Share this @internewscast.com
Alabama Representative Juandalynn Givan, House Judiciary Committee member, asks a question of Jack Sharman, House Judiciary Committee special council, while he speaks to the Alabama House Judiciary Committee during a hearing on Gov. Robert Bentley’s impeachment Monday, April 10, 2017, in Montgomery, Ala. (Albert Cesare/The Montgomery Advertiser via AP, Pool).
Alabama Democratic state Rep. Juandalynn Givan made good on her promise to increase penalties for sex offenders by introducing a bill to punish child rapists with castration.
Givan was clear that her proposal was connected to Alabama’s near-total ban on abortion. In a statement to Newsweek, Givan called the bill “simple,” and said if a young girl has been the victim of rape or incest, then a man found guilty of the crime should be forced to have a vasectomy or another form of castration.
“In recent years, the Legislature has passed laws restricting reproduction rights in the state and the penalties have been imposed only on women. It’s time for that to change,” Givan said. “The last time I checked a biology textbook, it takes a woman and a man to make a baby. Men in Alabama need to be held to the same level of responsibility as women.”
Following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Alabama made all abortions illegal, regardless of stage of pregnancy, and with no exceptions for rape or incest. The state also took steps to give “preborn children” constitutional rights and is considering legislation that would allow women who terminate their pregnancies to be prosecuted for murder.
House Bill 80, as amended to include Givan’s suggested text, expands on a portion of Alabama’s abortion law that requires a child’s father to pay medical expenses associated with a pregnancy or an abortion if an abortion is necessary to preserve the health of a pregnant woman, unless the woman waives her right to collect the funds.
Under the revised language, a father required to pay for pregnancy or abortion expenses can petition the court for relief if he undergoes a vasectomy and submits proof to the court.
Despite Givan’s demand that it is “time for [ ] change,” castration of sex offenders is nothing new in the Yellowhammer State. The practice has been legal in Alabama for several years.
In 2019, Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed HB 379 into law, which requires anyone convicted of a sex offense against a person under age 13 to start chemical castration treatment at least a month prior to being released on parole and continue “until the court determines the treatment is no longer necessary.”
The same year, Divan challenged her legislative colleagues to do more to protect women after the story of “Jessica,” an adolescent girl who was repeatedly raped and impregnated by her uncle, made headlines. Though the man did serve prison time for a drug conviction, he sued Jessica upon his release and won the right to visit with the children.
“I think the Legislature is failing the women of Alabama,” Divan said at the time. “The justice system can do no more than what we enact into law.”
Other states, including California, Florida, Louisiana, and Wisconsin also have castration provisions in their laws. Proponents of forced castration argue it is a public safety measure; opponents say it has little value in reducing recidivism and raises serious ethical and constitutional concerns. A recent study of forced chemical castrations conducted in Korea concluded that the practice was largely ineffective in reducing recidivism.
Law&Crime reached out directly to Divan to clarify how, if at all, her proposal differs from the 2019 castration law, but did not receive a response.
Just days ago, Alabama became the first state to execute a prisoner via use of nitrogen hypoxia on Jan. 25 when it put Kenneth Eugene Smith to death for the 1988 killing of Elizabeth Sennett. Smith’s final execution occurred the third time Alabama attempted to inflict the death penalty on the 58-year-old. The Supreme Court declined to halt the execution despite Smith’s claim that the never-used method of inflicting death violated the Eighth Amendment.
