The BBC reports that Poland has now passed legislation making it obligatory to chemically castrate certain sex offenders. The law has been in the making since Poland had their own Fritzl case, back in 2008 (see the TimesOnline for that).
When I read “chemical castration” I was immediately reminded of the recent UK apology to Alan Turing, and wondered briefly whether the Polish government would have to apologise for driving a person to suicide in the coming century. But then I read the article and learnt it’s meant for pedophiles and rapists etc. hence entirely different, or so I think.
The Dutch have the dubitable honour to have the only political single issue pedophile party in the world, which caused quite some worldwide uproar back in 2006. However, because of them I learned of the flabbergasting argument that since homosexuality used to be illegal and is now accepted, obviously that is the way it will go with pedophilia as well. It is just a matter of time.
I see some flaws in the parallel. But nevertheless, despite my almost unreasonal abhorrence of child molesting, I think obligatory chemically castrating of offenders goes too far.
Feminist Philosophers 
I think there is something instinctively horrible about the idea of castration, even if it’s reversible (is this?). But I think it would be really tricky to come up with a good argument for finding it horrible and accepting many of things standardly done to people by the penal system.
As to paedophilia, it’s worth noting that some of the things that get prosecuted as paedophilia– like teenagers texting each other sexual images of themselves, as we’ve discussed here before– certainly don’t seem like they should be prosecuted at all. Though perhaps Dutch law is saner on the definitions.
I don’t know if this law will put an end to pedophilia, but may act as a deterrent. At least one hopes.
Let me echo Jender’s last concern, but with a slight different concern. I don’t know what the definition of paedophilia is going to be, but there is always also the worry about using age in some strict way. You end up with there being a one or two day difference between being a paedophile or not. That might not be too bad if there’s leeway in sentencing to time in prison (which there may not be), but chemical castration surely requires a bigger difference.
Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, has used words like “degenerate” and “not human” to describe convicted “pedophiles”. This is right out of Hitler’s playbook, and the Poles are following in Hitler’s footsteps. Has anyone considered that people might be wrongfully convicted under this law? What happens to them? Anyone familiar with US history must remember the lynchings of black men in the South who were “convicted” of raping white women and then executed by self-righteous mobs. The same lynch-mob mentality is evident here.
In my opinion surgical castration should be an option for the judge when he or she is trying to determine the best sentence for the sex offender. Or if the sex offender volunteers for surgical castration the judge should have the power to reduce the man’s prison sentence. The permanent removal of the testicles would definitely remove the sexual urges of these offenders.
the scary part is that apparently only one MP voted against the legislation. seriously, everyone else so sure this is the way to go? …urgh. also, Mike, while i (FULLY) appreciate your concern, do spare us the hitler comments, if only because calling someone that is fox news cheap. our PM tries to sound tough for publicity’s sake, since he is considered a bit of a wuss, but that doesn’t mean anyone will be denied a fair trial.
“mike”.. are you retarded? do not ever compare polish people to “hitler” because you will inevitably end up getting to know your rear end a little better.
as for wrongfully accused people.. the law will state that it is for RAPISTS WHO RAPE CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 15… RAPE, NOT SEND TEXT MESSAGES, NOT FLIRT, ETC, ETC. they wouldnt chemically castrate someone for that. what happened during slavery is OLD NEWS. LIKE TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. theres much more technology in order to accuratly convict the right person.
and seriously.. your fighting for the rights of the rapists? what about the rights of victims? being a victim myself, AND being a woman, your ignorant and oblivious ways of thinking have no room to even argue about this topic.
According to my doctor wife, traditional “chemical castration” is always reversible. Arguably the term is a bit of a misnomer, since the surgical kind of castration is, obviously, not. Turing was forced to undergo a series of injections. He committed suicide after two of them. The same treatment is used in some advanced cases of prostate cancer, which slows its growth in the absence testosterone.
One should realize that some sex offenders welcome an intervention which promises to reduce or eliminate their sexual feelings. In many cases these people’s crimes are abhorrent even to themselves, irrespective of the same-sex or opposite-sex nature of the compulsive behavior, which turns them into the most despised of criminals.
Ralph,
I agree…there have been alot of sex offenders that have volunteered to undergo surgical castration just to rid themselves permanently of the sexual urges. But on the other hand there are those convicted sex offenders who refuse to give up their manhood no matter what. That’s why judges should be given more power. If a judge feels that it is necessary to have a sex offender’s “manhood” removed in order to permanently remove his sexual urges, then she should have the option to have him surgically castrated instead of chemically castrated. Either way, the decision should be hers to make and she should have the option to order either one.
Earlier this week Terrence “Colt” Madden was found guilty of multiple rapes in Canada. He has a long history of sex offenses. Previously, he was chemically castrated for some time which according to him controlled his sexual urges. But he quit taking the injections because he couldn’t afford them anymore and then the sexual urges returned and he committed more sex offenses. His attorney, Susan Von Echten, told the court that Colt is willing to undergo surgical castration this time to permanently remove his urges. But before he is surgically castrated she wants him to sit down with a psychiatrist to make sure he “fully appreciates” his decision. In my opinion, it is a good decision on his part. However, I’m not sure if the name “Colt” will fit him after the surgery though.
This is barbaric. I used to be very vocal about castrating and/or killing sex offenders until my son was charged with a minor sex crime with horrible lifelong repercussions.
This has devastated my husband and I and hobbled my once successful son whom I used to feel proud of.
Was your son castrated?
Surgical castration should be mandatory for rape. It is a very safe and simple procedure done at a modest cost with real results. It take less that an hour to complete Chemical castration is expensive and not as effective. Lets not let emotion get in our way of proper treatment. The offenders that have undergone the procedure have gone on record saying that it was both effective and an improvement in their lives. Of course this is secondary to public safety that which is greatly inhanced with the offender agreeing to castration prior to his release. Take that part of the sentenceing out of the judges hands. They all pay a visit to the clinic.