Setting aside the fact that innocent people would suffer under such a law, how about we just don't institutionalize mutilation as an acceptable form of punishment for any crime
Louisiana becomes the first to legalize surgical castration for child rapists
- Thread starter Azaan60
- Start date
Whether you believe they're irredeemable or not, this is just another thing that's inevitably going to hurt innocent people and further normalize barbarism. Death and gore making anyone feel better is twisted.
This is just wrong. It won't solve anything. It probably will make things worse for victims and the state can't ever be trusted to wield such a power, even if we had absolute certainty.
While testosterone has an effect on the libido, it's not the cause for why rape happens. Rapist don't need to feel any sexual desire to rape. There can't possibly be any benefit from this, beyond satisfying some peoples bloodthirst.
Instead of wasting our time to produce even more harm, we should figure out how we can actually best help victims of rape. What we have to go through, in order to report and prosecute the crime, is often worse than the act itself. It's torturous, it's dehumanizing and it's violating. But people aren't actually interested in helping us.
While testosterone has an effect on the libido, it's not the cause for why rape happens. Rapist don't need to feel any sexual desire to rape. There can't possibly be any benefit from this, beyond satisfying some peoples bloodthirst.
Instead of wasting our time to produce even more harm, we should figure out how we can actually best help victims of rape. What we have to go through, in order to report and prosecute the crime, is often worse than the act itself. It's torturous, it's dehumanizing and it's violating. But people aren't actually interested in helping us.
This is a terrible idea anywhere but especially the US which has a long history of forced sterilisations of minorities, prisoners and the disabled (which was broadly defined to also include promiscuity or homosexuality); practices that were only banned as late as 1978, though they continued to 1983 officially (in Oregon, where The Oregon Board of Eugenics had been renamed to The Board of Social Protection, which tells you everything you need to know about what the motives were) and still continue to this day unofficially in places like immigrant detention centres as we've seen in threads on Era.
This WILL be broadened to apply to many other people if it is once again normalised.
This is alongside the fact that it will be applied to innocent people convicted of this crime. That there seems to be no scientific basis for this punishment or its effect on recidivism. That mutilation, like the death penalty, should never be within the power of any State (or anyone, for that matter).
This WILL be broadened to apply to many other people if it is once again normalised.
This is alongside the fact that it will be applied to innocent people convicted of this crime. That there seems to be no scientific basis for this punishment or its effect on recidivism. That mutilation, like the death penalty, should never be within the power of any State (or anyone, for that matter).
Pedophiles are one of the very few groups everyone hates, so the fascist rhetoric and call for medieval punishment doesn't rub people the wrong way.
It also puts anyone who pushes back a little in regards to constitutional rights and due process in a weird spot.
"Are you taking the pedophiles side?!"
They're actually really cool with it so long as the couple are married.
Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?
GOP lawmakers across the U.S. have opposed raising the marriage age, with some arguing child marriage bans would encourage abortion.
www.rollingstone.com
Happy at a lot of skepticism in this thread.
"Miss you look trans, come with me. We have to protect kids from you lot. "
Friend of mine dm'd me this on TikTok. Comments weren't really any better.
I can seen so many future scenarios already: We are trying to make ubermenschs here bro, under 5'8? Won't be needing these *snip snip*
"Miss you look trans, come with me. We have to protect kids from you lot. "
Last edited:
Castration, the death penalty and any other forms of capital punishment never stop people from commiting any other crime and this likely won't do anything either. Violent responses to crime don't solve anything, if anything it feels like it makes certain people want to go even further as if they're going to recieve such a harsh barbaric punishment (like death) they may as well do as much damage they can before it happens.
We all hate child rapists. See my posts and outrage over the olympia rapist participating and being protected by his country's officials.
But this isn't it. Because we all also know that this will not be enforced against the common white rapist that will repeatedly rape, but it will be enforced against a random non-white person that got in the crosshair because the police looked for a scapegoat to protect the white mayor's son who actually did the crime.
It will be enforced against random LGBTQ people, because these states are already defining "being LGBTQ in the vicinity of teenagers" as grooming. The promising sports star will NEVER get hit by it. The olympia guy, if he was living in louisiana, would never be hit by it, ever. Never ever ever.
Priests, politicians, policemen will all be completely exempt from ever being hit by this, and their sons will be excused because gosh we can't ruin their future.
So just by a bit of thinking this is a bad idea. There's also the fact that rapists don't tend to be scared of punishment (because the police doesn't care to begin with!), and that even if you do castrate them, rape is about power, not sexual appetite, so it won't even do anything, they will *still* be dangerous!
This law is just made to slam minorities with it, and to have the state pretend it's doing something. Meanwhile, rape kits get left to rot, unexamined and the politicians sure don't do jack shit about it.
But this isn't it. Because we all also know that this will not be enforced against the common white rapist that will repeatedly rape, but it will be enforced against a random non-white person that got in the crosshair because the police looked for a scapegoat to protect the white mayor's son who actually did the crime.
It will be enforced against random LGBTQ people, because these states are already defining "being LGBTQ in the vicinity of teenagers" as grooming. The promising sports star will NEVER get hit by it. The olympia guy, if he was living in louisiana, would never be hit by it, ever. Never ever ever.
Priests, politicians, policemen will all be completely exempt from ever being hit by this, and their sons will be excused because gosh we can't ruin their future.
So just by a bit of thinking this is a bad idea. There's also the fact that rapists don't tend to be scared of punishment (because the police doesn't care to begin with!), and that even if you do castrate them, rape is about power, not sexual appetite, so it won't even do anything, they will *still* be dangerous!
This law is just made to slam minorities with it, and to have the state pretend it's doing something. Meanwhile, rape kits get left to rot, unexamined and the politicians sure don't do jack shit about it.
I suspect this is one of many ill-thought out tough on crime bills that come out of Democratic minds. You can see the problem happening in this topic. And if you check who sponsored this bill, I do not think it is likely that this was meant to be weaponized against Black people.
Here are details of the bill:
Bill tracking in Louisiana - SB 371 (2024 legislative session) - FastDemocracy
CRIME/PUNISHMENT: Provides for surgical castration of persons convicted of certain crimes when the victim is under the age of thirteen. (8/1/24) (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
fastdemocracy.com
This is the primary sponsor:
Regina Ashford Barrow
(D - 15)
I don't know her politics, but her electoral record has some suggestions. She won the 2023 election uncontested. In 2019, she won with 75% of the vote. Her opponent, Gary Chambers, is Democrat (and a Black guy), because Louisiana has a jungle primary where all candidates participate; and if someone wins a majority in the primary, they are elected. Chambers was the highest vote-receiving Democratic challenger (with only 18% of the vote) to Republican John Kennedy (62% of the vote) to the US senate election in 2022. These all suggest that she represents a heavily Democratic and Black district (probably gerrymandered to be such), so I would not suspect her of sponsoring a bill to weaponize it against Black people.
And this is the bill's co-sponsor:
Delisha Boyd
(D - 102)
For similar reasons, she seems to represent a heavily Democratic and Black district. So I would not suspect her of sponsoring a bill to weaponize it against Black people either.
The problem is that the lawmakers can't get past that intellectual first step after the initial reaction, like adults. I think it's fine to have that gut reaction as long as your head ultimately recognises how problematic this is.
If you want children (and all victims of rape, rape can be just as devastating regardless of your age) to feel safe, the best thing you can do is tear down the barriers that make victims coming forward against their assailants so difficult. Hold people in power and the institutions that cover for them accountable.
In many states physicians are required to be at least present in the room while the death penalty is being carried out by authorized staff, sometimes themselves medical professionals, sometimes not. I imagine it'll work the same way, they'll either get the prison medic(s) to do it or give the relevant training to corrections staff and have a physican in the room in case of an emergency/out of legal obligation
This is all assuming it actually goes through, of course
This is dumb as fuck. There's no way in hell this isn't going to be weaponized against minorities.
What about the innocent people that will inevitably be castrated?
A "repeat offender" is not going to stop because they have been castrated. There is no scientific support for this actually working as a deterrent.
I feel this also focuses on a bio essentialism that genitalia as the cause of sexual abuse. SA can take many forms, unfortunately. The approach seems barbaric and misguided.
Surgery is a big deal. You can really fuck someone up if something goes wrong.
A medic to do surgery?
Surgery is a big deal. You can really fuck someone up if something goes wrong.
Barbaric and I have zero trust in the legal system to not get it wrong. Sorry.
Child rapists are the scum of the earth, but I don't think a modern society should be using mutilation as a punishment, especially when it means someone falsely accused could be subject to it. Also, a penis/vagina aren't the only ways a vile person could sexually assault a child if they ever get released from prison. And I'd fear for someone who was released after their genitals were mutilated by the State to be extremely vindictive in an even worse way.
Child rapists are the scum of the earth, but I don't think a modern society should be using mutilation as a punishment, especially when it means someone falsely accused could be subject to it. Also, a penis/vagina aren't the only ways a vile person could sexually assault a child if they ever get released from prison. And I'd fear for someone who was released after their genitals were mutilated by the State to be extremely vindictive in an even worse way.
This isn't going to be effective. If facing social ostracism, long prison time and being on a public sex offender registry in the US isn't a deterrent to people who go and abuse children then no amount of punishment is. Also, what are they going to do to women who offend? Plenty of women do. They going to remove their ovaries? What is going to help is making sure victims can come forward, and report this. Also the legal system isn't infallible and innocents will be harmed.
Probably a feature.
I suspect this is one of many ill-thought out tough on crime bills that come out of Democratic minds. You can see the problem happening in this topic. And if you check who sponsored this bill, I do not think it is likely that this was meant to be weaponized against Black people.
Here are details of the bill:
Bill tracking in Louisiana - SB 371 (2024 legislative session) - FastDemocracy
CRIME/PUNISHMENT: Provides for surgical castration of persons convicted of certain crimes when the victim is under the age of thirteen. (8/1/24) (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
This is the primary sponsor:
Regina Ashford Barrow
(D - 15)
I don't know her politics, but her electoral record has some suggestions. She won the 2023 election uncontested. In 2019, she won with 75% of the vote. Her opponent, Gary Chambers, is Democrat (and a Black guy), because Louisiana has a jungle primary where all candidates participate; and if someone wins a majority in the primary, they are elected. Chambers was the highest vote-receiving Democratic challenger (with only 18% of the vote) to Republican John Kennedy (62% of the vote) to the US senate election in 2022. These all suggest that she represents a heavily Democratic and Black district (probably gerrymandered to be such), so I would not suspect her of sponsoring a bill to weaponize it against Black people.
And this is the bill's co-sponsor:
Delisha Boyd
(D - 102)
For similar reasons, she seems to represent a heavily Democratic and Black district. So I would not suspect her of sponsoring a bill to weaponize it against Black people either.
A lot of Louisiana Democrats are built different. It's part of how they get elected here.
That aside, putting this shit on the table is horrendously shortsighted for all the cruelty noted already, continuing to normalize acceptance of cruelty by the state, and for handing a very tempting weapon over to the right.
Both of them need to hit the history books yesterday.
Like others have said, it could so easily be a short hop and step to extend this, you already have the framework there to possibly extend to LGBT "correction" because of the """""grooming""""" panic.
You know I wish people would think critically about issues instead of just going with gut reactions. What about females who repeat offend? Do they get a lesser punishment just because of their gender? When a mistake is made (and there will be mistakes and abuses of the punishment) do the lawmakers get castrated for allowing it?
That's why I mentioned repeat offenders.
If it ain't gonna work at all, then it's a dumb idea. I'm sure that there are some rapists that do it for the sexual pleasure and castrating them would at least help a little?
Yeah, it's difficult to determine what a right punishment is. Maybe just give longer sentences or straight to an asylum.
That isn't how law and justice is supposed to work, even though that is how it is abused in the U.S., which is why the justice system is unequal. You don't dole out a particular punishment for one class of people and then turn around and dole out a different one for a separate class.
Yeah, this was my first thought -- specifically, that it's the first step down the road towards wielding the threat of sterilization against people seeking or aiding in abortions. There's zero chance that they don't link abusing minors and terminating a pregnancy.
No, it wouldn't help, as it does nothing about them feeling pleasure. It affects their sexual desire, but that does nothing to stop a rapist from being a rapist.
I don't want to quote myself, which is why I'm quoting these two posts. This is what is actually important. Helping victims. And taking it seriously. In all the support groups I've been in, this is what we want.
That was my first thought. What happens in prison to people that do anything to a child seems like it gets handled without needing to clip their balls.
I've seen many specialists say such a thing is hardly going to solve the issue, and might even lead to worse outcomes, so, I hope it doesn't make things even worse.
We really don't need to cheer for prison violence. Not only because it affects innocent people being locked up in prison, but also because it's just wrong. Prison is the punishment.
Also, them being away from the general population is not guaranteeing for their safety, when there are plenty of guards abusing their powers.
Why stop there? Chopping hands off thieves next.
What's scary is that there will be a lot of people that like this idea.
What's scary is that there will be a lot of people that like this idea.
In my mind, I think, "yes, that does sound like a fitting punishment for a rapist."
And then the reality comes crashing in that it's not an ideal justice system and this would immediately be used to attack and destroy marginalized people, political rivals, the falsely accused, those seen as "deviant", those who simply support LGBTQ+ movements and youth, and so on and so on.
Considering we have a convicted rapist ex president who is free to run for office and no one in an official capacity is suggesting castrating him, it immediately shows that this isn't for those in power.
And then the reality comes crashing in that it's not an ideal justice system and this would immediately be used to attack and destroy marginalized people, political rivals, the falsely accused, those seen as "deviant", those who simply support LGBTQ+ movements and youth, and so on and so on.
Considering we have a convicted rapist ex president who is free to run for office and no one in an official capacity is suggesting castrating him, it immediately shows that this isn't for those in power.
After learning about forced castration that used to happen to slaves as well as to innocent black people by the KKK (my late grandfather told me a horrific story about that before he passed), I don't support any laws wanting to mutilate anyone for a crime. Especially when rape doesn't have to involve only genitals.
Jesus this country is regressing everyday. And what about the falsely convicted victims? Rapists should be punished but this is barbarism and on a dangerous slope.
This is exactly the delusion the bill's authors want to sell you.
No law written ever seems to actually get applied to powerful, wealthy, connected white men.
The more likely outcome is that our justice system will do what it always does and and sanction this barbarity on innocent men and women who are more often than not nonwhite, nonheteronormative, and not cisgender. What governments did to citizens under 'gross indecency' statutes must never be forgotten or repeated.
they invented a whole medical method of injection to avoid this, but of course some big Dad thinks the body horror deterrence factor is key to preventing crime.
edit: apparently a woman with that "...then cut it off" mentality. Ma'am they've been able to just cut it off for centuries, this can't be the breakout legislation the community has asked for. I don't think this is the time to be "old fashioned" even in the psychology around this subject or crime.
edit: apparently a woman with that "...then cut it off" mentality. Ma'am they've been able to just cut it off for centuries, this can't be the breakout legislation the community has asked for. I don't think this is the time to be "old fashioned" even in the psychology around this subject or crime.
Last edited:
Alan Turing is a good example for why this isn't something we should be doing either.
The flip side to all of this is...do you think they're going to be spending more effort on pursuing priests who abuse children? Do you think they're going to invest more in social services to help children in abusive home environments, especially if Dad is friends with the sheriff? These people never have any interest in stopping child abuse perpetrated by the people who are "allowed" to do it, and their motivations should always be suspect.