Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

As of now FL, Iowa & CA have it as a rule of Parole along with therapy for convicted pedophiles who's victim was 13 or younger.

The drug has major side effects like bone density disorders, enlarging of the breasts and hips and major physiological and personality disorders like suicidal depression.

That said it allows dangerous reoffenders to parole out and join society with very low chance of reoffending.

What are your thoughts on it being forced on these men?

if it works like you say it works, then yea i say do it

And let it be voluntary AND with an informed decision. Have a third party who represents the interests of the offender/prisoner (like a lawyer) verify that their client is consenting.


Then let them accept the risks/side-effects and continue on.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
As of now FL, Iowa & CA have it as a rule of Parole along with therapy for convicted pedophiles who's victim was 13 or younger.

The drug has major side effects like bone density disorders, enlarging of the breasts and hips and major physiological and personality disorders like suicidal depression.

That said it allows dangerous reoffenders to parole out and join society with very low chance of reoffending.

What are your thoughts on it being forced on these men?

And when people are wrongly convicted.

Originally posted by Knife
And when people are wrongly convicted. it is partially reversible because it doesn't remove the testicles it just cuts libido and T. The loss of T is the danger though but you can get T from GMC.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
it is partially reversible because it doesn't remove the testicles it just cuts libido and T. The loss of T is the danger though but you can get T from GMC.

And that would defeat the purpose of the treatment. Increasing Test. levels, again, would just bring the libido back, again. That's what they are trying to eliminate.

I don't know about forcing it on them, but as a condition of getting paroled? Sure. Unfortunately people who behave this way have shown drastic measures need to be taken if they want to re-enter society.

Forced castration is to severe of a punishment, it can make you kill yourself.

*too, and it's a bit too kind for pedophiles IMO.

I'd rather they castrate the rich.

Forced castration for bankers.

All sexual predators/offenders/rapists/molesters/pederasts should be executed.

Not even joking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And let it be voluntary AND with an informed decision. Have a third party who represents the interests of the offender/prisoner (like a lawyer) verify that their client is consenting.


Then let them accept the risks/side-effects and continue on.

This is the sensible answer

Originally posted by Impediment
All sexual predators/offenders/rapists/molesters/pederasts should be executed.

Not even joking.

This is the not sensible answer.

Though at times I agree with it.

I would be in favor of this if there was evidence that it works, but many offenders are not driven by sexual desire but by aggression, compulsion, sadism, etc.

It would be misguided and dangerous to parole a compulsive or sadistic offender because he is taking drugs to inhibit his sex drive but not his desire to offend.

You guys are ****ing nuts, you support every other type of forgivness and want to chemically castrate someone?

Hell, people say sex changes should be on tax payers dime because it causes suicides, yet this does as well and you approve. Morally perverted when it does not suit your liberal agenda.

Put the person in jail for Gods sake

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You guys are ****ing nuts, you support every other type of forgivness and want to chemically castrate someone?

Hell, people say sex changes should be on tax payers dime because it causes suicides, yet this does as well and you approve. Morally perverted when it does not suit your liberal agenda.

Put the person in jail for Gods sake the way i look at it is basically that they are unfixable through traditional means of rehabilitation. you might convince a gangbabger to be a productive member of society through rehab... but you will never convince a pedo not to want molest kids cause it is a peculiar and irrational crime in the first place. and hey... maybe they are born like this or develop this fetish through sexual stimuli they are exposed to growing up by no choice of their own... but that still leaves us the problem of what to do with them, cause we can't let them free to victimize children. so if chemical castration works then fine...that's a decent solution. if there's not a solution like that available then honestly its pointless locking them up for a few years and then letting them out to commit the same crime again. you might as well just execute them like a previous poster said.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And let it be voluntary AND with an informed decision. Have a third party who represents the interests of the offender/prisoner (like a lawyer) verify that their client is consenting.


Then let them accept the risks/side-effects and continue on.
This is how it pretty much has to be done.

Originally posted by Knife
And when people are wrongly convicted.
And?
No offense but this isnt even a full thought.
More like a "verbal" tick. Just throw this out there every time a subject that deals with prisoner's rights comes up.
This is no different than any other punishment meted out by the judicial system. It had to be approved, it isnt some unsanctioned endeavor.
In this case it also leaves the choice up to the individual.
These people DONT have to do it, they can always just serve their sentences.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You guys are ****ing nuts, you support every other type of forgivness and want to chemically castrate someone?

Hell, people say sex changes should be on tax payers dime because it causes suicides, yet this does as well and you approve. Morally perverted when it does not suit your liberal agenda.

Put the person in jail for Gods sake

I think this is mainly for people who are deemed to be a danger after they have served their time in prison.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You guys are ****ing nuts, you support every other type of forgivness and want to chemically castrate someone?

Hell, people say sex changes should be on tax payers dime because it causes suicides, yet this does as well and you approve. Morally perverted when it does not suit your liberal agenda.

Put the person in jail for Gods sake



I'm with time on this one.

Killing a man or woman for banging a 13 year old....smh

Originally posted by riv6672
This is how it pretty much has to be done.


And?
No offense but this isnt even a full thought.
More like a "verbal" tick. Just throw this out there every time a subject that deals with prisoner's rights comes up.
This is no different than any other punishment meted out by the judicial system. It had to be approved, it isnt some unsanctioned endeavor.
In this case it also leaves the choice up to the individual.
These people DONT have to do it, they can always just serve their sentences.

Of course, it's a full thought. It's the problem most civilized countries that don't have capital punishment have with capital punishment. The US has often killed the innocent by mistake.

it's not that the crime is necessarily deserving of death imo

it's more that if they are actual pedos they are sort of an inherent threat... so it's irresponsible to let them free again imo. maybe the age in question should be lowered to a prepubescent age... when you get into that age range the person in question is more or less guaranteed to be ****ed in the head.

so i guess you could just lock them up for life if that suits you better. personally i think killing them is a little less cruel and more straightforward solution but hey what do i know i'm just a crazy guy on the internet

Originally posted by Impediment
All sexual predators/offenders/rapists/molesters/pederasts should be executed.

Not even joking.


Only murderers deserve death, tbh.

A life for a life.

i guess by that logic then child rapists deserve to be raped instead

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's not that the crime is necessarily deserving of death imo

it's more that if they are actual pedos they are sort of an inherent threat... so it's irresponsible to let them free again imo. maybe the age in question should be lowered to a prepubescent age... when you get into that age range the person in question is more or less guaranteed to be ****ed in the head.

so i guess you could just lock them up for life if that suits you better. personally i think killing them is a little less cruel and more straightforward solution but hey what do i know i'm just a crazy guy on the internet

You can always provide compensation, when you get things wrong to the living. Its never enough but, it gives a life.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i guess by that logic then child rapists deserve to be raped instead

Learn to read.

Originally posted by Trocity
Learn to read. learn to insult.

It wasn't meant to be an insult but it clearly upset you, so....


Success?

Originally posted by Knife
Of course, it's a full thought. It's the problem most civilized countries that don't have capital punishment have with capital punishment. The US has often killed the innocent by mistake.
^^^Thats a full thought.

Originally posted by Knife
And when people are wrongly convicted.
^^^That is not.

Having said that, agree to disagree.
Thinking like yours has never made sense to me. Its like you want life to be gift wrapped for you.
Its not a perfect world. If it were we wouldnt have people on death row to begin with because we wouldnt have murders.

Not trying to derail the topic. Done here.

Originally posted by Trocity
It wasn't meant to be an insult but it clearly upset you, so....


Success? yes, big success my friend. we're all very proud.

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^Thats a full thought.


^^^That is not.

Having said that, agree to disagree.
Thinking like yours has never made sense to me. Its like you want life to be gift wrapped for you.
Its not a perfect world. If it were we wouldnt have people on death row to begin with because we wouldnt have murders.

Not trying to derail the topic. Done here.

No it was initially an inference as I expect a degree of intelligence for anyone involved in a discussion.

You don't get my way of thinking because you believe you don't believe a mistake could happen to you and others are less important to you than vengence.

@red, Glad I could bend you out of shape with a single comment, then.

you really can, man. you got me. your single comment really shook me to my core. it's like who's this internet smart guy over here telling me i can't read? just cause i made fun of his shitty eye for and eye version of justice? i had to be able to read his post to make fun of it like that. i don't think this guy is giving me enough credit, man. i've read several books. including but not limited to the art of the deal by donald trump. so don't come over here telling me i can't read, pal. i didn't serve my country in vietnam so some punk on the internet could question my ability to read.

At least you can admit you're upset

yea. if only everyone on the internet were as honest as me, we could finally have world peace imo

Originally posted by Knife
No it was initially an inference as I expect a degree of intelligence for anyone involved in a discussion.

You don't get my way of thinking because you believe you don't believe a mistake could happen to you and others are less important to you than vengence.
Huh.
Guess i WASNT done.
First: Do you make a habit of putting words in other people's mouths and pretending you're stating facts?
That was rhetorical; you do.
Second: do you drive a car?
Because car accidents kill a LOT of people every year. Your argument against chemical castration is that innocent people get convicted.
Innocent people die in car crashes. To include pedestrians. Are these losses more acceptable to you because you like to drive?
Well, people like to not get raped or molested/murdered.
Are you saying some losses are more acceptable than others based on convenience?
Again, rhetorical.

Notice i'm phrasing all the above as questions. I wouldnt presume to put words in your mouth.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And let it be voluntary AND with an informed decision. Have a third party who represents the interests of the offender/prisoner (like a lawyer) verify that their client is consenting.


Then let them accept the risks/side-effects and continue on.

I believe this would be a good method,

would this be directed at first time offenders or serial offenders?

Originally posted by riv6672
Huh.
Guess i WASNT done.
First: Do you make a habit of putting words in other people's mouths and pretending you're stating facts?
That was rhetorical; you do.
Second: do you drive a car?
Because car accidents kill a LOT of people every year. Your argument against chemical castration is that innocent people get convicted.
Innocent people die in car crashes. To include pedestrians. Are these losses more acceptable to you because you like to drive?
Well, people like to not get raped or molested/murdered.
Are you saying some losses are more acceptable than others based on convenience?
Again, rhetorical.

Notice i'm phrasing all the above as questions. I wouldnt presume to put words in your mouth.

Umm, n-no but you clearly do.

Terrible analogy,

You just did, by inference. Clearly comprehension isn't your thing but being passive aggressive is, that and having no argument and poor grammar.

Originally posted by Knife
Terrible analogy

It was, wasn't it

Originally posted by Knife
Umm, n-no but you clearly do.

Terrible analogy,

You just did, by inference. Clearly comprehension isn't your thing but being passive aggressive is, that and having no argument and poor grammar.
Ah!
So doing things your way (directly putting words in people's mouths) is the correct way to do things. Got it!

Speaking of passive aggressive, i'm not the one that immediately started a thread about this very subject to whine and moan because you got under my skin. Talk about about a car wreck.

Originally posted by Trocity
It was, wasn't it
You forgot the period.



Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
I believe this would be a good method,

would this be directed at first time offenders or serial offenders?
Yeah, dadudemon's idea seems workable.
As to who would be eligible? That itself is an interesting question.

You forgot the exclamation points to express your anger, oh wait, no you didn't lawl.

Originally posted by riv6672
Ah!
So doing things your way (directly putting words in people's mouths) is the correct way to do things. Got it!

Speaking of passive aggressive, i'm not the one that immediately started a thread about this very subject to whine and moan because you got under my skin. Talk about about a car wreck.


You forgot the period.




Yeah, dadudemon's idea seems workable.
As to who would be eligible? That itself is an interesting question. You're simply not very bright.

This seems a bit primitive.

This is what they did to the guy that came up with Enigma, it was absolute BULLSHIT.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This is what they did to the guy that came up with Enigma, it was absolute BULLSHIT. yup, Alan Turing.

I hate pedophiles but there is some things I would never wish on anyone. This is that.

would you rather die or live as a eunuch?

If it was my choosing? Eunuch but not chemically, do it for real. if it was forced chem castration, death.

is there that much of a difference?

Originally posted by red g jacks
is there that much of a difference?

Well first chemical castration is pumping your body full of chemicals. Even lowering your T to minimal levels they will still be there and will be fighting to produce. Wrecking havoc on your emotional/mental state. Secondly, you could still get testicular cancer. Chopping them off outright gets it over with and eliminates future problems.

sounds like a plan to me

i guess i change my stance on this issue then. no chemical castration. real castration or life in prison. once again assuming that castration somehow makes a pedo not want to abuse children... which is assuming the urge is strictly sexual

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You guys are ****ing nuts, you support every other type of forgivness and want to chemically castrate someone?

Hell, people say sex changes should be on tax payers dime because it causes suicides, yet this does as well and you approve. Morally perverted when it does not suit your liberal agenda.

Put the person in jail for Gods sake

Who supports tax payer-funded sexual reassignment surgery? I certainly do not. If someone elects to cosmetically alter her appearance to improve her psychological well-being, then she can pay for it herself, be she disfigured, narcissistic, or transgender.

Moreover, chemical castration is not an alternative to incarceration. It is a therapeutic drug regimen for people who struggle with criminal sexual impulses, the purpose of which is to help them to not offend or re-offend.

Furthermore, chemical castration is completely reversible, and when dosed properly, allows the patient to have normal sexual functioning. Like any hormone treatment, it has potentially undesirable side-effects, which the patient has to weigh against its benefits.

The only real concern is whether this treatment is effective. It may work for some types of offenders and not for others. A policy that paroles all offenders committed to this treatment without consideration to the type of offender they are is what I described earlier as misguided and dangerous.

I've always thought that this reeked of eugenics, even if it is a lot more defensible than that racist bullshit ever was.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who supports tax payer-funded sexual reassignment surgery? I certainly do not. If someone elects to cosmetically alter her appearance to improve her psychological well-being, then she can pay for it herself, be she disfigured, narcissistic, or transgender.


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t614751.html

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t614751.html

The decision to include coverage for cross-hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery for the treatment of gender dysphoria in the state Medicaid policy was made by the Health Evidence Review Commission.

The HERC is composed of 12 doctors and medical professionals appointed by the governor, who review medical evidence in order to prioritize health spending and to promote evidence-based medical practices in the state.

This process is open to the public, and includes input from patients, providers, and taxpayers.

What part of this process represents uniquely liberal support for the decision to cover these specific treatments for this particular condition?

Is it the governor? Is it the doctors and medical professionals appointed to the commission? Is it the review of medical evidence? Is it the input from patients? Is it the input from providers? Is it the input from taxpayers?

It seems to me that this was an evidence-based decision that included input from multiple stakeholders.

I am liberal, and it is not the decision I would have made, so I do not see how it represents uniquely liberal support, unless you think no conservatives were involved in the process from beginning to end.

Originally posted by Knife
You're simply not very bright.
Bright enough to realize you've started two threads directly inspired by your childish reaction(s) to our exchange.

Originally posted by red g jacks
would you rather die or live as a eunuch?
Well they're being given a choice about it. No one's forcing castration on them. Yet.

Originally posted by riv6672
Bright enough to realize you've started two threads directly inspired by your childish reaction(s) to our exchange.


Well they're being given a choice about it. No one's forcing castration on them. Yet.

Aww bless.

Aww -pushes the button-

Originally posted by riv6672
Aww -pushes the button-

You're simply not very bright are you.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
*too, and it's a bit too kind for pedophiles IMO.

But is it only for pedofiles? Or sex offenders? BIG difference.

Pedofile: What loli lovers keep telling themselves they're not.

Sex offender: What you become if that girl you brought home has a really good fake id, and her parents find out about it and press charges. Tracy Lords fooled basically everyone, the government who issued her passports included, so it happens...

Edit: I didn't read the first post before I commented.

Yeah, not too likely you'll find a 13 year old who looks 21.