Bill that requires child molesters be castrated.

[Tyriece]

No... Why do people even listen to the "G"OP... Every thing they come up with is plan stupidity and I hope the party and all the brainwashed clones that follow them disband...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A

[AiliailiA]

Sounds like some barbaric practice only tolerated in prisons in Saudi Arabia. Should I call the state Alabamia?

Like many state names "Alabama" is the name of the people living there before it was a state. The same word refers to the language, the people, the river and some of the land.

Being such a conservative state, of course I like to make fun of Alabama. I don't think I'll make fun of the name though ...

Anyway, I think Saudi Arabia can hold its laurels for barbaric punishment.

[Viperco1]

Why can't people think clearly when it comes to sex? The problem is the mind not the genitals, though there is value in removing them from the gene pool. Though I think that child molesters should be cut above the collar rather than bellow the belt. As for the eighth amendment, multiple founding fathers supported castration and capital punishment(Thomas Jefferson comes to mind) and as such if a judicial originalist interpretation is used there is a good argument in favor of this being constitutional, though there is an argument for gender equality if the bill doesn't cover that scenario.

I don't know how they defined child molestation so I can't truly take a side on this bill as it might very well include Statutory Rape and punish a 21 year old for sleeping with their 17 year old date, in which case this is an extreme over reaction. If an the other hand it legitimately means raping or violating a child then I have to support it despite being ineffective to the initial goal, for the sake of preventing their destructive perversion to spread by inhibiting reproduction and making childrearing less likely. Also I have heard that there are less long-term medical effects from surgical castration then from chemical castration, if true then this may be more humane, if less reversible. Though I think that they deserve to be executed and I can't see how a civilized society could tolerate such destructive behavior and denying the victim with the emotional satisfaction of punishing their abuser(see bleeding hearts don't have a monopoly on values... or the appeal to novelty).

[Napkiraly]

Seems unconstitutional, not to mention it is completely horrendous and unneeded.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Is American politics actually getting more unreasonable?

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Yes, castration for child molestation. Justice is supposed to bite and the scum on the receiving end deserve no sympathy.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Good news, Bob! Your appeal was a success! You've been found not guilty! ....um...sorry about your balls.

[AiliailiA]

The "offender pays" clause really is odd.

I have a cost estimate of around $2,000. That's the UK admittedly, but it's useful I think as a minimum estimate for the US.

Well that's not really a lot. But bear in mind that the released offender has really crap employment options, worse than other parolees because they're on the Sex Offender's register. The bill simply doesn't say how they're made to pay, or whether failure to make payments is a violation of their parole.

I have to suspect that's the idea though. They can't even live under a bridge where there are no children and stay out of trouble that way. They go back to jail unless they had savings before being convicted, or have a rich family.

Hell, for lack of other detail, it could even mean that they're castrated before their release date but then not released until they pay!

BTW, here's the bill:

HB14
By Representative Hurst
RFD Judiciary
Rd 1 14-JAN-14


SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not provide for the castration of certain convicted sex offenders.
This bill would provide that any person over the age of 21 years who is convicted of certain sex offenses against a child 12 years of age or younger would be surgically castrated before his or her release from the custody of the Department of Corrections. This bill would require that the cost of the procedure be paid by the adult criminal sex offender.

A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

Relating to punishment of sex offenders; to provide that any person over the age of 21 years who is convicted of certain sex offenses against a child 12 years of age or younger would be surgically castrated before his or her release from the custody of the Department of Corrections; and to require the cost of the procedure to be paid by the adult criminal sex offender.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:

Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any time the victim is 12 years old or less and the adult criminal sex offender, as defined in Section 15-20-21(1), Code of Alabama 1975, is 21 years or older at the time of the offense, the criminal sex offender shall be surgically castrated before being released from the custody of the Department of Corrections. The cost of the procedure shall be paid by the adult criminal sex offender.

Section 2. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

And while Hurst sounds like the classic example of Teapartisan, he's held his seat since 1998 ... before there was a Tea Party. Democrats held the Alabama House until 2010, which is probably why I've never heard of Hurst before.

He's an old guy who worked for a paper products company, and now sits on several House Committees (including Agriculture and Forestry of which he is Chair) though not on Judiciary which is the committee which bounced his bill the last time. Here's the rub though: the company he worked for (and according to his page on the Alabama House site still does) was the Georgia Pacific Corporation, a really big paper and pulp producer which was acquired by Koch Industries for $21 billion back in 2005.

Anyway, I'm still perplexed by the requirement that released child sex offenders be required to pay for their own castration. Using the low estimate of $2,000 that's about what it costs to keep a prisoner in jail for one month. If castration is an effective deterrent to recidivism, when the long prison terms and the bad treatment by other prisoners isn't, why be so stingy?

[Galborg]

Hang the rapists. If they don't have dicks, they will just rape children with broken bottles or whatever.

[Lordieth]

Good news, Bob! Your appeal was a success! You've been found not guilty! ....um...sorry about your balls.

"Here you go Bob. We saved them for you in this jam-jar. I bet you feel so much better now that you have them back!"

[AiliailiA]

Good news, Bob! Your appeal was a success! You've been found not guilty! ....um...sorry about your balls.

Well in that case the State would have to stump up for hormone replacement therapy, for the rest of their life, and the best pair of prosthetic balls money can buy.

If it was me, I'd hold out for prosthetic balls that recieve satellite phone service and wireless internet, and have the built in ferret detector.

[Viperco1]

The "offender pays" clause really is odd.

I have a cost estimate of around $2,000. That's the UK admittedly, but it's useful I think as a minimum estimate for the US.

Well that's not really a lot. But bear in mind that the released offender has really crap employment options, worse than other parolees because they're on the Sex Offender's register. The bill simply doesn't say how they're made to pay, or whether failure to make payments is a violation of their parole.

I have to suspect that's the idea though. They can't even live under a bridge where there are no children and stay out of trouble that way. They go back to jail unless they had savings before being convicted, or have a rich family.

Hell, for lack of other detail, it could even mean that they're castrated before their release date but then not released until they pay!

BTW, here's the bill:

HB14
By Representative Hurst
RFD Judiciary
Rd 1 14-JAN-14


SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not provide for the castration of certain convicted sex offenders.
This bill would provide that any person over the age of 21 years who is convicted of certain sex offenses against a child 12 years of age or younger would be surgically castrated before his or her release from the custody of the Department of Corrections. This bill would require that the cost of the procedure be paid by the adult criminal sex offender.

A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

Relating to punishment of sex offenders; to provide that any person over the age of 21 years who is convicted of certain sex offenses against a child 12 years of age or younger would be surgically castrated before his or her release from the custody of the Department of Corrections; and to require the cost of the procedure to be paid by the adult criminal sex offender.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:

Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any time the victim is 12 years old or less and the adult criminal sex offender, as defined in Section 15-20-21(1), Code of Alabama 1975, is 21 years or older at the time of the offense, the criminal sex offender shall be surgically castrated before being released from the custody of the Department of Corrections. The cost of the procedure shall be paid by the adult criminal sex offender.

Section 2. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

And while Hurst sounds like the classic example of Teapartisan, he's held his seat since 1998 ... before there was a Tea Party. Democrats held the Alabama House until 2010, which is probably why I've never heard of Hurst before.

He's an old guy who worked for a paper products company, and now sits on several House Committees (including Agriculture and Forestry of which he is Chair) though not on Judiciary which is the committee which bounced his bill the last time. Here's the rub though: the company he worked for (and according to his page on the Alabama House site still does) was the Georgia Pacific Corporation, a really big paper and pulp producer which was acquired by Koch Industries for $21 billion back in 2005.

Anyway, I'm still perplexed by the requirement that released child sex offenders be required to pay for their own castration. Using the low estimate of $2,000 that's about what it costs to keep a prisoner in jail for one month. If castration is an effective deterrent to recidivism, when the long prison terms and the bad treatment by other prisoners isn't, why be so stingy?

Ah good, my fears of this being applied to statutory rape(and by extent America's anti-teen sex bias) are baseless. Anyways you bill them cause why waste taxpayer money?

PS. Thank you Galborg for displaying sanity, its so rare these days.

[Pope Joan]

Suppose the judge and jury are wrong?

Suppose they convict an innocent man.

It happens all the time, far more often than we would like to believe.

[East Angli]

Chemical castration is okay, but surgical castration is bad. But nothing unconstitutional about the punishment.

But still plenty of unconstitutional things when it comes to childmolestion trials.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

[The Serbian Empire]

Sounds like some barbaric practice only tolerated in prisons in Saudi Arabia. Should I call the state Alabamia?

Like many state names "Alabama" is the name of the people living there before it was a state. The same word refers to the language, the people, the river and some of the land.

Being such a conservative state, of course I like to make fun of Alabama. I don't think I'll make fun of the name though ...

Anyway, I think Saudi Arabia can hold its laurels for barbaric punishment.

On second thought, it's a bit too close to Albania and my nation's name might rub someone the wrong way.

[AiliailiA]

Good news, Bob! Your appeal was a success! You've been found not guilty! ....um...sorry about your balls.

"Here you go Bob. We saved them for you in this jam-jar. I bet you feel so much better now that you have them back!"

Actually that's not a bad idea. Not the balls necessarily, but at least a sample of semen, could be frozen as part of the deal.

I can almost get behind the idea of depriving convicted child molestors of the option to father (or mother) children in future. It's bad eugenics, but practically it gets around the legal privilege of people to be parents-in-practice because they're genetically parents (that's a complicated and deeply entrenched legal problem). Ideally, all parents would qualify on merit not just on having functional genitals, but in practice it's a huge legal advantage to be genetically a parent. Given that, a contingent solution which denies the legal privilege and subjects the released sex-offender to a higher standard to act as parent to a child ... a standard like foster parents face, or which de-facto parents face if the other parent disputes their access to the child ... does seem to make sense.

The eugenic aspect of castration has been somewhat overlooked in this thread I think. Age demographic of NSG perhaps, that so many posters instantly think "oh no! My balls! I'll never have erections!" rather than "oh no! My balls! I'll never have children!"

[Ermarian]

Ain't "unconstitutional" a word Republicans love to use? I'm pretty sure this word applies to that bill.

They do, but it's defined differently. For something to be unconstitutional, it has to be done by the federal government, and specifically by Obama.

[DesAnges]

Hang the rapists. If they don't have dicks, they will just rape children with broken bottles or whatever.

Recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than any other crime except murder.

[Risottia]

I can almost get behind the idea of depriving convicted child molestors of the option to father (or mother) children in future. It's bad eugenics,

Yup, it's bad eugenics. And since behaviour - criminal behaviour included - depends a lot more on free choice, nurture, education, and social conditions rather than on genetic factors, such an approach isn't going to be effective.

but practically it gets around the legal privilege of people to be parents-in-practice

Actually that's a legal right in all jurisdictions I can think of.

[DesAnges]

"Here you go Bob. We saved them for you in this jam-jar. I bet you feel so much better now that you have them back!"

Actually that's not a bad idea. Not the balls necessarily, but at least a sample of semen, could be frozen as part of the deal.

I can almost get behind the idea of depriving convicted child molestors of the option to father (or mother) children in future. It's bad eugenics, but practically it gets around the legal privilege of people to be parents-in-practice because they're genetically parents (that's a complicated and deeply entrenched legal problem). Ideally, all parents would qualify on merit not just on having functional genitals, but in practice it's a huge legal advantage to be genetically a parent. Given that, a contingent solution which denies the legal privilege and subjects the released sex-offender to a higher standard to act as parent to a child ... a standard like foster parents face, or which de-facto parents face if the other parent disputes their access to the child ... does seem to make sense.

The eugenic aspect of castration has been somewhat overlooked in this thread I think. Age demographic of NSG perhaps, that so many posters instantly think "oh no! My balls! I'll never have erections!" rather than "oh no! My balls! I'll never have children!"

I'm struggling to think ahead of "Someone has actually proposed this as a serious idea".

[AiliailiA]

Like many state names "Alabama" is the name of the people living there before it was a state. The same word refers to the language, the people, the river and some of the land.

Being such a conservative state, of course I like to make fun of Alabama. I don't think I'll make fun of the name though ...

Anyway, I think Saudi Arabia can hold its laurels for barbaric punishment.

On second thought, it's a bit too close to Albania and my nation's name might rub someone the wrong way.

I wasn't entirely correct either. I called Alabama a "conservative" state. Socially conservative perhaps, and certainly its reputation in the history of slavery is pretty foul. But politically, it was a Democratic Party state for over a century and Republicans only gained control of the legislature in 2010. It should be considered a swing state I think, it's just a bit unusual that when it does swing it swings a long way.

[Gauthier]

Hahaha fuck we never gonna expand in the galaxy....

Why do you hate the human species?

Because you humans are uncouth, murderous apes who shoot at the back of beaten enemies who are fleeing away, as you did with the Sycorax. Don't you think it has been forgotten, Harriet Jones.

Oh right, and the replacement was so much better.

[Gauthier]

Let's see what this would really encourage:

• Child molestors guaranteed to kill their victims to cover up evidence of the crime.
• Wrongful castration lawsuits against the state. Yep, because wrongful capital crime convictions never happen.
• And the same rate of child molestation as before, if not more. Which will also increase the murder rate because see above.

[DesAnges]

Let's see what this would really encourage:

• Child molestors guaranteed to kill their victims to cover up evidence of the crime.
• Wrongful castration lawsuits against the state. Yep, because wrongful capital crime convictions never happen.
• And the same rate of child molestation as before, if not more. Which will also increase the murder rate because see above.

The only thing it would really achieve is perhaps a slight drop in the already extremely low recidivist rate. And, as Galborg pointed out, if someone really wanted to keep on attacking kids, they'd get inventive.

[Surfistan]

Suppose the judge and jury are wrong?

Suppose they convict an innocent man.

It happens all the time, far more often than we would like to believe.

Well, it's bye bye sex life then.

This is horrible.