Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I received this in my inbox and checked the Texas and Oregon codes (I don't really feel like checking them all). I must live under a rock because I had no clue this was going on. Texas offers an elective removal of the testicles at the states expense. Very interesting.
"Eight states allow chemical or surgical castration of sex offenders. They are: California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin. "
Castrating sex offenders does not kill them. It simply removes one (two?) of the main driving forces behind their inappropriately aggressive sexual behavior. A guy can live without his testicles, and if he rapes somebody he not only deserves to live without them, society would be safer if he had them removed.
Though this should not be a broad-brush law, applying to all sex offenders - due to the fact that there are multiple kinds of sexual offenses - this is certainly something to be taken very seriously.
Opponents argue that the side effects of chemical castration (e. g. , life threatening blood clots and serious allergic reactions) are reason for avoiding it.
Others have argued unsuccessfully that forced castration violates the protection against cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
I have always found it interesting and disturbing why people worry so about inflicting pain on someone who savagely raped or maimed another person. IMO, those who advocate for violent offenders to be treated with kid gloves are just as sick as the offenders themselves.
Where is the proof that this procedure results in anything but a convicted sterile sex offender. IMHO the criminal is created in the brain not the gonads.
Where is the proof that this procedure results in anything but a convicted sterile sex offender. IMHO the criminal is created in the brain not the gonads.
What Marmac said...
Any farmer can tell you that the difference in the behavior of a male animal without testicles is completely different than a male with testicles.
So if a HUMAN male animal - with testicles - is uncontrolled and aggressive enough to rape somebody, why not remove the testicles? It's probably not a 100% cure and answer, but it'd sure do a heckuva lot more good than what we're doing now!
Absolutely have to agree with Marmac. For the squeemish, there is chemical castration as well. IIRC, in Florida the guys had the option of staying in jail or chemical castration and supervision. I guess if Mr. Willy was really running their minds, they opted to stay in jail. There is a big caveat on all this though, some behavior is not sexual except as a byproduct of an underlying condition or issue, and that issue can remain after castration. Using Marmac's animal example, a male cat who is neutered too late will still spray.
Absolutely have to agree with Marmac. For the squeemish, there is chemical castration as well. IIRC, in Florida the guys had the option of staying in jail or chemical castration and supervision. I guess if Mr. Willy was really running their minds, they opted to stay in jail. There is a big caveat on all this though, some behavior is not sexual except as a byproduct of an underlying condition or issue, and that issue can remain after castration. Using Marmac's animal example, a male cat who is neutered too late will still spray.
I'd steer clear of the chemical castration. Just lop the darned things off.
It seems that too many people are more concerned about the criminal than the victim(s). It also seems that too many people think castration is equal to execution, and it's not.
Castration probably isn't what any man wants. But hey, if you rape somebody you've pretty much given up the right to be calling the shots.
Castrating sex offenders does not kill them. It simply removes one (two?) of the main driving forces behind their inappropriately aggressive sexual behavior. A guy can live without his testicles, and if he rapes somebody he not only deserves to live without them, society would be safer if he had them removed.
Though this should not be a broad-brush law, applying to all sex offenders - due to the fact that there are multiple kinds of sexual offenses - this is certainly something to be taken very seriously.
I agree. Don't forget folks some that were labeled as 'sex offender' were actually exonerated years later by DNA evidence.
I agree. Don't forget folks some that were labeled as 'sex offender' were actually exonerated years later by DNA evidence.
You're right. There are a lot of scenarios for which somebody should not be castrated.
I've got a distant relative who will be labeled as a Sex Offender for the next 25 years - until he is 44 years old. What did he do? Well... He was screwing around, drinking, and making out with a girl he thought was 20. She told him she was 20. They had consensual sex, her parents found out, and suddenly he's in a world of hurt.
What he did was incredibly stupid, and costly. But it's a far cry from raping a little kid. Unfortunately, both carry the same label.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
