Alabama Proposes "Castrate Rapists" Law

[Bebe 17,289]

Well Alabama allows abstinence only sexual education programs and don't require schools to teach sexual education: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/20/alabama-is-among-39-states-that-allow-abstinence-only-education.html

Maybe it would help if students were taught concepts of consent like "Only yes means yes" and other such concepts. It seems like a better first step than performing medical procedures on people against their will. Seems like a cruel and unusual punishment to me.

[Sizzily 14,571]

Doesn't that fall under "Cruel and Unusual Punishment"? I mean Yeah, they're horrible but JFC 

[Whispering 18,865]

12 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Well Alabama allows abstinence only sexual education programs and don't require schools to teach sexual education: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/20/alabama-is-among-39-states-that-allow-abstinence-only-education.html

Maybe it would help if students were taught concepts of consent like "Only yes means yes" and other such concepts. It seems like a better first step than performing medical procedures on people against their will. Seems like a cruel and unusual punishment to me.

"Yes means yes and no means no" isn't going to stop pedophiles from raping children. Sex Ed. Classes aren't going to stop them, either. 

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, Whispering said:

"Yes means yes and no means no" isn't going to stop pedophiles from raping children. Sex Ed. Classes aren't going to stop them, either. 

No, but this law doesn't just target pedophiles. It targets "All rapists and child offenders".

I'm not for castrating anybody, even pedophiles, but in the specific context of rape proper education on consent helps reduce sexual violence (http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/06/in-kenya-program-changes-male-attitudes-about-sexual-violence.html)

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

Alabama. 

 

1 hour ago, Slade said:

Oh, my state is something else...

 

1 hour ago, JudasGaga said:

My state is just.....

 

1 hour ago, Higher said:

The south is something else. 

It's not just Alabama or the South that considers or uses this type of prevention:

California was the first U.S. state to specify the use of chemical castration as a punishment for child molestation, in 1996. This law stipulates that anyone convicted of child molestation with a minor under 13 years of age may be treated with DMPA if they are on parole after their second offense and that offenders may not reject the treatment. 

The passage of this law led to similar laws in other states such as Florida's Statute, which was passed into law in 1997. As in California, treatment is mandatory after a second offense.

At least seven other states, including Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin, allow chemical castration. In Iowa, as in California and Florida, offenders may be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses. 

[Whispering 18,865]

16 minutes ago, Bebe said:

No, but this law doesn't just target pedophiles. It targets "All rapists and child offenders".

I'm not for castrating anybody, even pedophiles, but in the specific context of rape proper education on consent helps reduce sexual violence (http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/06/in-kenya-program-changes-male-attitudes-about-sexual-violence.html)

The OP didn't explain it very well. The law does target those who rape children. 

The bill would limit the procedure to people convicted of "certain sex offenses" against victims 12 years old or younger.

Proper education is not going to change the mind of a pedophile. 

[Bebe 17,289]

13 minutes ago, Whispering said:

The OP didn't explain it very well. The law does target those who rape children. 

The bill would limit the procedure to people convicted of "certain sex offenses" against victims 12 years old or younger.

Proper education is not going to change the mind of a pedophile. 

Ah I see.

Not all pedophiles are rapists though. Consent education, that includes age of consent, could still be helpful.

Interestingly not all child molestors are pedophiles either: http://themamabeareffect.org/1/post/2015/06/think-all-child-molesters-are-pedophiles-think-again.html

There is a lot of academic research into child molesters who are not pedophiles.

Like how rapists of adults often target intoxicated or physically weaker people, many child molesters who are not pedophiles are the same way with children. 

In terms of pedophilia though, de-stigmatisation of pedophilia would be a less extreme than castration. The more pedophile's feel like they can admit their attraction to children and seek help to curb their sexual desires, the more they will admit and seek help.

Castration and medical procedures done without the consent of the patient is not ethical in the slightest and shouldn't be used as punishment or to curb behaviour.

[Whispering 18,865]

Just now, Bebe said:

Ah I see.

Not all pedophiles are rapists though. Consent education, that includes age of consent, could still be helpful. 

Castration and medical procedures done without the consent of the patient is not ethical in the slightest and shouldn't be used as punishment or to curb behaviour.

This isn't Afghanistan. Adults know that children under the age of 12 are under the age of legal consent. Do we really need to teach high schoolers that raping an eight year old is a crime? 

In many cases, it is either try that, or leave them in prison for life. I'm good with leaving repeat offenders in prison to die. I don't mind my tax money going to keeping them locked up for decades until they die in prison. 

[Nicole 1,809]

Nope. Unethical and unjust. Laws like this will only open the doors for other procedures to be eventually legalised as well. What's next - castrating pedophiles who have not committed any offences for "preventative measures"? 

[Bebe 17,289]

10 minutes ago, Whispering said:

This isn't Afghanistan. Adults know that children under the age of 12 are under the age of legal consent. Do we really need to teach high schoolers that raping an eight year old is a crime? 

In many cases, it is either try that, or leave them in prison for life. I'm good with leaving repeat offenders in prison to die. I don't mind my tax money going to keeping them locked up for decades until they die in prison. 

People know that, but all you have to do is see the common rationalisations that child molesters make to know that not all molesters understand what they are doing is wrong.

You'd think most people understand rape of adults is wrong, but like how some people don't think rape counts if the victim is drunk or unconscious some people don't think their molestation of children counts for a multitude of reasons.

They may convince themselves that if the child is young enough that he/she won't understand or remember. 

That children are not 'people' and do not have the same rights as adults.

That their children are their property. 

Abusing children not their own is 'less bad' than abusing their own biological children. 

That the relationship is loving - that they are filling an emotional need for the child. 

That the child wants and/or sought out the sexual abuse and had the developmental readiness to enter into such a relationship.

That they are 'teaching' the child about sex. 

That if the child consents to the abuse, it isn't abuse. 

That they are not physically harming the child - so therefore, their behavior is not damaging the child. 

That the child deserves to be punished.

If schools incorporated consent programs during sex ed and dispelled these myths in the same way some schools dispel the rationalisations of rapists who target adults I'm sure it would have some impact.

Castration just isn't the first step you make. It's a pretty extreme proposal and deeply unethical.

If you want to stop child molestation, then bring the pedophiles out of the dark and into the open so that the government can deal with the easier task of preventative measures rather than trying to stop re offence when a child (or more) have already fallen victim.

[Whispering 18,865]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

Castration just isn't the first step you make. It's a pretty extreme proposal and deeply unethical.

 

Once again, repeat sex offenders, ones that have repeatedly targeted and abused children. The other option is keeping them locked up forever...and that would be fine. It would definitely keep them away from children, so it's a good solution. 

[Bebe 17,289]

6 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Once again, repeat sex offenders, ones that have repeatedly targeted and abused children. The other option is keeping them locked up forever...and that would be fine. It would definitely keep them away from children, so it's a good solution. 

Yeah, I'm aware we are talking about repeat sex offenders. I'm saying that the first step to reducing sexual abuse should be focusing on preventing sex crimes to begin with.

Other than that, I've just stated I'm against castration - not that I'm against keeping them locked up. Creating laws demanding castration for repeat offenders shouldn't be the first step made if you're serious about reducing rates of sexual violence.

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

This is violating basic human rights. I don't think you should mutilate someone because you can never be 100% sure someone is guilty and rapists can use other means to rape someone if they're mentally disturbed. 

[RepentingSinner 2,647]

Ive been suggesting this for a long time. Massive YES from me.

[Iwontell 7,312]

Hmmm....

1 - Let's star by the obvious: it's a blatant violation of human rights (but then again, the US still sentences ppl to death).

2 - Judiciary errors occur...and, when it happens, how criminal of the local government to emasculate an innocent man/woman...and a surgical intervention is not reversible! They'll have diminished his/her physical integrity, capacity of reproduction, capacity of finding happiness in familial live and so many other rights forever... 

3 - Considering the "selective" nature of the penal system (and by that I mean, it mostly affects vulnerable groups, like black, latin and poor ppl - everyone knows social/racial profiling IS a thing), it's impossible not see some eugenic result coming from a public policy like that...

4 - For the sake of argument, let's say that the local population debated and came to the conclusion that castration was absolutely needed: there's chemical castration, which is reversible (by interrupting the drugs consumption) and could be applied with psychological accompaniment, in order to be progressively abandoned as the "condemned" showed aptitude to be reintegrated in social life without the need of the "chemical treatment"...it's a corollary of substantial due process of law that if you can achieve the same legitimate result through less severe means, that you should opt for the least harmful way...

5 - A law like that makes a precedent in ppl's minds for all kinds of judicial corporal punishments...how 1800s... 

So, all in all, it's the kind of thing you'd expect to see in a territory ran by ISIS, not in a modern democracy...

EDIT: I get that there are some extreme situations that demand a more harsh response from the law...but there are enough mechanisms already to punish these ppl: it's just a matter of applying them. A modern, enlightened democratic republic should not mutilate it's ppl.