NCJ Number
143719
Journal
Florida Law Review Volume: 44 Issue: 3 Dated: (July 1992) Pages: 379-416
Date Published
1992
Length
38 pages
Annotation
This legal note disputes the constitutional validity of requiring Norplant use as a probation condition in child abuse cases; the analysis includes typical child abuse cases where the abuse occurs after birth, as well as situations where the mother harms her child in utero by using drugs during pregnancy.
Abstract
Following an analysis of the right to procreate, probation conditions and limits, cases prohibiting conception or pregnancy as a condition of probation, and the reasonableness and constitutionality of the Norplant condition, the author concludes that Norplant constitutes an enticing option for judges who must sentence convicted child abusers. Norplant use is easy to monitor and reduces the offender's opportunity to abuse children in the future. Nonetheless, while there is latitude for creative sentencing, the author contends that forcing a child abuser to use Norplant is judicial overkill. More importantly, he believes that the Norplant condition is unreasonable and unconstitutional in child abuse cases because the right to procreate is a constitutionally protected human right. Further, in the typical child abuse case, a probation condition preventing the offender from conceiving a child is not related to the crime or future criminality. Even in cases where the Norplant condition may pass the reasonableness test, there is a more humane alternative. A program of pregnancy testing and prenatal care, combined with a no-custody condition, may be more effective than Norplant in meeting probation goals. 318 footnotes