Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles

  • Thread starter Thread starter upi
  • Start date Start date
U

upi

Guest
Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles

WARSAW
Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:45pm EDT






WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland on Friday approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in some cases, sparking criticism from human rights groups.




Under the law, sponsored by Poland's center-right government, pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.

"The purpose of this action is to improve the mental health of the convict, to lower his libido and thereby to reduce the risk of another crime being committed by the same person," the government said in a statement.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk said late last year he wanted obligatory castration for pedophiles, whom he branded 'degenerates'. Tusk said he did not believe "one can use the term 'human' for such individuals, such creatures."

"Therefore I don't think protection of human rights should refer to these kind of events," Tusk also said.
His remarks drew criticism from human rights groups but he never retracted them.

"Introducing any mandatory treatment raises doubts as such a requirement is never reasonable and life can always produce cases that lawmakers could never have even dreamt of," said Piotr Kladoczny from the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights.

"If somebody is of sound mind, we punish him. If he is sick, we try to cure him -- that's how it works in Polish law. This bill introduces both approaches. As far as I know, this makes our law the strictest in Europe on this issue," Kladoczny said.

The bill, which also increases prison sentences for rape and incest, must still be approved by the upper chamber of parliament. This is seen as a formality as Tusk's Civic Platform party holds a majority of its 100 seats.
(Reporting by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Louise Ireland)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58O4LE20090925


Cliffs: Read thread topic
 
The point is people whose first concern before even discussing anything is to scream foul because of potential for abuse - which is much, much smaller than the actual harm being done now that the laws try to address.
 
How does this change anything though? Surely there has to be a better way to deal with the problem than an irreversible procedure.
 
Let's permanently physically alter people as a form of punishment and then call ourselves civilized.

Who the fuck thinks that this will truly be some sort of deterrent?

This will only lend itself to tragic miscarriages of justice with permanent consequences that will not accomplish a thing but apease the sabre rattling mob that doesn't know their head from their ass (see :texas: reference above).

Fuck.
 
I'm talking about why many people feel that way about human rights groups, not the particulars of this case.

Just that attitude of as soon as someone tries to solve a problem the first reaction is attack that person or group and hype all the potential abuses and/or problems with the proposal instead of discussing it.

It's like the people who tried to patrol the Mexican border - they went out to simply report illegals crossing but immediately human rights groups just showed up to "monitor" them and assume they would be out there trying to kill people and shit. It's the attitude of never allowing anyone to make any progress against a problem because no social fix is perfect.
 
When their solution is sophomoric with potential for tragic permanent consequences for innocent individuals then yeah I'm glad someone that has a problem with it has the balls to stand up and say something about it.
 
What if I'm 21 years old and fuck the shit out of some politico's 17 year old?

I GUESS I BETTER GET CHEMICALLY CASTRATED SO THAT I STOP POSING A THREAT TO SOCIETY.
 
No, the point is that these groups are never around when solutions are being sought but appear immediately with hate filled rhetoric as soon as anything is proposed.

By default they take (not all of them but many) the side of the offenders and say it's only because of potential abuses which is complete bullshit.
 
They have their hands full trying to stop idiots from legislating state sanctioned actions that could infringe upon human rights.
 
Back
Top