S. Korea opens chemical castration clinic

[SplitDik (imported)]

Since I'm traveling in Korea at the moment, I ran into this news article from a year ago:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Rq ... =firefox-a

Clinic for chemical castration opens in S.Korea

15 January 2009 | 02:17:10 PM | Source: AFP

South Korea on Thursday opened the country's first state-run clinic to chemically castrate sex offenders, officials said.

Add your comment

A therapy using drugs, hormones and other ingredients to lower an offender's sex drive will be offered to rapists or paedophiles who opt for the treatment, the Justice Ministry said in a statement.

Ministry officials said the treatment aimed to prevent recidivism.

"It is the country's first such clinic," Heo Sang-Gu, director at the ministry's anti-crime planning bureau, told AFP as the clinic opened at the National Institute of Forensic Psychiatry in Gongju city 160 kilometres (100 miles) south of Seoul.

"They can refuse to take the prescribed treatment, which will however prolong their custody longer than necessary."

Under South Korean law sex offenders can be detained for treatment for as long as 15 years, he added.

The ministry said the clinic, now capable of treating 100 patients, would be expanded to accept some 300 by next year.

[Hash (imported)]

Chemical castration is the "humane" way of treating pedophiles and rapists. I personally do not think that they should be treated humanely. When you attack and injure children, physically & emotionally, you should be completely nullified. I believe the same thing should be done to rapists.

I understand that sometimes there may be some innocent men accused of these crimes and that's one of the problems with nullifying them, but if it's factually established beyond doubt, then nullify them. If a man resorts to rape and the abuse of the innocent, then as the Queen says in Alice in Wonderland, "off with his head!"

[speedvogel (imported)]

The problem with chemical castration of pedophiles is that it is way too easy for them to go off the drugs on their own. And a very high percentage of those who were enrolled in a California program did just that. Most men do not want the side effect and will not tolerate them, thus the low compliance rate.

Speed

[erikboy (imported)]

I don't know why it is not done surgically, as long term chem castration is permanent anyway. No libido and no offspring after that. And it is supposed to be long term solution I guess. A waste of money. Both on drugs and monitoring of rapists.

Perhaps public opininion is (irrelevant as always) that chemical castration is somehow more humane. I really don't get how. In the end there is absolutely no difference whether you got no testicles or non functional and atrophied testicles. Getting fat and moody is more obvious than if you have some more tissue between your legs.

Nobody is even considering surgical removal.

I hate that ignorance.

Also, even for surgical eunuchs it is easy to get back on T. So what is the whole point, if castration is not voluntary and not desired by the offender.

Perhaps there is a hope that once on low T, there is no interest to get back to high T. Perhaps...

I think that Castration of offenders should be surgical and voluntary only. Otherwise it could be pretty useless.

[Richard_Less (imported)]

I think that surgical castration should be on the table for those willing. With either option of castration, followup should be do to monitor their T levels to make sure the treatment is working.

Failure to report for followups should land the person back in jail just as any other violation of parole would. Also, if the person's T levels not be as low as they should, they should be subject to stricter monitoring or back in jail. As I understand it, some people can maintain higher levels of T without testicles, and there may be other ways to increase it - online drugs, or perhaps herbal remedies, etc.

Another concern is that even with low T, some men can still have a sex drive, and even get erections (with/without ED medicines), so monitoring and followup should try to determine the use of ED drugs (if possible).

Considering that I keep hearing that rape is more about power that it is about sex (and I can't really understand that - except maybe on a case by case basis), having a low/non-existent sex drive would be irrelevant, which is why there is still debate on how effective castration in any form, so making it mandatory lessens the effectiveness.

As far as Hash says about nullification, making that forced may not be as effective as he seems to think. If a person is driven by power that sex to commit rape, than emasculation him may only make him resentful and act out just as before or even more so- so he can penetrate his victims with his penis, he could use other objects, or perhaps take things to another level out of anger, frustration, and perhaps even his own sense of being victimized.

In any case, total or partial penectomies and/or castrations should be more of a volunteer basis for those offenders showing some genuine remorse and a desire to correct themselves. Forcing it upon them may only serve to make them resentful, and perhaps determined to show that it doesn't work by them acting out to spite the system.

In the case of repeat offenders, especially with concrete evidence, then perhaps in those situations, a mandatory chemical castration with an option for surgical as the offender's choice if the side effects of the drugs aren't desirable to him be enforced - with the understanding that there is sufficient evidence that such treatment is in fact effective.

[_g (imported)]

Chemical castration is the "humane" way of treating pedophiles and rapists.

Personally they should be publicity Nullified, then if they offend again have them publicity (executed) maybe drawn and quartered!

I'm for bring reality back not the politically correctness cramp.

_g

[Losethem (imported)]

All this would be fine if people accused of rape were NOT presumed guilty until proven innocent. Yes, that is backwards from normal.

It's much too easy to cry "rape" in the US and get a guy into trouble. The presumption is that anyone saying some guy raped them, is correct and to be believed even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. See Duke University lacrosse team "rape" case if you don't believe me.

I think the only time that a harsh punishment like castration/nullification should be carried out is if there is OVERWHELMING evidence the crime actually happened. IE not only physical evidence (remember, you can cry rape after not liking having consensual sex) and that there are credible witnesses that know you were in the location at the time the crime occurred.

A simple conviction of crime is not enough these days because of how overzealous law enforcement people are these days. They have a motive to charge, prosecute, etc. in order to get promotions in their employment. Put another way, the have a profit motive to put people in jail, because that is how they make more money, a system that needs change.

The rape/nullification issue would be the same as the murder/death penalty issue... the justice system can't take it back if they're wrong.

Unlike most of us here who want our genitals gone, these people probably do not.

--LT

Chemical castration is the "humane" way of treating pedophiles and rapists. I personally do not think that they should be treated humanely. When you attack and injure children, physically & emotionally, you should be completely nullified. I believe the same thing should be done to rapists.

I understand that sometimes there may be some innocent men accused of these crimes and that's one of the problems with nullifying them, but if it's factually established beyond doubt, then nullify them. If a man resorts to rape and the abuse of the innocent, then as the Queen says in Alice in Wonderland, "off with his head!"

[tugon (imported)]

As a victim of rape I am less interested in chemical or surgical castration than I am in the length of the sentence they receive. Many sexual offenders will offend again so why release them in just a few years. I do not think surgical or chemical castration should shorten their sentence.

There are some who cry rape when in fact they were not but rape is still a very under reported crime. Men find it humiliating, as do women, to admit they were raped. Men are supposed to be able to protect themselves.

Rape is about power and control.

[dancinggizmos (imported)]

This is feasible, I think it should be that way...

As a victim of rape I am less interested in chemical or surgical castration than I am in the length of the sentence they receive. Many sexual offenders will offend again so why release them in just a few years. I do not think surgical or chemical castration should shorten their sentence.

There are some who cry rape when in fact they were not but rape is still a very under reported crime. Men find it humiliating, as do women, to admit they were raped. Men are supposed to be able to protect themselves.

Rape is about power and control.