MDN.ORG:
Missouri Digital News
MDN.ORG
Mo. Digital News
Missouri Digital News
MDN.ORG:
Mo. Digital News
MDN.ORG:
Missouri Digital News
MDN.ORG:
Missouri Digital News
MDN.ORG
Mo. Digital News
Missouri Digital News
MDN.ORG:
Mo. Digital News
MDN.ORG:
Missouri Digital News
JEFFERSON CITY - One day after the Missouri House approved requiring repeat sex offenders to undergo chemical castration for parole, the Senate sponsor of the bill declared the issue dead for the year.
Sen. J.B. "Jet" Banks, D-St. Louis, said he would kill his bill if House-approved provision is not removed.
Banks said chemical castration was unrelated to the original purpose of his bill -- to toughen laws against behavior that spreads HIV infection.
"I don't think that the amendment fits on the HIV bill," Banks said. "I'm going to oppose it and try to take it off. And if I'm not be able to take it off, I will not take the bill up with it."
Under legislative rules, a bill sponsor does have absolute power to stop further legislative action on his bill.
Besides saying the amendment was unrelated to the purpose of his bill, Banks said he opposed the idea of chemical castration as a requirement for parole.
"A person who's committed a crime, if it's sexual in nature, they've paid their debt to society -- so why give this person this chemical drug," Banks said.
On the other hand, the author of the amendment, Rep. David Broach, R-Arnold, said most of the Americans want this kind of protection from sexual attacks.
Broach's amendment won overwhelming approval of the majority of the House floor, 136-19, on Tuesday.
"It think that it needs to pass," Broach said. "I think we need to do something to reduce this type of horrible crimes."
Broach's amendment would force the sexual offenders that want the parole to undergo to weekly shots of medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic progesterone similar to a contraception for women known as DepoProvera, starting the week before the prisoner's release. If they do not want to follow this treatment, they will stay in jail.
He said that this is not a castration because castration means sterilization and this does not to sterilize to anybody.
"This does no prevent anyone from fathering children and it does not prevent people to have sexual activity," Broach said. "But studies have shown that reduces the desire to have sexual activity and take the hormones down."
However, some lawmakers have expressed doubts about the measure.
Rep. Kate Hollingsworth, D-Imperial, warned the amendment would give a false sense of security to communities by causing citizens to believe falsely that sexual predators taking the medication will not attack anyone.
"I'm very concerned with the message we are communicating to the citizens of Missouri," Hallingsworth said. "I believe that it is important to explain the full ramifications of this drug."
She also expressed concerns about the experimental nature and the side effects of the drug.
Broach replied that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the drug and millions of people are taking it every day.
"Although this is a new philosophy, this is not a new treatment," Broach said. "We've been using it in mental hospitals across the United States for years to control that type of behavior."
Missouri would be one of the first states that are trying to pass this kind of law. California was the first state that approved the chemical castration for sexual offenders who want the parole. Montana followed last fall and Georgia will be the next in July. Broach also said that another 8 states are looking at this legislation.
Under Broach's proposal, a first time offender will have to get the medication if the Board of Probation and Parole required as a condition of parole.
For a second-time offender, the drug would be required for parole if the victim is under the age of 13 years old. The medication will be obligatory for a third-time offender, no matter the age of the victim.
The House-passed idea got less than an enthusiastic response from the governor's office.
Mel Carnaham's spokesman, Chris Sifford, said the bill could raise constitutional questions about violation of the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.