The Economic Times states, “Louisiana now joins the Czech Republic, Nigeria, and Madagascar in having this law.”
Senator Regina Barrow, who introduced the bill, says, “…the possibility of losing a body part could discourage those who abuse children.” But for some Louisiana lawmakers, the original intent of the law was to counteract the strict abortion law that Louisiana passed earlier: If a female is impregnated by a repeat rapist and cannot have an abortion, then let us make sure the rapist is incapable of impregnating the woman.
As a reminder, Florida Action Committee takes no stance on the abortion issue, but one reason given for the need for such a barbaric law was to prevent victims raped by repeat offenders from conceiving a child. Yet that no longer seems to be the argument—now it is about the necessity of losing a body part to deter certain future sex crimes.
Do we now sever the hands of bank robbers? Do we rape rapists? Do we physically assault perpetrators of domestic violence?
This discussion is long from being over.
It’s absolutely a thing we ought to be raising with the United Nations, as well as U.S. prison conditions in general.
Dennis
The United Nations can only make recommendations.
Here is from their own page what they can and cannot do.
The United Nations only has power within the areas of its mandate.
The UN can only use its power when directed to by member states.
The UN has no capacity to enforce its decisions, member states must take action on its behalf.
First, a “repeat rapist” shouldn’t even be on the street to be able to rape anyone.
Second, castrating someone after he rapes a girl is akin to closing the barn door after the horse escapes.
@Disgusted
#1 I wonder what happens if you refuse
and
#2 I would rather be in prison for 10 lifetimes than be castrated.
Most people do not realize the mental, physical and phycological affects castration has on those who are castrated.
Arguing that the law “could discourage” committing a crime is not an effective one for preventing such crimes.
Apparently the argument that punitive amputation violates multiple international treaties to which the United States is a party, including the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, has not dissuaded Louisiana. But treaties ratified by the Unites States Senate trump state laws under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and for this reason alone the Louisiana law is invalid.