A Louisiana man has been sentenced to decades in prison and physical castration after pleading guilty to raping a teenager, according to a news release from the region’s district attorney.
Glenn Sullivan Sr., 54, pled guilty to four counts of second-degree rape on April 17. Authorities began investigating Sullivan in July 2022, when a young woman told the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office that Sullivan had assaulted her multiple times when she was 14. The assaults resulted in pregnancy, and a DNA test confirmed that Sullivan was the father of the child, the district attorney’s office said. Sullivan had also groomed the victim and threatened her and her family to prevent her from coming forward.
…
A 2008 Louisiana law says that men convicted of certain rape offenses may be sentenced to chemical castration. They can also elect to be physically castrated. Perrilloux said that Sullivan’s plea requires he be physically castrated. The process will be carried out by the state’s Department of Corrections, according to the law, but cannot be conducted more than a week before a person’s prison sentence ends. This means Sullivan wouldn’t be castrated until a week before the end of his 50-year sentence — when he would be more than 100 years old.
You know, I always used to say they ought to do this. But now, presented with the reality of it, I don’t like it at all.
I mean, when the state of Louisiana agrees, it’s only reasonable to wonder if you’re being the baddy.
If I’ve learned anything after coming back to the south south (for some dumb reason) if you find yourself agreeing with the state you’re definitely the baddy, with ☠️ and all.
They made my residential road a 25mph speed limit, and I’m really happy about it. I just learned that i’m a baddy. :(
Yeah I think we all agree you suck
This is because we can be of two minds about these things. You can have a personal response to heinous acts, but still think the government ought to be better.
If some guy murders the murderer of their kid, I can absolutely 100% understand why, and I could even admit that I might do the same in their position. But I still think that as a society we should not lower ourselves to this standard and I will always be against the death penalty (especially because the system will never be perfect and I will never think it’s worth killing even one innocent person by accident).
It’s why vigilante justice is so easily understood, but it’s still something we, as a society, shouldn’t accept.
Emotional reactions can cloud our minds to these things. But I absolutely agree with you. This is horrendous and barbarous. I can still somewhat understand the “he deserves it for what he did”-response, but I’m absolutely against this on a deeper level.
I don’t think it’s about having “Two minds” about it, for as you describe it doesn’t seem to fit the op, as he admitted that he wanted the state to do it.
Imo, this is about abstraction vs reality. In theory something might sound good, but when you are actually faced with the reality of it, it’s a huge turnoff.
I’m reminded of the reddit story where a guy got into scat porn. It became a fetish so he hired a prostitute to shit in his mouth. On the day of the deed, once the shit hit his mouth, as he described it, he was “just a guy on the floor with shit in his mouth.”
The shit is just hitting the OPs mouth right now.
Exactly right! I think we’re actually agreed on this.
I just meant that OP used to say they ought to do it, which was his ‘emotional’ response to it, which is easier when it’s in abstract. But in reality he doesn’t like it at all when his government actually does it.
I’d never heard about that reddit story, but I think it’s very apt, lol.
It’s also why vigilante justice is far more sympathetic than government camps to torture prisoners.
I believe in bodily autonomy even for the worst people
Yeah I get wanting it, but I don’t want a government that can do it. I also don’t think a reasonable interpretation of the bill of rights allows it. How is removing body parts not cruel and unusual punishment?
Originalism is a cancer on the justice system.
I suspect your downvotes might be from folks misunderstanding originalism.
“a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written”
It’s like religion stating everything we ever needed to know was written thousands of years ago and we should just apply it like we were living in those times.
https://www.vox.com/21497317/originalism-amy-coney-barrett-constitution-supreme-court
Barrett is a self-proclaimed originalist, embracing a theory of the Constitution that is also shared by at least two other sitting justices: Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Religion and guns. It’s impossible to have any reasonable discussion with someone who thinks laws written in musket times should be enshrined forever. Originalists conveniently forget that the amendment process exists for an reason and absolutely hold us back.
laws written in musket times
I’m just going to point this out - at the time the 2nd amendment was written revolvers existed, as were weapons that would be the earliest forms of what are now automatic weapons, there was even a relatively quiet rifle that could fire 22 shots per reload. Honestly, right around then was a time of massive innovation in the firearms space, with a lot of ideas and designs not getting much traction for various reasons.
These were “musket times” not because muskets were the best guns out there, but because muskets were cheap and easy to produce and literally any gunsmith worth the title could produce and repair them easily. Making them cheap to deploy for a military and also the most common gun for a citizen-soldier. Those other guns had limited manufacturing, required specialized knowledge to fix and maintain, or were expensive enough that they weren’t common. That last one I mentioned (the Girardoni air rifle) was notable for being carried by the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1803 (it didn’t see a lot of military use because they were expensive and also required specialized parts and knowledge to maintain - ten men with muskets is a better use of military spending than one guy with a Girardoni).
Claiming that any firearm more sophisticated than a musket was so far beyond belief that the authors of the 2nd amendment couldn’t possibly have imagined it and therefore they shouldn’t be counted as “arms” is ridiculous. And also the argument you could use to claim the 1st amendment shouldn’t apply to anything other than in person speech or print works, not film or TV or radio or the internet because those are light-years farther outside the realm of things the authors of the 1st Amendment could have imagined than a rifle that can hold and fire 30 rounds.
should be enshrined forever.
No one says laws should be enshrined forever, there’s a process for changing or revoking them. For regular legislation, passing further legislation is all that’s needed. For the constitution, there’s an amendment process baked into it that has been used several times and even originalists accept that those amendments were valid, they just assume that the words used mean what they meant when the amendment was written, not what they might mean today if there’s a difference.
Any punishment with no possibility of back pedaling should never be given. The chances of permanently harming a potentially innocent person are far too great.
I’m usually on that side of the discussion, too, but this case doesn’t leave much room for the guy to be innocent. Beyond the “pleading guilty” part, which is sometimes done strategically, he’s the biological father of the kid a 14yo got. There is no shot at this being a mistake at this point.
I still agree though; if this should exist, it must require even stricter than the usual “beyond reasonable doubt” conditions or something.
He got her pregnant… His DNA. Not possible to be innocent. He plead guilty. He shouldn’t hit a prison cell, he should go directly to the chair.
Most likely this particular guy will never live to see it done. So the particulars of this case are moot.
I changed my mind about execution some 25 years ago, and while there there have been many people executed since then that I won’t defend or feel bad about dying, I still don’t think it’s right for the state to execute prisoners.
Same thing here. What this guy did was horrible. I wouldn’t even disagree that he deserves castration. But I still feel it’s not right to actually do it to anyone. It’s a dichotomy I’m confronting right now. There is what the guy deserves and then there’s a separate consideration of what justice I think is appropriate to mete out. And I thought those were one in the same, but it turns out they aren’t.
Yeah he did, don’t get me wrong this guy should go to jail. But imagine for a second he (or anyone else for that matter) was not actually guilty, and got convicted on a technicality or a judiciary error.
You would mutilate or kill someone and then absolve them of the crime if ever found out they were innocent, oh no you can’t, because what happened is utterly irreversible. I mean, it’s not like it ever happened before right?Ok, but by that argument, jail is irreversible too. All the damage it does to work and social evironment.
You can get out of jail, you cannot grow your balls back or be not dead. Jail damages society because of the way it’s implemented, that’s a political choice, but that’s another argument.
Yeah, I agree with that too. There’s a reason they call it “con college”. Nobody wants to hire an ex-con, so a lot of people commit further crimes. And when you are in jail or prison, it’s pretty hard to take care of everyday stuff like your house, car, finances, etc., so who knows what state they’ll be in, or even if they’ll still be there.
There is no imagine “he” was innocent. There becomes a point where evidence is overwhelming and WITHOUT a doubt. I can tell you right now, IF this guy raped you/your wife/your child, you wouldn’t feel sorry for him. Would you be ok with a PROVEN rapist living next door to you? If you rape someone, you know what you’re doing is wrong, you did it anyways. This says “I can’t control myself”, that individual is not ever going to fit in to society. I can’t fathom how anyone can say they can. It’s not like you got mad and got into a fist fight with someone and accidentally killed someone. This dude was RAPING A 14 year old. She will suffer the rest of her life for this.
The castration part everyone is getting upset over isn’t even real. He gets it a week before he’s released… At well over 100 years old. He’s not going to care since he’ll be dead and on the miraculous chance he’s not, he won’t know or care.
The exercise of law shouldn’t involve emotion, there is a reason why mob justice shouldn’t be a thing.
Of course I would be upset and want the guy dead, mutilated or whatever if it involved someone close to me.But that’s the thing, dude’s a monster, he should go to jail, and get psychiatric help and be rehabilitated to the best of his capability. If he’s never safe enough to be a free man ever again that’s fine, but in no way he should be killed or mutilated by the state.
But the point isn’t about him specifically, if he gets such a sentence, it sets a precedent that a sentence like this is acceptable for a given crime. And that’s unacceptable on many levels, a state should never have the power to kill or mutilate a person, for any reason, ever.
But it is the state deciding to sentence someone to it. We’re mad at that. We’re angry they feel comfortable doing so
We aren’t talking about him specifically. We are talking about every single person who is charged with this crime ever, at least one of which will be innocent.
The state having the power to do this is horrible. A victim doing this to their attacker with a butter knife on the other hand.
It’s even worse
Only because the victim will be traumatized by what they did. Other than that, it’s a legitimate self-defense.
I agree. I do not like the purge
This falls squarely under no cruel and unusual punishment for me. Heinous as the crime was this is just inhuman.
Well, in Louisiana, it might be the only way to get gender affirming care
/s
That’s the other thing Louisiana may use this to further their unjust associations between trans people and pedos
So, first you relativise what counts as cruel and unusual punishment, then you demonize the person. That is the road to atrocities. Why do you want to go there?
Me saying that rape is a heinous crime but saying its still inhuman to castrate a convicted rapist is demonizing them?
Sorry, I misread.
Yeah, chemical castration seems a lot better than the bull band treatment
I’ll take, “Laws that violate the 8th Amendment” for $100, Alex.
Nah see the 8th amendment no longer applies because he’s a criminal.
-Louisiana State Supreme Court
Probably
So if Trump is found guilty…
Making that poor old man sit in court for over 20 minutes is a violation of the 8th amendment if you listen to fox news.
if you listen to fox news.
That’s the neat part, I don’t
its so funny to me they’re portraying him as healthy enough to be president if he cant even sit in a chair for four hours
Yeah it’s cruel and unusual punishment to force him to checks notes do the equivalent of a week of full-time employment.
Part time, really
yes
Likely
What does physical or chemical castration even mean? And why is this a punishment when he is 100 years old?
Also, under current law there, no abortions are allowed unless life of mother is at risk, so they will castrate the rapist but force the mother to give birth?
What the actual fuck
Chemical castration is the lowering of hormones medically. Physical castration would by physical removal of the testes.
Welcome back to the dark ages. See you at next week’s drawing and quartering. It’s right after the hangings! Hopefully we get some real kickers!
Lowering hormones medically? Sounds like something Trans, and that’s illegal in the south.
I think it would only be illegal for minors.
Yee haw! What the fuck lol, if I was a hundred years old cutting off my balls would be kind of sexy lol,
Who likes lemons?
Who likes parties?
How dare you
Well, it’s because he’s an old fuck already so his heinous crimes result in him spending the rest of his worthless life in prison. If he’s lucky, he’ll die before he reaches 100.
I disagree with the idea behind that punishment…. But I hear you
Child rapists really test my principles regarding the death penalty and such, not going to lie.
But that’s the whole point of a fair justice system. It doesn’t respond to people’s personal feelings or emotional arguments. It is based on concepts like cruel punishments should not be meted out regardless of the circumstances.
Should the justice system be about vengeance? I don’t think it should. I don’t think an atrocious crime deserves an atrocious governmental response.
Definitely, our system of justice is really fucked up.
What does physical or chemical castration even mean?
Physical castration is being neutered, aka what we routinely due to male animals we don’t intend to breed.
Chemical castration is essentially being chemically neutered - hormone blockers. Whenever you see someone anti-trans talk about pro-trans people wanting to chemically castrate children that’s why - it’s the same drugs being used to achieve the same effect - blocking sex hormones.
And why is this a punishment when he is 100 years old?
Because castration in LA is only performed in the final week of the prison sentence (presumably because it can’t be reversed so as to allow time for appeals), he was in his 50s when convicted and was sentenced to 50 years + castration. So by the time he’s in the final week of his prison sentence he would be over 100 should he live that long.
Damn. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone just went on a rampage after being released because the government cut their balls off.
It’s insane there are people in this thread cheering them on, but I don’t expect much rationality or maturity from this generation at this point.
physical castration is removing his
dickballs.chemical castration … is basically using medication to block hormones that cause sex drives. (edit for technical accuracy as was pointed out below. Either way they’re taking medically-approved bolt cutters to his junk. and that’s never right at any age.)
chemical castration … is basically using medication to block hormones that cause sex drives.
The fun part is that it doesn’t even do that. You can block all of your testosterone (as an XY male), and still desire sex, have erections, and achieve orgasms. It’s difficult, but still possible. And unless they’re going to do blood panels every month, it’s pretty easy to get around that shit, if you have the money for the black market drugs.
At 100 years old?
Not defending or saying it’s right. It’s far from it.
but that’s what they mean by physical and chemical castration
They’re not removing the dick they’re removing the testicle.
Apparently castration means a few things. In China the eunuchs were castrated and they typically had both penis and testicles removed.
Just learned that yesterday and kinda wish I didn’t.
I hear you, thanks I didn’t even realize that could be an actual punishment , especially in a state like Louisiana that doesn’t allow abortion in cases of rape
At 5gat age just smack them with a baton and they will crumble into dust
so they will castrate the rapist but force the mother to give birth?
Louisiana is 100% the worst of the 50-nifty united states.
deleted by creator
Why add the physical castration part to plea if it doesn’t take effect until he’s 100, seems so pointless.
The American legal system is so barbarically fucked up.
Maybe to have it as a required part of his sentence, so while time can be reduced, perhaps the castration can’t? I.e. he couldn’t be released early unless he went through with the castration.
I dunno, I’m not a lawyer, just my guess. Fucked up either way on all sides of this.
deleted by creator
That’s not what the article says…
It says he still has to go through with chemical castration regardless of his plea making him do physical castration as well.
I suspect it’s a legal strategy he concocted with his lawyers: Chemical castration might have a different time period in which it is applied (because longer duration), maybe even starting right after the sentence becomes effective. As the summary here states, the physical version that he opted for himself(!) is not to be applied until a week before the sentence ends, which gives him a chance of a lot of things to happen before, laws to change etc & eventually get out of this without being castrated at all.
I think it’s like those 300 year sentences that come out once in a while. Ultimately it’s symbolic.
Barbaric and inhumane. Cruel and unusual.
and also just…weirdly fucking pointless. They are waiting till he is 100 to castrate him?
You mean the rape of a teenager, right?
We don’t mutilate and torture convicts. Rather, we aren’t supposed to but Louisiana is a shit hole.
Well, he won’t actually be castrated. So, why care?
why do you care so much about torturing criminals?
I don’t. It’s never going to happen. Why do you care so much about a rapist who won’t ever be castrated getting a castration sentence in 50 years from now. Why is this even news?
God help me if my brain ever gets this cooked.
Cooked enough to rape someone? Yeah that’s bad.
Are you saying that it is acceptable to sentence people to things that would normally be considered cruel as long as the judge doesn’t think they’ll live long enough for it to happen?
Louisiana has never physically castrated anyone. This sentence is a childish gesture, but I’m sure it made the victim and their family a lot happier. I’m all for prisoner rights, and not performing physical modifications. I would be in favor of chemical castration in all sex crimes.
Because he most likely won’t be the last one to be given such a sentence. And some of them will probably undergo the castration. Which is cruel, pointless and not reversible.
Louisiana has never physically castrated anyone. It’s a ridiculous sentence, And it will never end up happening because the man will be dead by then.
That sounds like cruel and unusual, no?
It sounds like there’s a good chance the castration would never happen at all, since it has to be done 2 weeks before the prison sentence ends.
Not to antagonize you, but like, rhetorically, is that not still cruel and unusual?
I mean, nothing about this sounds constitutional to me. Hate to be the “stick up for a piece of shit” guy, but…
I mean, nothing about this sounds constitutional to me. Hate to be the “stick up for a piece of shit” guy, but…
Defending constitutional rights requires sticking up for pieces of shit a lot. There’s a famous quote about that, involving defending freedom of speech and defending scoundrels.
Hate to be the “stick up for a piece of shit” guy, but…
Don’t hate being that guy. We need skeptics and rational thinkers to combat all the hysteria and sensationalism this generation proudly perpetuates.
It’s part of being an adult in a sea of children.
It is definitely unusual, but I don’t think it would actually be cruel unless the dude lives long enough that it actually is carried out. If the sentence isn’t carried out, is simply being given it cruel? 🤔
The judge is compelled by the law to have that as part of the sentence, but the stipulations of that same law have provided a loophole whereby the judge condemns the person to a lengthy prison sentence that would give a greater chance of having the castration part never happen. If that was the judge’s intent all along, it’s kind of brilliant malicious compliance.
The law itself that makes that a legit sentence is pretty fucked up, though.
So you’re saying anything goes in sentencing as long as the judge is pretty sure the prisoner won’t live long enough for it to happen?
I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. That’s not at all what I said or implied.
This sure seems to imply it.
It is definitely unusual, but I don’t think it would actually be cruel unless the dude lives long enough that it actually is carried out. If the sentence isn’t carried out, is simply being given it cruel?
So if that doesn’t mean that a judge can sentence a prisoner to whatever they want as long as they don’t think the prisoner will live long enough to serve it, what does it mean?
It was a philosophical question on if others would still consider it cruel if the sentence given doesn’t get carried out preceded by my opinion about the same question. I don’t think it is cruel if the cruelty part doesn’t actually happen.
Look, this guy is obviously a monster, but castrating someone doesn’t undo the harm. That’s just barbaric. Hard labor making license plates all day? Sure. Long sentence? I could see that.
We gotta have some moral minimums, though. Stuff like execution and castration is too far. What if they have the wrong guy? Even if it was him, mutilating their bodies is not what we should be doing on this continent.
enslavement is also barbaric
Wouldn’t this be considered “cruel or unusual punishment” which is banned by the constitution?
Yes.
Let’s not cheer a society that cuts off the balls of rapists, just like we don’t cheer for societies that cut off the hands of thieves.
Rapists deserve nothing less than castration.
And the US justice system is famous for never getting it wrong.
Even if they get it right, castration is never an acceptable punishment in a civilized society.
Some people seem to wish they lived in “biblical times”. Slavery, senseless violence, all powerful monarchs. No thank you very much, I prefer my civilizations to progress forward.
Living in a civilised society comes with conditions, when you break that contract, you defile another, you lose the right to be part of that society, and do not merit its protections. Chemical castration is an option. All of you downvoters have never had personal experience with rapists, or, simply have zero empathy.
Vengeance isn’t justice and one barbaric act shouldn’t be met with another one.
No, we should slap them on the wrist, give them early parole and let them loose to do it again.
Taking away someone’s freedom isn’t a slap on the wrist. We cant resort to barbarism, call it justice and consider ourselves better than those we put on trial.
The justice system being imperfect is an argument for incarceration as opposed to maiming or killing criminals. One can be somewhat undone, the other one can’t.
Castration is 100% cruel and unusual punishment.
For raping a kid, i don’t really care if its cruel and unusual. Deserved.
Friendly reminder that in 1992 the FBI embarked on a crusade that falsely convicted dozens of parents during the height of the Satanic Panic. One of the first convicts spent 30 years in prison before enough evidence of manufactured evidence and coerced testimony was unearthed to convince a court to release him.
In another classic false conviction a father of two was executed for a 2004 house fire that state prosecutors determined was deliberate arson, with the intent to murder his two children. Then Texas Governor Rick Perry repeatedly interfered with court proceedings that uncovered fabricated evidence and pseudo-scientific forensic analysis.
Finally, we’ve got the classic case of Alan Turing, British engineering pioneer of the computer and hero cryptographer of WW2, who was chemically castrated after being accused of gross indecency with his then-19-year-old boyfriend, following a burglary of Turing’s home. Following the castration, Turing fell into a malaise and ended up committing suicide.
There are a whole host of reasons why deliberately sadistic punishments are a fucking awful idea.
- Witch Hunts can use gratuitous claims to cover for scant evidence, leading to irrevocable punishments aimed at innocent people.
- False Convictions resulting in maiming/death can aid in covering up the criminal incompetency of investigators.
- Prejudice and bigotry can play a heavy role in the targets of investigation and degree of punishment.
Even setting aside the reflexive need to give people what they “deserve”, you put far too much faith in a criminal justice system as prone to injustice as any of its subjects. The targets for chemical castration end up not being the most deserving, but the least articulate and most socially vulnerable.
You won’t see a guy like Donald Trump sentenced to chemical castration for grabbing women by the pussy. But you can easily see folks in the LGBT/Civil Rights, migrant communities, or impoverished neighborhoods singled out for legal abuses by malicious or career oriented prosecutors.
I was originally going to point out that this guy pleaded guilty but really no need because I can’t argue against your point at all.
That’s a very well put point. I didn’t care about this guy because I was picturing my kid as the victim. (That’s why parents shouldn’t have anything to do with punishing the convict)
I am against capitol punishment on principle. This article just hit me wrong or right depending on how you view it.
I did not think about how these laws can be used as tools to punish “others” especially in states that are or have started criminalizing anything near LGBT. Thanks for the good point.
Man, I’m so happy to see this kind of dialog. Appropriate debate and resolution. This is so fucking rare to see these days, especially on the interwebs. Jeeze. Thanks for being open.
We need more people like you, regardless of the topic debated.
So you’re not a believer in human rights I guess.
Read the article, he won’t even be castrated until he is 100.
I did read the article. He pleased guilty. Actually it would be over 100 not 100 if he got released. That’s why I don’t really care if it’s cruel or unusual.
I really dislike it when people say “read the article” and misquote it. This guys is a monster and intimidated the family so they wouldn’t come forward. Talk about human rights.
(Edit) going to leave this up to show I was a fool in my haste to post. Another comment showed I was doing a knee jerk reaction. Thanks for the good comments and debate.
Your integrity and good faith are rare and admirable in the modern day internet!
if it’s* cruel
In my opinion, given the crime this dude absolutely deserves this. With that being said the problem I have with this is the same I have with the death penalty. What happens when they accidentally or sometimes even intentionally get the wrong person? 4% of people who get sentenced to death are innocent. Even if that number is .4% I’m not okay with occasionally killing someone who is innocent. It’s only a matter of time before they sentence someone to have their testicles removed and they find out later oopise they didn’t commit the crime.
castration doesnt even do anything for most sex crime offenders.
Cause its not physical lust that drives most of it, its a psychological drive… and that psychological need/drive doesnt go away just cause you castrate someone, whether physically or chemically.
in addition to what you’re talking about, with the inherent risk of an innocent person running afoul of the law.
You see, your issue is that you are using your brain instead of asking for brutal retribution
yeah, i just love the hypocrisy of people who want brutalistic retribution laws… until they run afoul of the law, then its all inhuman and cruel to deny them their organic quinoa meals in prison and other ridiculous bullshit.
People just missed the whole chunk of history in which Enlightment thinkers argued against corporeal punishment and the body of research that disprove its efficacy as a deterrent. Nice /s
I could see voluntary chemical castration and psychiatric support as a viable middle ground between lex talionis and a 21st-century legal system. Physical castration? Get the hell out of here.
this dude absolutely deserves this
There’s a joke in the criminal justice system about how a clever DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, with a free enough hand at presentation of evidence. Consider that you are getting less from this article than the grand jury got at his indictment.
What happens when they accidentally or sometimes even intentionally get the wrong person? 4% of people who get sentenced to death are innocent. Even if that number is .4% I’m not okay with occasionally killing someone who is innocent.
The purpose of chemical castration as a political tool is purely for the optics. Case in point, this guy would not be subject to castration until the end of his 50 year sentence (at age 100). DAs and judges can campaign on this nightmarish act by appealing to voters with a sadistic streak while sleeping better knowing neither they nor the convict will live long enough to see it carried out.
Much like the death penalty itself, this is a performative endeavor intended to bait liberals into defending creeps (or, at least, suspected creeps) so that you can go on screen and call them “Pedophile Enablers”. Once chemical castration is normalized, you’ll see “Tough on Crime” conservatives pursue something even more vulgar.
What the shit? Are they going to bring back “an eye for an eye” next?
For some people there is no redemption in this life - and I’m not referring to the criminal. Some people refuse to see people as anything other than their past transgressions. And the system is set up to support that. One could commit a crime and that’s all the person will ever be seen as for the rest of their life. Jobs are hard to get, where you can live is limited, and having to tell everyone that the person is a sex offender in those cases.
And some people would rather criminals be killed or maimed for life depending on the crime, sometimes with a surprisingly low bar.
It would be nice if they did.
Eye for an eye, was a law that allowed the (proven) victim to request the (proven) perpetrator up-to (but no more than) an equal punishment to the harm done. Yes a person who got his eye stoned out by crazy guy, could have the crazy guy’s eye stoned out. Which is, honestly, fair.
I guess in this case, the girl could request Mandingo to rape the guy, which, while deeply hilarious, might actually teach something, especially compared to just a jail sentence (that might be heavily reduced due to “good behaviour”)
I swear all of the edgy children from reddit ended up here…
What’s worse, this person probably isn’t a child.
Well they shut down or quarantined most of the /justiceporn type subs. They’re everywhere, though. Nothing but a bunch of reactionary, bloodthirsty jackwagons who want violent retribution for minor transgressions or situations that could have been avoided by simply walking away.
but they only want it for other people.
They dont want any violent retribution for their bullshit. because thats excessive, and inhumane, and persecutory.
They can be dicks and expect to get away with it, but I’d also be willing to bet that quite a few are looking to get aggro and fight. I don’t think you go looking for and participating in online groups featuring clips of people getting beaten without having some aggression problems yourself.
Rape is funny when it happens to bad people, i guess. And no, rape does not teach anything. It just traumatizes.
Isn’t that a good way to teach the trauma a person caused? And I don’t see what place is there for hollywood civility when the person clearly ignored the social contract (so he isn’t part of it)
Most Bullies experience domestic violence before they abuse their fellow students. Most child rapists have experienced child molestation. Traumatization does not fix people, it does not correct people, it breaks them. An eye for an eye is a shit way to actually run a society. My partner comes from a society that executes people for “violating the social contract”. It is an absolut shithole of a justice system, in which prisoners are completely dehumanized and I do not wish for anyone to live under that particular system of justice. Its not about civility, its about absence of cruelty
While I do question the “trauma causes people who cause trauma”, I guess I can agree that trauma just breaks people.
Prisoners being 'completely dehumanized" sounds like a separate issue, concerning the country in question. And maybe points to some details of its culture that are actually making traumatization part of society.
That dehumanization is inherent in the idea of withholding “civility” from those, who you deem to have violated the social contract.
True.
However, I did not intend to paint it so black and white. I imagined the social contract not to be immediately null and void, but rather, with regards to punishment, to be irrelevant, up to the damages of the crime.
No one knows how someone will react to trauma. That’s why it doesn’t teach anything. Few people can come out of that and be, “Oh, I get it now!”
I guess you’re right.
It would be nice if they did.
until you or someone you know gets caught up in the court system, is innocent, but due to the many failings in our prosecution system, still end up being found guilty.
Then you’ll cry and whine like a little fucking bitch about “how could it happen to me/us!” and people will point at you and posts like yours and say people like you are the reason it happened.
It would be nice if you didn’t spew populist bullshit on the web, but here we are.
I’m a little confused. First the punishment actually seems to fit the crime. Second I didn’t think castration was legal in the US. With everything else going on right now, what the actual fuck!
First the punishment actually seems to fit the crime.
So should we go back to chopping off the hands of thieves?
And be very careful about looking at a woman with lust in your eye.
I believe chemical castration is technically legal but only is the grey area under loopholes because its not disfiguring the convicted or doing physical damage. I suspect they are going to argue the physical castration is legal by consent because the convicted has to plea for it specifically? Unlikely he will live long enough to face that judgement in a Louisiana prison, regardless.
Edit: Still think its horrific no matter what loophole they try to use, our justice system is fucked even in cases as awful as this.
Most states allow voluntary castration for treatment of a medical condition. That means if you have testicular cancer or gender dysphoria you can pay a ton of money to no longer have testicles, but it seems a pretty flagrant violation of our bill of rights to force it on a criminal
God what kind of a shit plea deal involves 50-year sentence and castration? Honestly why even plead at that point?
deleted by creator
So, let’s say a man is accused of rape and impregnates a woman. DNA matches, everything matches. However, after the castration happens, the woman comes out and says it was actually consensual and not a rape, just her being petty over a disagreement or something. What then?
No consent at the age of 14
What? I didn’t specify she was 14?
But the victim in this case was 14. So unless your theoretical victim is also a child, you’re making a false equivalence in your argument.
Yeah, but what about his hypothetical?
He didn’t say he was specifically talking about this case, and even clarified when you guys assumed he was.
The woman isn’t 14 in my question I guess? I didn’t realize she had to be. I saw people for and against castration here, so I wanted to ask what would happen if a man got castrated for a lie or something that actually wasn’t rape. What’s the stance here? If it’s a minor, castration is OK, but if it’s between adults it’s not ok? Why would the age matter in my question?
Because a child can’t give consent. So if, like you say, all the physical evidence creates an undisputed conclusion that the event happened, then there is no longer any doubt whether there would be a change of mind as it didn’t matter.
Ah, ok. Yeah, I wasn’t talking about if she were 14. I was more curious on how this stance would play out with 2 adults.
How old is
your victimthe hypothetical victim then?
Ok ok about poor pedos, but what about lolita airlines logs Sherlock?
I want these rich pedos to pay back…
