Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Alabama approves chemical castration

  1. #21
    Educator
    LadyMoonlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New South Wales, Australia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,018

    Re: Alabama approves chemical castration

    Quote Originally Posted by OlNate View Post
    What does your constitution say?

    Legit asking, I don't know...but I'm pretty sure that's where your rights are laid out...?
    We (Australia) do not have a Bill of Rights. We have a written Constitution...the laws that govern the country, but not specifically a Bill of Rights. Even if we did, similar to America, I would still advocate for the castration, or better yet, the execution of child rapists. It is not fair and it is not just that children and women who are raped receive a life sentence, but the rapist is free to walk around a few years later, free to do it to some child or woman again. Why is it that the rights of criminals are protected but the rights of victims are not?
    Muslims are not radicalized by poverty, racism or lack of integration. Muslims are radicalised by Islam. The fact is that Islam is the only religion where its followers become more violent, the more they follow their religion. Author not known to me
    I have been made victorious with terror... Mohammad, The Hadith, Bukhari (4.52.220)

  2. #22
    Believer
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,940

    Re: Alabama approves chemical castration

    Quote Originally Posted by OlNate View Post
    I might agree...but what does your constitution say?
    Depends on what state you live in. If it's not a federal crime, it's their call.
    "Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world." - Antonin Scalia

  3. #23
    Sage
    Lovebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    13,511

    Re: Alabama approves chemical castration

    Quote Originally Posted by OlNate View Post
    Well, if that's how it's determined, why stop there? I agree with you, the damage they do is incredible. If they truly warrant abandoning your guiding principals around cruel and unusual punishment, I say why stop there? Why not flay them alive? Why not subject them to the entire prison running a train on them, THEN flay them alive?

    Of course, I'm being extreme, to illustrate the point that when you allow the behavior of the criminal to change your national morality on the treatment of criminals, where and how do you draw the line? Of course this is an emotional topic, which is why I bring up your constitution. These documents are important because they provide sound guidance when emotion makes wisdom difficult. If this is constitutionally allowable, that's one thing. If not, well...that's another.
    Being extreme is ok. Passionate is ok. Why stop there? Because castration may be the only thing that stops sexual predators. No need to go beyond that.
    Let go and let God

    If you want to argue and insult, don't expect a response


  4. #24
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    07-01-19 @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    43,603

    Re: Alabama approves chemical castration

    Quote Originally Posted by Felis Leo View Post
    The point of chemical castration is that it does not merely hurt one's ability to perform sex, but one's actual libido/sex drive.

    I think it is perfectly appropriate to destroy the sex-drive of convicted sexual predators of all stripes, whether they rape adults or children, in order to lessen the harm they have on society. And I would also argue that the ACLU's point is inane. The implied right to privacy does not include the right to retain the ability to rape children. And even if by some warped and over-broad reading of the case law it did, that right can be curtailed through the due process of law upon criminal conviction, just as practically any of our rights can be.
    Actually, I prefer the rusty knife method for child predators.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #25
    Professor
    distraff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    07-14-19 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,116

    Re: Alabama approves chemical castration

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Valley View Post
    Alabama approves chemical castration for some sex offenders

    The use of chemical castration is internationally controversial, and critics say forced chemical castration violates human rights.


    Alabama State Capitol.



    A handful of states permit either voluntary surgical castration, or voluntary chemical castration (Depo Provera) as a condition of early prison release/parole respectively.

    The efficacy of chemical castration is questionable, and recidivism is not unknown.

    Critics charge that chemical castration violates sex offenders' constitutional rights. The ACLU contends that chemical castration violates an offender's implied right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, rights of due process and equal protection, and the Eighth Amendment's ban of cruel and unusual punishment.

    Related: Alabama governor signs chemical castration bill into law
    So its cruel and unusual to allow a predator the choice to opt out of some years of prison in exchange for eliminating his pedo sex drive?

  6. #26
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Phoenix Arizona
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    217
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Alabama approves chemical castration

    Quote Originally Posted by Felis Leo View Post
    The point of chemical castration is that it does not merely hurt one's ability to perform sex, but one's actual libido/sex drive.

    I think it is perfectly appropriate to destroy the sex-drive of convicted sexual predators of all stripes, whether they rape adults or children, in order to lessen the harm they have on society. And I would also argue that the ACLU's point is inane. The implied right to privacy does not include the right to retain the ability to rape children. And even if by some warped and over-broad reading of the case law it did, that right can be curtailed through the due process of law upon criminal conviction, just as practically any of our rights can be.
    Your argument is that an offender will only ever have sex if it involves children.

    I run the block watch in my neighborhood and we have a sex offender who lives one street down who has to register, and the community is informed.

    He attends our meetings with his wife and they have 3 kids.

    He was peeing in the tree line of a highway and got ticketed for urinating in public.

    He plead guilty and expected to pay a fine at his sentencing.

    The sentencing judge who was different than the judge he plead guilty to pushed his crime to a sex offence since children could have seen him.

    In the state he was tried in exposing oneself to a child is a Class 3 sex crime or the highest level, equal to raping a child or another person.

    I have personally seen his court paperwork and can confirm that he started with urinating in public and it escalated from there.

    He can't change his offender classification, he wasn't allowed to rescind his guilty plea and he even has a personal letter from the state trooper stating that he was more than 20 yards off the roadway with his back towards traffic.

    His children were born after his trial, he runs a successful business, is a great guy and a good neighbor.

    Under the Alabama guidelines he would be castrated as a class 3 offender.

    You might say that he would be an exception, but the law would still apply.

  7. #27
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Phoenix Arizona
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    217
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Alabama approves chemical castration

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyMoonlight View Post
    We (Australia) do not have a Bill of Rights. We have a written Constitution...the laws that govern the country, but not specifically a Bill of Rights. Even if we did, similar to America, I would still advocate for the castration, or better yet, the execution of child rapists. It is not fair and it is not just that children and women who are raped receive a life sentence, but the rapist is free to walk around a few years later, free to do it to some child or woman again. Why is it that the rights of criminals are protected but the rights of victims are not?
    In Australia rape is considered assault.

    What is the punishment for assault in Australia?

    Common assault offences are dealt with by the Magistrates' Court. The maximum penalty for this offence is generally 18 months imprisonment and a fine of $18,000.

    However, where the offence occurs in circumstances of aggravation, the maximum penalty rises to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of $36,000

    Life in prison?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •