Slightly fierce group of lawyers here

Should those accused of child sex be castrated? That is the question the Supreme Court summoned and asked the Attorney General on Monday morning. The Supreme Court’s question came while hearing a petition filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyer’s Association which demanded that those accused of child sex be castrated.
The Supreme Court directed the Attorney General to check with the Centre on its stand regarding the same.
The Supreme Court women lawyer’s association had filed a PIL in the court seeking a direction to the Centre to consider imposing “castration as an additional punishment for child sex abusers and child rapists”. The court is expected to hear the PIL filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) after January 4, when it reopens after the winter break.
“Only castration can be an effective deterrent. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act brought in specially to combat such offences in 2012 has failed to prevent sexual assault on minors as the punishments provided therein are nothing different than general punishment provided in the Indian Penal Code,” the plea filed by SCWLA General Secretary Prerna Kumari said.
The PIL came two months after the Madras High Court asked the Centre to consider castration as a punishment for those who rape children in order to discourage sexual assaults on minors.

But what are they going to do to any women convicted?

34 thoughts on “Slightly fierce group of lawyers here”

  1. Would not be at all surprised if they move on to pre-emptive castration, because better safe than sorry, if it saves one child etc.

    I can actually see in my mind’s eye the first first-person Guardian piece: ‘How I did my duty for personkind and sacrificed my toxic masculinity’.

    The following week, the invasion will commence.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “I can actually see in my mind’s eye the first first-person Guardian piece: ‘How I did my duty for personkind and sacrificed my toxic masculinity’.”

    It can only be a matter of time. Heaven’s Gate has nothing on Guardianistas.

    However castration is the only treatment for criminals that reduces future crime. Reduces it by a lot too. Down into single figures for re-offending.

  3. Why not blinding , burning at the stake , crucifixion. These all have well established records as deterrants.
    Trial by ordeal would round it out for more progressive lawyers.

  4. I know that the US can require deportation of any UK resident says he doesn’t like Obama very much, but can we actually export people to be tried in the US?

    You know, from Oldham and such?

  5. “those accused of child sex be castrated”

    Also saves all the bother and expense of a trial.

    Personally I don’t think it’s a sensible policy for feminists to try to inflict violence on men. Men are just better at it. Bigger, stronger and possibly nastier. Even the manginas in pyjamas, if pushed hard enough.

  6. “…a petition filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyer’s Association which demanded that those accused of child sex be castrated.”

    Not even waiting for a conviction?

  7. @Rob, @AndrewC

    I read and thought the same, but you both posted first. It might of course just be sloppy journalism. These are lawyers making the demands and I’m sure they know the difference between accused and convicted.

  8. “These are lawyers making the demands and I’m sure they know the difference between accused and convicted.”

    You would hope so. To do otherwise would require Murphyesque levels of ignorance about their profession.

  9. -Rob
    “Personally I don’t think it’s a sensible policy for feminists to try to inflict violence on men. Men are just better at it.”

    Actually no.. We males are quite well built for bluff and bluster, but tend to be downright conservative when it comes to violence. Make your point, then forget about it.
    Women are infinitely more cruel and vindictive when it comes to applying violence, as this case shows.

    You can argue for capital punishment in the case of *convicted* child rapists. They’re dangerous predators who have no place in any society, regardless of the cause of their affliction.
    Killing them, cleanly and efficiently, would both remove the danger and *possibly* act as a deterrent for those who feel the urge, but have enough faculty to consider self-restraint.

    Only a woman would come up with the notion of deliberate mutilation, followed by continued existence as an “example to Society” as a lifelong torture.

  10. Feminism (like progressivism in general) naturally attracts psychopaths.

    Every now and again the death penalty arises for discussion here, and I’m against it for the same reason as being against all cruel and unusual punishments; I do not believe that a society can remain liberal while inflicting them as policy. Evolving beyond primitive tribal law principles is essential in creating a legal system which is sober, rational and just.

    Whether or not somebody may in some way “deserve” cruelty is irrelevant. Once you revert to the realm of cutting bits (genitals, hands, tongues, eyes) off people, cutting their heads off, beating and scourging and birching, your society is not a safe place to be. For anyone.

    To use a popular example, Islam is keen on this kind of punishment. And look at their countries. No thanks.

  11. “Only castration can be an effective deterrent.”

    ONLY? How narrow minded. Betcha there was no child sex abuse in the French Guiana penal colony.

  12. IanB… But interestingly enough all european empires were at the peak of their power employing capital punishment, and quite often worse…

    While I do agree with you that at least a wholehearted attempt at re-education/rehabilitation is a sign of “civilisation”, with possibly the option for permanent segregation where/when applicable for those incapable of the former option, there are cases where a more terminal solution is less of a waste of time and resources.

    For me personally, child molestors very clearly fall into that category, for quite a number of reasons.

  13. Grikath

    And European Empires weren’t exactly liberal. Imperialism was part of what worked against the Liberalism of the 18th century, leading into Big Government as an ideology by the end of the 19th. Imperialists for instance believed in stupidity like preventing economic development in India for fear of competition with Britain. But that’s sort of wandering off topic into economics.

    I believe fundamentally that Liberalism is dependent on moderation (or, er “moderatism”?). But I can’t really prove that, so there we are.

    If your last sentence is (as it seems to be) proposing the death penalty for child molesters, that just seems bizarre to me.

  14. @IanB

    Indeed I do.

    Child molestation rates permanent removal from society.
    The pathology of the disorder precludes rehabilitation, and I am of the opinion that lifelong incarceration in most, if not all prison systems amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment”.
    Given the lack of suitable segregation in the form of a penal colony where such cases could be allowed to live out their natural lives in a situation of “normal life” minus the freedom to go beyond stated boundaries, there remains only one other option of permanent removal: a mercy killing.

    Nothing “bizarre” about it.

  15. Ah, it’s a “disorder” now is it? In that case, if it’s a medical condition, why are we sending them to prison? Shouldn’t they be in a medical facility of some type? What logic leads you to punish those who are not responsible for their actions?

  16. yes… paedophilia is a sociopathic disorder, unless you know of another way to classify it?

    And yes, at least over here, those suffering from it, *and* are acting on their urges will be Institutionalised.
    At least for as long as the law allows, which by and large is not more than a decade, max.
    After which they’re released into society, with a recidivism rate that basically ends up with people waiting for the Next Victim…

    Mind.. I’d *prefer* the “penal colony” option. But for some reason that escapes me that’s even less politically feasible than reintroducing capital punishment for these cases.
    Something with “providing a holiday resort for perverts” and all that.
    But I’d love to hear your suggestions. Maybe I missed something.

    @ TimN

    Yes, even the Priests.

  17. Well, how about we classify it as a sexual preference. Like, “your own sex”, or “older women” or “busty brunettes” or “black men”.

    Where does that get us?

    By the way, what definition are you using? Anyone under the age of consent, or “attraction to the absence of secondary sexual characteristics”?

  18. “Age of consent” is a tricky one.. It implies a mental maturity that allows conscious, informed choice, free of manipulation. Very Tricksy even in full adults, let alone children.
    And that’s not even considering cultural factors…

    “Absence of secondary sexual characteristics” is part of it. You might include “displaying nurture-response characteristics” though. That would exclude androginy, which is a proven adult fetish.

    If you consider all biological factors, humans are “ready” for a “healthy” sexual relationship roughly between the ages of 15 and 17.
    They’re physically mature enough, and mentally stable enough to get on with the business of bearing and providing for offspring, and all the consequences thereof.
    In fact, young humans are quite notorious for the fact that at that age they start actively pursuing sexual activities, regarless of social, cultural, or economic limitations.
    It’s Nature holding up a big, fat sign saying “Now Is The Time!”, and the amount of complaining of parents throughout time, across the globe, from stone carvings to philosophical essays about the “depravity/innocence of Youth” is a body of evidence in and of itself in this matter.

    In all, this means that the general gist of “16 as the age of consent” in most (western) law makes for a pretty good average, especially since you got to draw a line *somewhere* if you’re legislating.
    Might as well be one where scientific, empirical and cultural data actually match for a change.

    The implication of this is that, generally speaking, a human is either not physically ready for a sexual relationship, or as yet not mentally capable of giving true consent to a sexual relationship below this age.
    This insuitability increases, in steps and bounds (nature does not go for smooth transitions..) , the further a young human is removed from this not-so-artificial boundary.
    Ignore it, and damage to the young human *will* occur.. Either physically or mentally.

    Now… “Mother Nature” *knows* this. It’s so elementary to the survival of a species, quite a lot of energy is expended at not only signalling sexual maturity, but also on which side of the team you play on, that it’s readily recogniseable across not just species, but whole clades.
    Additionally, she has programmed all dimorph species to such an extent that a healthy adult individual *does not* engage his/her procreative/sexual programming when those signs are not present.
    This is even more enhanced by providing pre-adults with a look that, again, in healthy adult individuals, actively prevents procreative/sexual behaviour from even emerging, but rather engages the whole set of Nurturing programming.

    A pedosexual lacks these very important mental/physical barriers.
    It is indeed a “sexual preference” , but as opposed to “your own sex”, “older (wo)men” , “of [exotic/racial] phenotype”, or for that matter [insert fetish here], which are pretty much exlusively engaged in by adult individuals who can be assumed to know what they’re doing, pedosexuality involves a “partner” who does not, and would most certainly not have initiated the contact.

    In pedosexuality it takes an adult to initiate contact, and convince the “minority” partner to engage in an activity they’re not familiar with, and are not *built* for. With the inevitable result of serious harm to the minority parter, either physically or mentally.
    They are, in fact, indistinguishable from predators in their behaviour and by the damage they cause. It’s really not surprising that the universal reaction to a proven pedosexual is very visceral, and universally lethal if not stopped by Authority: You do not allow something that preys on the young to live within your [social group]. It kicks every bit of natural programming we have when it comes to Protecting the Young into overdrive.
    And rightly so, in my opinion.

    Now here’s the rub.. Yes.. you can institutionalise pedosexuals. You can even try to “treat” them.
    However, their affliction is at such a deep physical and phychological level that it is effectively untreatable.
    Unless you include the more rigorous, quite morally reprehensive, and scientifically unproven methods that were quite the rage up until the 50’s in some quarters? If you’re going to kill the *person* you might just as well do it properly, not leave an empty shell.

    So that leaves two options: Expulsion or execution.
    Expulsion, while more “humane”, like exclusion/incarceration will cost “society” quite a bit of resources, while keeping the predator not only alive, but also “in sight” of the community. Not only that, the predator must *also* be provided for, unless you go for the slow-but-steady method of “execution”, which will not in any way encourage a sense of “justice being done” in that society. There’s several barrels of worms involved right there..

    Which leaves the option of execution. ymmv on that one, but the worms on that one is at least limited to a single can.
    Not all solutions to problems are “pleasant and elegant” , but at least in this case it’s effective.

  19. Castration as a judicial measure is nothing new to Britain. Alan Turing got chemically castrated for his crimes.

    “Ah, it’s a “disorder” now is it? In that case, if it’s a medical condition, why are we sending them to prison?”

    Pedophilia bears the same relationship to child molestation as heterosexuality does to raping women. Pedophilia is just a sexual preference – whether you count it as a pathology depends on your definitions. Whether as a unnatural abomination with no more right to live on God’s clean Earth than a weasel, such as Alan Turing was, more so. But it’s entirely possible to make the distinction, and to treat people for pedophilia while sending them to jail for child molestation.

    Actually, I rather suspect there are a lot more pedophiles around than anyone knows. Like the way most heterosexuals are not rapists, most normal people can control their desires, (especially when the baying mob is in sight with their burning pitchforks). Why would people with this particular paraphilia be any different?

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Castration as a judicial measure is nothing new to Britain. Alan Turing got chemically castrated for his crimes.”

    That depends on how you define castration. Calling the temporary interference in hormonal balance castration is a misuse of the word. His body was not harmed and his sexual function would have returned to normal as soon as he stopped taking the drugs.

  21. Over on Disqus I just got involved in another interesting discussion for a little while with women saying that all rapists should be castrated. Can I take it that the current received wisdom is that people who commit sex crimes can’t get a chance to “go straight” so to speak, because they are incapable of avoiding re-offending?

    Marlon Brando had sex with Jackie Collins when she was 14. Should he have been castrated? This is why I asked Grikath what sort of pedo definition he’s using, because we’re back in that grey area of “underage” where the biological criteria for sexual maturity are present.

    I’d give a fuller response, but it’s late.

  22. Just to add that Turing’s “treatment” was basically medical quackery in the age of lobotomies, water therapy and the like.

  23. IanB

    Late indeed.
    And your question took up quite a bit of my time, because there’s always a Grey Area. Which made for a lenghty answer.

    As for Jackie Collins..
    “Miss Collins, now 72, said yesterday: ‘Marlon was in his early 30s and I was about to be 16.”
    ( mail online, top result on googol)

    That’s not 14, but nearly 16. And judging by the pictures of her of that time, Most Definitely not “childlike”. Quite the contrary in fact.
    So… young, healthy, at least physically mature, and pretty much conforming to the cultural sense of Female Beauty.
    Pitched against a very famous, very rich celebrity in the prime of his life and with a reputation of masculine virility.

    Wolf, meet sheep….

  24. and forgot to add:

    And living in a culture where the age gap between male and female partners was much greater than nowadays, because a bloke had better be able to prove he’d be able to provide for daughter-dear, lest he risks daddy’s shotgun.
    The average male married at roughly the age of 25, with the female partner being anywhere between 16 and 18.

    So early 30’s v/s 16 wouldn’t have caused much of a wrinkle in that day and age, especially if the male was rich and powerful. And still wouldn’t in most parts of the world.
    In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion quite a lot of 16 yr old girls would have *thrown* themselves at him if given half the chance.
    Mind.. Failing to Take Responsibility would have been a cardinal sin for mr. Brando if he managed to get her pregnant… Which didn’t happen it seems.

    People forget that the extremely complicated and quite arbitrary calculation of “the right age” is a uniquely US-ian affectation, and even then limited to what amounts to a Vocal Minority. Elsewhere peeps tend to be quite a bit more pragmatic about it.

  25. Given that the young man in his case was below the age of consent when homosexuality was legalised, does this now mean, that having been retrospectively pardoned, Alan Turing would have to be retrospectively castrated?

  26. Alex, no

    You’re being tricksy..
    The pardon was based on current-age considerations, which includes the fact that the rather arbitrary initial age of consent of 21 for homosexual acts was pretty much… bollocks..

    He was pardoned under law that states age of consent at 16, so your argument doesn’t fly.

  27. Grikath-

    Regarding Collins/Brando it was 14 when I read it. Reportage may have edged it up since.

    The point being that as a society, if we are going to consider paedophilia an extreme abnormality, we need a proper definition which fits reality. You seem to agree with me that it should be defined not by age, but by the attraction to the absence of sexual maturity. This seems to me a far better definition than age of consent based definitions. Nobody is attracted to the age on a birth certificate. They are attracted to tits and arse, which is normal.

    In general, the tits and arse will have developed before the legal age. So we need to ensure we’re identifying paedophilia as opposed to mere underage sex. The Daily Mail (for instance) delights in shouting “paedophile” in every article it writes about the schoolteacher Jeremy Forrest, who had an affair with a 15 year old pupil, and legally in schools and other “power relationships” childhood extends to 18.

    But he is clearly not a paedosexual. Their mutual attraction was biologically normal, although it broke the social rules and the law. And it seems to me that most of the people who want the most extreme sanctions deployed against paedophiles are determined to use the age-of-consent definition rather than the more rational biological/sexual one. Our friend Ironman never stops calling me a paedo for just pointing it out, for instance. Which is why I asked you for clarification.

    There really is a fundamental qualitative difference between someone who pathologically abuses infants, and someone who has a normal relationship which breaks the law. As a fundamental step, we must recognise this before choosing policies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *