EA Forums

The purpose(s) of the criminal justice system are still being debated. What should properly be done to/about those convicted of crimes, whether violent or nonviolent ones. At least the following have been proposed and debated:

1) Retribution. Producing pain and suffering to the criminal at least equal to what he provided to his victim(s). The rack and public disembowelment are not currently being discussed, but other, only slightly gentler, forms of torture have not disappeared from public discourse. Just read the editorials and letters to the editor about the appropriate fate of "terrorists." Making prison life "unpleasant," if not physically painful, is certainly widely discussed.

2) Rehabilitation. Providing an environment where the criminal is taught the error of his ways and prepared for reintroduction into society. This was the main thrust of prison reform through most of the last century. Both vocational and academic education programs are generally provided in prisons and those who complete such programs have a better chance of early release.

3) Removal from society. Long-term or lifetime imprisonment so that the criminal has little or no opportunity to commit another crime. Execution would be the most extreme form of removal from society. Longer prison terms for violent crimes than for nonviolent ones are sometimes justified by stating that older men are far less likely to be aggressive than younger men. (Men DO commit most violent crimes, though certainly not all of them.) We seem to be approaching maximum possible use of this alternative today. California is currently discussing ways to get convicted felons OUT of prison.

The American prison population has soared with more and more convicted criminals being sentenced to very long mandatory sentences or even to life without possibility of parole, frequently for multiple (but often nonviolent) offences.

If the goal is to remove individuals (mostly male) from society until they are less likely to commit VIOLENT and aggressive crime, ought we to think about other ways to reduce aggression? Studies of the results of animal castration over the past four or five MILLENIA have demonstrated that it is STATISTICALLY able to reduce aggression. Not all those castrated become less aggressive, but most do. Several members of this Board have attested to the "eunuch calm" which they attained.

Should those sentenced to long prison terms to keep them out of society until they are too old to be a menace to society have the option to elect castration and early release? They are being kept in prison until their testosterone levels fall low enough to reduce their aggression. Might this be offered to them surgically? Could it be called "cruel and unusual" if it was not required, but merely offered as an alternative to long term or lifetime imprisonment.

In other words, would a "castrate and release" program be more or less humane than what we currently do to convicted criminals?

Get your javelins out! We should have some fun with this debate. Don't feel you have to give your real opinion. I'm certainly willing to say whatever leads the debate in an interesting direction whether I believe it or not.

I think surgical castration and then a year in prison to make sure all hormons have left the body is in order. Make it so this new eunuch can not get HRT legally.

For sex crimes add the penectomy.

I also think spankings with a nice leather strop or paddle on the bare butt for children should be used for minor crimes they do. It would hopfully keep them from doing the big crimes that would cause a boy to loose his bits.

OK, Jesus, you're right -- it's better to discuss this in its own thread. It also gives us a chance to get into some more detail.

Here's my take on the "solutions" you listed:

1. Retribution: It's great for the victims and/or their families, as they get a sense of vindication out of it, but does it change the perpetrator any, does it make him any less likely to do it again? Will a man without a conscience suddenly develop one if he's beaten regularly, or will he at least be cowed into submission?

Personally, short of beating such offenders beyond what any civilized society will tolerate, I rather doubt either will happen, and indeed, revenge may only beget more violence. If a perp sees nothing wrong with what he did, if he feels entitled to whatever gratification he derived from his act, he will only see the pain as an unwarranted and unfair denial of his birthright. The only way such men are suppressed is to make them fear for their very lives, and I don't think we're prepared to do that.

Neither are we prepared to castrate violent men, and indeed are constitutionally enjoined from doing so. Men may be the largest pool of violent offenders (though women have been trying like hell to catch up lately), but what shall we do with violent women? The 14th Amendment is quite specific, in that punishments cannot be reserved solely for any one segment of the population, so legally, we cannot castrate male offenders unless we do the same to females, which is impossible, or, considering that hysterectomy can be performed, is ineffective, and probably violative of the 8th Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

In other words, retribution is not an option.

2. Rehabilitation: This very humane and well-intended approach has had some limited success, albeit generally only with those predisposed to such methods, i.e., someone raised and inculcated with a set of values consistent with an orderly society. Among violent offenders, such people are relatively few. Among the rest, we have yet to learn how to get through to them in any consistent fashion. Yes, some do find the self-respect that allows them to shed a life of crime and become productive citizens, but we remain far from any sort of consistently successful rehabilitative solution. It's a good start, but as I shall explain later, is too often an attempt to throw water on the fire after the barn has already burned to the ground.

3. Removal: If ever there were a case of a good idea stupidly executed, this is it. Now mind you, I don't think it's a good idea as a cure, only as an interim solution, until we succeed in doing what's really needed. The problem is that we allowed the lingering prohibitionists to con us into using three strikes laws to impose long-term jail sentences on minor drug offenders (current drug policy is another absolutely idiotic aspect of U.S. law, but that's another thread). As a result, the jails are crowded to overflowing, and we are placing many otherwise good and productive people in with violent and vicious criminal offenders. And the attitude often rubs off. Get the simple drug users out of prisons and into rehab or medical maintenance programs, and long prison entences for violent offenders becomes a viable short-term alternative.

4. Castration: Putting aside the constitutional issues for the moment, let's examine the ethics of such a requirement. Putting aside the politics of the aboriton issue for the moment, ask yourself, were abortion still illegal, would you advocate or accept mandatory hysterectomies for women who have had multiple abortions? I rather doubt anyone would stand for that. Why then, should castration be an acceptable punishment for men?

See, my whole problem here is the underlying presumption that testosterone is "the problem", that maleness itself is somehow evil, or at least "bad" and destructive. It is none of those. Yes, T creates aggressive impulses, but those impulses, channeled constructively, have given us civilization and the technological marvels we so take for granted. Aggression in and of itself is not bad; it's what we choose to do with it that can be. But if we choose instead to destroy maleness itself, then we choose to destroy civilization, because without male aggressiveness, without the energy that sexual tension generates, I dare say we would still be living in grass huts. Cut off your own nuts if you want to, if you believe it will help you to deal with forces you don't feel up to the task of controlling, but please, leave the rest of the men out there alone to decide for themselves. After all, is'nt choice what it's all about?

It seems to me we have to stop fighting nature, and instead learn to better adapt to it. In my humble opinion, the reason violent crime is such a problem today is not because of our male hormones, but rather because we have taken fathering out of the equation, and have become largely a matriarchal culture. Mothers are fine as far as dealing with young children, but they lack one very important capability: that of instilling a sense of self discipline and self control. They fail in this regard because on average, they simply do not have the physical attributes to make what they say stick.

Because of the welfare society that forces men out of the household, we have created a generation of young, aggressive males in our inner cities who have no idea what being a man is, no sense of how their actions affect others, and no idea how to control and direct their aggression. So they imitate the movies and develop an overly macho persona that carries an utter disregard for others, i.e., they become the perfect predator.

Once such a predator is created, once his values and attitudes have been formed and solidified, no amount of punishment or rehabilitation is likely to have any effect on him. Castration might make him more docile and appear to solve the problem in his case, but it isn't a social solution. As long as we insist that it's perfectly OK to raise boys in fatherless homes, we will only create more predators to take his place, and will in the process have reduced men to the status of second-class citizens. I do not, and cannot, accept that.

It seems to me that the place to start is in the home, and in the values we teach our children, and the behaviors we as a society will tolerate of parents. First and foremost, we must re-establish the stigma associated with a woman raising a child alone -- not necessarily to stigmatize the fact of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but to make it abundantly clear that we consider to be reprehensible any decision to cheat her child of the opportunity to have a two-parent upbringing. Young girls have to come to understand that if they feel unloved, having a baby is not the way to solve that problem.

Accomplish that, and there ultimately won't be any need to consider such draconian measures as the forced mutilation and mass disenfranchisement of men as solutions to a perfectly understandable and easily solvable social problem.

Firstly I wish to compliment Jesus for his incisive and stimulating contributions to the board, being objective in his approach overall. I however, am applying a subjective response to this thread, which I do not expect to auger a positive response in return. So readers, you are entitled to castigate (not castrate) me in return.

I mostly agree with Radar's sentiments as set out above, with the following variations:=

1. Castration will not be effective whilst Depo Testosterone is reasonably and easily and cheaply available. A small dose of approximately 2 mill per month, will supply the average castrate with enough sexual and aggression drive, no different from the non castrate. Even chemical castration can be chemically counteracted, and in any event is of short duration.

2. I personally believe in the death penalty for rape, pre-meditated murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, killing of law enforcement officers (whether intentional or not), drug pedalling, political terrorism and pre-meditated assault with the intention of doing grieveous bodily harm. Since most serious crimes are a once off situation, I cannot see where castration can even be considered as being a solution. (Serial killers, psychopaths, and assasins, for example, form a very small percentage of the criminal population. Even for most rapist convicted, it was a once off situation). I furthermore believe in the re-habilitation of the petty criminal and other criminals not listed above. For those listed above, I believe that society is entitled to the revenge (or avenge) aspect of retribution, being the death penalty.

3. At the end of the day, as far as the common (or petty criminal) is concerned, the state has a duty to look to its own social reforms, whereby it implements strategies whereby everyone is able to get gainful employment as being a major deterent for petty theft and petty crimes.

As Groot points out, testosterone is very easy to get hold of. I'd say it is as easy as any other street drug, like marjuana. I've got at least four friends I can phone up at any time to get testosterone or other steroid variants.

Therefore, forced or mandatory castration of criminals will not work for those who don't want it, since they can restore their testosteron easily. It'd be like putting people in a prison where keys to unlock the cells are readily available.

However, for those criminals who are driven by physical urges of sexuality and violence AND who understand that testosterone is a significant contributing component, should certainly be allowed to be surgically castrated at society's expense, because it really can cure some sexual predators. But only VOLUNTARY castration will work, and only as a cure (not a punishment).

The fear of a painful castration would be a good deturant. and what if castrations were made public? The humilation of being castrated on TV would also be a good deturant.

Most first time offenders should have a chance at going stright but second and thrid time they should have public castrations and hangings. I belive that life sentences are cruel and unusal prusntment.

Oh my spelling is huble

The legal system is not really about deterrant. Most crimes are commited by people who either don't think they will be caught, or who are caught up in the moment and are not thinking about possible consequences.

If you murder someone, it is usually because you are really mad at the moment. You don't think "I shouldn't kill this person because I might be put in jail", you simply think "I want to kill this person".

Also, the punishment may actually encourage some people. I for one, would like to be castrated, so if I have to rape someone before society will allow me to be castrated, then it will actually encourage me. This message board, and other clubs on the Internet, are full of guys who'd LIKE to be publicly castrated and/or humiliated so I think there'd be a problem of people doing crime just to get this "punishment".

So I don't think castration, or any punishment, should be considered a deterrant. People who commit crimes just don't think about consequences, and furthermore there may even be people who want the punishment.

Radar,

A very nice and thoughtful response. I even agree with most of what you write. I'll go over our points of general agreement first and get to the spear-chucking at the end of my post. I will also get to the other respondants in a later post. All three raise some interesting issues that I need to think a bit more about.

First, I agree that our DEFINITION of "crime" needs to be addressed as a first step toward reducing the problem. I have argued for more years than most readers of the Archives have been alive that a "victimless" crime is, by definition, not a crime. Hurting oneself is not criminal behavior. Stupid maybe, but not criminal.

Prohibition led to the rise of organized crime and an increase in violence in American life. Drug laws have led to a dramatic increase in organized crime and a quantum jump in the violence involved. I have lobbied for years for change in our drug laws. They should not be illegal, but need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of children who are not yet capable of making decisions on their use. I would also argue that tobacco and alcohol are very much over-regulated. And I do this despite being highly allergic to tobacco and marijuana smoke. Enough so that as a student in the 1960s I was unable to attend concerts or large parties because of my allergies. With modern antihistamines I still need to choose my venues carefully.

We have known how dangerous tobacco is for over a century. If anyone chooses to use it for the pleasure it brings, that is his or her own choice and, if old enough to make a reasoned decision, should not be regulated. I believe in the Darwin Awards. If someone makes a stupid decision that removes him or her from the gene pool, that is probably a benefit for all of humanity.

I generally agree, too, with your analysis of the social production of much of criminal behavior. I've been actively lobbying on this for over 30 years. (Less time than I've spent on drug and alcohol legislation.) If we can ever get a concerted action by society to work on education, family life, values, etc. we will be able to make a serious dent in criminal behavior. Optimistically, it will take at least a couple of generations, however, to make a real difference.

You mention "matriarchal culture," "welfare society," and lack of fathering as major vectors. There are certainly others which are important as well. Certainly an income structure which leaves some who are employed full-time in poverty needs to be addressed. The educational system needs serious revision. I would argue that over-population has already become a problem, and it likely to get far worse. I'm sure that we could both come up with a number of other areas which need to be addressed if we are to reduce criminal behavior.

We will, however, still be faced with some criminal behavior. No matter what we do, there will still be embezzlement, burglary, and murder. For the generations required to eliminate most socially produced crime, we will still need to deal with criminals. How are we to handle this problem?

Removal from society is the only 100% certain way to eliminate recidivism. Life imprisonment and execution are the only sure ways to prevent criminals from more crime. I've worked for years against the death penalty. I consider it to be "state-sponsored murder." It is inhumane and is irreversible in case of error. (And there have certainly been many more errors than the state is willing to admit!)

If life imprisonment is the only 100% sure thing, what alternatives are statistically strong enough to be considered?

Rehabilitation works for some. The statistics are not encouraging but, then again, it has never been done to the extent possible. We have never been willing to put the time or resources really needed into any rehabilitation program. However, it probably only potentially works WELL for the same group that would be prevented from criminal behavior by social efforts. There will be an irreducible core, increasing in percentage (though falling in absolute numbers) were we to actually begin the social efforts which we agree are needed, which will not be amenable to rehabilitation.

Cross-cultural studies demonstrate that MOST crime (and especially most violent crime) is committed by males. Experiments show that females are more likely to respond well to rehabilitation. I believe that an all-out effort to reduce crime through social and education means would eliminate most female crime and the remaining female criminals would mostly be amenable to rehabilitation. This would leave us with a small, but mostly irreducible, core of mostly male offenders. What else do we experiment with?

This is where castration was proposed as a possibility. I agree that, for those capable of producing testosterone, the level changes according to social situation. Testosterone is not the ONLY factor involved in aggressive behavior, but it is certainly an important factor. This is most clearly shown through animal analogues, but there is ample anecdotal evidence for humans as well. The eunuchs famed for military prowess (such as Narses) were strategists, not involved in hand-to-hand combat.

We certainly need to improve efforts at rehabilitation. Should we ALSO allow convicted criminals to elect castration as a way to obtain release from prison?

California already allows convicted pedophiles to elect castration (at their own expense and not using a surgeon connected with the prison system) and to consider that, together with rehabilitation efforts, in determining parole. Because of the difficulties imposed, I know of only two men who have managed to obtain castration. Only one has been released so far. This is far too small a sample to provide any evidence of success or failure of the program.

Should the experiment be continued? Should it be made simpler for convicted pedophiles to elect castration? Should choice to elect castration be expanded to those convicted of other crimes? Is it more or less humane to allow someone to chose to be castrated in hopes of being released from prison?

Your turn for spear-throwing....

I think it should be easier for anyone to get voluntary castration! Why should I have to spend 20 years of my life tempted to rape and sexually assault every woman I see because of my physical urges. Those of us with high libido want a rest, and know that castration can help us. Why does society want to wait until we break our willpower and commit a crime before they help us?

Well, friends this response has no humor to be misinterpreted. I'm really kind of stunned and disappointed at all of your "vigilante" mentality.

God, I can just see the lot of you, armed with pitch forks, hoes (the garden kind, mother), and various sharply pointed instruments, torch in your other hand, storming the castle , once and for all, to rid the peaceful counry side of Frankenstein's child.

This of course, being fueled by Jesus's veiled, gross generalizations presented as esoteric, academic, white washed, fact! No elaboration as to why his individuals must suffer life imprisonment, or any attempt to see if the crime truly deserves the punishment.

(Don't confuse him with facts, folks, he writes like he knows what he's talking about so let's just jump to the meat of the post and cut it, snip it, or just rip it off that hot, sweaty, testosterone engorged, massively built, wife beating, queer bashing, pedophilic inmate who may or may not even come close to deserving such speculation.

What do we care? He deserves it or he wouldn't be there! Besides, we have needs and rights too and the very idea of it keeps our dicks dripping for hours. Then if we get enough people to agree with us, light torches, storm the Castle, then we become a majority and have our little fantasies validated. It becomes our civic duty to act as self appointed judges of such inequities in our penal system. (Mob mentality, what's that?)

Ah, then gun slinger Eric, shoots from the hip without bothering to see if his target is friend or foe! Born a hundred years too late, Son! (However, the next time I'm forming a posse to get the bad guys, if I'm sure there is one, you'll be the first I'll call to saddle up.) I know I can count on you to shoot first and ask questions later. (Kill 'em all!! Let God sort 'em out!)

Okay, I lied in the first sentence! Here's the humor in all this! For all my years of trying to figure out mankind through therapy and study, I never cease to be amamzed that the folks that should be the most understanding, liberal persons striving to become lights of reason (especially due to their rather exotic taste in fantasy fiction) develop some of the most inflexible, off the wall, fascist, police state ideas to pump up their own diminished egos with a bit of "let's play like" titillation. (Hey, guys! Wouldn't it be great if we could have public castrations and penectomys.....and I know just the group to pick on!! Come on, let's get 'em.......!)

If the poor son's of bitches are in the slammer for life, what the hell do you care about their aggressivness. If they're locked away for life (justifiably or not!) then I dare say society has already, symbolically castrated them.

"I know!!" you say. "But, I can just taste the blood and I hate to waste this boner, couldn't we just do a couple for sport? Come on, Waddie, we'll let you cut the first one!"

Hummm....what movie about the sixties just before the civil rights movement in the south does that remind me of?

Jesus states his arguments as gospel! (I liked the analogy.....so what?!) >>>>

JesusA wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 4:57 am Just read the editorials and letters to the editor about the appropriate fate of ?

terrorists.? Making prison life ?unpleasant,?

JesusA wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 4:57 am if not physically painful, is certainly widely discussed.

<<<<<

While it's true, that our county is reeling in righteous indignatiion and anger at the temerity of these barbaric, religious fanatic, camel jockeys,

JesusA wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 4:57 am the editorials and letters to the editor

must be taken in the context of the moment. I have a deep abiding faith in our country to realize that "this too shall pass"! The American people love to forgive! (And, I might add, that I am proud of our country's ability to lick it's wounds, turn the other cheek, and in most case offer comfort and succor to the defeated.)

As far as discussion to make prison life unpleasant and physically painful being "widely" discussed? (Note: The key word here is

"widely"! It doesn't leave room for footnotes.) That considered, it just simply isn't true, folks! I challenge Jesus to post his sources! (Perhaps he's discussing it with a fat lady?)

>>>>>

JesusA wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 4:57 am The American prison population has soared with more and more convicted criminals being sentenced to very long mandatory sentences or even to life without possibility of parole, frequently for multiple (but often nonviolent) offences.

<<<<<<

"And, why is that, Jesus?" I ask rhetorically. Why didn't you present the " 3 strike" law that is the exact reason for the soaring prison population? You didn't go far enough in your expanation to add that the majority of these life sentences are for "third strike offenders of nonviolent, victimless crimes." Up to ninty percent! ( And, I have the resources to back that statement up!)

Skimmed over that, didn't you? Don't present the total picture, lets get to the part that makes me old dick hard! The funny thing is (and

I hate to admit it!) I understand where you're coming from! I find your method of sheep herding so damnably funny that I can't be angry with you! A bit disappointed that your intelligence isn't put to better use but hey, it's your string of pearls!

This line immediately follows the above quoted line:>>>>>

JesusA wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 4:57 am If the goal is to remove individuals (mostly male) from society until they are less likely to commit VIOLENT and aggressive crime, ought we to think about other ways to reduce aggression

<<<<<<<

I laughed my ass off at the 'apples and oranges' flip-flop from the previous skimming over "but often nonviolent" to the next line that

suggests that they're all VIOLENT, aggressive, men! (Let's make that one big, all caps, so maybe they'll forget the previous line!)

Last, but not least:>>>>>

JesusA wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 4:57 am California is currently discussing ways to get convicted felons OUT of prison.

<<<<<<

Uhhh! Could we have a little elaboration, there? True story. Man steals a bicycle from a Western Auto store for his little girl for her birthday. He's unemployed, flat broke, no welfare and can't borrow from friends or family. He already had two other minor harges on his record and this was the third. Mandatory sentence? Life in prison, without parole!! You say it isn't so? Well, I beg to differ. Was on 20/20 two weeks ago.

Now, Marshal Eric, should we remove his manhood in private or should we make a public example of such VIOLENT vermin?

(Violent Vermin? Wasn't she a character in one of Tennessee Williams' plays....?)

Maybe we could get a spot on Fox! (another splendid suggestion from Eric.) Hell, they'll buy anything; especially, if we neuter his two sons at the same time, so's they won't be able to propagate his kind! We'll call it, "The Sin's of The Father!". Them boys won't be jumping back into the gene pool any time soon!

Just when I was about to take my double jack to my 'electro-willie-gates' muttering to myself of disbeliefs, the dark Wagnerian clouds parted 'mit storm und drung' and a small glimmer of light came shinning through.........I read Radar's post!

I kept waiting for him to chuck it all for the gratuitous. I was delightfully surprised! I have new hope!

Well done, Lad! (Perhaps an understatment will impress you more of my sincerity than flatulent praise?)

Consider the above as gentle reminder that if you're going to call yourself a "provocateur", perhaps, you shouldn't borrow your clothes from the Emperor? Read Radar's post and take it to heart! His words cloth him with substance. His is a voice of reason.

For reference to my statements above please refer to this Sunday's (01/06/02 ) Los Angeles Times Editorial section to an article by Sasha Abramsky, "A Bad Law With No Reforms in Sight". Recounts the story of Billy Ochoa who was convicted of shop ifting $153 dollars of video tapes. Because of several other minor offense convictions, none involving an individual victim, he was sentenced to 326 years in prison by a judge in Los Angeles.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that amount of time was cruel and unsual punishment. However, little has been done to change the law or consider early release for non-violent prisoners. Alabama recently passed a law allowing nonviolent inmates who had been sentenced to life under that state's habitual-offender statute to be released early through parole hearings. Unfortunately, contrary to Jesus's post, there have been no talks in California toward that end! California Secretary of State Bill Jones continues to defend this stupid law and has a strong, active political base to supprot his position.

Well, let's see......did I step on everyone's toes equally? Is there anyone I missed taking a 'pot shot' at? Did I achieve an equal opportunity rant? Is there anyone out there that I haven't offended? Or, if you're simply miffed that I didn't include you, e-mail me and I'll put you at the top of the list for my next number.

Remember, life's a banquet! Don't come late to the feast!

Master Waddie

Thank you for the insults of my own thoughts MW.

I used to feel safe being able to speak my mind here.

Sigh .......

What is a person to do?

This is a castration website and discussion of the topic of crime in that framework is understandable, expected, and encouraged.

Master Waddie has written an impassioned defense of personal rights and social justice for which he should be proud.

Jesus is a valued contributor to the Archive in many, many ways and is a brilliant and well respected academic with professional publishing credits.

Erik is one of the Archive's more prolific and popular authors.

Every one has, I am sure, the best of intentions in this particularly spirited debate. However I must implore everyone to take a DEEP breath and a step back and realize that debate and discussiom must not be allowed to interfere with the respect, if not friendships, developed here and which are so important to a vital and healthy community.

Eric~

I refuse to play that game, Son! I had hoped you'd learn something about

the seriousness of people that find themselves in that position. I doubt seriously that my post has made you fearful. Perhaps it will cause you to make sure your brain is running before you put your mouth in gear.

If you're unhappy with my post, write a rebuttal! I'd rather read a rant than

your wounded duck routine!

Master Waddie

SplitDick (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2002 3:26 am As Groot points out, testosterone is very easy to get hold of. I'd say it is as easy as any other street drug, like marjuana. I've got at least four friends I can phone up at any time to get testosterone or other steroid variants.

Therefore, forced or mandatory castration of criminals will not work for those who don't want it, since they can restore their testosteron

e easily..............

........

SplitDick (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2002 3:26 am only VOLUNTARY castration will work, and only as a cure (not a punishment).

I'm not sure that this sort of scheme is a good idea, here are a couple of points that have not been mentioned ..... yet

One of the things I can easily see happening IF castration was to be offered as suggested is the availability of Testosterone for EVERYONE would be made much more difficult. For those NOT involved in these suggested castration as a solution schemes this could be disasterous..

I will give an example of something that happened here in Australia recently because of Sydney hosting the Olympics. Because the natural version of T is not able to be detected by testing (you can check the level but not trace the source), prescriptions for Testosterone were placed onto what is known as an Authority pescription.... you had to have your doctor obtain permission from the health department before being able to get a pescription. The effect this had on the Female to Male transsexuals was dramatic, a lot of them could no longer obtain pescriptions for Testosterone as the health dept had them listed as female and females should not be taking T.

As I have not been able to get any sort of Eunuch community together here, I have been unable to find out if this change in the pescription requirements had a similar effect on Eunuchs. (I do not take T, I am taking female hormones because I am a post-op Male to Female transsexual, as most of you would already be aware).

The restricting of T was to make it more difficult for the athletes to get it. Imagine how tight the restrictions would likely be if they were trying to keep T away from criminals....

The point I am trying to make here is, if you set up a situation where the availability of Testosterone could be restricted so as to keep it away from people that *should not have it*, you also make it more difficult for those that *should be able* to obtain the drug to get it.



Another thing that springs to mind for me is, if you end up with a situation where it is widely known that offenders are castrated, there will be some people who will then make the connection in the reverse direction..... A castrated person *must* be an offender. You could end up with a situation where the public view of Eunuchs is that of being criminals ( rather worse than the current view of just being weird or sick ).

Why make life more difficult for Eunuchs (and transsexuals)?

Isn't it difficult enough already???

One small comment:

Aside from the whole castration thing, you cannot put people to death for crimes such as rape, theft in any form, assault, etc. Why? Because if the person is going to face the death penalty for rape, why not add murder to the list as well? It's not like the punishment is going to be any worse.

As it stands, the victim is traumatized, but lives. WIth the death penalty, there's absolutely no reason not to kill the victim. The murder rate would go through the roof.

(And anyways, approximately HOW many times more expensive is it to put someone to death than it is to imprison them for life?)

IEunuch.

Franky, you missed my point. The reason I said only VOLUNTARY castration is viable, is because people that get voluntary castration will not want to replace their testosterone. There would be no need to restrict testosterone further.

What will not work is MANDATORY castration, because you would have to make sure they don't replace their testosterone. And it would be pretty much impossible to do so. The testosterone I get from friends is usually Russian in origin, so no amount of goverment restriction on prescription testosterone would help restrict access.

Frankie, you said:

"Sex crimes aren't about sex. They're about power. "

I believe that this is the biggest misunderstanding our society has made about sex crime, and why sex crime seems like such a perplexing problem to solve.

First of all the drive for power IS sex related. Everyone knows how male dogs vie to be head of the pack. The same is true at any night club -- there are fights afterwards by young guys seeking to be dominant. We are not so different from animals. Men in general like to physically dominate others -- it is obvious from our sports (football, boxing, hockey, lacrosse, etc.). And that desire to dominate is testosterone driven.

Secondly, many men have strong sexual urges starting at the age of about 11 (for me it was 9). However, we have no acceptable outlet for those urges until about 10 years later, IF we are lucky enough to find a woman who is open to us sexually. If you happen to be ugly, shy, poor, socially unusual, etc. you may never find a woman who will want to be sexual with you. Masturbation is not really an option, because most kids are taught that it is wrong, or are shamed from doing it. Even if you are not ashamed to masturbate, masturbation is a pale substitute for real sex -- you'll still yearn for a woman. Even if you find a good woman, she probably won't want sex three times a day like you want to. So many (most) men spend at LEAST 10 years of sexual frustration. In that time, they views on sexuality will be warped (by the frustration). That is a recipe for sexual predation. A rapist will certainly be seeking "power", but only to try to compensate for SEXUAL frustration.

Thirdly, I think society wants to think that humans are not as animalistic as they are. It is a mistake for us to ignore the animalistic, physical basis for some of our urges. Humans are not as rational as we want to be. The idea of deterrants is simply not a factor in criminal behavior.

Lastly, feminism has political reasons for saying rape is not about sex/testosterone. There are two reasons they do so. The first is because in the old days the laws against rape were lax because people thought the man couldn't help himself (ie. testosterone was an excuse). Secondly, feminists did not want to admit that men had something they didn't -- testosterone.

In the end, my claim is that sexual predation has a very simple root -- sexual frustration in men due to strong testosterone drives that are not given proper outlet (or rechanneling) during adolescence.

I suggest that anyone with a young son teaches them about healthy sexuality, including releasing frustration through moderate masturbation.

For those who have become sexual predators, I strongly believe that castration can help them IF their testosterone physical drive is still strong. Note that there are other sexual predators whose drive may no longer be strong, but years of warped views on sexuality have seriously compromised their psychology. I don't know if they can be helped.

EDITORIAL NOTE:

This thread was designed to be incendiary, though I'm glad that the oil that Bboy tried to pour on the waters didn't catch fire. The discussion has been quite civil given the topic and the responses have been thoughtful and well presented.

The Archive is primarily centered on the Story Board, with far fewer hits on the Message Boards - which I prefer to read because of the real and very interesting people involved. The Story Board is all fictional. One frequent story theme involves the castration of children. However, whenever there is the slightest whiff of the remote possibility that any child might actually be castrated, this board erupts in indignation and anger. The distinction between fiction and reality is clear.

Another frequent story type involves the castration of prisoners or criminals. This is rare, but not unknown in public debate about criminal justice. My local newspaper (owned by unreconstructed troglodytes) has been running a series of letters - pro and con - on the mandatory castration of rapists. (I haven't even contributed to the extended series; all published letters in which are over female names).

I have long been concerned about excessive punishment for minor offenses. Long time readers of the Archive will recognize my concern with life imprisonment of (too frequently) ethnic minority non-violent offenders or of those who have committed "victimless crimes." I have written on this topic in a number of venues well beyond the Archive. (Master Waddie and I probably agree far more often than either of us would probably care to admit - we couldn't have as much fun arguing. I also reserve the right to say whatever gets the most interesting response!)

This thread was designed to question the topic of so many of the pieces of fiction posted here. Given the response, I'm pleased to be associated with all of you. Even some of the very short and perfunctory pieces I know to be based on more thoughtful analysis. For example, Erik and I have corresponded quite a bit on related topics. I know how much lay behind his two lines. (He's just out of a long hospital stay, and I'm surprised and pleased that he found time to reply at all.)

This is a great group of people, and feel free to go on with the debate. I may even contribute something to keep the torches lit. Just try not to pour boiling oil on anyone.

and have never had sex. I haven't fantasized about raping someone either!

BBoy, you said:

"I am 30 ...

Bboy wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2002 4:13 am and have never had sex. I haven't fantasized about raping someone either!

"

But you are also the archivist for a Eunuch message board. I don't think that you represent a statistical male "norm". Note that is not meant as a criticism at all -- I like you and respect your orientation and interests.

When talking about society (and controlling society through a legal system) you have to do some generalization. So I am generalizing about a major segment of the male population. Perhaps some of you here may not be involved in the "typical" male, macho world. However, I am still very plugged into that. I hang out with many guys whose sole goal in life is to get laid. We fight, we do crime, and we chase and coerce women. We're not alone -- there is a very large segment of the male population that is involved in this. If you don't believe me, just look at the proliferation of strip clubs, escort services, etc. in any big city. And of course porn on the net.

While there simply is little or no market for selling sex to women, there is a HUGE, HUGE market for selling sex to men. That CANNOT just be socialization at work -- there must be a strong physical drive at work. What makes men pay $1000/night for sex while risking being put in jail and risking getting AIDS or other diseases? Simple: physical urges based on testosterone.

I know that for some who had low libido all their life may not understand it. But those like me who have had a high libido all my life, and have immersed myself in the seedier side of city life, know very well the power of testosterone on the "average" young hetero male. It makes them override their otherwise reasonable thought process to take unreasonable risks and create unreasonable harm to others.

Lastly, I feel I am an expert on this because me and my friends have also used a lot of steroids. It is very obvious to us that we get roid rage (more agressive) and more horny whenever we have high levels of testosterone.

Why do so many people object to viewing humans as animals driven by physical drives? Once you start thinking that way, then violence is not so perplexing and society's ills are easy to understand.

I do not mean that every person born with a penis will be a sex maniac, but I do stand by my claim that the "average" guy goes through adolescence as sex maniac. The question then is what that period does to form the psyche of that person, and which ones will become sexual predators.

What the above responses to this thread proves to me is that there is no real correct or final solution to the criminal problems enumerated above. There were suggestions, for example, ranging from the death penalty, castration, long term imprisonment, banishment, making life in prison unbearable, etc.

The mere fact that there are different forms of democratic governments, some with constitutions (legal states) such as the USA and France (republics), and others such as Britain (a monarchy) who see no need for a constitution, (yet each in their own way (in spite of many, from my point of view, trivial failings) succeed in what they are doing. So too the various legal systems also with varying methods, try to tackle the same problems without really having the right answers, ranging from the varying social justice systems of the Western countries to the Sharia system (shocking to Westerners) in the Middle East. To a large extent the legal system reflects the cultural consent of the majority in the country concerned.

Then also, in spite of an attempt by contributors to this thread to approach the subject objectively, almost all eventually let their personal feelings on how to treat certain criminality get the better of them. Which goes to show that we as contributors to this thread also don't have the answers, discussions then being only academic, with no chance chance of infuencing the decisions of the legal authorities.

Adding spice to the discussion. Lets take RAPE as an example. Here in South Africa where I live we have over the past six months had a spate of rapes of babies, some as young as a few weeks old, by adult men. (The news media reporting thereon almost on a weekly basis of a new case). Some of the indiginous people have been recommended a cure for AIDS by their witch doctors, that it will go away if they rape a virgin, resulting in a number of HIV positive fathers raping their young daughters.

Our constitution says that everyone has a "right to life" (which does not apply to the legally aborted baby, as the mother has the right to choose her abortion). Ironically, invariably the protagonists of the abolition of the death penalty are also the protagonists of legal abortion. Hence the death penalty has been abolished, and in spite of the clamour by the majority of the people of this country for its re-introduction, the constitution precludes the government from being able to do so. So what happens now. The populace in pure frustration take the law into their own hands (happening quite often) and wreak their own vengeance. Only a month ago in Sebokeng, a rapist awaiting trial (why he was not in prison, I don't know), was taken by a group of furious women in the community, held down, tied a length of wire around his genitals, and dragged him through the streets until his genitals parted from his body. When the paramedics arrived they were stoned in their attempt to rescue him. This man died as few hours later of his wounds in the local hospital.

What say you to this?

Daniel (imported) wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2002 12:15 pm This man died as few hours later of his wounds in the local hospital.

What say you to this?

I'd say that he should have considered this fate BEFORE he raped the woman. Then again, he was probably temporarily insane from high testosterone levels and lack of good consensual sex and burning to dominate someone ... right ... sure he was. Probably totally innocent, in fact.

Perhaps if he'd been DISCIPLINED better when he was a kid, but oh well ...

Digressing from the main theme of this thread. Split Dick above mentions his personal "roid rage" in the use (abuse) of testosterone and androgens as a healthy sexual male. I too did so when I was young, from about the age of 25 (I am now 58) with the following consequenses:

1. By the time I was 43, my testicles shut down PERMANENTLY (ie. Produced only a miniscule amount of testosterone). I am now crucified to artificial testosterone to my regret.

2. I have normal erections, normal sex drive, but the sexuality is from my point of view dissapointing = because:

2:1 in order to achieve an orgasm, I must work hard at it, and then most times because of the effort, the result is weak and dissapointing. (Many times I just give up trying to achieve an orgasm, in spite of retaining my erection)

2:3 The ejaculate volume is very small and has little force out of the penis (dribbling out)

2:4 My doctor ascribes my enlarged prostrate (benign) to my former abuse in the use (abuse) of androgens in my younger years. As a result, to urinate has also become a tedious job.

My experience will not necessarily affect others abusing androgens as it did me,

but for those persons who want to dabble with hormones without a medical

practitioner's guidance, BEWARE. You will in all probability regret it in later

life.

I really cannot relate to people who rape.

I mean, after all, rape is one of the most selfish things that one human being can do to another human being.

Rapists have one motive and that is to serve themselves. I think that there about as many excuses for raping another as there are rapists. Each is unique in their own way and the one thing that stands out is the rapists utter lack of empathy for their victim.

We cannot cure the problem by castrating rapists. Neither can the problem be cured by rehabilitation. The only way to address the problem is to make sure that we instill in everyone either an empathy or even a respect for other fellow humans.

Until this is done rapes will continue. Both as a sexual outlet and as a crime or exerting power over another. Rapists who kill their victims are by far the worst ones. These people truly deserve execution.

A-1