Originally posted by Sam The ShamWhy are you so upset, Mr. Law and Order?
"Crime is crime"? What are you, nine years old? You're comparing the violent forcible rape of a small child to having consensual sex with someone under the age of consent and claiming you don't see a difference in what the punsihment should be. I'm not arguing anymore with you, you're just being a jerk and you know it. Find someone else to spin your wheels with.
Originally posted by no1marauder6 other states have done it, if it's breaking the 8th amendment you need to tell them.
Political grandstanding. Such a law has no chance of surviving 8th Amendment review; it is both cruel and unusual. The Governor seems to enjoy wasting his, the Louisiana legislature's and the Louisiana Attorney General's time by supporting legislation sure to be overturned as violative of basic fundamental rights.
They're talking about chemical castration, it only lasts while the medication is taken.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamLet's try another way to address the problem. You and others seem to be concerned about the crimes not being repeated. If you look at the people that commit these kinds of crimes, you will find that they have been raped and sexually abused themselves. In an effort to stop the cycle of this kind of crime, would you advocate "sterilizing" the victims of these crimes as they are likely to repeat these crimes?
6 other states have done it, if it's breaking the 8th amendment you need to tell them.
They're talking about chemical castration, it only lasts while the medication is taken.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThey'll be told as soon as they sentence someone to chemical or other castration and that sentence is appealed. It will be quickly ruled a violation of the 8th Amendment. They will then waste resources appealing that decision and they will lose. There isn't a shred of doubt that sentencing someone to castration violates the "cruel and unusual" punishments clause; I doubt you'd even get Scalia and Thomas to vote to uphold that one.
6 other states have done it, if it's breaking the 8th amendment you need to tell them.
They're talking about chemical castration, it only lasts while the medication is taken.
Originally posted by slappy115That's not necessarily true. If you read literature about sex offenders you first must understand that rape is not about sex. Sex offenders can still have a life of violent crime without rape and they frequently do.
Yes, when they get out of prison in three years, it is impossible to become a repeat sex offender (for the most part).
Originally posted by kirksey957Yeah that's a hell of an idea kirksey, punish the victims. Your posts set my troll meter off the scale.
Let's try another way to address the problem. You and others seem to be concerned about the crimes not being repeated. If you look at the people that commit these kinds of crimes, you will find that they have been raped and sexually abused themselves. In an effort to stop the cycle of this kind of crime, would you advocate "sterilizing" the victims of these crimes as they are likely to repeat these crimes?
Originally posted by slappy115But this is not true. The act of coitus in the context of rape is merely an exercise of power,
Yes, when they get out of prison in three years, it is impossible to become a repeat sex offender (for the most part).
not sexuality. While chemical castration may prevent erection, it does not prevent the exercise
of power. The offender may still assault, abduct, and terrify his victim, and may still engage
in rape with a foreign object. In sex, the release of tension is in ejaculation. In rape, the
release of tension is in domination.
This Louisiana governor has signed this law ignorant of the basic mindset behind rape and the
accompanying literature about the ineffectiveness of chemical castration upon rapists. He is
simply grandstanding. Anyone who applauds his decision is similarly ignorant or merely a
bloodthirsty animal.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderWah? It's already been carried out in some States.
They'll be told as soon as they sentence someone to chemical or other castration and that sentence is appealed. It will be quickly ruled a violation of the 8th Amendment. They will then waste resources appealing that decision and they will lose. There isn't a shred of doubt that sentencing someone to castration violates the "cruel and unusual" punishments clause; I doubt you'd even get Scalia and Thomas to vote to uphold that one.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThen why do they call it castration? That seems strange. The word is simply a drama magnet it seems. Castration implies getting your testicles removed. They don't call anesthetics "nerve removal medications" or anything. Why call this castration?
6 other states have done it, if it's breaking the 8th amendment you need to tell them.
They're talking about chemical castration, it only lasts while the medication is taken.
Originally posted by smw6869Apparently it's hardly ever been used and primarily on those that have agreed to it. Thus it has yet to generate an appeal as far as I can determine looking through Findlaw and other legal sites. If I have some time to look up the statutes in the various State Law annotated books, I'll let you know if there have been any challenges.
Wah? It's already been carried out in some States.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, they didn't think an Indian-American could get elected governor or that he could change the culture of corruption in Louisiana either. The problem with Democrats is you present them with a solution and all they do is whine about how it can't be done, or it was too little too late, or we didn't do enough. If your side isn't up to solving problems, then maybe you should step aside?
Political grandstanding. Such a law has no chance of surviving 8th Amendment review; it is both cruel and unusual. The Governor seems to enjoy wasting his, the Louisiana legislature's and the Louisiana Attorney General's time by supporting legislation sure to be overturned as violative of basic fundamental rights.
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957Not entirely true. The prevalence of a history of sexual victimisation during childhood is about 25-30% amongst male child sex offenders, which isn't much higher than the figure of 15-20% for males in the general population. Furthermore, most of this increase can be explained by intermediary variables such as antisocial associates, family background and substance abuse. Also, there's the issue of whether the person started offending soon after they were victimised; survivors of child sexual abuse who make it to adulthood without offending seem to be no more likely to offend than the general population. (At least, this has been found to be true for males; with females, it's less clear because research sample sizes have been smaller. Females have a much lower base rate of offending based on reported statistics, in any case.)
My point was that the perpetrators were once victims.