Court ordered castration?

[Floogeldy]

By John Greiner
The Oklahoman

Henryetta Sen. Frank Shurden said Wednesday he again will push legislation next year to permit surgical castration of convicted rapists.

"I've been fighting for this law for 28 years. We're seeing more and more cases in the news where children are kidnapped from their homes, raped and molested by convicted sex offenders who've been released. It is obvious that treatment doesn't work. Castration is what it takes to protect innocent women and children. We need to do it," Shurden, D-Henryetta, said.

Aggravated circumstances
Before castration could be ordered by a judge, a jury would have to determine whether the crime met at least two aggravated circumstances.

Those circumstances would include rape of a child, rapes resulting in significant physical injury to the victim, gang rapes and previous convictions for sex crimes.

Also, a DNA test must positively identify the defendant as the rapist, Shurden said.

Similar legislation was approved by the state Senate in 2004 but not heard in the House.

Earlier version vetoed
An earlier version of this legislation passed both houses in 2002 but was vetoed by then Gov. Frank Keating.

"No other species on the planet rapes their own young. I think it is ridiculous when people argue castration is cruel and unusual punishment. What is cruel and unusual are the unspeakable things these monsters do to their victims," Shurden said. "We must make Oklahoma a safe place for our women and children."

http://www.newsok.com/article/1551233/

[aquart]

1. Poor fool.

Rape is an act of violence, removing the erection does nothing to remove the violence.

[Bouncy Ball]

2. That's kind of what I thought.

If he can't rape, he'll just carry out violence in some other way. And the chemical castration will just give others a feeling of false reassurance.

[Floogeldy]

5. I don't think the Senator is talking about chemical castration.

[Bouncy Ball]

7. OMG you're right.

Uh. :puke:

Raping a child has got to be one of THE most disgusting things a human being can do, but the court is going to order this guy's nads cut off and they think that will do the trick?

Uh. Okay.

[insane_cratic_gal]

22. The act while sexual in nature

doesn't mean that all sex offenders use their penis or nuts!

on the same token they better cut off his hands, feet, tongue any thing else that would be consider a viable means of molesting.

It's a disgusting sickness, that needs more then castration to solve it.

[SemperEadem]

26. exactly

I agree. Castration alone isn't going to stop him from forming the idea in his head. If he has no penis, he will use whatever he can lay his hands on because it's about violence and power against another person's will, not satisfying an erection.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Hello.... other items can be substituted???

[NV Whino]

3. I'm on fuzzy ground, here, but

I don't think castration (removal of testes) will prevent erection, which, when all is said and done, is what (primarily) rapes. There are other instruments of rape, of course, and castration does nothing about changing a mindset, or sexual desire.

[the_spectator]

19. You're right, it won't prevent erections.

I remember reading about castrati (opera singers) in the 1700s. At least SOME of them were really big with the ladies, because they could go forever without any chance of premature ejaculation, or really, any ejaculation at all.

[TimeChaser]

21. Nope

In dogs and other animals, castration doesn't prevent erection. It also doesn't prevent dogs from attempting to copulate with someone's leg :eyes: so somehow I doubt it would work too well on child molesters.

[Digit]

4. I would like to hear more on this...

Offenders tend to repeat the crime, so I would like to hear more debate.

[manic expression]

6. There are so many problems with this

1.) The molester will just penetrate with something else...perhaps something worse. The individual could turn to other forms of torture. It's like saying "well, this guy killed a person with a knife, so make sure that he can't get hold of a knife anymore and he won't kill anyone".

2.) It is cruel and horrible to do this to anyone, and justifying it by pointing out their terrible actions does not diminish the cruelty in the act of forced castration. Dehumanizing them as "monsters" is in fact unacceptable, as they should be treated with dignity regardless of their actions.

This is not right at all.

[kestrel91316]

9. How about castration plus .................

amputation of the penis plus amputation of the fingers and thumbs. That would pretty much take their weapons away.

:evilgrin:

[Fiona]

10. That's sick

are you sure you're in the right place?

[kestrel91316]

12. You LIKE rapists and child molestors?????

I would not of course support actively any laws to do such things. But I can wish in my mind for such horrors for these people.

[Fiona]

14. That's the most idiotic

yet predictable response possible.

The notion that opposing medieval punishment is akin to "liking child molesters" is simply laughable.

[Floogeldy]

17. I agree with you.

[the_spectator]

20. How about castration plus abassination?

The Byzantines were big fans of blinding people by "abassination" -- not gouging out their eyes, but instead burning them into blindness with heated metal discs. THAT way, the offender would really be pretty safe -- he'd have a hard time abducting kids and working his wicked way with them if he can't see them! :silly:

[whistle]

11. That will really work, change these people from child molesters

...to societal psychopaths and serial killers. This is the old southern plantation slave owner mentality.

[Incitatus]

13. Child rapists?

Decapitation would work even better.

[Floogeldy]

15. That goes beyond even the death penalty.

You don't consider decapitation as cruel and unusual punishment?

[Incitatus]

23. Ok

Ok, even the most despicable characters deserve their constitutional rights, so if they go through the courts lethal injection would be the best to hope for.

[Digit]

16. My daughter, who is a psychology major (Senior) in college just said..

The ones who are the most dangerous, and more likely to repeatedly offend are often the ones who premeditate the crime.
They think of ways not to be caught eg. useage of condoms, or ejaculating on the victim and making them cleanse themselves.
Thus the DNA requirement is difficult to obtain. The only conceivable way to obtain the DNA is through other methods.

Registering for the offender list, she says, is completely voluntary.

[jsamuel]

18. umm... "Cruel and Unusual"

Isn't this the same as limb cutting and tounge cutting and ear and nose cutting?

Isn't that not allowed by the constitution?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Sounds like he's a wannabee Gitmo or Abu-ghraib guard.

Same mentality.

[Lone_Wolf]

25. castration of sex offenders could open the door for eugenics...

I just don't like the idea of government being able to involuntarily sterilize people they consider undesirable. I know this is a Reductio ad absurdum, but I can just see the right wingers making sterilization a requirement for people to get public assistance.

Hell, I can even see corporations putting "Only sterilized people need apply" in their help wanted ads. They'd love to have employees not bothered by family issues who can concentrate only on adding to the bottom line.