Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Monday signed a bill into law that requires someone convicted of a sex offense against a child under the age of 13 to begin chemical castration a month before being released from custody.
The law requires individuals convicted of such an offense to continue treatments until a court deems the treatment is no longer necessary. It says offenders must pay for the treatment, and they can’t be denied parole solely based on an inability to pay.
“This bill is a step toward protecting children in Alabama,” Ivey said.
Both houses of the Alabama Legislature approved the legislation late last month, after it was put forward by state GOP Rep. Steve Hurst.
And here you have it:
https://fox8.com/2019/06/10/alabama-governor-signs-bill-requiring-child-sex-offenders-to-undergo-chemical-castration/
Does that mean that any spouse (wife) of such an offender can sue the State of Alabama for loss of consortium?
More political grandstanding and more feel good laws just so they can save face. Does this mean that female sex offenders have to go through the same thing? or do they get a pass for being female?.
Funny how the good ol US of A goes around the world claiming to be protecting human rights yet they are one of the worst violators here at home against their own citizens. Another hypocritical policy by one of the most backwards states.
The ACSOL board of directors will consider on June 20 what action to take, if any, to challenge Alabama’s decision to require chemical castration of some registrants. We will report the results of that meeting the following day on this website. If you have a message for the board of directors about this issue, please post it on this website as a comment in response to this article. Thank you.
Question: “Do female sex offenders get treated equally under this new law?”
Chemical castration really is just a form of sadistic punishment with the goal of making the recipient suffer for the rest of their lives. Long term use causes osteoporosis, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and gynecomastia. Short and long term, progestognic compounds cause severe mental depression, because they induce estrogen dominance.( men produce small amounts of estrogen from the adrenal glands) .
I’m not sure what comes next- cutting the hands off of habitual thieves? The blinding of habitual drunk drivers?
We are living in interesting times.
How in the heck can this be constitutional.. so if you commit a sex offence we’re going to take away your tight to Merry whomever you want (AWA), you right to travel freely (IML) were going to publicly Shame you , make it difficult for you to get a decent job, make it difficult to find a place to live, and hey why not take away your ability to have children and a family of your own..
When I was going through my divorce and considering fighting for visitation while I was still in prison I came across case law after case law starting the government can’t interfer with certain inalienable rights such as the right to marry who you want and raise a family.
Now I know there will be request for me to site some of these cases and I’ll be happy to do some digging to find these again.
From Skinner v. OK (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535 at 541):
*****
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws.
*****
How is AL’s BS any different? Whether by knife or by chemicals, the same basic liberty is deprived for the duration of the “treatment.” I haven’t looked at AL’s laws, but I would not be surprised if the affected crimes also carry lifetime registration, meaning lifetime sterilization. Again, how is this different from what SCOTUS nailed in Skinner?
I believe that even the AL Federal District Courts and the 11th CCoA will see the similarities and send AL packing…including payment of legal fees to the other party/parties.
Interesting read on this topic here:
Alabama Moves to State-Ordered Castration
A new law for child sex offenders harkens back to a time when much less was known about human sexuality.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/alabama-chemical-castration/591226/
“To have the state impose mandatory standards of behavior toward other people is one thing; to forcibly regulate someone’s internal sex drive is another.”
Oh wait…. Let’s figure out a way to use this…
So what’s the intent of this law???
To make it so the recipient doesn’t have any sexual capabilities to eliminate the supposed risk…
So then Mr senator if I’m chemically castrated and I’m no longer a threat according to your new law. There is no need to list me on any public list of potentially dangerous people and then if I’m no risk domestically there’s no reason to send a notice to the country I am traveling to…..
‘Chemical castration,’ authorized by new Alabama law, rarely used in other states
https://www.al.com/news/2019/06/chemical-castration-authorized-by-new-alabama-law-rarely-used-in-other-states.html
This method only has two participating people in CA, one in MT and LA.
Tell us how you really feel Sir:
Hurst said he’s open to improvements in the law, and would like to see a university involved in a future study on effectiveness. But for him, it comes down to simple justice.
“If they are going to mark those children for life, they need to be marked for life. … My real feelings are that they need to die,” Hurst said.