Submitted 1 day ago by Pro@programming.dev to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
How do you reverse a chemical castration if it’s later revealed the person was wrongfully convicted?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47973826
New figures show that 84 people were wrongly convicted of crimes between 2007 and 2017.
Charges ranged from murder to rape and included people serving life sentences.
You stop the regimen of drugs and the primary effect ceases en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
I’m not arguing for the policy, I think violating someones bodily authority is inherently evil and should not be on the table even as a result of a criminal conviction.
But I think our objections should follow the science, we should object to the harm caused to the (falsely)convicted while on the drugs rather than the permencance of the sentence.
Fair point, however by your own source:
although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA).
In men… …side effects of some drugs may include depression, suicidal ideation, hot flashes, anemia, infertility, increase in body fat and higher risks of cardiovascular diseases and osteoporosis.
In women… …side effects include the deflation of breast glands, expansion of the size of the nipple and shrinking of bone mass.
My original point was about wrongful conviction but fuck, even if the person is guilty, that is cruel and unusual punishment.
State enforced depression and suicide ideation? No thanks. That’s Josef Mengele style shit, the Nazi SS Angel of Death
Forced mutilation of anybody for any reason is unethical and fucked up. Let’s do other things like fixing society, proper education, end eugenics/racism/transphobia/etc.
If you want to stop sex offenders, stop trying to teach them a “lesson” after doing it and instead install things into society that prevents it in the first place.
Chemical castration isn’t mutilating the body. It’s typically forcing them to take a medication that stops sexual function.
i wanted to say something funny but tgis comment is just fucking dumb
Chemical or surgical, it doesn’t matter same results.
It lowers sexual function, it doesn’t always stop it
Hey, no! How about we treat people in our prison system like people we are trying to rehabilitate hmm?
Forced Sterilization is a dangerous precedent to set. First it’s sex offenders, then it’ll be disabled people, “drug addicts” but really it’ll be the poor. The working class, disenfranchised by the wealthy. Crime is caused by poverty. We cannot do this as a society. Once you start deciding that one group of people are more deserving of basic biological function, you just open it up to moving the line on where that is. Rehabilitation does not come from castration. Peoples genitals don’t make them sex offenders.
No, just no.
Even if you think it’s a good idea, there’s way too much room for error. Hundreds of people in the UK have been charged with falsely accusing someone of rape. Just two years ago a woman beat herself with a hammer to accuse someone. Multiple innocent people where harassed, had their homes vandalized, there was attempted suicide, etc. And now they want to add more trauma?
It’s not an “ethical minefield”, it’s sociopathic to even consider.
We don’t quite know what you mean. Do it on Prince Andrew first, as an example.
No sweat.
It’s like a really cold shower.
I used to support this idea, but the stance this government has on trans people makes me apprehensive…
It’s already a risk to literally anyone wrongly convicted, trans or cis.
That too…
Because this went well last time we tried it…
i’m all for it being a voluntary option so long as it’s not a condition for parole.
We should not be forcing this on people though
I think it’s fine as an option for people with serious conditions beyond their control, like pedophilia, provided that the scientific community agrees it’s a helpful treatment option. Other than that, I don’t see how it could be helpful.
No medical professional worth a damn would ever advocate this. Indeed it’s a violation of the Hippocratic oath.
At this rate, Starmer is more fascist than the last Tory government.
He passed that already
This is the first I’ve heard of it being mandatory. All other reporting I’ve seen is prisoners being able to opt in, for a reduced sentence.
“We’ll let you go if you chemically castrate yourself” is just another way of saying “We’ll detain you if you don’t”
It’s still a threat of violence in an attempt to coerce someone into a medical treatment that they don’t want
You’d still be let out after your normal sentence, nobody that sets the laws is advocating keeping them there forever.
To be clear, I disagree with it, it seems crazy to me.
I’m just pointing out that this reporting is saying something very different to all other reporting I’ve seen on this topic. I’ve not seen anywhere else report it as being forced.
Start with the royal family.
SattaRIP@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
So their apology to Turing meant nothing