Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#1 Old 5th Jul 2008 at 5:16 AM
Default Louisiana; chemical castration bill
Quote:
Characterizing sex offenders as monsters, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed legislation Wednesday that would force convicted rapists and others to undergo chemical castration.

“I am glad we have taken such strong measures in Louisiana to put a stop to these monsters’ brutal acts,” the governor said in a prepared statement.

Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 into law on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Louisiana cannot execute people who rape children under the age of 12.

The governor blasted the high court’s decision.

“I am especially glad to sign (SB144) into Louisiana law … on the same day the Supreme Court has made an atrocious ruling against our state’s ability to sentence those who sexually assault our children to the fullest extent,” he said.

SB144 is “a good bill,” Jindal said, that sends the message that Louisiana will fully punish those who harm children.

The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Meaux, did not return a call for comment late Wednesday afternoon.

During the legislative session, Gautreaux said the bill was inspired, in part, by the crimes of the Rev. Gilbert Gauthe.

Gauthe, a Roman Catholic priest, pleaded guilty in 1985 to molesting a number of boys in Vermilion Parish. He was arrested earlier this year near Galveston for allegedly failing to register as a sex offender.

The bill would allow judges to order chemical castrations for convicted rapists and other sex offenders.

Most debate about the bill during the legislative session centered on which crimes should apply.

Originally, the legislation was written broadly, extending to crimes like simple kidnapping and molestation of a juvenile.

Lawmakers whittled down the list of crimes.

SB144 now applies to aggravated rape, forcible rape, second-degree sexual battery, aggravated, incest and aggravated crimes against nature.

On a first offense, a judge would have the option of ordering injections of medroxyprogesterone acetate, which suppresses a man’s sex drive by reducing testosterone levels.

The injections would be mandatory on a second offense.

The castration treatments would start no later than a week before an incarcerated offender’s release from prison.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/21656994.html




On the heels of the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty for those who brutally rape children but don't murder them can not be executed, this comes down from the state of Louisiana.

WOW!!

To tell the truth, I like this law. It goes after the scum of society to make sure they won't prey on our children again. No need for the tracking bracelets, or the other methods to make sure they are kept away from children. For they will never have the desire to repeat their crimes again.

But in all honesty, it likely won't survive a test from the Supreme Court on its legitimacy. For being too unfair to those who prey on our children.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Advertisement
Moderator of Camera Models
retired moderator
#2 Old 5th Jul 2008 at 9:56 AM
This is a really tough one... I sympathise with the rationale but by the same token it is such an incredible violation of human rights.

Times like this I'm glad my opinion has no say. :P

*** Games Journalist with the magazines PC Powerplay and Hyper ***

And guys don't say a game is 'addicting'. That is a horrible massacre of the English language. The word is 'addictive'. Thank you. :)
Top Secret Researcher
#3 Old 5th Jul 2008 at 10:09 AM
I tend to feel that if someone rapes someone else, because they have infringed on the rights of another their own rights should be comprimised. Although, I can think of a much cheaper option than the injections - someone pass me either a rusty hammer or a blunt knife!

The only problem I can see with this is that they will need to have strict definitions of who classes as a danger to others. While someone who rapes 11 year olds is definately classed as a sex offender, what about those cases where someone has just turned the legal age, and their boyfriend/girlfriend is a month or two younger than them?

I would like to clear up the little matter of my sanity as it has come into question. I am not in any way, shape, or form, sane. Insane? Hell yes!

People keep calling me 'evil.' I must be doing something right.

SilentPsycho - The Official MTS2 Psycho
Scholar
#4 Old 5th Jul 2008 at 11:00 AM
What about those, like SilentPyscho said, who abuse older children?

And what if the person is wrongly convicted of their crime? What if they are innocent?
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#5 Old 5th Jul 2008 at 4:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by ElPresidente
This is a really tough one... I sympathise with the rationale but by the same token it is such an incredible violation of human rights.

Times like this I'm glad my opinion has no say. :P


I agree completely... this is a tricky situation. I absolutely think that underage sex-offenders should be severely punished, I just don't know whether or not chemical castration is the right route. It's a bit extreme, but at the very least maybe passing this bill would discourage the sex-offenders from doing anything in the first place.

There's always money in the banana stand.
Field Researcher
#6 Old 5th Jul 2008 at 9:20 PM
The problem with chemical castration is that rape is not *always* about sexual urges; it is usually more oriented towards issues of power/domination. Even though a person may be castrated and no longer as able to physically have an erection, the psychological roots for the desire to use rape as a means of exhibiting power and domination are still present.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Top Secret Researcher
#7 Old 5th Jul 2008 at 9:32 PM
I agree with CisteCaise. This measure isn't going to stop the root of the problem in many cases.

I understand where Louisiana is coming from, but I think this bill is a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't work to solve any problems or really prevent future incidents from happening. It's mainly the governor wanting to do something drastic, right now, that'll hurt these people. Doesn't look like a lot of thought went into it.

Also, do the injections wear off, or is the change permanent? I hesitate to agree with anything permanent (including the death penalty) because human error can't be eliminated. And there is the question of situations like SP brought up. Basically, it's a complex issue that needs careful consideration and action, not drastic measures.

Lab Assistant
#8 Old 5th Jul 2008 at 11:07 PM
Quote: Originally posted by CisteCaise
Even though a person may be castrated and no longer as able to physically have an erection, the psychological roots for the desire to use rape as a means of exhibiting power and domination are still present.


Yes, yes, absolutely. This won't stop an abuser from abusing. They'll just find some other way to satisfy their urges. Taking away an offender's ability to have an erection isn't disarming him and making him harmless. This is something that originates in the brain, not the genitals.
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#9 Old 6th Jul 2008 at 12:45 AM
Quote: Originally posted by svenge
Yes, yes, absolutely. This won't stop an abuser from abusing. They'll just find some other way to satisfy their urges. Taking away an offender's ability to have an erection isn't disarming him and making him harmless. This is something that originates in the brain, not the genitals.
You would be surprised by how much our hormones drive us. It is true that is won't stop all sex offenders, but one noted fact among many repeat offenders is an high level of testosterone. By chemical castration, one can lower this effectively and reduce the chances of repeat offending.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Theorist
#10 Old 6th Jul 2008 at 3:55 AM
I am interested to see if this gets to the Supreme Court, and as to what the Supreme Court's ruling as to whether this counts as cruel and unusual punishment or not. There is a good chance that this kind of law might not be Constitutional. Plus, it says that its administered as they are getting ready to leave prison...a child molester/rapist doesn't necessarily need to be functional to sexually abuse a child, and this would be administered as they are rejoining society. It would stop one form of sexual abuse...but not all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#11 Old 6th Jul 2008 at 5:33 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
I am interested to see if this gets to the Supreme Court, and as to what the Supreme Court's ruling as to whether this counts as cruel and unusual punishment or not. There is a good chance that this kind of law might not be Constitutional. Plus, it says that its administered as they are getting ready to leave prison...a child molester/rapist doesn't necessarily need to be functional to sexually abuse a child, and this would be administered as they are rejoining society. It would stop one form of sexual abuse...but not all.

To my surprise, there are already a few states that do similar laws, California I believe is where Louisiana got theirs as the two are very similar. Even Iowa here has a castration law for sex offenders, which I didn't know about.

The law davious is Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, if the Supreme court goes off of that ruling as I suspect they will, then the law won't stand.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Theorist
#12 Old 7th Jul 2008 at 1:42 AM
Yeah, its just a matter of time before something like this goes to the US Supreme Court. My own feelings are that while it may make people feel better, knowing that sexual predators are castrated, I don't think laws like this would stand up to a Supreme Court decision, as I doubt it would pass the 8th Amendment unscathed...

I think a smart lawyer for a convict facing this punishment could easily form an argument that chemical castration counts as cruel and unusual punishment, which is specifically prohibited by the 8th Amendment. Shoot, all he would really have to do is point out how chemical castration would deprive him of the opportunity to have children, and that even with his past record, he should have the right to start fresh upon being released from prison, and be able to start a family, should he choose to. Other criminals pay their debt to society, and once they get out of prison, they are free. A smart lawyer would point out that even after getting out of prison, their client is never truly free.

Personally, I have no moral objections to the concept of chemical castration, I just see a lot of potential problems for these kinds of laws, should the matter ever find its way to the Supreme Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#13 Old 9th Jul 2008 at 2:25 PM
Australia also has a similar thing happening, but theirs is optional, and its does looks suspicious when the sex offenders volunteer to take the drugs to shorten their sentencing.

some links for reading
http://news.google.com.my/news?hl=e...ical+castration

I think they should be castrated with a knife and then kept in jail
Theorist
#14 Old 9th Jul 2008 at 4:01 PM
the problem with this kind of law, is that it in effect, enforces a double penalty against the offender. When someone is imprisoned, and they serve their sentence, once they are released, they have paid their debt to society or whatever you want to call it, and are given the chance to show that they can lead normal, productive lives. With this kind of law however, the offender not only serves their prison time, but, once they are released from prison, and supposedly free, they are being given a second penalty, which prevents them from leading a mostly normal life after prison, by preventing them from being able to have children with their loved one. As soon as states start telling people that it is up to the state to determine who should be allowed to reproduce, and who shouldn't, its a long, slippery slope down. Chemical castration is the state interfering with a person's right to reproduce if they choose to. In my previous post, I said I had no qualms about the process, and that it was really just problematic from a legal point of view...but the more I think about it, the more I think chemical castration does indeed cross the line, even if its intended purpose is to prevent sexual abuse. I just cannot favor something that would enable the state to tell anybody that they do not have the legal right to have children...it starts with child molesters and rapists, but, it could easy move from sexual criminals to ordinary criminals, and then to poor people, to unintelligent people, etc. Once it gets started, and people get comfortable with the concept of chemical castration, it won't be hard to justify it in other cases. Pretty soon we get a society where the government dictates what people do in their bedrooms...and I don't think we want that, do we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Mad Poster
#15 Old 9th Jul 2008 at 4:12 PM
I don't know about them wanting children but wouldn't they still feel the need to be intimate with someone? Sexual frustrations can lead people to more random violence and what's going to be next? Put their hands in bandages so they won't be able to hit someone?
Theorist
#16 Old 9th Jul 2008 at 5:46 PM
You would think...the more I think about it, the more I think its a bad solution to a real problem. We all want to curb sexual predators, we all want abuse against children to stop, but that doesn't mean that every possible solution we come up with is necessarily a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Scholar
#17 Old 9th Jul 2008 at 9:03 PM
Quote: Originally posted by svenge
Yes, yes, absolutely. This won't stop an abuser from abusing. They'll just find some other way to satisfy their urges. Taking away an offender's ability to have an erection isn't disarming him and making him harmless. This is something that originates in the brain, not the genitals.



I'm similarly concerned. While I'm not entirely onboard the legislation itself, I can offer no better alternative, and it does strike me as a better alternative to tracking bracelets and the like--its just chemical castration hasn't been perfected yet. One thing we have to remember is, regardless of which side of the fence you are on this, this still isn't a perfect fix. I'd hate to think that something with a lot of potential could get bogged down because of the typical clumsiness you find in State government, and chemists they hired.

I'll go with Prez. I think is has a lot of potential, and should be examined further, before some sloppy chemist unintentionally kills a person because the chemical castration wasn't working as planned. Still, I'm not even close to an expert on the subject either.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
Field Researcher
#18 Old 11th Jul 2008 at 10:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by CisteCaise
The problem with chemical castration is that rape is not *always* about sexual urges; it is usually more oriented towards issues of power/domination. Even though a person may be castrated and no longer as able to physically have an erection, the psychological roots for the desire to use rape as a means of exhibiting power and domination are still present.

I agree, pedophiles and the like use more than just the gentials I wont go into what else they use but I doubt chemical castration is going to do anything
Scholar
#19 Old 12th Jul 2008 at 12:11 AM
Quote:
SB144 now applies to aggravated rape, forcible rape, second-degree sexual battery, aggravated, incest and aggravated crimes against nature.


What's the difference between aggravated, and forcible rape? Also what do they mean by aggravated incest and aggravated crimes against nature?
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#20 Old 12th Jul 2008 at 12:34 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Black_Barook!


What's the difference between aggravated, and forcible rape? Also what do they mean by aggravated incest and aggravated crimes against nature?


Aggravated rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty-five years of age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim.


Forcible Rape is the carnal knowledge of a person forcibly or against that person’s will, or when a victim is mentally or physically incapable of giving consent.

Aggravated incest is the engaging in any prohibited act with a person who is under eighteen years of age and who is known to the offender to be related to the offender as any of the following biological, step, or adoptive relatives: child, grandchild of any degree, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece.

Aggravated crimes against nature is a very broad one. This one requires the full law to understand it.

Quote:
§89. Crime against nature

A. Crime against nature is:

(1) The unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex or opposite sex or with an animal, except that anal sexual intercourse between two human beings shall not be deemed as a crime against nature when done under any of the circumstances described in R.S. 14:41, 14:42, 14:42.1 or 14:43. Emission is not necessary; and, when committed by a human being with another, the use of the genital organ of one of the offenders of whatever sex is sufficient to constitute the crime.

(2) The solicitation by a human being of another with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation.

B. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both.



Quote:
§89.1. Aggravated crime against nature

A. Aggravated crime against nature is crime against nature committed under any one or more of the following circumstances:

(1) When the victim resists the act to the utmost, but such resistance is overcome by force;

(2) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act by threats of great and immediate bodily harm accompanied by apparent power of execution;

(3) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon; or

(4) When through idiocy, imbecility, or any unsoundness of mind, either temporary or permanent, the victim is incapable of giving consent and the offender knew or should have known of such incapacity;

(5) When the victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act, by reason of stupor or abnormal condition of mind produced by a narcotic or anesthetic agent, administered by or with the privity of the offender; or when he has such incapacity, by reason of a stupor or abnormal condition of mind from any cause, and the offender knew or should have known of such incapacity; or

(6) When the victim is under the age of seventeen years and the offender is at least three years older than the victim.

B. Whoever commits the crime of aggravated crime against nature shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than three nor more than fifteen years, such prison sentence to be without benefit of suspension of sentence, probation or parole.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Test Subject
#21 Old 13th Jul 2008 at 8:48 PM
Whilst I can appreciate the motivation behind this, I don't think it's the right way to go. At the end of the day it has absolutely no long-lasting effect, rape is a crime that someone can quite easily be falsely accussed for and sentenced in comparison to other crimes, forced castration has been denounced as a violation of Human rights in other nations and so on and so forth. Whilst I am all in favour of the death penalty for murder I don't think forced chemical castration is the appropriate punishment for rape and similar crimes.

When dealing with paedophiles especially, forced castration won't solve anything. Many of them are careful and extremely cunning - there are thousands of ways to sexually abuse someone and many of them will not be stopped by forced castration. This bill is nothing more than barbarism in itself - it serves no practical purpose.
#22 Old 13th Jul 2008 at 9:18 PM
Can anyone tell me how the chemical castration would work against Female Sex Offenders? I mean it just seems lately there is more and more stories about Female Teachers sleeping with their students, which they are convicted and classified as sex offenders. Also rape isn't always about pentration, neither is sex abuse. Does this chemical castration suppress some behavoirs or just the physical arousal? It's been noted that not all Rapists and Sex offenders, male, have full errections to carry out raping some one. I also feel sympathy for those who are falsely convicted of that crime who would recieve this punishment. As it stands now people are being cleared every day of crimes they served time for and all the government does is say sorry. No financial reparations for that person being locked up and seperated from family and having to endure the abuses and mental deterioration from being incarcerated. So what is the government going to do when the first story breaks about some one being wrongully imprisoned and chemically castrated? Just another sad apology? But I'm really curious about how this bill affects women offenders who I think besides breaking news stories about teachers and students, pretty much go unoticed and sometimes unprosecuted because it's seen as a "man's" crime to sexually abuse.
 
Back to top