What to Know About the Alabama Chemical Castration Law

Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama has signed a so-called chemical castration measure into law, her office announced on Monday, leaving the state poised to set a stringent new parole condition for certain sex offenders.

Supporters of the law contend that it will enhance public safety and reduce the risk of convicted sex offenders committing similar crimes once they are released from prison. But critics of the law, which will take effect in September, think it may prove unconstitutional.

[State legislatures are moving sharply to the left and right under one-party control.]

Here is a guide to the procedure, which is used in a handful of states and in some places outside of the country.

Chemical castration involves using a drug to reduce testosterone levels and affect the sex drive. American doctors have been using medroxyprogesterone acetate — the protocol expected to be used in Alabama — to treat sex offenders for more than 50 years.

Castration procedures are also used overseas, and in 2016, Indonesia amended its laws to allow chemical castration.

In a 2005 review of medical literature in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, researchers said that chemical castration “reduced testosterone levels and affected sexual deviance.” But they added a note of caution: “These studies used self‐report to measure decreases in deviant sexual drive, fantasies and behavior — a methodology with questionable reliability.”

A report in the Journal of Korean Medical Science in 2013 said that chemical castration “results in very low levels of recidivism despite the strong psychological factors that contribute to sexual offending.”

Researchers in the United States and abroad have also found substantially lower recidivism rates among people who had surgical castration procedures, compared to people who were released from custody without any such treatments.

Some critics contend that chemical castration laws are improperly coercive to inmates, who might be forced to choose between staying in prison and taking the drug. Doctors and medical ethicists have also expressed concerns about side effects and whether prisoners receive enough information to make appropriate, informed decisions.

Source link Top Stories

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Important This site makes use of cookies which may contain tracking information about visitors. By continuing to browse this site you agree to our use of cookies.