Chemical Castration Condition for Parole in Alabama
Alabama’s Governor, Kay Ivey, signed a controversial bill requiring “chemical castration” as a condition of parole for people convicted of certain sex crimes. This article will take a closer look at the Alabama law and discuss the potential medical and social issues surrounding the treatment.
Alabama’s Governor, Kay Ivey, signed a controversial bill requiring “chemical castration” as a condition of parole for people convicted of certain sex crimes. Alabama joins eight other states with similar laws enacted to reduce the risk of convicted sex offenders committing similar crimes after release from prison.
What will Alabama Require?
People convicted of certain sex crimes, including rape, sodomy or incest, involving victims younger than 13 years of age will be required to undergo chemical castration. Sex offenders eligible for parole will be required to:
Take a testosterone inhibiting or other hormones to lower sex drive
Start receiving treatment 1 month prior to their release from prison
Most offenders will be required to pay for treatment
Continue taking the medication until a judge rules it is no longer needed
Treatment will be administered by the state’s Department of Public Health
Intentionally stopping treatment will result in a felony
At this time, it is not known how many Alabama sex offenders tthe law will affect.
About Chemical Castration
Chemical castration involves administration of pharmacological agents to reduce testosterone to a prepubescent level. The goal is to suppress the offenders sexual urges and assist in suppressing sexually deviant thoughts and behaviors. Medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the active ingredient in Depo Provera, and cyproterone acetate are commonly used drugs. They have the following affects:
Lower testosterone levels in men
Lowers sex drive
Reduce ability to become sexually stimulated
May lesson aggression in men
What Other States Have Castration Laws?
In 1996, California became the first state to set requirements for chemical castration for sex offenders. Since then, eight other states, including Alabama, have enacted similar laws. These states include Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin.
What Are the Pros?
The most relevant advantage of chemical castration is the contribution to public safety. Research has shown chemical castration substantially lowers recidivism rates (the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend) to 2% from 75% of sex offenders left untreated. In addition, it costs less to treat sex offenders through chemical castration than to house in a prison facility. Lastly, offenders can reenter society and be a productive member with an increased level of supervision that would not be received without chemical castration.
What are the Cons?
Critics opposing chemical castration have both medical and societal concerns. Since the effects of the medication is temporary, repeat administration is needed and treatment is costly. Other concerns include:
Medical considerations
The drugs used for chemical castration can have serious side effects.
Lower estradiol levels leading to osteoporosis
Cardiovascular disease
Impaired glucose metabolism
Impaired lipid metabolism
Depression
Hot flashes
Infertility
Anemia
Weight gain
Decreased muscle mass
The side effects may increase in relation to the duration of treatment. Also, the cost of treatment may not make follow-up and on-going treatments financially feasible for some.
Ethical considerations
There are several key arguments against chemical castration of sex offenders.
Not all sexual offenses against children are of pedophilic interest and the treatment would not be effective (i.e. crimes of opportunity or the offender has an antisocial personality)
The treatment is not effective on women, who account for about 7% of registered sex offenders
The law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment by forcing people to change body chemistry as a condition of parole
Alabama’s law requires a judge, not a physician, to explain the treatment and side effects to the convicted sex offender, therefore, raising questions of informed consent.
Concerns that a sex offender could potentially be “coerced” into agreeing with chemical castration
Alabama’s law will go into effect on September 1, 2019. It is unknown how many inmates will be affected by the new law.
What are thoughts on Alabama’s new law? Do you have a for or against argument to share?
Specializes in Psychiatry, Community, Nurse Manager, hospice.
It's a felony if they refuse the medication? That's a quandary, especially since they are also required to pay for it. It's not like people with a history of raping children have great earning potential. How exactly is that supposed to happen?
I disagree with it, but not because of ethics. 1) rape is an act of violence and exertion of power on a victim. It’s not about uncontrollable libido. 2) It won’t prevent acts of molestation not involving the member. 3) if they are such a threat that we are having this discussion about protecting the public.... maybe we shouldn’t be allowing them access TO the public. 4) releasing NONVIOLENT offenders is the appropriate solution to prison overcrowding. I’m perfectly content for someone running a Ponzi scheme to be on probation and required to make restitution. Pedophiles should stay locked up.
Good point, it is part of “parole” so they don’t have to pay for it. I wonder if Medicaid will pay? I’ve cared for a few transsexuals who told me part of their therapy was a aid by Medicaid.
Controversial response I am sure but here it comes. Chemical castration is a good second choice, now how about physical castration? I have no, and I mean zero mercy for somebody that rapes a child.
Death penalty for pedophiles is more likely to be the only way to “cure them”. People who commit these kinds of crimes are not going to get better after some expensive treatment that will most likely be paid by the working people. They won’t get better after being imprisoned. If anything, they will get out with an even bigger appetite and more violent than ever. Anyone that thinks that they deserve a second chance, please do us a favor a bring them to your home and see what happens.
Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.
While working in a jail in Oregon in the 1990s I had occasion to administer a depo shot to a young inmate. I asked him "Do you notice anything different now that you're on this?" He said "Oh, yes. I'm not bothered by those thoughts nearly as much anymore. I think I might be able to have a useful life!"
I'm noticing 2 main reactions to this issue: 1. "No way should we do such a terrible thing and possibly cost people their health." 2. "These people are pure evil and deserve absolutely anything they get."
A few thoughts: 1. Informed consent is necessary. 2. With a 75% vs 2% chance of recidivism, I don't think this should be dismissed out of hand. 3. A lot of people who commit sexual offenses against children are extremely emotionally immature themselves and don't relate well to people their own age. Not an excuse but more of a psychological phenomenon than ill intent or need for power. 4. If conditions for parole are too onerous, there is always the option to remain in prison. The crime has consequences either way.
If someone can be back in society without posing a threat, I think it's worth considering.
While working in a jail in Oregon in the 1990s I had occasion to administer a depo shot to a young inmate. I asked him "Do you notice anything different now that you're on this?" He said "Oh, yes. I'm not bothered by those thoughts nearly as much anymore. I think I might be able to have a useful life!"
I'm noticing 2 main reactions to this issue: 1. "No way should we do such a terrible thing and possibly cost people their health." 2. "These people are pure evil and deserve absolutely anything they get."
A few thoughts: 1. Informed consent is necessary. 2. With a 75% vs 2% chance of recidivism, I don't think this should be dismissed out of hand. 3. A lot of people who commit sexual offenses against children are extremely emotionally immature themselves and don't relate well to people their own age. Not an excuse but more of a psychological phenomenon than ill intent or need for power. 4. If conditions for parole are too onerous, there is always the option to remain in prison. The crime has consequences either way.
If someone can be back in society without posing a threat, I think it's worth considering.
Yes, it is important to keep in mind that they are not forced to take these drugs it is a condition of parole. All someone need do is serve out their sentence and they need not take the drugs. These drugs are not torture just a potentially useful intervention.
Specializes in Psychiatry, Community, Nurse Manager, hospice.
1 hour ago, TriciaJ said:
While working in a jail in Oregon in the 1990s I had occasion to administer a depo shot to a young inmate. I asked him "Do you notice anything different now that you're on this?" He said "Oh, yes. I'm not bothered by those thoughts nearly as much anymore. I think I might be able to have a useful life!"
I'm noticing 2 main reactions to this issue: 1. "No way should we do such a terrible thing and possibly cost people their health." 2. "These people are pure evil and deserve absolutely anything they get."
A few thoughts: 1. Informed consent is necessary. 2. With a 75% vs 2% chance of recidivism, I don't think this should be dismissed out of hand. 3. A lot of people who commit sexual offenses against children are extremely emotionally immature themselves and don't relate well to people their own age. Not an excuse but more of a psychological phenomenon than ill intent or need for power. 4. If conditions for parole are too onerous, there is always the option to remain in prison. The crime has consequences either way.
If someone can be back in society without posing a threat, I think it's worth considering.
Consent is the whole problem, from beginning to end.
It's not consent if a person goes back to jail or stays in jail unless they do it. That's force. There really can't be informed consent in this situation.
If however, under no threat of (continued) imprisonment, a pedophile seeks chemical castration so as to get relief from symptoms, then it is a good intervention.
Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.
2 hours ago, FolksBtrippin said:
Consent is the whole problem, from beginning to end.
It's not consent if a person goes back to jail or stays in jail unless they do it. That's force. There really can't be informed consent in this situation.
If however, under no threat of (continued) imprisonment, a pedophile seeks chemical castration so as to get relief from symptoms, then it is a good intervention.
Think of it this way: they've already been sentenced to a lengthy prison term. If they are paroled, their chance of reoffending is 75%. Parole boards take that into consideration. Chemical castration is an option they are offered. The only other option is to not be eligible for parole.
Think of it this way: they've already been sentenced to a lengthy prison term. If they are paroled, their chance of reoffending is 75%. Parole boards take that into consideration. Chemical castration is an option they are offered. The only other option is to not be eligible for parole.
Also, in some ways these drugs can be thought of as "performance enhancing" for many things except for abusing kids sexually and of course sex. As stated in a post above I sought these medicines as a teenager losing my hair because I had read some scientific papers (I read almost everything ever published on the subject looking for effective interventions ) to suggest that they could halt male pattern baldness. Frankly, I looked at decreasing sex drive as a bonus since not caring about having a girlfriend would save time (for study), money, and heartache, less shaving, less body odor. Having kids need not be a problem (bank sperm or go off the drugs for a while to have your kid) and weight gain need not be a problem if you minimize carbs, exercise, and practice intermittent fasting. Also, their is reason to believe that they may reduce prostate cancer (my father was dying of the disease at the time). I had two different doctors deny me these medicines. In many years since I've often thought that I would be happier with my SO with these drugs, given our limited sex life. It seems that you have to abuse kids or be confused about your sexuality (transexuals get them all the time) to qualify for these medicines. I've cared for many Medicaid and military patients who had sexual reorientation drugs paid for by the government. I've always found it odd that if you have gender dysphoria it is seen as a right by many to have access to these drugs, but if someone is a sexual offender and forced to take them as a condition of parole (to get out of jail sooner) it is seen as an abrogation of their constitutional rights.
Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.
7 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
[...] but if someone is a sexual offender and forced to take them as a condition of parole (to get out of jail sooner) it is seen as an abrogation of their constitutional rights.
I'm not sure I agree with the word "forced". No one is forced. If it is the only way to be eligible for parole then it is an option. The other option is to keep them locked up to keep the rest of us safer from predation.
.thumb.jpg.e7b5bd336d518053002d5b4dbeef882b.jpg){kind=small}
Crystal-Wings, LVN
435 Posts
I agree with this article 100%. Child molesters should be given NO mercy. Let them have castration if it keeps them from diddling kids!