About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

12 U. Dayton L. Rev. 1 (1986-1987)
Depo-Provera, Castration, and the Probation of Rape Offenders: Statutory and Constitutional Issues

handle is hein.journals/udlr12 and id is 9 raw text is: UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON LAW REVIEW VOLUME 12 FALL 1986 NUMBER 1 DEPO-PROVERA, CASTRATION, AND THE PROBATION OF RAPE OFFENDERS: STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES William Green* I. INTRODUCTION Rape is a major violent crime. Convicted rapists are sentenced to lengthy prison terms, life imprisonment, or even death. Probation, usu- ally not available as a sentencing alternative, was offered to the defend- ants in two recent rape trials. In State v. Brown,1 a South Carolina judge offered three convicted rapists thirty years' imprisonment or pro- bation with the condition of surgical castration.' In People v. Gaun- tlett,3 a Michigan judge sentenced a convicted rapist to one year's im- prisonment and five years' probation with the condition that the convict receive regular injections of Depo-Provera, a drug sometimes charac- terized as chemical castration.' The Brown and Gauntlett cases have brought medical and legal attention to bear on the use of surgical cas- tration and Depo-Provera injections as probation conditions for con- victed rapists.5 * Assistant Professor of Government, Morehead State University. B.A., Kent State Univer- sity (1963); M.A., Kent State University (1967); Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo (1977); J.D., University of Kentucky (1984). This article was presented in an earlier version at the American Political Science Association 1985 Annual Meeting under the title Castration, Rape Offenders, and the Conditions of Probation with the financial assistance of Morehead State University. This article benefited from the advice of Professor John Batt and the assistance of Ms. JoEllen McComb, Research Librarian, both of the College of Law, University of Kentucky. This article also benefited from the appellate briefs provided by the following defense attorneys: Mr. Stephen John Henry in State v. Brown, 284 S.C. 407, 326 S.E.2d 410 (1985); Mr. Glen W. Thomason in State v. Vaughan; and Mr. William L. Fette in People v. Gauntlett, 134 Mich. App. 737, 352 N.W.2d 310, modified, 419 Mich. 909, 353 N.W.2d 463 (1984). I. 284 S.C. 407, 326 S.E.2d 410 (1985). 2. Id. at 409, 326 S.E.2d at 411. 3. 134 Mich. App. 737, 352 N.W.2d 310, modified, 419 Mich. 909, 353 N.W.2d 463 (1984). 4. Id. at 744, 352 N.W.2d at 312. 5. Probation conditions have been a neglected area of study. Commentators who have writ- ten on the subject have been critical of probation conditions as moralistic, impractical, unconstitu-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most