Of course, voting this down would be political suicide. It’s sad that no one appears to acknowledge that stranger danger is virtually non-existent. Of course, stranger danger is what these laws are really about.
3 Likes
It would fall under the category of “cruel and unusual” punishment.
3 Likes
Louisiana’s local legislature seems hellbent on passing unconstitutional laws.
There’s their recent bill banning child-like sex dolls, which is on its face unconstitutional.
Then there’s the bill mandating the display of the 10 Commandments alongside ‘In God We Trust’ within public school classrooms, which is also on its face unconstitutional, even after addressing their historical arguments.
And there’s this.
This is an egregious and unjustifiable violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments. Forced surgery is, by definition, cruel and unusual, and I hope that this will get challenged appropriately.
Neither chemical nor surgical castration are effective at preventing sex abuse, with the former being only practical when conducted under the supervision of specialists and done in conjunction with cognitive behavioral therapy. Physical castration has never been appropriately studied, because it’s almost as barbaric as child sex abuse itself.
4 Likes
I made a topic a little bit back about Louisiana sentencing a man to physical castration: Louisiana man sentenced to 50 years prison, physical castration for raping 14yo girl
Also, there was a Reddit thread about this very topic where I encountered the subject again. I made several comments there:
Mutilating people by surgically, physically castrating them? Might as well start arguing we should start cutting off the hands of thieves like it’s the Dark Ages again. And what would the equivalent be for female offenders? Oophorectomy? A much more invasive and complex surgery than castration?
IMO, physical castration/oophorectomy counts as a “cruel and unusual punishment” and should be nowhere near the table, even for proven repeat offenders. Heck, even chemical castration is basically forced sex transition, and should be itself viewed as cruel. Never Forget what chemcast did to Alan Turing. Physical castration would be even worse…
This is unfathomably evil. Ever since 2016, this is the natural trajectory of the Republican Party. Project 2025 has removed all doubt. This bill is just them trying to introduce something akin to Aktion T4. Just label all LGBT as predators, then forcibly sterilize them all. Mask is off, and every single MAGA has a toothbrush mustache that’s plain as the big fat noses on their smug hate-filled faces.
Forced sterilization is something that several regimes across the world have engaged with. Canada, the US, and Australia all performed forced sterilizations on blacks and indigenous people. The various colonial empires (European, Ottoman, Japanese, etc.) all tinkered with sterilization and forced abortions on “lesser” peoples. The German Empire in particular experiments with sterilization in what is modern day Namibia during the Herero-Nama genocide, experiments which would serve as foundation for the Nazis’ larger sterilization operations during Aktion T4, the Holocaust, and the Porajmos. And now we see China using similar tactics against the Uyghurs.
Forced sterilization and forced abortion has a horrific history across the entire world. The fact that the Republicans’ Project 2025 aims to continue one of humanity’s darkest traditions makes my heart weep.
Chemical castration is cruel enough, but ultimately reversible. Actually getting your balls lopped off? Not so much…
The party of “small government”, everybody…
Guys… I’m seeing a LOT of y’all misreading the title.
This is a bill for PHYSICAL castration, NOT chemical castration.
They want to cut their balls off, not give them libido-killing medicine. Stop justifying and supporting this bill because you can’t read. I’ve had to correct several people already, who changed their tune the moment they realized their mistake.
1 Like
Buck v. Bell (1927) has never been overturned.
Forced sterilization is indeed forced surgery.
2 Likes
Miller v. California and other precedents are the more recent equivalent of eugenics movements. We seriously need to replace these radical jackal conservatives on the bench if we are to address, dispel, and overturn precedents like Buck v. Bell and Roth v. US/Miller v. California. Both are entrenched in this regressive idealism that has been nothing but poison to the judiciary and is patently antithetical to the preservation of civil liberties against unjust intrusion and violations of established civil liberties.
The First Amendment is fundamentally incompatible with prohibitions against ‘obscene’ speech, and the 4th, 8th, and 14th Amendments are fundamentally incompatible with the practice of forced castration or sterilization.
They are born from the same ideological cloth, the same that would have found flag burning to be unprotected by the First Amendment. Devoid of rational thought, only seeking to preserve its own ideology and enable the state to impose it, with no respect for the fact that the First Amendment prevents the imposition of ideologies for their own sake.
3 Likes
FYI
Comments under that vid are fucked up.
“This only matters if it’s used on the entire Democratic Party!”
“Take THAT, Woke Disney!”
“Castration should be for criminals only, why do we also castrate confused children 
?”
“Thank God somebody’s doing something to protect children, since human trafficking has become so prevalent as of late!”
Fucking idiots. All of em.
4 Likes
Particularly with inadequately-funded public defenders and wrongful convictions out there, humanity is in no moral position to dish out such serious and irreversible sentences.
Whenever I hear how relieved people are when someone [usually a male] is charged with a serious or reviled crime — ‘Did they catch him? They did? Well, that’s a relief!’ — I mentally hear the phrase, ‘We’ll give ’im a fair trial, then we’ll hang ’im.’
And if I point out he may be the wrong guy who’s being railroaded, I could receive the erroneous refrain, ‘Well if he’s truly innocent, he has nothing to worry about.’
It is also why the news-media should refrain from publishing the identity of people charged with a crime — especially one of a repugnant nature, for which they are jailed pending trial (as is typically done) — until at least after they’ve been convicted.
‘Justice system’ vice probably occurs much more frequently than we can ever know about. And I’ve noticed that people tend to naively believe that such ethically challenged courtroom conduct can/will never happen to them.
Any wrongful charge, trial, conviction and punishment should be concerning to any law-abiding person. However statistically unlikely, the average person could someday find themselves unjustly accused and sentenced.
1 Like
It’s happened in the past befor DNA testing became widely available. How many men served decades long sentences only to be exonerated by DNA later. And surprises me how at peace they are about having a good portion of their life taken from them. I’d be suing for millions of dollars! Ruining someone’s life like that should have serious financial and career consequences for everyone involved.
And I agree, the accused shouldn’t be reported, their names should remain anonymous until they are PROVEN guilty in a court of law! Labels stick even after they’re proven innocent. And then there are cases like O.J. Money frees you every time!
2 Likes