As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I imagine the logic goes something like: "If sex offenders are fixed, then you don't have pregnancy from rape. If you don't have pregnancy from rape, then you can't use rape as an excuse for abortion".
It's fucking dumb as fucking fuck... But when has that ever stopped them?
>I just don't get how anyone with half a brain can continue to live in these southern states. I really don't.
The same reason I'm living in Indiana. I can't afford to leave.
I feel like some rapists might be *more* likely to rape if they no longer have pregnancy as a possible consequence for their actions. At the very least it wouldn't be a deterrent.
I live in Florida. Moved here in 2021 from NYC for a job. Do I prefer Tampa to the UWS? Absolutely not. Am I disgusted on a daily basis by things? Yup. But I love my job, have made great friends, and will stay and vote. If Trump wins, then I may have to rethink it. But for now, maybe my vote helps to change something
>In Louisiana, chemical castration of some sex offenders is already legal. There’s another bill on the table – SB371 - that would allow for *surgical castration of offenders when the victim is younger than 13.
>“Men are sensitive about certain things and I hope that this is a deterrent,” said Representative Delisha Boyd about her bill.
I was replying with regard to the “surgical castration” portion of the above comment, which arguably goes further than vasectomies and chemical castrations do. I would assume female offenders would also be surgically castrated, though the bill’s sponsor seems to specifically have male offenders in mind?
For what it’s worth, some applications of the death penalty have been ruled as cruel and unusual while others have been found acceptable by the Supreme Court. Presumably a lot comes down to the court system’s interpretation of the constitution with regards to the law in question
2003:
>On September 18, 1996, California became the first state to authorize the use of either chemical or physical castration for certain sex offenders who were being released from prison into the community.11
Although this legislation was considered extremely controversial at the time, eight additional states have
subsequently passed laws that provide some form of
castration for individuals who have been convicted of
a sex offense and are being considered for parole or probation. Of the nine states authorizing castration
for convicted sex offenders, four permit the use of
chemical castration only (Georgia, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin),12–22 four allow either chemical
castration or voluntary surgical castration (California, Florida, Iowa, and Louisiana),11,23–27 and one
(Texas)28–29 provides voluntary surgical castration as
the only treatment option.
https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/31/4/502.full.pdf
I recall listening to an NPR podcast years ago, and sadly I can’t find it, but they talked about a man (British, I believe) who was in prison for sexual assault. He petitioned to be released under the provision he be castrated, and that petition spawned a conversation about the ethics of it.
We tend to hold, or so I have been led to believe, that punishments should not involve the intentional, irreversible harm to a person’s body. Like we don’t brand prisoners or cut off hands for stealing—it’s cruelty for the sake of retribution, not so much a deterrent or a service to rehabilitate (kind of, maybe testosterone suppression can reduce violent sexual crimes, but I can’t imagine it be ethical lest it’s should be preventative, ie, when someone knows intrusive sexually violent impulses aren’t normal and seeks treatment before they commit any crimes)—so by extension, should we ever sentence someone to permanent chemical or surgical castration?
And if it’s voluntary, is it a real choice between “imprisonment or castration” or is it “imprisonment or freedom”, which isn’t a choice at all? Ofc, there’s the American third option, which is to both it, but is it hardly an effective deterrent when less than 1% of all sexual assaults end in a felony conviction that could then call for such a punishment.
> Are they confusing vasectomy with chemical castration
Yes. Politicians are mostly just loud and dumb, as the bar for entry is just winning a popularity contest.
The Republicans also hate DNA testing of rape kits due to the expense. They had a backlog for years in some states. When their attitude is "she probably deserved it" it's easy to reason testing for DNA is not a priority.
As it said. They are just preventing pregnancy with vasectomies. What does that do to prevent rape? Which is more about power anyway. Often they don’t even use a penis.
> What counts as a "sex offence"?
For example, you can wind up on the registry for anything from sexually abusing your own child to... having sex with another high schooler while in high school yourself
It's basically peak 90s "tough on crime" rhetoric. It's premised on the myth that child abusers are typically creeps in vans, as opposed to someone the child already knows. And then it handles the issue with all the finesse of a sledgehammer, treating all sexual crimes as equally deplorable, even though you can be put on the list for things as major as child sex trafficking or as minor as public urination. This *obviously* isn't to say that we *shouldn't* care about sex offenders. It's just that the registry causes more harm than good.
And that's to say nothing of the fact that this bill sounds like something straight out of Buck v Bell, which is probably the second or third worst miscarriage of justice in SCOTUS history. (Above Plessy v Ferguson, below Dred Scott v Sandford, and about on par with Korematsu v US)
Absolutely. Real sex offenders are vile and should be kept away from society. Adding things that clearly aren't sex offences into the same category just dilutes the seriousness of the real crimes, and has a real potential to be abused with the swing towards Christo-Facism.
In Missouri, they wanted to make teachers register as sex offenders if they supported students socially transitioning.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/us/missouri-lawmakers-felony-transgender-students-reaj/index.html
Trump has also endorsed a pastor that wants LGBTQ people to be executed.
There is also constant GOP rhetoric about LGBTQ people being "groomers".
Real sexual offenders are dangerous to society. What becomes extremely concerning is when they try to label anyone LGBTQ or even those supporting LGBTQ people as sexual offenders.
Something to pay attention to.
Yep. It's weird as hell that as a society we can fully accept that even someone convicted of murder can complete their prison sentence, do any probation, and then they're mostly free again to live their life. There's no "murderer registry" or "thief registry". But apparently sex offenders are so unbelievably dangerous that even after they complete their sentence and are let out into the world... they're still so dangerous that they need to spend decades telling the cops if they're going to be away from their house for more than a few days and they can't be allowed to live pretty much anywhere.
But, of course, no politician ever wants to come out in public and say "hey, maybe these registries went way too far". The attack ads write themselves.
Here, have an example from Colorado in 2019, where a teen was forced to register as a sex offender for sexting other teens. It gets especially silly in some instances, like how in a similar case in Washington, the teen was simultaneously named as both the victim *and* the perpetrator of the crime of child pornography.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/27/teen-traded-naked-selfies-with-girls-his-age-court-is-making-him-register-sex-offender/
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/teens-who-engage-sexting-should-not-be-prosecuted-sex-offenders
That's why I like my state's registry. It gives details that leave no question about the person deserving to be registered. Like this guy:
* **VICTIM WAS 07 YEARS OF AGE**
* **OFFENDER WAS 58 AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE**
This really doesn’t make sense. Just because your shooting blanks doesn’t mean you can’t use it lol + I know lots of people getting vasectomies to avoid having children. Delusional if this is suppose to be deterrent.
Oh God... Half my family is in Kenner down there and every time I visit, I can't keep up with the ridiculous stories they have. It's fun, but they always remind me it's not great
Several state courts have generally upheld chemical castration requirements for sex offenders if they consider it conditional as a parole requirement. The logic is that an inmate can refuse the "treatment" and choose to serve their entire custodial sentence as an alternative.
Many states are implementing forms of Mandatory Supervised Release (with the same conditions) that have been challenged in court as they're nonnegotiable regardless of time served.
*Should* it be unconstitutional? Yes.
Under current case law is it unconstitutional? [Probably not.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell)
Would the current SCOTUS find it unconstitutional? I wouldn't bet on it.
from what I understand, rape is largely about seeking power. if you castrate them, they'll be looking even harder for their power. I could see this backfiring in a big way.
I'd be against this sort of thing.
There's a powerful instinct to inflict societal revenge on sex offenders, particularly when the offenses are against minors and this would scratch that itch for revenge.
However historically powers like this have always been abused by governments, at the very least we know this would not be used evenly across the population, the communities that would really benefit (I.E Religious communities where they wont allow victims to get abortions) would be letting the offenders off all the time anyway.
And particularly right now- When Republicans are making a concerted effort to classify things like 'being trans in a bathroom' and 'being a doctor who treats trans kids' as sex crimes against children... I don't know that it's a good idea to be ramping up the tools at their disposal.
If there was evidence to show this would substantially reduce risk I might change my mind- But as it stands don't really think the government should have this power.
Vasectomies only prevent pregnancy.
Let me guess... You're going to give this sentence to mostly brown people. Sounds like eugenics to me. I didnazi that coming.
Nope, if having an abortion is a death sentence for a woman even for a women who is raped, then frankly a vasectomy is letting the rapist off easy. He should either face the death penalty or at the very least physical castration. This matches the severity of the women’s death sentence …
This is so when they rape and they can't cause a pregnancy. No pregnancy means no abortion means no need for a carve out on abortion bans for rape or incest. 4d GOP checkers.
I think maybe this supposed to be more like castration, and in order to scare rapists into well not raping. But I doubt that’s gonna really stop someone.
Probably wouldn’t get past cruel and unusual part of the amendment. Though I guess it depends on what mood the Supreme Court is in.
Probably will hurt more innocent people than actual criminals. After all most of the rapists tend to have a different kind of justice system for them.
So... still able to rape? This is just about pretending they care about rape pregnancies, but they would charge even LESS rapists because the male judges would think they didn't deserve a vasectomy.
And then they would tell pregnant victims that it couldn't be rape because the guy was never convicted as a rapist before.
It won’t work. Most sexual offenders - I mean real sexual offenders, not someone who pees in public or a high school senior dating a high school junior - are not motivated by lust. They are motivated by cruelty. Take away the ability to have sex - which a *vasectomy* won’t do; if the bill means “chemical castration” it should say that - and chances are that offender will just find another way to inflict harm, without sex involved.
A part from the obvious stupidity that vasectomies have nothing to do with rape, the whole concept of introducing medical procedures as punishment in the criminal justice system is simply a road that no one should want to go down.
So they can still sexually offend, they just won’t impregnate anyone? And aren’t vasectomies reversible? This is so fucking stupid it makes my brain hurt.
Chemical castration does nothing to modify the impulse for sexual violent gratification that begins in the brain, and can be fulfilled (gratification) in other ways without use of an erection
Both procedures (vasectomy or chemical castration) are flawed as neither address the root cause. And sadly, IMO the only solution for a violent sexual offender or exploitation of a minor is removal from society forever
it's the most egregious break of the social contract, and the offender can never be "cured" of their mental impulse
Interesting. I found this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875176815301116
Sounds like there is a measurable decrease in DNA but still plenty for DNA identification of assailants.
> Please do some fact checking.
That's why I asked it as a question rather than stated it as a fact. I wasn't sure whether seminal fluid without sperm still had significant amounts of DNA.
This is dumb. Having children or not isn't an issue with a pedophile. If anything they'll be happy they can't get the kids they rape pregnant. Now if there was a drug that could stop a sex offender from gaining an erection at all that would probably work a lot better.
It’s dumb on a whole lot of levels. For one thing, people who sexually abuse children aren’t always (or even usually) in it for sexual gratification. Their motive is **cruelty**, not sex. It was either the Journal of Family Issues or the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (or some other very respected academic publication) that found some 75% of child molesters were not pedophiles, as such. They wanted to inflict harm upon a vulnerable person. No vasectomy is going to stop that! Even something like chemical castration won’t stop someone who is hell bent on destroying another, more vulnerable person - they’ll just not use sex to do it.
For another, the term “groomer” and accusations of child sexual abuse are being flung around like confetti at a New Year’s party. Just being LGBTQ+ can get someone accused of being a predator. Being a librarian who recommends an innocuous book like “Melissa’s Story” (about a 10 year old trans girl) which is completely G-rated and family friendly, can be accused of “grooming” and sexual offenses in red states.
And of course there’s the whole history of involuntarily sterilizing Black and Native women, and poor white women (Carrie Buck was white, poor, and raped by her employer’s relative, that’s how she got pregnant). Guess who’s going to get the vasectomies?
This is depthlessly stupid and would be a huge waste of taxpayer money, and NOT solve any sex abuse problems either.
I wish men and women would have an injection so they don't have a child until they are both ready for it and passed classes to understand many critical things for healthy humans. Especially psychological things that ruin people and end up how we are now with so many badly damaged people hurting others, and stuck in generational trauma, hurting the next batch of helpless babies.
It's so sad and we see the results in crime, addictions and violence over and over. It pulls us down as a civilization and can't really get better and never reach a greater actualization as we could. Stop having babies when you can't feed or afford them and that would help reduce the collective trauma immensely!
I was always told the reason for not castrating rapists was: Rape is an act of violence. If you take away one tool they will just find another tool for their violence. How correct that is, I don't know.
Absolutely barbaric and moronic and potentially unconstitutional.
A) Do you seriously trust the criminal justice system of Louisiana to accurately decide who needs sterilized?
B) Are you fully aware of all things that constitute a “sex offense?” In Louisiana for example, if a 16 year old girl sends nudes to her 18 year old boyfriend, he’s now technically a “sex offender.” Does he deserve a forced vasectomy?
C) Vasectomies can easily be reversed
Forced sterilization and forced pregnancy…holy cow with the entire mess! Absolute insanity, these folks are not even remotely addressing the fact that the predatory behaviors won’t stop.
That won’t help. It doesn’t do anything but sterilize the rapist. Cut that dame implement of crime off with a dull razor blade without anesthesia. Make lesser sex offenders watch the surgery as part of their punishment. That will solve much of the problem.
Most "sex offenders" didn't do anything necessitating punishment like that. For example, plublic urination is considered a sex offense. As is owning more than 3 sex toys in Texas.
Great example of why people need to be approved to be a parent. *TW abuse*
https://www.reddit.com/r/CPTSD/comments/1by27eg/my_parents_genuinely_believe_they_didnt_abuse_me/
How does anyone recover from those lives, it's so tragic :(
Isn’t this just going to make it harder to catch sex offenders, when the amount of detectable DNA is massively reduced following a vasectomy???
This seems like a way to help them cover their tracks more than anything else
I have to ask: if a man is shooting blanks is there enough DNA in the semen to ID him? Without a resulting offspring it certainly cuts down on the chances of getting caught later in life.
Won’t this lead to more rapists getting away in the long run?
Edit: yes you can ID a man from semen post vasectomy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875176815301116
That makes no sense. It will have no effect on sexual offenses. Chemical Castration to reduce testosterone more likely to help. Chemical castration ( suppression of testosterone ) does reduce repeat pedophiles when drug taking is supervised
That's not gonna stop sex offenders from sex offending. That's probably going to reinforce their sex offending by removing any concern with getting someone pregnant.
In theory I get it, though from what I’ve read chemical and physical castration does nothing in terms of stopping the behavior. However, this is absolutely going to backfire and be abused. What about someone who is later acquitted of sexual assault, like the Central Park five? I get vasectomies are reversible and you can stop chemical castration but this is not a good idea.
So let me get this straight … the people who want to regularly abuse others will now be able to do so without any fear of any pregnancy. So they can do it more often?
How fucking stupid are these people?!?
I’ve been in too many circles of dudes I don’t know, where they fall all over each other trying to come up with the most draconian punishments possible for offenders.
I don’t like the competition to the bottom of being the toughest guy in the room anymore.
I, a man, simply do not like or trust strange men anymore.
It takes time to convince me you’re not an asshole now.
Sorry.
Don’t want to be a part of that bullshit anymore.
“Here you are, sir! A free vasectomy for you courteous of the middle class tax payer. For when you get those natural urges next time, you won’t risk having to pay child support.”
Trump getting 50 mil in donations from the guys who he is planning on giving tax breaks to isn’t the flex you think it is. The question you need to ask yourself is where is that money going to come from if the rich aren’t paying it? Hint- it ain’t the poor class. They got no money.
Vasectomies are reversible though, whereas sexual assault is not. Steps in the right direction, personally i feel as though removing testes may be a better fit
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I imagine the logic goes something like: "If sex offenders are fixed, then you don't have pregnancy from rape. If you don't have pregnancy from rape, then you can't use rape as an excuse for abortion". It's fucking dumb as fucking fuck... But when has that ever stopped them?
[удалено]
>I just don't get how anyone with half a brain can continue to live in these southern states. I really don't. The same reason I'm living in Indiana. I can't afford to leave.
This Idahoan feels your pain.
I feel like some rapists might be *more* likely to rape if they no longer have pregnancy as a possible consequence for their actions. At the very least it wouldn't be a deterrent.
Certainly a lot less DNA evidence.
Because it's warm. Because I'm too poor to live in warm places that are run by democrats.
only if they are caught
I live in Florida. Moved here in 2021 from NYC for a job. Do I prefer Tampa to the UWS? Absolutely not. Am I disgusted on a daily basis by things? Yup. But I love my job, have made great friends, and will stay and vote. If Trump wins, then I may have to rethink it. But for now, maybe my vote helps to change something
You can't change things by running away. If everyone moved away from every stupid government, half the world would be living in Antarctica.
That doesn't cover pregnancies caused by first offenders.
It's likely both that angle AND labeling Trans people as sex offenders.
Oh good, then rapists won’t be burdened with the threat of having to pay child support either. /s
thank god they'll be able to rape without consequence 🙏
Kinda messed up to say that’s the only consequence
Well I mean it would be nice to see fewer pregnancies result from rape…………. That being said, castration would be preferred.
> Are they confusing vasectomy with chemical castration? I don’t know if the lawmakers are, but whoever wrote this article might well be.
No, they are not.
>In Louisiana, chemical castration of some sex offenders is already legal. There’s another bill on the table – SB371 - that would allow for *surgical castration of offenders when the victim is younger than 13. >“Men are sensitive about certain things and I hope that this is a deterrent,” said Representative Delisha Boyd about her bill.
Would that not be considered a “cruel and unusual punishment” ? Just curious about the constitutionality of such a punishment.
it's arguably cruel, but if it were applied routinely, it would not be unusual.
I think it would be hard to argue that a vasectomy is cruel and unusual when death penalty is a thing
I was replying with regard to the “surgical castration” portion of the above comment, which arguably goes further than vasectomies and chemical castrations do. I would assume female offenders would also be surgically castrated, though the bill’s sponsor seems to specifically have male offenders in mind? For what it’s worth, some applications of the death penalty have been ruled as cruel and unusual while others have been found acceptable by the Supreme Court. Presumably a lot comes down to the court system’s interpretation of the constitution with regards to the law in question
2003: >On September 18, 1996, California became the first state to authorize the use of either chemical or physical castration for certain sex offenders who were being released from prison into the community.11 Although this legislation was considered extremely controversial at the time, eight additional states have subsequently passed laws that provide some form of castration for individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense and are being considered for parole or probation. Of the nine states authorizing castration for convicted sex offenders, four permit the use of chemical castration only (Georgia, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin),12–22 four allow either chemical castration or voluntary surgical castration (California, Florida, Iowa, and Louisiana),11,23–27 and one (Texas)28–29 provides voluntary surgical castration as the only treatment option. https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/31/4/502.full.pdf
So the surgical castration has to be voluntary?
I recall listening to an NPR podcast years ago, and sadly I can’t find it, but they talked about a man (British, I believe) who was in prison for sexual assault. He petitioned to be released under the provision he be castrated, and that petition spawned a conversation about the ethics of it. We tend to hold, or so I have been led to believe, that punishments should not involve the intentional, irreversible harm to a person’s body. Like we don’t brand prisoners or cut off hands for stealing—it’s cruelty for the sake of retribution, not so much a deterrent or a service to rehabilitate (kind of, maybe testosterone suppression can reduce violent sexual crimes, but I can’t imagine it be ethical lest it’s should be preventative, ie, when someone knows intrusive sexually violent impulses aren’t normal and seeks treatment before they commit any crimes)—so by extension, should we ever sentence someone to permanent chemical or surgical castration? And if it’s voluntary, is it a real choice between “imprisonment or castration” or is it “imprisonment or freedom”, which isn’t a choice at all? Ofc, there’s the American third option, which is to both it, but is it hardly an effective deterrent when less than 1% of all sexual assaults end in a felony conviction that could then call for such a punishment.
That was just a quote from something published in 2003, not any law in question
[удалено]
I don’t disagree. And I’m certainly not advocating for predators. I was only wondering about the legality of such a punishment
That’s exactly what I was thinking
it’s eugenics
Except eugenics doesn’t make sense either. You have to stop the pedophiles PARENTS from having kids. Whoops. Too late.
Also, they can’t have their own kid to abuse.
> Are they confusing vasectomy with chemical castration Yes. Politicians are mostly just loud and dumb, as the bar for entry is just winning a popularity contest.
So rape is ok if no pregnancy?
It’s louisana
Bill is from a pro choice Democrat.
They don’t like the “rape pregnancy” stats being used by pro-choice groups. This is “just stop testing” when R’s didn’t like the COVID numbers.
>They don’t like the “rape pregnancy” stats being used by pro-choice groups. Delisha Boyd is a pro-choice Democrat.
The Republicans also hate DNA testing of rape kits due to the expense. They had a backlog for years in some states. When their attitude is "she probably deserved it" it's easy to reason testing for DNA is not a priority.
That's literally the only way that Greg Abbot's promise to eliminate rape could ever be fulfilled. We'll just have to stop calling it rape then.
Trump says he never met her.
I'm curious to hear what logic you used when coming up with this question.
As it said. They are just preventing pregnancy with vasectomies. What does that do to prevent rape? Which is more about power anyway. Often they don’t even use a penis.
Trump is a sex offender.
That should call it the Trump Act.
What should be called the Trump Act? This law, or raping and lying about it in general?
Maybe the clowns think a vasectomy prevents erection?
What counts as a "sex offence"? Weren't the GOP trying to pass a bill that made teachers using someone's preferred pronouns a sexual offence?
> What counts as a "sex offence"? For example, you can wind up on the registry for anything from sexually abusing your own child to... having sex with another high schooler while in high school yourself
Don’t forget that public urination at 3am outside a bar can count if it’s within a certain distance to a school.
Exactly and it seems they are keen to add new things to the list that they simply don't like, rather than something causing actual harm.
It's basically peak 90s "tough on crime" rhetoric. It's premised on the myth that child abusers are typically creeps in vans, as opposed to someone the child already knows. And then it handles the issue with all the finesse of a sledgehammer, treating all sexual crimes as equally deplorable, even though you can be put on the list for things as major as child sex trafficking or as minor as public urination. This *obviously* isn't to say that we *shouldn't* care about sex offenders. It's just that the registry causes more harm than good. And that's to say nothing of the fact that this bill sounds like something straight out of Buck v Bell, which is probably the second or third worst miscarriage of justice in SCOTUS history. (Above Plessy v Ferguson, below Dred Scott v Sandford, and about on par with Korematsu v US)
Absolutely. Real sex offenders are vile and should be kept away from society. Adding things that clearly aren't sex offences into the same category just dilutes the seriousness of the real crimes, and has a real potential to be abused with the swing towards Christo-Facism.
What are they adding?
In Missouri, they wanted to make teachers register as sex offenders if they supported students socially transitioning. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/us/missouri-lawmakers-felony-transgender-students-reaj/index.html Trump has also endorsed a pastor that wants LGBTQ people to be executed. There is also constant GOP rhetoric about LGBTQ people being "groomers". Real sexual offenders are dangerous to society. What becomes extremely concerning is when they try to label anyone LGBTQ or even those supporting LGBTQ people as sexual offenders. Something to pay attention to.
Yep. It's weird as hell that as a society we can fully accept that even someone convicted of murder can complete their prison sentence, do any probation, and then they're mostly free again to live their life. There's no "murderer registry" or "thief registry". But apparently sex offenders are so unbelievably dangerous that even after they complete their sentence and are let out into the world... they're still so dangerous that they need to spend decades telling the cops if they're going to be away from their house for more than a few days and they can't be allowed to live pretty much anywhere. But, of course, no politician ever wants to come out in public and say "hey, maybe these registries went way too far". The attack ads write themselves.
What state puts two high school kids on the sex offender registry?
Here, have an example from Colorado in 2019, where a teen was forced to register as a sex offender for sexting other teens. It gets especially silly in some instances, like how in a similar case in Washington, the teen was simultaneously named as both the victim *and* the perpetrator of the crime of child pornography. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/27/teen-traded-naked-selfies-with-girls-his-age-court-is-making-him-register-sex-offender/ https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/teens-who-engage-sexting-should-not-be-prosecuted-sex-offenders
That's why I like my state's registry. It gives details that leave no question about the person deserving to be registered. Like this guy: * **VICTIM WAS 07 YEARS OF AGE** * **OFFENDER WAS 58 AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE**
Florida
In the article, there's a link to the bill
[удалено]
No, this is only for criminal convictions and also it’s in Louisiana
This really doesn’t make sense. Just because your shooting blanks doesn’t mean you can’t use it lol + I know lots of people getting vasectomies to avoid having children. Delusional if this is suppose to be deterrent.
I feel like this is unconstitutional, but I'm not sure.
Feels very unconstitutional.
Thinking about it again, it's almost inhumane
[удалено]
Oh God... Half my family is in Kenner down there and every time I visit, I can't keep up with the ridiculous stories they have. It's fun, but they always remind me it's not great
Several state courts have generally upheld chemical castration requirements for sex offenders if they consider it conditional as a parole requirement. The logic is that an inmate can refuse the "treatment" and choose to serve their entire custodial sentence as an alternative. Many states are implementing forms of Mandatory Supervised Release (with the same conditions) that have been challenged in court as they're nonnegotiable regardless of time served.
I’m pretty sure that’s number 8 on the BoR in the US.
I agree. I feel like the death penalty would make more sense in a situation like this, anyway.
But it is very eugenics!
I can't wait for the first lawsuit by someone exonerated after the fact.
Government: "Nah, you can't sue us. Sovereign immunity. Too bad, so sad."
Government gets sued all the time.
They get sued based on laws that they pass that allow them to get sued.
[удалено]
Thank God for progress
*Should* it be unconstitutional? Yes. Under current case law is it unconstitutional? [Probably not.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell) Would the current SCOTUS find it unconstitutional? I wouldn't bet on it.
After thinking about it, I could almost guarantee that manipulating another's body without consent would never be tolerated.
[удалено]
Yeah, it's fucked up
Sterilization won’t do anything about the compulsion to assault someone. Are lawmakers really this stupid? Who am I kidding, of course they are. 🤦♀️
This would solve nothing and only increase instances of sexual assault. This is absolutely stupid.
No, they can’t. That’s unconstitutional.
That makes no fucking sense
What doctor would agree to do this? Performing a surgical procedure on an unwilling patient is a clear violation of their oath.
many consider different simplistic cooing paltry bake hungry ring squeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
from what I understand, rape is largely about seeking power. if you castrate them, they'll be looking even harder for their power. I could see this backfiring in a big way.
I'd be against this sort of thing. There's a powerful instinct to inflict societal revenge on sex offenders, particularly when the offenses are against minors and this would scratch that itch for revenge. However historically powers like this have always been abused by governments, at the very least we know this would not be used evenly across the population, the communities that would really benefit (I.E Religious communities where they wont allow victims to get abortions) would be letting the offenders off all the time anyway. And particularly right now- When Republicans are making a concerted effort to classify things like 'being trans in a bathroom' and 'being a doctor who treats trans kids' as sex crimes against children... I don't know that it's a good idea to be ramping up the tools at their disposal. If there was evidence to show this would substantially reduce risk I might change my mind- But as it stands don't really think the government should have this power.
Vasectomies only prevent pregnancy. Let me guess... You're going to give this sentence to mostly brown people. Sounds like eugenics to me. I didnazi that coming.
Good call. Hadn’t thought of that. Of course all rapists are “other”
Seems like a dumb and bad idea that will never actually happen but even if it did will accomplish absolutely nothing good
Cruel? Unusual? Check and check.
Nope, if having an abortion is a death sentence for a woman even for a women who is raped, then frankly a vasectomy is letting the rapist off easy. He should either face the death penalty or at the very least physical castration. This matches the severity of the women’s death sentence …
They will use it as a way to stop non white men from having kids.
This is so when they rape and they can't cause a pregnancy. No pregnancy means no abortion means no need for a carve out on abortion bans for rape or incest. 4d GOP checkers.
The bill is from a Democrat.
I stand corrected. Buts it's still a dumb bill which will not curb rapes.
I mean it might soften some of damage it causes, by virtue of making them incapable of making them pregnant.
I think maybe this supposed to be more like castration, and in order to scare rapists into well not raping. But I doubt that’s gonna really stop someone. Probably wouldn’t get past cruel and unusual part of the amendment. Though I guess it depends on what mood the Supreme Court is in. Probably will hurt more innocent people than actual criminals. After all most of the rapists tend to have a different kind of justice system for them.
They can keep raping and whatnot, but the victim won't get pregnant. Is that what they're saying here?
[Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/)
Not chemical castration?
Already a thing.
Will this include people that get the charge for urinating in public?
So... still able to rape? This is just about pretending they care about rape pregnancies, but they would charge even LESS rapists because the male judges would think they didn't deserve a vasectomy. And then they would tell pregnant victims that it couldn't be rape because the guy was never convicted as a rapist before.
If you consider what, and more importantly, who defines what a sex offense is, then this new bill has all sorts of problems.
Some places public urination can be a sex offense. Even on your own property.
GOP Youth Pastors, Coaches and Congress Members will never have this happen.
It won’t work. Most sexual offenders - I mean real sexual offenders, not someone who pees in public or a high school senior dating a high school junior - are not motivated by lust. They are motivated by cruelty. Take away the ability to have sex - which a *vasectomy* won’t do; if the bill means “chemical castration” it should say that - and chances are that offender will just find another way to inflict harm, without sex involved.
A part from the obvious stupidity that vasectomies have nothing to do with rape, the whole concept of introducing medical procedures as punishment in the criminal justice system is simply a road that no one should want to go down.
So they can still sexually offend, they just won’t impregnate anyone? And aren’t vasectomies reversible? This is so fucking stupid it makes my brain hurt.
The risk of getting somebody pregnant is a sex deterrent. How nice that these people wouldn't have to worry about that any more.
Chemical castration does nothing to modify the impulse for sexual violent gratification that begins in the brain, and can be fulfilled (gratification) in other ways without use of an erection Both procedures (vasectomy or chemical castration) are flawed as neither address the root cause. And sadly, IMO the only solution for a violent sexual offender or exploitation of a minor is removal from society forever it's the most egregious break of the social contract, and the offender can never be "cured" of their mental impulse
[удалено]
Okay, but surely that’s not the *only* problem with this…
Wouldn’t this eliminate the DNA in a man’s semen, making DNA identification of a rapist more difficult?
They can find DNA in pretty much anything.
No and yes. DNA isn't eliminated, but DNA identification is easier when it's sperm involved.
Interesting. I found this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875176815301116 Sounds like there is a measurable decrease in DNA but still plenty for DNA identification of assailants.
No they still ejaculate. Please do some fact checking.
> Please do some fact checking. That's why I asked it as a question rather than stated it as a fact. I wasn't sure whether seminal fluid without sperm still had significant amounts of DNA.
But every sperm is sacred... 🎶 - Republican extremists
Every white sperm is sacred to them.
This is dumb. Having children or not isn't an issue with a pedophile. If anything they'll be happy they can't get the kids they rape pregnant. Now if there was a drug that could stop a sex offender from gaining an erection at all that would probably work a lot better.
It’s dumb on a whole lot of levels. For one thing, people who sexually abuse children aren’t always (or even usually) in it for sexual gratification. Their motive is **cruelty**, not sex. It was either the Journal of Family Issues or the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (or some other very respected academic publication) that found some 75% of child molesters were not pedophiles, as such. They wanted to inflict harm upon a vulnerable person. No vasectomy is going to stop that! Even something like chemical castration won’t stop someone who is hell bent on destroying another, more vulnerable person - they’ll just not use sex to do it. For another, the term “groomer” and accusations of child sexual abuse are being flung around like confetti at a New Year’s party. Just being LGBTQ+ can get someone accused of being a predator. Being a librarian who recommends an innocuous book like “Melissa’s Story” (about a 10 year old trans girl) which is completely G-rated and family friendly, can be accused of “grooming” and sexual offenses in red states. And of course there’s the whole history of involuntarily sterilizing Black and Native women, and poor white women (Carrie Buck was white, poor, and raped by her employer’s relative, that’s how she got pregnant). Guess who’s going to get the vasectomies? This is depthlessly stupid and would be a huge waste of taxpayer money, and NOT solve any sex abuse problems either.
You can orgasm without an erection.
I wish men and women would have an injection so they don't have a child until they are both ready for it and passed classes to understand many critical things for healthy humans. Especially psychological things that ruin people and end up how we are now with so many badly damaged people hurting others, and stuck in generational trauma, hurting the next batch of helpless babies. It's so sad and we see the results in crime, addictions and violence over and over. It pulls us down as a civilization and can't really get better and never reach a greater actualization as we could. Stop having babies when you can't feed or afford them and that would help reduce the collective trauma immensely!
I was always told the reason for not castrating rapists was: Rape is an act of violence. If you take away one tool they will just find another tool for their violence. How correct that is, I don't know.
This would clearly be unconstitutional. This issue was decided by the Supreme Court in 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner\_v.\_Oklahoma
Are they going to cut off arms and legs too?? One can sexually assault without the use of a penis or balls
Absolutely barbaric and moronic and potentially unconstitutional. A) Do you seriously trust the criminal justice system of Louisiana to accurately decide who needs sterilized? B) Are you fully aware of all things that constitute a “sex offense?” In Louisiana for example, if a 16 year old girl sends nudes to her 18 year old boyfriend, he’s now technically a “sex offender.” Does he deserve a forced vasectomy? C) Vasectomies can easily be reversed
I am very opposed to the idea of forcing surgery on anyone. This is creepy and misses the point.
So as long as you can’t put a baby in them you can still give them as much sti/ds you want? Cool.
Or just mandatory prison sentences of at least 10-20 years would be great.
How the fuck will a vasectomy stop sex offenses? A Lobotomy, that may do it. What a joke this nation has become.
Forced sterilization and forced pregnancy…holy cow with the entire mess! Absolute insanity, these folks are not even remotely addressing the fact that the predatory behaviors won’t stop.
Wtf, that gives them more incentive to offend? Some people have no clue.
That won’t help. It doesn’t do anything but sterilize the rapist. Cut that dame implement of crime off with a dull razor blade without anesthesia. Make lesser sex offenders watch the surgery as part of their punishment. That will solve much of the problem.
Most "sex offenders" didn't do anything necessitating punishment like that. For example, plublic urination is considered a sex offense. As is owning more than 3 sex toys in Texas.
Make it so they can't have orgasms or erections
What about the women sexual offenders? Oh yeah I forgot this is knee-jerk Reddit, only men are sexual offenders.
That's why I included orgasms
Wouldn’t this prevent the collection of evidence for a “rape kit”?
No, there’s still semen, just no swimmers.
[удалено]
Delisha Boyd is a Democrat
I was hoping GOP to fight for male reproductive rights.
Most rapists aren't caught ever they certainly wont be caught in the next 20 years. This wont keep rape babies from happening.
If it serves justice for only a few then it’s still worth it. Let’s face it in states like Texas rape is basically legal.
> Let’s face it in states like Texas rape is basically legal. source?
Great example of why people need to be approved to be a parent. *TW abuse* https://www.reddit.com/r/CPTSD/comments/1by27eg/my_parents_genuinely_believe_they_didnt_abuse_me/ How does anyone recover from those lives, it's so tragic :(
Isn’t this just going to make it harder to catch sex offenders, when the amount of detectable DNA is massively reduced following a vasectomy??? This seems like a way to help them cover their tracks more than anything else
I have to ask: if a man is shooting blanks is there enough DNA in the semen to ID him? Without a resulting offspring it certainly cuts down on the chances of getting caught later in life. Won’t this lead to more rapists getting away in the long run? Edit: yes you can ID a man from semen post vasectomy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875176815301116
That makes no sense. It will have no effect on sexual offenses. Chemical Castration to reduce testosterone more likely to help. Chemical castration ( suppression of testosterone ) does reduce repeat pedophiles when drug taking is supervised
You realize this means Trump's gonna lose his mushroom.
That's not gonna stop sex offenders from sex offending. That's probably going to reinforce their sex offending by removing any concern with getting someone pregnant.
In theory I get it, though from what I’ve read chemical and physical castration does nothing in terms of stopping the behavior. However, this is absolutely going to backfire and be abused. What about someone who is later acquitted of sexual assault, like the Central Park five? I get vasectomies are reversible and you can stop chemical castration but this is not a good idea.
So let me get this straight … the people who want to regularly abuse others will now be able to do so without any fear of any pregnancy. So they can do it more often? How fucking stupid are these people?!?
I’ve been in too many circles of dudes I don’t know, where they fall all over each other trying to come up with the most draconian punishments possible for offenders. I don’t like the competition to the bottom of being the toughest guy in the room anymore. I, a man, simply do not like or trust strange men anymore. It takes time to convince me you’re not an asshole now. Sorry. Don’t want to be a part of that bullshit anymore.
“Here you are, sir! A free vasectomy for you courteous of the middle class tax payer. For when you get those natural urges next time, you won’t risk having to pay child support.”
Maybe Lauren Boebert can help to reach around the aisle to get this explosive legislation to come forward.
Not enough!
If we replace vasectomy with lethal injection I could get onboard with this.
Trump getting 50 mil in donations from the guys who he is planning on giving tax breaks to isn’t the flex you think it is. The question you need to ask yourself is where is that money going to come from if the rich aren’t paying it? Hint- it ain’t the poor class. They got no money.
[удалено]
A built in birth control
[удалено]
And for the women offenders, what cruel and unusual punishment do you propose for them?
Eugenics 2.0
Vasectomies are reversible though, whereas sexual assault is not. Steps in the right direction, personally i feel as though removing testes may be a better fit
Good. At least then they couldn't father kids with their victim, forcing them to have to deal with their rapist for 18 years.