I am not a lawyer. But I do know that all laws are subject to the interpretation of the courts, and that no right is absolute. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," but it has been interpreted to allow the death penalty. (Many people feel it shouldn't, but it has.) The hormone injections do not seem quanlitatively different to me.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." I'm not sure how that applies.
That being said, I feel the mind control aspects of this cross a moral line. Punishing a person for their crimes is one thing; physically changing them (especially if it against their will) violates human decency and dignity. If it were shown to be effective, I might go along with it if it were offered as an option, but not if it were mandatory.
I am not a lawyer. But I do know that all laws are subject to the interpretation of the courts, and that no right is absolute. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," but it has been interpreted to allow the death penalty. (Many people feel it shouldn't, but it has.) The hormone injections do not seem quanlitatively different to me.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." I'm not sure how that applies.
That being said, I feel the mind control aspects of this cross a moral line. Punishing a person for their crimes is one thing; physically changing them (especially if it against their will) violates human decency and dignity. If it were shown to be effective, I might go along with it if it were offered as an option, but not if it were mandatory.