castration of sex offenders

[ashlesha]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — An Alabama lawmaker is proposing a bill for the 2014 legislative session to further punish convicted child predators before they're released from prison.

The Florence Times Daily (http://bit.ly/1fuBdgI) reports Republican Rep. Steve Hurst of Munford is trying again to pass a bill requiring sex offenders over the age of 21 whose victims were 12 or younger to be surgically castrated before being released from prison.

Under Hurst's bill, the castration would be financed by the sex offender.

A version of the same bill Hurst tried passing last year didn't make it out of committee.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/A...rs-4892985.php

[InvisibleJim]

Aye

[Absurd]

Yay.

[lagerdemon]

I'd prefer life sentence in a labor camp for sex offenders, castration alone isn't going to stop everyone from molesting little kids, lots of kids are molested without use of penis! also, what about women? are they going to get their vaginas removed??

[ashlesha]

also, what about women? are they going to get their vaginas removed??

lol, i didn't even think about this. reverse sexism: guilty

[Tonatiuh]

Castration, before death by guillotine.

[Radio]

wtf how is this even an option???

[ashlesha]

wtf how is this even an option???

?

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

what if they are innocent

[Tonatiuh]

what if they are innocent

Under that premise our prisons should be empty at all times.

[ashlesha]

what if they are innocent

there's always the possibility someone sentenced to death or stuck in prison for fifty years is innocent but thankfully it doesn't stop us from having a way to deal with criminals.

[nigh]

The surgeon won't be a very happy fluffy fuzzy person.

[ashlesha]

lol nurse ratchet with a pair of garden shears

[Tonatiuh]

The surgeon won't be a very happy fluffy fuzzy person.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

yea i was talking about castration and death sentence not just imprisonment (which is usually shitty and they get out worse)

[Narc]

Yeah, I don't like this.

[Absurd]

I'd prefer life sentence in a labor camp for sex offenders, castration alone isn't going to stop everyone from molesting little kids, lots of kids are molested without use of penis! also, what about women? are they going to get their vaginas removed??

How would you molest them if not with a penis? I take it you would use your hands or tongue in which case, ahem.

Castration, before death by guillotine.

And dipped in the surface of the Sun before castration and death by guillotine, yeah...

yea i was talking about castration and death sentence not just imprisonment (which is usually shitty and they get out worse)

Providing they get out, if you're not familiar with what happens to nonces amongst prison population.

[nigh]

I expect the whole eye-to-eye teeth-to-teeth thing to be gone within the next decade but some things just remain longer, it seems.

[ashlesha]

How would you molest them if not with a penis? I take it you would use your hands or tongue in which case, ahem.

...

[Absurd]

I expect the whole eye-to-eye teeth-to-teeth thing to be gone within the next decade but some things just remain longer, it seems.

It's not about the ancient Hammurabi code at all, it's about the violation of what can be called your own property and personal space, and if you are okay with that, that is, permission has been granted by you to receive such "service" voluntarily, by all means, be my guest.

...

What? Too liberal for you?

[nigh]

It's not about the ancient Hammurabi code at all, it's about the violation of what can be called your own property and personal space, and if you are okay with that, that is, permission has been granted by you to receive such "service" voluntarily, by all means, be my guest.

Yeah right. Shut up and rape me

[Absurd]

Yeah right. Shut up and rape me

Wrong quadra. Think about it. LUL.

Didn't name the rapist and paedophile quadra yet, but I am close, so be patient while I am not.

[nigh]

Wrong quadra. Think about it. LUL.

I knew you'd be like that. Caregivers aren't up to my game

[Absurd]

I knew you'd be like that. Caregivers aren't up to my game

You would have to pay me first and I might reconsider the "offer", although under few conditions:

Condition 1 - I don't do homos.

Condition 2 - I don't do idiots.

Condition 3 - I don't do homo idiots.

$50,000 is the lowest fee I can do cross quadra service, so do not hesitate and make me a wealthy man. This is the price you pay for my genes.

(It's cool lungs, I'm out of this thread, before I get removed from it, like from the one today already...)

[SyrupDeGem]

There are more ways than one to skin a child molester. Beyond reasonable doubt seems reasonable. Otherwise people can abduct/molest/murder/rape freely, without concern of arrest. Our system is crap and needs updating/replacing but for these types of crimes I prefer the penalty to be hefty.

[nigh]

Absurd thinking someone would pay him for his body

[Absurd]

Absurd thinking someone would pay him for his body

Condition #2 in this case, and as a matter of fact, the same way you " knew you'd be like that. Caregivers aren't up to my game", I knew you're and idiot instantly. No offence, but that Se/Ni people can't differentiate between theory and hypothesis and in this particular situation between body and genes, is not really a surprise to me.

An idiot is an idiot is an idiot.

Move to France you illiterate anosognosia(c),

[nigh]

blah

Errrm you're boring. I expected more from you. Te-doms are usually funner than this. Maybe you're not LSE.

Anyway. Bye

[SyrupDeGem]

Absurd thinking someone would pay him for his body

They might, I don't think it too preposterous an idea.

[Absurd]

Errrm you're boring. I expected more from you. Te-doms are usually funner than this. Maybe you're not LSE.

Anyway. Bye

"Maybe" you're not ESI in case your "brilliant" Ne polr mind didn't take such possibility into account yet. And if you're settled, decided and confimed on battle typing, roll over or I'll roll over you.

Hope my Fe funneh outro washed the boring away. Chop, chop!

[mu4]

Surgical castration is a whole lot different than chemical castration. It would fall under cruel and unusual punishment imo.

I have no problem with chemical castration of recidivist child molesters.

[Creepy-male]

I think they need to be careful about a policy like this. First because of major media there is a problem with sex offenders in the United States. Shows like dateline come to mind with Hanson confronting creepy lowlifes that try to have sex with minors and say all manner of disturbing things. However in several cases the sex offender registry isn't fair. For example, I remember hearing a case were an 19 year old guy had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend in high school. This to me is normal, however the mother found out and reported it to the police. The police then decided to press statutory rape charges. Which may I add the definition of statutory is the following:

: of or relating to formal laws or statutes

stat·ute noun \ˈsta-(ˌ)chüt, -chət\
: a written law that is formally created by a government

Usually this rape where there may or may not be consensual and is illegal purely off of law, and typically involves an age limit, that being 18 in many places. This is also the same congress that has members floating around talking about justified rapes and non justified rapes in the abortion topic, so maybe people should reconsider the wisdom of having the government weigh in on what is considered sexually offensive in the bedroom instead of having this judgment stand with the victim.

In the specific case above it was consensual, but the logic used was mother knows best! But then several days later the mother decided to revoke the charges. The police department continued with the charges and the guy was charged as a sex offender. So actually it was government knows best. The guy over time eventually got married to his girlfriend and they had kids, but he was still but on the registry with no distinction between him and violent rapists. Both were treated the same with respect to the law. He eventually was unallowed to take his kids to the park for having sex with his wife in high school.

This is the rare case, but its easy with the media for people to not rationally do the research on such topics and immediately give into moral crusading and emotionally based actions. If castration of sex offenders occurred, how would it effect people like the above mentioned? Would they be castrated because the state considers their sexuality offensive? Would they be castrated because another citizen considers their sexuality offensive? Would they be castrated because "Jesus" considers their sexuality offensive? What if the offender was innocent but wrongly accused? And they castrated him only to figure out he was wrongly accused?

Also I remember watching a crime show and hearing about a police that invaded people homes and forced women using a toy. Thankfully the guy was discovered and arrested but castration would not prevent this. In fact it almost seems debatable how effective the measure is as a deterrent (much like the death penalty), and whether is actually will prevent repeat offenses, or whether it is just a purely vindictive act of revenge to shame sex offenders in order to win media approval for political candidates. With media like "To catch a predator", the public can be very misinformed and offensive about such issues.

I think a number of issues would have to be addressed:
- What is the goal of castration? Shame? Revenge? Reduce Repeat Offenses? Deterrent? are their alternative to this and how successful is this measure in comparison?
- What level of offenses will they do this to? Violent Rapists? Child Rapists? Any Sex Offender?, how does this relate to the top level?
- Does the government really want to enact policies of exerting control over people's bodily organs? Policies on what's sexually offensive and then policies to remove body organs based on this? What's next, a congressman decides to remove your kidney to help another citizen because your a criminal and the recipient is a more valuable member in the eyes of the law.

My feeling is the law is purely a biblical time retributive and shaming act (chop the hands of the thief) that panders to the paranoia of parental voters that have been fed a frightening view of the world by the media on sex offenders from shows like dateline. It won't actually reduce sex crime. They need to work with law enforcement and look for trends of where the most crimes are occurring, what the nature of these are, and take realistic measures to prevent these. Place the responsibility with the victim to report crimes, but at the same time cultivate a culture of awareness and not shame around the victim. Be proactive about preventing sex crimes and when they happen be clear about defining levels of offense. Groping someone is no where near as bad as Violent Rape, and then age group and the nature of the crime counts as well. Punitive measures should serve three goals: rehabilitation and isolation of the offender from society, protection of future potential victims, and deterrents from other would be offenders. While the state is trying to show off by chopping the balls off some guy they could be throwing the resources to actually reaching out to victims, taking measures to reduce sex related crime. Like that congress needs to open up a book and read up on sex crime, review data with crime statistics, follow up with police departments down to direct victims and direct patrol officers having to deal with sex crimes. He's just being lazy and pandering to the fear based media. I also wouldn't underestimate the value of helping victims heal, instead of jumping into communities where rape is common and helping grow a positive culture, they are busy chasing down a relatively small minority of creeps and chopping their balls off. It's sort of ridiculous, its like letting people burn in a building while you punch the arsonist in the face. Sexual exploitation is nothing new and can't ultimately be solved by chopping people's balls off and making other feel afraid and guilty about sexuality. I think proactive is better with a modern system like this. They need to find the hot spots with the greatest problems first and expand outward and exert positive proactive influence that doesn't infringe on people's natural and consensual expression of sexuality and life.

[mu4]

I think the important question to be asked since this is Alabama. Which one of this guy's relative is going to be the first inmate punished under this legislation. Papa Hurst? Uncle Hurst? Cousin Hurst?

[kadda1212]

No. Although I sometimes think about certain child molesters that way, that someone should probably take one of those nail guns and... Yeah... But it doesn't work like that.
They should just be put into prison, gettin endlessly tormented by their prison comrades.

[MisterNi]

I'd be for castration of child sexual predators on the condition that failures of politicians and lawmakers also be castrated so they can't pass their loser genes on to the next generation. Seems like a fair compromise to me. A little quid-pro-quo as an incentive for lawmakers to stop holding their people hostage if they can't get their despotic way.

[Kill4Me]

what if they are innocent

Wouldn't change much. They'd still be short a dick.

[Kill4Me]

I don't think it would solve the problem

Agreed. They could just use something else to molest kids with.

[squirreltual]

If people are willing to go this far with a physical and irreversible punishment, why not just just kill sex offenders? Death penalty could be upon the second conviction.

The chemical castration studies I've seen (from UK) are based on self-reported evidence from offenders themselves - people looking for parole - which are obviously not to be trusted. Never mind the fact you often can't take sex offenders at face value anyway - they are notorious for lies and manipulation. So I don't know if there really is a proven record of chemical castration reducing thoughts or urges? Good money for big pharma though and a nice pool of guinea pigs... Call me a cynic...

I think in a number of cases physical castration would lead to other sadistic horrific and violent acts being committed against victims. Possibly you will have given a dangerous person a heightened sense of anger.

Also, of course, sex crimes aren't necessarily about libido.

[MisterNi]

If people are willing to go this far with a physical and irreversible punishment, why not just just kill sex offenders? Death penalty could be upon the second conviction.

Being a sexual offender is a heinous crime but the death penalty is a punishment that exceeds the crime unless a murder was also committed.

The chemical castration studies I've seen (from UK) are based on self-reported evidence from offenders themselves - people looking for parole - which are obviously not to be trusted. Never mind the fact you often can't take sex offenders at face value anyway - they are notorious for lies and manipulation. So I don't know if there really is a proven record of chemical castration reducing thoughts or urges? Good money for big pharma though and a nice pool of guinea pigs... Call me a cynic...

Chemical castration is also erring on the side of innocence. Irreversibly castrating sex criminals will inevitably lead to some innocent people being castrated which should be avoided.

[squirreltual]

Being a sexual offender is a heinous crime but the death penalty is a punishment that exceeds the crime unless a murder was also committed.

why?

Chemical castration is also erring on the side of innocence. Irreversibly castrating sex criminals will inevitably lead to some innocent people being castrated which should be avoided.

Chemical castration for long periods of time can result in irreversible effects on sex drive. Plus other side effects like osteoporosis and heart disease. By needing to "err on the side of innocence" the justice system would be undermining itself. Before dishing out chemical castration it would need to be sure anyway. Plus it hasn't been proven to work.

One of the figures I've seen shows sex offenders are more likely than other types to re-offend with other non-sexual crimes, which would go some way to showing it's irrelevance.

Maybe people are just more drawn to the idea because it's softer and more idealistic. We want to believe in something more clinical where our hands don't get dirty and everyone is safe.