A 54-year-old man in Louisiana has pleas guilty to raping and impregnating a 14-year-old girl, and in addition to a sentence of 50 years, is to undergo physical castration by the state Department of Corrections.
The article makes it clear that the castration is unlikely to actually happen - the law, which was passed in 2008, requires that it be done no sooner than the last week of his incarceration, when he would be 104 years old. Still, this just doesn’t feel legal to me - seems a clear case of cruel and unusual punishment. Raping a child is no doubt one of the most evil and vile acts one can commit, and the argument could surely be made that he deserves it, but I don’t like the idea of allowing this sentence to stand.
Law-talkin’-guys of the Dope, is there precedent for or against this kind of sentence?
This is a National Institutes of Health article on chemical castration for sex offenders, using drugs to reduce sex drive. The site won’t let me cut and paste, but I’ll retype a quote here: “In 1996 California became the first state in the United States to authorize the use of either chemical or surgical castration for certain sex offenders who were being released from prison into the community.”
ETA:
The article states that subsequently eight other states have authorized some form of castration for sex offenders – again, “under consideration for parole or probation.”
ETA2: Here’s a webpage addressing chemical castration for sex offenders provided by a criminal defense law firm. Has more detail on application of the California law.
Skinner v Oklahoma is the case law here. My understanding, and a lawyer feel free to correct me, is that punitive sterilization of criminals must be justified on a case-by-case basis. The burden of the state to justify castration is so great that it has for now de facto eliminated although still legally allowed if the state can meet that burden.
I was able to copy and paste this paragraph on California’s law from the Kronzek firm’s article:
California was the first U.S. state to specify the use of chemical castration for repeat child molesters as a condition of their parole. The law requires that no one may refuse the treatment if they were convicted of a sex crime with a minor under the age of 13, while on parole for a prior sex crime, but they do have the right to choose surgical castration.
It can’t be considered “unusual” if many states are doing it. That leaves the question of whether it is cruel.
Why is it cruel? Chemical castration, at least, is merely lowering the level of testosterone. Is this crueller than, say, depriving someone of liberty by locking them up or of money by fining them? If so, how do you calculate that?
I’m not trying to argue that it’s kind or anything, but I think making the argument for why it’s cruel would help in establishing whether it’s cruel. A quick google suggests that it’s problematic from medical and medical ethics points of view, which are good arguments against it, but I don’t know that “you might have side effects from this reversible procedure” rises to the level of “cruel.”
How do they propose performing the castration? I have a feeling a doctor won’t do such a thing and, of course, having a non-medical practition performing surgery on a human is (at least it should be) illegal.
ISTR reading that eunuchs de-ballocked after sexual maturity could still have erections. This won’t prevent the exercise of violent rage upon child victims, not even as sexual expression.
But note those last four words-as a condition of their parole. You are welcome to serve out your sentence if you prefer. But Chemical castration is totally different than physical castration. That is indeed- cruel and unusual.
I think that is the only state with physical castration.
Do they have to show that it’s “cruel or unusual” or rather that it’s “cruel andunusual”. I’ve only ever seen the phrase written as “cruel and unusual” which implies you’d have to prove both of them.
Well, many believe that the death penalty should be illegal/unconstitutional, but it exists. I feel that, if a state is going to force a raped female to bear the child of a rapist, that rapist should be rendered incapable of raping another female. What I disagree with is the stipulation that the castration take place at the END of his incarceration. I think it should be done as soon as the legal process is finished.
There are probably doctors out there who think it would be a grand idea for sexual offenders. Back in the first half of the 20th Century there were doctors who happily surgically altered people for the “crime” of being disabled or epileptic, I’m sure these states could find doctors willing to castrate prisoners.
Not saying the majority of doctors would be on board with that, just that the sub-set does exist.
I knew a guy who argued about that. He was in his 80s and had prostate cancer. Chemical castration was a part of his suggested treatment plan. He compared the cost, side effects, discomfort, etc of chemical versus surgical castration and found surgical castration to be the clear winner for him.
And yet, they can’t find any doctors to perform executions.
If enough doctors agree that a procedure shouldn’t be done they have ways to censure any individual doctors who disagree.
Cite? I don’t know of any 20th century doctors who wanted to punish the disabled or epileptic population through surgery.
There were certainly doctors who thought they had a treatment, which in hindsight was ineffective. But part of the reason that you can find a doctor to perform euthanasia but not an execution is specifically that point - doctors will do the same exact act to treat but not to punish.
The fact that doctors in the past offered these ineffective and damaging treatments, and are often seen now as not having taken enough of an interest in whether or not those treatments were actually in the best interest of the patients, is a major part of the reason that doctors are so much more careful nowadays, to the point where states cannot find a doctor to perform an execution.
I think we would find a similar outcome in this case.