As usual, posted for your information and evaluation. I am withholding my own opinion at the moment.

http://echo.forensicpanel.com/1996/11/1 ... onsex.html

ARTICLE ADDED:

Castration and Sex Offenders: Back to the Future

Sex offenders, especially those with an egregious history of recidivism, will almost certainly continue their behavior, unless their urge to engage in it is effectively curtailed. One such approach, castration, has been summarily dismissed in America for many years. But with the recent passage of legislation in California mandating chemical castration for repeat sex offenders, several other states are also exploring similar initiatives.

Most research to date has reviewed not chemical, but surgical castration (i.e. removal of the testes and replacement with prostheses). Since the late 1920s Denmark has studied the effects of surgical castration in hundreds of its most grievous sex offenders who volunteered for the procedure. The program also included trained, committed psychotherapy and follow-up monitoring for over forty years. A climate of doctor-patient confidentiality at Herstedvester, the host institution, facilitated patient disclosure.

The result: recidivism rates below 5%, duplicating results in similar castrated populations in Norway, Switzerland, Germany and Iceland. Yet many of the castrated maintained an adaptive sex life; the treatment curtails drive, not the capacity for sex. In contrast, a non-castrated Danish group of offenders showed a recidivism rate of approximately 50%.

Chemical castration with Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (which lowers circulating testosterone), has been examined in the United States and Canada in a number of studies of sex offenders. As in earlier European hormonal research, sex offenders have shown improved recidivism rates.

Furthermore, studies have consistently shown its side effects to be even less frequent and disabling than those of many traditional behavioral medications. Thus, chemical castration offers an alternative to surgical castration that is perhaps not as biologically effective but is more palatable to those who have apocalyptic visions of "A Clockwork Orange."

California's castration legislation omitted the specialized counseling that has traditionally accompanied such programs. States must enhance such castration legislation by providing for pilot counseling programs targeted at high-risk offenders. There is a very specific place for castration—when selectively and thoughtfully applied.

Andrew (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2002 8:03 pm As usual, posted for your information and evaluation. I am withholding my own opinion at the moment.

http://

www.courtpsychiatrist.com/pharmtreat.html

Thanks, Andrew.

From the 2nd link,

The pharmacological treatment of the sexual offenders is based on the assumptions that the behavior is sexually motivated and that the suppression of sexual drive will reduce the sexually deviant behavior. The goal is to preserve normophilic sexual interests and behaviors while reducing deviant or paraphilic behaviors

I think this fellow wants to have his cake and eat it too. Personally, I believe that if you are turned on by certain paraphilias, any old paraphilia - regardless - that elimination of the sex drive is going to knock out the both of types of sexuality. You can't knock down the paraphilia-inspired sexual urges without knocking out what he calls normophilic ones as well.

I mean, if you don't have the drive to dress up as a nun and beat your partner over the head with a fresh trout while listening to heavy metal music in the grass during a thunderstorm while the dog watches, you SURE AS HELL ain't gonna be turned on by a lady in the bedroom offering the vaginal intercourse missionary position type sex! I think the Author fails to realize this. Obviously, he needs to get laid more often.

We've discussed this issue at length on the old board and this one as well, but what the Author is citing - as far as chemical castration and his references to actual castration - are pure pie-in-the-sky dreams and delusions.

Castration in any format isn't going to turn a gay fellow straight, it isn't going to stop certain types of sex offenders (such as rapists who are in it for the power trip), and it's probably just going to piss the said offender off in the long run.

However, it is an interesting read, even if it's flawed.

You pointed out the flaws in the second article quite well, Paolo. My argument is with the first one, in particular with the author's cavalier dismissal of what I consider the very real moral issues addressed in A Clockwork Orange.

Any time the state forcibly substitutes its own behavioral ideal for that which would freely have been chosen by the person upon whom it is being forced, it is taking away a fundamental liberty. This is acceptable as long as it serves only to instruct a person as to the norms of his society, or failing that, to isolate him from it. A society certainly has the right to defend itself, after all, and the prisoner still retains his ability to exercise free will within the context of his nature, albeit perhaps temporarily in a different environment.

But when the state attempts to alter a person's very nature, free will is destroyed, affecting areas outside the particular behavior it desires to change. The person is no longer being corrected/punished for a specific behavior, but is having virtually all of his behaviors "corrected". In a society in which individual liberties are supposed to be held sacred, such methods can only be considered as immoral as the behaviors they seek to correct.

On another note, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but in addressing this topic, it is always done in the context of "repeat sex offenders", and only rarely in the context of repeat violent sex offenders. All of the talk, you will notice, is about "sexual deviancy", not about sexual violence. I find this curious, given that sexual violence is the primary threat to a stable society, not sexual deviance per se. When I see something like that, I know the authors are speaking in code.

It strikes me that sexual aggression is not what these people really fear, but rather, male sexuality itself, the implication being that all expression of male sexuality is in fact deviant in some way. In other words, it is at its root an agenda-driven call for the imposition, through state-mandated chemical or physical bodily alteration, of the feminist anti-male ideal -- not a particularly appetizing prospect, in my humble opinion. (Call in Andrea Dworkin or Catherine MacKinnon, and run for the hills, guys.)

This view is further supported by the fact that proponents of state mandated castration also take pains never to address the question of how to deal with sexually aggressive females, whose criminal behavior, although much less frequent than that of males, is clearly not motivated by elevated androgen levels. Were this a sincere effort to solve a real and vexing social problem, there would not be such a knee-jerk call for the elimination of the sexuality of offenders of only one gender while ignoring the other.

I still support complete nullification for (first time) male sex offenders, including clergy. However, there would have to be a similar punishment for female sex offenders.

Nullification should also be freely available for any man who feels a strong desire to have them gone or who feels that he might be at risk of being a sex offender.

Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2002 9:22 am I still support complete nullification for (first time) male sex offenders, including clergy. However, there would have to be a similar punishment for female sex offenders.

And just what kind of sex offender merits this sort of draconian punishment, Mac? Has he become a rapist because he neglected to call her the next day, and she feels used? Snip! Or maybe he's accused of diddling the kids because soon-to-be-ex-wifey wants a better property settlement? Hell, let's take his equipment away from him as well as his kids and all his property!

Or maybe he's a real sex offender, one of them dirty, low-down flasher types, who never actually did anything more than display himself? C'mon, boys, let's snip that pervert's junk off before he finds a woman who's actually interested, but let's hurry, 'cause we've got seats waiting for us at the strip club!

Similar punishment for females.....yeah, right.

It's one thing to make nullification available to anyone who wants it, but quite another to forcibly mutilate a man for something that he may not actually have done. An accusation of sexual offense is the nuke in any male-female dispute, and it's used too damned often as it is. Just imagine the temptation for vengeance she will have if she can get him sexually crippled for having the audacity to jilt her! I shudder just thinking about it.

To Paolo: In a nutshell, it seems that what those so-called psychologists want to do is to punish a man for what he IS, not for what he does.

radar (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2002 2:26 pm To Paolo: In a nutshell, it seems that what those so-called psychologists want to do is to punish a man for what he IS, not for what he does.

Of course they do! Didn't you know that it's a crime to be in possession of penis, and to know what it's good for?! However, just try and get it removed and see what happens. It's an especially heinous crime to be under the age of 18 and know about your penis as well.

Mac (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2002 9:22 am I still support complete nullification for (first time) male sex offenders, including clergy. However, there would have to be a similar punishment for female sex offenders.

Interesting. Cut off the breasts, excise the uterus/ovaries, sew up the vagina, cut out the clitoris including the internal portions, as well as shear off both sets of labia?

Happousai

That seems a little too extreme.