Real Justice.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

...I looked there with various search requests!

Then again, those don't talk about it's efficacy.....

I know what you mean. How about this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6...&ordinalpos=17

Sexual deviation disorders, or paraphilias, are diagnosable psychiatric syndromes manifested by 1) recurrent fantasies about deviant sex, 2) intense associated cravings, and 3) stereotypic behavioral responses. Pedophiles seek out children in response to their erotic thoughts and urges, whereas exhibitionists expose themselves. Paraphiliac syndromes ordinarily follow a chronic course and may be associated with biological pathology, but etiological factors are poorly understood. Treatment becomes a consideration when the well-being or rights of others are compromised. Proposed treatments have included psychotherapy, behavior therapy, surgery, and medication. Medroxyprogesterone acetate, which reduces testosterone, may diminish sexual preoccupation and urges, making self-control easier.

[Ramrod]

may diminish sexual preoccupation and urges, making self-control easier.

Yep, but not good enough......

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

Not a resounding success....
btw, it's hard to find any studies about chemical castration and it's efficacy, this suggests that we don't really know how effective it is

An eighty-four per cent success rate is pretty god actually. Add to that the eighty per cent success rate after psychological treatment, it does seem so bad, in comparison. That leaves a margin of just three per cent, or a success rate of ninety-seven per cent.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

An eighty-four per cent success rate is pretty god actually. Add to that the eighty per cent success rate after psychological treatment, it does seem so bad, in comparison. That leaves a margin of just three per cent, or a success rate of ninety-seven per cent.

can you show the mathemagical calculations on this i'm a little confused

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

can you show the mathemagical calculations on this i'm a little confused

I don't blame you. I was using maths and statistical analyses, as it is taught at the Daily Mail Academy of Mathemagics.

The apparent success rate of chemical castration, according to Ramrod, is eighty-four per cent (forty out of forty-eighty, according his source). Add to that the statistic from the link given earlier, asserting that the treatment of offenders does not work, but really works eighty per cent of the time. So, eighty percent of sixteen per cent leaves three per cent, making a success rate of the two treatments together, of ninety-seven per cent. Simple really.

[Ramrod]

No, one place claimed a success rate of 80% while they were being treated. They may well drop back to the standard 90% failure once the treatment stops; and probably will.

what about medical castration then as an option so slipping back when they are nutless

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

No, one place claimed a success rate of 80% while they were being treated. They may well drop back to the standard 90% failure once the treatment stops; and probably will.

You have absolutely no evidence that that would happen. Bear in mind you provided the source as your proof of your assertion.

But just to remind you of what you are basing your assumptions on:

The general re-offending rate among paedophiles is 90%, but after treatment at Wolvercote, it dropped to 20%

No, you may have noticed that I have underlined the word "after." This meaning that this is the result "after" treatment, not during.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

You have absolutely no evidence that that would happen. Bear in mind you provided the source as your proof of your assertion.

But neither you nor they have evidence that those 80% will continue to be good boys till the day they die
You really think that a 'course' would make you change your sexual orientation/attraction for life?

No, you may have noticed that I have underlined the word "after." This meaning that this is the result "after" treatment, not during.

true, I misread it, my bad. But my argument above still stands.

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------

Originally Posted by zing

what about medical castration then as an option so slipping back when they are nutless

That works for some but apparently (according to those in the 'know' that I have spoken to) a lot of the attraction is mental, so removing the physical gubbins isn't enough to stop them interfreing with kids in a lot of cases.....
........as you know I speak to a wide and varied cross section of society every day

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

But neither you nor they have evidence that those 80% will continue to be good boys till the day they die
You really think that a 'course' would make you change your sexual orientation/attraction for life?

But there is evidence, you provided it.

true, I misread it, my bad. But my argument above still stands.

No it doesn't, that was whole premise for your argument.

That works for some but apparently (according to those in the 'know' that I have spoken to) a lot of the attraction is mental, so removing the physical gubbins isn't enough to stop them interfreing with kids in a lot of cases.....
........as you know I speak to a wide and varied cross section of society every day

According to those in the 'know' that I have spoken to? Hardly a provable statistic. Where have they got their information from?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But there is evidence, you provided it.

No, all that can be gleaned from that link is that at the time of writing, 'only' 20% had reoffended. You cannot take that and extrapolate that the other 80% will abstain from molosting kids for the rest of their lives.

According to those in the 'know' that I have spoken to? Hardly a provable statistic. Where have they got their information from?

From working as local authority & police child protection types. It's their jobs......

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

No, all that can be gleaned from that link is that at the time of writing, 'only' 20% had reoffended. You cannot take that and extrapolate that the other 80% will abstain from molosting kids for the rest of their lives.

But you tried to use this "evidence" to prove your assertion that ninety per cent re-offended. You can't use the "evidence" to prove your theory, but use it to disprove another that it agrees with.

From working as local authority & police child protection types. It's their jobs......

Yes......of course.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But you tried to use this "evidence" to prove your assertion that ninety per cent re-offended. You can't use the "evidence" to prove your theory, but use it to disprove another that it agrees with.

The 90% who reoffend figure is the easy one, they have reoffended. It's a different figure about paedophiles who weren't on that course-ie the vast majority.
Of the pedophiles who attended the course, 20% reoffended and 80% hadn't at the time of writing. That doesn't mean tha they will remain good boys for the rest of their lives.......

Yes......of course.

I can only repeat what I am often told by people in child protection
If you want to be sarcastic about that thats your call

[Ramrod]

Funnily enough, I was talking to a child protection worker today about all this who has 'no idea' as to paedophile reoffending rates and tends to 'act sympathetically' with offenders; doesn't 'subscribe to the Daily Mail view'.......I noticed he was holding a copy of the Guardian