June 26, 2008

Castrate rapists? Bobby Jindal is on the same page as radical feminists.

TPM has this:



This is one of those places where the right wing is on the same page as radical feminism. I immediately thought of a poster I saw years ago in Amsterdam. This was back in the days when I carried a sketchbook instead of a camera:

Amsterdam Notebook

Click here to enlarge. Here's the relevant detail:

Amsterdam Notebook

To be fair, Jindal would use chemicals instead of scissors. (And I know the scissors are lopping off the wrong body part.)

104 comments:

Revenant said...

If this thing is done, I would hope it would be restricted to particularly brutal individuals or repeat offenders. It would be a shame to chemically castrate an innocent guy just because some woman made up a phony accusation of rape.

Pal2Pal said...

Rape a child, lose it to the knife, I say, and I'm no feminist.

UWS guy said...

Maybe we can start lopping the hands off of thieves.

I could have sworn the Supreme Court at one time ruled on castration as a form of punishment? Am I wrong?

P. Rich said...

Still trying too hard, Althouse, linking Jindal and Steinem worshipers. Radical feminists are only on that page if Slick Willie is elsewhere. What's a good female antonym for "integrity"?

UWS guy said...

Bobby Jindal also believes in demons and possession, that plus the desire to mutilate criminals is now a qualification for VP.

I believe that is the same platform that won John Adams 2nd place in the first presidential election.

Go Jindal!

UWS guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Bobby Jindal also believes in demons and possession

Sure, but Barack Obama believes in a helpful and efficient government. Say what you will about demons and possession, but at least we haven't proved that it is impossible for them to exist. :)

UWS guy said...

(touche revenant :D)

blahblahchildrenblahblahblahchildrenblahblahblah

childrenchildrenlittleboyblahblahmothersblahblahfatheblahblahmonstersblahblahchildrenblahblahfamiliesblahblah.

ron st.amant said...

It's only a loopy idea if it's a Democrat arguing it...I'm suprised that mantra isn't on the Fox News crawl...

I disagree with the decision, and I think it was motivated by an anti-death penalty sentiment more than the actual scenario.
Though I did see a anti-abuse group state that they supported the decision because they surmise that since most incidents of cild rape occur at the hands of a family member, if the death penalty were strictly enforced in all cases it might lead to lower instances of reporting the crime because family members might not want to place the offender in capital jeopardy.

veni vidi vici said...

McCain picks Jindal and it's a clear signal that he doesn't want to win. Jindal's yoot takes away one of the only trumps the GOP has against Obama. Jindal (like Obama, imho) needs at least 4, but more likely 8-12 years' experience before he'll be the right stuff for the top office in the land.

Meanwhile, my money's on Harold Ford Jr. being the first black president of the USA anyway, so I'm not getting too worked up about all this. Obama, with the interesting multiethnic/religious background, hyper-African name, and involvement with the more "interesting" aspects of the urban Black experience (e.g., Rev. Wright's flavorful sermons) does provide a great groundwork-laying for a future run by a more "mainstream" black candidate, like Harold Ford.

The fact that a President Harold Ford will be chronologically "Jr." to Gerald Ford is an added bonus.


Now, how's about the Verne Troyer sex tape?

UWS guy said...

Males now account for what? 30% of public school teachers now? Subtract football coaches and P.E. and how low does it go?

Wonder why...

veni vidi vici said...

"Males now account for what? 30% of public school teachers now? Subtract football coaches and P.E. and how low does it go?

Wonder why..."


... because 30% of males have no balls? Not following the logic, sorry.

Must be the Verne Troyer thing...

TMink said...

V V V, Harold Ford Jr. talks like Reagen and votes like Obama. You may be on to something.

The problem with castration is that it does not work. The castrated perps still perpetrate, they just use their fingers or objects.

I am working with a Representative here in Tennessee to have a two strike law on the books. If you molest two children or reoffend after a prior conviction, you get life.

The AVERAGE number of victims that jailed perpetrators have is 136. Of course, without the lie detector the reported average was 2.

Once people have a penchant for sexually abusing kids, there is no good research that shows they can be treated. Life without parole.

Trey

UWS guy said...

Ah, I wasn't being clear. Because the media hypes the incidents of child abuse and sees teachers who are male as potential and likely abusers.

I taught kindergarten for a while, female teachers could hug children (but could not pat their behinds) and it was implied that the men shouldn't let children hug them at all.

UWS guy said...

2 strikes? Even if both strikes were dirty old men pinching a boys bottom at a park? Life without perole for being a lecherous old fool?

Can we have some sanity?

Chip Ahoy said...

Yikes. With pinking shears, no less.

UWS guy said...

My city has 200 registered sex offenders (city of 100k) on the books.

200x136=27,000 molested children in a city of 100,000

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

UWS guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
UWS guy said...

Chris Rock --bigger and blacker (hbo special)


See, your uncles prepare you for life.

if you got enough uncles,
they'll prepare you for life...

'cause you got every type of uncle.

You got your gay uncle,
you got your alcoholic uncle.

You got your stealing uncle.

You got your molester uncle.

Everybody's got that one molester uncle.

Your mama's like, ''Where them kids at?''

-''They're with Johnny.''
-''Get them kids!

'Hurry up, get them kids!
Don't leave them with your Uncle Johnny!''

Later on, you get molested,
your mama get mad at you.


''That's what you get.

''Hanging around fucking Johnny.
l told you about that shit!



''Now walk it off!''

UWS guy said...

For the record...I have never been molested, nor have I ever abused any child.

chuck b. said...

Who would perform the castration, and what would happen to the testicles?

Beth said...

That's not news. Radical feminism is reactionary and conservative. That's why they find themselves allied with the Moral Majority on anti-porn laws.

Jindal has proven to be a huge disappointment to the conservatives who supported him here. His budget is inflated, he broke a campaign promise that he made in writing to stop legislators from enacting a pay raise, and he's been largely absent during this past legislative session. Oh, he got the creationists into the classroom. But even the conservatives here were hoping for something more than a religious whacko (chief executive or chief exorcist, you can call him either one) with aspirations for higher office.

I'm still hoping McCain chooses him for VP so we can be shed of him. But McCain should be careful. Jindal's always looking toward the next position.

Revenant said...

Meanwhile, my money's on Harold Ford Jr. being the first black president of the USA anyway

It'll never happen. Ford himself seems like a decent guy, personally. But he may be the only member of his extended family who isn't (a) crazy, (b) a hardened criminal, or (c) both. His family is also famous for using overt appeals to anti-white racism and anti-semitism in order to win elections (although, again, Junior himself hasn't engaged in this). I just can't see him overcoming all that family baggage without, like, openly calling for criminal investigations of his relatives.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

My city has 200 registered sex offenders (city of 100k) on the books

UWS guy is right here. Many sex offenders were cited for minor things like being a 19 year old guy who dated a girl who looked 19 but was 16, being drunk and pissing in a park where someone saw your wanky, guy had sex with his girlfriend who was willing but underage and her daddy reported it to the police because he had a hard on for the young guy and so on.

If you really look at the actual offenses many of these are trivial, ........YET they are all lumped in together with the truly depraved and violent offenders.

Knee jerk reactions are not attractive: be they on the left or the right side of the political spectrum.

Perspective people!!! get some perspective.

Revenant said...

Jindal has proven to be a huge disappointment to the conservatives who supported him here.

He was elected with 54% of the vote. The most recent poll I could find, from two months ago, put his approval rating at 77%, which suggests that public opinion of him had generally improved. I'm skeptical that most of the conservatives in Louisiana are disappointed in him. Do you have supporting data?

Revenant said...

If you really look at the actual offenses many of these are trivial, ........YET they are all lumped in together with the truly depraved and violent offenders.

What does "many" mean in that sentence? What percentage of the people on the registry do you think are probably hapless victims of circumstance?

I'm entirely willing to believe that the government unfairly harasses people in the name of "protecting the children", and certainly there are people who unfairly wind up on the registry. But I've looked through the registry for San Diego quite a bit without ever coming across anyone whose age and offenses suggested he'd just gotten unlucky. For the most part the list consisted of middle-aged men chasing jailbait.

Besides, the list (here in CA, anyway) states what the offenses are, which is why I know that there is a guy with "continuous sexual abuse of a child" on his rap sheet living across the street from the local elementary school. Eesh!

Beth said...

Revenant, you can easily read up on our local news and find plenty of Louisiana conservative and political blogs. I'm not going to create a little research paper for you. If you want to call me a liar, just do that and skip the snitty little "do you have data" bullshit. Otherwise, you might offer me the courtesy of believing I know more about what's going on where I live than you do, despite your rigorous delving into stale polls. Polls measuring the response to a new governor, before the legislature has met for the first time during his tenure, don't mean squat. His support is dropping because he blew his role in guiding the current session, and has been spending more time with national media and courting the national GOP than working on our local issues.

Jindal currently has a bill on his desk that more than doubles our part-time lawmakers' pay, with additional generous unrestricted expense funds. He has to veto it by July 8 or it becomes law without his signature. He has decided not to veto it so that, according to him, his agenda won't be held up in the legislature. In other words, he's fessing up to be a weakling who can be blackmailed. As soon as he announced he would not veto, lawmakers restored a bunch of money they'd cut from his pet projects, an amount that put this year's budget well over the previous year's. Some conservative.

Kathleen "meemaw" Blanco faced the same exact move by lawmakers in her first session and squashed it flat. This has not gone unnoticed by Jindal supporters.

As of this morning, recall petitions were in process for four local Republicans, the Republican House leader had reversed his support and is asking Jindal to veto, and the rats are jumping ship.

Start with www.thedeadpelican.com. That's a statewide conservative blog. You can also find coverage at nola.com and wwltv.com from over the past week, which is when all this has heated up. You'll even find this covered over at Hot Air.

Beth said...

One more for you: www.ringsidepolitics.com -- more conservative disenchantment with Jindal.

Even Democrats in Louisiana are mostly to the right of center. I expected we'd get the idiotic religious bills, like the Creationism thing, but I also thought we'd at least see reduced spending and less bureacracy. It didn't happen. And his big ethics reform exempted his own office from its requirements, which has also dulled his lights among his core.

I don't think his effectiveness is over, but he's dug himself a deep hole.

Revenant said...

If you want to call me a liar, just do that and skip the snitty little "do you have data" bullshit.

Settle down, Beavis. I neither said nor implied that you're a liar, just that I suspected your claim was false.

I don't personally care if Jindal is popular or not. But I'd heard that he was, so your claim that Louisiana conservatives are disappointed in him was surprising -- and when I googled around, I couldn't find a lick of evidence for any kind of general dissatisfaction. So I asked, and you bit my head off, presumably because I violated the Right to Make Unquestioned Unsupported Statements Act of '07. :)

Beth said...

Try reading past the first item on the list when you google. Try going to the "news" section and sorting by date -- you'll get more up to date information that way. Also, consider looking at local sources.

And consider why you'd assume I would offer a false claim. I haven't earned any such doubts about my credibility here.

Donna B. said...

Beth is absolutely right about the anger over Jindal's refusal to veto the pay raise. Like she said, read some Louisiana sources.

If I took the first 10 offerings of Google results as definitive on almost any subject, I don't think I'd be very well informed.

Revenant said...

Try reading past the first item on the list when you google.

I Googled "Jindal approval rating". If that returns any mention of low approval ratings, it isn't in the first dozen or so results. A look at the news indicates that Jindal has received criticism for the pay raise thing and the budget, but again there's no indication of general disapproval of Jindal himself. Even Ronald Reagan did things conservatives disliked now and then, you know. Like not balancing the budget or approving pay raises for Congress, for example. :)

And consider why you'd assume I would offer a false claim.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you considered yourself infallible.

Donna B. said...

Oh, and about castration:

If I understand correctly, chemical castration is reversible, but I also thought the bill included a provision for physical castration.

And again, I could be wrong, but I did not think that castration necessarily removed the ability to get an erection, just the desire to have sex.

In light of that, I don't think that castration of either kind is appropriate punishment because I doubt that child rape and molestation is a purely hormone driven compulsion.

Revenant said...

If I understand correctly, chemical castration is reversible

I'm not sure what was authorized in Louisiana, but "chemical castration" is normally an ongoing hormone regimen, not a one-time thing. It is "reversible" in the sense that if you stop taking the hormones, the effects wear off.

The hormones can really mess a person up in the meantime, of course.

In light of that, I don't think that castration of either kind is appropriate punishment because I doubt that child rape and molestation is a purely hormone driven compulsion.

Maybe not, but there is no doubt that it is at least partially hormonal. In any case it seems to work; both surgically and chemically castrated men have much lower rates of recidivism than would be expected for prior offenders.

Cedarford said...

Beth said...
That's not news. Radical feminism is reactionary and conservative. That's why they find themselves allied with the Moral Majority on anti-porn laws.


Incorrect. Radical feminism was the brainchild of Leftist Jewish women, the children of active CPUSA members, who organized and ran early feminism as a hate movement and attempted to wield Stalinesque power in running the organizations (Fronts) they established, and in ruthless quashing of different philosophies and approaches to feminism in the name of solidarity and Party Line orthodoxy.

Do not mistake totalitarianism for conservatism simply because the Jewish Bolsheviks and their successors talked of the moral and revolutionary necessity of draconian punishment to keep the populace properly cowed and in fear of saying or doing the wrong thing.

These women were red diaper babies who, while they retained elements of the Stalinist mindset and Trotsky movement politics methods had definitely move passed the class struggle and saw nothing wrong with becoming rich, famous, and powerful by asserting they were the leaders of oppressed women everywhere.
And they quickly found powerful patronage and renumeration by allying with other red diaper babies who also craved more wealth, power, and influence though entrpreneurship in media, marketing, academia, and abortion.

Media loved the feminists because mixing sex and politics boosted ratings and sent millions to the dour Stalinists for their turgid "women's books" and lucrative speaker fees. The marketers at the time were creating consolidated brand-name business conglomerations for the wealthiest families of NYC, LA. They kicked back millions to feminists in order affiliate feminists with their marketing & ad campaigns - to launch new brand products aimed at the market niche that they saw feminists opening.
Special "independent and proud" things like cigarettes, fashion, time-saving kitchen appliances, psychologists, golf & tennis accessories, etc. all geared to the lifestyle of the "modern, idependent woman."

In academia, red diaper entrepreneurs saw power and influence in getting universities to accept that feminism represented a major intellectual trend that deserved a big part of faculty staffing, whole "woman's studies, woman's law" departments and those at the "ground level" of this once in a lifetime opportunity. They in turn would hire feminists of demonstrated loyalty who would vault them up the university ladder to national prestige and clout...
The abortion movement is maybe the most interesting next to feminists rejecting the proffers of the porn industry which at that time saw mass media and legitimization as the only thing blocking fabulous wealth. The abortionists were organized on the East Coast - ob-gyns who were attracted to it by the tremendous profit margins and untraceable cash flow, "full payment before services" nature of the "biz".
For helping legitimize in courts and media what became a 4 billion a year abortion and "family planning/womyn's health" chain business controlled by a few owners by "speaking on behalf of all progressive, liberated women", the feminists were well-rewarded. This scam was revealed when a few abortionists had moral second thoughts and revealed the role of money and the early, radical feminists.
(Porn, on the other hand, became a 6 billion a year business and the feminists lost out on that windfall by shredding Playboy's and other soft porn producers peace offerings and Left-leaning liberalism. By the feminist ju jitsu of loving and promoting Stalinist style, "the oppressed class of sex workers of porn, prostitution, victims of Hollywood exploitation and casting couches, the downtrodded, violated females suffering from male rapist oppressor patriarchal marriage" while at the same time demonizing the noble sex workers Madison Ave "sexual objectification" of women and anything racier than that. Umm, except lesbian erotic art and poetry....)

***************
Beth - And consider why you'd assume I would offer a false claim. I haven't earned any such doubts about my credibility here.

Sure you have, by screaming that any one who said NOLA was a 3rd World embarassment during and after Katrina should be banned from saying so. So immersed in NOLA corruption and insularity you are, Beth, you couldn't see the disgust the media tried it's best to cover up that people felt witnessing globally, not just nationally during and after katrina. First, at unrestrained mass looting, half the police force deserting and a 10th joining in the looting, the complete ineptitude of both NOLA officials and it's near-majority population of crime riddled, lazy welfare parasites.
Then after Katrina, reports how better behaved 3rd World populations in cities and governments were as major catastrophies hit them. Even with no real Federal aid - unlike the Americans. How well-behaved people were, how few crimes and virtually no looting happened, how they pitched in to clean up instead of screaming for more new 200 dollar donated sneakers, 2,000 dollar debit cards, and free meal and cable TV at "nice places that are owed us".
The Tsunami. The flooding of almost the whole of poor, 12 million people Mumbai, India under an average of 5 feet of water for a week that saw 6 reported crimes.
Qum and NW Pakistan earthquakes did not see their refugees come in and disrupt schools, destroy government provided shelters with out of control vandalism. Nor did those 3rd world refugees double the murder rates, as NOLA refugees did in several host communities that initially welcomed them, then couldn'r wait to get rid of them.

NOLA - America's shame and testimony to the moral failures of the black family, the welfare system, and Louisiana's rather unique "pay to play" officials and law enforcement officers.

MadisonMan said...

By jumping up and down and screaming Castrate Baby Rapists! Castrate Baby Rapists!, Gov. Jindal takes the focus away from his own poor performance in office.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! But please, whatever you do, Think of the Children!!

Bissage said...

Someone should say something nice about those excellent drawings from the Althouse sketchbook.

I just did.

hdhouse said...

As reported on Faux Noise....

I keep missing the part where castration is the solution to the mental condition whereby rapists of any sort are cured of their urge to perform the act itself...if anyone thinks that rape is purely a sexual expression please form a line in the uninformed window.

This has always been a silly solution...and always will be. how about cutting off the rapist's legs and arms ... it likewise won't cure the mind but it will make rape a lot less possible.

Sid said...

Revenant,

"Right to Make Unquestioned Unsupported Statements Act of '07"

Classic. Reminds me of the wisdom of Larry the Cable Guy, "42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot."

knoxwhirled said...

The AVERAGE number of victims that jailed perpetrators have is 136.

I don't see that this is unrealistic at all. If a molester is say, 40, and has been molesting for 20 years, it's easily possible. There are a lot of people who were messed with as kids who don't talk about it, not to mention report it.

I think a life sentence is a perfectly reasonable consequence for a repeat offender, assuming they are "depraved and violent" and not just a flasher or something.

Sex abuse is unique in that some victims go on to molest themselves. This makes it a far more serious crime, meriting permanent removal of an offender who demonstrates he won't stop. IMO.

Pogo said...

1. The State has a crucial positive function - the protection of rights. This is not a mere 'service' that a State can provide, but "the most fundamental obligation the government owed its citizens."**

2. By entering a civil society, we give up our natural liberty in return for protection. [Locke] That is, every citizen has an equal right to protection under the law. If an intruder makes off with my property, I have the the right to a remedy to recover it.

3. This right to protection includes remedying violence against us, not just avoidance of State coercion, but that the police and courts have a duty to protect us from danger.

4. Apparently, however, the USSC in DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)., which involved a tragic case of child abuse, held "nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."

5. There are certain people who, by their actions, are not fit to live among the rest of us. We are now enjoined from executing even the most heinous serial child rapists. Further, the usual sentences for child rape are minimal.

6. Repeatedly denied justice, citizens seek another method, here, chemical castration. But this, too, is viewed as barbaric.

7. Therefore, the State has violatied the basic pact of civil society. It has abrogated its duty to protect, and even denies that it must do so. It refuses to punish malefactors as the citizens demand. Moreover, it demands that the citizen must house offenders, even place them nearby potential child victims, and protect the offenders from harm.

8. Justice repeatedly denied, the only remaining act left to the free citizen is to take the law into his own hands.

froggyprager said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A. Truman North said...

How does one chemically castrate a female rapist?

Certainly, we're considering female rapists as well?

Best Regards

PierreLegrand said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
froggyprager said...

Bissage is right, I am not sure what to do with the rapists but Althouse's sketches are great. I would love to seem more of these. I like your photos but these are great zine material. I would buy a book of these.

PierreLegrand said...

Pogo said...
1. The State has a crucial positive function - the protection of rights. This is not a mere 'service' that a State can provide, but "the most fundamental obligation the government owed its citizens."**

2. By entering a civil society, we give up our natural liberty in return for protection. [Locke] That is, every citizen has an equal right to protection under the law. If an intruder makes off with my property, I have the the right to a remedy to recover it.


Couldn't have said it better myself. It is rather ironic that many of those folks, Supremes included, that want to give dignity and respect to criminals who attack our young will end up creating an atmosphere where they will suffer at the hands of an angry father. I know that if someone attacks my children and then gets away with anythng less than life...well him and I will be going fishing together. He will fall off the boat...

And yes I am from Louisiana and Jindal is disappointing me. But he has a long way to go before I stop supporting him.

Course here comes OBAMA...CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN...muahaha. Apparently that means he changes his mind every 15 minutes.

Defenseman Emeritus said...

hdhouse: As reported on Faux Noise...

Faux Noise! I love that one more and more every time I see it, which at last count was over 1,000,000,000,000 times. It's so clever--"Faux" looks kind of like "Fox," and better yet it's a bilingual play on words: "faux" is French for "false," which describes everything that's said on Fox News, and "Noise," well, that explains itself! What a stroke of genius!

And there's more: it perfectly captures what an outpost of right-wing extremism Fox News is, in stark contrast to the neutral, unbiased, professional coverage provided by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. etc. etc.! Who would ever have believed you could pack so much cleverness into only two little words!

Roger J. said...

I agree with those that suggest castration is not a remedy for habitual sex offenders.

sugardwayne said...

There's nothing "fair" about this post, Professor. You say Jindal wants to punish rapists by severing their penises, a la vindictive feminists.

Your footnote then reveals a bait-and-switch: Jindal is actually talking about chemical castration, which would make the offender impotent, not remove the organ.

The difference is not insignificant. A cute parallel but unfair. Methinks you've been reading too much Maureen Dowd.

edgelady said...

Castration, whether chemical or with the knife, ultimately becomes not much more than symbolic. The problem is in these people's heads. They find other ways to work out their fantasies that do just as much harm.

Lobotomy comes to mind ....

I have no compassion for them, either way.

Dede

M. Simon said...

Reminds me of the sketching of Alicia Bay Laurel.

You are quite good Ann.

Invisible Man said...

And there's more: it perfectly captures what an outpost of right-wing extremism Fox News is, in stark contrast to the neutral, unbiased, professional coverage provided by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. etc. etc.!

Don't raise the bar so irrationally high. Those other organizations aren't even close to perfect by any means, but at least they normally manage to read you the news without referring to "Terrorist fist jabs", "Baby Mama's" and mislabeling pretty familiar Congressman repeatedly.

William said...

There are people whose sexual orientation is towards young children. Some of them are very efficient predators. If you believe castration, capital punishment, life without parole are too draconian, kindly suggest an alternative.

M. Simon said...

BTW I used to take Alicia around the wilds of Northern CA and thought she was nuts.

I won't make the same mistake twice.

Middle Class Guy said...

hdhouse said...
This has always been a silly solution...and always will be. how about cutting off the rapist's legs and arms ... it likewise won't cure the mind but it will make rape a lot less possible.


It has been proven that there is no cure for sexual predelictions and most so called treatment fails.

Extreme solutions are the result of a lenient judicial and penal system. Judges hand out lenient sentences, even probation or community service, and our penal system is overly liberal about parole. Parole and good time cuts one half to two thirds off of sentences.

For heinous crimes; rape and sexual crimes against children there is only one solution- very long prison sentences with no parole or time off for good behavior. These people should serve their full mandated sentences.

rhhardin said...

Castration might work. There's this Geldings Only sign, in support of the theory.

But what is known about suppression of sexual interest? Early castration apparently. Anything else?

The legal idea would be that since sexual interest has the wrong object, it's best all around to suppress it.

Something suppresses male interest very fast after intercourse, but seems likely to be an additional blocking hormone, not a lacking one.

It's an experience that's the source of male jokes about women wanting you to hold them after sex.

Defenseman Emeritus said...

Invisible Man: while I will grant you that over time the general tone of Fox News coverage has gotten more and more tabloid-ish (Brit Hume and Chris Wallace excepted), the news outlets I mentioned are every bit as far to the left as Fox News is to the right. That truth is so self-evident that I won't even argue about it. Sites like Newsbusters have been cataloging the bias for years.

Apologies for getting off-topic. It's just that using "Faux Noise" is so juvenile, petty, and played out--especially considering the news sources that users of the phrase consider credible--that I can't resist piling scorn and ridicule on it.

rhhardin said...

I grew up when child sexual abuse, and even child abuse of any kind, wasn't on the public radar at all.

And there's this first page of Ian Hacking's essay on child abuse, to support that.

One heard of crazy uncles, is all.

Not believing in moral discoveries (Coleridge complained about the same thing in the 1800s), I think it's likely not the most heinous of crimes -- is the effect of being mugged being downgraded? -- but a narrative tie-in to something modern, in particular the soap opera market.

It produces advertising sales, it redistributes political power, people like to listen to accounts of it -- John and Ken on KFI devote hours and hours to it and draw huge ratings -- in short you can count on a reaction.

Guggenbuhl Craig, as a Jungian trying to account for the public hysteria, invokes partial archetypes.

Whenever the divine child appears, its archetypal opposite also emerges: the destroyer of the child, the child killer.

and goes into how it harms the practice of psychology. I go off into how it supports the media and the politicians.

Which is what Dorothy Rabinowitz in the WSJ went into.

Beth said...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you considered yourself infallible.

No, just better informed than months-old Google entries on the events where I live, and not inclined to lie or misrepresent them in a public forum.

David Rogers said...

I believe that is the same platform that won John Adams 2nd place in the first presidential election.

Not to be pedantic, but Adams didn't participate as a candidate in the first Presidential election; Washington was elected unanimously. Adams came in first in the third presidential election, and he came in third (behind Jefferson and Burr, who tied) in the fourth presidential election. And Adams had nothing to say about castration, chemical or otherwise.

I see attempted funny, but it turns out to be actual stupidity and ignorance.

knoxwhirled said...

I think it's likely not the most heinous of crimes

naturally

Beth said...

I always find Trey Mink to be a good source in Althouse comments, and his experience as a mental health professional working with children rings true here. I doubt the effectiveness of castration, because it's not hard to find examples of predators assaulting children with objects rather than the penis.

Long, certain jail sentences seem to me to be the best option, even life sentences for repeat offenders. Tangentially, I think the life sentence is a better option for child rapists than the death penalty as well, though the SC finding didn't articulate the reasons for that, and I think that decision belongs with state legislatures.

Most assaults, especially repeated assaults, happen within families or by someone known to the family. Families too often keep these things secret, whether out of shame, loyalty, fear of losing the breadwinner, or fear of reprisal. When the punishment for a family member who's been accused of rape is the death penalty, why would they be more inclined to cooperate with police?

If proponents of the death penalty for child rape want to argue that it deters that crime, their evidence will be skewed and may indicate only that fewer cases are being reported, not that fewer such events occur.

Even in the case that prompted this decision, the little girl was intimidated into accusing strangers of the rape for 18 months. The truth came out only after she was removed from her family's custody.

If having a death penalty in place results in less reporting, or encourages DAs to lessen the charges in order to ward off jury reluctance to impose a death penalty, then that penalty has failed to accomplish the goal of making people safer. I hope there are good methods in place to measure the effectiveness of castration, and that lawmakers here will be quick to repeal it if it fails to accomplish its goal.

PierreLegrand said...

If having a death penalty in place results in less reporting, or encourages DAs to lessen the charges in order to ward off jury reluctance to impose a death penalty, then that penalty has failed to accomplish the goal of making people safer. I hope there are good methods in place to measure the effectiveness of castration, and that lawmakers here will be quick to repeal it if it fails to accomplish its goal.

Makes perfect sense...no need to kill them. As long as life means exactly that and not life until some set of lunatic liberals decides that he has been rehabilitated.

My support of the death penalty comes from the fact that there apparently is no such thing as life imprisonment in the United States.

jeff said...

"Don't raise the bar so irrationally high. Those other organizations aren't even close to perfect by any means, but at least they normally manage to read you the news without referring to "Terrorist fist jabs", "Baby Mama's" and mislabeling pretty familiar Congressman repeatedly."

Nope. Since none of those denigrate Bush or Republicans they make similar "mistakes" effecting the other side. How's that Dan Rather guy doing?

Victor Trombetas said...

Please get the headline correct. "Castrate CHILD Rapists".

UWS guy said...

During the Revolutionary War he served in France and Holland in diplomatic roles, and helped negotiate the treaty of peace. From 1785 to 1788 he was minister to the Court of St. James's, returning to be elected Vice President under George Washington.

I hate to be pendantic but John Adams served 2 terms as VPOTUS under Washington.

Watch who you call stupid and ignorant.

jeff said...

"No, just better informed than months-old Google entries on the events where I live, and not inclined to lie or misrepresent them in a public forum."

You do understand that asking for a cite for a unsubstantiated statement isn't an insult and is really pretty common right? And you left out mistaken in your list of possibilities. (lie or misrepresent) It's SOP that the maker of the statements is responsible for backing them up, directing others to do the research to verify statements generally means the person making them either can't or won't back them up, and are then dismissed. This is nothing new and is applied equally.

Trumpit said...

People, like Pogo, who hate males because of some mental issues, shouldn't be able to act out their castration fantasies in real life. That is why I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment: to protect my genitals from the state and insane, histrionic people like Pogo.

Circumcision is a legal and an ongoing mutilation and heinous abuse of male infants, AKIN TO RAPE (ARE YOU LISTENING,POGO??) Any parent or doctor that permits or performs a circumcison should immediately be castrated, mutilated then put to death by the state. It is akin to raping a newborn, (ARE YOU LISTENING, POGO STICK?). Revenent should be castrated because he's simply Irrelevant.

Beth said...

Victor, read the story. Her headline is correct. The bill covers "six specific crimes: aggravated rape, forcible rape, second-degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, aggravated crime against nature and molestation of a child under 13" (Times Picayune, June 17)

It focuses on chemical castration but allows for physical castration, at the request of the offender.

Ann Althouse said...

Froggyprager: Thanks. I wanted to sell the Amsterdam Notebooks as a zine, but never quite managed to do it beyond getting small stack of copies made. Click on the "Amsterdam Notebooks" tag to get to the rest of the series, which has about 39 posts. I have many notebooks full of things like that, strongly influenced by Bill Griffith's "Get Me a Table Without Flies, Harry."

It's much easier to take a photograph. The drawings forced me to look at every detail. Very contemplative. And I wrote down words as they came up. Most people who look at the drawings are completely distracted by the words, though, I've noticed.

I have many more old notebooks and could scan them if I thought people cared.

Pogo said...

The call for the death penalty and castration arises as a response to an increasing number of convicted sex offenders that are being released into the community.

This is precisely because the judicial branch in many states has routinely reduced the proposed penalties for sex crimes, especially those involving children.

But the court system's method of catch and release, coupled with the "mainstreaming" of rapists into their hometowns (or moving them to new communities) is being thwarted by the efforts of citizens, first by demanding notification, then by calling for increasing the penalties for these crimes, a divergence which stands in stark contrast with the court's attempt to downgrade these offenses.

The judicial system continues to reject the demands of citizens at its own peril. The denial of justice will not long be suffered, and there will be repercussions, not the least being an increase in vigilantism.

If the police and the courts refuse to protect us, we have not abandoned the right to self defense, and we will use it.

froggyprager said...

I have not been an Althouse reader long enough to know about your Amsterdam Notebooks. Great great stuff. I especially like the subject because I studied in the Netherlands for a semester in college. I like the zine idea. I for one would like to see the other old notebooks of material. This is art. anyone else?

Beth said...

You do understand that asking for a cite for a unsubstantiated statement isn't an insult and is really pretty common right?

Commenters here routinely make "unsubstantiated statements" about all manner of things, and particularly about what's going on in their own neck of the woods. It's a judgment call on what to support with citation and I routinely include links to specific citations when I think they're called for. I don't need to include a fucking Works Cited page with footnotes and hyperlinks when generalizing about an easily confirmable topic.

Revenant said...

"I'm sorry, I didn't realize you considered yourself infallible."

No, just better informed than months-old Google entries on the events where I live, and not inclined to lie or misrepresent them in a public forum.

Beth, all I said was that the evidence I'd seen suggested he was popular and that I was skeptical about your claim. This prompted you to go from zero to Raging Bitch in about 5.2 seconds, whereupon you accused me of calling you a liar and told me that you had better things to do than do research. This did not, to put it mildly, convince me of either the accuracy of your original statement or your capacity for rational thought.

Maybe your original claim was accurate. Now that Donna -- a person willing to respond rationally and politely -- has stepped up to add a supporting voice to your claim I am more inclined to believe it. The public outrage seems to be a very recent phenomenon, which is why I didn't come across it when I first looked at the topic.

Revenant said...

The term "chemical castration" is unfortunate. It calls to mind the removal or incapacitation of the penis, which isn't really what the procedure is about.

What the procedure looks to do is eliminate the male sex drive by pumping the guy full of, basically, female hormones. This does prevent him from achieving an erection, yes, but that's only part of it. It also causes the subject to desire sex a lot less or not at all. Sure, a man with a non-functional penis can still engage in sexual activity by other means. But with his sex drive mostly or completely gone he's unlikely to want to.

Incidentally, the procedure is used in a number of states, including California, and several western European nations.

knoxwhirled said...

the court system's method of catch and release, coupled with the "mainstreaming" of rapists into their hometowns (or moving them to new communities)

Yes, confounds me that the "sex offender registry" even exists-- the system is tacitly admitting that they know this person is likely to offend again. Here's an idea: DON'T LET THEM OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I guess my feeling re: castration runs along these lines. Simply don't let them out, and we won't have to worry about it.

###

Beth, yours is probably the best comment on this subject I've read so far. My support for the death penalty in these cases is that it seems to be the only way we can guarantee even a violent, repeat offender won't be released. Well, and there's a good bit of "the bastards deserve it" in there too. But ultimately I am a pragmatist and if it truly resulted in less reporting then I'd have to be against.

Beth said...

Huh. I must have missed the citations in Donna's comment. I do notice she repeats my advice, to dig a little deeper than the topmost returns on Google. But you'll have to forgive me for wondering why you're suddenly open to the idea when someone else shows up and says, "why yes, I've noticed this, too," still without offering any "supporting data." My perception continues to be that you meant to impugn my credibility.

blake said...

Someone provided me with one of those sex offender lookups. I also live in a town of about 100,000, don't recall a total.

270 seems considerably higher than what I saw, but since my town is part of L.A., there may be certain skewings. (For example, an extraordinary large number of movie stars die in the nearby neighborhood of Woodland Hills. What's killing them?? Well, nothing, that's just where the old age homes are.)

But every offender I looked at was described in a fashion that suggested something serious. No "she looked like 16 to me". It was all under 12 or under 8.

So, on the one hand, I dislike the whole concept of the public database immensely, at least in theory. In practice, I'm not seeing a huge amount--or any--abuse.

blake said...

I guess my feeling re: castration runs along these lines. Simply don't let them out, and we won't have to worry about it.

Whom do you lock up forever? The dirty old perv who flashes the 14 year old?

These teachers we hear so much about lately?

The guy who says "She looked 19 to me?"

I actually don't think it's that big a challenge, but it's more than a little slippery to assign future guilt based on past crimes.

If it's true that the average sentence is three years for child rape (someone on one of these threads said that), we could start there without establishing a precedent that the government can label someone a "likely offender" and punish them preemptively.

Revenant said...

Huh. I must have missed the citations in Donna's comment.

I didn't say there were any. I said the fact that a rational person had stepped up to agree with you made me more inclined to think your original claim was true.

My perception continues to be that you meant to impugn my credibility.

Feel free to "perceive" whatever you like. I'm responsible for what I say, not for other people's hypersensitivity to it.

Revenant said...

So, on the one hand, I dislike the whole concept of the public database immensely, at least in theory. In practice, I'm not seeing a huge amount--or any--abuse.

It would be simpler if the registry covered all crimes from traffic tickets to first-degree murder. That stuff is all in the public records, after all.

I don't have kids myself, so sex offenders only worry me when my nephews come to visit. But I'd very much like to know who in my neighborhood has assault, theft, or burglary convictions, if only so I know not to leave a spare key with them when I go on vacation.

SGT Ted said...

Ellie Nesler's solution comes to mind.

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DA1F31F930A2575BC0A965958260]Clicky[/url]

No one but the prosecutor really gave a damn about the dead molestor.

Beth said...

I said the fact that a rational person had stepped up to agree with you made me more inclined to think your original claim was true.

And I'm supposed to pretend that your comments to me are simply objective and not insulting in their nature? From there you accused me of making false claims, and imply I am irrational. Your comments are disingenuous, Revenant. And, yes, snitty -- a word that apparently conjures images of a raging bitch for you.

knoxwhirled said...

Blake,

I don't think flashers would be included in this group-- I don't think they should even be on the registry.

A teacher who is a repeat offender should not be released. They have proven they can't control their impulses. I wouldn't consider a teacher who has one "affair" to necessarily be predatory or compelled to violate kids. They should, however, go to jail for doing it--we are supposed to be able to turn our kids over to them every day and trust that they will do no harm.

I think people who are repeat predators, who compulsively prey on kids, shouldn't be let out. I don't have much faith in castration to deter them completely, and the registry in these cases is a poor band-aid.

Beth said...

knoxwhirled, you bring up a good point about the problems with sex registries: I don't think flashers would be included in this group-- I don't think they should even be on the registry.

There are lots of offenders on these registries whose crimes aren't predatory or violent or in any way threatening. Prostitution and sex in public places may be distasteful and we rightly punish it, but we've seen that neighborhoods sometimes react violently to people on the sex registry, and don't necessarily stop to find out if the person listed got drunk and peed in public or if they are a violent sexual predator. I'd like to see the list of who makes it on these registries cut down to only those who pose a threat.

David Rogers said...

From Wikipedia.com

While Washington was the unanimous choice for president, Adams came in second in the electoral college and became Vice President in the presidential election of 1789. He played a minor role in the politics of the early 1790s and was re-elected in 1792. Washington never asked Adams for input on policy and legal issues during his tenure as vice president.

Adams did not ask to be considered for the presidency, only the vice-presidency.

Also from Wikipedia (George Washington entry)
For all intents and purposes, George Washington ran unopposed for election as President. Under the system then in place, each voting elector cast two votes, and the recipient of the greatest number of votes was elected President, providing they equaled or exceeded half the total number of electors. The runner-up became Vice President.

In the absence of conventions, there was no formal nomination process. The framers of the Constitution had presumed that Washington would be the first President, and once he agreed to come out of retirement to accept the office, there was no opposition to him. Individual states chose their electors, who voted all together for Washington when they met.

Electors used their second vote to cast a scattering of votes, many voting for someone besides Adams (a carefully organized scheme originating in New York) less out of opposition to him than to prevent Adams from matching Washington's total


Adams came in first in the balloting for vice-president. In the balloting for president, Washington was the unanimous choice.

Revenant said...

And I'm supposed to pretend that your comments to me are simply objective and not insulting in their nature?

If you think my original statement of "skepticism" was "insulting in its nature" then you've got some emotional problems to resolve.

Did I get a bit insulting *after* you called my innocent request "snitty little 'do you have data' bullshit"? Well, gee, I guess maybe I did. If you want to be respected, try not being such an asshole.

Revenant said...

I don't think flashers would be included in this group-- I don't think they should even be on the registry.

Why not? It isn't like flashing is a victimless crime.

TMink said...

You want some perspective? Here is some perspective, this is just a sampling of the abuse that the patients I am currently working with lived through.

How about the girl whose mom stole a pad of doctor excuse notes so that she could have sex with her 6 to 9 year old daughter every week? She was doing the same thing with the child's older brother, and she would have them have sex for her. Averaged every week for 3 years.

Or the boy who was 9 and his 28 year old cousin would tie him against a hay bale in the barn and come in his mouth.

Or the 5 year old whose father taught her to masturbate him.

Then there is the 13 year old mentally retarded boy whose step father anally raped him with a kotex.

Or the 12 year old girl who was taken to the maintenence area of the mall, given alcohol, shown porno, and raped.

Then there is the 10 year old whose father whored her out for drug money. The girl thought that all men had to give themselves a penile injection to get hard, till she was whored out.

Or the family of three girls, 8, 5, and 4 who found out on Tuesday night that they had all been awakened by their father performing oral sex on them.

Perspective. I got your perspective right here.

I am not talking about bullshit, I am talking about horrid, life altering trauma.

You want someone to be able to do that 3 times before they are locked up?

Trey

TMink said...

Beth, thank you. You rock as usual. I will be in your neck of the woods in a week. I know, who in their right mind comes to Bush, LA in July?

Nobody.

That is why I am coming with the wife and kids!

But thanks.

Trey

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

I agree, Trey. I see the same kind of permanent life changes resulting from these crimes.

It amazes me that people who want less punishment are seen as more civilized and less 'emotional' about it than I am.

Beth said...

I would indeed be a better person if I spoke cordially with all, no matter how they addressed me. But I'm not just not that nice. And Revenant, you are frequently snippy, disdainful and persnickity when you choose to respond to me in a comments thread. I'll continue to call you on it.

Ann Althouse said...

Oops, the tag is there now.

You see, Froggyprager? No one cares.

Beth said...

Trey,

July is a crazy time to visit, but that's when the kids are out of school, yes?

Bush is in a pretty part of south Louisiana, north of us here in the city, above our lake. It's cooler there than here. And if you want to enjoy some good food, you're about 20 minutes from Abita Springs and Covington, both of which have some great places to eat. Enjoy the trip!

Pogo said...

Not true, Ann.
I'd read them, if collected.
I love that kind of stuff.

Self-publish it as on one of your blogs, or put it out in pdf for download.

Revenant said...

And Revenant, you are frequently snippy, disdainful and persnickity when you choose to respond to me in a comments thread. I'll continue to call you on it.

Feel free. I'll continue to not care.

Revenant said...

I am not talking about bullshit, I am talking about horrid, life altering trauma. You want someone to be able to do that 3 times before they are locked up?

No, but it would be a good idea to wait for a second offense before doing something drastic, unless there is solid and clear evidence -- which a child's testimony can never be -- that the assault has occurred. False accusations of molestation do happen, after all, and we really aren't sure how common they are.

Whenever any case hinges on the child's testimony I always have to ask myself -- was the child brainwashed by an unethical therapist, like the McMartin kids were? Were they coerced by their mother, as sometimes happens in divorce cases?

But it stretches the imagination to think that an innocent man could be falsely convicted twice.

UWS guy said...

Everyone loves your photos, even if they aren't chock full of spittle fleckt comments :D

If you could find more of your photos that could be used in posts like this one, I think (and I speak for everyone!) we would all enjoy seeing them.

Christ, I watched you and Ghavain drone on about sleeveless dresses and "A frames" on Bloggingheads.

UWS guy said...

woops...if you find more of your drawings we'd all love to look at them.

TMink said...

Rev wrote: (With minor editing for brevity)

"No, but it would be a good idea to wait for a second offense before doing something drastic"

I agree. If it happens after the first conviction or there are two victims it is clear to me that the person has a taste for it and is a monster.

"unless there is solid and clear evidence -- which a child's testimony can never be -- that the assault has occurred."

I think it depends somewhat on the child, but your point is valid.

"False accusations of molestation do happen, after all, and we really aren't sure how common they are."

The estimate used to be 5 to 10% were false. I think it is higher now. One case I worked on I know there were false allegations involved, and in another I have strong suspicions. A good therapist can really help as we have some knowledge of forensic interviewing and look for evidence rather than accusation. Supporting evidence in the child's behavior and the manner of their statements is very important. It is VERY difficult to teach young children the ABCs, much less how to fake a dissociation or sympathetic nervous system arousal. Still, a child is a child, and that brings forensic complications to the matter.

"Whenever any case hinges on the child's testimony I always have to ask myself -- was the child brainwashed by an unethical therapist, like the McMartin kids were?"

What a shameful series of events. The ill started the mess, and then the clueless and the incompetent magnified it. It is now used as standard training in ethics and how to really screw up interviews.


"Were they coerced by their mother, as sometimes happens in divorce cases?"

I think that people who coach kids to make false allegations are sexually abusing the children as well. False accusers should get 5 years in jail to rethink hurting their child by alienating the child's other parent and making the child lie. You have to expose a child to inappropriate sexual content to coach false accusations.

Good points Rev.

Trey

TMink said...

Beth, I have family in the area, we come down a lot. Abita brewery is great, and Acme almost knows us on sight. I liked the old Acme in Old Covington, but the oysters are still good at the new one!

I always pop to the Quarter, my cousins are David Duke voters(sigh, the shame) who are not big on the Quarter.

Hey, here is a link to some on my Nawlins photos. Check em out!

http://flickr.com/photos/tmink/sets/72157601889616837/

Trey

Beth said...

Trey, I love the second page of photos, with the Marys and cemetery statues.

Duke voters. Eeek! They're fewer in numbers these days, fortunately. There's no accounting for family, though. Keep 'em in your prayers.

If you get to the Quarter, consider the new Insectarium in the old Customs House, at Decatur and Canal. There's even an insect cafe -- not a cafe where insects go for lunch; they're on the menu. We're planning a trip to that in a week or so.

Revenant said...

False accusers should get 5 years in jail to rethink hurting their child by alienating the child's other parent and making the child lie.

I tend to agree, but it is rarely possible to prove that an accusation of sexual abuse is fake. How do you concretely distinguish between "fake" and "no evidence for"?

I'm worried that if we start cracking down on the fake accusers, they'll be less willing to withdraw their claims. It could have the effect of sending more innocent people to prison.