All it needs is a governor's signature: A proposed bill in Louisiana intended to surgically castrate people 17 and older who are convicted of aggravated assault of a child under 13 could become law.
The first being if some states are going to try to use this against any kids charged with being child sex offenders, like several states have done with teenagers who have sex with each other (or have nude pictures of each other).
An additional concern is obviously conservatives trying to use this against trans people and drag queens, whom they are already trying to define as sex offenders just for existing in public.
Another concern or just question is…is this meant to be a deterrent? And is it even effective in that? For a lot of child sex offenders, a major component of the pleasure derived is from having power over the child in question. Removing their genitals wouldn’t necessarily change that? It’s possible it may even have them turn more to violence toward children as their outlet.
I’m just wondering on the effectiveness of this method. Is there any evidence at all or is this being done on an emotional whim?
This is the most legally sound argument against it.
Sure it’s bad to diddle kids, but it’s even worse to not have diddled kids, be accused and falsely convicted, have you genitals removed, and then on appeals the court is like “yeah sry bro they fucked that up, just reverse it”.
Although a lot of people think the death penalty is bad for financial or logistical reasons, but in my opinion the biggest reason against it is that there’s no quick way to revive a person when a court later on says they got it wrong.
I have a couple of concerns with this.
The first being if some states are going to try to use this against any kids charged with being child sex offenders, like several states have done with teenagers who have sex with each other (or have nude pictures of each other).
An additional concern is obviously conservatives trying to use this against trans people and drag queens, whom they are already trying to define as sex offenders just for existing in public.
Another concern or just question is…is this meant to be a deterrent? And is it even effective in that? For a lot of child sex offenders, a major component of the pleasure derived is from having power over the child in question. Removing their genitals wouldn’t necessarily change that? It’s possible it may even have them turn more to violence toward children as their outlet.
I’m just wondering on the effectiveness of this method. Is there any evidence at all or is this being done on an emotional whim?
It also has the same issue as the death penalty, where once the punishment is enacted, it can’t be undone based on new evidence.
This is the most legally sound argument against it.
Sure it’s bad to diddle kids, but it’s even worse to not have diddled kids, be accused and falsely convicted, have you genitals removed, and then on appeals the court is like “yeah sry bro they fucked that up, just reverse it”.
Although a lot of people think the death penalty is bad for financial or logistical reasons, but in my opinion the biggest reason against it is that there’s no quick way to revive a person when a court later on says they got it wrong.
This is a punishment that simply cannot be enacted. Any doctor that participates violates his Hippocratic oath.
I’m sure they’ll find someone. You only need to have one in the state.
John Oliver showed me they’ll probably just call in a vet.
Maybe get some farmer with castration bands.
Evidence? GOP crime deterrents? lol
Impotent rapists still penetrate. 🗡️
Oh SURGICALLY. Yeah that’s fucked up.