Glenn Sullivan Sr., 54, pleaded guilty to four counts of second-degree rape on April 17.

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.

    • Fosheze@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      7 months ago

      Exactly. If there was any question then the punishment is way too permanent to even be considered. But this dude is literally the father of a 14 year old girls child. There is no question here. There is no ambiguity. Have a third party double check the tests and another one tripple check them; if the results are still conclusive then make sure he can never harm anyone ever again.

      My only complaint is that castration is cruel and unusual without reason because it doesn’t actually prevent him from being a danger. Just lock him up forever or kill him. Right now I know life imprisonment is usually cheaper than the death penalty otherwise it wouldn’t even be a question.

      • Xhieron@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        7 months ago

        That the evidence of guilt is extraordinary here is immaterial, because the law can’t distinguish between the evidence in this case and a wrongful conviction. You can say, “Well we only use this punishment when we’re super duper sure about it”, but the standard for any criminal conviction is already beyond reasonable doubt. There’s already supposed to be no question for all convictions, yet we still have people in prison today for crimes they didn’t commit.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        2·
        7 months ago

        Exactly. If there was any question then the punishment is way too permanent to even be considered. But this dude is literally the father of a 14 year old girls child.

        What kind of forcible medical alteration is appropriate for a woman who sexually assaults a younger male? Like, say, any of the various cases where a female teacher has a “relationship”/“sex romp” (aka rape but it’s a woman so we don’t want to call it that) with a male student?

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      2·
      7 months ago

      She had his child?

      Do we know if she was willing during the sexual encounter?

          • Q*Bert Reynolds@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            7 months ago

            Because it’s a sick question. A 14-year-old child can’t be “willing during the sexual encounter”. It’s just rape. If that’s not reason enough for you though, here’s the relevant bit from the article:

            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.

            • john89@lemmy.ca
              1·
              7 months ago

              Yes they can be.

              You’re just afraid to answer the question cause it doesn’t go along with your agenda.

                • john89@lemmy.ca
                  1·
                  7 months ago

                  Calm down.

                  If you didn’t want to answer the question, you didn’t have to respond.

                  • Q*Bert Reynolds@sh.itjust.works
                    1·
                    7 months ago

                    I did answer your question. I said she can’t have consented because she’s a child. I also quoted the relevant lines from the article that said she was groomed and threatened. You just didn’t like my answer because it didn’t fit your agenda of wanting to be allowed rape children.