All things posted are valid and good points, imo. I’d like to add that I think Canada, or any other nation, has a responsibility to prosecute a known child sex offender citizen, no matter where the abuse happened, if for no better reason than to protect it’s own child citizens once the sub-human, vile waste of life returns “home.”
I agree as most people get married with the plan of having kids. (I say most people not all). Whereas most people don’t have sex with the intention of having kids. Well I don’t anyway. SO yeah marriage with kids at the age could be a challenge!
The only problem with castration is it only makes rapists angry and sadistic. I think the rest of us mistake rape for a mainly sexual act when it’s more about violence and domination. Rapists have been known to turn to other implements to violate their victims.
Actually most people I’ve heard comment on the subject say sex is about violence and domination and not sex. But I think contrary to that belief, it is often about sex.
They are usually sexually attracted to their victims aren’t they ?
With obvious exceptions “Yorshire ripper, Jack the Ripper etc”.
I wonder if there are any studies on the results of castrations on rapists, and did this stop re-offending.
Surely they get off on whatever sick thing it is they do, so therefore stopping them getting aroused is surely a good way of stopping them re-offending. Well a bullet between the eyes would be the most effective way of course.
If I’m not mistaken, losing your balls really plays with a man’s hormones. Perhaps the offender will be too busy playing with his newfound growing titties to bother with anything else.
The hormone thing can really mess you up. It can change your voice, and your emotions, too. Perhaps an offender would really get in touch with his feminine side and become too emotional to even think about hurting another human being. Just a wild guess.
Couldn’t find Canadian law on this, so looked up the US Law. It was mentioned how language plays a part in it:
"Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.— A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. "
Doesn’t the language of the law actually state it’s illegal for them to travel with the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity? So isn’t the crime actually commited in the US when the person is travelling, not in another country where they are located?
So it seems they are not prosecuting a person for what they do in another country. They are prosecuting them because they get on a plane in the US to head to another country to do that. The crime was committed in the US.
If I understand that correctly, is that law constitutional? I tend to think that yes, it is. There are many crimes that look at intent. After a concert one night back home, we were witnesses to a fight in the parking garage. The guy ended up being charged with assault with intent to murder. Even if the act hadn’t been commited, there is still the intent there.
If a guy goes to another country with the intent of finding a child to have sex with and does not find a child, that is still a crime. Though difficult to prove, I’m sure.
I’m not sure that’s correct. Castration takes away the man’s source of testosterone, which is what makes him aggressive and violent. Like I said, though, I am not certain… I could be wrong about this… but it seems that taking away the source of aggression would be helpful…
I won’t debate this too vigorously because the notion that I put forward is one I heard years ago; I think it was in a psych class and we were debating biological basis for behaviour. I don’t have proof handy.
OK, many would think removing hormones from a man would make him more passive, but then most males are not prone to these types of deviant behaviour. I think this shows the problem lies outside of sex hormones. I personally think there’s something more psychologically derranged about a rapists actions and normal men misidentify the problem as simply a man unable to control the urges most normal men may feel to have sex with an attractive women. I think there’s clearly more going on. I somehow doubt chopping off balls is going to cure someone of antisocial violent tendencies.
Yeah I understand what you are saying, Stimpster. Sex crimes are a combination of Testosterone and a Violent Nature. Removing the Testosterone is only half the solution.
To any US citizen who read the above post and became nervous reading the phrase “any illicit sexual conduct with another person,” please note the following:
I suspect that the purpose of targeting the intent rather than just the act of sex with children is to arrest and prosecute a child molester before he leaves the US to actually perform the act. While I’m not comfortable with government criminalizing thoughts, I think children deserve unusual protection so I can live with this law.
Hey, Dragonbones, since the law actually targets “intent” and the act of sex with a child is unnecessary, I guess my use of the terms “pedophile” and “pedophilia” in an earlier post was correct after all.
Explain something to me smerf. Why is one pervert worthy of international infamy, but a nation of perverts not? Is it because it’s their “culture” and “all cultures are beautiful” and we should just hold hands and sing kumbaya? Why is that guy a “sub-human, vile waste of life,” while the thousands of Iranian males who have married young girls in Iran are wholly free from scorn?
