A Louisiana man has been sentenced to decades in prison and physical castration after pleading guilty to raping a teenager, according to a news release from the region’s district attorney.
Glenn Sullivan Sr., 54, pled guilty to four counts of second-degree rape on April 17. Authorities began investigating Sullivan in July 2022, when a young woman told the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office that Sullivan had assaulted her multiple times when she was 14. The assaults resulted in pregnancy, and a DNA test confirmed that Sullivan was the father of the child, the district attorney’s office said. Sullivan had also groomed the victim and threatened her and her family to prevent her from coming forward.
…
A 2008 Louisiana law says that men convicted of certain rape offenses may be sentenced to chemical castration. They can also elect to be physically castrated. Perrilloux said that Sullivan’s plea requires he be physically castrated. The process will be carried out by the state’s Department of Corrections, according to the law, but cannot be conducted more than a week before a person’s prison sentence ends. This means Sullivan wouldn’t be castrated until a week before the end of his 50-year sentence — when he would be more than 100 years old.
Not to antagonize you, but like, rhetorically, is that not still cruel and unusual?
I mean, nothing about this sounds constitutional to me. Hate to be the “stick up for a piece of shit” guy, but…
Defending constitutional rights requires sticking up for pieces of shit a lot. There’s a famous quote about that, involving defending freedom of speech and defending scoundrels.
Don’t hate being that guy. We need skeptics and rational thinkers to combat all the hysteria and sensationalism this generation proudly perpetuates.
It’s part of being an adult in a sea of children.
It is definitely unusual, but I don’t think it would actually be cruel unless the dude lives long enough that it actually is carried out. If the sentence isn’t carried out, is simply being given it cruel? 🤔
The judge is compelled by the law to have that as part of the sentence, but the stipulations of that same law have provided a loophole whereby the judge condemns the person to a lengthy prison sentence that would give a greater chance of having the castration part never happen. If that was the judge’s intent all along, it’s kind of brilliant malicious compliance.
The law itself that makes that a legit sentence is pretty fucked up, though.
So you’re saying anything goes in sentencing as long as the judge is pretty sure the prisoner won’t live long enough for it to happen?
I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. That’s not at all what I said or implied.
This sure seems to imply it.
So if that doesn’t mean that a judge can sentence a prisoner to whatever they want as long as they don’t think the prisoner will live long enough to serve it, what does it mean?
It was a philosophical question on if others would still consider it cruel if the sentence given doesn’t get carried out preceded by my opinion about the same question. I don’t think it is cruel if the cruelty part doesn’t actually happen.
Which would make it legal to mete out. So…
I see what you’re getting at now.
No. Heck no, man. Wasn’t even in my brain. I don’t think the sentence should be something that could be given legally, I was more focused on the here and now of this one case and getting pedantic about the actual action of the sentence and not the legal ramifications.
Okay, fair enough.
I’m not sure if Louisiana laws gives sentence reduction for good behavior, in general or in this circumstance. Would you not think merely living with the idea that if you behave in such a way that early release is a possibility and would result in physical castration is cruel?