NEWS
PAGE 3 | THE ALABAMIAN
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2013
Representative revives castration debate BY HEATHER BUCKNER, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Courtesy of SEIU International Nearly fifty years after the first civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, the NAACP reached out to the Hispanic community to make the historic trek to the capitol in March 2012.
State settles lawsuit over immigration bill BY HANNAH STEIN, MANAGING EDITOR
As of Tuesday, Oct. 29, significant portions of Alabama’s controversial immigration law are blocked from being enforced. Civil rights groups as well as the U.S. Department of Justice filed lawsuits debating the bill and — despite the Supreme Court refusing to review it six months ago — state officials agreed to deals that will limit its powers. Provisions blocked include those requiring public schools to collect immigration status of students, criminalizing solicitation of work from undocumented workers and prohibiting drivers from giving undocumented immigrants a ride. The agreement also denies that the law gives police the right to detain an individual for the sole reason of checking immigration status. Since its inception, house bill 56 (HB 56) has been considered one of the toughest immigration laws in the country. Organizations such as the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama (HICA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Southern Poverty Law Center
(SPLC) and leaders of the Methodist, Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches of Alabama have all filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bill. In an online publication titled, “Alabama's Shame: HB 56 and the War on Immigrants,” the SPLC states, “The result is a crisis that harkens back to the bleakest days of Alabama’s racial history. It is a crisis that could have been avoided — one that certainly must end now.” The state also agreed to pay $350,000 in legal fees and expenses for the suing groups, but first the deal must be approved by a federal judge. While House Majority Leader Micky Hammon described the settlement as a “great victory,” since most of the law remains intact, the SPLC also claims to be “victorious against Alabama anti-immigrant law.” “We warned the legislature when they were debating HB 56,” said Sam Brooke, SPLC senior staff attorney, “that if they passed this draconian law, we would sue in court and win.”
City enacts new parking ordinance BY HANNAH STEIN, MANAGING EDITOR
In response to complaints from citizens, the city has established a new parking ordinance for certain residential areas surrounding campus. A combined effort of the city council, mayor and police department, the bill was approved and adopted into law on Monday, Oct. 14. The ordinance divides the city into six zones. Residents of these zones may purchase a permit
from the city clerk for a $20 annual fee. This permit—to be placed in the lower, rear, driverside window—allows the driver to park only in their designated zone. According to Montevallo Police Chief Jeremy Littleton, both drivers without a parking pass and those who park outside of their zone will receive a ticket. The $35 fine must be paid within seven days of being ticketed.
Under this program, permits will expire on the first day of August each year. “Since we are just starting the new program,” said Littleton, “the new parking permits will not expire until August 2015.” A full copy of the ordinance is available on the city’s website, www.cityofmontevallo.com, and parking permits will be available for purchase in the next couple of weeks.
On the map above each straight line represents one parking zone. For a more detailed description of streets affected, visit the city’s website.
An Alabama lawmaker recently reintroduced a controversial bill for the 2014 legislative session that will require convicted sex offenders to be surgically castrated. Republican representative Steve Hurst’s proposal will require offenders over the age of 21, whose victims were under 12, to pay for their own surgery before their release from prison. Currently there are nine states that practice chemical castration on sex offenders, administering chemicals that make it impossible to perform sexual acts. Hurst’s proposal, however, advocates surgical castration—the permanent alternative. Alabama would be the second state to adopt this measure, joining only Texas.
he explained, “which I’m sure is highly questionable under the standards of practice for the medical profession, our country’s Constitution and other legal principles, and, most of all, standards of basic human rights.” There are more fundamental problems with the practice that even those who advocate it have to consider, however. Fred Berlin, founder of the sexual disorders clinic at Johns Hopkins University, said surgery may work for those whose sex drives motivate their crimes, but those with different motives are largely unaffected. Furthermore, offenders can potentially counteract the treatment later by boosting their testosterone levels through gels and patches.
People just spend so much time trying to decide whether or not this or that is going to help the offender, but what about the victims? His bill is faced with opposition from many groups—Amnesty International, for example, a non-governmental organization focused on human rights, called castration “inhumane treatment,” arguing that the procedure is "tantamount to torture." Paul Tierney, a counselor and an alumnus from Montevallo’s master's in counseling program, indicated a similar sentiment, saying that, with certain populations like sex offenders, “the public is generally more concerned with retribution and less concerned for the care and rights of the offender.” “They may be more likely to support a practice like physical castration,”
Still others, like one victim who wished to remain anonymous, retain the stance that “if there is even a chance castration would cut back on offenses, it is society’s responsibility to make it happen in order to keep others safe.” The now 29-year-old said she and her older brother were molested by their step-father for six years. The abuse started when she was nine years old. Though it has been years since it ended, she said the experience still influences her everyday decisions. “I don’t think people understand how damaging that is to a kid and how it kind of follows them for the rest of their life,” she said. “If you can,
kind of, possibly, prevent that person from doing that again by removing the desire or ability, I think it makes it worth it.” She was less interested in how it may encroach on the offender’s rights. “People just spend so much time trying to decide whether or not this or that is going to help the offender, but what about the victims,” she asked. “If this thing that they want to do will make these people less likely to hurt children in the future, I don’t think it’s even a question.” “People say that it’s not fair to the offender, but it’s not fair to put other kids at risk either,” she concluded. Most, including Tierney, advocate a hybrid form of treatment for offenders. “Briefly, I think some medical treatment— shown to have very limited side effects—which is entirely voluntary and reversible, may be appropriate in some cases in conjunction with mental health treatment,” he said. Hurst’s bill, however, did not cover this aspect of the treatment. This is the second time Hurst has attempted to have his bill pushed through the legislature, but he said he feels as though he has gained more support since last time.