Chemical Castration Condition for Parole in Alabama

[J.Adderton]

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?

Resources:

What to Know About the Chemical Castration Law

Coercion, Incarceration, and Chemical Castration: An Argument From Autonomy

Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders: Physicians View

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

6 minutes ago, TriciaJ said:

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.

Forced only in the sense that if they want to be eligible for parole they must take the drugs (in Alabama). I have no problem with this. Half the guys that I went to school with have wreaked their lives with sexual promiscuity, multiple kids, infidelity, or just a fortune spent chasing women. Honestly, many men would lead happier, more productive lives if they had access to these drugs, not just sexual offenders. Having said that I believe that child predators should face life imprisonment which would make the issue moot.

[MsQueensRN, LPN, LVN]

Chemical castration is cheaper than paying for the mental health services that are truly needed. Taxpayers have to pay for the jail sentence and the chemical castration so arguing about the savings is null to me. I can't ignore the implications that allowing the judicial system to make serious medical decisions on behalf of prisoners could potentially have on them making decisions for everyone in society. Don't forget that there are still individuals who are wrongfully imprisoned and given unjustified sentences and labels.

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

I believe that most would argue (and the evidence suggests) that "that chemical castration" is most effective as part of comprehensive mental health services. I'm not sure of the specifics of this bill with regard to such services. However, keep in mind that we are talking about "parole" which means getting out of jail sooner than your sentence would otherwise call for. It's an option, not a mandate for these prisoners. Also, as I have pointed out there are many benefits to "chemical castration" that even many healthy, non criminal men might want to consider were it offered as an option (less hair loss, less body odor, less need for shaving, less desire to spend money and time pursuing women ((or men if someone were gay) ).

[NurseBlaq]

13 hours ago, myoglobin said:

I believe that most would argue (and the evidence suggests) that "that chemical castration" is most effective as part of comprehensive mental health services. I'm not sure of the specifics of this bill with regard to such services. However, keep in mind that we are talking about "parole" which means getting out of jail sooner than your sentence would otherwise call for. It's an option, not a mandate for these prisoners. Also, as I have pointed out there are many benefits to "chemical castration" that even many healthy, non criminal men might want to consider were it offered as an option (less hair loss, less body odor, less need for shaving, less desire to spend money and time pursuing women ((or men if someone were gay) ).

Or just keep the violent offenders in jail, especially pedophiles and rapists, and let out the nonviolent offenders. I have a problem with pedos and rapists getting slaps on the wrist while nonviolent offenders get just as much time as murderers. Rapists and pedos murder people's minds and innocence. They're far more dangerous than nonviolent offenders. Plus they can't even locate these fools half the time. Keep them in jail!

[K8e]

On 6/12/2019 at 9:27 AM, J.Adderton said:

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?

Resources:

What to Know About the Chemical Castration Law

Coercion, Incarceration, and Chemical Castration: An Argument From Autonomy

Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders: Physicians View

I think it's a great idea. I may be alone on this, but I think the perverts give up their rights when they commit the crime. The pedophile pays for the treatment, is mandated to receive the treatment (and show up to receive the treatment), side effects can be treated. Real question- which costs more: keeping pedophiles in prison or chemical castration? I think protection of our children and all of society trumps pedophiles legal rights.

[lbivona BSN Rn]

I have read your article and to the legislators in Alabama I have only one thing to say. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME OR MONEY!!! A Study was done several years ago by the Mayo Clinic where they took over 100 inmate pedophile and sex offenders that were incarcerated, put them through two years of therapy both cognitive and behavioral therapy along with progressive hormonal treatment. In the third year of the 5 year study they were castrated. They were then put into intensive outpatient therapy and within two years 85% re offended. 10% either committed suicide or died of other causes and of the 5% that remained, they all report a daily struggle not to re offend. It is worth mentioning that this was in lieu of a lengthy prison sentence so the intensive screening process was more than adequate.

Pedophiles and sex offenders such as rapists are not driven by hormones which can be chemically or physically corrected, they are driven by a perverse obsessive desire to either control another person or in the case of a pedophile a need to fulfill their sexual desires with children. These people can not be cured , they can be treated but most are a constant danger to society so Alabama, Stop looking for excuses to lock them up. Don't waste your money just get them off the street. Besides only a Doctor can mandate medical treatment not even a Judge has that power so before you get the ACLU and every other Constitutional Group suing you. Stop and look at the facts.

The findings of the Mayo Clinic study can be found in JAMA and there are countless other studies that back this up.

Laurie Bivona Rn, BSN