Mike
Well-known member
Lawmakers debate castration as punishment for sex offeners
Last Update: 7/23/2005 2:47:57 PM
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Some members of the Alabama House say that violent sex offenders who prey on children should be forced to undergo surgical castration to ensure that they do not hurt another child.
In an effort to strengthen a bill toughening the state's laws against sex offenders, the House added an amendment Thursday by Rep. Steve Hurst, D-Munford, that would require those convicted of violent sex crimes against children under 12 to undergo the operation to remove their sex drive.
"Someone 12 or under can't defend themselves. I don't believe they should ever be back in society. But if they are going to be back in society, it should be in a reformed way where they can't become a repeat offender," Hurst said.
The amendment sparked a heated debate in the Legislature, with some lawmakers saying that no punishment is too tough if it protects children, while others said talk of extreme punishments like castration was political rhetoric aimed at helping legislators get re-elected next year.
At one point the discussion became so graphic that Speaker Seth Hammett, D-Andalusia, stopped the debate and reminded lawmakers that there were "citizens of all ages" observing in the House gallery.
The bill, as originally introduced in the Legislature, provides tougher sentences for sex offenders, removes the possibility of probation or parole from sex offenders and requires some to wear electronic monitoring devices after they are released from prison. The original bill is being supported by Gov. Bob Riley and Attorney General Troy King.
The Senate voted Thursday to approve the original bill and send it to the House to consider. The House, meanwhile, passed the amended version with castration and sent it to the Senate, where it has not been considered by a committee.
When the House Judiciary Committee took up the Senate-passed bill Friday, King told the committee that he feared the legislation would be unconstitutional if it included the castration provision, citing a 1940s Supreme Court ruling that said sterilization was an unconstitutional punishment.
"I would hate to see us invite a constitutional challenge that I feel we can't win," King said. The committee approved a Senate-passed version that does not include the castration amendment, but an attempt to add the language is expected when the bill comes up for final passage in the House Tuesday.
The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Neal Morrison, D-Cullman, said most lawmakers agree that castration is not too harsh of a sentence for people who prey on young children.
"I don't think you'll find anyone who is not in favor of doing that to those who harm children under 12. However, we believe the courts have ruled that you can't do that," Morrison said.
During his administration, former Gov. Don Siegelman proposed legislation to require chemical castration of sex offenders against children. He said Friday that the electronic monitoring devices would not prevent offenders from attacking children and said the House should put the castration language back in the bill.
"An ankle bracelet is not going to stop a predator from doing anything," Siegelman said. "They need to protect children from predators who need to be castrated or killed."
During Thursday's debate, before passing the mandatory castration amendment, the House first added an amendment by Rep. Jeremy Oden, R-Eva, that allowed convicted sex offenders to volunteer to undergo surgical castration before being released from prison.
"It will prevent these people from committing these types of crimes ever again," Oden said.
University of Alabama Criminal Justice Professor Robert Sigler said castration has not proven to be an effective way to stop sex offenders from repeating their crimes.
"Research indicates that sexual abuse is not necessarily sexual. These people are mentally ill and sexual castration often does not solve the problem," Sigler said.
He said a program where convicted sex offenders are required to take polygraph tests once a month is being used in some parts of Alabama and has proved more effective than castration.
"The fact that they know they are going to be polygraphed helps them control the urges that they have," Sigler said.
He said he also feels that adding the castration language would make the bill unconstitutional.
"I would suggest that any law requiring castration would be overturned," Sigler said.
Several legislators said they understand the sentiment to get as tough as possible with sex offenders, but don't want to do anything that would cause the bill to be overturned in court.
Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he believes the castration amendment was added in the House because lawmakers are very concerned about the issue.
"It's an alarming issue. But we want to make sure we don't pass something that doesn't meet constitutional review," Smitherman said.
©
Last Update: 7/23/2005 2:47:57 PM
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Some members of the Alabama House say that violent sex offenders who prey on children should be forced to undergo surgical castration to ensure that they do not hurt another child.
In an effort to strengthen a bill toughening the state's laws against sex offenders, the House added an amendment Thursday by Rep. Steve Hurst, D-Munford, that would require those convicted of violent sex crimes against children under 12 to undergo the operation to remove their sex drive.
"Someone 12 or under can't defend themselves. I don't believe they should ever be back in society. But if they are going to be back in society, it should be in a reformed way where they can't become a repeat offender," Hurst said.
The amendment sparked a heated debate in the Legislature, with some lawmakers saying that no punishment is too tough if it protects children, while others said talk of extreme punishments like castration was political rhetoric aimed at helping legislators get re-elected next year.
At one point the discussion became so graphic that Speaker Seth Hammett, D-Andalusia, stopped the debate and reminded lawmakers that there were "citizens of all ages" observing in the House gallery.
The bill, as originally introduced in the Legislature, provides tougher sentences for sex offenders, removes the possibility of probation or parole from sex offenders and requires some to wear electronic monitoring devices after they are released from prison. The original bill is being supported by Gov. Bob Riley and Attorney General Troy King.
The Senate voted Thursday to approve the original bill and send it to the House to consider. The House, meanwhile, passed the amended version with castration and sent it to the Senate, where it has not been considered by a committee.
When the House Judiciary Committee took up the Senate-passed bill Friday, King told the committee that he feared the legislation would be unconstitutional if it included the castration provision, citing a 1940s Supreme Court ruling that said sterilization was an unconstitutional punishment.
"I would hate to see us invite a constitutional challenge that I feel we can't win," King said. The committee approved a Senate-passed version that does not include the castration amendment, but an attempt to add the language is expected when the bill comes up for final passage in the House Tuesday.
The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Neal Morrison, D-Cullman, said most lawmakers agree that castration is not too harsh of a sentence for people who prey on young children.
"I don't think you'll find anyone who is not in favor of doing that to those who harm children under 12. However, we believe the courts have ruled that you can't do that," Morrison said.
During his administration, former Gov. Don Siegelman proposed legislation to require chemical castration of sex offenders against children. He said Friday that the electronic monitoring devices would not prevent offenders from attacking children and said the House should put the castration language back in the bill.
"An ankle bracelet is not going to stop a predator from doing anything," Siegelman said. "They need to protect children from predators who need to be castrated or killed."
During Thursday's debate, before passing the mandatory castration amendment, the House first added an amendment by Rep. Jeremy Oden, R-Eva, that allowed convicted sex offenders to volunteer to undergo surgical castration before being released from prison.
"It will prevent these people from committing these types of crimes ever again," Oden said.
University of Alabama Criminal Justice Professor Robert Sigler said castration has not proven to be an effective way to stop sex offenders from repeating their crimes.
"Research indicates that sexual abuse is not necessarily sexual. These people are mentally ill and sexual castration often does not solve the problem," Sigler said.
He said a program where convicted sex offenders are required to take polygraph tests once a month is being used in some parts of Alabama and has proved more effective than castration.
"The fact that they know they are going to be polygraphed helps them control the urges that they have," Sigler said.
He said he also feels that adding the castration language would make the bill unconstitutional.
"I would suggest that any law requiring castration would be overturned," Sigler said.
Several legislators said they understand the sentiment to get as tough as possible with sex offenders, but don't want to do anything that would cause the bill to be overturned in court.
Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he believes the castration amendment was added in the House because lawmakers are very concerned about the issue.
"It's an alarming issue. But we want to make sure we don't pass something that doesn't meet constitutional review," Smitherman said.
©
and, Gracious Sakes.........we just can't do THAT! ....why- - -it wouldn't be FAIR! :roll: :roll: 
