Alabama Legislator Wants to Castrate Sex Offenders, Make Them Pay for It
"They need to be marked for life."


Steve Hurst, a member of the Alabama legislature, has introduced a bill that would require sex offenders to undergo surgical castration.
They would also have to pay for the procedure.
Hurst's bill specifies that the requirement would only apply to people over the age of 21 who commit "certain sex offenses."
"They have marked these children for life," said Hurst, in defense of his bill. "They will never get over it. And if they've marked children for life, they need to be marked for life."
In the most gruesome way possible?
Surgical castration, of course, differs from chemical castration— a provision of the law on the books in several states, though it's unclear if many sex offenders actually undergo the procedure (either voluntarily, or as a condition of release), according to the Associated Press.
Nevertheless, castration isn't a particularly reliable or effective way of deterring serial sexual abusers of children. According to The Daily Beast:
"It's naive to think this is a panacea," Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of The Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, told The Washington Post decades ago, a position he has maintained every subsequent time a reporter has called asking for his opinion on the matter. Not only is it wrong to use a medical treatment as punishment, he has said, but there's no reason to believe it will have the intended effect.
This is not the first time Hurst has introduced such a bill. He's actually mounted a quixotic campaign to force sex offenders to be castrated for years. It's unlikely he'll have any more luck this time, thank goodness.
But rest assured: neither a lack of evidence that this approach works, nor a lack of evidence that this is a widespread or worsening problem requiring such a solution, will stop Hurst from trying.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"They have marked these children for life," said Hurst, in defense of his bill. "They will never get over it.
That's a healthy attitude to impart. "You got fucked up, kid. You'll never be okay. You will only ever be a victim now."
Would be hilarious if this stupid fuck was to suddenly get busted in some type of sex crime. It wouldn't surprise me one bit though.
He gets busted for aggravated assault when he escalates his nonconsensual nullification fetish?
He's probably just angling to be Trump's VP.
something something angle of the dangle something
Anyone who knows biology, how sex assaults occur, or both will know why this won't work, but who cares when there are feelings and political posturing at stake?
I guess I just assumed this was about revenge and the feelz, not actually preventing sex crimes.
"Hurst's bill specifies that the requirement would only apply to people over the age of 21 who commit 'certain sex offenses.'"
When the punishment is THAT severe, you really have no excuse for being that fucking vague.
I support the creation of an eunuch class, but only if they become the only people eligible for the civil service.
How stupid would you have to be to think that its a pedophile's balls that program his very particular sexual needs, and not his brain?
Alabama legislature stupid?
So... lobotomy *and* castration?
The endocrine system has a lot to do with what your brain does. We aren't just our brains.
That said, there is no reason to assume that castration necessarily would stop such behavior and the evidence seems to indicate that it doesn't reliably do so.
Does this bill also force medical practitioners to perform the procedure?
They'll find the one they need.
"Hi, everybody!"
Lex talionis. Timeless. The focus on "sex offenders", as opposed to thiefs and liars, is a change.
Whether or not castration is a proportionate retribution would depend on the offense, no?
And female sex offenders get their ovaries removed, right? RIGHT?!
Maybe he could castrate that dumb fuck trying to stop pot in CA.
"Not only is it wrong to use a medical treatment as punishment, he has said, but there's no reason to believe it will have the intended effect."
More than a few years ago my ex-wife was on a committee to draft legislation addressing child sexual abuse at the state level. Apparently it has been known for some time that surgically casterated male humans will continue to use their fingers and toes on their victims to gratify themselves.
So how DO you separate the men from the boys in Greece?
.rabworc a htiW
Slippery slope meets sticky slope.
Castration would, though.
So snip it, snip it good, da da da da daaaaa da.
illletmyselfout.com
Thanks for sharing.
playbox hd for mac
Sounds like this rep needs a hysterectomy.