LA Gov signs molester/rape offender castration bill

[Christians4LessGvt]

WAY TO GO BOBBY JINDAL
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
ONE DAY YOU'LL BE PRESIDENT



LA Gov Jindal signs chemical castration bill
By MICHELLE MILLHOLLON
Advocate Capitol News Bureau
Published: Jun 26, 2008



Jindal signed legislation Wednesday that would force convicted rapists and others to undergo chemical castration.

"I am glad we have taken such strong measures in Louisiana to put a stop to these monsters' brutal acts," the governor said in a prepared  statement.

Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 into law on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Louisiana cannot execute people who rape children under the age of 12.

The governor blasted the high court's decision.

"I am especially glad to sign (SB144) into Louisiana law on the same day the Supreme Court has made an atrocious ruling against our state's ability to sentence those who sexually assault our children to the fullest extent," he said.

SB144 is "a good bill," Jindal said, that sends the message that Louisiana will fully punish those who harm children.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Meaux, did not return a call for comment late Wednesday afternoon.

During the legislative session, Gautreaux said the bill was inspired, in part, by the crimes of the Rev. Gilbert Gauthe.

Gauthe, a Roman Catholic priest, pleaded guilty in 1985 to molesting a number of boys in Vermilion Parish. He was arrested earlier this year near Galveston for allegedly failing to register as a sex offender.

The bill would allow judges to order chemical castrations for convicted rapists and other sex offenders.

Most debate about the bill during the legislative session centered on which crimes should apply.

Originally, the legislation was written broadly, extending to crimes like simple kidnapping and molestation of a juvenile.

Lawmakers whittled down the list of crimes.

SB144 now applies to aggravated rape, forcible rape, second-degree sexual battery, aggravated, incest and aggravated crimes against nature.

On a first offense, a judge would have the option of ordering injections of medroxyprogesterone acetate, which suppresses a man's sex drive by reducing testosterone levels.

The injections would be mandatory on a second offense.

The castration treatments would start no later than a week before an incarcerated offender's release from prison.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/21656994.html?showAll=y&c=y

[kimba1]

but does it work?

it looks like it makes sense
but if such acts are psychological not physical .
we may actually be letting more reoffending rapist on the streets.
castration may make him crave it more .
if you remove 1 form of pleasure how does that make him not seek other ways?
I say this because I live in a town which some folks derive pleasure in the strangest non-sexual ways
so I got some serious doubts this actually does any good.

[Amianthus]

but does it work?

Yes. In some states there are pedophiles who request the treatments to control their urges.

[Michael Tee]

Wow.  Radical.  Here's another one for them:  for theft, amputate the right hand.

Did any of those morons ever hear of capital punishment?  Just askin.

[Amianthus]

Wow.  Radical.  Here's another one for them:  for theft, amputate the right hand.

Chemical castration does not amputate anything.

[Michael Tee]

Yeah but why stop at chemical castration?  If you're gonna deny a man the use of an entire organ, why not DENY the man the use of the entire organ.

My point was that chemical castration is also barbaric.  Obviously, physical amputation is more so, and capital punishment (which was recently outlawed by the SCOTUS for cases in which no life was taken by the perp) even more so.  (Considering that the perp spared the life of a victim which could easily have been taken, thus hugely increasing the risk of being caught and punished.)

[Amianthus]

Yeah but why stop at chemical castration?  If you're gonna deny a man the use of an entire organ, why not DENY the man the use of the entire organ.

It does not deny the use of the penis. They can continue to have sex (though their sex drive is reduced), but it inhibits the chemical cues that lead to a desire to rape.

In addition, it is totally reversible, unlike physical castration.

You've never seen a castrated dog hump stuff?

[Michael Tee]

Sounds like a lot of mumbo-jumbo to me.  It's like saying there is one chemical that activates normal sex and one that activates child sex.  One is neutralized by chemical castration, one is inhibited but not neutralized completely.  My initial reaction is to say, "Bullshit."  Any scientific proof of any of this?

And nobody has looked into the Supreme Court decision striking down capital punishment for rape on the grounds that no life was taken by the perp.  Sounds a lot like good old-fashioned "eye for an eye" to me.  Whatever happened to "love thy rapist?"  Why does the Louisiana legislature hate the New Testament?  Why CAN'T child molesters just be executed?

[Amianthus]

Sounds like a lot of mumbo-jumbo to me.  It's like saying there is one chemical that activates normal sex and one that activates child sex.  One is neutralized by chemical castration, one is inhibited but not neutralized completely.  My initial reaction is to say, "Bullshit."  Any scientific proof of any of this?

Rape is a violent reaction, not sexual. How many times have we heard that "rape is violence, not sex"?

There was a 30 year medical study conducted in Scandinavian countries that confirmed it's effectiveness.

[Michael Tee]

<<Rape is a violent reaction, not sexual. How many times have we heard that "rape is violence, not sex"?>>

I've heard that, and it's bullshit.  Politically correct bullshit, but bullshit nevertheless.  Violence would be just punching someone out.  Fucking them is sex, with or without the violence.

<<There was a 30 year medical study conducted in Scandinavian countries that confirmed it's effectiveness.>>

I mean, where is the proof that there are two chemicals in the body, one for child sex, one for normal?  "Confirming the effectiveness" in a highly subjective area like this is not all that convincing.

[Amianthus]

I mean, where is the proof that there are two chemicals in the body, one for child sex, one for normal?  "Confirming the effectiveness" in a highly subjective area like this is not all that convincing.

You don't believe that there are separate chemical cues in the brain for sex and for violence?

[Amianthus]

"Confirming the effectiveness" in a highly subjective area like this is not all that convincing.

Yeah, studies conducted by doctors in countries with socialized medicine are not to be trusted.

I'll remember that.

[Michael Tee]

<<You don't believe that there are separate chemical cues in the brain for sex and for violence?>>

You're saying that child sex is all violence and no sex?

[Amianthus]

You're saying that child sex is all violence and no sex?

Rape is violence. Raping a child is therefore violence.

[Michael Tee]

Well you've got it all down word perfect.  Very politically correct.