Legislative sessions among states are not immune from controversial bill proposals during this 2023 session. For example, Texas House Bill 112, seeks to criminalize gender-affirming health care, Mississippi House Bill 1020 intends to create a separate court system and an expanded police force within the city of Jackson (which happens to have a large African-American population), and Missouri recently nixed a bill that would ban minors from carrying firearms in public without adult supervision
New Mexico hasn’t escaped the trend either.
In this 2023 session, two House Republicans, John Block (R-51) and Stefani Lord (R-23) proposed House Bill 128 which would allow a court to order a convicted sex offender to undergo chemical castration as a condition of parole and early release. In addition to castration, the bill suggests that the offenders cover the cost of castration (unless they qualify under certain indigent qualifications), and that if they don’t finish treatment, they would be charged with a 4th-degree felony.
Stefani Lord stated that the program would be “voluntary” and is directed at convicted felons who sexually assaulted victims under 18. She added, “I don’t want sex offenders near our children.” Block also defended the bill by stating “This is about protecting the child.”
Passing laws that require chemical castration is nothing new in the U.S. California was the first state to pass a law requiring chemical castration for sex offenders who victimized children 13 and younger. Since then, several other states, including Alabama, Florida, Wisconsin, and Texas, have passed similar laws.
Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs (drugs that contain progesterone) that act to suppress testosterone levels in men. Some studies suggest that chemical castration works to reduce recidivism in sex offenders, but it’s not clear whether it’s due to the reduction of testosterone levels.
Although the program would be voluntary, chemical castration for convicted sex offenders ignores an important fact about sexual assault. As Dillon Nettles, policy analyst for the ACLU of Alabama told Rolling Stone in a 2019 interview, sexual abuse is not just about sex drive.
Dillon stated, “Sexual assault is about power. It’s not about pleasure or gratification. He went on to add, “The fact that they’re thinking that if you’ve committed a sex offense on a child under the age of 13, then [chemical castration] will somehow deter that from happening again, not only undermines what we know about sexual assault, it also undermines what Alabama considers itself doing with the criminal justice system.”
Jurgen Mueller, a Gottingen-based neurologist, and forensic psychiatrist stated “Drug treatment is always embedded in behavioral therapy or psychotherapy,” and “drive-attenuating chemical treatment alone is not sufficient.” Even reducing the testosterone level to zero doesn’t erase the chances of reoffending, according to sociologist Andrej König from Dortmund University. He stated, “One doesn’t need to have an erection to be able to molest a child or rape a person.”
Another issue is that chemical castration requires constant treatment even after the convict is released into society. What guarantee do communities have that these individuals would continue their treatment outside of prison?
Executive director of the New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault programs, Alexandria Taylor, stated that no evidence supports the idea that chemical castration “prevents sexual violence or sexual perpetration against children.” She added, “We’re focused on primary prevention of sexual violence so people never experience the harm, to begin with.”
Sexual violence against children is a horrible, monstrous crime that leaves long-lasting scars, both emotional and physical. However, is punishing offenders (although voluntary) with chemical castration really the answer?
Perhaps Reps. Block and Lord should focus on programs to prevent sexual violence against children rather than proposing legislation that is both practically and ethically questionable.