Under the language of the bill, which is nearly identical to that of a similar law approved last year in Alabama, those sentenced for the crime would undergo a chemical injection that “reduces, inhibits or blocks the production of testosterone, hormones, or other chemicals in a person’s body.” If the person refuses, he would be considered to be in violation of his parole and would be “immediately remanded to the custody of the department of correction for the remainder of the person’s sentence,”.
Further, the condemned would be required to pay for the “treatments” himself.
Every time I read a new post, I feel like I’ve learned something valuable or gained a new perspective. Thank you for consistently putting out such great content!
According to one study I’ve read before, chemical castration could make the person’s drive worse. Because when testosterone goes down estrogen goes up. Furthermore, other studies have shown that most sex crimes are about power and control, so trying to lower someone’s drive isn’t going to make any difference because their crime had nothing to do with their drive. The Missouri SOP teaches that sex crimes have nothing to do with sex or sexual drive. Basically their drive is not why they committed their crime. And many sex crimes didn’t involve penetration with that body part.
It’s sad to see the way our country is going, we are supposed to be getting better as humanity moves forward. The problem that I see is that the people they are targeting are the most violent of offenders but as we know most if not all of them will never see outside of prison again. It’s that one bill fits all offenders and not putting people in tiers based on offence and actual threat to society, I dont think the registry is a good idea but it wont ho away anytime soon. As for the chemical castration, I dont think it’s a good idea. Eventually it will be mandatory for all offenders regardless of the crime. Now I wouldnt mind it to get off the registry, since the age of 22 my testosterone lvls have been equal to a 100 year old males and then I got a vasectomy on top of it 3 months before my bs charge.
Only for men? Not for women sexual offenders? How is that constitutional?
In the article, where does it say “only for men”? I am sure you are correct — I just did not find it as I was quickly glancing over the article. I did see where it mentioned men in Indonesia, though.
If you are correct in saying that the bill would only apply to men, I would think that would open a lawsuit for discrimination against men.
The United Nations Convention against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory, specifically bans degrading treatment. The UN has determined that chemical castration constitutes “degrading treatment.”
See http://www.un.org.tr/humanrights/images/pdf/White-Paper-on-Chemical-Castration-and-Life-Imprisonment.pdf
To the extent that these laws are actually applied, the states that apply them (and the United States itself) are committing acts of torture specifically banned by this treaty.
Very interesting. Thanks.
It states the drug cannot be administered involuntarily. These states will not be doing it involuntarily but will not allow these inmates out of prison without using the drug. Is that how they will get around this treaty? Or is the treaty even binding? My guess is not.
The treaty states the lack of administration of the drug cannot be used as a sanction against the inmate. Does that mean that prisons cannot refuse to release an inmate simply because he/she refuses to take the drug?
If it’s a convention rather than a treaty, it may have some moral authority but not necessarily enforceable.
It has debilitating side-effects.
It has been proven to cause diabetes and worsen insulin resistance in those who are already diabetic.
It also causes bone demineralization, which reduces bone density and makes a person much, much more prone to serious injuries. Think OSTEOPOROSIS AND FALLING AND BREAKING YOUR HIP.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597092/
That is cruel and unusual punishment in my book any day. Also, IT VIOLATES A PERSON’S MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO PROCREATE AND PERPETUATE THEIR BLOODLINE.
I live in TN and am subject to lifetime supervision and need to correct some errors I saw in the language describing this law:
SEX OFFENDERS WHO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST KIDS UNDER 13 (12 AND UNDER) ARE NEVER PAROLE ELIGIBLE TO BEGIN WITH. They have to serve their entire sentence minus good days. If a person is convicted of or pleads guilty to “rape of a child”, that is a day for day sentence with NO good time. Qualifying offenses are subject to COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR LIFE. This is NOT parole. Parole is a PRIVILEGE which allows those who are willing to abide by a set of rules to server their prison sentence in the community. If they violate those rules, they go back to prison because they still have a balance of time to serve. Those on COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR LIFE HAVE SERVED THEIR SENTENCE COMPLETELY (minus good days for qualifying offenses). They have no balance of their original confinement order to serve. They are placed on this parole-style supervision after their release. Those of us on community supervision must remain on supervision a STATUTORY MINIMUM OF 15 CALENDAR YEARS WITH NO VIOLATIONS OR NEW CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OF ANY KIND. Once the 15 years is up, the individual can petition the sentencing court to be released from community supervision, however THE COURT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO GRAND THE PETITION. If the petition is denied, the person MUST WAIT 3 YEARS TO RENEW THEIR PETITION.
THIS BILL HAS NO RETROACTIVE LANGUAGE IN IT, SO IT WILL NOT APPLY TO POST-ENACTMENT INDIVIDUALS.
There is NO GUARANTEED END TO COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR LIFE, so a person who is determined to refuse the injections will have a violation of supervision and be subject to incarceration each and every time he refuses the treatment.
Chemical castration has been medically proven to cause the following:
(A) Diabetes and increased insulin resistance in diabetics, making the disease much more difficult to effectively manage.
(B) Bone demineralization, which causes OSTEOPOROSIS. A fall could result in a catastrophic injury such as a broken hip, etc.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597092/
I don’t see how a treatment with such debilitating side-effects, especially for those already diabetic can be viewed as anything other than CRUEL, UNUSUAL, AND OUTRIGHT BARBARIC.
Has this type of law been addressed in the courts from a constitutional stand point? Even though it’s been implemented in Alabama has it challenged?
Although not widely known (because recidivism rates are low), the use of chemical castration is required by Florida Statute 794.0235 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0794/Sections/0794.0235.html) in cases of repeat sexual battery. It is authorized for first time offenders.
Florida is one of only a handful of states that has chemical castration. The other states include California, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, and Alabama (and if it passes, Tennessee)
The law has been on the books, so if there have been any challenges, it’s withstood them. When Alabama passed it’s law, medical practitioners argued that it violated their code of ethics. A couple of years ago, when an individual asked to be physically castrated instead of chemically castrated (which the statute allows), a Palm Beach County Judge denied his request.
FL does not mandate castration. Big diff from what’s proposed here.
In fact, of the states you listed, only one, Alabama, MANDATES castration, if I understand correctly. Bruce is proposing to make his state the second one.
Simply allowing the court to consider castration as a condition, is not at all the same thing! Such a law has a different outcome than a mandate, as the example of FL shows.
Here is a Florida case discussing whether the castration statute is constitutional or now as applied to the specific case facts.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16333163779130226829&q=794.0235&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
Any power that you give away to the government will be ripe for abuse.
Since the government has packaged and promoted it to the public as a way to “treat” sex offenders to protect the masses, there is no doubt many idiots would support it. What they don’t realize is once the people invite that into society there it would have a Pandora effect where chemical castration would find its way to other crimes as well.
And if that doesn’t bother the public then the next thing could be brain implants or concentration camps…all under that mindless mantra “if it saves one child” the government will be marching us up to the ovens.
Notice they don’t say convicted they say condemned death must be next
I am so outraged that I can’t even put my feelings down to make a comment. Sounds to me that Bruce Griffey has a sick passion for human torture. To bad there isn’t an injection for nuts like him and anyone that would condone and vote for his bill. God help his sole ! On the other side of the coin, if an offender wants this done to him or herself then they should be removed from all other restrictions that are put on offenders. If Griffey thinks castration is the answer, then there should be no restrictions on an offender that does this as a plea deal.
I hope his bill also includes the chemical castration of young boys who do sexual acts on younger girls like their siblings or classmates. I wanna see how THAT goes over with the parents.
Actually there was a story involving a sex offender who elected to undergo chemical castration in exchange for not having to deal with the registration.
My only response to this is that the lawmakers can take that syringe and inject it back to themselves.
The Constitution is crumbling more and more…and it needs to be stopped!
Bill
They made registries retro active so what is stopping them from doing the same with the chemical juice?
Also what if they add into removal from registry a clause that states if awarded release, you have to be chemically treated for life?
Totally agree Bill!
Seems like we are regressing back to the dark and Middle Ages? Where emasculation and brutal public executions were a normal form of entertainment.
Thought we were supposed to be an enlightened society? Seems the more knowledge and information we have, the dumber and more ignorant we become.
Just seems hard to believe that this day in age people are subscribing to this badly misinformed way of thinking.
Too much propaganda and false information put out there in regard to registered citizens! If I was not a registered citizen myself; I would believe the lies, propaganda, and intentional misinformation that is being propagated. Can’t blame the average person for feeling the way they do. Hopefully, things will start to turn around?
I noticed that Sweden and Denmark “suggest” the process can cut reoffending rates from 40% to 5%. The word “suggest” would have to be used since it would be a falsehood to state “research shows”.
Fortunately none of Bruce Griffey’s bills have passed so far, and if the people of Tennessee have any sense, this one will not pass either.
I am slowly no longer feeling that the USA is the greatest place in the world to live — at least not if you are on sexual offender probation and the registry at the same time. It is feeling more like a communist country from the 20th century. Forgive me for this, but I think idiots are taking over this country.
Hang in there, Sarah…State legislators have been doing this for as long as we can remember. In fact, at any given moment, there is a state legislator somewhere that is proposing some loopy bill that trampled on the rights of an unpopular group. That’s the constant downside of our democracy and it won’t change, I’m afraid. What CAN change, though, is the amount of credibility and influence such proposals have, so long as we keep fighting.
In our own state, I am grateful to the small number of FAC volunteers who track crazy legislative proposals and get people to help break their momentum. These volunteers hardly ever take credit!
What the article fails to mention about Sweden and Denmark— they do not MANDATE castration. In fact, they do not even have registries! And apparently don’t plan to.
Thank you, Jacob. I just went back to the source which is the Inquisitr and see the incorrect info on Denmark and Sweden has been taken out — the 40% recidivism rate.
On the plane now to Denmark lol Good thing is, most of them speak English. Not to please us but because there are so many connecting countries with different languages, it is easier to learn your own language plus the common language of English.
I have been to both Denmark and Sweden. The only deal breaker for me is the extreme cold weather and when they have the midnight sun.
So this is what this country boils down to, I don’t suppose this also applies to minors hmmmm? This country is a load of crap.
So it seems this unconstitutional punishment is only for contact offenses. More “do-gooder legislation” at the peril of the citizens
Shouldn’t such a stupid law be applied to everyone who commits a violent crime? Since their argument is that testosterone is the cause of aggression, it only makes sense. Maybe lobotomy is the “cure” for all recidivism. Maybe they can come up with brain implants to control us all. Where will it end? I encountered a nurse practioner last year who refuses to give any hormone therapy to males on the sex offender registry, despite the fact that testosterone is necessary for males for a whole lot more reasons than sex.
Cool, but what about those who are wrongfully accused and convicted.
Oh right nobody ever thinks about that one. Why are these “geniuses” trying so hard to shoot themselves in the foot?
I think we’ve reached the status of a rso legislative crisis and The People and their representatives need to stop running around with scissors.
I wonder what would happen if we had a drug that would suppress the urge to car-Jack or deal drugs or rob banks. Or maybe suppress the urge to drive your car after you got mad or work as a drustore employee working the register or make perfectly legal banking transactions?
But wait, wouldn’t that be a constitutional challenging situation?
Please remember that (Politicians do what we allow them to do) is my rallying cry to remind citizens that politicians like humans can be very inhumane if we allow them.
Oh wait, I’m using the same argument to not allow them to do to us that they’re using to not allow us to do what we have done to our victims.
So am I saying that two wrongs dont make a right?
Please dont misunderstand my stance. I’m not advocating for sterilization.
Here’s a good argument; Recidivism.
The politicians say we must do this to prevent future crime however as we all know statistics show that recidivism in this area are low enough to negate that stated reason. I say stated reason because if they actually believed the hogwash of not if but when then the politicians are either too daft or lying. Either case being reason enough to vote them out of office.
Okay so there it is. The argument doesn’t hold water. Recidivism statistics clearly indicate sterilization is not a reasonable reaction to this problem.
Next?
This law is the b****slap response to the fact that the last law they passed to deter Alabama sexual offenders from moving into TN got stopped cold in its tracks by a preliminary injunction. As a refresher, last year TN passed a law that would not only proactively prevent those with sexual felonies against children 12 and under from living with their own biological children whom they never abused in the first place, but it would have also RETROACTIVELY forced those individuals with qualifying offenses who HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ALLOWED TO LIVE WITH THEIR BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN BY AN EXCEPTION CARVED OUT IN LAW.
Those of you who regularly listen to “Registry Matters” with Andy and Larry, you know Larry is a realist and always emphasizes the fact that IF POLITICIANS LOSE ONE BATTLE, THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO JUST THROW THEIR HANDS UP IN THE AIR AND QUIT. THEY ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE AND THE PROCESS NEVER ENDS.
This latest bill reflects that reality so vividly.
The article rightly points out the violation of the 8th Amendment, prohibiting cruel and inhuman punishment.
The effectiveness of this move is highly questionable, and I believe further underscored the danger of any “one size fits all” approach.
I wonder if anyone has or will make a comparison of this forced/ compelled action to the forced/compelled female genital mutilation certain societies have dictated?
Are they making it retroactive? Would it affect those already sentenced? What about those off probation?
The only good thing is, chemical castration is not permanent and reverses itself after treatments are stopped.
* NO longterm study has been done on the after affects of chemical castration after being stopped.
The language of this bill is only prospective. IT WILL NOT AFFECT PRE-ENACTMENT INDIVIDUALS. ONLY THOSE CONVICTED ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2020.
After “chemical castration” is stopped, the effects of the testosterone blockers wears off after a period of time and the person is “fully functional” once again.
Yet, while scrolling down the “source” to find the comment section, I came across about 100 articles/ads exploiting women and/or children. SMH What a joke the inquisitr is.