The Swamp is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.
How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.
How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.
To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.Show less
For the monsters who feel that they can terrorize young children, chemical castration seems to be a fitting punishment for their vicious actions. It seems also that the state of Alabama could do one thing right, at least. By pushing forward a bill for the governor to sign into law the treatment to lower hormones and testosterone thus inhibiting sex drive, this would prove to be justice.
No child should ever have to experience the horror of being sexually abused. This law would revolutionize the way that rapists and other offenders would be reprimanded for their evil. The law ought to have a hand in whether these mostly men, but some women, receive this administration. Even the author of the bill, Steven Hurst, moved by the unknown and unknowable, has committed to see that these actions take place. Amen. Alabama would join the eight other states that have passed laws regarding chemical castration while the situation would not involve any surgery of any appendages, chemical castration would allow the guilty to never be able to harm another child. If the offender goes against the regiment of the drugs administered to them, then they could face more jail time.
This all comes on the heels of Alabama banning abortion. Tempers have flared at the prospect of the state not respecting the rights of individual women. The battle to secure the right for women to have done whatever that they want with their bodies is the polar opposite of sex offenders who have damaged the lives of minors. In one case, a woman is killing off a potential to save her own life, prevent a child from having mental defects, ensuring that she doesn’t have to give birth to a child whose father was a rapist, or reject a potential child that developed unexpectedly.
The chemical castration is a punitive measure to stop actual sex offenders from ever doing evil against another child through intercourse. If this bill is put into law, the deviants will have no chance in desecrating the body of another underage child. And more important, the mind of that child should be of chief concern. The program would place the sanctity of the victim above the sexual urges of the offender. To bring about change, the state of Alabama seeks to eliminate all sexual acts against youth thirteen and under, excluding of course, molestation. But what about children under eighteen? And people over that age as well? Are they somehow excluded from being protected by the potential law? And women who commit sodomy... do they get a similar administration? Carnal knowledge laws usually protect children under sixteen. So, why didn’t Alabama Representative Steven Hurst think of all of that (and more)?
Regardless of the idea that chemical castration can be halted at the judge’s decision, the mental effects of knowing what it’s like to not have a libido could be crushing. From the perspective of all law-abiding citizens of Alabama, it would mean a sigh of relief and a chance to remain ever vigilant for the children. The state would force the offenders to pay for the drug themselves. This means that they would be aiding in their own sexual destruction because of the horrific act that they perpetrated against young persons.
If the person is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, then this practice ought to be implemented nationwide. In cases like the Central Park 5, although those circumstances differed significantly, the evidence would have to show in order to not allow innocent people to receive this administration of drugs. Every scrap of data and information ought to be brought to the attention of lawmakers. Judges and juries ought to weigh with considerable heft the chances for potential sex offenders and an actual one. It’s like abortion in that way.