TN: Lawmaker Files Bill To Chemically Castrate Convicted Sex Offenders
Tennessee Republican Bruce Griffey introduced a bill that would require anyone convicted of a sexual offense against a child under the age of 13 to be chemically castrated,
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.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.