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.

 

Jindal signs chemical castration bill

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Jindal signs chemical castration bill


www.2theadvocate.com

Characterizing sex offenders as monsters, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed legislation Wednesday that would force convicted rapists and others to undergo chemical castration.

“I am glad we have taken such strong measures in Louisiana to put a stop to these monsters’ brutal acts,” the governor said in a prepared statement.

Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 into law on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Louisiana cannot execute people who rape children under the age of 12.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I fully support this measure, but I see two huge issues with it.

1. Exactly what are "aggravated crimes against nature?"
If you check the wiki page I linked about "Crime against nature" there's a couple of paragraphs about Louisiana's application of the term and I'm not so sure this was a good thing to include in the law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like someone getting caught with a hooker having "unconventional sex" (take that however you wish...) could fall under their crime against nature stipulation as it is sex for compensation? While I'm not pro-prostitution, I really don't see any justice in castrating the johns.

2. What about female sex offenders? More and more we're seeing stories about women sexually abusing children. This MUST be addressed in the law, or else it becomes an issue of unequal enforcement, which is a violation of the Constitution. If you've got a law that castrates male offenders, then what, exactly, would be the alternative for convicted females?

So as much as I love the spirit behind this law, I think it's doomed to fail almost at it's first challenge.



www.2theadvocate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I'm against it. Even if it's the worse form of criminal I do not believe the state, ANY state, should be allowed within the human body. To me this seems like a cop out solution, the state trying to find the cheapest less effort way of dealing with a problem. And what about the people who are falsely accused, how the hell do you makeup for a false chemical castration? And of course there is always the possibility of this being used as a witch hunt with the intention of population control. There is hardly an upside to it.

Use a prosthetic to stop the erections of sex offenders, much simpler, cheaper, effective and you can go back if you mess up.



new topics
 
0

log in

join