Would it surprise you to learn that the same sorts of liberal Democrats who vehemently oppose Alabama’s ban on abortion are equally upset about a new piece of legislation in the southern state that would force convicted child sex offenders to undergo “chemical castration therapy” prior to receiving parole?
“The proposed law, passed by the state legislature, says a judge must order anyone convicted of a sex offense involving a child under the age of 13 to start receiving testosterone-inhibiting medication a month before their release from prison,” The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
“Most offenders would have to pay for their treatment, which would be administered by the Department of Public Health, until a judge decides the medication is no longer necessary.”
It’s unclear how so-called “transgender” offenders would be handled.
— Jack Furnari (@JackBPR) June 20, 2015
Sounds reasonable, yes? There appears to be a glaring catch, though. If the offender stops taking the treatment, he’ll be returned to prison “to serve the remainder of [his] term,” the Post noted.
It sounds like the stipulation will only apply to the length of the sentence received by the perpetrator. So if a perpetrator is sentenced to 10 years with six years of incarceration and four years of parole, the stipulation would only apply for 10 years total?
The good news is that any child molester who stopped taking his castration medication without informing the authorities would face a Class C felony, i.e., up to 10 more years in prison.
While the law likely sounds reasonable — perhaps too reasonable, some might argue — to most Americans, some among the bleeding-heart left have already begun to find fault with it:
I hate Alabama for making me say this, especially about these people. However, chemical castration, as I know it, is cruel. A person should have the right to say what happens to their own body. This, along with banning abortion, is the beginning of the end of bodily autonomy.
— Dolce (@MyLittlePooka) June 5, 2019
As a blanket sentence, that is completely absurd. There are other ways to punish people for heir crimes than taking away part of their humanity. https://t.co/MoyzQyh1lI
— Lauren Bright (@laur_bright) June 5, 2019
Unconstitutional. It’s as horrendous as putting women in prison for having an abortion or imprisoning the doctor for doing it. And who will suffer most from this barbaric act? Innocent Blacks and POC. I’m not down for this whatsoever.
— 3ChicsPolitico (@3ChicsPolitico) June 5, 2019
Idiots! Sexual violence isn’t even about the sex, it’s about the control, the power of the abuser over their victim. The excitement is psychological and translates into the sexual. Remove the sexual component and they will just find another violent method of gratification
— C. Bruce Ryan (@cbruceryan) June 6, 2019
So,we’re headed towards “Fundamentalist Christian Sharia Law”
— Don Liebau (@Nukidz13) June 6, 2019
Having them pay for this is like getting blood from a turnip. Sex offenders have the hardest time finding employment. How do you expect to pay for something when you can’t get an income.
— Josh Brown (@bigjosh83) June 6, 2019
What is wrong with Alabama lawmakers??? They’re on a roll with the violation of individual rights.
Alabama Lawmakers Pass Bill Requiring Chemical Castration For Child Sex Offenders | HuffPost https://t.co/xDLpRyRJAi
— Shyla La’Sha (@1Shyla) June 6, 2019
You can say what you like about deserving it and I fully agree that child sex offenders are deserving of punishment, but I can’t help but worry about the precedent this sets for giving the government the power to castrate people it deems unfit.
— Alex Keeley (@AlexKeeley17) June 6, 2019
Wow! Alabama’s really going to whole hog with their pass as many crazy laws as possible while Trump is POTUS and the SCOTIS is majority whacked.
— ParaUniTrump (@ParaUniTrump) June 6, 2019
Cause the overall criminal justice system has a perfect track record, right? No mistakes ever made or inappropriate sentences passed…
Let’s just stick to time served. Alabama’s penal system is “cruel and unusual” enough without castration.
— Booker (@BookerT1980) June 6, 2019
The Twitter user named “Booker” wasn’t wrong to point out that sometimes people are falsely convicted of crimes and then later exonerated. As noted earlier, however, the “chemical castration therapy” option is voluntary, meaning those who still maintain their innocence can reject it and remain in prison as they fight for an appeal in their case.
As for the claim that this therapy would be “cruel and unusual,” that’s silly.
“I had people call me in the past when I introduced it and said don’t you think this is inhumane?” the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Steve Hurst, pointed out in a recent interview with Birmingham station WIAT.
“I asked them what’s more inhumane than when you take a little infant child, and you sexually molest that infant child when the child cannot defend themselves or get away, and they have to go through all the things they have to go through? If you want to talk about inhumane — that’s inhumane!”
Another concern raised by the left is that the therapy could trigger certain side effects.
“Side effects of the treatment can include depression, osteoporosis and anemia. Other possible side effects include anaphylaxis, kidney failure or heart failure, depending on the medication use,” the Post lamented.
Some have also argued that the therapy might not be effective. That’s false.
It won’t work. It’s been tried before. I wish it would but there is high recidivism after castration. It’s because sex offense is about power and control not so much about gratification. The preying and taking is their gratification. Many are taking what was taken from them
— tim crews (@timmer110) June 6, 2019
Frederick Berlin, the director of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma, confirmed with the Post that castration medications produce “low rates of recidivism” in pedophiles.
ABC News confirmed this as well, citing a 2006 study that found that men receiving castration drugs “committ[ed] no new sexual offenses and also committ[ed] fewer overall offenses and violations compared to” those who didn’t.
So with all this in mind, what exactly is the problem, liberals …!?