C'jais Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 http://www.salon.com/mwt/wire/2003/07/28/pedophile/index.html Interesting. Free will anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 that's such utter crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Perhaps it did help. Even the slightest thing bothering the brain can cause all kinds of mental problems. Slight chemical distubances can completly alter someones attitude, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 I don't know. Wouldn't castration be so much simpler? My mum showed me two of her primary school class photos today which incidently contains the man dubbed Australia's worst paedophile. That guy is supposed to be getting life imprisonment and chemical castration. The article failed to mention if he did other stuff non-sexual that he "couldn't" control. Surely if you lose your perception to exercise judgement, other things must happen, like constantly running through red traffic lights, littering, not cleaning up after himself etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Sure, it would be simpler. But what sort of quality of life could he have? At least he can still enjoy a healthy sex life while having the tumors removed. I dont think it really violates any free will either, as the mans free will was being restricted by an abormal tumor in his head. Having it removed (and it doesnt sound like it was involuntary) gives him his will back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 I think there's little doubt that biochemicals control our behaviour more than man in his higher-than-healthy self-esteem care to admit, and I will concede that a tumour, such as the one mentioned in the article, can have a significant influence on one's personality. What remains to be answered is whether the tumour brought the behaviour about with its influence or it simply negated inhibitions against a dark side already part of his personality. I'm in favour of research towards curing such behaviour if a cure is possible without leaving the subject a vegetable, but I'm against taking any risks, e.g. taking chances by releasing people, such as the man in the article, back into society thinking them cured. You have to be damn sure! But as with all deviances against acceptable behaviour, such as those of rapists, child molesters and murderers, I find it vastly more important to concentrate on behavioral research towards preventing such personalities to evolve in the first place than curing them afterwards. I believe such personalities are shaped both by environment and genes. The environmental factor being more often than not families, especially parents with regards to wrongful things they might do and/or rightful things they neglect to do. The genes factor could be a predisposition for a biochemical imbalance in the brain, either an inability to produce some vital hormon or an overproduction of another - anything that could lead to behavioral corruption. While surgery and chemical treatment might surpress or even remove the urges from the subject, his mind will still be tainted of the knowledge of his actions even though he now can see the wrongness of them. It is highly unlikely he will ever feel like being normal, even more so if he's been subscribed to a inhibating drug for life. If one were to perceive him with cold logic, one might simply be in favour of putting him down. But society has opted to play this dangerous and potentially harmful game through, so we'll just have to hope they make a major breakthrough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 I'm in favour of research towards curing such behaviour if a cure is possible without leaving the subject a vegetable, but I'm against taking any risks, e.g. taking chances by releasing people, such as the man in the article, back into society thinking them cured. You have to be damn sure! Then I guess he has to be judged first, then if he agrees make such an operation it would be performed, then let him sit his sentence to the end and let him out. There's no risk here more than already has been. We let murderers go after some years in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Then I guess he has to be judged first, then if he agrees make such an operation it would be performed, then let him sit his sentence to the end and let him out. There's no risk here more than already has been. We let murderers go after some years in jail. True, but we all have the capability of murder within us, i.e. we can all be driven to a point where we will kill; mothers to protect their children for example. And they do practice a great distinction between murders by normal people in the heat of passion (as with a mother protecting her young from harm) and murders of the homocidally insane. Now, we all have the drive for sex, too, but pedophilia is a twisted and harmful branch on the tree of sexuality. I didn't said sex offenders should never be released into society again, just said that extreme caution should be observed....Just like with murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 If you're a pedophile, and you can become "non-pedophile" from surgery, fine, go ahead. Free will? Is forcing a suicidal teen to keep on living a violation of free will? Yes. Should you have the right to take your own life? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.