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.

 

Castration Bill

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Once the Supreme Court turned down the death penalty for child rape; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a bill authorizing casteration of sexual offenders...www.worldnetdaily.com...

[edit on 26-6-2008 by L.HAMILTON]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by L.HAMILTON]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by L.HAMILTON]




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Yes! Death is not good enough! Let's take their dignity! Let's give them gold stars of david also! In fact, while we're at it, let's usher them all into concentration camps and divide them up into the ones who can and can't work. The one's who can't work, we'll just throw into furnaces. Sounds like a plan.

Good grief. I thought this country was founded on being humane. What is supposed to set the United States apart from other places is our humane treatment of prisoners. But things in the past years have really set us back. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating child rape or anything like that, but to go so far as to say the death penalty isn't good enough??? Jeez...
To say taking another person's life isn't good enough is just absurd.

Also, note that in cases like these, evidence is not really needed. All you need is word of mouth to accuse someone of the rape of anyone. If a girl doesn't like a particular guy, all she has to do is say that he raped her and that is that. Then to take it a step further and say we should cut off the guys..um....reproductive organs...hmmmm... Come on now.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I was a fan of Bobby Jindal before, and this bill only serves to make him seem even better to me. I can't imagine why anyone would be against this but I'm sure there's someone out there.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
They wanted to bring this same thing in Australia saying that if the perpetrator got a chemical castration done to him he can shorten his stay in jail. But the problem is that once he is out he can get it medically fixed up since it isn't permanent.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I would be for this measure, so long as it was used sparingly, on the worst offenders. Particulalry repeat offenders. Of course, I have little faith in our government to "do what is right" any time we give them more power, but theoritically speaking I would not be against castration.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nahsik
 


This is different though because the offender would have to complete his entire stay in prison. The castration would be an additional punishment. Seriously, if a person is so messed that they can't stop themselves from raping or molesting, they waive their right to a sex drive.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nahsik
They wanted to bring this same thing in Australia saying that if the perpetrator got a chemical castration done to him he can shorten his stay in jail. But the problem is that once he is out he can get it medically fixed up since it isn't permanent.


A castration that isn't permanent?


Please elaborate



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Do do something like this is to say that you don't believe that a person is capable of recovery or a second chance. It is a way of saying that you have lost faith in peoples ability to change.

However, I do agree that this would be suitable in the case of repeat offenders, that is a good idea, because once they are given a second chance and mess it up, then they have proven that they are really messed up indeed.

Edit: Also, how does this fit into the General Conspiracy forum?? What's the conspiracy here?

[edit on 6/26/2008 by Mad_Hatter]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
tell you the truth i'm all for it. As long as it keeps these predators off the streets.

Here is the link external link


"Everyone should remember that this is only temporary chemical castration. It's absolutely reversible and reversible quite quickly. This is a knee-jerk response from this Government."


And by the way I did say chemical castration which is different from normal castration and I also said they wanted to trial this in Australia and not America for all you people who did not read my post properly.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Okay, I do have some issues after reading the article in detail.


The Louisiana bill, SB 144, gives the court the option of castration on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature.


To begin with, I am very leary of a "first offense" option. It is too easy for the wrongly accused to become a victim. I would have far less reservations after a second conviction though.

Secondly, while certainly deplorable, some of the crimes listed here should not fall under such a punishment. It should be reserved for only the most henious offenses.

Take second degree sexual battery for example. The sexual element of a crime may be present without intent, and therefore should not be included. Say if a man rips off a woman's shirt in the course of a fight. I certainly don't think what might be construed as a sexual element should be punishable by castration. More specifically, this crime invloves the touching of genitalia. I really don't think that the option should be there that would allow for someone to be castrated for "making out" with someone.

Then there is the aggravated crime against nature. I don't think that someone should be castrated for getting it on with someone who is under the influence. Furthermore, I don't think a nineteen year old should be castrated for having sex with a sixteen year old.

Way too much room for error here. Far too much power in the hands of the government.



Castration is required on a second conviction of the listed crimes.


And I certainly do not agree with any such requirement, closing the door on all consideration of circumstances which may be quite relevant.

[edit on 6/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Mad_Hatter
 

Hi, Mad_Hatter. You posted...


Good grief. I thought this country was founded on being humane. What is supposed to set the United States apart...

...which I believe to be true. However, castration for sex offenses has been tried before in America, as well as elsewhere in the world.

I first read about it in Faulkner's novel The Sound & the Fury. Its primary narrator, the congenital idiot Benjy Compson, is castrated after 'bothering' some schoolgirls.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Okay, I do have some issues after reading the article in detail.

The Louisiana bill, SB 144, gives the court the option of castration on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature.

Heh...I noticed the "aggravated crime against nature' clause...Heh!
Since the current government consistently violates the Constitution (which was written in accordance with the "Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator" & also that Laws that extend from the Constitution in a natural way are known as Natural Laws), then any Government Official who violates any Law of the Constitution should be castrated...Even more, all of those corporate executives of excessively-polluting industries & all of those corporate officers who consistently rape the resources of the natural world beyond the concept of "sustainable development" should also be castrated. Perhaps it would make something of a deterrent when such "criminals against nature" should have to worry about losing more than just their jobs. This may go so far as make them unable to pass on their greedy ways to their progeny...


Ooooo!, I'm getting a warm, fuzzy feeling inside from that thought...Sayeth the Lord, "Vengeance is mine."



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Maybe repeat offenders deserve this, because they have shown that they arent capable of recovering. But to do this to first timers is a bit excessive. What if the situation was like a thirty year old hotty totty girl teacher and a consenting 17 year old? In a circumstance like this it wouldnt be fair either because both parties consented and one party was maybe a year away from being legal maybe a month. If I were 17 and a hotty hott babe was rubbin on me I would go for it.

This bill would have to VERY specific on who gets this punishment because there are two many ways this can be taken.

And in response to people who may feel even repeat offenders dont deserve this then think about this, the moment they raped that woman (or man?) or molested that four year old they threw their own right out the window. Thats what we dont realize is yes they are human but they chose to throw their own rights away so it was their choice they knew the punishment and they still commited the crime.

I do believe , on one last note, that castration is the end all of a person sex drive. Once its done its done and you cant ever get it back. So why did I see a post that said its reversable? Come on people.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


I agree with most of your post, but I do believe that there is a "chemical castration" which is not permanent.

Overall though, such punishment (of the permanent sort) should be reserved exclusively for the most twisted and repeat offenders. It should be taken as seriously as the death penalty.



[edit on 6/27/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Finally, some real punishment.

All child molesters should be castrated. I dont care if its a first time
offense, because you dont know how many victims he had before he
was caught. child molesters are the lowest vermin on the face of
this planet. theres too many repeat offenders.

I dont believe in castration for adults though, unless its a serial rapist.
maybe a lady on a date with a man is flirting too much and
wearing revealing clothing, what do you expect the man to do, mens minds
go crazy at that point and they cant control themselves. those
kinda rapes deserve jail time.

but MANDATORY castration for all child rapists/molesters, the most
filthy lowest pieces of vermin. i step on them with my feet and squish
them into the tiny crevices of this earth.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 


So rapist are better than molesters?

Im sorry im a guy if my date was flirting and wearing a skimpy skirt then yea I would think "Im getting some tonight!!", but the minute she says no I wouldnt force myself onto her, thats sick.


Thats where you were wrong rapist and child molesters are on the same level. Its wrong of you to say one is better than the other. If a molester gets castrated then so does a rapist.


jackinthebox-
Well you learn something new everyday.
I just hope they wont try and use chem castration as the punishment. If they are going to be castrated it HAS to be permanant, you know?
If we cut em off for good then they can be released and pose NO threat to society anymore.


[edit on 27-6-2008 by caballero]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
We've seen cases where ``sex offenders``where people who pee on the side of the road, 18-19 years old having sex with their 17 years old girlfriends... things like that.

That law is really a eugenics law.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 




All child molesters should be castrated. I dont care if its a first time offense, because you dont know how many victims he had before he
was caught.


And you apparently don't know how many people have been convicted, and later exonerated. A second conviction pretty much removes all doubt.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 



If they are going to be castrated it HAS to be permanant, you know?


Not only should it be permanent, but I think that the removal should be a part of the punishment.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Like this guy, castrate the hell of of this peice of crap,read this article (be careful it is very disturbing).

Remove his junk forevermore.

Vitchilo-
Thats why the court would NEED to be very very specific because obviously those are no reasons to be castrated.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by caballero]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join