men found guilty of sex crimes be chemically castrated

[dimpy.handa]

There would be no such benefit. The proposition has admitted that witch hunts take place over sexual offenders, and these are by definition not motivated by rational considerations. Castration would not end public anxiety; just as declaring a mass murderer rehabilitated would not put his neighbours at ease. Also, the prison violence, and indeed other violence, is not so much motivated by a fear of re-offence as by the desire to punish further for the original crime. Castration would not help under these circumstances. It is an unproven and unsubtle method that deserves no place in a modern penal system.

 

[dimpy.handa]

Yes, but it depends on the crime and the criminal, because of the potential to wrongfully accuse someone.Chemical castration should only be used when it is proven that the person is a repeat offender. I do not feel that it is applicable to first-time offenders, because we do have an error rate in finding people guilty of crimes they may have not committed. But I am all for it if the person is a repeat offender

 

[swatiraohnlu]

Castration violates due process and eliminates possibility of redress. If an individual is falsely accused and convicted of a sexual offense, is castrated, and then later is found to be innocent through, say, DNA evidence, the state cannot appropriately compensate the individual for their wrongful conviction and castration.

 

[dimpy.handa]

In some instance, I think that men that are found guilty of sex crimes should be castrated. For the most heinous sexual crimes committed by men, the punishment should be chemical castration. If the court finds the crime heinous, by a set of guidelines already decided, the punishment should be chemical castration. Added to that, if the man is a repeat offender, he should also be castrated, regardless of the degree of the crime.