Man accepts castration for lighter prison sentence... (1 Viewer)

[David Galindo]

I didnt even know they could offer something like this to a convicted child rapist...

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/p...plate=dateline

Whoa.

 

[Julian Reville]

Wierd.

Now really, simply removing the guy's nuts isn't going to stop his ability to rape. Impregnate, yes; rape, no.

Even if he did need testosterone to achieve an erection (which he doesn't) it would be readily available in the form of injections.

I wonder if he will opt for Neuticles?

Neuticles

 

[Cees Alons]

Next time it may be more difficult to match the DNA.

BTW I consider castration to be an unusual and cruel measure. That it's voluntarily, doesn't change the fact that, therefore, it should not be part of a bargain with the justice department and not influence (= made part of) the penalty.
As Julian said, it will not change his inclinations.


Cees

 

[Holadem]

That is absolutely ridiculous. What kind of court would condone such crap? Are we gonna start cutting the hands of thieves as well, for a reduced prison sentence (as long as it's voluntary of course ). How is this even constitutional?

--
H

 

[Matt^Brown]

I agree it is crazy. They should cut his complete penis off. I don't find this cruel but maybe a bit unusual. I would rather them castrate him and give him 25 years then not castrate him and he still only get 25 years.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I don't see the point either, since the problem is in the guy's head. Personally, commiting offenses against children should warrant the death penalty, as long as there is absolute proof of guilt. How many released reoffenders have we seen this year alone? How many more lives are we allowing to be ruined/ended over bogus sentences?

 

[Cees Alons]

Mmm.
Although I understand the emotions, I think we shouldn't discuss this by comparing what is going to happen (or not) to what we may personally wish for the criminal in question.

I mean: castration may be mild compared to whiplashes, burning irons, piercing out eyes and cutting off noses and other members, or being hanged, drawn and quartered. He may deserve that, morally, I don't know, but it's not exactly the point here.

My personal doubt lies here: does castration make sense (does it help) and is it a good and normal solution given the US law system, to the extend that it can lead to lighter prison sentences.


Cees

 

[Marko Berg]

I believe some criminal experts agree that rape in general is motivated primarily by hate and the need for (violent) control, not sex. Rape is for some a means to achieve this control and a way to humiliate the victim.

What happens when such a criminal is castrated and then released into the society? A previously angry man is no longer able to, ahem, express his frustration as he is used to doing. Now you have a perhaps angrier man whose attitudes towards women aren't certainly going to improve. He may even blame women in general for what has been done to him, and escalate into violence that is worse than before.

I say it's better to lock them up and keep them locked up.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Actual castration is a new one on me. So-called "Chemical Castration", using injections [typically the contraceptive "Depo-Provera", a preparation of female hormones] to depress the sex drive has been around for a while now. This is mostly used on perderasts, as appears to be in question in this case, since sex motivation [as opposed to bloodlust] is usually much stronger in such cases than with ordinary rapists.

 

[Jim Sentry]

A bullit thru the head is so much simpler and much less expensive.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I was doing some research on this very topic a few years ago in a con law seminar. IIRC about 100 years ago ALL felons were routinely castrated upon admittance to prison. The reason: we didn't want such untermensch breeding their deformed bastard spawn. It turns out that the vasectomy proceedure was invented by a prison doctor as a humane alternative to felon castration . I can't find the citation to this story at the moment but I believe it to be true.

In the landmark case Skinner v Oklahoma from the 1930s, Oklahoma routinely sterilized all incoming felons, but exempted what we would nowadays call "white collar criminals" (e.g. embezzelers). This law was struck down as unconstitutional, but not because it was 8th amendment "cruel and unusual punishment". Rather, it was struck down on 14th amendment "equal protection" grounds. Justice Douglas said he couldn't see why someone stealing a chicken would be sterilized, whereas someone embezzeling a chicken wouldn't. See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/skinner.html

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

It would be very odd if castration were deemed unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual punishment" given that it was legal punishment for the crime of rape in several of the colonies prior to the revolution and would have been considered neither cruel nor unusal at the time of the constitutional convention. (Jefferson, who wasn't present at the convention but did influence many of its members, supported the castration of rapists while serving as governor of Virginia.)

Dennis, I think you're misremembering something. While the eugenics movement of the early 20th century certainly encouraged the forced sterilzation of "mental defectives" and the criminally insane, and while there was a fashion for believing that criminal tendencies could be inherited, there was never a time in this country, or any other that I'm aware of, when all felons admitted to all prisons were castrated. Think about the sheer numbers involved. Do you really think this could have been done as a matter of course without it being common knowledge? Even the Nazis didn't go this far.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I studied this last circa 1996 so maybe I'm a little off on the details. But it certainly was common knowledge...and the public supported it! There was certainly no secret about it. Don't forget that 100 years ago there were relatively very few people in prison - not like the 1 MILLION incarcerated today (mostly on drug charges and other such things). I don't recall the exact numbers, but it would only be in the thousands IIRC.

I would submit that felons are per se unfit to ever be parents. It doesn't matter if they are physically unfit (possessing defective DNA or being a drug addict) or morally unfit (not capable of teaching children right from wrong, and how to live moral lives in our civilization). Either way they would not be capable of bringing up their children to live among decent people.

In fact, one of the main reasons to remove felons from society for long periods of time (in prison) is to prevent them from breeding. That's why the so-called "conjugal visits" make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

In other recent cases, judges in California are demanding forced birth control as a term of probation for alcoholic and drug-addicted mothers who therefore bear damaged children. This generally takes the form of forced Norplant implants, supervised and monitored by the woman's probation officer. These actions have not been overturned on appeal.

 

[David Galindo]

Wow, thats crazy! I had no idea there were these kinds of ultimatums.

 

[Arthur S]

Let us remember that 90% of sexual molestation is committed by someone known to the victim. Most often fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands, or "friends".

Yes, husbands can and do force themselves on their wives frequently, then there is date rape.

1 in 4 females will experience sexual molestation during their lifetimes. We pretty much only hear about the sensational crimes.

 

[Kevin M]

Even completely removing the penis, as someone mentioned earlier, would probably not stop a serial child molester from the urges he has or from finding some other way of violating children......I realize it is mostly histrionics to say this, but nonetheless, perhaps lobotomies would be more effective as simple incarceration doesn't seem to be very effective in stopping these defectives in seeking out their urges once they are released back into society.....at least if you listen to the media, I'm sure the actual number of repeat offenders is small compared to what the news shoves in your face....or is it?

 

[Jeff D Han]

There should be absolutely NO plea bargains or
reduced sentences involving sub-humans that mess
with kids. Either lock 'em up and throw away the
key, or give 'em lead to the head. These "people"
do society no good, so they have to be cut off from
it, with no compromises.

Yeah, I did hear that rape is a violent crime, not a
sexual crime, so would castration solve this problem?

 

[MarkHastings]

I read something (years ago) that mentioned this. They said that castration isn't a good deterrent because rape is more about the "power" rather than the sex. Without the power to 'rape', the criminal will find other methods to create this 'power' he craves. This usually ends up with the person resorting to murder.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Which was sort-of a plot point in an episode of Law & Order SVU -- the guy had been surgically castrated, and pulled down his pants when the cops came to question him to "prove" he couldn't have molested the victim in question, but it turned out he'd been buying artificial testosterone and did indeed commit the crime they'd been investigating