AL Legislator Wants To Castrate Pedophiles

There is a bill in the Legislature, introduced by Rep Steve Hurst (R-Talladega), that would mandate surgical castration for convicted pedophiles in some circumstances.
http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/12644488/article-Local-legislator-wants-pedophiles-castrated?instance=breakingnews&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d9c58731d2b4220,0

Hurst, a Republican from Talladega, has proposed a bill that would require convicted child molesters to be surgically castrated under certain conditions. Specifically, the bill states that anyone more than 21 years old convicted of certain sex offenses against a child 12 years old or younger must be surgically castrated before being released from the state Department of Corrections.

Okay, the problems with this bill are legion. Let me begin with the two most obvious.

The argument in favor of it is that 75% of pedophiles re-offend, so removing their ability to commit the crime would reduce recidivism. Here's a question, though. How is this proposal different from cutting off the hand of a thief with multiple convictions? Same principle, so why do most people who might support the first consider the second barbaric? The two are no different, and neither is acceptable.

Secondly, Hurst believes that the motivation for pedophilic rape is sexual in nature, but that's not true. Rape is a crime of violence and control... the primary motivation is rarely sexual. Removing a person's sex drive won't do anything to reduce their motivation for control. Now let's look at more aspects of this.


When considering any proposed law, I ask three major questions. The first question I ask is "is it just?" The second is "will it work?" And the third is "is it constitutional?"

Is it just?
Well, if 75% of pedophiles re-offend (which studies show they do), and if the surgical castration is mandatory (which it is, under certain conditions), then that means that 25% of those castrated would not have re-offended. In those cases, the procedure doesn't reduce recidivism, so it's merely a vindictive punishment. Can we say that a method that wrongfully punishes 25% of those it is administered to is just? I say no.

Will it work?
Most of the studies conducted on this issue involve chemical castration, because no state in the nation uses surgical castration as a punishment, so I'll have to use this data. The data shows, however, that it IS possible for chemically castrated rapists to re-offend with a pedophilic rape. It has happened, and it will happen again. So the treatment is NOT 100% effective, though I have yet to find a study that quantifies HOW effective it is. So, with little information to go on as to how effective this treatment is, I'd have to say it MAY work, but it won't be totally effective.

Is it constitutional?
The test of constitutionality is "cruel and unusual punishment." Since no other state in the nation uses surgical castration, and only eight other states use CHEMICAL castration (Georgia, California, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin), I'd have to say that the proposed punishment is, in fact, unusual. As to cruel... what could be more cruel than forcibly removing a portion of a person's anatonmy? Be it a hand or anything else, surgical removal of body parts would have to be regarded as cruel. Based upon those conclusions, this proposed law fails the constitutionality test, as the punishment is both cruel and unusual.

I understand WHY Hurst proposed this bill, and his goal is a laudable one, but this is a bad bill that should not be approved by the new Republican majority in the Legislature.