Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?
ADULT: OFF HOME DIRECTORY SEARCH RANDOM POLL MAKE A POLL

User: Orchiectomy

2002-08-15
0
14
0

Messages

Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in Punishment For Rape on 2002-09-21 18:32:24

In Arkansas, a man accused of raping an 11-year-old boy and soliciting another child for sex is to be surgically castrated as part of a plea agreement that he proposed. Had he gone to trial and lost, James Stanley would probably have been sentenced to life in prison. Under the plea agreement, he will be free in less than 20 years. But ironically given its usual positions on both sexual choice and lengthy incarceration, the ACLU opposes the deal. Although Stanley proposed it, the ACLU condemns the agreement as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The ACLU argues that castration is unlikely to prevent future violence against children, trotting out the counterintuitive bromide that “rape has very little to do with sexual urge, and has a lot more to do with the urge to dominate another person.” Apparently, it is hard for the ACLU to accept that sexual desire can ever be bad. It cannot bring itself to acknowledge the obvious: that the basic problem in pedophilia is the underlying sexual perversion. The surgery Stanley seeks will alleviate his compulsive urge to molest children. James Stanley is begging to trade his cancerous sexuality for a chance to die a free man. Why does the “compassionate” ACLU want to deny him that choice?

Posted in Castration of sex offneders on 2002-09-21 18:31:11

In Arkansas, a man accused of raping an 11-year-old boy and soliciting another child for sex is to be surgically castrated as part of a plea agreement that he proposed. Had he gone to trial and lost, James Stanley would probably have been sentenced to life in prison. Under the plea agreement, he will be free in less than 20 years. But ironically given its usual positions on both sexual choice and lengthy incarceration, the ACLU opposes the deal. Although Stanley proposed it, the ACLU condemns the agreement as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The ACLU argues that castration is unlikely to prevent future violence against children, trotting out the counterintuitive bromide that “rape has very little to do with sexual urge, and has a lot more to do with the urge to dominate another person.” Apparently, it is hard for the ACLU to accept that sexual desire can ever be bad. It cannot bring itself to acknowledge the obvious: that the basic problem in pedophilia is the underlying sexual perversion. The surgery Stanley seeks will alleviate his compulsive urge to molest children. James Stanley is begging to trade his cancerous sexuality for a chance to die a free man. Why does the “compassionate” ACLU want to deny him that choice?

Posted in Punishment For Rape on 2002-08-28 20:37:21

One Question I'd Like To Consider is: Can Castration Cure Sexual Offenders? By Kevin Cassell

My answer to this question: No. But according to a recent German study, it can reduce recidivism by sexual offenders when it's part of a rehabilitation / reintegration program including counseling in chemical dependency and depression management: Only 3% of surgically or chemically castrated offenders committed sexually-related crimes following their release from incarceration, compared to 43% of those who were not castrated. The American Civil Liberties Union opposes even "voluntary castration" as a form of cruel and unsual punishment. (It is illegal in most states.) One of its arguments is that sexually-related crimes have little, if anything, to do with sex; rather, it has everything to do with power manifested through violence. This may very well be true. But, still, it's ludicrous to completely take the "sex" out of sexually-related crimes. If an offender were merely interested in power, he wouldn't become physically aroused if he didn't assign to that power an erotic association. Sexual arousal in men--and for that matter, violent proclivities as well--has a lot to do with two things (1) the culture (and subcultures) they inhabit and have been socialized by, and (2) their testosterone levels. The first can be dealt with, imperfectly perhaps, through rehabilitation which recognizes that, even though the culture can't be changed to suit the offender, the offender may be changed to better suit his culture. The second can be dealt with, again perhaps imperfectly, by eliminating the primary source of testosterone: the offender's testes. This may sound cruel to the humansitic liberal, but it serves practical, civic, and finally humanistic purposes. Yes, in some cases, perhaps castration will have the opposite effect and make offenders more violent by virtue of the fact that they've been "robbed" of that thing so important to so many men: their "manhood." But in most cases, as studies suggest, reducing the sex-drive of sexual offenders as well as a primary chemical influence on aggressive behavior will afford them a greater chance of reintegrating with a society that promotes both sex and aggression iconographically while deploring its actual practice. Let's discard the myth that rape and child molestation are just "acts of violence". What about the pedophile who secretly videotapes children undressing in private so he can watch it later while pleasuring himself? Is that "violence"? Is it all about power and control? Not really. But it is sexual in nature, and I assume that the same desires of this "safe" pedophile help to motivate the "dangerous" ones, the child molesters. Addressing issues of power and violence is only half the story; attending to the deeply ingrained and probably unchangeable sexual psyche of such offenders is the other. More states should allow incarcerated sexual offenders the option of chemical or surgical castration (the latter is more effective, some scientists claim) as part of a comprehensive rehabilitation process that includes drug and alcohol awareness and anger management.

Posted in Castration of sex offneders on 2002-08-28 20:36:28

One Question I'd Like To Consider is: Can Castration Cure Sexual Offenders? By Kevin Cassell


My answer to this question: No. But according to a recent German study, it can reduce recidivism by sexual offenders when it's part of a rehabilitation / reintegration program including counseling in chemical dependency and depression management: Only 3% of surgically or chemically castrated offenders committed sexually-related crimes following their release from incarceration, compared to 43% of those who were not castrated.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes even "voluntary castration" as a form of cruel and unsual punishment. (It is illegal in most states.) One of its arguments is that sexually-related crimes have little, if anything, to do with sex; rather, it has everything to do with power manifested through violence.

This may very well be true. But, still, it's ludicrous to completely take the "sex" out of sexually-related crimes. If an offender were merely interested in power, he wouldn't become physically aroused if he didn't assign to that power an erotic association. Sexual arousal in men--and for that matter, violent proclivities as well--has a lot to do with two things (1) the culture (and subcultures) they inhabit and have been socialized by, and (2) their testosterone levels.

The first can be dealt with, imperfectly perhaps, through rehabilitation which recognizes that, even though the culture can't be changed to suit the offender, the offender may be changed to better suit his culture. The second can be dealt with, again perhaps imperfectly, by eliminating the primary source of testosterone: the offender's testes.

This may sound cruel to the humansitic liberal, but it serves practical, civic, and finally humanistic purposes. Yes, in some cases, perhaps castration will have the opposite effect and make offenders more violent by virtue of the fact that they've been "robbed" of that thing so important to so many men: their "manhood." But in most cases, as studies suggest, reducing the sex-drive of sexual offenders as well as a primary chemical influence on aggressive behavior will afford them a greater chance of reintegrating with a society that promotes both sex and aggression iconographically while deploring its actual practice.

Let's discard the myth that rape and child molestation are just "acts of violence". What about the pedophile who secretly videotapes children undressing in private so he can watch it later while pleasuring himself? Is that "violence"? Is it all about power and control? Not really. But it is sexual in nature, and I assume that the same desires of this "safe" pedophile help to motivate the "dangerous" ones, the child molesters. Addressing issues of power and violence is only half the story; attending to the deeply ingrained and probably unchangeable sexual psyche of such offenders is the other.

More states should allow incarcerated sexual offenders the option of chemical or surgical castration (the latter is more effective, some scientists claim) as part of a comprehensive rehabilitation process that includes drug and alcohol awareness and anger management.

Posted in Punishment For Rape on 2002-08-22 04:16:51

CONVENTIONAL THERAPY DOESN'T STOP SEXUAL PREDATORS! A SIMPLE SURGICAL PROCEDURE WILL!

CASTRATION: EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF SEX CRIMES by Judge Michael McSpadden 209th District Court - Harris County, Texas

"Now that California, Georgia and Montana have passed a chemical castration law and Texas has passed a bill that would allow repeat sex offenders to seek voluntary castration, it's interesting to note the sky has not fallen and the Constitution is still intact. Instead, Texas has become the third state to take a most important step in finally protecting our children.

In 1991, Steven Butler was charged in my court with aggravated sexual assault of a child. At the time of his offense, Butler was on probation for committing another sexual assault of a child two years earlier. I had been quoted in The Houston Post as endorsing castration of sex offenders due to the failure of our criminal justice system to keep them locked up and the failure of all conventional counseling to treat them.

Butler read the article and asked me to put him on probation with surgical castration as a condition. He had received counseling, which didn't help, and was concerned he would continue to rape young girls.

The Harris County District Attorney's Office was notified of the request and talked to the victim's family, who gave its approval to the proposed plea bargain. Butler was seen by several psychiatrists and psychologists to assure everyone that he was making an informed and voluntary decision. After all this was done, all parties were confident Butler would benefit from the treatment and would be much less of a threat to children.

A surgeon agreed to perform the operation at no cost to the state. However, members of the African-American community intervened, raising arguments that the procedure was racist because Butler was African-American and I was white. The surgeon withdrew his offer, and we informed Butler we could not honor his request, much to his chagrin.

Immediately after the publicity of the Butler case subsided, I started receiving letters from Larry Don McQuay, a convicted pedophile, asking for information concerning castration and for help in petitioning the state to honor his request for this treatment before his release. For five years, his desire for castration had been ignored because it was not conventional treatment.

Not until McQuay's mandatory release to a halfway house in Houston was imminent did the public become informed, and the state finally reacted.

SEX THERAPY

Unfortunately, it took an extreme case like McQuay's to bring the issue of sex offender treatment to the forefront. His mandatory release prompted the Texas Attorney General's Office to issue an opinion on the legality of castration.

In discussing the effectiveness of castration, it is important to point out the ineffectiveness of conventional therapy/counseling to date. An exhaustive 1989 review of sex offender recidivism and conventional treatment in North America and Europe published in the Psychological Bulletin concluded 'there is no evidence that treatment effectively reduces sex offense recidivism'. To make matters worse, the re-offense rate often was higher for conventionally treated offenders than for untreated ones.

Although chemical and surgical castration are equally effective in lowering the testosterone level, the primary drawback to successfully maintaining this lower level requires a person who is castrated to undergo weekly maintenance injections, a procedure not required of a person who is castrated surgically. Accordingly, the public's safety is enhanced by eliminating the potential for an offender to regain his former aggressive condition.

The following are some baseless myths-- and refutations -- concerning this humane and effective treatment:

MYTH: castration mutilates a man's body.

FACT: An orchiectomy is a very simple surgical procedure in which a small incision is made to remove the testicles from the scrotum. The operation is far less invasive than a hysterectomy or much of the cosmetic surgery performed today. It typically is an outpatient procedure and replacing the testicles with prostheses makes the procedure virtually undetectable.

MYTH: castration is cruel and unusual punishment.

FACT: What could possibly be cruel about a treatment that allows a person to live a more normal life without the constant urge to molest children? It is unusual in the sense that it is the only permanent treatment that works with the offender.

MYTH: Castration will not be any more effective than conventional counseling.

FACT: European research over the past 30 years shows that in every single clinical study, the re-offender rate drops drastically to lo less than 5% for those who receive the treatment. It is after the surgery has been completed that counseling will be needed in order to aid the offender during the transition of changing lifestyles. Conventional counseling can be effective in conjunction with castration.

MYTH: Castration will only make the offender more violent by using other methods to molest.

FACT: Another positive aspect of castration is that it reduces not only the sexual impulse, but all aggressive traits in a person. A 1991 Czechoslovakian study of 84 castrated sex offenders revealed that only 3 men (out of 84) committed another sex offense after castration, and none were of an aggressive character.

A Danish study in the 1960s that followed 900 castrated sex offenders found that the recidivism rate dropped to 2.2%, and, similarly, none of these offenses were of an aggressive character.

MYTH: Castration is racist punishment.

FACT: Of the 11,000 identified sex offenders in Texas prisons, 45% are white; 24% are African-American and 30% are hispanic.

MYTH: The problem is between the ears, not between the thighs.

FACT: This unsupported opinion is based on the supposition that rape is all about power, domination and control without any sexual component. The clinical studies show that rape is a combination of power, domination and control along with a strong sexual impulse.

It shouldn't really matter which theory of rape is ascribed to. What is much more important is finding treatment that will protect our children.

MYTH: A civilized society cannot permit this barbaric treatment (castration).

FACT: A civilized society, if we dare call ourselves that, cannot permit the numbers of rapes that occur. A civilized society must be open to all treatments of sex offenders in order to change the unconscionable odds we have given to the innocent among us.

TAKE ACTION

It has been a long struggle to reach a point where we can have a serious discussion concerning the effectiveness of castration as a treatment. This discussion also will make the public more aware of the facts concerning the surgery.

Even though research shows castration to be a humane and effective treatment of the sex offender, our first concern should be for the victims of this horrendous crime. Opponents of castration have focused their attention on the sexual predators, which regulates victims to footnote status.

For more than 200 years, our government's primary responsibility always has been the protection of the innocent, especially our children. We have every right to expect our government to do whatever it takes to accomplish this goal.

Steven Butler and Larry Don McQuay were the catalysts for the California, Montana, Georgia and Texas laws, allowing these states to take the lead in finally protecting our children.

Now it's up to the rest of the nation to do the same!"