Are they going to cut off fingers too?
Tuesday, April 8th, 2008A law is being proposed that would allow for chemical castration for a first time sex offender. Physical castration is also an option if the offender wants it. This is one of those “feel good” laws that are meant to be used to show how much a politician supports victims and can be used against those who opposed the law for being weak on crime (or rape).
But let’s look at the facts here. Many people will tell you that rape is about power and not about “getting off”, and in many cases I am sure that is true. If one uses rape to exert power over someone, castration will not solve that problem. They can still use other means to exert power over a woman that would still be as traumatic.
There are other questions that need to be asked as well. What sex offenders can be castrated? What if someone is falsely accused? What if there is no physical evidence?
I’m all for cutting it off as punishment for the worst of the worst. I also have no problem with the death penalty for child molesters and serial rapists. I just hope the new law will contain provisions that will only allow for extreme penalties in extreme circumstances.
Update: The text of the proposed legislation contains the violations that will allow someone to potentially be castrated.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, upon conviction, as a first offender, of one or more of the sexual offenses defined in R.S. 14:42, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3, 43.4, 45, 78, 81, 81.1, 81.2, 89.1, or 403; or any provision of Subpart C of Part II, Subpart B of Part IV, or Subpart A(1) or A(4) of Part V, of Chapter 1 of Title 14 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, the court may sentence the offender to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), according to a schedule of administration monitored by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
R.S. 14:42 is aggravated rape.
Whoever commits the crime of aggravated rape shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
So is castration needed here? If the offender is in jail for life, there is no way he will be out and about, free to commit crimes against innocent people. If the castration is for prevention of future crimes instead of punishment for past crimes, then castration makes no sense in this case.
In the other crimes, the law is clear that the treatment shall be started 1 week before the end of the sentence. It also seems that someone has to say that the treatment is appropriate and that if someone deems that the treatment is not appropriate, then you don’t have to give that treatment. Of course, this seems to contradict the “shall” that requires the treatment for repeat offenders.
Proposed law provides that upon conviction of a subsequent offense as a sexual offender, in addition to the prescribed penalty, the court is required to sentence the defendant to treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA).
Seems to contradict
Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require the continued administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment when it is not medically appropriate.
So does this mean that the court appointed medical expert would be able to say “this offender will not be benefited by this”, allowing for exceptions to the requirement for multiple offenders?
I guess I just don’t like the “shall” for a procedure so drastic as castration (chemical or otherwise). I prefer laws that allow for judgement to be used when giving harsh sentences. By all means, give the courts the ability to use this tool where appropriate. By all means, punish sex offenders to the fullest extend of the law. By all means, take actions to protect innocent people from sex criminals. But allow the courts the ability to determine whether that punishment is appropriate by eliminating the “shall”. I would then have absolutely no problem with this law.
Oh, and it doesn’t seem that prostitution falls under this law, so Vitter can breathe a sigh of relief.
