• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signs chemical castration bill into law

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
17,037
Reaction score
16,396
Location
In a box.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Monday signed a bill into law that requires someone convicted of a sex offense against a child under the age of 13 to begin chemical castration a month before being released from custody.

The law requires individuals convicted of such an offense to continue treatments until a court deems the treatment is no longer necessary. It says offenders must pay for the treatment, and they can't be denied parole solely based on an inability to pay.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signs chemical castration bill into law


This one I am a bit undecided on; I haven't read the medical literature regarding this procedure.....while it may prevent the actual physical sex act, I dont see how it would prevent acts of violence on a victim.

Does this factor into potential plea deals for rapists and molesters?
 
Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Monday signed a bill into law that requires someone convicted of a sex offense against a child under the age of 13 to begin chemical castration a month before being released from custody.

The law requires individuals convicted of such an offense to continue treatments until a court deems the treatment is no longer necessary. It says offenders must pay for the treatment, and they can't be denied parole solely based on an inability to pay.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signs chemical castration bill into law


This one I am a bit undecided on; I haven't read the medical literature regarding this procedure.....while it may prevent the actual physical sex act, I dont see how it would prevent acts of violence on a victim.

Does this factor into potential plea deals for rapists and molesters?

From Wiki:

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.

On men
When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males)

The thing is, this treatment suppresses sexual desire but it must be done on a regular basis, usually monthly and the sex offender has to pay for it himself. If they stop the drug, the effect also stops and they are right back where they started. I say castrate them, take out their testicles entirely. Any man who sexually assaults young children should be put to death but since the death penalty isn't legal or if it is legal in most states, it's never used. So, castration will end their desire to assault children.
 
From Wiki:

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.

On men
When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males)

The thing is, this treatment suppresses sexual desire but it must be done on a regular basis, usually monthly and the sex offender has to pay for it himself. If they stop the drug, the effect also stops and they are right back where they started. I say castrate them, take out their testicles entirely. Any man who sexually assaults young children should be put to death but since the death penalty isn't legal or if it is legal in most states, it's never used. So, castration will end their desire to assault children.

I would add men who rape women as well as those who rape and sexually molest children to the list of those who should be chemically castrated.
 
Last edited:
From Wiki:

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.

On men
When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males)

The thing is, this treatment suppresses sexual desire but it must be done on a regular basis, usually monthly and the sex offender has to pay for it himself. If they stop the drug, the effect also stops and they are right back where they started. I say castrate them, take out their testicles entirely. Any man who sexually assaults young children should be put to death but since the death penalty isn't legal or if it is legal in most states, it's never used. So, castration will end their desire to assault children.


I need to look at the literature and recidivism rates; additionally, as I stated earlier, it may suppress the ability to perform the sex act, but I dont see it inhibiting other violent behavior.


I have zero empathy for criminals in general, but violent sexual offenders, particularly those that prey on children, are beneath my contempt, and I wouldn't shed a tear at them never seeing daylight again.
 
I need to look at the literature and recidivism rates; additionally, as I stated earlier, it may suppress the ability to perform the sex act, but I dont see it inhibiting other violent behavior.


I have zero empathy for criminals in general, but violent sexual offenders, particularly those that prey on children, are beneath my contempt, and I wouldn't shed a tear at them never seeing daylight again.

If I had to assign a degree of loathsome from 1-10 between the rape of women or pedophiles who sexually assault or prey on small children, I would have to give pedophilia a #10. Rape is a vicious crime motivated by rage and is a forcible act, whereas, there may be some pedophile men who restrict their sexual desire to fantasizing only or child pornography, and those men who are at risk to commit an 'offense' because fantasy alone doesn't satisfy their sexual desire.

When a woman is raped, it's always violent, brutal --and unfortunately, frequently ends in her death. In the criminal justice system, it's generally incumbent upon the victims to prove there was a crime committed against them. When children are victims of a pedophile sexual assault the crime itself is often never reported. The idea that all perpetrators of rape are psychopaths or mentally ill is not true. Pedophiles have a true clinical mental illness and generally aren't savage men that commit violent acts.

Those two crimes, violent rape of women and the sexual assault of children share one commonality, they are both greatly under-reported. We have just recently (in the past decade) uncovered the crimes of hundreds of priests who sexually molested young boys or girls. This has literally been ongoing for generations and concealed from the public. In the past, children suffered at the hands of a pedophile priest for years, then grew up to adulthood and spent their entire life hiding that secret which they took to their graves. Now that the crack of light has been shone on the egregious cover-up by the Vatican, adults are coming forward with their horrific stories about pedophile priests. The point is, a child is much less likely to report sexual molestation than a woman that has been raped.

I guess all I've been trying to say is that a pedophile doesn't rage or commit violence against their victims because theirs is a perversion of sexual desire not one of violence and rage. IMO they should all be castrated, rapists and pedophiles.
 
I understand the purpose is to reduce recidivism. Pedophiles almost always re-offend upon release. It will be interesting to see if it is effective.
 
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Of all crimes, pedophiliacs and child rapists are, in my opinion, the most grotesque. Violating the most innocent of lives in this fashion should render the assaulter's life forfeit.

I say no to castration and yes to execution.
 
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

So the right to procreate is something you think should never remove from someone? Really?

I'm sorry. A child rapist should -never- be allowed to propagate their genes. That is ONE OF if not the most powerful of punishments, denying the right to spread your genes, because you're a sick ****. I don't see why they have the right if they exercise it on children.

Absolutely disgusting.
 
Jill Biden should relocate to Alabama and put some in Joe's morning coffee.:lol:
 
So the right to procreate is something you think should never remove from someone? Really?.

That was the opinion of the Supreme Court of the US.
 
Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Monday signed a bill into law that requires someone convicted of a sex offense against a child under the age of 13 to begin chemical castration a month before being released from custody.

The law requires individuals convicted of such an offense to continue treatments until a court deems the treatment is no longer necessary. It says offenders must pay for the treatment, and they can't be denied parole solely based on an inability to pay.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signs chemical castration bill into law


This one I am a bit undecided on; I haven't read the medical literature regarding this procedure.....while it may prevent the actual physical sex act, I dont see how it would prevent acts of violence on a victim.

Does this factor into potential plea deals for rapists and molesters?

Actual castration is be better. No follow up action or cost is needed.
 
Much as I believe that pedophiles are the scum of the earth, I am firmly opposed to this. Having the state forcibly remove even a criminal's ability to procreate will not end well for us.
 
From Wiki:

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.

On men
When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males)

The thing is, this treatment suppresses sexual desire but it must be done on a regular basis, usually monthly and the sex offender has to pay for it himself. If they stop the drug, the effect also stops and they are right back where they started. I say castrate them, take out their testicles entirely. Any man who sexually assaults young children should be put to death but since the death penalty isn't legal or if it is legal in most states, it's never used. So, castration will end their desire to assault children.

Actually, castration does NOT reduce the desire to do violence to others. Rape or other molestation is not a crime of sex. It is a crime of wanting power over another. Child molesters should be forced into treatment in prison, and if they can't be cured, which is the most common outcome of treatment, they should stay in prison the rest of their natural lives.
 
Actually, castration does NOT reduce the desire to do violence to others. Rape or other molestation is not a crime of sex. It is a crime of wanting power over another. Child molesters should be forced into treatment in prison, and if they can't be cured, which is the most common outcome of treatment, they should stay in prison the rest of their natural lives.

No but it's impossible for a castrated male to sexually rape a woman and I'm fully aware that rape is a crime of violence, not sex, as I had pointed out. They should both, rapists and child molesters, be given the death penalty and not allowed to breathe the same air children breathe.
 
So the right to procreate is something you think should never remove from someone? Really?

I'm sorry. A child rapist should -never- be allowed to propagate their genes. That is ONE OF if not the most powerful of punishments, denying the right to spread your genes, because you're a sick ****. I don't see why they have the right if they exercise it on children.

Absolutely disgusting.

I'm with ya on this one, but I have to 'take a powder' on the execution thing. At least not until the perpetrator has had a chance to rehabilitate. My reasoning is that I cannot even imagine what goes through the head of a molester. The whole idea is repugnant to me. Thus I must assume there is something horribly wrong going on in the heads of these people.

Having said that...should they prove they cannot be rehabilitated, and of course if this drug is not immediately handy, you can have 'im.
 
Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Monday signed a bill into law that requires someone convicted of a sex offense against a child under the age of 13 to begin chemical castration a month before being released from custody.

The law requires individuals convicted of such an offense to continue treatments until a court deems the treatment is no longer necessary. It says offenders must pay for the treatment, and they can't be denied parole solely based on an inability to pay.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signs chemical castration bill into law


This one I am a bit undecided on; I haven't read the medical literature regarding this procedure.....while it may prevent the actual physical sex act, I dont see how it would prevent acts of violence on a victim. We need to take our streets back.

Does this factor into potential plea deals for rapists and molesters?

I believe no one should be released if they are a danger to society. A lot of these people should just be jailed for life unless they are proven to not be a danger to society. Same with non/sexual violent offenders.
 
I'm with ya on this one, but I have to 'take a powder' on the execution thing. At least not until the perpetrator has had a chance to rehabilitate. My reasoning is that I cannot even imagine what goes through the head of a molester. The whole idea is repugnant to me. Thus I must assume there is something horribly wrong going on in the heads of these people.

Having said that...should they prove they cannot be rehabilitated, and of course if this drug is not immediately handy, you can have 'im.

I'm not 100% on this sort of stuff, but is there actually success stories of people being rehabbed? And I don't mean those ridiculous ones, like an 18 year old sleeping with a 15 year old. I mean like 25 year old raping a kid.
 
Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Monday signed a bill into law that requires someone convicted of a sex offense against a child under the age of 13 to begin chemical castration a month before being released from custody.

The law requires individuals convicted of such an offense to continue treatments until a court deems the treatment is no longer necessary. It says offenders must pay for the treatment, and they can't be denied parole solely based on an inability to pay.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signs chemical castration bill into law


This one I am a bit undecided on; I haven't read the medical literature regarding this procedure.....while it may prevent the actual physical sex act, I dont see how it would prevent acts of violence on a victim.

Does this factor into potential plea deals for rapists and molesters?

Alabama is really crazy about imposing the state's will on peoples' bodies.
 
I'm not 100% on this sort of stuff, but is there actually success stories of people being rehabbed? And I don't mean those ridiculous ones, like an 18 year old sleeping with a 15 year old. I mean like 25 year old raping a kid.

I don't know. But I envision a mentally handicapped guy getting out of control and think, can you kill a guy who is not really in control of himself?
 
Alabama is really crazy about imposing the state's will on peoples' bodies.

Ya imagine the gall of trying to protect viable babies...or something virtue-signalling thing like that anyway...:roll:
 
Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Monday signed a bill into law that requires someone convicted of a sex offense against a child under the age of 13 to begin chemical castration a month before being released from custody.

The law requires individuals convicted of such an offense to continue treatments until a court deems the treatment is no longer necessary. It says offenders must pay for the treatment, and they can't be denied parole solely based on an inability to pay.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signs chemical castration bill into law


This one I am a bit undecided on; I haven't read the medical literature regarding this procedure.....while it may prevent the actual physical sex act, I dont see how it would prevent acts of violence on a victim.

Does this factor into potential plea deals for rapists and molesters?

I like it. This class of freaks have a high re-offend rate.
 
Ya imagine the gall of trying to protect viable babies...or something virtue-signalling thing like that anyway...:roll:

You mean non viable
 
Jill Biden should relocate to Alabama and put some in Joe's morning coffee.:lol:

Are you calling Joe Biden a pedophile?

Say that.


Let's see it
 
Back
Top Bottom