I mean, when the state of Louisiana agrees, it's only reasonable to wonder if you're being the baddy.

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.

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?

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.

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.

This falls squarely under no cruel and unusual punishment for me. Heinous as the crime was this is just inhuman.

Nah see the 8th amendment no longer applies because he's a criminal.

-Louisiana State Supreme Court

Probably

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!

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.

and also just....weirdly fucking pointless. They are waiting till he is 100 to castrate him?

enslavement is also barbaric

Wouldn't this be considered "cruel or unusual punishment" which is banned by the constitution?