Maybe the people who came up with the whole idea of jails overestimated how awful we would consider having to live in a cell about 20 hours a day for 20 years.

They would chuckle if Trump admitted to having sex with teenagers and nod along if he said that everybody wants to do it.

Most MAGA men are cowards.

Like almost all men, and women, including myself. The elite couldn't do what they do if people would stand up for their rights and for a just society.

The mental gymnastics with which they support the pdfile is down right Acrobatic.

They dream of saving the world but refuse to wash the dishes.

(Your link doesn't work for me, not sure where it's supposed to go? I get a proxy verification page but nothing else).

My initial link addresses the age bit as well, it's mostly lower for higher ages because those people have less long to live. When corrected for that, higher age = higher risk to reoffend.

One issue with the current 25y studies is that a lot changes regarding correctional facilities in 25 years. Most of those studies are a fair bit older; modern studies find lower rates, likely due to improved prisons and therapies.

Regardless, it seems wrong to start imprisoning or chemically castrating people on the chance that they might reoffend, especially now that modern studies confirm that the recidivism rates aren't that high. I mean, for other types of crimes the recidivism rates are considerably higher, yet we don't take severe preventative measures there either. We also know that shorter sentences lower recidivism rates and that therapy is much more effective than prison as an empirical fact. And then there's the somewhat horrifying implications for the minority of falsely convicted folks. So I'm not so sure if extreme punishments for these people is a wise idea.

I don't know what's going on with that link. Even when I try to go there via my browser history I get the same thing you get now. Good thing I copy pasted part of it.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11778740/
Found better link.

Prison systems would not impact 25 year stats on re offending. There hasn't been better rehabilitation services over that time for sex offenders. Most u.s prisons are private owned. They don't invest in rehab.

Well. I'm going to disagree with you about going easy on sex offenders. Especially those of rape and child abuse.

They absolutely do deserve chemical castration. If they raped or hurt a child, they honestly deserve death from my perspective.
Sex crimes are not excusable. They are not forgivable. These are crimes of people who seek out vulnerable people to hurt them. That's not a behavior that they just stop doing.

And I believe they often just get better at hiding their behaviors.

I don't think it's more important we err on the side of allowing them to commit more crimes and create more victims rather than the poor sex predators having their freedoms restricted.

They are lucky that chemical castration is an option as alternative ways to make sure they don't hurt children again are more permanent.

With all the Epstein information coming out, I find it crazy that anyone thinks people who hurt children or rape someone deserve a second chance to do it again. That deserve any leniancy.
They don't.

Horse is a really big advocate for pedofiles. We live in a rape culture from the top down and the people who defend that like horse are a BIG part of the problem.

I understand the strong emotions here, but it's generally a very bad idea to go for physical punishments like chemical castration or a death sentence. Innocent people will get hurt by that, and that's imo an unacceptable injustice. Denying people's rights for whatever reason will be misused or abused.

I acknowledge that wrongful convictions happen. But considering how difficult it is to prove sex crimes in the first place, I don't think this particular type of crime is as risky as some of the others.

That said.

For there to be such extreme punishment, the standards for guilt should be very strongly supported. Videos. Photographs. Medical records.

And there would, of course, have to be some objective guidelines on how that is determined so that it's not applied with bias towards some groups.