Wednesday, January 18, 2006
The Child Molester Control Act
I found a story the other day about PA state senator Bob Regola wanting to introduce an act regarding prevention of child molesters repeating the offence.
The Plan? Chemical castration.
I guess that I should appreciate that at least he is thinking of the situation but I think that he is missing the boat on this one. Many of the crimes committed on children that are sexual in nature aren't really about the sex. They are about the thinking of the perp and about control or power. The need for chemical castration in these cases is minimal; what's needed is the elimination of the thinking patterns more so than the elimination of testicles.
There is already a similar bill to Regola's introduced in the State House. HB 1608, known as the Child Molester Control Act, also calls for chemical castration of offenders but it has a more important part in it. It calls for mandatory sentences of offenders whose victims are under 13 years old. The minimum is for 15 years if the offense is the first one and 30 years if there has been a previous conviction. The court can impose a life without parole sentence on the offender as well. The perpetrator would never have the opportunity to get close enough to child again to molest.
THAT is Child Molester Control.
The problem I have with the bills as they are being presented are twofold. The first is that there is no clinical proof that it would actually work. As I mentioned above the mainpart of the molester's behavior is not necessarily controlled below the belt line. It would be more effective to remove the hands or the tongue than the testicles since that is what the molester uses to get to the child. The otherissue is that it doesn't address the issue of female offenders. I know that they are not as numerous as male offenders but that doesn't change the fact that there are female offenders out there. Until that is addressed as well, the bill may be unconstitutional as it treats inmates differently based only on the sex of the offender. That may cause problems with the bill as well.
I guess we will have to see what happens with the bills over the course of the legislative session. After all, HB 1608 has been sitting in committee since June 2005 and there hasn't been any movement. I guess they were too busy giving themselves a pay raise and then giving it baack to look at other bills.
The Plan? Chemical castration.
I guess that I should appreciate that at least he is thinking of the situation but I think that he is missing the boat on this one. Many of the crimes committed on children that are sexual in nature aren't really about the sex. They are about the thinking of the perp and about control or power. The need for chemical castration in these cases is minimal; what's needed is the elimination of the thinking patterns more so than the elimination of testicles.
There is already a similar bill to Regola's introduced in the State House. HB 1608, known as the Child Molester Control Act, also calls for chemical castration of offenders but it has a more important part in it. It calls for mandatory sentences of offenders whose victims are under 13 years old. The minimum is for 15 years if the offense is the first one and 30 years if there has been a previous conviction. The court can impose a life without parole sentence on the offender as well. The perpetrator would never have the opportunity to get close enough to child again to molest.
THAT is Child Molester Control.
The problem I have with the bills as they are being presented are twofold. The first is that there is no clinical proof that it would actually work. As I mentioned above the mainpart of the molester's behavior is not necessarily controlled below the belt line. It would be more effective to remove the hands or the tongue than the testicles since that is what the molester uses to get to the child. The otherissue is that it doesn't address the issue of female offenders. I know that they are not as numerous as male offenders but that doesn't change the fact that there are female offenders out there. Until that is addressed as well, the bill may be unconstitutional as it treats inmates differently based only on the sex of the offender. That may cause problems with the bill as well.
I guess we will have to see what happens with the bills over the course of the legislative session. After all, HB 1608 has been sitting in committee since June 2005 and there hasn't been any movement. I guess they were too busy giving themselves a pay raise and then giving it baack to look at other bills.
