Alabama approves chemical castration

Felis Leo said:

The point of chemical castration is that it does not merely hurt one's ability to perform sex, but one's actual libido/sex drive.

I think it is perfectly appropriate to destroy the sex-drive of convicted sexual predators of all stripes, whether they rape adults or children, in order to lessen the harm they have on society. And I would also argue that the ACLU's point is inane. The implied right to privacy does not include the right to retain the ability to rape children. And even if by some warped and over-broad reading of the case law it did, that right can be curtailed through the due process of law upon criminal conviction, just as practically any of our rights can be.

Click to expand...

Your argument is that an offender will only ever have sex if it involves children.

I run the block watch in my neighborhood and we have a sex offender who lives one street down who has to register, and the community is informed.

He attends our meetings with his wife and they have 3 kids.

He was peeing in the tree line of a highway and got ticketed for urinating in public.

He plead guilty and expected to pay a fine at his sentencing.

The sentencing judge who was different than the judge he plead guilty to pushed his crime to a sex offence since children could have seen him.

In the state he was tried in exposing oneself to a child is a Class 3 sex crime or the highest level, equal to raping a child or another person.

I have personally seen his court paperwork and can confirm that he started with urinating in public and it escalated from there.

He can't change his offender classification, he wasn't allowed to rescind his guilty plea and he even has a personal letter from the state trooper stating that he was more than 20 yards off the roadway with his back towards traffic.

His children were born after his trial, he runs a successful business, is a great guy and a good neighbor.

Under the Alabama guidelines he would be castrated as a class 3 offender.

You might say that he would be an exception, but the law would still apply.

LadyMoonlight said:

We (Australia) do not have a Bill of Rights. We have a written Constitution...the laws that govern the country, but not specifically a Bill of Rights. Even if we did, similar to America, I would still advocate for the castration, or better yet, the execution of child rapists. It is not fair and it is not just that children and women who are raped receive a life sentence, but the rapist is free to walk around a few years later, free to do it to some child or woman again. Why is it that the rights of criminals are protected but the rights of victims are not?

Click to expand...

In Australia rape is considered assault.

What is the punishment for assault in Australia?

Common assault offences are dealt with by the Magistrates' Court. The maximum penalty for this offence is generally 18 months imprisonment and a fine of $18,000.

However, where the offence occurs in circumstances of aggravation, the maximum penalty rises to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of $36,000

Life in prison?

LadyMoonlight said:

Why is it that the rights of criminals are protected but the rights of victims are not?

Click to expand...

You can't really say that the right of criminals is being protected when they have to register as a sex offender

So, there are about 7 or states that have no mininum age requirement (seriously, and some don't even have the usual must have parental consent if under 14). FYI, both red and blue states. So if legally married minors show up, what happens?

distraff said:

So its cruel and unusual to allow a predator the choice to opt out of some years of prison in exchange for eliminating his pedo sex drive?

Click to expand...

Pretty much everything is cruel and unusual when it comes to so called "sex offenses" in the US(and a few other countries). Starting with what's defined as being a "sex offense" and the associated crazily high sentences, and ending with various human rights abuses like "sex offender registries", "chemical castration" etc.

Sure, the entire US pseudo-judicial system is a cruel and unusual totalitarian mess! But there's something particularly heinous about the system when it comes to alleged "sex crimes" (real or not, it doesn't even matter although most are fake complaints or deeds that shouldn't be crimes), it appears that the system is designed to be even more abominable than the worst "offenders"

There should be absolutely no difference between other crimes and "sex crimes" in any judicial aspects(early release, registration, etc. ) - actually such categorizations should not exist at all!

Alabama approves

but do the citizens of Alabama approve?

I assume the rapists don't

Rogue Valley said:

Alabama approves chemical castration for some sex offenders

The use of chemical castration is internationally controversial, and critics say forced chemical castration violates human rights.

Alabama State Capitol.



A handful of states permit either voluntary surgical castration, or voluntary chemical castration (Depo Provera) as a condition of early prison release/parole respectively.

The efficacy of chemical castration is questionable, and recidivism is not unknown.

Critics charge that chemical castration violates sex offenders' constitutional rights. The ACLU contends that chemical castration violates an offender's implied right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, rights of due process and equal protection, and the Eighth Amendment's ban of cruel and unusual punishment.

Related: Alabama governor signs chemical castration bill into law

Click to expand...

So they could decide to remain in prison instead, yes?

Jeebus we have an intense love of punishing people in this country.

Interestingly, what if the chemically castrated male then decides to identify as a female?

So basically the State of Alabama is using tax dollars for birth control.