• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alabama approves chemical castration

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,292
Reaction score
81,299
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.

190515195336-congreso-alabama-large-tease.jpg

Alabama State Capitol.

6/11/19
Montgomery, Ala. -- Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has signed into law legislation that would require certain sex offenders to be chemically castrated before their parole. Gov. Kay Ivey's press office said Monday that she had signed the bill, which is to take effect later this year. The measure applies to sex offenders convicted of certain crimes involving children younger than 13. The bill applies to those who commit their crimes after September 1, 2019, CBS affiliate WIAT-TV reports. Chemical castration involves injection of medication that blocks testosterone production. Under the measure, certain offenders must receive the medication before they are paroled from prison. A judge would decide when the medication could be stopped. Republican Rep. Steve Hurst had proposed the measure for more than a decade. Meanwhile, Randall Marshall, the head of the ACLU of Alabama, said chemical castration could violate the U.S. Constitution."It could be cruel and unusual punishment. It also implicates right to privacy. Forced medications are all concerns," Marshall told WSFA.

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
 
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.

190515195336-congreso-alabama-large-tease.jpg

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Is it reversible?
 
Is it reversible?

Yes, apparently most forms are reversible, but long-term side effects can remain as the hormonal treatments can lead to permanent changes within body chemistry. Chemical castration requires regular hormonal treatments. It is not an irreversible one-and-done procedure (like actual castration is).
 
Last edited:
Yes, apparently most forms are reversible, but long-term side effects can remain as the hormonal treatments can lead to permanent changes within body chemistry. Chemical castration requires regular hormonal treatments. It is not an irreversible one-and-done procedure (like actual castration is).

Then I'm OK with it.
 
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.

I agree. They are criminals of a special breed. They are psychosis driven, impulsive, and hotly motivated. Yet since it’s not really a life sentence crime, they are let out and they cannot control their impulses and do harm again.

I am not totally against medical castration, either.
 
WT actual F is going on in Alabama these days?? Does this not constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

Sorry, I don't usually show up for sex offenders, but where are the slippery slope folks on this one? Chemical castration?? Dang!
 
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.

190515195336-congreso-alabama-large-tease.jpg

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

Somewhere Roy Moore is soiling himself.
 
I have no problems with chemical or physical castration, although I would rather see physical castration. Once these bastards violate the rights of children, or adults, they lose their rights as far as I am concerned. How anyone thinks that a rapist, particularly child rapists, still retains any rights is beyond me.
 
I have no problems with chemical or physical castration, although I would rather see physical castration. Once these bastards violate the rights of children, or adults, they lose their rights as far as I am concerned. How anyone thinks that a rapist, particularly child rapists, still retains any rights is beyond me.

What does your constitution say?

Legit asking, I don't know...but I'm pretty sure that's where your rights are laid out...?
 
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.

190515195336-congreso-alabama-large-tease.jpg

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

I'm ok with it except if they think he has a real chance of reoffending he should not be getting out in the first place.

This crime is right up there with murder
 
Alabama wants to make sure that the South doesn't rise again.
 
What does your constitution say?

Legit asking, I don't know...but I'm pretty sure that's where your rights are laid out...?

Committing a crime of that magnitude should dissolve your right to privacy. IMPO
 
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.

190515195336-congreso-alabama-large-tease.jpg

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

The triumph of the right- more and more muscular government. From the report...

"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."

I wonder what the , uh, demographic and economic spread of the denutted offenders will be. I wonder how this law might affect charges and verdicts in certain demographics.
Can amputation for theft be far behind? Onward Christian sharia!
 
What does your constitution say?

Legit asking, I don't know...but I'm pretty sure that's where your rights are laid out...?

You are thinking cruel and unusual punishment.
What is cruel? Rape of women, children, heck even men? Many, if not most, victims of these crimes don't recover from it. They have to live with emotional and physical scars for the rest of their lives. So what is cruel?
Why would the rights of the offender be more important than the prevention of further crimes? afaic, this goes far beyond punishment, but stopping those who can't stop themselves.
 
You are thinking cruel and unusual punishment.
What is cruel? Rape of women, children, heck even men? Many, if not most, victims of these crimes don't recover from it. They have to live with emotional and physical scars for the rest of their lives. So what is cruel?
Why would the rights of the offender be more important than the prevention of further crimes? afaic, this goes far beyond punishment, but stopping those who can't stop themselves.

Well, if that's how it's determined, why stop there? I agree with you, the damage they do is incredible. If they truly warrant abandoning your guiding principals around cruel and unusual punishment, I say why stop there? Why not flay them alive? Why not subject them to the entire prison running a train on them, THEN flay them alive?

Of course, I'm being extreme, to illustrate the point that when you allow the behavior of the criminal to change your national morality on the treatment of criminals, where and how do you draw the line? Of course this is an emotional topic, which is why I bring up your constitution. These documents are important because they provide sound guidance when emotion makes wisdom difficult. If this is constitutionally allowable, that's one thing. If not, well...that's another. :)
 
WT actual F is going on in Alabama these days?? Does this not constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

Sorry, I don't usually show up for sex offenders, but where are the slippery slope folks on this one? Chemical castration?? Dang!

so what would you prefer

we lock them up and throw away the key?

because if i have my way....that is the only other alternative....i dont want to let them out to possibly harm someone else again
 
so what would you prefer

we lock them up and throw away the key?

because if i have my way....that is the only other alternative....i dont want to let them out to possibly harm someone else again


Yes, I'd be in favor of that for repeat offenders.
 
What does your constitution say?

Legit asking, I don't know...but I'm pretty sure that's where your rights are laid out...?

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?
 
Well, if that's how it's determined, why stop there? I agree with you, the damage they do is incredible. If they truly warrant abandoning your guiding principals around cruel and unusual punishment, I say why stop there? Why not flay them alive? Why not subject them to the entire prison running a train on them, THEN flay them alive?

Of course, I'm being extreme, to illustrate the point that when you allow the behavior of the criminal to change your national morality on the treatment of criminals, where and how do you draw the line? Of course this is an emotional topic, which is why I bring up your constitution. These documents are important because they provide sound guidance when emotion makes wisdom difficult. If this is constitutionally allowable, that's one thing. If not, well...that's another. :)

Being extreme is ok. Passionate is ok. Why stop there? Because castration may be the only thing that stops sexual predators. No need to go beyond that.
 
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.

Actually, I prefer the rusty knife method for child predators. :mrgreen:
 
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.

190515195336-congreso-alabama-large-tease.jpg

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

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom