The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that a Louisiana law allowing prosecutors to ask for the death penalty for repeat rapists, whose victims are children under the age of 12, was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a good one. With the law the way it was, there was no reason for a child rapist not to kill his or her victim. If an individual is going to get the death penalty for the rape of the child, the person might as well kill the victim because there is no greater punishment. Also, by murdering the victim, the rapist would most likely eliminate the only person who could identify him/her as the perpetrator .
However, Gov. Bobby Jindal didn’t pay much attention to the Supreme Court’s decision.
The very same day Jindal decided to pretend he learned nothing from the Court’s decision and sign Senate Bill 144 into law. The bill states that a criminal court can use chemical castration as a punishment for individuals convicted of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second-degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a child under the age of 13 and aggravated crimes against nature.
Sometimes I wonder if Jindal is paying attention at all to what’s going on around him. The pay raise was obviously a fiasco and now this. It’s as if Jindal is a little kid whose mother just said “Stop taking cookies out of the jar,” and he still takes a cookie out of the jar.
Chemical castration, which consists of injecting an individual with medroxyprogesterone acetate, could be recommended for first-time offenders but would be required for second-time offenders. The idea behind chemical castration is that reducing an individual’s sex drive will keep them from committing the same crimes over and over.
Let me make my point clear. In no way, shape or form do I condone rape or child molestation, but I am a man of the Constitution. It is what all Americans should believe in and should be a guiding document for lawmakers.
The new law will not hold up in court for many reasons.
I don’t like to say this, but for once in my life I actually agree with the American Civil Liberties Union. The Louisiana branch of the ACLU sees this law as unconstitutional for two reasons.
The first reason is they feel that this law will fall in conflict with the Eighth Amendment, which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU feels that sex crimes really aren’t about sex. They’re more about power, and that taking away a person’s sex drive is cruel.
The second constitutional problem deals with equal protection in the Fourteenth Amendment. Medroxyprogesterone acetate is used in women as a contraceptive. It just keeps them from going through their regular monthly cycle but has no affect on their sex drive.
Sue Bernie, a sex crimes prosecutor in Baton Rouge, believes this is just “feel good legislation.” She feels that chemical castration will probably not curb the crime rate at all.
Bernie went on to say that prosecutors try to recommend punishment for offenders on a case-by-case basis, but this new legislation kind of takes that power away by mandating that second offenders be treated with chemical castration.
It goes back to what Bernie said; it’s just feel good legislation. Some lawmakers, along with the governor, realized they were headed for a great injustice to the Louisiana taxpayer with the proposed pay raise, and felt they needed to do something to get the hearts of the people back.
Unfortunately this legislation isn’t it. Chemical castration may or may not work. Studies have shown that physical castration greatly reduces the recidivism rate. There is little research, however, proving or disproving the affects of chemical castration.
Chemical castration will lure the community into a false sense of security. By thinking that chemical castration lowers an offender’s sex drive, people might think their children are safe when they aren’t.
Other than the chance it may or may not work, my other concern is the cost to the taxpayer for weekly injections for the offenders. Officials in Montana estimate that the injections will cost approximately $21 a day per individual receiving the treatment. The state will also have to pay someone to monitor the offenders and make sure they’re coming in for their treatments.
There are similar laws on the books in California, Florida, Georgia, Texas and Montana. One of these five states or Louisiana will have to pay for legal fees to defend their law all the way to the Supreme Court.
I pray it’s not Louisiana. After just using Louisiana taxpayer dollars to defend the death penalty for child rapists, it’s not fair to the taxpayer to continuously use their tax dollars to fight for unconstitutional laws.
—-Contact Matthew Gravens at [email protected]