374
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
374 points (98.7% liked)
News
37250 readers
471 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
So then yes, you think it should be legal for a judge to sentence someone to something cruel as long as the judge assumes the prisoner won't live long enough to get the punishment.
I assume you read the article, and the law, because he was just sentenced to chemical castration, and it’s his option to do it physically.
The rapist chose that option, and so that was the sentence.
Everyone involved is just trying to look hard on rape in the press by saying they’re cutting off his balls.
This is bad journalism, and rage bait. Consider yourself on the hook. 🪝
Why do you assume I think chemical castration is not cruel? I'm guessing you would think it was a cruel thing to be forced to do if you were in their place.
Justice should not be about vengeance and chemical castration does not reduce sexual aggression. Rape is much more about power and you do not need to be able to have an erect penis to rape someone.
https://www.dw.com/en/combating-sexual-violence-is-chemical-castration-a-valid-method/a-56839505
The rapist chose physical castration over chemical castration.
The link has some pretty convincing statements in favor of physical castration, so maybe don’t just paste the first link you find with a headline you think will agree with your opinion.
Which convincing statements would those be? Because I read the article. The good results were mostly done from people who volunteered for chemical castration, not someone who was sentenced to choose between two types of castration.
And regardless of effectiveness, it is still cruel. If cutting off a repeat offender thief's hand was an effective way to stop them stealing, would you be in favor of it?
Say this back to me, because I think you’re ignoring facts:
Say this back to me, because I think you're ignoring what I'm saying:
ALL CASTRATION IS CRUEL.
Being sentenced to choose one type of castration over another type of castration is STILL CRUEL.
What do you think the appropriate sentence for this particular person should be?
I don't know, how about just putting him in prison for 50 years like that part of the sentence already required?
Sounds great.
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.