« Should the NAACP and others really be concerned about the sentencing of the Barbie bandits? | Main | CSM piece has latest crack retroactivity news »
April 8, 2008
Louisiana getting even crazier about sex offender sanctions
As detailed in this AP article, the folks in the bayou region cannot get enough of getting tough with sex offenders:
Masking at Halloween or Mardi Gras could become a forbidden tradition in Louisiana for people convicted of sex offenses under one bill approved Monday by a state Senate committee, and castration could become a sentencing option in some sex cases under another measure approved by the panel.
Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Meaux, sponsored the bills, both of which go next to the full Senate for debate later in the legislative session. Also Monday, the Senate was set to discuss a separate package of bills, backed by Gov. Bobby Jindal, that would raise the minimum jail sentence for molestation of a juvenile from one to five years and require such convicts to register with the state as sex offenders for life, instead of the current 15 years.
Gautreaux's castration bill, involving both physical and chemical castration, applies to a range of offenses including aggravated rape, simple rape, incest and indecent behavior with a juvenile. A judge would have the option of sentencing a first-offender to treatment with the drug medroxyprogesterone acetate, with the aim of diminishing his sexual impulses.
On a second offense the treatment would be mandatory, though in each case a medical expert would have to determine for the court that the treatment would be effective. Once ordered to undergo the treatment, the offender would have the option of physical castration — which Gautreaux said some offenders might prefer to avoid any drug side effects or in hopes of permanently curbing impulses that led to his offense.
Nobody spoke against the bill in committee Monday but committee members raised questions, including whether drug treatment would be mandatory under the bill for female sex offenders. Gautreaux said he would research the issue and deal with it when the bill comes up for floor debate. After the hearing, a lobbyist said the bill will be opposed. "It is state-sanctioned mutilation and that is cruel and unusual punishment," George Steimel, lobbyist for the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said Monday afternoon.
April 8, 2008 at 06:38 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e551b932888833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Louisiana getting even crazier about sex offender sanctions:
» Coverage of Kennedy Case Ramping Up from Sex Crimes
As Doug Berman notes, the coverage of Kennedy v. Louisiana has begun with oral arguments on the horizon (April 16). Sex Crimes will be covering the case extensively starting this Monday. In the meantime, I'll be constantly updating the Kennedy [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 9, 2008 10:54:29 AM
Comments
Jesus Christ. Just let them rape a few kids here and there and get over it. It's inevitable (though not nearly as pervasive as the media would have us believe). Enough with the crazy sex offender sanctions. Deal with it. Yeh it's gross, yeah it's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. The problem is that everyone thinks their kids are so wonderful and special. They're not. In fact, being a rape-toy for a pedophile is probably the most useful thing most children will ever be. The rest of the time they will just be loud, obnoxious little vandals.
Posted by: bruce | Apr 8, 2008 9:38:57 PM
Bruce: ummm, wow...
Posted by: | Apr 8, 2008 10:57:23 PM
Too blunt?
Posted by: bruce | Apr 8, 2008 11:34:30 PM
Ha! Bruce, you kill me!
Humor, People! Have you forgotten??? :)
Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 12:32:32 AM
Humor or not. Not funny. Have you ever been around a child who has been sexually abused? What if this were your child would you still say the same idiotic thing?
Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 8:25:33 AM
Yes, I would. I'm sick of people acting nuts because it's "their child."
Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 8:42:50 AM
Obviously this type of humor amuses you. I am sure you can find other blogs to write about your sick humor!
Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 9:27:05 AM
I'm not trying to make you laugh, I'm taking an position on the opposite end of the spectrum. If only one extreme is heard, with a few people arguing for something in the middle, then society will settle on a position at, or close to, that one extreme. That's why pro-lifers will eventually win and get Roe v. Wade overturned. They're taking extreme positions - no abortions, not even for rape an incest - and the pro-choice people are just sitting around trying to compromise. If the pro-choice people were arguing for free, government subsidized abortion clinics on every street corner, abortions permitted until the fetus is 18 years old, and mandatory abortions for pregnant women who can't afford another child, society would settle on a middle ground that makes some sense.
So, when sex offender punishments keep getting wackier and wackier, someone simply has to stand up and say take the opposite position. I really hate children, especially the children of the person I'm speaking to, so I'm more than happy to do it and defend the "sexual predators" the media keeps scaring people about. Fact - not every abused child grows up to have problems. Some do, some don't. Insofar as society only learns about paticular instances of sexual abuse because the child grows up to have problems, you have a selection bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not actively encouraging sexual abuse of children. But it's such a small problem, like terrorism (though the media would have you think "sexual predators" and "terrorists" are out there looking for your children everywhere they go), that it's not worth throwing away principals like due process and fair trials and bars on cruel and unusual punishment to prevent. The bottom line is it's worth a few kids being sexually abused each year to live in a country that still has guiding principals controlling and limiting its criminal justice system.
Finally, most people like the idea of fearing that their children are in constant danger of being raped by a sexual predator. It's a perverse way of thinking your kid is so great. Parents are walking around thinking their kid is so cute and attractive that adults all over the place will find them so appealing and irresistable that they'll snatch them up to have sexal intercourse with. In reality, chances are your kid is so fat and ugly and smelly, with chocolate icecream dripping from his/her face, that not even the most out-of-control sexual predator would want to touch it, let alone risk prison to do so. But "knowing" that everywhere their kids go they are in "danger" from sexual predators makes most parents feel good about their children. It's a perverse form of "my kid is an honor roll student".
Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 9:43:39 AM
bruce it is lewd, distasteful, and calloused to joke about children being molested. If that is a measure of your humor, I certainly would not want you around my little girl and I am saddened that you would joke in such a fashion about your child. To trivialize something like child rape being too personal and fun makes me wonder what your sexual appetites are. You are a sick little puppy bruce...
Posted by: Jesse | Apr 9, 2008 9:45:02 AM
You know Bruce, the problem with your tacit here is that nobody will take your seriously. You forget that much of what's behind the "hysteria" surrounding sex offenders has to do with their crimes and high recidivism rates. I believe Erickson over at C&C has blogged quite a bit about this.
Sure it may be fair to say that parents are somewhat responsible for the problem when they allow their kids to dress in a sexually provocative manner; but saying "being a rape-toy for a pedophile is probably the most useful thing most children will ever be" just makes you an ass or a lunatic - neither of which is helpful in making your point - whatever it might be.
Posted by: Joe | Apr 9, 2008 10:02:21 AM
I don't know all the details of this bill, but let us not forget that "sex offense" does not necessarily or always equal pedophelia.
Often, and in many states, people who committed consensual, statutory offenses at 18 with their 16-year-old boy/girlfriends end up on a registry and deemed a "sex offender." Should that person be castrated?
Rape and sexual battery also happens to adults, as well. This includes date rape - which is not excusable or appropriate - but some might view this very differently than a vicious assault.
Posted by: Rogue | Apr 9, 2008 10:29:20 AM
Bruce
I have read and enjoyed many of your posts in the past. I had a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. Today, however, I found your take on this subject to be heartless, unthinking and completely despicable.
Humor? How can anyone apply humor to something such as child rape? The sheer fact that you can integrate the two in your mind is both shocking and saddening. You should be deeply ashamed.
While I do agree that some parents are overtly paranoid & see danger under every rock (something we can partially blame on mass media fear tactics), this does not warrant the kind of “get over it” attitude you’ve displayed here. Paranoid or not, the fact remains that people want to protect their children. If someone intentionally hurts their child, any child, they’ll want swift & violent action taken against them. It’s human nature. You are human, aren’t you? If someone did something this heinous to my child, they had better pray the police get to them before I do.
Of course all parents think their child is special and unlike any other. Didn’t your parents think you were wonderful and beautiful and love you unconditionally? If not, I am truly, deeply sorry. But do not dare to take offense at a parent who sees their child this way. Had all parents loved their children this way, perhaps some children would not grow into adults who defile other innocent children…perhaps the number of these nauseating crimes would decrease.
So, while this is a free country and you are certainly entitled to your opinion on this or any subject, know that in this instance, your opinion is deplorable.
Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 10:55:28 AM
bruce's post is reminiscent of Doug Stanhope - MySpace Pedophiles (youtube).
The big picture I think is that people are rebelling as well they should, but the ultimate goal of email address registration could be to circumvent that avenue of rebellion on the Internet. That of course includes sex offenders who are hopefully rebelling through political debate or through the courts. It's the ones who do not have the wherewithal to so rebel that I worry about, and then if they recidivate in any way the government can say, "See, told you so." And pass more and more and more laws. In the end, better to blow up trains to Auschwitz rather than get on them. That's the American way.
Posted by: George | Apr 9, 2008 11:35:47 AM
“Humor? How can anyone apply humor to something such as child rape? The sheer fact that you can integrate the two in your mind is both shocking and saddening. You should be deeply ashamed.”
Obviously you have never worked near the subject. People employ humor in order to 1) memorably convey ideas; or 2) comfort themselves or others by showing the irony of the situation. Unfortunately, while humor is everpresent in our society, some people feel they can get the upper hand over others by saying that some subjects should not be joked about by anyone, any time, for any reason.
The most disgusting thing on this blog seems to be that some people have such a visceral reaction to an idea and the way it is expressed that they are not only unable to offer a couterveiling opinion, but they are so afraid that the idea that they hate will convince people that they think the idea is not worth thinking. This practice is unAmerican and pretty much worse than any crime I can think of.
Posted by: S.cotus | Apr 9, 2008 1:09:34 PM
I realize my opinion is callous and deplorable. But the alternative is worse. We can either "just deal with" the occasional child molestation/rape/sexaul abuse and treat it like any other crime. OR, we can live in a country where certain people (who have served their time) are kicked out of their homes, required to have their gonads chopped off, forced to live under bridges, forced to walk around in public with scarlet letters of shame, and made to fear for their lives due to public registries with their names on it.
The lesser of the two evils is for a few kids to be brutally raped each year. That's just the way it is. Of course, if no kids had to be raped and no people had to have their basic human rights violated I'd much prefer that. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a option.
Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 1:11:26 PM
The word, S.cotus, is "countervailing", not "counterveiling".
Posted by: federalist | Apr 9, 2008 1:13:31 PM
Thanks for the tip.
Posted by: S.cotus | Apr 9, 2008 1:28:38 PM
S.cotus: i didn't catch your last comment b/c you posted it while I was writing. Well said. Very well said.
While I find my comment quite amusing, I wasn't trying to make anyone else laugh. Just wanted to clear that up.
Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 2:16:20 PM
S.Cotus just when I think you can say nothing more insane than " society has failed when they allow felons to be born" you jump on these very insensitive comments. I wonder how many people are taking you serious? My guess not many.
Posted by: | Apr 9, 2008 3:12:35 PM
...sayeth the anonymous poster
Posted by: bruce | Apr 9, 2008 3:28:18 PM
S.cotus is one of those people who think cleverness and snark is a substitute for intellectual rigor.
Posted by: federalist | Apr 9, 2008 3:29:18 PM
Bruce,
I have to agree with the anonymous person above about your very insensitive remarks and the fact that you find them amusing says even more about your character. Your callous remarks sound like you and S.Cotus have a lot in common.
Posted by: USMC | Apr 9, 2008 3:42:21 PM
The same can be said for anyone here that has jokingly commented about someone they dislike going to prison and getting raped in the shower room. Why is one ok and the other isn't?
I think the way he put that was "crude' but he makes a good point. We see everything as horrible as long as it happens to someone we care about. When it happens to someone we don't like you get people encouraging it, indifferent about it or suddenly becomes something that is acceptable to joke about.
Whats with this miracle age of 18 that turns the whole issue from horrible to (as long as he did something to deserve it) its ok?
Posted by: Mark | Apr 9, 2008 4:53:19 PM
The difference, of course, Mark, is that a child sex victim is innocent and a prisoner getting raped in the shower obviously did something to be imprisoned. So, I probably wouldn't lose a ton of sleep over a violent criminal being victimized in the joint, and I can see some humor in "don't drop the soap". And, there is a qualitative difference between advocating prison rape and joking about it. Bruce advocates the rape of children and calls it a lesser evil than what we are doing with sex offenders. Jokes about "soap-dropping" are in bad taste--not the mark of a vile person.
That said, prison rape is unacceptable. People are sentenced to prison, and not rape. Moreover, the casual acceptance of prison rape does not set a good example for prisoners, as it merely shows that jail authorities are tolerating a "might makes right" culture and is exactly the thing we don't want criminals to think when they get out.
Prison rape, for many reasons, needs to be taken a lot more seriously. We should never tolerate it, and it should be prosecuted. But a joke now and then about it isn't anywhere close to the nonsense Bruce is spewing. Bruce is a sick puppy. Bruce, I hope you get some help.
Posted by: federalist | Apr 9, 2008 5:04:56 PM
Apr 9, 2008 3:12:35 PM, I didn’t say that society failed when it allows felons to be born (though now that you mention it, that is an idea that deserves some thought). I said that society has failed when it produces (via birth, education, nurturing, discipline, etc.) felons.
Federalist, If you ever want to contribute substantively, go ahead. However, Bruce’s comments raise serious issues and apparently have struck a nerve with people that have never seriously considered the merits of their own positions.
USMC, So what if comments are “insensitive.” Every time someone is sent to jail (which happens a lot), such decision is “insensitive” to the need of the convicted person not to be in jail, or to the needs of people that would rather he not be in jail. Sensitivity really has no place in serious discussion.
And, I think the “shower jokes” do raise a good point. Why is it that it is always okay for people to joke about the terrible things that will happen to convicts in prison?
In truth, those people that actually DO practice criminal law DO have a sense of humor. Unfortunately, those others DO NOT (i.e. people that wish they were prosecutors or people that are trying to ride the Victims Rights gravy train). For example, most of the “dumb cop” jokes (or rather antidotes) I know came from prosecutors who were making light of the fact that their cases are have fallen apart due to other’s stupidity. Likewise, most of the “dumb criminal” jokes that were told to me came from the defense side for pretty much the same reason. I am sure Professor Berman, if you get him liquored up, knows a bunch of “dumb law school professor” jokes. (The constant drumbeat of “dumb criminal” jokes shared with non-prosecutors in public is more of a public relations ploy to try and convince lay people that they don’t have much in common with criminals.) So, humor can be the best medicine.
And, of course, lost in this stupid debate over whose ideas were just too dangerous for a blog, is the ideas themselves.
Bruce was making a very normal point: that crime in probably inevitable, and society must accept some crime. We do in the United States. Our constitution assumes that people will get away with some crimes. Likewise, since we need to spend money on more important things than law enforcement (like the war and building more glorious prisons) must set a tolerable level of crime. Does anyone disagree with me? Does anyone seriously say that we should devote all of our resources to achieving a 0% crime rate?
Assuming the answer is no, we must accept that EVERY crime on the books will be committed at some time or other. There will be murders. There will be thefts. There will be rapes. There even will be violations 18 USC 2279 (Sailormongering)!!!!!
In fact, the only sure way to eliminate a specific crime is to simply legalize it.
Posted by: S.cotus | Apr 9, 2008 5:14:52 PM
