It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alabama passes chemical castration law for sex offenders

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I read this in The Atlantic


Today Alabama enacted a law that will require, as a condition of parole, that some convicted child sex offenders undergo “chemical castration.”
The new law will mean that those who abused children under the age of 13 will be injected with hormone-blocking drugs before leaving prison. The medication will have to be administered until a judge, not a doctor, deemed it no longer necessary.


I used to think this would be a great deterrent and
punishment.
Now im not sure. It seems like states are really pushing 'human rights' issues.
Pretty crazy considering the things that you are, and are not allowed to say nowadays.
edit on 12/6/2019 by Brian4real because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 02:41 AM
link   
the judiciary should not have the power to mandate perscriptions



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Obviously the judge will be advised by medical practitioners and will have to explain his rulings.

I understand the reasoning behind this but personally I'd literally lock anyone up convicted of a sex crime against anyone for life in a small cell with no 'luxuries' etc. Work on a chain gang or something similar would qualify them for some sort of 'luxury'.
No parole, no early release.

We need to remember that the primary reasons for jail are punishment and deterrence and not rehabilitation.

Paedophiles and rapists don't deserve the chance of rehabilitation.

Bollocks to their 'rights', what about the rights of their victims who they murdered or abused?



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the judiciary should not have the power to mandate perscriptions

Unfortunately, they already do. Maybe not always directly, but through terms of probation/parole and those matters.

Granted, those people could always opt out of that and choose prison.

I personally understand the reasons behind this, but I could never support it as law.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I wholeheartedly agree.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn

We need to remember that the primary reasons for jail are punishment and deterrence and not rehabilitation.
Paedophiles and rapists don't deserve the chance of rehabilitation.
Bollocks to their 'rights', what about the rights of their victims who they murdered or abused?


Too many *do gooders* around for that to happen..... It seems punishment is

no longer in vogue.

My own view is that if children were punished for their misdemeanors they

would grow up to be better adults.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 05:15 AM
link   
It’s a good start but it still seems soft compared to the crime.
Get rid of the chemicals and make it castration via rusty scissors and it will be close to a fitting punishment and deterrent I reckon



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the judiciary should not have the power to mandate perscriptions

The person can refuse, so it is not really mandated.

I prefer giving the family time to forgive the perp and then ending their life without hatred because they can't live in this world.
edit on 12-6-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real

Feels like it should sound good..
Like it's good on paper, but when yous say it out loud, it just seems wrong.
Not too mention, people who hurt people might not be doing it because of hormones. It could be a mental thing.

A vile, deranged person already, now with unbalanced hormones.
That can't be good.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Brian4real

I used to think this would be a great deterrent and
punishment.
Now im not sure. It seems like states are really pushing 'human rights' issues.
Pretty crazy considering the things that you are, and are not allowed to say nowadays.


i cant see this passing the supreme court. I predict that it will be ruled unconstitutional, as a cruel and unusual punishment.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: Brian4real

Feels like it should sound good..
Like it's good on paper, but when yous say it out loud, it just seems wrong.
Not too mention, people who hurt people might not be doing it because of hormones. It could be a mental thing.

A vile, deranged person already, now with unbalanced hormones.
That can't be good.


i think that the idea sis that the hormones that they are given take away their desire for sex, so they lose interest in it all together and even if they try they cant get it up.

this kind of thing has been used before in europe, but they used it on homosexuals too. it was quite effective but the stopped doing it when people started getting squeemish about human rights.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I wonder what Roy Moore thinks about this?



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I say, Alabama has their rights as a state to make this law. And considering the pages of torture fantasies that members of ats write out in many threads about specific cases of child abuse, I am surprised at the lack of support for this action.
A bullet to the head is honestly the most humane action to remove the threat to society.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
So here's a scenario that I have witnessed:

Two teenagers start dating and have sexual relations. The Parents find out; since the kids are both underage and the parents are crazy, they press charged against the boy (usually) and the boy ends up being charged as some sort of sex offender due to statutory rape laws (the kids are under the age of consent, technically).

Now, the boy is a registered sex offender for life and under this law would be mandated to undergo castration, all for the horrible crime of basically having a girlfriend.

This law is F'd up, and you're just as big of an idiot if you support it.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
This law is F'd up, and you're just as big of an idiot if you support it.

Yes, the law that views sex between two similar aged underage children as anywhere near the same as pedophilia or child rape is F'd up and should be abolished - even declared blatantly unconstitutional on its face



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew




Two teenagers start dating and have sexual relations. The Parents find out; since the kids are both underage and the parents are crazy, they press charged against the boy (usually) and the boy ends up being charged as some sort of sex offender due to statutory rape laws (the kids are under the age of consent, technically).


This law punishes those who molest children under 13. So if some 17 year old gets busted for going after a 12 year old I can live with that.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Since when will hormone blockers changes anyone's psychological predelictions? I certainly would not put children at risk under a regime that we do not know would even work.



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Ah yes, Eugenics.

Since all white men are rapists, and this is a mere first step as all the rest, excuse me while I get ahead of the curve and go into the restroom a moment with this sturdy pair of medical shears......




posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
How many trips around the sun is required...

We set such nice societal rules.

All this obfuscation.

Of course, criminals need a punishment, but is this a solution to a problem? Not really. This all fits within the confines of human invention, based on some ancient human's idea of morality.

Where did your morals come from?

Who told you the difference between right and wrong? Who taught them? And so on. Where do you end up?


Someone made up some rules one day, and someone either agreed to them, or was forced to obey them.

If you impose a choice on another, with no option to abstain on the table, you should receive neutral, fair, ethical, justice.

But why?



posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

Wouldn’t the boy need to be tried as an adult for it?


I am pro-choice in this one...dull hatchet and a tree stump sounds about right.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join