New law being proposed by Alabama legislator would require some sex offenders to be surgically castrated before being released from prison ... and the sex offender would have to pay for the surgery!! That's one check most guys don't want to have to write!. There are plenty of news articles on this recently proposed bill (around Oct. 16, 2013). Here is excerpt from one of them.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/16/alaba ... z2k4RbD1ta

An Alabama lawmaker is offering legislation to require convicted sex offenders who target children to be physically castrated at the offender’s expense.

State Rep. Steve Hurst recently pre-filed a bill for the 2014 legislative session that would require any sex offender over the age of 21 convicted of a sex act with a child under 12 to undergo surgical castration prior to being released from prison.

The sex offender would also have to foot the bill for the procedure.

“They would take his testicles out,” Hurst told The Daily Caller.

“We need to make a statement in Alabama that No. 1, we are not going to tolerate this,” Hurst said. “No. 2, if it were to [keep] one child from being sexually molested then it would be worth it.”

According to the Republican representing Munford, Ala., chemical castration is “not strong enough” and “a small child cannot protect itself.”

“More and more now you see on TV and the news that you read, small children being molested, and I just think we have to do something to try to protect the children,” Hurst said.

Hurst has proposed such requirements three other times. According to Hurst, the concern that the law would be challenged and struck down as unconstitutional fueled opposition in the past to the legislation in committee.

“What I’m saying is very simple, you can’t get in the door if you don’t keep knocking. And the other thing is, let’s test it in the federal court,” he said. “The only way this is going to be tested in federal court is if the bill passes and somebody wants to file suit on it.”

Hurst added that each time he has introduced the bill he has gotten more support, and this time support has been “overwhelming.”

To those who would oppose his effort as inhumane Hurst asked, “Which is barbaric? To sexually molest a child as an infant, or is it barbaric or inhumane to castrate somebody who has done that?”

According to a 2012 CNN report at least nine states use some form of “chemical castration” that takes away sex drive and the ability to perform sex acts. The drugs’ effects are not permanent.

I don't think that this is Constitutional.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, especially at this site, probably will not bring a lot of people who agree. However, perhaps we should blind pornographers next by removing their eyeballs.

After all, if thine hand offend thee, cut it off, if thine eye offed thee, pluck it out, and so forth. At the risk of offering a 'slippery slope' type argument I think that for a thief who runs from the scene of the crime that we should cut off a hand and a foot just like Shariah Law dictates.

...and why stop at the testicles? Maybe we should cut off the offending penis, too. Then what happens if the so-called offender is exonerated? Maybe the first victim of this "Mosque Punishment" who is exonerated should be the recipient of a genital transplant with the donor being the "OFFENDING" politician.

This is nothing more than political grandstanding and the seeking of free publicity instead of paying for a political ad.

We have spent WAY too much time on this discussion already... After the ASSHOLE transplant when the electorate placed Tea Party candidates in the U.S. Congress, I'd say that we have seen enough of this idiocy. With that being said, perhaps this LAW if passed might just stop the overpopulation of rural Alabama...

Let's keep the political aspect on topic here, please.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:35 pm I don't think that this is Constitutional.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, especially at this site, probably will not bring a lot of people who agree. However, perhaps we should blind pornographers next by removing their eyeballs.

After all, if thine hand offend thee, cut it off, if thine eye offed thee, pluck it out, and so forth. At the risk of offering a 'slippery slope' type argument I think that for a thief who runs from the scene of the crime that we should cut off a hand and a foot just like Shariah Law dictates.

...and why stop at the testicles? Maybe we should cut off the offending penis, too. Then what happens if the so-called offender is exonerated? Maybe the first victim of this "Mosque Punishment" who is exonerated should be the recipient of a genital transplant with the donor being the "OFFENDING" politician.

This is nothing more than political grandstanding and the seeking of free publicity instead of paying for a political ad.

We have spent WAY too much time on this discussion already... After the ASSHOLE transplant when the electorate placed Tea Party candidates in the U.S. Congress, I'd say that we have seen enough of this idiocy. With that being said, perhaps this LAW if passed might just stop the overpopulation of rural Alabama...

As you indicated castration alone would not prevent further sex acts by the offender. A penectomy would also be necessary to guarantee the effect. But what would be a comporable punishment for a female sex offender? Also, we do not want shariah law as you have equated it.

Physical castration laws have come and gone in the headlines for years, and each time that some jurisdiction tries them, they are shot down as "cruel and unusual punishment."

Sharia Law has nothing to do with this proposed legislation. The laws of other nations, such as cutting off a hand, have nothing to do with this topic, except being a comparable penalty.

It also has nothing to do with the Tea Party.

In fact, it's done.