Germany uninterested in changing barbaric sex-offender law

[Garson007]

Germany rejects demand to stop castrating sex criminals as part of their punishment

Germany is rejecting demands from an EU body that it should stop surgically castrating sex criminals - a practice that dates back to the Nazis - because it is ?degrading?.

Defying Brussels, the German government said it intends to carry on with the practice citing low re-offending rates among sex criminals who had opted to have the procedure.

It pointed out the results of a 1997 study that tracked the history of 104 sexual offenders 'who subjected themselves to castration in the decade between 1970 and 1980. Their reoffending rate was three per cent,' the German authorities explained, 'as opposed to 46 per cent for a control group.'

The scheme is voluntary.

Against the backdrop of such results, Germany is not thought likely to buckle under EU pressure anytime soon - particularly as the country?s worst child serial killer and rapist, due to be sentenced next week, has evoked strong public support for the policy.

On average there have been five such castrations every year over the past decade.

A government spokesman said: 'Germany defends the procedure on the grounds that surgery helps where illnesses connected to an abnormal sex drive must be treated, or in order to counter the risk of future unlawful offences being committed by sexual offenders and/or violent offender.

?As far as the federal government is aware, there are quite a number of scientific studies on the criminological long-term effects of surgical castration.?

There are no plans to remove it from the constitution although Berlin said it would be agreeable to talks on the issue.

Germany was criticised in a report issued by The Council of Europe?s anti-torture body, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).

In its own words it regards itself as 'influential in setting the EU political agenda, but it has no powers to pass laws?.

In its report on castration it said; 'The CPT must express its fundamental objections to the use of surgical castration as a means of treatment of sexual offenders. Surgical castration is a mutilating, irreversible intervention and cannot be considered as a medical necessity in the context of the treatment of sexual offenders.

'In the CPT?s view, surgical castration of detained sexual offenders could easily be considered as amounting to degrading treatment.' The EU recommends the ?liquid cosh? approach - chemicals which effectively destroy a sex offender?s libido thus, goes the argument, rendering him harmless.

In Germany, sex criminals aged over 25 have the option of surgical castration if the operation is cleared by an expert and it stresses it is not a punishment, but an option.

The programme has its roots in the days of the Third Reich when the Nazis sterilised thousands of sexual criminals - most of them forcibly.

Many experiments were carried out in concentration camps to find ever quicker and cheaper ways of performing the procedures.

In 1969 it was modified under the West German legal code whereby the offender must give his consent, be informed about the implications and side-effects of castration and be informed about other treatments.

Nevertheless, Berlin agreed to 'examine if the issue should be discussed.' Besides Germany, the Czech Republic is the only other of the 47 Council of Europe member states which gives sex offenders the option of physical castration.

Next week in Germany sees the sentencing of a youth worker called Martin Ney who has confessed to the rape and murders of three small boys and the sexual assaults of 20 others.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...unishment.html

Mmm...

[Goraan]

I have nothing against this practice at all, what I do find amusing is the way this article is written.
It explains all about this terrible procedure, and the terrible history of it during the holocaust to a point where you begin to feel sympathy for the sex offenders that make this choice. And then 23 boys get raped and your mood shifts immediately to, "CUT HIS BALLS OFF".

Yeah lol sensationalism.

[Kharrak]

It's an odd one, isn't it. Not entirely sure why people are so upset since it's not forced - it's an option. Then again, many may argue that the option may be forced on one.

My only criticisms is that I'm unsure how castration would affect the mentality of one who has troubled sexual habits.

[wir]

My only criticisms is that I'm unsure how castration would affect the mentality of one who has troubled sexual habits.

I'm not sure I see what you'd be unsure about. With castration the subject won't really be producing testosterone anymore, which should eliminate any sexual problems. It'll also decrease aggressive and violent tendencies.

Interesting in fact, I hadn't thought of this kind of rehabilitation before. Castration, chemical perhaps instead of surgical, as treatment for violent criminals.

[Squirly]

I don't see how giving them the option is considered barbaric. Granted I cringe at the thought of castration, but this isn't medieval arabia. They don't get chopped off in order to serve as guards for the harem. They got chopped off because they're rapists and they chose to do have it done. Hell, he could go to the doctor and have it done legally through private medicare and they wouldn't mind, but if the state offers to do it for him because he's a convicted sex offender it's suddenly bad?

I don't get it.

[Kharrak]

I'm not sure I see what you'd be unsure about. With castration the subject won't really be producing testosterone anymore, which should eliminate any sexual problems. It'll also decrease aggressive and violent tendencies.

Yar, fully aware of that - just wondered how any potential other inner issues would be affected by the action.

[Garson007]

I don't see how giving them the option is considered barbaric. Granted I cringe at the thought of castration, but this isn't medieval arabia. They don't get chopped off in order to serve as guards for the harem. They got chopped off because they're rapists and they chose to do have it done. Hell, he could go to the doctor and have it done legally through private medicare and they wouldn't mind, but if the state offers to do it for him because he's a convicted sex offender it's suddenly bad?

Coercion is not volunteering. State should have no right over the body of a citizen. No, being imprisoned is not invading said right.

The fact that it is state sanctioned is barbaric.

Interesting in fact, I hadn't thought of this kind of rehabilitation before. Castration, chemical perhaps instead of surgical, as treatment for violent criminals.

It's been used in many jurisdictions around the world already. Some of them forced methods.

[Squirly]

Coercion is not volunteering. Where does it mention coercion? There's been an average of 5 castrations a year. I doubt that all of germany has only 5 rapists a year. That tells us there's quite a few who don't choose this procedure.

[Toxxyc]

I don't know how to respond to this thread. I've typed out four answers over the past three days and I still can't make up my mind about what to say, or how to say it without sounding like a possible *******.

[Garson007]

Coercion is not volunteering. Where does it mention coercion? There's been an average of 5 castrations a year. I doubt that all of germany has only 5 rapists a year. That tells us there's quite a few who don't choose this procedure.

It comes with lessened sentences. It's coercion.

[Zoop]

If it comes with lessened sentences, how can the state not consider it to be part of the punishment? If it's a choice between spending 20 years in jail or having your balls removed and spending only 12 years in there, surely both can be considered punishment?

[echo]

Because if it's proven to work then it falls under rehabilitation. And the prisoner chooses this type of rehabilitation himself.

[Zoop]

Eh, it's a technicality, but I don't really consider the idea of bodily mutilation a form of rehab, be it voluntary or not.

I also agree with Garson in that this isn't so much voluntary as it is coercion. Sure, ultimately the choice is on the prisoner, but the government is trying to set castration up as the more appealing choice. Hell, I'd probably lose my junk if it meant a few years less in jail.

[echo]

Eh, it's a technicality, but I don't really consider the idea of bodily mutilation a form of rehab, be it voluntary or not.

I do. If your hand is a problem with you functioning in normal society (As in, you pose a thread to others) then I would consider cutting off the hand a form of rehabilitation.

And at the end of the day no-one is making them do it. I can make a chocolate look as good as I want to, you still have to eat it yourself.

[Squirly]

Hell, I'd probably lose my junk if it meant a few years less in jail.

Would you though? This is one of those awkward 'would you rather' choices that doesn't seem to have a good answer. I like my junk.

[Kharrak]

I'm just thinking about those cultures that lob off hands for theft.

Locally, you get a medal.

[Garson007]

And at the end of the day no-one is making them do it. I can make a chocolate look as good as I want to, you still have to eat it yourself.

What if a person had to choose between the chocolate or salad and you made that chocolate look really delicious? Now just make chocolate turn into castration and you're halfway there. It's coercion.

[Zoop]

Would you though? This is one of those awkward 'would you rather' choices that doesn't seem to have a good answer. I like my junk.

Prison is a pretty scary concept, even in more civilized countries than South Africa.

[nukehead]

Prison is a pretty scary concept, even in more civilized countries than South Africa.

And castration is just a walk in the park? Where are your priorities?

[Zoop]

And castration is just a walk in the park? Where are your priorities?

Getting put under anesthetics and having your genitals surgically removed versus the constant fear of prison violence and possible rape year in and year out...

I think I've got my priorities straight.