Chemical castration as public policy gets a failing grade

By Sandy . . . With legislatures in session across the country, advocates are closely watching bills that address their issues. Some are good, some are indifferent, and some are just plain bad.

The touchstone is does the bill address a situation in need and/or does it provide improved safety for those whom it affects. In other words, is it good public policy?

New Mexico House Bill 128 is just plain bad on so many levels, and it is being hyped in the media for something it is not.

HB 128 requires men who have been convicted of a wide array of sexual crimes to receive a regimen of medication called “chemical castration” before receiving what the media is calling “early release” in the form of parole.

In New Mexico, people incarcerated for a sexual conviction don’t receive early release; they do their full sentences and then are paroled. The bill requires the recipients to pay for their own medication unless they can prove they are indigent. This alone will help create a backlog of cases that will further strain the taxpayer’s burden.

Convicted offenders with housing restrictions are already being held in prison, some long past their release date, until the parole board approves their housing plan. This will add more to that number, those waiting for the treatment, which is complicated and costly, and those waiting to be approved as indigent and then waiting for treatment.

This does not appear to be understood by representatives Stefani Lord and John Block, the sponsors of the bill. Lord said, “Since pedophiles are eligible for early release in New Mexico, for that privilege, they will need to agree to be chemically castrated as a condition of their parole. If they don’t agree to these terms, they can stay in prison, away from society, and do their entire sentence.”

Her error, aside from her incorrect, misleading, and inflammatory usage of the word “pedophiles,” is: They already do their entire sentence; they are not eligible for “early release”; this will hold them beyond the completion of the sentence. Additionally the bill does not specify crimes against children or victims under a certain age but rather addresses a great many sexual offenses.

Rep. Block said, “With clear science and support from experts in favor of chemical castration of pedophiles, this is the most commonsense legislation to ensure the threat of these criminals is dramatically reduced.” There is very little support from science and experts; most support the opposite; again, the gratuitous use of the word “pedophiles”; the high “threat” alluded to is a fallacy and contradicted by every valid study done.

New Mexico is not unique in proposing this strategy. A handful of states already have it in law, and others are considering it.

California and Florida are cited as being states that mandate its use. The language in California law, Section 645 (1996) states that with a victim under thirteen, the injections “may” be requested by an offender after the first offense, and that after a second like offense, he “shall undergo” the treatment.

Florida’s statute 794.0235 (1997) likewise says it may be requested after a first conviction of any form of sexual battery (794.011) and “shall” be used after a second offense. Unlike California, Florida does not attach an age limit to the prerequisite.

Louisiana’s law (14:43.6) reads very similar to that of Florida with the exception of specifying a victim age of less than thirteen.

501.061, Texas Penal Code, allows the procedure upon request after the 2nd offense of a child under fourteen and has a laundry list of conditions that must be met by anyone requesting it. According to information from Texas Voices, it is virtually never used.

Wisconsin’s NARSOL state contact reports that while statute 302.11(1)(b)2 states it may be a requirement of the DOC or Parole under certain circumstances, DOC says the controversial treatment is currently offered but never required.

Iowa has language in its laws that allow its usage under certain circumstances, and Georgia and Oregon have allowed the practice in the past if not currently.

Alabama’s requirement is that all those whose victim was a child under 13 receive the very costly treatment as a condition of release after a first offense and that the cost is borne by the offender, making the Alabama law more stringent than any of the others and with the major features of this proposed New Mexico law with the exception that it addresses children under 13.

It is bad public policy wherever it exists, and for a variety of reasons.

The positive benefits are far below what might conceivably justify its usage, and the negative effects are medically serious, being associated with various side effects, including osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, impaired glucose and lipid metabolism, depression, hot flashes, infertility, and anemia.

The vast majority of the population on whom it is coerced and forced, through more acceptable forms of therapy and self-motivation, will not reoffend sexually.

The moral and constitutional objections are universal and compelling.  From a moral and human rights perspective, the general consensus is that it is barbaric and reminiscent of our nation’s earlier and darker forays into eugenics.  As one study puts it, “. . . chemical castration under the current laws is vaguely positioned between punishment and treatment due to lack of informed consent by the recipient. . .”

As with the registry and all restrictions that target persons convicted of a sexual offense, the procedure would not result in any significant reduction in future offenses. Most future child molesters are not those already convicted, but rather family members and other trusted individuals who may never even enter the criminal justice system, and to an only slightly lesser degree, this is also true when the victims are adults.

New Mexico is the latest state to consider chemical castration for people convicted of certain sexual offenses, but they are highly unlikely to be the last. This strategy fails many tests, and it fails the biggest one of all: It is NOT good nor effective public policy.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

11 Thoughts to “Chemical castration as public policy gets a failing grade”

Leave a Comment

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone and language of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Refrain from comments containing references to religion unless it clearly relates to the post being commented on.
  • Do not post in all caps.
  • We will generally not allow links; the moderator may consider the value of a link.
  • We will not post lengthy comments.
  • Please do not go into details about your story; post these on our Tales from the Registry.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites.
  • Please do not solicit funds.
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.

  1. Mike

    I was hoping policies like this would be dying out with all the criminal reform going on. Seems like everyone else, even murderers, are getting a slap on the wrist while those of us with sex offenses, violent or otherwise are being clamped down on.

  2. clyde

    doesnt sound “consensual” to me.

  3. A Mistake They Made

    What about women sex offenders? What are they going to do to them? Ya I know they didn’t even think of that. Its the double standard promise of the USA. The USA is a joke from what the founding fathers planned. You will not receive a fair trial. You will not be treated fairly. You will be subjected to cruel unusual punishment. They have thrown away the rule book for sex offenders only because the public doesn’t care until they themselves become ensnared in the life destroying machine that is the sex offender registry.

    1. WC_TN

      They have thrown away the rule book for sex offenders only because the public doesn’t care until they themselves become ensnared in the life-destroying machine that is the sex offender registry”

      That’s the key right there. They don’t care. Plain and simple. They don’t just follow what voters want. They also follow their own animus because they’re parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. themselves.

  4. WC_TN

    There are very serious medical side-effects that come with chemical castration.
    1. Insulin resistance/hyperglycemia/diabetes…what about PFRs who have to take this injection who are already diabetic? It will accelerate the progress of the disease with devastating consequences.
    2. Increased cardiovascular morbidity
    3. Reduced bone mass density which is a functional equivalent of osteoporosis, which means broken hips, spinal column deterioration….
    These side-effects, if fairly and honestly evaluated by the courts, would mean they would be prohibited because the “treatment” is clearly violative of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

  5. w

    This country was ruined. They just keep managing to cover it all up in a nice package and hope that nobody notices the real motives. It’s a sad, rotten, ugly, truth. They’re all connected, it’s a heavily entrenched and well insulated network. And people are being abused by the system.

  6. TS

    I have had to sit on this article and let it ferment for a bit before coming to this conclusion:

    This is barbaric and reminiscent of middle ages when such tortuous ideas were actually implemented and even through until the current age when such physical punishments are levied against persons overseas. What the hell has this country come to?! Has it lost its ever loving mind?! I believe, sadly, it has regressed and is continuing to regress instead of progressing as our forefathers wanted us to do.

    While I understand those who are suggesting these punishments want to do harm in the name of safety to justify it, this is insane. It reminds of me of the Old Testament, eye for an eye, whatever that equals to. The altitude is getting to those in Santa Fe.

  7. A Mistake They Made

    Also I cant wait until they do this to someone who is later found innocent, and I hope they financially destroy the State for it!

  8. Screwed over

    As long as there are tv shows that push the narrative that all ppl on the registry are raping babies then laws like this will keep coming up. I know there are ppl who need real help. I know there are some really messed up ppl out there. But there are so many ppl on the registry that have stupid ass reasons they have to register for. But no one sees that it’s juat the horrific crimes that anyone sees.

  9. John

    That’s funny, it looks like a couple of these states that have chemical castration on the books are also against allowing children to take hormone blockers or hormones. This is the same type of drug they give people to change their gender is it not?

  10. Ed C

    The New Mexico legislative session ends at noon today, 3/18/2023. Due to the efforts of the local NARSOL affilliate, i.e. Liberty & Justice Coalition, and its partners the chemical castration bill did not even clear the first committee. It is effectively dead until next year. The same coalition was successful in removing a requirement that someone convicted of bestiality be required to register as a sex offender. The amended bestiality bill passed unanimously even though that act is already unlawful under existing animal cruelty laws.