Jump to content

Chemical Castration Condition for Parole in Alabama

News Article News   (2,653 Views 40 Replies 765 Words)
by J.Adderton J.Adderton, MSN (Member) Writer Verified

J.Adderton has 20 years experience as a MSN .

7 Followers; 59 Articles; 27,998 Profile Views; 278 Posts

Pros and Cons on Chemical Castration

advertisement

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. You are reading page 3 of Chemical Castration Condition for Parole in Alabama. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

268 Posts; 3,738 Profile Views

I agree with this article 100%. Child molesters should be given NO mercy. Let them have castration if it keeps them from diddling kids! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FolksBtrippin is a BSN, RN and specializes in Psychiatry, Pediatrics, Public Health.

1,538 Posts; 13,547 Profile Views

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

myoglobin has 11 years experience as a ASN, BSN, MSN and specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro.

504 Posts; 3,728 Profile Views

On 6/13/2019 at 7:54 PM, Here.I.Stand said:

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 penis.  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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kbrn2002 has 25 years experience as a ADN, RN and specializes in Geriatrics.

2,893 Posts; 28,889 Profile Views

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 Posts; 378 Profile Views

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J.Adderton has 20 years experience as a MSN.

59 Articles; 278 Posts; 27,998 Profile Views

13 hours ago, FolksBtrippin said:

It's a felony if they refuse the medication? 

 

Yes, that is a common debate point- what if cost exceeds ability to pay for treatment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TriciaJ has 37 years experience as a ASN, RN and specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.

3,237 Posts; 33,576 Profile Views

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

myoglobin has 11 years experience as a ASN, BSN, MSN and specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro.

504 Posts; 3,728 Profile Views

4 minutes 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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FolksBtrippin is a BSN, RN and specializes in Psychiatry, Pediatrics, Public Health.

1,538 Posts; 13,547 Profile Views

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TriciaJ has 37 years experience as a ASN, RN and specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.

3,237 Posts; 33,576 Profile Views

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

myoglobin has 11 years experience as a ASN, BSN, MSN and specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro.

504 Posts; 3,728 Profile Views

58 minutes ago, TriciaJ said:

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TriciaJ has 37 years experience as a ASN, RN and specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.

3,237 Posts; 33,576 Profile Views

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing 0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×