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
ಠ_ಠI got no love for these people but this is crazy, just give them the death penalty
They're actually really cool with it so long as the couple are married.
Friend of mine dm'd me this on TikTok. Comments weren't really any better.I recommend you steer clear from Facebook comments on this. Crazy behavior
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*That's not the intent of castration in this situation at all though - it's a secondary effect that will surely be weaponized against anyone that is "undesirable" with this law.
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.You cannot convince me the entire point of this is not to weaponize it against black and LGBTQ+ people
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.My first, knee-jerk reaction was 'good.'
Then, of course, all of the ways this could go wrong for wrongful convictions or focused on certain demographics, as there's no way a policy like this wouldn't be abused. And, of course, it's not like it would be an actual solution.
It's one of those things rooted in emotion that appeals to vigilante justice but opens the doors for misuse.
What about the innocent people that will inevitably be castrated?Seems harsh, but could be effective for repeat offenders. Not gonna shed a tear for pedophiles like Elon Musk.
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.Seems harsh, but could be effective for repeat offenders. Not gonna shed a tear for pedophiles like Elon Musk.
A medic to do surgery?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
Surgery is a big deal. You can really fuck someone up if something goes wrong.
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.
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?Seems harsh, but could be effective for repeat offenders. Not gonna shed a tear for pedophiles like Elon Musk.
That's why I mentioned repeat offenders.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?
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?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.
Yeah, it's difficult to determine what a right punishment is. Maybe just give longer sentences or straight to an asylum.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 do the lawmakers get castrated for allowing it?
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, it's difficult to determine what a right punishment is. Maybe just give longer sentences or straight to an asylum.
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.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).
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.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?
What is going to help is making sure victims can come forward, and report this.
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.Meanwhile, rape kits get left to rot, unexamined and the politicians sure don't do jack shit about it.
Just make sex offenders not go in protected custody in prisons make them hang out on gen pop. Trust me that's the worst punishment
Nailed it on all countsThis 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).
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.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.
This is exactly the delusion the bill's authors want to sell you.Seems harsh, but could be effective for repeat offenders. Not gonna shed a tear for pedophiles like Elon Musk.
Alan Turing is a good example for why this isn't something we should be doing either.they invented a whole medical method of injection to avoid this, but of course some big Daddy thinks the body horror deterrence factor is key to preventing crime.