Alabama Lawmaker Re-Introduces Castration Bill For Sex Offenders


#1

Montgomery, Ala. (CBS ATLANTA) – An Alabama legislator has re-introduced a bill to legalize castration of convicted child molesters if their victims were under the age of 12 – and make them pay for the procedure.

The Florence Times Daily reports that Rep. Steve Hurst (R-Munford) is proposing the bill for the 2014 legislative session, which begins in January. Hurst attempted to push this bill during the 2013 session, but it did not make it out of committee.

Under Rep. Hurst’s proposed legislation, convicted sex offenders over the age of 21 would be castrated prior to their release from prison if their victims were under the age of 12 years old. The castration would also be financed by the sex offender, and not by the correctional system, reports WFSB.

atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/10/15/al-lawmaker-reintroduces-castration-bill-for-sex-offenders/

Finally something we all can agree on. :thumbsup:


#2

Actually, no. Not even Catholics can agree on this. It is against the moral teachings of the catholic church.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=820878

1ke’s answer explains it nicely.


#3

I absolutely do not agree with this. This is morally wrong and very medieval. It is cruel and unusual punishment.


#4

Isn’t Judge Roy Moore from Alabama?


#5

Yes, he is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.


#6

Wasn’t he removed because he refused to take down the marble monument of the 10 Commandments when he was required by law and the Constitution to publicly acknowledge God?


#7

Yes, in 2003. But, he was re-elected to office in 2012.


#8

Please do not use the word “medieval” as if it were some sort of curse word.


#9

Our legal system might be better than others, but too often innocent people are found guilty. Things like the death penalty and certain “surgical procedures” are irreversible.


#10

What if they find out latter that the man was innocent?


#11

I think this is rather barbaric, and 99.99% of judges and lawmakers would view this as a clear violation of the 8th Amendment. Just because the defendant (or convict) has acted like an animal (or worse!), does NOT mean that the state should do the same.

The United States is NOT China. The United States is NOT Saudi Arabia. The United States is NOT Al Qaeda… This behavior would only bring their ungodly practices to our legal system.

If this man calls himself a Christian, he should know how disgusting this bill is. He should be ashamed.


#12

That’s a fair question. But what if they don’t castrate the sex offender and he repeats? What do you say to the child victim of the violent sex offender? Oops? “sorry, we’ll get him next time and hope his lawyer doesn’t keep him out of jail” ??

My gut tells me this is what we should do - for violent repeat sex offenders. I am still trying to work this out with my intellect. So for now, I’d say I’m not sure. Btw, this would be the only 100% sure way to prevent the offender from repeating - short of execution.

Ishii


#13

These are predators who target the most vulnerable in society. Sex offenders, particularly of the paedophilic variety, cannot be rehabilitated, and remain an unreasonable threat to society should they escape or be released. Morally and spiritually, this development is wholly justified.


#14

I highly disagree. I think that there is no justification for permanently surgically altering someone out of wrath for any crime.

As for “sex offender” laws in general, did you know that you can become one for public urination? How about for your 18-yo son sleeping with his 16-yo girlfriend in many states? So, considering the fact that not all “sex offenders” are violent rapists or pedophiles, why do so many people support “sex offender” laws that force homelessness, public shaming [which leads to neighborhood riots against the “offender”], etc. on people?

This law specifically may only be in the case of pedophiles & hebephiles, but it is just another example of wrath gone wild in our judicial system.


#15

Actually I think it is to prevent a future crime. Wrath would be letting the victim or their parents perform the procedure.


#16

It isn’t revenge, but rather to mitigate the risk of future offences.

As for other “sex offences”, there is a massive distinction between an age-of-consent matter involving an 18-year old and a 16-year old and, say, a child rapist. Since you’ve brought up the subject, no, I have absolutely no problem naming and shaming a predator after they’ve been released (the preferable option would be to keep them incarcerated forever, but unfortunately the system doesn’t work like that). Neighbours, especially those with children, have the right to warning when an individual who may pose a threat to their children moves into the area. Don’t you dare tell me that a paedophile’s right to privacy trumps the right of children to their basic safety and security. If you do, then seriously re-examine yourself.

:thumbsup:


#17

So you think a 30 year-old who, when he was an 18 year-old, slept with his 16 year-old girlfriend, should have his house marked as a sex offender house? How about someone arrested for public urination when they were 19 and in college?

You know what would also prevent a future crime? Killing the person. We don’t do that either for a reason.


#18

Why not?


#19

Because someone who got extremely drunk one night and peed in a bush should not spend the rest of their life having their entire neighborhood think they raped a child, as many states do not distinguish between sex offender categories on the online neighborhood programs.


#20

Agreed. But that isn’t what you asked.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.