I never implied that he opposes all punishment.
There’s no evidence of that being the norm, or even all that common. The “rape is always about power” line is ideological, and has no evidence I’ve ever heard of. Rape quite often, probably most of the time is about getting sex; someone has something, someone else uses force to get it.
That does not mean it is necessary. We could make a prison a nice fun experience. It could be full of tennis and cricket matches.
I am aware of no evidence that making prison unpleasant reduces crime.
Okay, as long as you make that distinction. “The people” and “The legislature” are related but separate concepts and I’m not personally impressed by using them interchangeably. And the function of the judiciary remains.
Unfortunately, “just reasons” is such a flexible concept that I wouldn’t trust government officials to apply it consistently or fairly. After all, the language of your OP suggests joy at the idea of mandatory physical castration, not the sombre tone of “I wish this wasn’t necessary, but it’s for the greater good.” What if it doesn’t get the effect you desire? Would “just reasons” expand to cover not only castration but torture, immolation, blinding, crippling…? All of these punishments were employed at various times, for “just reasons.”
So you believe that male child molesters who victimize children are homosexual? (Personally, I don’t see much difference between that and rape - it often culminates in the same kind of thing anyway.)
I am pretty sure it will get the effect I want since I want the rapist to have a horrible experience. If he ends up liking it, I guess I will live with that.
Forgive me, I thought this was implied by an attempt to parse the word “necessary”, i.e. if castration is not “necessary”, can imprisonment be deemed so? I believe punishments are indeed necessary, but there is a continuum between finger-wagging scolding and burning at the stake, with probation, fines and imprisonments being acceptable compromises.
As for making prison “fun”…sure, but it somewhat nullifies the punishment aspect.
If he molests exclusively male children and only desires male children then he is homosexual pedophile. If it is girls, then he is a heterosexual pedophile. Either way, he might have a beard.
How exactly?
I’ll also note “less likely” clearly includes the notion that some will re-offend (and if the equipment ain’t working I’m sure something else can be found to use as a surrogate penis, most likely not something the victim would choose to use themselves. Yippee, we can come up with an even more draconian punishment for rape with an object!). So what exactly is gained by castration?
CMC +fnord!
From my understanding, “pedophile” seems to be it’s own sexual kink if anything. The technical term is “paraphilia” I understand. In this case a destructive/predatory one.
As an aside; personally, I prefer “predatory” to “perverted” for child molestation. “Perverted” implies that there’s more of a norm than exists, I think, and the word’s been misused too much. “Predatory” on the other hand pretty much explains why it’s bad and, say, homosexuality isn’t.
And not rape again, I trust. And his experience will act as deterrent to others. And he will not be seen as a victim by the public. And if he’s later proven innocent, his life won’t be ruined.
What you support has a certain chest-beating charm, I admit, but there are greater issues than the experience’s thrill for you or torment for him.
I meant to include the word “could.” If the castration lowers the sex drive, the rapist might be less likely to lose control. I am not that concerned with this part. I am more concerned with achieving the justice of inflicting a horrible punishment on a rapist.
I vote “cruel and unusual.”
I would venture that most men, if forced to choose, would rather have a hand cut off than Little Elvis’s backup singers.
Those things would be nice, but I am more concerned with the retributivist nature of the punishment.
Punishing an innocent man would be unfortunate.
And fortunately the Louisiana Supreme Court (using Article 1, section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution) and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court (using the eighth and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution) exist to curb such sentiments. To get what you want, you’d have to amend these documents, engage in tortured semantics to justify the contradiction or (more honestly) ignore them outright.
Is execution fair game for a second offense, or will you glue the man’s balls back on, just to deprive him of them a second time?
Yes, wouldn’t it, though.
When I was a kid, I heard something about chemical castration on the news. I had this horrible image in my mind of chemicals - like, corrosive acid - being poured on someone’s nuts. I thought that’s what it was. True story.
I think someone who gets his nuts get dismantled by the long arm of the law is just going to be more bitter, angry, and dangerous.
And but for the deterrent value of that belief - you’d be a rapist!
At the time of the passing of the 8th amendment and afterwards, the ears of criminals were notched. I do see why notching a person’s ear is OK, but castration is not.
I was curious. Now I’m appalled, and, frankly, a little sad that I can never go back to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, lest I unleash an aggravated crime against nature upon some nubile young bead seeker. :rolleyes:
Personally, I think child rapists are worse on several levels than even serial killers, and deserve a feet-first ride into the wood chipper. Still, that makes about as much rational/legal sense as this bill. It will die an idiots death somewhere before the SCOTUS, I hope.