Apparently, it is possible surgical castration for certain sex-related crimes: The Cutting Edge: Louisiana’s New Surgical Castration Law | Louisiana Law Review
“Louisiana’s surgical castration law begins by asserting that if any person is convicted of certain sex offenses when the victim is under 13 years old at the time of the offense, the court may sentence the offender to be surgically castrated, on top of any other sentence imposed for the crime. This statute applies to aggravated sex offenses defined under Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:541, including aggravated rape, first‑degree rape, forcible rape, second‑degree rape, and simple rape. The law further states that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall provide and administer the surgery using a licensed physician to perform the procedure.” What do you think about the more permanent style of castration? Would/could a licensed physician actually participate in carrying out this procedure?
There always at least one guy.
Has this kind of punishment been tested in the courts against the cruel and unusual proscriptions in the Constitution?
I feel like this could easily be constitutionally struck down by a court, as said.
Also, I’d oppose this for the same reason people oppose the death penalty, namely, that it inflicts an irreversible harm to an innocent defendant. You can compensate someone wrongfully imprisoned, but if you chop off his genitals, that can’t be reversed if he’s exonerated.
This hasn’t stopped the death penalty, though.
History is full of eunuchs who were still able to achieve erections and penetration. They just couldn’t impregnate. And how much evidence is there, really, about the sex drive of women who have had their ovaries removed?
Anyway, common wisdom is that rape (and possibly other sex crimes) are not really about achieving a sexual result but about exercising power. Or is that an out-of-date idea?
I misread that as the perpetrator bring under 13 and was really confused.
Knowing what has been used in the past, and most certainly will be used in the future, to rape women, children and men, I can see this crude and cruel procedure backfiring horribly.
It’s certainly had an impact on the use of the death penalty in the U.S. in recent decades, as people have become more aware of how frequently innocent people have been sentenced to death, and how disproportionately death sentences are given to poor people and people of color.
In the past 22 years, eleven states have abolished capital punishment. Only 27 states still have capital punishment on the books, and of those, eleven have either suspended use of it, and/or have not carried out an execution in the last 10 years. Most of those which are still actively applying capital punishment are, not surprisingly, in the South.
(Source: Wikipedia Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia )
It could work for a seriously dedicated sexual offender.
The problem is I don’t really trust judges and jurys to be perfectly impartial and even handed. This is Louisiana. I cannot speak about other countries and their motivations.
It’s bound to go very ugly.
Not only that aren’t we supposed to want rehabilitation of incarcerated folks so they can maybe have a productive life?
As already noted:
- Castration renders a man infertile, and generally causes a decreased sex drive, but does not necessarily render him incapable of getting an erection
- Rapists are often motivated by power, rather than simply out of sexual desire
A lot of people don’t really want that. They want punishment, and an eye for an eye.
Thx. I understand that.
I wasn’t thinking nipping the vas deferens so much as removal of the hormonal glands. Some -ectomy?
Could you really use your penis except for peeing, if the testicles are removed?
I know it’s all about power over some one weaker. If a perp was so inclined he doesn’t need his body to penetrate. Clearly there are many instances.
I think it might slow an average(?)abuser down.
Yes, removing the hormone-producing glands doesn’t necessarily prevent a man from having erections, and certainly doesn’t prevent him from jamming other things into people’s orifices.
It might reduce his desire to do that.
But I’ve heard that the top castrati singers often had a lot of sex. They were literally the rock stars of their world, and no one was worried they would get a woman pregnant.
Yeah, I’m no criminal psychologist, but I’m pretty sure sex offenders have a condition of the brain, not of the testicles. Mutilating their genitals won’t change their mental wiring, and may perhaps even make them even angrier and more un-reformable.
I’m also surprised the Czech Republic was onboard with this idea, they seemed a pretty liberal country.
This has not much at all to do with sex using a penis, and a lot to do with using any device on hand to sexually abuse others, to hurt, shame and even break them.
Ok. I changed my thinking. Looked up a couple things.
I totally get it. Thank you.
I honestly have no idea why adults sexually abuse children. I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that it’s sometimes motivated mostly by sexual desire. People who sexually desire adults can usually find a willing adult partner, even if they have to pay. But people who sexually desire children don’t really have a lot of options. I’ve read that they sometimes delude themselves into thinking the child is into it. Reducing their sex drive might actually help. I’d think that would be a lot more effective if voluntary than involuntary, though. That’s for to trigger a ton of resentment.
Lots of people abuse children in nonsexual ways. And I’m sure some sexual abuse of children is driven by a desire to abuse: to hurt, shame, or break them. But I’m not sure all of it is. Or even most of it.
This is just my opinion here, but I think a good deal of the garbage that went on around epstien was power related. I think epstein himself was attracted to children, and he was an abusive manipulative bastard. I think though that many of the people who partook with him were more interested in the power, and the power of getting away with it. There is really no one more vulnerable than a child and apparently some creepy people like that. It’s just gross.
In the first half of the 20th century there was, apparently, no trouble finding physicians to sterilize 50,000-70,000 people without consent for reasons of things like epilepsy and birth defects, sometimes as children, sometimes without even telling the parents until after it was done, so yeah, pretty sure there are licensed docs out there who would do this as a legal penalty for an actual crime.
Not all men but yes, some men are still capable of erections after testicle removal. Particularly if the testicle removal is performed after the man is physically mature. In addition to the testicles the adrenal glands also produce some testosterone so it’s not like a man without his testicles is completely devoid of the hormone.
I’m presuming this “surgical castration” only involves testicle removal. Removal of the penis as well would, of course, entirely eliminate erections. I’m hoping that’s not what is being proposed.
I’ve heard of chronic sexual offenders sometimes asking to be castrated, and it might help in some cases, but asking/volunteering for such a procedures is very, very different than having it imposed on person without their consent.
I thought Epstein dealt in teenage girls and young women, not the “children under 13” that this law is theoretically supposed to protect.
Raping a teen is a very different crime than raping a prepubescent child. I think people rape teens for much the same reasons they rape adults.
Young teenage girls. At least as young as 13. I just see the power issue as part of any rape. But you are of course right none of them ,that I’ve ever heard anyway, were under 13. Still pretty gross, and a lot about power.