen more because the wrong people are being offered this as a treatment. I would hate for those rates to go up because the wrong people are being prescribed depo. I don't think that a law forcing this to happen will help the way that it should because the treatment only works on certain men. It appears to me that the issue needs further research. Too bad it wouldn't work on women!

Oh, and a nice big AYE!!! from me as well.

No. You misread the article. 50% of american rapists, released from prison, who did not undergo castration will re-offend. There were no castration studies done in US, so the studies were done on un-castrated rapists released from prison-and half of them re-offended. The castration studies were done in Europe, and recidivism rate was found to be 3 %. So, the rate of recidivism is greatly reduced by castration in European studies.

Again, 50 % rate of recidivism in men who didn't undergo castration in US. That rate was compared to 3 % rate of recidivism in men who did undergo castration in Europe, and results are very significant.
Since there were no castration studies done in US at all, it's impossible to say how many castrated men would have re-offended in US compared to un-castrated men.

What??? - there are heaps of studies for the states.
At least there is on chemical castration. The studies all tend to say the same thing as the ones in Europe - Before castration the rate of repeat offence is often around 40-50% and afterwards its about 2-5%.

Here is one site that mentions some US studies.
http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Articles/sexoffenders.htm

aye!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I posted a link to a US study, so there are studies in the US about chemical castration- several of them actually- I found about 5 when searching EBSCOhost, a research database. I still read the article as saying that 50% of men who are chemically castrated were found to reoffend- in one study- however other studies done in the US found a much smaller rate. My point was that I want more studies before we start using this as a bargaining tool in the courts.

You are not reading it correctly and you are misquoting the source. It doesn't say that those stats are talking about castrated sex offenders, nor is it implied.

Considering the very small percentage of castrated sex offenders in the US, because it has to be a voluntary process and even then I remember at least one case where the courts overruled it as "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus against the Constitution, I can't say that I would rely on any US studies on this issue. First, the offender has to request it, which tells me that they have a strong desire to stop their actions. I would think that if they have that strong of a desire to stop, they would also seek counseling and be receptive to such counseling (although I'm sure not all would). There are too many X-Factors in the US system, such as desire to change, possible counseling, for me to say that the castration was THE deciding factor in the lower recidivism rate.

I'm not familiar with the process in Europe, and if it is mandatory or voluntary.

Hey jen!
That is what good discussion and debate is all about..

This is how we all learn. Feel free to take me to task on anything and I will think on it.

As for my quote above: Having done work with many sex offenders of all types and subtypes and having exhaustingly pored over the literature to better understand "thine enemy", I can safely say the much spoken adage in this field which is:

Most sex offenders have experienced some degree of sexual assault in their lives.
But this is the important point, NOT all victims go on to perpetrate against others...

Does that make sense?

And, please, I am in NO way making excuses for the offenders.
They have to take full responsibility for their crimes and nothing in their past excuses their future.
A big however, for me though is understanding the nature of the beast, so to speak, so understanding their past is a crucial part of therapy for these individuals.

Having sat in a 10 by 10 room with the biggest monsters on the planet and hearing the worst stories I have ever been told, I admit, I have become somewhat desensitized. But I couldn't have worked in that capacity if I wasn't just a little.

A BIG however for me though is that I tend to the social services field because I have a great amount of empathy for the victim, the underdog and for humanity in general.

I don't think you are understanding me when you say I have "sympathy" for the offender when it comes to their crimes.

I just may not be in the same camp as those who say to kill all of these offenders off.
I don't believe in the death penalty for any reason. I think I have a right to this perspective.
This doesn't make me evil or on "their side"...
I would say it gave me a reason to cry every night with compassion for all the victims of the world.

I will check in on the other thread and see if I can clarify anything further also.

Cheers

Yes. yes. yes. This was one of my points that either I made to cloudy or no one read
...

There are so many intricate factors that aren't being seen here...
Has no one ever read the book "How to lie with statistics"?
Its not a good control or study group when most are a small group of offenders who want to rehabilitate.

I will just say a few points here that I think need clearing up and where everyone is right in some sense.

Ugaimes is exactly right when she says that you can't escape the power/control facet of violent sexual assault.

Elizwithcat is somewhat also right when she says that someone taking depo or sans testicles will have a lesser motivation in most cases to be aggressive/violent or sexually motivated. Testosterone is obviously linked to both sex drive AND aggression levels in men. This is why rape can be both violent AND sexual.

We also have to remember that all offenders are not created equal here...Some offenders are titillated by a higher level of violence than others. For some, the sexual component is stronger than others...and some people are opportunistic rapists...we can't possibly lump all offenders together here. For the sake of argument, its a good general tactic to handle the aggressive/violent nature of the crime.
However, offenders of children are rarely violent, in the way that rapists of adult women are.
Only a very very small population of offenders violate in this manner.
So, some of us are talking about apples and oranges and this is why this is going around in circles.

So, while this "therapy", (and remember, castration ISN'T a punishment, its a therapy) will work for some, it won't work for all, obviously, and the public may be confused by this.

Ugaimes also brings up a good point which is that this "therapy" may start to supercede the rights of the community in that these offenders will get lighter sentences if they agree to this treatment.
This is what I think isn't getting across here.

No, I'm sure you are not familiar with processes in Europe. Are you familiar with processes in the US? Can you honestly say you know more about this than all the people that have done research and published papers on the subject?

If the offender requests castration - It doesnt have to mean a strong desire to stop - most research says many never stop - It could just mean they really want to get out of prison. Prison can be a very cruel and unusual place for those that harm children.

You also mention counselling. This often has a reverse effect upon the molester, actually raising the recidivism rate in some instances.
http://www.212.net/crime/castrate.htm

In some cases counselling can help, but the benefits tend to be lost over time when you look at long term recidivism.
http://www.psepc.gc.ca/publications/...s/199202_e.asp

Well, then, since I'm not a researcher or expert, I guess I can't draw any conclusions. Thanks for correcting my ability to hold an opinion. Can the only people who are researchers have an opinion?

And which is it? Do they stop after castration or don't they? Here you're saying that research says many never stop. So what's the point of castration if it doesn't stop them?

My point was without castration many will re-offend, and most never stop fantasizing.

And no, I was not trying to stop you having an opinion - But I am also allowed to have mine, and you invited that comment.

Again, that 50 % from your link -those are the men who will re-offend without castration. It maybe a bit confusing, but when you read the article in context, it's very clear they are talking about 50 % of men that will re-offend without castration, since they are calling the results of castration studies significant.
If 50 % of men re-offended after being chemically castrated, then those results would not be significant. Thus, only 3 % of the men that are castrated will re-offend, and 50 % of men who are not castrated will re-offend.

Rape is about anger and power, thus what? What should be done with rapists in your opinion?
Why doesn't anger management work if rape was about anger and power only?
I mean, to me it seems that believing that rape is only about anger and power is completely ignoring the obvious.
It's a sexual crime. This, it's simply can not be NOT about sex, IMO. It might be also about anger and power and control. But saying it's not about sex is like ignoring the elephant in the room.

Please provide your source with this comment.
I would be very interested.

Tx

Catlover7731 said:
"because this guy can rape again, he just doesn't have his member. I can't fathom this operation stoping this urge ."

Just want to clarify that in surgical castration, the testicles are cut off. Not the penis.

As you can see in my post above, testosterone, aggression and sex are very closely related.
Again, I think we are debating apples and oranges.
There are many components involved in violent/sadistic/sexual crime.
One element cannot be teased away from another very easily.

Good thought.
My use is purely matter of habit.
After perusing numerous police file reports and seeing the word "victim" and "suspect" at least 1003 times on the page, this is what happens.

I was actually often told by my boss that I would be best suited for women and children's advocate work (because I was overly empathic) rather than working with offenders.

But it was long ago that I worked as a women's advocate in a clinical setting so you tend to forget certain little things that make a big difference

I use the word victim because the person is a victim of a crime, whether it's murder, robbery or rape.
I don't view the word victim as being negative.

You may not, but many survivors do and that's what matters.