Daboo on :
I'm totally in favor of it. Society has a right to be protected.
Wednesday, March 11. 2009Corporal Punishment is BACK!
In this NYTimes article, well, I'll just re-post it here.
Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders By DAN BILEFSKY PRAGUE — Pavel remembers the violent night sweats two days before the murder. He went to see a family doctor, who said they would go away. But after viewing a Bruce Lee martial arts film, he said, he felt uncontrollable sexual desires. He invited a 12-year-old neighbor home. Then he stabbed the boy repeatedly. His psychiatrist says Pavel derived his sexual pleasure from the violence. More than 20 years have passed. Pavel, then 18, spent seven years in prison and five years in a psychiatric institution. During his last year in prison, he asked to be surgically castrated. Having his testicles removed, he said, was like draining the gasoline from a car hard-wired to crash. A large, dough-faced man, he is sterile and has forsaken marriage, romantic relationships and sex, he said. His life revolves around a Catholic charity, where he is a gardener. “I can finally live knowing that I am no harm to anybody,” he said during an interview at a McDonald’s here, as children played loudly nearby. “I am living a productive life. I want to tell people that there is help.” He refused to give his last name for fear of being hounded. Whether castration can help rehabilitate violent sex offenders has come under new scrutiny after the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee last month called surgical castration “invasive, irreversible and mutilating” and demanded that the Czech Republic stop offering the procedure to violent sex offenders. Other critics said that castration threatened to lead society down a dangerous road toward eugenics. The Czech Republic has allowed at least 94 prisoners over the past decade to be surgically castrated. It is the only country in Europe that uses the procedure for sex offenders. Czech psychiatrists supervising the treatment — a one-hour operation that involves removal of the tissue that produces testosterone — insist that it is the most foolproof way to tame sexual urges in dangerous predators suffering from extreme sexual disorders.
Surgical castration has been a means of social control for centuries. In ancient China, eunuchs were trusted to serve the imperial family inside the palace grounds; in Italy several centuries ago, youthful male choir members were castrated to preserve their high singing voices. These days it can be used to treat testicular cancer and some advanced cases of prostate cancer. Now, more countries in Europe are considering requiring or allowing chemical castration for violent sex offenders. There is intense debate over whose rights take precedence: those of sex offenders, who could be subjected to a punishment that many consider cruel, or those of society, which expects protection from sexual predators. Poland is expected to become the first nation of the European Union to give judges the right to impose chemical castration on at least some convicted pedophiles, using hormonal drugs to curb sexual appetite; the impetus for the change was the arrest of a 45-year-old man in September who had fathered two children by his young daughter. Spain, after a convicted pedophile killed a child, is considering plans to offer chemical castration. Last year, the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, signed legislation requiring courts to order chemical castration for offenders convicted of certain sex crimes a second time. In the Czech Republic, the issue was brought home last month when Antonin Novak, 43, was sentenced to life in prison after raping and killing Jakub Simanek, a 9-year-old boy who disappeared last May. Mr. Novak, who had served four and a half years in prison for sexual offenses in Slovakia, had been ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but had failed to show up several months before the murder. Advocates of surgical castration argued that had he been castrated, the tragedy could have been prevented. Hynek Blasko, Jakub’s father, expressed indignation that human rights groups were putting the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims. “My personal tragedy is that my son is in heaven and he is never coming back, and all I have left of him is 1.5 kilograms of ashes,” he said in an interview. “No one wants to touch the rights of the pedophiles, but what about the rights of a 9-year-old boy with his life ahead of him?” Ales Butala, a Slovenian human rights lawyer who led the Council of Europe’s delegation to the Czech Republic, argued that surgical castration was unethical, because it was not medically necessary and deprived castrated men of the right to reproduce. He also challenged its effectiveness, saying that the council’s committee had discovered three cases of castrated Czech sex offenders who had gone on to commit violent crimes, including pedophilia and attempted murder. Although the procedure is voluntary, Mr. Butala said that he believed some offenders felt they had no choice. “Sex offenders are requesting castration in hope of getting released from a life of incarceration,” he said. “Is that really free and informed consent?” But government health officials here and some Czech psychiatrists counter that castration can be effective and argue that by seeking to outlaw the practice, the council is putting potential victims at risk. Dr. Martin Holly, a leading sexologist and psychiatrist who is director of the Psychiatric Hospital Bohnice in Prague, said none of the nearly 100 sex offenders who had been physically castrated had committed further offenses. A Danish study of 900 castrated sex offenders in the 1960s suggested the rate of repeat offenses dropped after surgical castration to 2.3 percent from 80 percent. But human rights groups say that such studies are inconclusive because they rely on self-reporting by sex offenders. Other psychiatric experts argue that sexual pathology is in the brain and cannot be cured by surgery. Dr. Holly, who has counseled convicted sex offenders for four decades, stressed that the procedure was being allowed only for repeat violent offenders who suffered from severe sexual disorders. Moreover, he said, the procedure is undertaken only with the informed consent of the patient and with the approval of an independent committee of psychiatric and legal experts. Jaroslav Novak, chief of urology at the Faculty Hospital Na Bulovce in Prague, said: “This is not a very common procedure. We carry it out maybe once every one to two years at most.” Several states, including Texas, Florida and California, now allow or mandate chemical castration for certain convicted sex offenders. Dr. Fred S. Berlin, founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins University, argued that chemical castration was less physically harmful than surgery and that it provided a safeguard, because a psychiatrist could inform the courts or police if the patient ordered to undergo treatment failed to show up. A surgically castrated patient, Dr. Berlin said, can order testosterone over the Internet. For Hynek Blasko, the father of Jakub Simanek, neither form of castration is the answer. “These people must be under permanent detention where they can be monitored,” he said. “There has to be a difference between the rights of the victim and the perpetrator.” Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Daboo on :
I'm totally in favor of it. Society has a right to be protected.
Swatson on :
Surgical castration “invasive, irreversible and mutilating." Don't mean to be callous here, but isn't that what happens to a lot of victims?
Radar on :
I fail to see how this makes the jump to bringing back the idea of Eugenics.
If a person requests it then go for it. I see no reason to stop anyone from such an activity. And I think I'll be able to get to sleep at night just fine if we require physical or chemical castration for those convicted of sex crimes. The Mad Giggler on :
Huh, I figured at least somebody here would be against this. Personally, I'm a little tired of just throwing everyone in jail. I think it's time to start trying more creative solutions to crime.
Swatson on :
So I like creative. What did you have in mind?
The Mad Giggler on :
This article in particular is something I have discussed with friends more than once. I can't think of what else off the top of my head, but it seems to me like jail time isn't much of a deterrent anymore. Who wouldn't want a life where you're provided with three meals a day, a free weight-lifting and exercise area, cable tv, a big library, etc.?
Radar on :
Prison is not quite the summer camp people make it out to be. You also run the very real threat of; "death by inmate" at all times for something as simple as not giving a guy your dinner roll, loss of all personal space, and the ever fun event of being made someones "bitch."
My father worked at a prison for young violent offenders for over 30 years. I heard the stories all the time. While I might agree that prison isn't the great deterrent it may have once been, it ain't no trip to Disneyland either. The Mad Giggler on :
I don't know about "death by inmate" but certainly the chance of being assaulted while in prison has increased according to this study:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64109-2005Mar1.html And the Human Rights Watch "believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/30/us-addiction-incarceration-puts-23-million-prison All of which kind of supports my point that we need a better way of handling criminals than prison. Radar on :
As to the "death by inmate", I can remember two very vivid stories from my teenage years when my dad told me about inmates who had killed their cell-mates.
And I would also not suggest in any way that prisons are the only way to go either. Just wanted to make it clear to most that they aren't playgrounds either. But I also have no suggestion for other options to reform or store criminals. Perhaps the movie Demolition Man had the best idea: put them in to stasis and teach them a non-hurtful new habit, like knitting. And the people in that movie turned out just fine. The Mad Giggler on :
I don't doubt your stories in the least, but I'd be curious to see statistics showing the number of prison homicides in a year. If it's as high as you seem to be suggesting, then all those folks complaining about capital punishment would be better off spending their energy looking for better ways to reform criminals.
Radar on :
Unfortunately I have no statistics to provide. But prison movies are always talking about shanks and shivs, so it must be a clear and present danger. Right?
Sideshow on :
When I used to work at the Recycling plant we would bring in Labor forces from the prison.
I got to talking to some of the prisoners about just that. Many of them said that they knew people who couldn't handle being out of prison. At least in prison they knew they had "3 Hots and a Cot". They talked about how they have such access to things, such as an Education. Food, Books, TV. That some of them didn't want to have to deal with the real world. The Mad Giggler on :
Yay! An informed opposing view to Radar's! I was getting tired of pulling responses out of my rear. :)
Radar on :
Please. Like you needed something informed or even intelligent to oppose my comment about Demolition Man. :)
The Mad Giggler on :
I cried aloud with mirth and merriment.
Daboo on :
My mom used to talk about prisons in Spain when she was there 20 years ago or so...the prisons were basically dungeons and the government didn't provide food. So if your family didn't think you were worth a weekly trip, you were pretty much a corpse. She said the crime rate was extremely low.
Swatson on :
Let's face it. Prison is a vacation for those convicted of crimes. The only negative part is they have lack of mobility of going where they want whenever. I would imagine a significant portion of prison inmates didn't "have a life" out of prison. Significant by the way doesn't mean more than 50% and doesn't mean less than 20% in my definition of significant here. Prison is a merciful way to take care of them so they don't have to worry about taking care of themselves. Now put someone out in a yard hitting rocks all day with a sledgehammer (yes the movie was convincing) and I wonder if that would help deterrence.
Daboo on :
Of course if we are going for creative we could always use death row inmates for organ donation.
Swatson on :
So, the only thing that bothers me is...are there any death row inmates wrongfully convicted, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time? I'm for the death penalty, but there's a nagging thing in the back of my head that wonders...are they really guilty? Maybe that's the part of me that hasn't seen all the evidence...
Sideshow on :
Well they have to originally be convicted beyond any reasonable doubt. And after that they also have their appeals, and other due diligence.
But once that's all used up I like the idea of making them useful to society again. Daboo on :
I wrote to a death row inmate for a while in college as part of a research paper. He said he wasn't actually allowed to donate any of his organs, even though he wanted to. He put it this way: he'd been kicked out of society, and they didn't even want his body parts anymore.
Radar on :
Well, sure. You saw the Simpsons where Homer gets the hair transplant from the death-row inmate (Snake?) and then the hair slowly turns him in to a criminal. It can happen.
|
Handy LinksItems of InterestCategoriesBlog AdministrationSyndicate This BlogPowered byTheme dropdownBookmark |