Under the law, offenders "convicted of a sex offense involving a person under the age of 13" will have to be chemically castrated a month ahead of release and would also be required to continue treatment "until the court determines the treatment is no longer necessary." Offenders would also have to pay for the procedure, but a denial of their parole could not be based "solely" on an inability to pay.
Chemical castration is defined in the law as "the receiving of medication, including, but not limited to, medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or its chemical equivalent, that, among other things, reduces, inhibits, or blocks the production of testosterone, hormones, or other chemicals in a person's body," according to AL.com.
If a given offender chooses to halt the treatment, the move would be treated as a violation of parole, forcing the offender to resume their incarceration.
"This bill is a step toward protecting children in Alabama," Ivey said. The bill was passed by both houses of the Alabama Legislature last month.
The use of chemical and surgical castration in controversial across the globe and has come under fire locally from the Alabama Civil Liberties Union, who have argued that the bill raises constitutional concerns and is akin to cruel and unusual punishment - a violation of the U.S. Constitution's 8th Amendment - while also violating people's right to privacy.
Randall Marshall, the executive director of ACLU of Alabama, also noted that the law misses the mark in preventing child molestation. In a statement to CNN Tuesday, Marshall said:
"It certainly presents serious issues about involuntary medical treatment, informed consent, the right to privacy, and cruel and unusual punishment. And, it is a return, if you will, to the dark age.Republican Rep. Steve Hurst, who put forward the bill, has emphatically defended the measure from accusations that it may be draconian or inhumane.
This kind of punishment for crimes is something that has been around throughout history, but as we've gotten more enlightened in criminal justice we've gotten away from this kind of retribution."
Last week, Hurst told local outlet WIAT:
"I had people call me in the past when I introduced it and said, 'Don't you think this is inhumane?'Several states have versions of chemical castration laws on the books. In 1996, California became the first state to pass a chemical castration law. Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, and Washington also require certain sex offenders to be chemically castrated, while Texas permits repeat sex offenders to voluntarily undergo surgical castration if they so choose.
I asked them, 'What's more inhumane than when you take a little infant child and you sexually molest that infant child when the child cannot defend themselves or get away, and they have to go through all the things they have to go through?' If you want to talk about inhumane, that's inhumane.
They have marked this child for life and the punishment should fit the crime."
Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation, has also criticized the law, noting that it may lead to a slippery slope, ultimately having a much farther reach than currently envisioned. In a statement to CNN, Donovan said:
"Medical decisions should remain between a patient and their provider.
I worry about any precedent that allows the state to use health care as a form of punishment."
Reader Comments
As well, it seems to take into account that only males rape, statutorily or otherwise. What would they, then, do if the roles were reversed? If they had a sixteen year old girl engaging in intercourse with a twelve year old boy, do they have something in place to address that, or is the twelve year old boy purely at fault?
Are they going to subject someone to chemical castration to a person that has never touched a child, yet views child pornography? If so, since boys and girls sending underage nudes to each other is viewed as a sexual offense, are the convicted children going to be chemically castrated after being convicted of this crime?
I'm 100% on board with chemically castrating any legal adult that engages in sexual intercourse with a minor. There is definitely something wrong with their view of the world if they're a legal adult thinking sex with children is perfectly acceptable. However, there are questions to certain scenarios that either this article didn't touch on because A) the author didn't read the bill in it's entirety, or B) because the bill itself doesn't take into account certain factors. By this article, it seems the bill essentially is saying, "You touched a child, you have no balls until we say otherwise".
Could be I'm just reading too much into it.
Here's hoping logic wins the day here.
R.C.
* Without studying the matter, I would maintain that it has a much much higher level of false convictions than practically any other crime., and that this is due to the same societal prohibition on logical discussion. If a divorce is involved, the rates go through the roof.
RC
It's an ugly topic for discussion and argument, truly. However, many children can have their lives ruined for mistakes they've made.
I am 100% for the death penalty and non elective surgical castration in murder and sex crimes. BUT, with a serious catch, our "justice" system is too flawed for me to be ok with either in this day and age.
We kill/cull animals in our pet and food supply for bad behavior and genetics. It is used for the primary purpose of best in breed and removing undesirable genetic traits. Humans should be no different aside from the fact that in animals we as humans do it for pure profit. For humans it is a matter of species survival and quality of life on the planet.
Recap for those that read only to reply (latch onto specific words or phrases), I am NOT for either currently. Our system of law is to profit/politically driven and busted to not make mistakes.
You said it!
R.C.