Even Fox News thinks this guy is out of his mind. See it to believe it. Minority Republicans are the most extreme politicians living today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6M9dBsUhyo&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x151772

I thought they already had the option?

Is chemical castration reversible? Either way, it's a stupid idea.

yes it is as far as i know,

it doesnt actually cause any damage to the testicalls, all it does is inhibit the hormone production

I don't like how they use the word "castration". It is misleading. Many people don't know what Chemical Castration means so they think it's chopping a guy's dick off, which is not at all what happens (though in some cases it wouldn't be such a bad idea).

Chemical castration = being treated, usually with injections, to reduce your level of horny. Many convicted perverts even request this treatment to help them stop the cravings to rape.

Ya, its reversible, just take synthetic testosterone.

What seems strange about Jindal's position is that he wants to protect children from "these monsters" by increasing punishments after the fact. As an amicus filing in the death-penalty case suggested, capital punishment interfered with the reporting of these crimes and removed the offender's primary incentive to not kill the victim.

DeWayne Wickham wrote, in 2001:

... There was a time when castration was a brutal act of physical mutilation. But now it can be done with a series of injections, or by simply removing the testicles and leaving the rest of the male plumbing intact.

Given the damage rapists and other sexual predators do to their victims, that sounded harmless enough to me. But when I read in an Orlando newspaper last month that a Florida judge ordered a first-time rapist to undergo chemical castration after he completes a 20-year sentence, I began to question the wisdom of how this issue is being handled. In the Florida case, the judge, fearing that the man would still be a threat after his imprisonment, ruled he'd have to take regular injections to reduce his sex drive during a 10-year probation period.

But what happens after those 10 years, or if the offender stops taking the treatment? In another case, Joseph Frank Smith, a sex offender who voluntarily underwent chemical castration nearly 2 decades ago, pleaded guilty in 1998 to another sexual assault, this time on a 5-year-old Virginia girl. At the time, his lawyer said he thought Smith was no longer taking the chemical treatments ....

.... While lawmakers in a growing number of states are enacting legislation to mandate castration for sex offenders, a surprising number of sexual predators are clamoring to undergo this procedure. The politicians are driven, no doubt, by the public's gnawing fear of crime, even as crime rates nationally are declining. But what is it that pushes sexual predators to want to give up their virility? I suspect it's that they understand better than the rest of us that rape and most other sexual offenses have little to due with sex — and more to do with physical domination.

Castration isn't likely to stop a sex offender from preying on people. It will only change the way these predators go about their crimes. As Florida prosecutor Jerry Burford told the St. Petersburg Times: "I get a lot of people who are impotent that still commit sexual battery. It's not their gonads that cause them to commit sexual battery. It's their heads."

(Wickham (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-09-04-wickham.htm))

While Jindal claims to not care about the political consequences, it seems he is guided by political motivations. At least in the FOX segment offered in the topic post, his "logic" doesn't seem to add up.
____________________

Notes:

Wickham, DeWayne. "Castration often fails to halt offenders". USA Today. September 3, 2001. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-09-04-wickham.htm

As Florida prosecutor Jerry Burford told the St. Petersburg Times: "I get a lot of people who are impotent that still commit sexual battery. It's not their gonads that cause them to commit sexual battery. It's their heads."I don't believe that. I'd like to see data on what percent of rape/sexual battery is commited by men who are impotent.

mad why do you think people are raped using objects rather than a penis?

Well if anyone ever sexually assaulted my children I would want to see a lot more then castration done.

I don't like how they use the word "castration". It is misleading. Many people don't know what Chemical Castration means so they think it's chopping a guy's dick off, which is not at all what happens (though in some cases it wouldn't be such a bad idea).

Chemical castration = being treated, usually with injections, to reduce your level of horny. Many convicted perverts even request this treatment to help them stop the cravings to rape.

Under Jindal's law the Judge has the discretion to have the convict physically castrated also.

castration doesnt work. It doesnt DO anything post pubity

mad why do you think people are raped using objects rather than a penis?Look, some people will do anything. Their actions can't be explained or accounted for. But they are outliers and we shouldn't concern ourselves too much with them when determining policy.

Now I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd venture to say that the vast majority of sex crimes have an element of sex to them. So removing both the desire and the ability for the perpetrator to have sex should have a major effect on their chances of re-offending.

Have studies been done to show whether castration, chemical or otherwise, does decrease the recidivism rate for sex criminals?

i honestly dont know and i dont know how easy it would be to even answer that question

Do you take offenders who commit "date rape" where im sure your right, and its mostly about sexual releace rather than power and control (though there is definitly an aspect of disrespect for the victom).

Do you take pediphiles where its about the offenders own brain rather than anything else

or do you take true sociopaths were the sex is more about another form of torcher than anything else

and there are even more groups than that. Its like saying draqon saying is all cancer caused by the sun. Rape isnt just rape when your talking about pycology and criminology.

Do you take offenders who commit "date rape" where im sure your right, and its mostly about sexual releace rather than power and control (though there is definitly an aspect of disrespect for the victom).

Do you take pediphiles where its about the offenders own brain rather than anything else

or do you take true sociopaths were the sex is more about another form of torcher than anything else

and there are even more groups than that. Its like saying draqon saying is all cancer caused by the sun. Rape isnt just rape when your talking about pycology and criminology.
You bring up good points. I don't see why the answer can't be determined. If the study hasn't been done yet, Governor Jindal may have given us the opportunity to do it now.

Study the people given chemical castration under his program. Do they re-offend? Do certain classes of sexual criminals re-offend more than others?

mad you also cant tell if the punishment causes further inhabition to rehabilitiation for the perp.

Say it was used for stat rape or date rape. These people should be rehabilitate and releaced into sociaty as a fully funtioning member of sociaty and this includes sexually.

Take an example of a teenaged boy who doesnt stop when his partner tells him to. He is rightly charged with rape and serves his time in prision and then is realeaced after say 5 years. He is now 29 (5 years after he is releaced) and has found a women and they want to get married and have kids. Now is he a threat to sociaty and needs to be treated as one or is he a rehabilitated man who deserves a second chance?

Acording to the law he has served his debt and so then should be able to lead a normal life free, however if you castrate him how can he?

Say it was used for stat rape or date rape. That's a whole other can of worms. Personally, I can't see myself convicting a guy for date rape unless you show me a bunch of women who've never met each other making the same charge. It's purely he said/she said. How do you decide? Seems like there would always be a reasonable doubt.

Statutory rape? Depends on the exact circumstances. Again, many of these cases should never even be brought to trial.

Take 2 teens who have been fucking for a while, both underage. Their birthdays 3 days apart (and the same year). The boy has his birthday first, crosses the magic threshold, and is a rapist for having sex that day? The day before he was fine, 2 days later he'd be fine. But that day he's a rapist!

i agree mad, its just that once you start using this on the most serious cases how long till it ends up being used on ANYONE convicted of a sexually related crime including public nudity

I mean seriouly recently a group of uni students who painted there naked bodies gold and chained themself to the fence of parliment to protest something or other were placed on the sex offenders registry

What about FEMALE sex offenders ?
This guy's sexist. ;)

could you not do the same to a woman if you injected them with something to take away their sex drive?

I don't believe that. I'd like to see data on what percent of rape/sexual battery is commited by men who are impotent. I haven't seen a percentage study, but I recall a police guy in an interview observing that some of the worst rapes were by guys who couldn't get it up at the time - they tended to get angry, blame the victim, etc., according to him.

could you not do the same to a woman if you injected them with something to take away their sex drive? Just make them wear a gold ring on the third finger of their left hand.