Gli esperti “si rifiuterebbero di prendere parte” nella castrazione obbligatoria per gli autori di reati sessuali
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/22/experts-would-refuse-to-take-part-in-mandatory-castration-for-sex-offenders?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
di topotaul
11 commenti
So a maybe dumb question here. Would castrating a paedo make him not a paedo anymore? Presumably there’s some element of what makes them like that that isn’t just a hormonal thing?
Also no surprise really. I am not comfortable with the government having the power to do this.
It’s totally unethical and I find it hard to believe most judges would be on board with handing life sentences to people, because that what I this amounts too, no spent convictions, whole life being monitored for compliance and suffering the side effects which are akin to death in some cases, as history has told us in the past attempts at this nonsense.
Then there is the apparent increase in miscarriages of justice, plus the potential for malicious application, ie, someone frames someone else for it. Plus, the known cases where women, often young women, lied about who did what and when, often from trauma but sometimes from malice, too.
I’m not convinced this would do all that much either. The core problem isn’t waiting until after there are victims, it’s getting in BEFORE there are victims, and then what is left to be angry about. For the most part, it’s a treatable problem if caught early enough.
It’s painful watching this labour government try and appeal to some imagined caricature of a voting demographic.
I can just picture them coming up with the messaging.
*’What do the Poor’s hate then chaps? Immigrants, nonces, trans people!’.*
I didn’t mind the idea so much when it was voluntary, but mandatory is sick.
While sex offenders will be given anti androgens, so that they “Aren’t a threat”
Trans women are denied anti androgens because “reasons” and if they do get those anti androgens they are “a threat to real women”
While NHS workers are all too happy to deny trans people healthcare and go against science, international guidelines and basic moral conscience. All to happy to demand unethical treatment instead
But will refuse unethical treatment of sex offenders.
It would be nice it NHS workers had half the empathy that they show sex offenders, to trans people
I don’t know about this whilst I do think those guilty of this crime deserve punishment I don’t think this would work. Can’t we just microchip people?
“Doctors are not agents of social control” – exactly.
Chemical castration only has an impact on antisocial behaviour if it’s paired with intense psychotherapy. And even then, it only [reduces reoffending by 60%](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmkv3jezzdo).
I wish society would stop focusing on if the *next* child is abused. We are waiting for victims, and even then, getting the offender prosecuted and found guilty is a mountain to climb.
Before anyone comes at me, no, I do not love sex offenders and I am not a sex offender. I’m just someone who volunteered to support women and children who had experienced sexual violence. I don’t think any of them will be comforted by this plan.
Ok, we won’t hire those particular people the Guardian author wrote about then.
If you’ve raped a kid and you’re 100% guilty, I think they should be doing actual castration, and that’s being nice.
I’d support introducing it only in cases where it can be proven in some way 100% that the accused is guilty. I’d imagine there are a miniscule number of cases where that is found to be the case.