Germany's offer of chemical castration cruel?

[Machjo]

Germany has been criticized in the past for offering some of those who have been convicted of sexual assault the option of chemical castration as an alternative to imprisonment.

Some human rights organizations have argued that offering this an an alternative to imprisonment puts undue pressure on the convict who is then faced with a choice between years in prison or chemical castration.

The German government has always countered that since he would go to prison for the same number of years anyway if the offer weren't made, it therefore does not impose any more 'undue pressure' on him; and that it has safeguards in place to ensure that those who do choose chemical castration are giving their free, full, and informed consent.

 

[MHz]

Only if they don't use it on themselves first.

 

[Machjo]

Only if they don't use it on themselves first.

Who's 'they?'

 

[Jinentonix]

Years ago there was a case in Canada where pedophile was soon to be released from prison after serving his term. He literally begged for any kind of castration because in his words, he knew he'd offend again after being released. He wasn't threatening to do so, he was just acutely aware of what he was.
His request was denied. I never heard any follow up as to what happened after he was released.

 

[Machjo]

Years ago there was a case in Canada where pedophile was soon to be released from prison after serving his term. He literally begged for any kind of castration because in his words, he knew he'd offend again after being released. He wasn't threatening to do so, he was just acutely aware of what he was.
His request was denied. I never heard any follow up as to what happened after he was released.

How's that for cruel?

So we put him in jail which does nothing to protect society from him after his release but refuse him chemical castration which is proven to significantly reduce the risk of recidivism.

So much for rational thought.

 

[MHz]

Who's 'they?'

The makers and supporters of said drug.

 

[tay]

Germany has been criticized in the past for offering some of those who have been convicted of sexual assault the option of chemical castration as an alternative to imprisonment.

Some human rights organizations have argued that offering this an an alternative to imprisonment puts undue pressure on the convict who is then faced with a choice between years in prison or chemical castration.

The German government has always countered that since he would go to prison for the same number of years anyway if the offer weren't made, it therefore does not impose any more 'undue pressure' on him; and that it has safeguards in place to ensure that those who do choose chemical castration are giving their free, full, and informed consent.

Why would you put this in the Canadian Politics thread since your whole entry doesn't mention Canada or a Canadian at all?

Years ago there was a case in Canada where pedophile was soon to be released from prison after serving his term. He literally begged for any kind of castration because in his words, he knew he'd offend again after being released. He wasn't threatening to do so, he was just acutely aware of what he was.
His request was denied. I never heard any follow up as to what happened after he was released.

Canada does allow for Chemical Castration...

Stuckless’s lawyer has said the label is unwarranted, particularly since his client has abided by the law since his previous convictions and voluntarily undergoes chemical castration.

Gordon Stuckless doesn’t meet dangerous offender status: assessment - The Globe and Mail

 

[AnnaG]

Bumping what Tay said.

It's an offer. There is an option. If there was no other option, THEN it might be considered to be cruel.

 

[WLDB]

The last time the German government did something like this things didnt end so well.

 

[AnnaG]

Did it give people a choice last time?

 

[lone wolf]

No ... now what I'd do to them might be considered cruel

 

[PoliticalNick]

As long as the convict has a right to refuse it is far from cruel. It is in fact a mutually beneficial option. The convict doesn't have to spend years in jail in ever present danger from other inmates and the taxpayers save $75,000-100,000/yr (what it costs to keep a pedophile in protective custody in Canada, do not know what it costs in Germany) on incarceration costs. When you factor in that most pedophiles work and pay taxes I think it is economically the best way to go.