# Louisiana man sentenced to castration - this can't be constitutional, can it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 29, 2024, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945 "2024-04-29T22:47:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/21 "2024-04-30T13:34:21Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Do they have to show that it’s “cruel or unusual” or rather that it’s “cruel _and_unusual”. I’ve only ever seen the phrase written as “cruel and unusual” which implies you’d have to prove both of them. It’s been suggested that “cruel and unusual” is actually an old-fashioned rhetorical usage of the form “X and Y” to mean “Y in its X-ness”: > …consider “cruel and unusual.” These are often understood as two separate requirements: punishments are prohibited only if they are cruel _and_ unusual. Yet this phrase can easily be read as a hendiadys in which the second term in effect modifies the first: “cruel and unusual” would mean “unusually cruel.” When this reading is combined with the work of Professor John Stinneford, which shows that “unusual” was used at the Founding as a term of art for “contrary to long usage,” it suggests that the Clause prohibits punishments that are innovatively cruel. In other words, the Clause is not a prohibition on punishments that merely happen to be both cruel and innovative. It is a prohibition on punishments that are _innovative in their cruelty_. [https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=63667](https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=63667) ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/22 "2024-04-30T13:43:29Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > Back in the first half of the 20th Century there were doctors who happily surgically altered people for the “crime” of being disabled or epileptic > > Cite? [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States) About 65,000 people in 33 states were subjected to surgery without their consent or sometimes even informing them. My oldest surviving sister was in the pipeline to be sterilized _as an infant_ due to suffering a [febrile seizure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Febrile_seizure#Prognosis) (very common in premies, which she also was, and also something that kids usually outgrow). My parents managed to prevent that (I never asked for details). It might have been because she only suffered one seizure. If she had suffered multiple ones it wouldn’t have mattered what my parents did or didn’t want, she would have been operated on _as an infant_. This took place in Missouri where forced sterilization explicitly started with criminals then proceeded to include other groups labeled “undesirable”. Which is why I said people used to be sterilized for the “crime” of being disabled or epileptic. My late husband was, in fact, sterilized as a child - when exactly is unknown because neither he nor his parents were informed or asked for permission. He found out in his 20’s during a medical exam when the doctor asked him why it had been done in such a young man which, needless to say, was a pretty upsetting way to find out you’ll never have any children ever. That took place in Illinois (probably - there is a very small chance it occurred in Virginia where he was born, but his grandfather intervened to have him go to Chicago where there was much better medical care. Meanwhile, back in his home town at least one person volunteered to drown the “cripple baby” to save the parents the pain of doing it themselves.) > [@Babale](#): > > I don’t know of any 20th century doctors who wanted to punish the disabled or epileptic population through surgery. As noted - the justification for all of this was that the person was either disabled or epileptic. These laws almost always started by targeting criminals then expanding to the disabled/epileptic to _prevent_ crime and/or more defective people (whether or not the problem was hereditary). These operations could and were done over the objections of parents/guardians, sometimes without informing parents/guardians/patients of the operation (which was done along with other operations - during one of the many operations that were actually _necessary_ to treat my husband’s medical conditions the surgeon made a detour), and in adult patients newly diagnosed it was also done against their will. The “justification” was to prevent defective genes being passed on but it was frequently ignored and performed in cases with absolutely no genetic basis. **It had _nothing_ to do with “treating” anything.** You don’t get 65,000 sterilized people without substantial buy in by quite a few doctors. This continued in the US through the 1960’s (hence, my personal knowledge of people affected by these laws). In fact, the Nazis were inspired by eugenics in the US in the early part of the 20th Century - we know this because they explicitly wrote about taking inspiration from these programs. So I don’t doubt we can find a bunch of doctors willing to castrate sex offenders if we care to look. > [@Babale](#): > > But part of the reason that you can find a doctor to perform euthanasia but not an execution is specifically that point - doctors will do the same exact act to treat but not to punish. No, the reason it’s nearly impossible to find a doctor to participate in executions is that in all states they’ll lose their medical license and be barred from ever practicing medicine ever again. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/23 "2024-04-30T13:48:02Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > No, the reason it’s nearly impossible to find a doctor to participate in executions is that in all states they’ll lose their medical license and be barred from ever practicing medicine ever again. Correct about losing their license. But then why haven’t they found a retired doctor to do one? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/24 "2024-04-30T13:52:41Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > > > Back in the first half of the 20th Century there were doctors who happily surgically altered people for the “crime” of being disabled or epileptic > > > > Cite? > > [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States) > > About 65,000 people in 33 states were subjected to surgery without their consent or sometimes even informing them. Well, you snipped my post to clip out the part I was asking for a cite for. Obviously, I wasn’t doubting that doctors mistreated patients because of their poor understanding of medicine and mental illness, nor that they didn’t give much of a crap about educating themselves. Here’s what you snipped from my post, which of course you did not cite: > [@Babale](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > Back in the first half of the 20th Century there were doctors who happily surgically altered people for the “crime” of being disabled or epileptic > > Cite? I don’t know of any 20th century doctors who wanted to punish the disabled or epileptic population through surgery. > > There were certainly doctors who _thought they had a treatment_, which in hindsight was ineffective. But part of the reason that you can find a doctor to perform euthanasia but not an execution is specifically that point - doctors will do the same exact act to treat but not to punish. > [@Broomstick](#): > > No, the reason it’s nearly impossible to find a doctor to participate in executions is that in all states they’ll lose their medical license and be barred from ever practicing medicine ever again. Right! Which is what I said: > [@Babale](#): > > If enough doctors agree that a procedure shouldn’t be done they have ways to censure any individual doctors who disagree. A doctor who performed an execution wouldn’t have his medical license suddenly crumple to ash in his hands or turn back into a pumpkin. He would be stripped of his medical license by a board of _other doctors_. Which is exactly what I would expect those same doctors to do to a doctor who performed physical castrations as punishment. > [@Broomstick](#): > > This took place in Missouri where forced sterilization explicitly started with criminals then proceeded to include other groups labeled “undesirable”. Which is why I said people used to be sterilized for the “crime” of being disabled or epileptic. OK, if you were using a creative turn of phrase to describe eugenics, then yes, I agree, eugenics is terrible and disgusting, and the doctors who participated in it were evil. I’d think a doctor practicing eugenics _today_ would lose his license, just like a doctor who participates in an execution or a forced castration. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/25 "2024-04-30T14:16:23Z")
And YOU conveniently clipped my post where I pointed out that first-half 20th Century laws had NOTHING to do with “treatment”, where never promoted as “treatment”, never described as “treatment”. I do not agree that a doctor who participated in a court-ordered forced castration would automatically lose his license. That would be a matter for the courts. That is different than the question of participating in executions, which is so far as I can tell a settled matter. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/26 "2024-04-30T14:34:50Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > And YOU conveniently clipped my post where I pointed out that first-half 20th Century laws had NOTHING to do with “treatment”, where never promoted as “treatment”, never described as “treatment”. Like I said, if you meant eugenics, I agree. I just didn’t get “eugenics” from your phrasing there. > [@Broomstick](#): > > I do not agree that a doctor who participated in a court-ordered forced castration would automatically lose his license. That would be a matter for the courts. That is different than the question of participating in executions, which is so far as I can tell a settled matter …what are you talking about? It obviously is not a _legal_ issue decided by the courts. The state isn’t going to say “we want execution to be medical, but we want to forbid doctors from participating in executions”. The reason that doctors don’t participate in executions has nothing to do with courts or the law. Rather, the [American Board of Medical Specialties](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Board_of_Medical_Specialties) - a collection of _dcotors_ - agreed that they want their profession to have nothing to do with executions. This is the body that revokes the license of doctors who violate medical standards, including participating in executions. And this is why, in my first post, I said: > [@Babale](#): > > If enough doctors agree that a procedure shouldn’t be done they have ways to censure any individual doctors who disagree. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/27 "2024-04-30T15:18:49Z")
@Babale and @Broomstick, drop the epilepsy argument and stick to the actual topic please. **MODERATING** ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/28 "2024-04-30T15:31:37Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Do they have to show that it’s “cruel or unusual” or rather that it’s “cruel _and_unusual”. I’ve only ever seen the phrase written as “cruel and unusual” which implies you’d have to prove both of them. I would imagine it should mean “or” because otherwise it would be a tautology; anytime a cruel punishment becomes standard it would no longer be “unusual.” If all 50 states adopted a punishment," Anyone who commits theft should have his hands and arms slowly sliced off in small pieces by a saw", then the prosecution could argue that it’s not “unusual” since it’s nationwide. It would still be cruel, though. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2024, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/29 "2024-04-30T18:44:02Z")
Or using a mop handle. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2024, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/30 "2024-05-01T17:07:25Z")
It was my understanding decades ago when this began being practiced that it was a choice given to the convicted felon: stay incarcerated for a much longer period or become castrated. If the convict is given the choice not sure it can be considered unconstitutional. I’m unsure if the situations have changed and that castration has become the sentence with no choice by the convict. So I’m not going to weigh in on that. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2024, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/31 "2024-05-01T19:40:46Z")
Papers on recidivism rates: > **[Coercion, Incarceration, and Chemical Castration: An Argument From Autonomy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824348/)** > > In several jurisdictions, sex offenders may be offered chemical castration as an alternative to further incarceration. In some, agreement to chemical castration may be made a formal condition of parole or release. In others, refusal to undergo... > [@](#): > > In the 20th century, voluntary or compulsory surgical castration of sex offenders was practiced in a number of U.S. states and several European countries, including Denmark, Norway, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany. There is no robust data on effectiveness. However, reviews of the data that are available report that, over follow-up periods ranging from 1 to 35 years, recidivism rates of 2.5–7.5 percent were found after surgical castration compared to 60–84 percent in offenders left “untreated” (Heim and Hursch 1979; Weinberger et al. 2005). > **[The Impact of Surgical Castration on Sexual Recidivism Risk Among Sexually...](https://jaapl.org/content/33/1/16)** > > The relationship of surgical castration to sexual recidivism in a sexually violent predator/sexually dangerous person (SVP/SDP) population is reviewed. A review of the literature on castrated sex offenders reveals a very low incidence of sexual... > [@](#): > > The sexual recidivism rate was 3 percent for all of the castrated individuals, as opposed to 46 percent for all of the noncastrated persons. These findings seem to suggest that the surgical intervention was related to reducing sexual recidivism, especially given the fact that the castrated group was composed almost entirely of individuals who were sex offenders ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2024, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945/32 "2024-05-01T19:47:59Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Why is it cruel? Chemical castration, at least, is merely lowering the level of testosterone. Is this crueller than, say, depriving someone of liberty by locking them up or of money by fining them? If so, how do you calculate that? Incarcerated people can be freed, unjustly fined people can be restituted, but to my knowledge, medical science has discovered no method of reversing a physical castration. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-man-sentenced-to-castration-this-cant-be-constitutional-can-it/1000945.md?page=1)