Forced castration seems drastic to me. It may be considered cruel and unusual. Also, if it only applies to men, there may be an equal protection problem.Today, Gov. Jindal signed the "Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill," authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders. They get a choice: physical or chemical. Oh, and they don't just get castrated and leave - they still have to serve out their sentence.
SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.
However, sex offenders seem compelled to repeat the offense to a greater extent than other offenders. We clearly understand this. That is why Georgia has passed laws to try to prevent sex offenders from living practically anywhere.
My thought is that, once the offender has served his time, we should allow him to resume a somewhat normal life. If we don't believe the offender can safely return to society, then we shouldn't release him.
Perhaps we should lengthen sentences for sex offenses and/or make passage of a psychological evaluation a prerequisite to release. We could then offer voluntary castration as an alternative to a lengthy sentence or passage of a psychological evaluation.
