Kaine K-O's Castration

By: Lowell
Published On: 4/10/2007 7:43:24 PM

It looks like Virginians will make it through another year without physical castration being added to our state's punishment options.  According to the Washington Post:

Hoping to reduce those treatment costs, the General Assembly approved a bill in February that calls on state health officials and the attorney general to examine castration as an option for release.

[...]

Last month, the governor suggested changes to the legislation by striking the word castration from the bill. Kaine instead proposed that the state "study a full range of options" to help sex offenders be released without fear of recidivism, or relapsing.

When legislators met last week to consider Kaine's amendments, the Senate agreed with the governor's suggestion but the House voted against it.

Kaine said he was left with no choice but to veto the bill.

Interestingly, even Attorney General Bob McDonnell says (through spokesman Tucker Martin) that "There are some real questions that need to be answered before we could endorse castration as a possible treatment."

In contrast, Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R-Augusta), who sponsored the "physical castration" legislation, is bummed, grousing about "an unending cost to the taxpayer" to keep a sex offender in jail, rather than to castrate him. 

Well, sorry Sen. Hanger, but for this year at least, it's "no castration without signed legislation" here in Virginia.

Comments



I'm like to think I'm "conservative" when it comes to crime, (DanG - 4/10/2007 8:24:10 PM)
But even I have to admit that this is freaking ridiculous.  Castration?  Are you serious?


Incarceration not castration! (Lowell - 4/10/2007 8:42:51 PM)
Maybe that should be our new slogan in Virginia.  :)


There is chemical castration (Andrea Chamblee - 4/10/2007 11:21:30 PM)
But there are [at least] two problems with it:

(1) Doctors are not supposed perform any procedures without informed consent, and consent here is received, if at all, under duress.  Any procedure to keep someone out of jail, or to release them from jail, including sterilization, castration, etc involves some duress.  Doctors who do this might be risking their license.

(2) Even if there is no distress issue, prison doctors aren't generally the cream of the crop. In fact, the Federal government and some docs have had to argue that doctors who practice in federal prison can't be disciplined and can continue to practice after license revocation, because they aren't practicing "in the state," but on Federal property.

So I wouldn't let most of them near me with scissors, or chemicals.



Wow, I feel creepy saying this, but (FxbAmy - 4/11/2007 12:01:35 PM)
as a mom of three kids, I'm having a difficult time working up any sympathy for sex offenders.  Sex crimes, especially those against children, have some of the highest recidivism rates of any violent crime.  These are predators who consistently find ways around conditional release to be back in contact with potential victims, and their crimes tend to escalate.

I know it's barbaric, I really do, but I still wouldn't take anything off the table to ensure public safety  from these guys.....

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VIEW OF MY CANDIDATE!



The third problem (Susan P. - 4/11/2007 4:01:26 PM)
The third problem with castration is that it doesn't necessarily work.  That Johns Hopkins guy is a hack.  He isn't even saying it will work for everyone, just those with an "unusual sexual appetite."  Talk to any Child Protective Services worker in Northern Virginia or suburban Maryland about the Johns Hopkins programs, and try to find even one who thinks they work.  The failures of these programs are not publicized.  Hanger thinks we can't afford to lock these guys up, even though pedophiles have the highest rate of recidivism for any crime.  Well, we really, really can't afford to unleash them on society, experiment with the lives and well-being of our children, and create even more victims and future offenders.