Louisiana passes law to castrate rapists

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Cite on that, just for my edification? In any case, is this an admission that castration was not a usual punishment at the time? If so, how can you argue for its return? For that matter, what other 18th-century standards are you prepared to embrace? I’m sure the founders would be shocked that homosexuals are legally tolerated, for example. What prompted this, they might ask. Was it activist judges perverting the constitution?

82

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Cite on that, just for my edification?
[/quote]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7179541/

No.

I think all laws against homosexuality should be eliminated by federal and state legislatures. I also think that a constitutional amendment should be passed to support homosexual rights.

83

[QUOTE=Marley23]
This is a much-debated point [rape as a crime of violence rather than sex], on the Dope and elsewhere. I can believe that a serial rapist commits his crimes for violent dominance reasons, but a guy who goes too far and does something terrible to his date? I’m less convinced.
[/QUOTE]

Date rape is almost certainly all about sex. However, I do not think a person who date rapes would be eligible for castration. Just as in murder there are varying degrees the law views the rapist under with only the most egregious calling for the maximum penalty the law can muster.

84

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7179541/
[/quote]

I was kinda hoping for a historical cite, rather than a Scalia quote. His credibility took a hit when he said torture wasn’t punishment. I guess I’ll just have to google “ear notching” my own damn self.

Well, when you find a cite, let me know. I mean, if you’re going to argue that castration is constitutional because it was practiced in early America, it would help to have some support for that basis.

Great, but until such an amendment exists, are all efforts by the courts to head in that direction signs of perverse activism? The people and their elected representatives are lagging behind, by your standard.

85

In the interest of fairness, what do we chop off of a woman who is convicted of rape? Or, do we just mix up a batch of fast drying cement and pour it in?

86

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I was kinda hoping for a historical cite, rather than a Scalia quote. His credibility took a hit when he said torture wasn’t punishment. I guess I’ll just have to google “ear notching” my own damn self.
[/quote]

Torture, as discussed in the 60 Minutes interview, is not punishment. There has never been a Supreme Court case, not even its activist make-up, that has found any act to be punishment for purposes of the the 8th amendment that was not post-conviction.

I never argued that.

It depends on the specific case.

87

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
As I understand it, they get their rocks off by abusing the woman. I’ve never really understood the desire to classify rape as a crime with no connection to sex. The overlap has always been apparent to me.

[/QUOTE]

I guess the question is if the sexual aspect is what motivates most rapists or if it is the abuse of women that does it?

I had trouble finding information on castration’s effects but I found this article (PDF) from 1940 (I know but written by a doctor and seems an honest go at the topic). I did not read all of it but I did gather that the ability to climax was still quite possible after castration (even if an erection could not be achieved). Libido seemed generally curtailed although one case says a man enjoyed a much better sex life with his wife after castration (he was castrated for other medical reasons).

Anyway, seems all over the board for those who have been castrated but if the motivation is violence and that is what gets the rapist off rather than the sexual act I am not convinced castration would stop them (they could well still find fulfillment from the act). I fully admit I do not know though and need more info.

88

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Torture, as discussed in the 60 Minutes interview, is not punishment. There has never been a Supreme Court case, not even its activist make-up, that has found any act to be punishment for purposes of the the 8th amendment that was not post-conviction.
[/quote]

Not to indulge a sidebar, but here’s the relevant passage from the Leslie Stahl interview:
Stahl: Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody…
Scalia: And you say he’s punishing you?
Stahl: Sure.
Scalia: What’s he punishing you for? You punish somebody…
Stahl: Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know.
Scalia: It’s the latter. And when he’s hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he’s punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He’s trying to extract…
Stahl: Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he’s going to beat the you-know-what out of you.
Scalia: Anyway, that’s my view. And it happens to be correct.

What the hypothetical person in custody is being punished for is not getting convicted in a court of law, but by not answering the policeman’s questions. If he spilled his guts the moment the interrogation began, why would there be torture? This pattern is more likely:

Interrogator: Where is Bin Laden?
Suspect: I don’t know.
I: Okay, have some voltage. ZAP
S: AAGH! I tell you I don’t know!
I: Have some more. ZAPPITY-ZAP
S: AAAAGH! I’m just a cab driver.
I: Well, let me run you through our car wash.
S: glub cough choke Okay, he’s in Milwaukee!
I: There, isn’t that better? That’s all I needed.

Your post #45 betrays this as ridiculous and untrue. If “activist judges…perverted this constitutional provision” and declared castration unconstitutional, what idealized constitution would they have perverted? I presume they have perverted something that was once pure. When did this perversion begin?

I trust you have a list of issues in mind, along the lines of :
Homosexuality - must be constitutionally protected.
One’s balls - must not be constitutionally protected.

89

Nevermind, i was being facetious.

90

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Is it necessary to put them in prison?
[/quote]

I’d say so. I’m in favor of rehabilitating people to the greatest possible extent but I’ve never actually seen a better idea.

Actually, that’s central to the entire idea of justice: you don’t harm people unless it’s necessary. Inflicting pain for pain’s sake can be called a lot of things, but justice isn’t one of them. It may fit into your idea of fairness, but you’ve already acknowledged that revenge (oops, retribution) is the most important thing to you. As far as I’m concerned that means you’ve conclusively lost any argument about this being cruel and unusual, and you’re only interested in that term in the Constitutional sense anyway - not in whether the punishment is actually cruel or unusual.

I thought, and still think, that Scalia’s argument was one of the stupidest and most evasive I’ve ever heard.

This is just a wee bit glib considering your remarks about unfairness a few weeks ago, don’t you think? That’s all you’ve got to say about potentially castrating innocent people? “Unfortunate?”

91

[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
Lotta recreational outrage going on here…

Anybody got any evidence that castration reduces the rate of sex offenses?

I’ve not found compelling evidence to say it does so far.

Chemical castration can be effective in reducing the sex drive and reducing unacceptable behavior for select individuals who are motivated to change their behavior. It’s not been shown to be real effective in changing behavior in other folks.

Physical castration has the same lack of evidence, and really can’t be counted on to change sex drive anyway, since the adrenal glands generally produce enough testosterone to enable the individual to have erections, even without testes. They won’t impregnate their victims, but all other bets are off.

And testosterone is available thru legitimate and illegitimate sources also.

I’m pragmatic. Show me that this castration can actually reduce sex crimes and recidivism while sparing the innocent, and I’ll consider it. Not consider doing the procedure, you understand. Just not objecting to it.

Oh, and good luck finding a doc who is willing to do these medical procedures on someone without their informed consent. That’ll be grounds for license revocation in most, if not all, states.
[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing. Ever since I can remember, I’ve been told that rape (aside from date rape, I suppose) is not about sex; it’s about power, intimidation, rage, hate, etc. Rapists use objects often enough in their attacks to make me think that sexual urges are but a small piece of the equation.

And if you’re chemically castrated…is this permanent or can you go off the chemicals and live to rape another day?

92

[QUOTE=Marley23]
This is just a wee bit glib considering your remarks about unfairness a few weeks ago, don’t you think? That’s all you’ve got to say about potentially castrating innocent people? “Unfortunate?”
[/QUOTE]

Yes. It should at least be called ‘not very nice’. (Given that it is nice when genuine rapists get their nuts chopped off).

93

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I was thinking the same thing. Ever since I can remember, I’ve been told that rape (aside from date rape, I suppose) is not about sex; it’s about power, intimidation, rage, hate, etc. Rapists use objects often enough in their attacks to make me think that sexual urges are but a small piece of the equation.
[/QUOTE]
Looking for a single causative factor for the phenomenon, or set of phenomena may not be productive. Rapists might be fucked up in lots of different assorted ways, case by case.

Can’t really see how One More Wrong is going to make a right in any significant number of cases.

94

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Looking for a single causative factor for the phenomenon, or set of phenomena may not be productive. Rapists might be fucked up in lots of different assorted ways, case by case.

Can’t really see how One More Wrong is going to make a right in any significant number of cases.
[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree. It’s too bad Louisiana didn’t see it that way. And too bad they don’t have resources like the Intranets, libraries and expert opinions and studies to aid them in their decision-making process.

95

[QUOTE=Uzi]
In the interest of fairness, what do we chop off of a woman who is convicted of rape? Or, do we just mix up a batch of fast drying cement and pour it in?
[/QUOTE]

This was the argument I wanted to make. The LA legislature has put in place a punishment which can only apply to men. While I presume there are more male than female rapists, women certainly can engage in sexual abuse. I recall one particularly horrific case in St. Louis in which several female gang members punished another member by raping her repeatedly with a broomstick. I would also imagine that female caretakers of children sexually assault the children sometimes. This law amounts to extra, or more severe, punishment for one group of offenders. It is inherently unfair.

It is also, of couse, barbaric.

ETA: This article claims that female abusers account for 12% of cases of abuse of children under the age of 6.

96

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Right, and since “all men are potential rapists”… :eek:
[/QUOTE]

Indeed, why not go a bit further. When men reach sexual maturity and we can collect a bit of sperm from them, take a sample and castrate them. As well as fewer rapes, we have no unwanted pregnancies and no abortions!

Ok, I can’t do irony, but I’d like to know if anyone who advocates the punishment outlined in the OP really would extend surgical punishments to other crimes.

97

What would they do with female rapists? I’m thinking maybe sewing machines?.

98

Apparently there’s a separate and distinct culture in Louisiana that’s far removed from much of America.

99

I think this is going the wrong way. Instead of removing testicles, we ought to have mandatory oversized Neutical implants. Give those convicted rapists testicles the size of, say, grapefruit, and

1.) It will immediately be obvious what their crime and status is

2.) It will definitely hinder their capability to do it again.

3.) It’s not permament. It can be reversed in the event of a faulty judgement

4.) For repeat offenders — who obviously have a lot to learn – subsequent offenses can be dealt with via still greater increases.

100

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Every time I’ve heard of a study on the subject, it turns out that most rape accusations are false. Some women encourage or boast about it, even.

IIRC, one by the FBI came up with about 65% of rape accusations in the study being provably false; the man accused couldn’t have committed the crime or was otherwise demonstrated to be innocent.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have any kind of cite to that - because the studies I saw suggested that false accusations of rape occured at the same level as false accusations of other series crimes. Brownmiller’s study, for example.