DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on June 27, 2008, 12:37:07 AM
-
WAY TO GO BOBBY JINDAL
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
ONE DAY YOU'LL BE PRESIDENT
(http://media.2theadvocate.com/designimages/2theadvocate_logo_728_new.gif)
LA Gov Jindal signs chemical castration bill
By MICHELLE MILLHOLLON
Advocate Capitol News Bureau
Published: Jun 26, 2008
(http://indiana.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/21/jindal_2.jpg)
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 (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/21656994.html?showAll=y&c=y)
-
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.
-
but does it work?
Yes. In some states there are pedophiles who request the treatments to control their urges.
-
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.
-
Wow. Radical. Here's another one for them: for theft, amputate the right hand.
Chemical castration does not amputate anything.
-
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.)
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
<<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.
-
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?
-
"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.
-
<<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?
-
You're saying that child sex is all violence and no sex?
Rape is violence. Raping a child is therefore violence.
-
Well you've got it all down word perfect. Very politically correct.
-
Well you've got it all down word perfect. Very politically correct.
And obvious to boot.
After all, the rapists get off on using violence to control their subjects. Ask any psychiatrist.
-
<<After all, the rapists get off on using violence to control their subjects. Ask any psychiatrist.>>
If they get off on violence, violence alone should satisfy them. But they go beyond the violence and add a little sex to the mixture. Making it a sexual crime. Even a psychiatrist should be able to understand that.
-
If they get off on violence, violence alone should satisfy them. But they go beyond the violence and add a little sex to the mixture. Making it a sexual crime. Even a psychiatrist should be able to understand that.
But without the violent tendencies they don't rape. So, the violence is the key.
-
Sure. It's violent sex. Without the sex, it would just be violent violence.
-
Sure. It's violent sex. Without the sex, it would just be violent violence.
Define rape without violence.
Define sex without violence.
Which is the one we're trying to reduce?
-
<<Define rape without violence.>>
Statutory rape. You fuck a 15-year-old girl (Tracy Lords, for example) who wants to have sex with you. You both have a great time and then you end up in the slammer. Rape without violence.
I'm sure you recognize that violence without rape is still a criminal offence, don't you? The violence alone is already criminalized in and of itself. If it were violence that needed to be suppressed, there would be no need for sexual offences at all, the elements of violence contained in the rape would be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Rape is by definition a sexual offence with or without violence.
-
Statutory rape. You fuck a 15-year-old girl (Tracy Lords, for example) who wants to have sex with you. You both have a great time and then you end up in the slammer. Rape without violence.
You'll note that the bill passed applies to aggravated rape, which includes a violent component. Statutory rape is not included.
-
<<You'll note that the bill passed applies to aggravated rape, which includes a violent component. Statutory rape is not included.>>
Thereby proving my point.
Rape without violence: statutory rape
Rape with violence: aggravated rape
Ergo: rape is not necessarily a crime of violence.
Q.E.D.
-
Thereby proving my point.
Not really. Statutory rape is not really rape - it is consensual, and only considered "rape" by law. Hence the term "statutory".
-
well
not exactly by laws also
there are grey areas of consent
look a minor (not all ) doesn`t have the experience to know when to say know
one of the reasons for being a pedophile is the victims are easy to control.
note the legendary excuse(she`s asking for it)