|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or phone number for this.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 28, @06:29PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
If this actually passes, expect federal lawsuits seeking injunctions for violation of the Constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Also, what happens to men who are later proven innocent who end up irreversably castrated? What if they were only chemically castrated? Could they sue the state for huge amounts of damages?
Might the crime of paternity fraud also be seen as an equivalent of male-on-female rape? If so, what kinds of physical punishments should the female perpetrators be subjected to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Might the crime of paternity fraud also be seen as an equivalent of male-on-female rape?
I like your analogy but it’s not one that our legal system will recognize as an equivalent of physical rape for a few millennia – at least not at the rate we’re going.
The more fundamental problem IMO is that with regard to sex crimes our legal system is almost exclusively focused on punishing the misuse of male (and only male) physiology. The analogous misuse of female physiology is called rights. Ever notice how so many issues referred to as women’s rights are either special protection for women due to their physical vulnerability, or on the right of a woman to use that same physiology as she chooses without regard for the effect it has on others?
Rape is considered a violent crime because it involves a physical act. Yet no one can argue that the level of punishment for the conviction of rape is due to the physical damage it does to the victim. There is often no physical damage whatever. The damage can be profound but is almost entirely psychological not physical. Why is the psychological damage due to a woman’s misuse of her physiology not recognized as a crime instead of a protected right? Why is one misuse a crime and the other a right? (Yes it’s a rhetorical question)
Certainly misuses of male physiology such as rape cannot be rationalized. But how can we pretend to be aspiring to a fair and just society when the other half of the population has the right to use their physiological advantages as they choose without regard for it’s effect on others?
I know I’m preaching to the choir but I needed to do some venting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a reasonable basis for the opinion that the Constitutional VIII amendment banning cruel and unusal punishment may be violated by this law. Further, if it applies only to males, the law may be unconstutional based upon gender discrimination. Should women that abuse their children physically have their hands cut off? Should women who abort their children or have children out of wed lock be castrated? Are the emotional and/or physical trauma resulting from the same any less or greater than that caused by a sexual offender? I think not, the affect of the sme has a much greater traumatic affect on children.Thus, this law appears to have politically based gender discrimination and oppression as it's means and ends. Rather, the aforementioned acts of females which have much more long lasting damaging affects on children go unpunished, acts by males, receive disproportionate criminal penalties. It remains for men to effectively take action to redress this injustice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not think it will be found unconstitutional, as both state houses approved it. As I have said, untill more men organize, things will get worse.
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has already been passed into law in California, Florida and .... another state, Mississippi maybe? There are several states doing this, albeit quietly.
It takes a lot of money to sue over a violation of such basic rights unless some powerful organization foots the bill for you or Katie Couric features your defense fund on TV. Unfortunately there are no powerful men's groups yet. So a man sentenced to sexual mutilation is all alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this some kind of joke?
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this some kind of joke?
I'd like to say yes, but unfortunately I think the answer is no.
Times like these make me wonder where society is headed if men can be forcibly castrated by law. Don't these people know about basic human rights?
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These people don't care about basic human rights. That's the problem. Radical feminism is about power and control, not civil rights and freedom.
Both major political parties in the U.S. have been running all over the Bill of Rights (look at how blatantly in violation of the 14th Amendment VAWA is - every single U.S. Senator voted in favor of renewed funding last time) in full violation of their oaths of office. Can we sue a Senator or President for supporting a bill which is unconstitutional? Is the oath of office just a formality or is it not a requirement to entering that office and thus a legal contract with the People? I'm sure there is some lame excuse why we cannot sue them. And what men's rights activist has the money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe castration is an alternative to doing prison time, not a straight mandated punishment. I don't believe there should be such an option because it is inherently coercive.
However, the provision should be presented accurately as an option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hard to get information on this but it does seem from what I can tell that under the OK plan it could possibly be mandated castration for repeat offenders rather than an alternative to longer jail time. My mistake. I definitely think this is beyond the pale.
Other states have laws which use surgical or chemical castration as an "voluntatary" option in sentencing. I'm still opposed to this on the basis of coerciveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 29, @02:27AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
As aEuropean I must also question the alleged "success" of castration in Europe?
What castration?
Is he talking about something from the dark ages?
Alan
www.mens-network.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a difficult topic to discuss with out more information about that the law's wording is.
First if this law ONLY deals with men then it is discrimitory. What about women such as the women that have had repeated "relationships" with young boys? Would they qualify for similar medical or surgical treatment?
Second, I have heard of some programs similar to this that were totally voluntary and used chemical castration to some degree of success BUT it was NOT a 100% successful. The same degree of success was found for castration.
I will ignore for the sake of arguement the obvious sexism in the law and focus on the illogical portions of the law.
Since it is a fact that have been cases where this type of treatment has failed it is misleading to portray it as a "cure" or treatment for sexual predators.
In addition if this treatment if given and repeat sexual offenders commit the crime again not only has a child been hurt but what will happen to them now once they are in prison?
As a result of these problems the only reason this type of law is allowed is that it only effects men. Men who are not allowed the same degree of latitude when it comes to treatment and medicalization of their behavior as women. Men whose backgrounds of abuse and rape are ignored. Men who we would rather push out of sight into prisons. Prisons where approximately 1 million rapes occur a year.
The only option is to move away from the punative treatment system that has failed us I see laws like this to become more prevalant.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your analysis seems illogical to me. Anything
that gives men choices where otherwise they
had none increases their freedom. Whether
castration will be good for them is for them to
decide; whether it is good for society is a
question for the legislators. Any sexism in an
optional male castration law is against women.
OTOH, mandatory castration is unattractive
and will likely become an attack on men if
that it isn't already the intention.
Regretably there's not much political mileage
in standing up for convicted sex offenders.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...likely become an attack on men...." Funny.
Anyhow, the issue is mute when discussing this in terms of unreasonable punishment. The US has capital punishment. How much more unreasonable can you get.
I'm not trying to get into a debate about state sponsored execution here but I am pointing out that if thousands of demonstrators can campaign against killing people and have no effect then I fail to see how any complaints against surgical modification of men is going to help.
Particularly when half the population (women) are told that this is being done especially to protect them from sex offenders.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 31, @02:32PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I like your term "surgical modification".
I'm sure we'll soon be hearing it called "surgical improvement" by Oprah and Katie Couric.
It amazes me that we consider ourselves civilized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital punishment is a life for a life. But castration is not applied for mutilating the genitals of anyone. It is applied for violating the genitals, or for being accused of violating them. Consensual sex in which the 'victim' later changes her mind and cries rape will still be a rape in court thanks to rape shield laws. This is a greater punishment than the crime warrants. It is inequitable. And if rape is the most horrible crime possible, as feminists say, then why are they not mandating capital punishment for sex offenders? If no one will stand up for sex offenders, or alleged sex offenders, then why do these legislators not go all the way and require their execution?
Personally, if Lorena Bobbitt were sentenced to death I would not object in light of her confession and original statement, "we did it, he got off and I didn't. He's selfish so I pulled it back and I did it."
But of course no woman will ever be subjected to any such punishment. The voters will be told that this is 'for the children' but in practice it will definitely be used on many innocent men. DNA only indicates that he was there. It does not tell if she said 'yes' and later changed her mind. That we can never know until all rape shield laws are repealed and the defense is allowed to fully question her claims. Even then a jury will usually side with the woman over the man, especially when the prosecution is allowed to pack the jury with young women as was the case with the sexually mutilated man in Cincinnati who got no justice from the all-female jury.
We are sliding on a very dangerous slope with this law. In the first states to pass castration it was optional. In the later states it was mandatory. Each successive state to pass it makes it more and more mandatory. No one talks about the innocent men and no one is allowed to mention the high rate of false accusations. Look at how many men are being set free because of DNA evidence. But DNA doesn't tell us what was said between the two of them. And if she was drunk and said yes it is still ruled rape. That being the case how many rapes do you think there are every single weekend in the United States? How many bar hopping men would be sexually mutilated under this feminist legal system we now have?
This is getting worse and worse. How many of you even knew it is already law in some states? Ever hear about the 'executions' in the press? I don't. It is a quiet war on males that is escalating every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Move to Australia - we don't have capital punishment and no mandatory chemical castration. I'm glad I'm here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I believe castration was practised in
certain European countries on the 20th
century, including Sweden and Germany.
I have read reports of studies of these
periods of legal castration which claimed
the process reduced the perpetrator/victim's
chances of reoffending.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are conflicting reports on whether or not castration was effective in the past. Research done by those supporting it found it effective. Research done by others found it much less effective or not effective at all. In cases where it was optional they found that the only time it worked was when the offender had already decided to change. And in those states making it optional it was used against all convicted offenders who refused it when requesting parole.
Based on FBI profiles of rapists it is highly unlikely to be effective as the most serious of rapists and women who sexually batter men do not do so out of sexual desire. Their goal is to use temporary control over the victim's own sexual organs to inflict pain and humilation to the highest degree. Much like when a woman kicks are squeezes a man's testicles in situations that have nothing to do with self-defense. The rapist's thinking is the exactly the same. Researchers have found that the emotional and psychological consequence for the victims, female rape victims and male sexual battery victims, is identical. Rape victims and, in the study I mentioned boys who were sexually battered by girls, experienced the exact same emotional damage - flashbacks, nightmares, panic attacks, and general fear and depression alternating with rage and thoughts of suicide.
What they say, they being those not promoting castration, is that possessing genitals or not has nothing to do with this type of crime. Lesbian rape of women has been steadily increasing in the past 10 years or more. Yet they do not possess penises or testicles. They strap on plastic substitute penises or use objects. Rape laws were changed to include penetration with objects because the possession of a penis has little to do with rape. And men without testicles can still maintain erections and rape if they so choose. Testicles have nothing to do with it either. But the term castration simply means the removal of the genitals. Cutting off a man's penis is legally considered to be castration, as is removing a woman's ovaries. Even so, looking at the example of the lesbian rapists it is clear that even cutting off a man's penis will not stop him from raping if he wants to. If the goal is to use the victim's genitals to cause them pain then the lack of genitals on the attacker is irrelevent.
In the case of convicted rapist Wayne Dumond he was tied up and castrated by 2 men alleged to have been hired by a certain Arkansas governor who is related to the alleged rape victim or his wife. Wayne Dumond was then convicted at trial and sent to prison despite the evidence showing that the semen from the scene used to convict him was not his. Many years later when DNA testing became possible the semen was again proven not to be his. He was then refused a pardon because female supremacists in the media still insisted on calling him 'rapist' even after knowing he is innocent and the only verifiable victim of a sex crime. Finally he was parolled. After being falsely accused of rape, castrated and imprisoned for many years despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence, and finally released he was quickly arrested again. Two women were brutally murdered in the area where he was living. Police said evidence pointed to him. In light of the politically connected people who put him in prison in the first place it is entirely possible that he was set up. But if he was not set up then his castration for a crime he did not commit apparently turned this man into a violent killer of women. Castrating him did not help the women who died after his release. Castration only made him violent and angry enough to kill. I do not know if the women who died were sexually abused before they died.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A number of countries use castration as part of punishment and, allegedly, prevention. According to this article, Surgical castration has been used in countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Germany, although Denmark has switched to chemical castration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, if we're going to castrate men, why not just cut off EVERY body part that offends? Cut off hands for stealing and so on. Oh wait, that would include women...my bad...what was I thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Cut off hands for stealing and so on. Oh wait, that would include women...my bad...what was I thinking."
No, because women who steal would have Deprived Women Syndrom or Unequal Pay Syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many states/countries have VOLUNTARY chemical/surgical castration. But then every one has a right to mutilate himself.
Unfortunatly things inconcievable in 1990 are a reality of today. I think, until enough men stand up for their rights in every possible legal way, things will continue getting MUCH worse.
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And maybe now when a woman commits paternity fraud she will have to have a hysterectomy, have her clitoris removed and her p***y sewed shut.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually my logic is not flawed. The point has been made that cutting off a person's hands would likly limit their ability to steal but we consider this, for obvious reasons, inhumane. My issue is the FORCED castration of men. As long as people are FULLY informed about the consequences and the FACTUAL recitivism rates I am all for voluntary involvement in programs that would help people with a sexual predatory issue.
There is also a logical flaw in the problem with castration (surgical or chemical) as a solution for repeat sexual offenders. How do you deal with women who are repeat offenders? Castration reduces (NOTE: It does not eliminate the production of testosterone) which in turn reduces sexual desire. How would this program be implemented for women? Until that issue is resolved I feel this is a punative decision directed soley at men and not a cure.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well... in 2000 there was a bad-taste joke about NOW proposing to castrate deadbeat dads. Will it still be a joke a generation later?
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please take the time to write to Governor Keating asking him to veto this atrocity. He can be contacted at governor@gov.state.ok.us.
This article indicates that he has not yet decided to sign the bill and that he is considering the input he receives on it. You can bet the FemiNazis are spurring him on to sign this. We're not far from the Nuremburg laws in this country.
Here's a copy of the email that I sent him, feel free to modify it as you see fit, or copy it exactly if you prefer, and send it to him.
I do not live in Oklahoma, but I feel I must contact you about a bill that you have before you.
I remember the days when people in the United States were outraged by the practice, in some countries, of cutting off body parts of convicted criminals. The practice of removing the hands of thieves in Saudi Arabia comes to mind.
Far too many people, mostly men, have been wrongly convicted of crimes. If you are going to sign a bill that allows for castration, then you should insist on having on your desk at the same time, a bill that you will sign that allows for the cutting off of hands of convicted child abusers. In fact, you should insist on having one bill that combines the two practices. I would be surprised if you would do this, however, since most child abusers are women. Feminists wouldn't stand for it. Please don't sell out to them. Veto the castration bill.
Ultimately, the world will thank you for your considered actions.
Please take a minute to write to Governor Keating now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gov. Keating just vetoed this medieval bill. You can read about it here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can write to him at governor@gov.state.ok.us to thank him for his courage and leadership.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
