“Cruel and unusual” vs. “Letting him off too easy”
By 
Shan-ul-Hai •
June 26, 2008
We all hate child molesters. Even child molesters hate child molesters. We can all agree that they deserve whatever sort of punishment we can give them… but where do we draw the line?
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal recently signed a bill allowing chemical castration for convicted sex offenders. While the law borders the realm of “cruel and unusual punishment”, I can see plenty of positives too…
PROS: Child molesters are sick. They tend to be repeat offenders, and the reason is because of their natural tendencies. As much as I’d hate to suppress somebody’s natural tendencies, I think it’s necessary in cases like this one… chemical castration means that these people will never commit these sorts of acts again. And it means that people are less likely to do it in the first place.
CONS: Where do we draw the line? Today it’s child molesters and castration… what will it be tomorrow? There is a reason why the Constitution outlaws “cruel and unusual punishment”… the point is so that we can avoid a scenario where innocent people are castrated.
What do you think?
Popularity: 22% [?]
| 3.2 |
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
The law is the law. The law can be changed if the correct procedure is followed.
PROS: Freedom
CONS: Order
Tis a tough scale to keep balanced, it is the 24/7/365 job of each and every citizen.