I work for an agency which handles visitation for the Division of Family and Children. I get to work with all sorts, including parents and relatives who molested children. I have been told (by a counselor) that child molesters are the hardest to treat,that they are not cured, just temporarily stopped. Why not just castrate them? Does anyone think that that would make a difference in their actions with children later on?
Castration falls under “cruel and unusual” punishment. We don’t cut off hands of thieves in the US. And in those countries that do, instead of castrating (or doing something else) to rapists/child molesters, they kill the victim because she brought shame to the family. 
:rolleyes:
There have been cases where molesters asked to be castrated. To my knowledge, none have had it done.
I thought I saw something on Dateline or 20/20 about this. I think they said that it’s more mental than physical. I remember something about one guy actually ASKED to be castrated! :eek: and they came back later and he said that he didn’t feel that much different.
Also I believe that they can now give a chemical to kill the testies instead of sniping them.
Does castrating really accomplish anything? It doesn’t kill sexual desire, does it? That manifests in the brain, not the testes. It seems to me like castration would be purely symbolic, not killing the desire to molest or rape, and certainly not preventing the ability to achieve erection or to commit sexual assault.
[and certainly not preventing the ability to achieve erection or to commit sexual assault.]
I thought it would kill sexual tendencies, via removing testosterone. Maybe it would be better to remove the offending member.
I too remember that report on Dateline. There’s a treatment called chemical castration that kills the sexual desire, apparently it works but it’s voluntary. I think the problem is that castrating someone who is a molester or a rapist just means that they have to resort to other forms of sexual abuse other than intercourse with a penis.
Castration is cruel and unusual punishment? And killing someone isn’t? We should put them in the chair instead, since the general concensus is that they can’t be rehibilitated.
Eric
This topic is better suited to Great Debates. I’ll move the thread there for you.
The problem is there ISN’T a consensus among ** professionals ** about the ability to treat molesters.
I attended a seminar regarding this. The presenter was a man who runs a sucessful clinic in Canada for molesters. He specified from his research (going back some 20+ years) that those who molest opposite sex reoffend less frequently than those who molest same sex. Those who molest in their own family reoffend less frequently than those who molest outside the family. He found treatment to be a convincing factor in rehabilitation.
I don’t accept the OP that child molesters can’t be treated.
Also consider that accuzations of child abuse are often unfounded, esp. in cases of divorce.
If it is true that a specific child molester isn’t responding to treatment, and it has been proven in court that he is a repeat offender, we could put him in jail for life.
Remember as well that an 18 year-old man having sex with a 16 or 17-year old girl is a “child molester”. Men are indeed jailed for such.
I know that for whatever reason child molestation is considered 99.9% repeatable, which means it is almost a certainty that when you release them they will strike again. It really bothers me that people identified as molesters are released at all, ever. It is a tough issue, 'cause murderers can get out after fairly brief sentences, but it seems like there should be some sort of middle ground to balance the focus between sentencing for “punishment”, and sentencing to protect society. I would think after the regular term is served they move the molesters to a walled, guarded community where children aren’t allowed. They would still be prisoners, and still be in custody, but it would be a step up from prison, and they could have jobs, etc., and live at least somewhat functionaly lives. This would seem to be more desirable than castration, either physical or chemical.
If an effective treatment was available, it still would require the individual to admit they have a problem and to desire to change. Unless there was some sort of test to prove effectivenss of the therapy, I would have a huge difficulty believing a person had reformed.
I am not talking about 16 year olds with 18 year olds, which shouldn’t be defined as the same thing at all IMHO. The false reports do seem more common than for other crimes, so incarceration would seem preferable to the more permanent castration thing.
It all comes down to cost in the end, though. I think it would be worth it regardless of the cost, but I have two young kids, so my view is addmittedly skewed. IIRC molesters tend to have been molested as children, which indicates at least a possibility that it could be prevented or reduced if offenders were kept away from potential victims. I would think this would make incarceration cheaper in the long run, barring effective treatment.
We’re going under the assumption here that pedophilia is “wrong” somehow and needs to be “cured.”
We were saying the same thing about homosexuality a century ago…
Is pedophilia an act rooted in sex, or power? I ask because of the similar argument about rapists (that it isn’t about the sexual act, but the power- if he’s castrated, will he just kill the next one?).
In any event, I believe the accepted standard is not if a pedphile will reoffend, but WHEN. Many pedophiles have admitted as much, after they have been released and later reoffend.
There is really no way to justify sex with a child under 12 (you backwoods folk can just shut up now). Hubby used to prosecute juveniles, and some of the shit these little fuckers did would make you literally throw up. But in many cases, these kids were put back into foster homes or other living situations where they had unrestricted access to more victims.
I have no idea how to fix the system and how it treats pedophiles. And BTW, I view pedophilia very differently than I view homosexuality between two adults. I hope you do too.
Tracer I think the difference between homosexual and pedophilla is that the child does not have much of a choice about it. And even if they do have a choice they are to innocent to the ways of world to make that decision until they are older.
Thanx EJs. I knew that we’d get one for pedophilia in this thread. I am sorry that I assume that molesters are men, but out of 5o or so that I have had to deal with(the ones that admit it) only one has been a woman. Now why is it wrong to feel the instinct to hurt a molester just because one has children? I have three boys, and in truth, the thought of someone touching them improperly blindsides me. In dealing with this scum, I have to be civil, but should we?
Tracer - Homosexuality is consentual, i.e. both partners want to be there. Pedophilia is not. You could redefine the age of consent to make it legal/illegal at almost any age, but at some point it has to be seen as non-consentual. I don’t want to argue at what specific age a person has the emotional and intellectual capacity to make the decision to have sex since I believe it would have to be decided on an individual basis, but certainly one would agree that there is a point when a person does not have this capacity, and is therefore not a willing participant. Non-consentual sex, i.e. rape, and therefore pedophilia, hopefully will never again be seen as an acceptable practice in a civilized society (women and children’s rights being limited in some societies to the point that rape was effectively legal.) Pedophila is a sickness, and a crime, and must be prevented, punished, and hopefully, someday, if possible - cured.
and **
**
Would like to see cites for these two statements. They do NOT correspond to the stats that I heard from seminars, nor from my personal experience working with ex offenders.
Please do NOT construe this as being a “defense” of child molestation. I made my comments based on my personal experience in the field and a seminar I attended that was conducted by an expert in the field, that many do NOT re offend and that treatment DOES have a measurable and positive effect. I would tend to believe that if treatment was completely ineffectual, no state would bother with the extremely intensive and expensive treatment programs in place in the prisons.
If I read tracer right, he is making the needed distinction between pedophilia and child molestation. In this way, his parallel with homosexuality is not so far off. If pedophilia itself is merely the attraction some people feel for sexually immature persons, then how is that intrinsically different than the once demonized feelings of homosexuality? Both are attractions beyond conscious choice. Obviously, the pedophile acting on his impulses involves an entirely different set of circumstances, and I am not in any way going to defend those types of actions. However, if I read tracer right, he is asking “Why is pedophilia (not child molestation) classed as a mental illness, while homosexuality is not?” Is the answer as simple as “Because one is socially acceptable.” What does that say about our definitions of what constitutes mental illness?
Wring - you got me on that one. I searched quite a while and couldn’t find any of the stats I had heard. I did find similar ones, mostly from alarmist folks such as this one:
http://www.saveourkids.com/preview.htm
Just from quick back-of-the-envelope calculations I don’t think those numbers can be right.
Also they don’t seem to match what I would consider hard date like:
http://crime.about.com/newsissues/crime/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ojp.usdoj.gov%2Fbjs%2Fcrimoff.htm
These numbers are not at all clear, though, because as pointed out above nowhere near everyone convicted of rape of or sex with a minor is a pedophile. I would also bet that drugs and alchohol play a big part in many of these types of crimes, which makes it tough to tell what they were thinking, if they were at all.
I had heard the 99.9% repeatability number from a relative who is a school psychologist who deals with the kids afterwords. I was told it was basically a way to say 100% but leave the door open for small amounts of conflicting data. She said that basically pedophilia wasn’t considered treatable in the same way that a desire to rape wasn’t treatable. This seemed to be based on the idea that if a person didn’t realize that it was wrong by the time they were old enough to do it, you probably would have difficulty changing their mind afterwords, and that if they didn’t want to change, very little could be done to make them change. From the tiny amount I know about psychology, I have to agree with her.
If there is an treatment that can be shown to be highly effective, I am all for it during and after incarceration. Until such a treatment is deomonstrated and tested, I say keep identified pedophiles someplace far away from kids.