1y ago

Louisiana man sentenced to 50 years in prison, physical castration for raping teen

www.cbsnews.com

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.

197 comments

You know, I always used to say they ought to do this. But now, presented with the reality of it, I don't like it at all.
- I mean, when the state of Louisiana agrees, it's only reasonable to wonder if you're being the baddy.
  
  If I've learned anything after coming back to the south south (for some dumb reason) if you find yourself agreeing with the state you're definitely the baddy, with ☠️ and all.
- This is because we can be of two minds about these things. You can have a personal response to heinous acts, but still think the government ought to be better.
  If some guy murders the murderer of their kid, I can absolutely 100% understand why, and I could even admit that I might do the same in their position. But I still think that as a society we should not lower ourselves to this standard and I will always be against the death penalty (especially because the system will never be perfect and I will never think it's worth killing even one innocent person by accident).
  It's why vigilante justice is so easily understood, but it's still something we, as a society, shouldn't accept.
  Emotional reactions can cloud our minds to these things. But I absolutely agree with you. This is horrendous and barbarous. I can still somewhat understand the "he deserves it for what he did"-response, but I'm absolutely against this on a deeper level.
  
  I don't think it's about having "Two minds" about it, for as you describe it doesn't seem to fit the op, as he admitted that he wanted the state to do it.
  Imo, this is about abstraction vs reality. In theory something might sound good, but when you are actually faced with the reality of it, it's a huge turnoff.
  I'm reminded of the reddit story where a guy got into scat porn. It became a fetish so he hired a prostitute to shit in his mouth. On the day of the deed, once the shit hit his mouth, as he described it, he was "just a guy on the floor with shit in his mouth."
  The shit is just hitting the OPs mouth right now.
  
  It’s also why vigilante justice is far more sympathetic than government camps to torture prisoners.
  I believe in bodily autonomy even for the worst people
- Yeah I get wanting it, but I don’t want a government that can do it. I also don’t think a reasonable interpretation of the bill of rights allows it. How is removing body parts not cruel and unusual punishment?
  
  Originalism is a cancer on the justice system.
- Any punishment with no possibility of back pedaling should never be given. The chances of permanently harming a potentially innocent person are far too great.
  
  I'm usually on that side of the discussion, too, but this case doesn't leave much room for the guy to be innocent. Beyond the "pleading guilty" part, which is sometimes done strategically, he's the biological father of the kid a 14yo got. There is no shot at this being a mistake at this point.
  I still agree though; if this should exist, it must require even stricter than the usual "beyond reasonable doubt" conditions or something.
  
  He got her pregnant... His DNA. Not possible to be innocent. He plead guilty. He shouldn't hit a prison cell, he should go directly to the chair.
- The state having the power to do this is horrible. A victim doing this to their attacker with a butter knife on the other hand.
  
  It's even worse
- This falls squarely under no cruel and unusual punishment for me. Heinous as the crime was this is just inhuman.
  
  Well, in Louisiana, it might be the only way to get gender affirming care
  /s
  
  So, first you relativise what counts as cruel and unusual punishment, then you demonize the person. That is the road to atrocities. Why do you want to go there?
- Yeah, chemical castration seems a lot better than the bull band treatment
I'll take, "Laws that violate the 8th Amendment" for $100, Alex.
- Nah see the 8th amendment no longer applies because he's a criminal.
  -Louisiana State Supreme Court
  Probably
  
  So if Trump is found guilty...
  
  Likely
What does physical or chemical castration even mean? And why is this a punishment when he is 100 years old?
Also, under current law there, no abortions are allowed unless life of mother is at risk, so they will castrate the rapist but force the mother to give birth?
What the actual fuck
- Chemical castration is the lowering of hormones medically. Physical castration would by physical removal of the testes.
  Welcome back to the dark ages. See you at next week's drawing and quartering. It's right after the hangings! Hopefully we get some real kickers!
  
  Lowering hormones medically? Sounds like something Trans, and that's illegal in the south.
  
  Yee haw! What the fuck lol, if I was a hundred years old cutting off my balls would be kind of sexy lol,
- What does physical or chemical castration even mean?
  Physical castration is being neutered, aka what we routinely due to male animals we don't intend to breed.
  Chemical castration is essentially being chemically neutered - hormone blockers. Whenever you see someone anti-trans talk about pro-trans people wanting to chemically castrate children that's why - it's the same drugs being used to achieve the same effect - blocking sex hormones.
  And why is this a punishment when he is 100 years old?
  Because castration in LA is only performed in the final week of the prison sentence (presumably because it can't be reversed so as to allow time for appeals), he was in his 50s when convicted and was sentenced to 50 years + castration. So by the time he's in the final week of his prison sentence he would be over 100 should he live that long.
  
  Damn. I wouldn't be surprised if someone just went on a rampage after being released because the government cut their balls off.
  It's insane there are people in this thread cheering them on, but I don't expect much rationality or maturity from this generation at this point.
- Well, it's because he's an old fuck already so his heinous crimes result in him spending the rest of his worthless life in prison. If he's lucky, he'll die before he reaches 100.
  
  I disagree with the idea behind that punishment…. But I hear you
- so they will castrate the rapist but force the mother to give birth?
  Louisiana is 100% the worst of the 50-nifty united states.
- physical castration is removing his ~~dick~~balls.
  chemical castration ... is basically using medication to block hormones that cause sex drives. (edit for technical accuracy as was pointed out below. Either way they're taking medically-approved bolt cutters to his junk. and that's never right at any age.)
  
  chemical castration … is basically using medication to block hormones that cause sex drives.
  The fun part is that it doesn't even do that. You can block all of your testosterone (as an XY male), and still desire sex, have erections, and achieve orgasms. It's difficult, but still possible. And unless they're going to do blood panels every month, it's pretty easy to get around that shit, if you have the money for the black market drugs.
  
  At 100 years old?
Why add the physical castration part to plea if it doesn’t take effect until he’s 100, seems so pointless.
The American legal system is so barbarically fucked up.
- Maybe to have it as a required part of his sentence, so while time can be reduced, perhaps the castration can't? I.e. he couldn't be released early unless he went through with the castration.
  I dunno, I'm not a lawyer, just my guess. Fucked up either way on all sides of this.
  
  It says he still has to go through with chemical castration regardless of his plea making him do physical castration as well.
- I suspect it's a legal strategy he concocted with his lawyers: Chemical castration might have a different time period in which it is applied (because longer duration), maybe even starting right after the sentence becomes effective. As the summary here states, the physical version that he opted for himself(!) is not to be applied until a week before the sentence ends, which gives him a chance of a lot of things to happen before, laws to change etc & eventually get out of this without being castrated at all.
- I think it’s like those 300 year sentences that come out once in a while. Ultimately it’s symbolic.
Barbaric and inhumane. Cruel and unusual.
- and also just....weirdly fucking pointless. They are waiting till he is 100 to castrate him?
- You mean the rape of a teenager, right?
  
  We don't mutilate and torture convicts. Rather, we aren't supposed to but Louisiana is a shit hole.
That sounds like cruel and unusual, no?
- It sounds like there's a good chance the castration would never happen at all, since it has to be done 2 weeks before the prison sentence ends.
  
  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...
Look, this guy is obviously a monster, but castrating someone doesn't undo the harm. That's just barbaric. Hard labor making license plates all day? Sure. Long sentence? I could see that.
We gotta have some moral minimums, though. Stuff like execution and castration is too far. What if they have the wrong guy? Even if it was him, mutilating their bodies is not what we should be doing on this continent.
- enslavement is also barbaric
- Wouldn't this be considered "cruel or unusual punishment" which is banned by the constitution?
  
  Yes.
  Let's not cheer a society that cuts off the balls of rapists, just like we don't cheer for societies that cut off the hands of thieves.
- Rapists deserve nothing less than castration.
  
  And the US justice system is famous for never getting it wrong.
  
  Vengeance isn't justice and one barbaric act shouldn't be met with another one.
Castration is 100% cruel and unusual punishment.
- For raping a kid, i don't really care if its cruel and unusual. Deserved.
  
  Friendly reminder that in 1992 the FBI embarked on a crusade that falsely convicted dozens of parents during the height of the Satanic Panic. One of the first convicts spent 30 years in prison before enough evidence of manufactured evidence and coerced testimony was unearthed to convince a court to release him.
  In another classic false conviction a father of two was executed for a 2004 house fire that state prosecutors determined was deliberate arson, with the intent to murder his two children. Then Texas Governor Rick Perry repeatedly interfered with court proceedings that uncovered fabricated evidence and pseudo-scientific forensic analysis.
  Finally, we've got the classic case of Alan Turing, British engineering pioneer of the computer and hero cryptographer of WW2, who was chemically castrated after being accused of gross indecency with his then-19-year-old boyfriend, following a burglary of Turing's home. Following the castration, Turing fell into a malaise and ended up committing suicide.
  There are a whole host of reasons why deliberately sadistic punishments are a fucking awful idea.
  Witch Hunts can use gratuitous claims to cover for scant evidence, leading to irrevocable punishments aimed at innocent people.
  False Convictions resulting in maiming/death can aid in covering up the criminal incompetency of investigators.
  Prejudice and bigotry can play a heavy role in the targets of investigation and degree of punishment.
  Even setting aside the reflexive need to give people what they "deserve", you put far too much faith in a criminal justice system as prone to injustice as any of its subjects. The targets for chemical castration end up not being the most deserving, but the least articulate and most socially vulnerable.
  You won't see a guy like Donald Trump sentenced to chemical castration for grabbing women by the pussy. But you can easily see folks in the LGBT/Civil Rights, migrant communities, or impoverished neighborhoods singled out for legal abuses by malicious or career oriented prosecutors.
  
  So you're not a believer in human rights I guess.
  Read the article, he won't even be castrated until he is 100.
  
  if it's* cruel
- castration doesnt even do anything for most sex crime offenders.
  Cause its not physical lust that drives most of it, its a psychological drive.. and that psychological need/drive doesnt go away just cause you castrate someone, whether physically or chemically.
  in addition to what you're talking about, with the inherent risk of an innocent person running afoul of the law.
  
  You see, your issue is that you are using your brain instead of asking for brutal retribution
  
  I could see voluntary chemical castration and psychiatric support as a viable middle ground between lex talionis and a 21st-century legal system. Physical castration? Get the hell out of here.
- this dude absolutely deserves this
  There's a joke in the criminal justice system about how a clever DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, with a free enough hand at presentation of evidence. Consider that you are getting less from this article than the grand jury got at his indictment.
  What happens when they accidentally or sometimes even intentionally get the wrong person? 4% of people who get sentenced to death are innocent. Even if that number is .4% I’m not okay with occasionally killing someone who is innocent.
  The purpose of chemical castration as a political tool is purely for the optics. Case in point, this guy would not be subject to castration until the end of his 50 year sentence (at age 100). DAs and judges can campaign on this nightmarish act by appealing to voters with a sadistic streak while sleeping better knowing neither they nor the convict will live long enough to see it carried out.
  Much like the death penalty itself, this is a performative endeavor intended to bait liberals into defending creeps (or, at least, suspected creeps) so that you can go on screen and call them "Pedophile Enablers". Once chemical castration is normalized, you'll see "Tough on Crime" conservatives pursue something even more vulgar.
What the shit? Are they going to bring back "an eye for an eye" next?
- For some people there is no redemption in this life - and I’m not referring to the criminal. Some people refuse to see people as anything other than their past transgressions. And the system is set up to support that. One could commit a crime and that’s all the person will ever be seen as for the rest of their life. Jobs are hard to get, where you can live is limited, and having to tell everyone that the person is a sex offender in those cases.
  And some people would rather criminals be killed or maimed for life depending on the crime, sometimes with a surprisingly low bar.
- It would be nice if they did.
  Eye for an eye, was a law that allowed the (proven) victim to request the (proven) perpetrator up-to (but no more than) an equal punishment to the harm done. Yes a person who got his eye stoned out by crazy guy, could have the crazy guy's eye stoned out. Which is, honestly, fair.
  I guess in this case, the girl could request Mandingo to rape the guy, which, while deeply hilarious, might actually teach something, especially compared to just a jail sentence (that might be heavily reduced due to "good behaviour")
  
  I swear all of the edgy children from reddit ended up here...
  What's worse, this person probably isn't a child.
  
  Rape is funny when it happens to bad people, i guess. And no, rape does not teach anything. It just traumatizes.
  
  It would be nice if they did.
  until you or someone you know gets caught up in the court system, is innocent, but due to the many failings in our prosecution system, still end up being found guilty.
  Then you'll cry and whine like a little fucking bitch about "how could it happen to me/us!" and people will point at you and posts like yours and say people like you are the reason it happened.
  
  It would be nice if you didn't spew populist bullshit on the web, but here we are.
I’m a little confused. First the punishment actually seems to fit the crime. Second I didn’t think castration was legal in the US. With everything else going on right now, what the actual fuck!
- First the punishment actually seems to fit the crime.
  So should we go back to chopping off the hands of thieves?
  
  And be very careful about looking at a woman with lust in your eye.
- Most states allow voluntary castration for treatment of a medical condition. That means if you have testicular cancer or gender dysphoria you can pay a ton of money to no longer have testicles, but it seems a pretty flagrant violation of our bill of rights to force it on a criminal
- I believe chemical castration is technically legal but only is the grey area under loopholes because its not disfiguring the convicted or doing physical damage. I suspect they are going to argue the physical castration is legal by consent because the convicted has to plea for it specifically? Unlikely he will live long enough to face that judgement in a Louisiana prison, regardless.
  Edit: Still think its horrific no matter what loophole they try to use, our justice system is fucked even in cases as awful as this.
God what kind of a shit plea deal involves 50-year sentence and castration? Honestly why even plead at that point?
So, let's say a man is accused of rape and impregnates a woman. DNA matches, everything matches. However, after the castration happens, the woman comes out and says it was actually consensual and not a rape, just her being petty over a disagreement or something. What then?
- No consent at the age of 14
  
  What? I didn't specify she was 14?
Ok ok about poor pedos, but what about lolita airlines logs Sherlock?
I want these rich pedos to pay back..
- You still have a penis after castration...
How are there no comments here?! Is it a good idea well, yeah maybe it is...I just didn't know it was reality.
- It's a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is the same reason that the death penalty is a bad idea: the US penal system frequently gets it wrong.
  
  Not saying you're wrong, but she had a baby at 14 that shares the rapist's DNA. I don't think there's any doubt he did it.
  
  Cutting off the balls of criminals is a bad idea even if we get it right 100% of the time.

197 comments