Castration of Sex Offenders: “Off with their heads!”
By: Derek W. Logue
Created 13 May 2011, Updated 14 June 2019
“I lost my house, I lost my wife and now y’all trying to take my manhood.” – Francis Tullier
“It is time to give Caesar what is owed Caesar.” – Baton Rouge judge James J. Best, on accepting Tullier’s freedom in exchange for surgical castration .
Castration of people convicted of sex offenses is the most controversial concepts in American jurisprudence. As of 2009, ten US states  and a few nations (Poland, Germany, The United Kingdom, Israel, and Argentina ) have either laws on castration on the books or have used some form of castration as a form of sanction. (As of June 2019, eight states and one US Territory have castration laws on the books.) Much of the public demand for castration seems to stem from our revenge-oriented society. However, issues of ethics and effectiveness surround the castration issue.
HISTORY OF CASTRATION
“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. … Three generations of imbeciles are enough .” – US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his support of the Eugenics movement in Buck v. Bell
Castration has been utilized since Biblical times, when eunuchs were utilized to guard women’s quarters or act as chamberlains. In the US, Indiana became the first state to allow physical castration in the late 1800s. Castration was further fueled by the Eugenics Movement, which sterilized 60,000 individuals in 33 states under the belief that certain undesirable behavioral traits were genetically transmitted . The practice of Eugenics was upheld in 1927 by the US Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell.
In Europe, castration of sex offenders has been in existence since the early 20th century. The Danish passed the first castration laws against sex offenders in 1929, soon thereafter, Germany (1933), Norway (1934), Finland (1935), Estonia (1937), Iceland (1938), Latvia (1938), and Sweden (1944) enacted similar laws. Germany (under the Nazi German Act of Nov. 24, 1933) and Denmark were the biggest users of castration; as a result, many studies on castration came from these two nations .
“Chemical castration,” the use of medication to lower sex drive, was first prescribed in the US in 1944 . Although some states had passed castration laws during World War 2, they fell quickly out of favor after the war . However, by the late 20th Century, most court rulings stipulating castration as punishment was overturned on appeal, and a relieved public lauded itself for living in more enlightened times . The use of castration made a return in 1996, when California became the first state to pass a chemical castration bill. Of the nine states that currently allow castration as a penalty, four allow “chemical castration only (Georgia, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin), four allow either chemical castration or voluntary surgical castration (California, Florida, Iowa, and Louisiana), and one (Texas) provides voluntary surgical castration as the only treatment option .”
DOES CASTRATION WORK?
”Why not give these people a shot to calm them down and bring them under control or, alternatively, give them the option of going under the knife?” — Assemblyman Bill Hoge of Pasadena, CA, in support of his castration bill 
Castration is based upon the idea that eliminating sexual urges would eliminate the reason for engaging in criminal sexual behavior . Thus, a big question concerns whether castration is effective as a tool to reduce recidivism.
Those who have undergone surgical castration (mostly as the result of testicular cancer) indeed report low to no sex drive; however, men could still achieve and maintain an erection, as well as become sexually aroused to visual stimuli . Among the few studies that have studied castration among sex offenders over the years, recidivism rates varied from zero to ten percent; however, the studies were generally plagued by many limitations, including no pre-surgery base-rate risk for sexual recidivism, lack of a true comparison group, non-sex offenders added to the group, no baseline data regarding pre-intervention offending and offense types, small sample sizes, and/or a lack of post-surgery corroboration of deviant sexual interest. These studies fail to take into account reasons for sexual offending outside the presence of a sex drive and testosterone . Also, of the one study that boasted a zero percent recidivism rate, namely, the California Legislative Report of 1952, only 44 of the 60 in the report were convicted of sex crimes (four of those were not for “hands on offenses”) and of those, only 11 were repeat offenders .
So-called “chemical castration” (a term some experts consider a misnomer) is believed to be “safer” than surgical castration, yet there are a number of concerns with the use of chemicals to lower the sex drive. Dr. Ronald Langevin, a psychiatrist at the University of Toronto, ran into problems while attempting to study the efficacy of chemical castration. He found only 18 out of around 100 willing to participate in the study; only 12 have remained in the study after 3 months, with one admitting to flushing his pills down the toilet. He also noted the efficacy rate can be influenced by the voluntary nature of those willing to receive treatment, some patients becoming resistant to the treatment, or the treatment overridden by hormone replacements .
Many experts still argue that in certain circumstances, castration would have little to no impact on the propensity to re-offend. Defendants who deny the perpetration of the offense; defendants who admit the perpetration of the offense, but who blame their behavior on non-sexual or non-personal forces, such as drugs, alcohol, or job stress; and defendants who are violent and appear to be prompted by non-sexual factors, such as anger, power, or violence are believed to be minimally impacted by castration of either type . Dr. Raymond Rosen, professor of psychiatry at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J., estimates that only about 60 percent of men who have sex with children are motivated by uncontrollable sexual urges, while others are influenced by other forces like aggression or antisocial inclinations .
ETHICAL ISSUES OF CASTRATION
”This is a celebration of not needing any scientific information or controls on punishment policy, and that naked aggression is much scarier.” — Frank Zimring, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley .
One of the primary concerns of the use of castration is the impact of castration on the human body. Spalding adds a laundry list of health problems including increased appetite, weight gain of fifteen to twenty pounds, fatigue, mental depression, hyperglycemia, impotence, abnormal sperm, lowered ejaculatory volume, insomnia, nightmares, dyspnea (difficulty in breathing), hot and cold flashes, loss of body hair, nausea, leg cramps, irregular gall bladder function, diverticulitis, aggravation of migraine, hypogonadism, elevation of the blood pressure, hypertension, phlebitis, diabetic sequelae, thrombosis (leading to heart attack), and shrinkage of the prostate and seminal vessels . In addition, long term studies of castrated men show high levels of Gynecomastia (enlarged breasts) . According to Dr. William Bremner (an endocrinologist at the University of Washington in Seattle) the drugs can “make men more like old women,” causing them to lose bone and muscle and to suffer premature osteoporosis . It is worthy of mentioning like Depo-Provera have not been approved by the FDA for the purposes of chemical castration .
Another concern is the practice of exchanging freedom for undergoing the procedure. If a person is given the choice between castration and subsequent freedom with indefinite confinement as the alternative, then the choice of the former is not considered voluntary. A bill in Virginia sponsored by Republican assemblyman Emmett Hanger, Jr. would have exchanged castration for freedom, but was removed citing constitutional concerns . The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture raised concerns over two psychiatric hospitals for similar concerns over forced consent as well as lack of standards for determining treatment of sex offenders .
There are similar concerns in the US regarding the standards used to determine just who is the “ideal” candidate for this controversial form of “treatment.” A critique of Florida’s castration statute pointed out a lack of criteria for the “ideal” candidate, a lack of standards to determine who is a “medical expert” for purposes of determining ideal candidates, the lack of information to candidates of the side effects of the procedure, and the question of whether court findings can be disputed .
“We are not trying to change to a Taliban nation. This sounds like a diktat you hear from Afghanistan. The idea is not to kill people or make them redundant but to bring about social change. It’s like saying cut the hands of a thief. This is not the language a civil society should be speaking in.” — Shabnam Hashmi, activist speaking against India’s castration proposal 
Perhaps the most immediate Constitutional concern is the 8th Amendment ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment, a concern that derailed the 2006 Virginia bill. John Q. LaFond argues since the courts had struck down the lesser penalty of forced vasectomies as a form of punishment, the more intrusive act of castration should be struck down as well . While some may argue castration is treatment rather than punishment, the nature of the bill and lack of treatment standards implies it was intended as a punishment . In Canterbury v. Spence , the court stated that “the concept, fundamental in American jurisprudence, that ‘[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.’” This argument is compelling as Alabama considers the first mandatory surgical castration bill in the modern era .
A second argument involves privacy rights, a right not explicitly stated in the US Constitution yet considered a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment. More specifically, this covers the right to procreate, as mentioned in Skinner v. Oklahoma ; it recognized castration as depriving one of a “basic liberty,” and any law threatening this right falls under strict scrutiny. While the US Supreme Court ruling in Skinner did not explicitly overturn Buck v. Bell, the Skinner ruling impacted sterilization as a punitive sanction . Chemical castration could be argued as more intrusive than a vasectomy as it involves a change sex drive .
Through various U.S. Supreme Court cases, standards were created for inmates invoking a right to refuse medical treatment. There must first be a determination that a mental illness or abnormality is present. Next, the proposed treatment must be in the inmate’s medical interest. Third, the mandated treatment must be essential for the inmate’s safety or the safety of others. Finally, there should be no less intrusive alternatives to the medical treatment ordered . These standards are closely tied to the 14th Amendment Due Process clause, which states that laws limiting fundamental rights must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest .
Because castration is directed at men, the law also violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment as it represents gender discrimination; drugs used for chemical castration have different effects in women as they are typically used for birth control purposes. Second, castration laws do not differentiate between people who would respond to treatment and those who would not, as the decision to castrate is derived from a court ruling . Spalding argues that castration would be overbroad in sex cases fueled by non-sexual motives like revenge or anger, circumstances where castration would have no impact on rehabilitation .
The Florida castration law may also violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment. The law allows courts to circumvent the terms of punishment by adding a penalty for refusing treatment, an action that is normally not considered a crime .
“That’s an awful Draconian step to take. I personally would have been reluctant to ask for it. And I think most judges I’ve appeared before would be reluctant to order it unless it was off the Richter scale for awful.” — Bob Dekle, University of Florida professor and former state prosecutor 
Larry Helm Spalding and the Florida ACLU wrote objections to the Florida castration laws in 1997. Today, Florida’s castration law is still on the books but has not been utilized. Castration is still viewed as “Draconian” and prosecutors are reluctant to ask for the law, and those who would be considered for castration (i.e., those who committed very serious offenses) are least likely to be released in the first place . In India, opponents of castration consider a castration proposal “Talibanesque” and that proposing castration “is not the language a civil society should be speaking in . In Russia, some legislators are calling for castration laws citing a “wave of sex crimes” and “lax law enforcement” as justification for the law . It sounds a lot like the justification used in the mid-1990s to justify the passage of castration laws in America. In Virginia, castration is revisited as a cost-saving alternative to civil commitment in a culture facing a deep recession .
While castration may be gaining a new round of attention, it should not be seen as a viable solution. Castration harkens back to historical controversies like genocide, ethic cleansing, and Eugenics, laws that were not completely overturned but fell out of favor as Draconian measures. Short-term “cost-saving” would simply be countered by long term health problems associated with castration without guaranteeing elimination of motivation for committing sex crimes in the first place. The practice also raises a number of Constitutional issues, such as cruel and unusual punishment, lack of equal protection, and double jeopardy. The rights to procreate and refuse medical treatment are also considered fundamental rights. Castration appeals to our basest desire for revenge, but it still does not address the root causes. If anything, castration has proven the fact there is more to the root cause of sexually deviant behavior than the simplistic notion of raging hormones and testosterone.
The bottom line—Castration is more about revenge and less about prevention and treatment.
ADDENDUM 1: REGARDING FEMALE GENITAL CASTRATION/ MUTILATION
A reader sent me an e-mail asking me why I didn’t cover female genital mutilation. I see the practice as different from the issue of castration of registered sex offenders. No state has proposed female castration as far as I know. That being said, I will share a study since the effects of female castration is germane to the conversation.
The most interesting point in this study was that even with in castrated females, up to 25% could still experience orgasm, and while sexual activity was more prevalent in non-castrated women(7.7 times more reports of sexual excitement and 2.2 times the amount of masturbation), there was still sexual activity and stimulation among castrated women, further proof castration is not entirely effective as a way to control sexual desire.
ADDENDUM 2: A NOTE ON THE 2019 ALABAMA MANDATORY CHEMICAL CASTRATION BILL
In June 2019, Alabama passed a MANDATORY chemical castration bill. Any person convicted of a sex offense involving anybody underage 13 must take Depo-Provera as a condition of parole. (This seemingly does not apply to those who reach their end-of-sentence dates). This bill is expected to be challenged in court, as the sponsor of the bill, Republican Representative Steve Hurst, made the following statements that explicitly show the intent of these laws as punitive in nature:
“I’d prefer it be surgical, because the way I look at it, if they’re going to mark these children for life, they need to be marked for life. My preference would be, if someone does a small infant child like that, they need to die. God’s going to deal with them one day.”
“They have marked this child for life and the punishment should fit the crime… I had people call me in the past when I introduced it and said don’t you think this is inhumane? 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.”
Sine the law does not take effect until September 1, 2019, legal challenges will likely not take place until that time. There is no language in AL HB 379 (2019) that states the law is not to be applied to anyone convicted before the law takes effect. Thus, expect an ex post facto challenge in addition to a challenged based on 8th Amendment protections against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
- Koran Addo. “Offender castrated, set for release. 2TheAdvocate, Baton Rouge. March 4, 2011. http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/Offender-castrated-set-to-be-released.html, Retrieved May 11, 2011
- Charles L. Scott, MD, and Trent Holmberg, MD. “Castration of Sex Offenders: Prisoners’ Rights versus Public Safety.” The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31:502-9. http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/31/4/502.pdf, Retrieved May 11, 2011
- “Chemical castration.” Wikipedia 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration, Retrieved May 11, 2011
- Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200 (1927)
- Scott and Holmberg, “Castration”, p. 502
- Linda E. Weinberger, PhD, Shoba Sreenivasan, PhD, Thomas Garrick, MD, and Hadley Osran, MD. “The Impact of Surgical Castration on Sexual Recidivism Risk Among Sexually Violent Predatory Offenders.” J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 33:16–36, 2005
- Scott and Holmberg, “Castration”, p. 502
- Larry Helm Spalding. “Florida’s 1997 Chemical Castration Law: A Return to the Dark Ages.” Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 25:117, p.119
- Spalding. “Florida” p. 117
- Scott and Holmberg, “Castration”, p. 502
- Gina Kolata. “The Many Myths About Sex Offenders.” New York Times, Sept. 1, 1996
- Weinberg, et al. “Impact”, p.18
- Ibid., p. 29
- Ibid., p. 24
- Ibid., p.23-24
- Kolata. “Myths”
- Spalding. “Florida” p. 123
- Kolata, “Myths.”
- Spalding, “Florida,” p. 125
- Jean D. Wilson and Claus Roehrborn, “Long-Term Consequences of Castration in Men: Lessons from the Skoptzy and the Eunuchs of the Chinese and Ottoman Courts.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol. 84, No. 12, 1999. p. 4329-30
- Kolata, “Myths”
- Scott and Holmberg, “Castration”, p. 502
- Candace Rondeaux, “Can Castration Be a Solution for Sex Offenders?” Washington Post, July 5, 2006, B01
- Rob Cameron, “Council of Europe expresses concern at Czech castration of sex offenders.” Radio Prague, July 16, 2007
- Spalding, “Florida”, p. 124-5
- Himanshi Dhawan, “Chemical castration option worth exploring.” The Times of India, May 2, 2011. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/New-Article/articleshow/8138262.cms, Retrieved May 13, 2011
- Weems v. US, 217 US 349 (1910), Oklahoma v. Skinner, 316 US 535 (1942), Williams v. Smith, 131 N.E. 2 (Ind. 1921), Davis v. Berry, 216 F. 413 (S.D. Iowa 1914) rev’d, 242 U.S. 468 (1917). As note by John Q. La Fond. “Preventing Sexual Violence: How Society Should Cope With Sex Offenders.” American Psychological Association, 2005, p. 179
- Spalding, “Florida,” p. 126
- 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
- Patrick McCreless, “Local Legislator wants pedophiles castrated.” Anniston Star, Apr. 6, 2011, http://annistonstar.com/bookmark/12644488-Local-legislator-wants-pedophiles-castrated, Retrieved May 13, 2011
- Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), see Spalding, “Florida,” p. 129
- “Skinner v. Oklahoma.” Wikipedia, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma
- Spalding, “Florida,” p.129
- Scott et al. “Castration,” p.507
- Reno v. Flores 507 U.S. 292 at 302 (1993)).
- Scott et al. “Castration,” p.508
- Spalding, “Florida,” p. 132
- Ibid., p. 134-5
- Pat Gillespie, “System leery of castrating sex offenders.” News Press of Fort Myers, FL, May 9, 2011. http://www.news-press.com/article/20110510/CRIME/110509045/System-leery-castrating-sex-offenders-, retrieved May 13, 2011
- Himanshi Dhawan, “Chemical castration option worth exploring.” The Times of India, May 2, 2011. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/New-Article/articleshow/8138262.cms, Retrieved May 13, 2011
- Fred Weir, “Chemical castration: Why Medvelev suggests it for Russia’s pedophiles.” Christian Science Monitor, May 11, 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0511/Chemical-castration-Why-Medvedev-suggests-it-for-Russia-s-pedophiles, Retrieved May 13, 2011
- Gillespie, “System leery”
- Mohamed Badawi. Female Sexual Castration in Cairo, Egypt.” Presented at The First International Symposium on Circumcision, Anaheim, California, March 1-2, 1989. http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/badawi.html, Retrieved 13 June, 2019
- Catherine Patterson. “Chemical castration bill awaiting Ala. governor’s signature.” WSFA 12. June 4, 2019. https://www.wsfa.com/2019/06/05/chemical-castration-bill-awaiting-governor-iveys-signature/. Retrieved June 13, 2019.
- Cory McGinnis. “Alabama considers chemical castration for child molesters.” CBS 42. June 3, 2019. https://www.cbs42.com/top-stories/alabama-considers-chemical-castration/2050636492. Retrieved June 13, 2019.
CASTRATION LAWS ACROSS THE USA AS OF JUNE 2019
Below are the statutes currently on the books across the USA on castration laws. It should be noted that very few castrations have actually been performed even in the states where the laws have been on the books in years. As of June 2019, Alabama, California, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Texas, and Wisconsin have active castration on the books. Georgia and Oregon once had laws on the books but have since been repealed.
*NOTE: The bill on mandatory chemical castration was signed into law June 2019 and takes effect on Sept. 1, 2019. Below is the relevant language of AL HB 379 (2019) as enrolled. One the AL Code has been rewritten, I’ll add the statute numbers below:
Section 1. (a) As used in this act, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) CHEMICAL CASTRATION TREATMENT. The receiving of medication, including, but not limited to, medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or its chemical equivalent, that, among other things, reduces, inhibits, or blocks the production of testosterone, hormones, or other chemicals in a person’s body.
(2) SEX OFFENSE INVOLVING A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 13 YEARS. A sex offense, as described in Section 15-20A-5, Code of Alabama 1975, that is committed against a person who has not attained the age of 13 years.
(b) Subject to Section 15-22-27.3, Code of Alabama 1975, as a condition of parole, a court shall order a person convicted of a sex offense involving a person under the age of 13 years to undergo chemical castration treatment, in addition to any other punishment prescribed for that offense or any other provision of law.
(c) A person required to undergo chemical castration treatment shall begin the treatment not less than one month prior to his or her release from custody of the Department of Corrections and shall continue receiving treatment until the court determines the treatment is no longer necessary. The treatment shall be administered by the Department of Public Health.
(d)(1) The parolee shall pay for all of the costs associated with the chemical castration treatment. The cost of the treatment shall be in addition to any court costs; assessments for crime victim’s compensation fund; Department of Forensic Sciences assessments; drug, alcohol, or anger management treatments required by law; restitution; or costs of supervision of the treatment. A person may not be denied parole based solely on his or her inability to pay for the costs associated with the treatment required under this act.
(2) If a person required to receive chemical castration treatment under this act, upon application, claims indigency, he or she shall be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction for a determination of indigency. In the event that a court determines the offender to be indigent, any fees or costs shall not be waived or remitted unless the person proves to the reasonable satisfaction of the court that the person is not capable of paying the fees or costs within the reasonably foreseeable future. In the event the offender is determined to be indigent, a periodic review of the offender’s indigent status may be conducted by the court upon motion of the district attorney to determine if the offender is no longer indigent.
(e) In addition to any condition of parole under subsection (b), as a condition of parole, a parolee released on parole under this act shall authorize the Department of Public Health to share with the Board of Pardons and Paroles all medical records relating to the parolee’s chemical castration treatment. A parolee may elect to stop receiving the treatment at any time and may not be forced to receive the treatment; provided, such refusal shall constitute a violation of his or her parole and he or she shall be immediately remanded to the custody of the Department of Corrections for the remainder of the sentence from which he or she was paroled.
(f) Prior to the administration of any chemical castration treatment, a medical professional shall inform the parolee about the effect of the treatment and any side effects that may result from it. The parolee shall sign a written acknowledgment of receipt of the information.
2011 California Code, Penal Code
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 – 680]
CHAPTER 2. Of Other and Miscellaneous Offenses, Section 645
Universal Citation: CA Penal Code § 645 (through 2012 Leg Sess)
(a) Any person guilty of a first conviction of any offense specified in subdivision (c), where the victim has not attained 13 years of age, may, upon parole, undergo medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or its chemical equivalent, in addition to any other punishment prescribed for that offense or any other provision of law, at the discretion of the court.
(b) Any person guilty of a second conviction of any offense specified in subdivision (c), where the victim has not attained 13 years of age, shall, upon parole, undergo medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or its chemical equivalent, in addition to any other punishment prescribed for that offense or any other provision of law.
(c) This section shall apply to the following offenses:
(1) Subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.
(2) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 288.
(3) Subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 288a.
(4) Subdivision (a) or (j) of Section 289.
(d) The parolee shall begin medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment one week prior to his or her release from confinement in the state prison or other institution and shall continue treatments until the Department of Corrections demonstrates to the Board of Prison Terms that this treatment is no longer necessary.
(e) If a person voluntarily undergoes a permanent, surgical alternative to hormonal chemical treatment for sex offenders, he or she shall not be subject to this section.
(f) The Department of Corrections shall administer this section and implement the protocols required by this section. Nothing in the protocols shall require an employee of the Department of Corrections who is a physician and surgeon licensed pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code or the Osteopathic Initiative Act to participate against his or her will in the administration of the provisions of this section. These protocols shall include, but not be limited to, a requirement to inform the person about the effect of hormonal chemical treatment and any side effects that may result from it. A person subject to this section shall acknowledge the receipt of this information.
(Amended by Stats. 2001, Ch. 854, Sec. 34. Effective January 1, 2002.)
794.0235 Administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) to persons convicted of sexual battery.—
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the court:
(a) May sentence a defendant to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), according to a schedule of administration monitored by the Department of Corrections, if the defendant is convicted of sexual battery as described in s.794.011.
(b) Shall sentence a defendant to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), according to a schedule of administration monitored by the Department of Corrections, if the defendant is convicted of sexual battery as described in s.794.011 and the defendant has a prior conviction of sexual battery under s. 794.011.
If the court sentences a defendant to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the penalty may not be imposed in lieu of, or reduce, any other penalty prescribed under s. 794.011. However, in lieu of treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the court may order the defendant to undergo physical castration upon written motion by the defendant providing the defendant’s intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent to physical castration as an alternative penalty.
(2)(a) An order of the court sentencing a defendant to medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment under subsection (1), shall be contingent upon a determination by a court appointed medical expert, that the defendant is an appropriate candidate for treatment. Such determination is to be made not later than 60 days from the imposition of sentence. Notwithstanding the statutory maximum periods of incarceration as provided in s. 775.082, an order of the court sentencing a defendant to medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment shall specify the duration of treatment for a specific term of years, or in the discretion of the court, up to the life of the defendant.
(b) In all cases involving defendants sentenced to a period of incarceration, the administration of treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) shall commence not later than one week prior to the defendant’s release from prison or other institution.
(3) The Department of Corrections shall provide the services necessary to administer medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to require the continued administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment when it is not medically appropriate.
(4) As used in this section, the term “prior conviction” means a conviction for which sentence was imposed separately prior to the imposition of the sentence for the current offense and which was sentenced separately from any other conviction that is to be counted as a prior conviction under this section.
(5) If a defendant whom the court has sentenced to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) fails or refuses to:
(a) Appear as required by the Department of Corrections for purposes of administering the medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA); or
(b) Allow the administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA),
the defendant is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 1, ch. 97-184.
Georgia’s castration statute, once located at Ga. Code Ann. § 16–6-4 (2002) and Ga. Code Ann. § 42–9-44.2 (2002), were repealed in 2006
GUAM (US TERRITORY)
ARTICLE 7 HORMONE OR ANTI-ANDROGEN PILOT TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS
COL9192018 9 GCA CRIMES AND CORRECTIONS
SOURCE: Article added by P.L. 33-067:2 (Sept. 7, 2015). 2015
NOTE: Pursuant to authority granted by 1 GCA § 1606, section numbers were altered to reflect the existing codification scheme.
P.L. 33-067:1 stated that this act shall be known and may be cited as the “Chemical Castration For Sex Offenders Act.”
§ 80.101. Definitions.
§ 80.102. Hormone or Anti-Androgen Pilot Treatment Program – Establishment, Eligibility.
§ 80.103. Rules.
§ 80.104. Costs.
§ 80.105. Use of Hormone or Anti-Androgen Treatment Program with Persons not Included in Pilot Program; Referrals to the Program.
§ 80.106. Sunset Provision.
§ 80.101. Definitions. As used in this Article:
(a) Sex crime means an offense under 9 GCA §§ 25.15, 25.20, or 25.25.
(b) Parole Board means the Guam Parole Board established pursuant to 9 GCA, Chapter 85. § 80.102.
Hormone or Anti-Androgen Pilot Treatment Program – Establishment, Eligibility.
(a) The Department of Corrections shall establish a pilot treatment program for persons convicted of a sex crime who are eligible for, or sentenced to, parole or post-prison supervision. Evaluation of this pilot treatment program will be completed no later than three (3) years after the date of implementation of the program, and an evaluation report shall be transmitted to the Parole Board upon completion. The purpose of the program is to reduce the risk of reoffending after release on parole or post-prison supervision by providing certain persons, convicted of sex crimes who are deemed medically appropriate for the treatment program, with hormone or anti-androgen, such as medroxyprogesterone acetate, each year.
(b)Under the program, the Department of Corrections shall: (1) screen persons convicted of sex crimes who are eligible for release within six (6) months on parole or postprison supervision to determine their suitability for hormone or anti-androgen treatment upon release; (2) refer persons found most likely to benefit from hormone or anti-androgen treatment to a competent physician for medical evaluation, and a competent psychologist for psychological evaluation; and (3) refer those persons, unless medically contraindicated after the evaluation by a competent physician, to a community physician to begin hormone or anti-androgen treatment one (1) week prior to release on parole or post-prison supervision.
(c) The Parole Board may require, as a condition of parole or post-prison supervision, hormone or anti-androgen treatment during all or a portion of parole or post-prison supervision of persons required to participate in the hormone or anti-androgen treatment program described in Subsection (b) of this Section.
(d) A person required to undergo a treatment program under Subsection (b) of this Section violates a condition of parole or postprison supervision, and is subject to sanctions, if the person: (1) fails to cooperate in the treatment program required under Subsection (b) of this Section; or (2) takes any steroid or other chemical to counteract the treatment required under Subsection (b) of this Section.
(e) If a person voluntarily undergoes a permanent surgical alternative to treatment under Subsection (b) of this Section, he or she shall not be subject to hormone or anti-androgen treatment under this Section. All costs of such permanent surgical alternative shall be paid by the person undergoing such procedure.
(f) Any physician who acts in good faith under this Section in the administration of hormone or anti-androgen treatment, or the evaluation of persons for hormone or anti-androgen treatment, shall be immune from civil or criminal liability in connection with such treatment or evaluation.
§ 80.103. Rules.
(a) The Department of Corrections shall adopt rules, pursuant to the Administrative Adjudication Law, to implement and enforce the treatment program of hormone or anti-androgen, such as medroxyprogesterone acetate, under § 80.102 of this Article. Rules adopted under this Subsection shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) a requirement that the offender be informed of the effect of the treatment program, including any side effects that may result from the treatment program; (2) a requirement that the offender acknowledge receipt of the information the Department is required to present to the offender under Paragraph (1) of this Subsection; (3) procedures to monitor compliance with the treatment program; (4) procedures to test for attempts to counteract the treatment program, that may include chemical testing of the offender’s blood and urine; and (5) a requirement that the Department of Corrections develop evaluation criteria and evaluate this pilot treatment program no later than three (3) years after the date of implementation of the treatment program, and that an evaluation report be transmitted to the Parole Board upon completion.
(b) The Department of Corrections may contract, pursuant to the requirements of Guam law, with community physicians, laboratories, or other medical service providers, to administer the program of hormone or anti-androgen treatment under § 80.102 of this Article, or to monitor compliance with the treatment program.
§ 80.104. Costs. A person required to undergo a treatment program of hormone or anti-androgen, such as medoxyprogesterone acetate, under § 80.102 of this Article shall pay or reimburse all costs of the treatment program directly to the department, agency, or organization administering the treatment program.
§ 80.105. Use of Hormone or Anti-Androgen Treatment Program with Persons not Included in Pilot Program; Referrals to the Program. Nothing in § 80.102 or § 80.103 of this Article prohibits the Parole Board from requiring hormone or anti-androgen treatment for a person whom the Department of Corrections did not screen or evaluate as described in § 80.102 of this Article, or from referring to the Department of Corrections for screening, evaluation or treatment, as provided for under § 80.102 of this Article, persons convicted of sex crimes.
§ 80.106. Sunset Provision. The pilot treatment program shall come to an end forty-eight (48) months after the date of implementation of this treatment program. A detailed evaluation report, which addresses the effectiveness and financial impact of the pilot treatment program shall be provided by the Director of Department of Corrections to I Liheslaturan Guahan by the thirty-sixth (36th) month of the implementation of this treatment program to determine if new legislation should be passed authorizing its continuation.
Note: This law passed in 2015 but was never enforced. As of May 2019, a bill (GU Bill No. 137-35 (2019)) to make chemical castration MANDATORY, introduced by Republican Senator James Moylan, is awaiting a vote in the Guam legislature.
903B.10 Hormonal intervention therapy — certain sex offenses.
1. A person who has been convicted of a serious sex offense may, upon a first conviction and in addition to any other punishment provided by law, be required to undergo medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment as part of any conditions of release imposed by the court or the board of parole. The treatment prescribed in this section may utilize an approved pharmaceutical agent other than medroxyprogesterone acetate. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the court or the board of parole shall require the person to undergo medroxyprogesterone acetate or other approved pharmaceutical agent treatment as a condition of release, unless, after an appropriate assessment, the court or board determines that the treatment would not be effective. In determining whether a conviction is a first or second conviction under this section, a prior conviction for a criminal offense committed in another jurisdiction which would constitute a violation of section 709.3, subsection 1, paragraph “b”, if committed in this state, shall be considered a conviction under this section. This section shall not apply if the person voluntarily undergoes a permanent surgical alternative approved by the court or the board of parole.
2. If a person is placed on probation and is not in confinement at the time of sentencing, the presentence investigation shall include a plan for initiation of treatment as soon as is reasonably possible after the person is sentenced. If the person is in confinement prior to release on probation or parole, treatment shall commence prior to the release of the person from confinement. Conviction of a serious sex offense shall constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a presentence investigation under section 901.2.
3. For purposes of this section, a “serious sex offense” means any of the following offenses in which the victim was a child who was, at the time the offense was committed, twelve years of age or younger:
a. Sexual abuse in the first degree, in violation of section 709.2.
b. Sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of section 709.3.
c. Sexual abuse in the third degree, in violation of section 709.4.
d. Lascivious acts with a child, in violation of section 709.8.
e. Assault with intent, in violation of section 709.11.
f. Indecent contact with a minor, in violation of section 709.12.
g. Lascivious conduct with a minor, in violation of section 709.14.
h. Sexual exploitation in violation of section 709.15.
i. Sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of section 728.12, subsections 1 and 2.
4. The department of corrections, in consultation with the board of parole, shall adopt rules which provide for the initiation of medroxyprogesterone acetate or other approved pharmaceutical agent treatment prior to the parole or work release of a person who has been convicted of a serious sex offense and who is required to undergo treatment as a condition of release by the board of parole. The department’s rules shall also establish standards for the supervision of the treatment by the judicial district department of correctional services during the period of release. Each district department of correctional services shall adopt policies and procedures which provide for the initiation or continuation of medroxyprogesterone acetate or other approved pharmaceutical agent treatment as a condition of release for each person who is required to undergo the treatment by the court or the board of parole. The board of parole shall, in consultation with the department of corrections, adopt rules which relate to initiation or continuation of medroxyprogesterone acetate or other approved pharmaceutical agent treatment as a condition of any parole or work release. Any rules, standards, and policies and procedures adopted shall provide for the continuation of the treatment until the agency in charge of supervising the treatment determines that the treatment is no longer necessary.
5. A person who is required to undergo medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment, or treatment utilizing another approved pharmaceutical agent, pursuant to this section, shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to pay for the costs of providing the treatment. A requirement that a person pay a fee shall include provision for reduction, deferral, or waiver of payment if the person is financially unable to pay the fee.
6. A person who administers medroxyprogesterone acetate or any other pharmaceutical agent shall not be liable for civil damages for administering such pharmaceutical agents pursuant to this chapter.
98 Acts, ch 1171, §21
2003 Acts, ch 180, §67; 2005 Acts, ch 158, §33, 41 CS2005, §903B.10
2013 Acts, ch 90, §256
2011 Louisiana Revised Statutes
TITLE 14 — Criminal law
RS 14:43.6 — Administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (mpa) to certain sex offenders
Universal Citation: LA Rev Stat § 14:43.6
§43.6. Administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) to certain sex offenders
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, upon a first conviction of R.S. 14:42 (aggravated rape), R.S. 14:42.1 (forcible rape), R.S. 14:43.2 (second degree sexual battery), R.S. 14:78.1 (aggravated incest), R.S. 14:81.2(D)(1) (molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of thirteen), and R.S. 14:89.1 (aggravated crime against nature), 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.
B.(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, upon a second or subsequent conviction of R.S. 14:42 (aggravated rape), R.S. 14:42.1 (forcible rape), R.S. 14:43.2 (second degree sexual battery), R.S. 14:78.1 (aggravated incest), R.S. 14:81.2(D)(1) (molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of thirteen), and R.S. 14:89.1 (aggravated crime against nature), the court shall 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.
(2) If the court sentences a defendant to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), this treatment may not be imposed in lieu of, or reduce, any other penalty prescribed by law. However, in lieu of treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the court may order the defendant to undergo physical castration provided the defendant file a written motion with the court stating that he intelligently and knowingly, gives his voluntary consent to physical castration as an alternative to the treatment.
C.(1) An order of the court sentencing a defendant to medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment under this Section, shall be contingent upon a determination by a court appointed medical expert, that the defendant is an appropriate candidate for treatment. This determination shall be made not later than sixty days from the imposition of sentence. An order of the court sentencing a defendant to medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment shall specify the duration of treatment for a specific term of years, or in the discretion of the court, up to the life of the defendant.
(2) In all cases involving defendants sentenced to a period of incarceration or confinement in an institution, the administration of treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) shall commence not later than one week prior to the defendant’s release from prison or such institution.
(3) The Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall provide the services necessary to administer medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require the continued administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment when it is not medically appropriate.
(4) If a defendant whom the court has sentenced to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) fails to appear as required by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections for purposes of administering the medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) or who refuses to allow the administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), then the defendant shall be charged with a violation of the provisions of this Section. Upon conviction, the offender shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than three years nor more than five years without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
(5) If a defendant whom the court has sentenced to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) or ordered to undergo physical castration takes any drug or other substance to reverse the effects of the treatment, he shall be held in contempt of court.
Acts 2008, No. 441, §1, eff. June 25, 2008; Acts 2011, No. 67, §1.
MT Code Ann. Sec. 45-5-212: Chemical treatment of sex offenders.
(1) A person convicted of a first offense under 45-5-502(3), 45-5-503(3), or 45-5-507(4) or (5) may, in addition to the sentence imposed under those sections, be sentenced to undergo medically safe medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or its chemical equivalent or other medically safe drug treatment that reduces sexual fantasies, sex drive, or both, administered by the department of corrections or its agent pursuant to subsection (4) of this section.
(2) A person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under 45-5-502(3), 45-5-503, or 45-5-507 may, in addition to the sentence imposed under those sections, be sentenced to undergo medically safe medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or its chemical equivalent or other medically safe drug treatment that reduces sexual fantasies, sex drive, or both, administered by the department of corrections or its agent pursuant to subsection (4) of this section.
(3) A person convicted of a first or subsequent offense under 45-5-502, 45-5-503, or 45-5-507 who is not sentenced to undergo medically safe medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or its chemical equivalent or other medically safe drug treatment that reduces sexual fantasies, sex drive, or both, may voluntarily undergo such treatment, which must be administered by the department of corrections or its agent and paid for by the department of corrections.
(4) Treatment under subsection (1) or (2) must begin 1 week before release from confinement and must continue until the department of corrections determines that the treatment is no longer necessary. Failure to continue treatment as ordered by the department of corrections constitutes a criminal contempt of court for failure to comply with the sentence, for which the sentencing court shall impose a term of incarceration without possibility of parole of not less than 10 years or more than 100 years.
(5) Prior to chemical treatment under this section, the person must be fully medically informed of its effects.
(6) A state employee who is a professional medical person may not be compelled against the employee’s wishes to administer chemical treatment under this section.
History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 334, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 341, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 483, L. 2007.
It has been reported that Oregon’s castration laws were repealed around 2001. Statutes once associated with Oregon’s laws were Ore. Rev. Stat. § 144.625 (2001), Ore. Rev. Stat. § 144.627 (2001), Ore. Rev. Stat. § 144.629 (2001), Ore. Rev. Stat. § 144.631 (2001). Based on the Charles and Scott 2003 report (See Reference Note 2), it appears the Oregon statutes were in regards a “pilot program of 40-50 sex offenders per year”.
Texas Government Code – GOV’T § 501.061. Orchiectomy for Certain Sex Offenders
(a) A physician employed or retained by the department may perform an orchiectomy on an inmate only if:
(1) the inmate has been convicted of an offense under Section 21.02 , 21.11 , 22.011(a)(2) , or 22.021(a)(2)(B), Penal Code ,
and has previously been convicted under one or more of those sections;
(2) the inmate is 21 years of age or older;
(3) the inmate requests the procedure in writing;
(4) the inmate signs a statement admitting the inmate committed the offense described by Subsection (a)(1) for which the inmate has been convicted;
(5) a psychiatrist and a psychologist who are appointed by the department and have experience in the treatment of sex offenders:
(A) evaluate the inmate and determine that the inmate is a suitable candidate for the procedure; and
(B) counsel the inmate before the inmate undergoes the procedure;
(6) the physician obtains the inmate’s informed, written consent to undergo the procedure;
(7) the inmate has not previously requested that the department perform the procedure and subsequently withdrawn the request; and
(8) the inmate consults with a monitor as provided by Subsection (f).
(b) The inmate may change his decision to undergo an orchiectomy at any time before the physician performs the procedure. An inmate who withdraws his request to undergo an orchiectomy is ineligible to have the procedure performed by the department.
(c) Either the psychiatrist or psychologist appointed by the department under this section must be a member of the staff of a medical facility under contract with the department or the institutional division to treat inmates in the division.
(d) A physician who performs an orchiectomy on an inmate under this section is not liable for an act or omission relating to the procedure unless the act or omission constitutes negligence.
(e) The name of an inmate who requests an orchiectomy under this section is confidential, and the department may use the inmate’s name only for purposes of notifying and providing information to the inmate’s spouse if the inmate is married.
(f) The executive director of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners shall appoint, in consultation with two or more executive directors of college or university institutes or centers for the study of medical ethics or medical humanities, a monitor to assist an inmate in his decision to have an orchiectomy. The monitor must have experience in the mental health field, in law, and in ethics. The monitor shall consult with the inmate to:
(1) ensure adequate information regarding the orchiectomy has been provided to the inmate by medical professionals providing treatment or advice to the inmate;
(2) provide information regarding the orchiectomy to the inmate if the monitor believes the inmate is not adequately informed about the orchiectomy;
(3) determine whether the inmate is free from coercion in his decision regarding the orchiectomy; and
(4) advise the inmate to withdraw his request for an orchiectomy if the monitor determines the inmate is being coerced to have an orchiectomy.
(g) A monitor appointed under Subsection (f) is not liable for damages arising from an act or omission under Subsection (f) unless the act or omission was intentional or grossly negligent.
Wisconsin Statutes, Section 302.11(1)(b)2
302.11 Mandatory release.
(1) The warden or superintendent shall keep a record of the conduct of each inmate, specifying each infraction of the rules. Except as provided in subs. (1g), (1m), (1q), (1z), and (7), each inmate is entitled to mandatory release on parole by the department. The mandatory release date is established at two-thirds of the sentence. Any calculations under this subsection or sub. (1q) (b) or (2) (b) resulting in fractions of a day shall be rounded in the inmate’s favor to a whole day.
(b) Before an incarcerated inmate with a presumptive mandatory release date reaches the presumptive mandatory release date specified under par. (am), the parole commission shall proceed under s. 304.06 (1) to consider whether to deny presumptive mandatory release to the inmate. If the parole commission does not deny presumptive mandatory release, the inmate shall be released on parole. The parole commission may deny presumptive mandatory release to an inmate only on one or more of the following grounds:
1. Protection of the public.
2. Refusal by the inmate to participate in counseling or treatment that the social service and clinical staff of the institution determines is necessary for the inmate, including pharmacological treatment using an antiandrogen or the chemical equivalent of an antiandrogen if the inmate is a serious child sex offender as defined in s. 304.06 (1q) (a). The parole commission may not deny presumptive mandatory release to an inmate because of the inmate’s refusal to participate in a rehabilitation program under s. 301.047.