Chemical castration is often seen as an easier alternative to life imprisonment or the death penalty because it allows the release of sex offenders while reducing or eliminating the chance that they reoffend. As we pointed out in the previous article, the state of Alabama just legalized mandatory chemical castration for all sex offenders convicted of crimes against victims 13 and younger. It was a very controversial bill, and when the governor signed it into law, newspapers all over the country exploded.
Chemical castration has long been a volatile subject!
Mandatory chemical castration is a hot topic that touches on all kinds of problematic issues, like non-consensual medical treatment, and the ethical dilemmas of what rights prisoners have, and how those rights determine the way they’re treated. So how does Alabama’s new chemical castration law compare to chemical castration laws in other states? And what does Michigan have to say about chemical castration?
Only nine U.S states have chemical castration laws on the books:
Those states are California, Florida, Iowa, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, and now Alabama. Here are some interesting points about the differences between their castration laws.
- California was the first U.S. state to specify the use of chemical castration for repeat child molesters as a condition of their parole. The law requires that no one may refuse the treatment if they were convicted of a sex crime with a minor under the age of 13, while on parole for a prior sex crime, but they do have the right to choose surgical castration.
- In Iowa, just like in California and Florida, offenders can be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses
- The U.S. territory of Guam, in the Western Pacific, also allows voluntary chemical castration, although the procedure has never actually been requested
- Despite its long history and established use, the drugs used in chemical castration, namely medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) has never been approved by the FDA for use as a treatment for sexual offenders
What is Michigan’s viewpoint on chemical castration?
We’ve had a lot of controversy over the years regarding the unconstitutional restrictions of Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry. But the one thing we don’t have to content with is the controversy of chemical (or surgical) castration! In fact, in 1984, Michigan’s Court of Appeals held that mandating chemical castration as a condition of probation was unlawful.
The reasons they gave for that opinion was that MPA hadn’t yet been determined as being safe and reliable (it still hasn’t!), and also because there were issues in obtaining getting informed consent under these circumstances. Our opinion hasn’t changed since. The value of chemical castration remains controversial because is often does not leave the offender impotent or without any libido.
Protect your rights here in Michigan.
Michigan may not force convicted sex offenders to undergo chemical castration, but we’re not out of the woods yet when it comes to violating people’s constitutional rights. Although Michigan was recently given 90 days to get their act together and address our non-constitutional sex offender registry restrictions, that hasn’t actually happened yet!
So if you happen to be accused of a sex crime anywhere in Michigan, including Lansing, Kalamazoo, Midland, or Saugatuck, you’re going to need help fighting to protect your rights. Don’t try to do it alone (because you won’t win!). Call The Kronzek Firm at 866 766 5245 right now. Our experienced sex crime defense attorneys are standing by 24/7 to help you figure this out. We’ve been fighting sex crime allegations for 25 years.