Louisiana Bill Authorizing Physical Castration for Sex Offenders

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: nugget1
Don't really know how they identify but one thing I did notice was the post saying "Rape is not a penis thing..."

That isn't a defense of rapists but the recognition that some sick people can get off without sticking their privates in someone else's privates.

Can someone without an "outie" rape a man or another woman? More importantly can they sexually assault them?

Pretty sure the answer is yes, so what does castration accomplish?

How about a little common sense? The journey of a thousands miles begins with the first step. There are a lot of sexually violent crime committed by those with a penis; most of them, in fact.

I am well aware that women also commit sexula crimes, but how many of them are acts of violence?

We have to startv somewhere to tackle the problem in a more effective way, Why not go after the greatest and most violent offenders first?

Thanks for chimming in-and giving out stars for posts that otherwise woulc't received any.

a reply to: nugget1

I suspect that just the threat of having their privates cut out would be enough to deter many rapists.

a reply to: nugget1
The first steps have already been taken, it is illegal.

Castration isn't going to make it more illegal. The point quintessentone was making was that sexual assault can happen even without that part.

Castration isn't tackling anything in the cases where rape is more of a power thing than a sexual gratification thing.

As for the stars, yes I think they made a good argument so I starred the posts. What are you going to do make that illegal? Why don't you just stick to the topic and stop nitpicking about things like stars?

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: quintessentone

I would just Hang them . More Merciful .

I'm not sure I agree with showing them mercy since they show none for their victums, but I'm pretty biased on the subject.

Same here . Evil must be taken Out of the Equation if Good wants to Survive....

I dont see this getting far before its overturned. Its like idiots in Alabama have never read or understand the bill of rights beyond the second amendment or the brief part about religion. Like theres a whole #ing amendment that clearly states cruel and unusual punishment is a big no-no. And this definitely qualified.

I'm pretty sure the dum dums who are behind this know its never going to pass, its just performative legislation for the idiots in their base.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: nugget1
Now I'm stunned. As hard as you've fought to defend the #&^%$%% deviants amongst us I never would have expected this response.

That is because he was only defending them in your mind.

All quintessentone said was that there are other ways to sexually abuse someone without inserting tab A into slot B.

Thanks; I thought quintessentone was female. That explains a lot.

Quintessentone is non violent and is reasonable which I can't say for many here.

Well, I'm non violent normally. If someone messes violently with my wife or family I will strike back. I won't stand there and put my hands up saying. "It's okay, I'm non violent." " here's my wallet."

Yeah/nah mate.

Bally

a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, that's what I meant, without their peni, they can still rape you in many different ways. Rape is not a penis thing, it's a #ed up mind thing.

The body changes because the corresponding hormones can no longer be produced. The sexual desire is then gone. The urge is gone. You can celebrate this as a cure. This is well known, which is why there were eunuchs who looked after the women in the harem. There is more to the idea than simply cutting off someone's balls and penis as a punishment. Broaden your horizons and realize that it takes away the physical cause for the sexual urge.

Your suggestion of medication is ridiculous. Very few will do that, most will just look for the next victim. If you take away the urge from these people, you have tackled the problem at its root and solved it. It's simple, there are crimes that are bad enough that you simply lose certain rights. These people have given up their rights by deciding to do this. You can argue that these people are sick, but that doesn't help the victims and future victims.

I just don't have any sympathy for such people. They know from society that it's wrong. Off with the balls and the cock, then there won't be any more victims. It can't be society's job to wrap such evil people in cotton wool.

Maybe the next bastard will think twice about risking destroying another life for his sexual pleasure.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: nugget1

That is unacceptable, drugs would suffice.

no, forcible rape and child molesting is unacceptable. If you rape or diddle kids, there should be such a strong deterrent, that others won't act on their urges, lest they get this treatment. It's how you stop a lot of bad things from happening.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: nugget1
Don't really know how they identify but one thing I did notice was the post saying "Rape is not a penis thing..."

That isn't a defense of rapists but the recognition that some sick people can get off without sticking their privates in someone else's privates.

Can someone without an "outie" rape a man or another woman? More importantly can they sexually assault them?

Pretty sure the answer is yes, so what does castration accomplish?

the same thing as the death sentence. If you know that raping a woman would mean you will loose your junk, you might think twice about it and perhaps not do it. Kind of like if your kid does something wrong, and you punish them for it, they learn not to do whatever they did to get punished. If the crime is bad enough, then the punishment should fit the crime. Can a women who has been raped, ever be "un-raped" again? No? then this is totally fair.

What do they plan to do for women offenders? I follow an account that reports arrests of child sexual abusers and lately there have been a ton of church and police officer couples arrested for the rape of a child.

I don't think a penalty should be more severe for the man than the woman. She's just as culpable.

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: nugget1

I suspect that just the threat of having their privates cut out would be enough to deter many rapists.

bingo

a reply to: frogs453

I don't think a penalty should be more severe for the man than the woman. She's just as culpable.

Men and women are not anatomically the same. Why try to make everything the same? Men and women are different, you can't change that. And there are options for women there too. Always these exceptions that are supposed to affect the rest of the regulations, I see a clear pattern of whining in our society. Everything is so unfair.

Now we already have a solution for 50% of the problem but we can't do it because the other 50% cannot be punished just as harshly? What kind of attitude is that? Instead of just sitting there, we could do that and then about fewer people would be raped. It's not a perfect solution but one that covers at least 50%. There would be no repeat offenders.

And it would be a great deterrent, maybe people would then seek help instead of raping other people.

Whats next chop your hand off for stealing bread society is going backwards Chemicals work and are reversible .

Sometimes people are falsely accused .

It would be doing him a favor. The gonads cause a lot of problems for a guy of "normal" sexuality, you know toxic masculinity, aggressive and risky behavior, always trying to get laid, etc. This is in addition to taking him out of the gene pool so his behavior isn't passed on to another generation as well as reducing the chances he will offend again. If neutering him isn't enough, perhaps it's time to consider "corrective conditioning" or brain surgery.

a reply to: Naftalin

I'm not sure where you're going with that. Why wouldn't you want something just as harsh for a female that rapes? I never said anything about not doing it because there is no punishment for women proposed.

I'm female and I think it's even more vile for a female to rape. Just because they may use an item to do it doesn't mean her sick urge is any different than a man.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Naftalin

I'm not sure where you're going with that. Why wouldn't you want something just as harsh for a female that rapes? I never said anything about not doing it because there is no punishment for women proposed.

I'm female and I think it's even more vile for a female to rape. Just because they may use an item to do it doesn't mean her sick urge is any different than a man.

then beat her to death with the object. Fairzies?

I am torn on this one...

Personally I would rather see kiddy diddlers under the jail rather than in it.

I understand the thought process behind physical castration over chemical, if our justice system didnt screw up so often I might even be inclined to support it.

But it does screw up, there would have to be some heavy duty safeguards in place so an innocent person doesnt get gelded.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Sometimes people are falsely accused .

It's kind of hard to plant DNA evidence of this sort. If youeven read the op you would know a very high bar for conviction would need to be met before whacking off a tallywhacker.

originally posted by: frogs453
What do they plan to do for women offenders? I follow an account that reports arrests of child sexual abusers and lately there have been a ton of church and police officer couples arrested for the rape of a child.

I don't think a penalty should be more severe for the man than the woman. She's just as culpable.

That should also be addressed. A life sentence without the possibility of parole might be a good deterent, or even a lobotomy if the offense included violence of any kind.

Tackling the greatest and most violent number of offenders seems like a good place to start, and once society see how quickly it reduces this sort of crime it can expand to include other forms of deviancy.

a reply to: nugget1

I'm all for this treatment of rapists, as long as there is irrefutable evidence via DNA or 'caught in the act'. Perhaps the same will one day apply to pedophiles; one can hope, eh?

Sound about right.

And if that does not deter the horrible bastards from committing such sad acts of horrendous depravity nothing will.

Just to add all the same removing their n@ts does not necessarily mean they still cannot hurt children.

"Boxing Helena" treatment just to be sure methinks.