Poland to impose chemical castration on sex offenders

[Module]

"
Poland is to become the first country in the European Union to force convicted paedophiles to undergo chemical castration.

Judges will get the power to order the procedure under a law being rushed through the country's parliament next month in the wake of an incest case that has horrified the nation.

The 45-year-old man accused in that case has been dubbed the Polish Josef Fritzl - after the Austrian who locked up his daughter for 20 years and fathered a family with her.

The legislation will make chemical castration a ' necessary medical procedure' if a sex criminal is thought to pose a risk to others.
It will allow offenders to be held down while drugs that take away their sexual urges are administered.
European civil liberties groups have condemned the move, saying it violates fundamental human rights.
But Polish prime minister Donald Tusk soared in popularity in the opinion polls after he announced the proposal.

He said: 'I don't think you can call such individuals - such creatures - human beings.

'Therefore, I don't think you can talk about human rights in such a case.'

It emerged last month that Britain is to offer convicted paedophiles chemical castration to curb their urges, but only if offenders agree to it.

Similar voluntary schemes have already been set up in Sweden, Denmark, Canada and eight states in the United States and are reported to have proved successful.
In Poland, the health and justice ministries were last night working urgently on the draft legislation.
Political commentators said it seems certain to be approved by parliament, where MPs are clearly in favour of punitive castration.

The plan does not violate European law because, apart from a blanket ban on the death penalty, the EU's 27 member nations are responsible for their own criminal legislation.
Polish citizens could challenge the move in the European Court of Human Rights, but there seemed little enthusiasm for that last night.
Most Poles seemed to agree with their justice minister, Zbigniew Cwiakalski, when he said: 'Everyone talks about the rights of criminals, but what about the rights of the victims?
'Where is the safety and health of our children? We have the right to use measures that will protect the public.'
Supporters of the move stressed that chemical castration is not permanent like physical castration by surgery and can be reversed simply by stopping the medication.

But experts who work with sex offenders warned that the sex drive-suppressing drugs are no guarantee that a paedophile will not strike again.
"
Article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1061910/Poland-impose-chemical-castration-sex-offenders-Polish-Fritzl-incest-case.html)

[spice756]

What is chemical castration?

[Holden Caulfield]

meh,

[Trystan]

What is chemical castration?

Disabling a man's balls. Probably not the best option, but whatever.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think that's pretty backwards.

[Panda Tse Tung]

I think their right. If someone poses a threath to society, something ought to be done. In this case the collective definetely over-rules the minority.

[BobKKKindle$]

think their right. If someone poses a threath to society, something ought to be done. In this case the collective definetely over-rules the minority.

Posing a threat to society does not warrant the permanent mutilation of someone's body - this approach rejects any possibility of rehabilitation and ignores the fact that sex offenders display some of the lowest recidivism rates of all crimes. Propensity to sexual abuse should be treated as a psychological issue which often arises from traumatic childhood experiences - a large number of sexual offenders were themselves victims of sexual abuse at the hands of adults during their childhood years, which suggests that the cause of sexual abuse is primarily psychological, and not anything to do with the moral condition of the abusers.

[Saorsa]

The biggest problem I see with this is the fact that if the alleged sex offender later turns out their innocent... well, sorry about that, enjoy the rest of your life without the ability to orgasm (I assume that's not possible...? Either way, your penis is now useless for any purpose other than pissing).

This is why I also oppose the death penalty except during revolutionary struggle and following the revolution, when things are still unstable. Innocent people get convicted, and you cant go back on it.

[Incendiarism]

Posing a threat to society does not warrant the permanent mutilation of someone's body - this approach rejects any possibility of rehabilitation and ignores the fact that sex offenders display some of the lowest recidivism rates of all crimes. Propensity to sexual abuse should be treated as a psychological issue which often arises from traumatic childhood experiences - a large number of sexual offenders were themselves victims of sexual abuse at the hands of adults during their childhood years, which suggests that the cause of sexual abuse is primarily psychological, and not anything to do with the moral condition of the abusers.

Extremely well said

[Kassad]

Very well said, Bobkindles. It's a shame that something so backwards and Dark Ages-esque could be applied to civil culture. Likewise, what about the emotionally ill in these situations? How does this solve any problem with them?

[Yazman]

I agree with this legislation. I see no reason why they should be able to have children considering what they have done.

[Kukulofori]

wrong. It all still works, just less sticky and you can't get anyone pregnant, also less sex drive.

[al8]

This is definatly a step in the right direction. And I agree with the sentiment that victims rights should be primary. Thats just basic justice.

[BobKKKindle$]

I agree with this legislation. I see no reason why they should be able to have children considering what they have done.For any form of punitive action, there are generally three aims - deterrence, rehabilitation, and moral retribution. In this case, there is absolutely no possibility of rehabilitation, because the criminal is subject to bodily mutilation by the state which is the ultimate form of punishment because the effects can never be reversed, and the criminal is deprived of a basic part of their identity as a human (capacity to feel sexual pleasure) as a result. This means that we have to consider this punishment on the two remaining grounds - deterrence, and moral retribution. This punishment is unlikely to pose any kind of deterrent because sexuality is something which is generally beyond the control of the individual, and existing punishments (long prison sentences, mistreatment by other prisoners and prison staff during the period of detainment, exclusion from certain professions upon release, and the general hatred of society) should already be sufficient if it is possible to deter people from committing sex offenses. The only remaining issue we have to analyze is whether this punishment is morally justified. This punishment is only moral if we accept the premise that the abuse of children by these individuals was the result of a conscious decision to which they can be held morally accountable. This is problematic because, as stated above, pedophilia is a psychological sickness which often derives from previous experiences of abuse, and so it would be unfair to assume that pedophiles are solely responsible for their actions, given the influence of other factors which pedophiles do not control. This means that, under these three criteria - deterrence, rehabilitation, and moral retribution - this punishment is totally wrong and should be rejected in every instance. The correct approach is to try and identify the root causes of pedophilia and offer treatment, if necessary under conditions of detainment (if releasing pedophiles could pose a threat to potential victims) thereby ensuring that convicted pedophiles are eventually able to become productive members of society and not feel the need to molest or otherwise harm young children. The fact that recidivism rates are already so low (even though a range of rehabilitative methods have not yet been explored and convicted pedophiles routinely suffer abuse and humiliation inside prison) suggests there is simply no need to resort to what is, in reality, a barbaric punishment which is so reminiscent of medieval justice and contemporary conservative interpretations of Sharia.

[#FF0000]

I'm kind of disappointed that so many people here are willing to back such a barbaric form of punishment for what is really just, as Bobkindles said, a psychological problem.


Thats just basic justice.

Revenge is not justice.

[Raúl Duke]

In isolation, I currently have no definite opinion on this form of punishment (although it does conjure images of "high-tech" {since it uses chemicals instead} barbarism...).

But, if what Bob Kindles says is true ("recidivism rates are already so low", etc)then psychological therapy should be used instead.

[Vanguard1917]

Nice bit of base populism by the rightwing Polish government. When in doubt (or trailing in the polls) geld some nonces!

[Demogorgon]

It is utterly outrageous. Not only that, but it is utterly stupid, chemical castration is not permanent, it has to be routinely administered to stay effective, meaning that in practice it can only be forced on those still in prison. You can well require its continuing use as part of parole, but that also expires and at any rate, it is just asking for sex offenders to disappear underground in order to avoid it, and that always increases recidivism.

Successive Polish Governments are getting more and more outrageous, between this crap here and the previous one's appalling homophobia, the place is turning into one of the most appallingly authoritarian places in Europe. Which brings us to another irony, Donald Tusk claims to be pro-European, yet this could well get Poland thrown out of the EU. His predecessor's hopes to restore the death penalty nearly did after all.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I am loathe to consider an option such as chemical castration, that has been used historically for eugenics (ex: Third Reich) and to persecute homosexuals (ex: Alan Turing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Prosecution_and_death)), as anyhow acceptable.

[al8]

Revenge is not justice.

I honestly don't understand the difference.

[Demogorgon]

I honestly don't understand the difference.

That says a lot about you.

What benefit exactly is to anyone in inflicting cruelty in retribution to no societal advantage?

[al8]

That says a lot about you.

What benefit exactly is to anyone in inflicting cruelty in retribution to no societal advantage?

It depends on the cruelty and if it is really proportional to the crime. But else it would be that;

1. It can make potential victims safe. (depending on the retribution, nature of the crime.)
2. It can give victims as well as others relief, in that justice had prevailed.
3. The organized revenge system justly substitutes inefficient vigilanty work.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

This punishment seems a rather medieval to me.

[BobKKKindle$]

But, if what Bob Kindles says is true ("recidivism rates are already so low", etc)then psychological therapy should be used instead.

From the Bureau of Justice (US) Criminal Offenders Statistics, (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm) and Recidivism of Prisoners released in 1994 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm):

"Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison."

Emphasis mine. Compare this to the general recidivism rate for all convicted crminals:

"Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime."

Emphasis mine. Compare sex offender recidivism to other forms of serious crime, also three years after release:

"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)."

This shows that the recidivism rate for convicted offers is much lower than the general rate, and also the rates for other forms of serious crime. This is important because it undermines the moral and practical justification for using the barbaric method described above.

I don't lie about my statistics.

[Demogorgon]

It depends on the cruelty and if it is really proportional to the crime. But else it would be that;

1. It can make potential victims safe. (depending on the retribution, nature of the crime.)
2. It can give victims as well as others relief, in that justice had prevailed.
3. The organized revenge system justly substitutes inefficient vigilanty work.
You still haven't given a decent explanation. Cruelty rarely makes people safer as the crueler society is to criminals, the more crime goes up due to the general social atmosphere and why exactly should we inflict a level of cruelty to supposedly satisfy the victim when in fact the purpose of criminal justice is not to allow impartial judges like the victim to enact retribution (we do not live under Sharia Law)?

It is funny that you and others are lining up to back the most right-wing Government in Europe when it comes out with some of its most right wing legislation. Remind me, what board am I on?

[Cheung Mo]

What do you expect from the religion of Maurice Duplessis, Daniel Ortega, and the Ustase?

[spice756]

So what do they do give the guy a pill to lower his sex-drive?




What do you expect from the religion of Maurice Duplessis, Daniel Ortega, and the Ustase?


So this is religious motivated?

[Demogorgon]

So this is religious motivated?

No Tusk is on the secular wing of Polish politics, and at any rate, when was the last time you heard the Catholic Church calling for anything like this?

[Yazman]

It seems like you are trying to justify the acts of pedophiles by excusing their actions as those of a psychologically unadjusted person.

Get your arguments straight. Firstly you claim it is their sexuality that causes them to rape children and then you go on to claim it is psychological illness. If their sexual orientation is 'towards children' somehow then how could it be a psychological illness? Logically if it is their sexuality it cannot be a psychological illness. That is, unless you consider alternative sexualities to be the result of psychological illness. But then homosexuals were initially thought to be simply psychologically unfit - I refer you to the older DSM revisions.


It is funny that you and others are lining up to back the most right-wing Government in Europe when it comes out with some of its most right wing legislation. Remind me, what board am I on?

Demogorgon, this is somewhat insulting. I do not believe that anybody in here is even talking about the government itself let alone defending it. I know I sure as hell am not defending the Polish government. I am simply defending the policy of castrating sex offenders, although I would only advocate doing this to serious cases of rape and pedophilia - Like that of Friztl in Austria. This is something entirely independent of the government itself as it can be applied anywhere. The fact it is Poland that has done it does not mean we suddenly like the Polish government or would defend it. It could be any country.

[spice756]

It seems like you are trying to justify the acts of pedophiles by excusing their actions as those of a psychologically unadjusted person.


I don't think the scientific community really understands what causes this pedophiles .

[Lynx]

I think chemical castration should be considered on a case by case basis. Some of these predators cannot be rehabilitated and will re-offend when released. An alternative is to keep them in prison until they are ready for the nursing home.
Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Offender

[spice756]

I think chemical castration should be considered on a case by case basis. Some of these predators cannot be rehabilitated and will re-offend when released. An alternative is to keep them in prison until they are ready for the nursing home.
Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Offender

What are the statistics on pedophiles release that do crime agin?

[Module]

It is a psychological problem that somebody would knowingly wish to hurt another human being as would (presumably) be the case with these paedophiles that apparently are thought to "pose a risk to others".
"Justify" the acts of paedophiles? Who is suggesting that it is "just"?
Bobkindles/Demogorgon are right - this law is unreasoned, viciously moralistic and seems to be more of contemptuous retribution than any real effort to stop sexual assault taking place.
Note "He said: 'I don't think you can call such individuals - such creatures - human beings.

'Therefore, I don't think you can talk about human rights in such a case.' "

It's pretty concerning how many people actually agreed with this law!

[Lynx]

What are the statistics on pedophiles release that do crime agin?
Some stats were posted earlier, so these re-offenders would be in the 3.3% that are caught. Some of them tend to make news headlines. Some are also sociopaths (antisocial personality disorder)

[ashaman1324]

i agree with it. the effects are not permanent(as stated in the article) i fully support castrating sex offenders for short-term detterence. but i think the offender should have to meet with a psychologist/ psychiatrist to continue to prescribe the castration and help to solve the root of the problem, to permanently rehabilitate them and end the castration. this will also allow for any case-by-case issues that may arise.

[Demogorgon]

I
Demogorgon, this is somewhat insulting. I do not believe that anybody in here is even talking about the government itself let alone defending it. I know I sure as hell am not defending the Polish government. I am simply defending the policy of castrating sex offenders
You are not defending a right wing Government, merely its right wing policies, I see. That is so much better.

[Sendo]

this is barbaric and stupid. Keep people in prisons if you're that scared.

Plus, what if you have 21-year old men who have drunkenly (oops!) have sex with a sixteen girl or something like that? Or an innocent man gets castrated?

Besides, this is not rehabilitation. States should rehab people.

Pedophilia is HORRIBLE, but I'd hate to adopt the philosophy of preventing repeat offenders through mutilation This same logic could lead to lebotomies and severing the hands of thieves, or the legs of somebody.

Preventing sex abuse can be done in a million different ways than mutilation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I submit that this chemical castration is a form of torture. Alan Turing was convicted of being a homsexual in a time when gay men had the same status as paedophile men today, and he comitted suicide rather than go through with his state-enforced "treatments".

Torture reduces it's victims to the level of screaming animals... and turns it's perpetrators into vile beasts.

The best solution is to simply keep these people away from children. Something like a secure unit exclusively for paedophiles/sex offenders.

[Plagueround]

I find it concerning how many people can exhibit reactionary tendencies when you dangle a "what about the children?" ethical question in front of them. This is not something anyone should support.

[apathy maybe]

I am annoyed that I can't give a cookie twice to Bob, because he made at least two great posts in this thread.

Anyway, I can't see how any revolutionary leftist could support this procedure (just as I can't see how any revolutionary leftist could support the death penalty today).

Things are running through my mind, about how the legal system isn't about justice, how punishment doesn't work, how morally reprehensible this sort of thing is, how revolutionary leftists shouldn't support revenge (well, except that I guess that is part of the reason many people are revolutionary leftists, damn), all sorts of things. I don't know what to say.

Anyway, I'm outraged, disgusted etc. by this. We all should be, and anyone who isn't, well, I'm not sure if I would want to associate with you (and more then I would want to associate with someone who supported torture).


"The 45-year-old man accused in that case has been dubbed the Polish Josef Fritzl - after the Austrian who locked up his daughter for 20 years and fathered a family with her."

What should we (as society) do with people like this? Well, punishing them isn't going to reverse their crimes, and imprisoning to keep them out of society isn't going to do anything for anyone either. I can't support the death penalty in the current system. Basically, the only way forward I can see is to scrap the whole fucking lot and start again. (I guess that is why I'm here.)

[al8]

I'd of course like justice to be carried out by revolutionary organs of power instead of capitalist ones. But such current ones are there because they aim to substitude peoples natural tendancies toward justice and the consequent vigilantism. Some policies tend to be good, because they have to reflect at least a little the blood lust of rightious people. But most of the justice system is about retarding justice, i.e revenge. Because it is costly. I think that sucks and absolves the mandate a so-called "justice" system has.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Plus, what if you have 21-year old men who have drunkenly (oops!) have sex with a sixteen girl or something like that? Or an innocent man gets castrated?

Pedophilia falls within the age-range of 5 - 12, and i assume it's for recidivists anyways.
Also, i saw someone opposing the policy based on the comments of the Polish minister, whilst his comments we're stupid (to say the least) the policy in itself is something that ought to be supported.
Anyways, this far i've only seen discussions on how low the recidivist rates are for peadophiles, but not about the recividists. What about them?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm kind of disappointed that so many people here are willing to back such a barbaric form of punishment for what is really just, as Bobkindles said, a psychological problem.



Revenge is not justice.

This.

[Comrade B]

My fear is that the person would be proven to be innocent later. However I don't really see a better solution...

[Panda Tse Tung]

Well, as stated before: it's temporary. And no, it is most likely a form of sexuality. I have once spoken to a pedosexual who refrained from having sex alltogether because he realized that it would harm these children. Thus it would be a conscious choice to not control your urges and harm these children.

[Sentinel]

I regard the violation of a persons bodily autonomy by society as barbaric and abhorrent, no matter the circumstances. This is far from the only occasion when the Polish government has shown utter disrespect to it -- they are pro-life extremists as well.

Yes, the response is that pedophiles don't respect it either, but

1) We don't live in the times of Hammurabi when an eye counted for an eye -- revenge should not be part of the agenda of a modern justice system.
2) There is always the chance of mistake, however small. Even though chemical castration isn't permanent it's still a humiliating breach of bodily autonomy, one which imo isn't possible to adequately compensate for in retrospect.

On it's height I could support this as a voluntary, temporary alternative to imprisonment for offenders who have confessed, and simultaneously undergo therapy. As it is now, it is nothing but yet another move from the socially perhaps most reactionary government in Europe.

[al8]

This is just pussyfooting and a retarding of justice. People should just take justice into their own hands when the guilty are pampered and rewarded by the so-called justice system, modern or otherwise.

[Sendo]

It's one thing to lash out at the time and kill someone who molested your child. IT is quite another to have him captured and in jail, then decide that mutilation is better than imprisonment, or labor (not slavery, but roadside cleanup, etc), or psych treatment, or anything else.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm on board with Bobkindles, Demagorgon, and all those who oppose this policy/idea/philosophy. Bobkindles has already made plenty of quality arguments as to why this is unacceptable and foolish.

I would only like to add that any policy which attempts to label a group of human beings as anything but is highly questionable in itself and most likely reactionary.

And to Apathy Maybe, I will give Bobkindles a rep point for you and for me.

- August

[DesertShark]

I'm not sure how reliable this organization is but they seem to have a lot of information about sex offenders (there's a www in the front): atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html

I couldn't find the 3.3% statistic that was given early. The only statistic I saw that had low numbers (under 10%) was for sex offenders who received proper (what we would consider ethical) treatment. Although I did see a lot that sex offenders re-committed the same crimes less often then criminals convicted of other crimes.

It seems to me that any kind of treatment should be determined on an individual basis and perhaps more extreme measures may be necessary for repeat offenders who admit that they will commit the crime again. But I agree that rehabilitation for any criminal should be the first step. Jail, however, is not rehabilitation.

As for what chemical castration is, all I could find is that the men basically take a birth control pill normally taken by women (injections or a pill containing progesterone, commonly referred to as a "female hormone"; however it is found in both sexes, in males it is created during the testicular production of testosterone).

-DesertShark

[Decolonize The Left]

As for what chemical castration is, all I could find is that the men basically take a birth control pill normally taken by women (injections or a pill containing progesterone, commonly referred to as a "female hormone"; however it is found in both sexes, in males it is created during the testicular production of testosterone).

-DesertShark

This is not true for the birth control pill doesn't remove a woman's sexual drive. This male chemical castration: "will allow offenders to be held down while drugs that take away their sexual urges are administered."

- August

[Lynx]

Might be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depo_provera

This male chemical castration: "will allow offenders to be held down while drugs that take away their sexual urges are administered."
You make it sound like an execution.

[DesertShark]

This is not true for the birth control pill doesn't remove a woman's sexual drive. This male chemical castration: "will allow offenders to be held down while drugs that take away their sexual urges are administered."

- August
It is true. They're giving the men progesterone (either taken daily or injected, which is what you are referring to), which is the main ingredient in birth control pills (some birth control pills are only progesterone and some are mixed estrogen and progesterone). In some women, the pill does reduce their sex drive; it's split pretty even and really depends on the individual woman and can even change throughout the use of the pill.

In all honesty, I don't know why they would use it because it doesn't reduce the sex drive in all men (or all women), again depends on the individual; and I don't think it's been proven to completely remove the individual's sex drive. It seems more to be a reactionary attempt to solve a complicated problem in a single solution. Birth control pills have been used for many reasons aside from preventing pregnancy, such as treating acne and reducing the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer.

-DesertShark

[Decolonize The Left]

It is true. They're giving the men progesterone (either taken daily or injected, which is what you are referring to), which is the main ingredient in birth control pills (some birth control pills are only progesterone and some are mixed estrogen and progesterone). In some women, the pill does reduce their sex drive; it's split pretty even and really depends on the individual woman and can even change throughout the use of the pill.

In all honesty, I don't know why they would use it because it doesn't reduce the sex drive in all men (or all women), again depends on the individual; and I don't think it's been proven to completely remove the individual's sex drive. It seems more to be a reactionary attempt to solve a complicated problem in a single solution. Birth control pills have been used for many reasons aside from preventing pregnancy, such as treating acne and reducing the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer.

-DesertShark

Point well-taken - I wasn't aware of the specifics.

I completely agree that this seems to be a fine example of a complex issue being attacked with a fix-all solution... let us hope that this doesn't follow through.

- August