Chemical Castration for Child Sex Offenders, yea or nay?

I say yea! I think this is an excellent option (considering we can't kill or jail them forever). What do you think about chemical castration for child sex offenders?

I know some people say it is cruel and unusual punishment, but it isn't a "punishment" per se. It is a way to keep our children safe from those who ADMIT that they can't help themselves and are sexually attracted to our kids. They are potentially very dangerous people because of their disease. Please vote after reading the article. Thanks!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/health/chemical-castration-science/index.html

 

http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/archives/1614

Chapman Law Review

Fall 2009

Comment

CHEMICAL CASTRATION FOR CHILD PREDATORS: PRACTICAL, EFFECTIVE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL

Elizabeth M. Tullio *

Copyright (c) 2009 Chapman Law Review; Elizabeth M. Tullio

If legislation and punishment alone cannot fully solve the problem, medicine and science need to be called into action. And if society can be made safer by such means, why not use them? 1

Introduction

Every year approximately 100,000 to 500,000 children are sexually molested in the United States. 2 This results in 10-25% of children being sexually abused by the age of eighteen–out of which 30-40% are females and 10-15% are males. 3 With such high rates, child sexual abuse can be classified as an epidemic across the country. Friends, family members, and strangers commit these crimes. 4 There are those who are attracted solely to children and others who are mainly attracted to adults, but occasionally attack children. 5 While a number of different punishments and treatments have been implemented, there is no cure for such a condition. 6 People are left wondering what to do, how to stop these offenders, and how they can keep their young children safe from such unspeakable horror.

Over the years, a number of treatments have been implemented including physical castration and invasive, almost cruel therapies. 7 The crime of raping a child is so abhorrent that many states adopted laws that called for the death penalty for the commission of such crimes. 8 However, sentencing these offenders to death is no longer constitutional, 9 and those who are released often reoffend and end up back in prison. 10 In reality, there has never been a widely used treatment that could be described as both effective and humane in treating pedophiles and child molesters. 11 However, a certain treatment has been used and experimented with since the mid twentieth century that is both humane and incredibly effective in treating these offenders. 12 This treatment is the next step in sex offender therapy and the best possible option for any child molester or pedophile. This treatment is chemical castration.

While chemical castration sounds almost barbaric, it is one of the more civilized forms of treatment that has been used on sexual predators. 13 It is merely a type of hormone therapy that takes away the offender’s sexual desire. 14 There can be some unpleasant side effects, but they are mostly reversible, and, overall, there is little pain and suffering associated with the procedure. 15 Even the Catholic Church fully supports the procedure and set up the St. Luke Institute in the United States in 1985 where pedophilic priests undergo a combination of counseling and chemical castration for pedophilia. 16 In addition to the effectiveness of chemical castration, it is also exponentially less expensive than the cost of keeping these individuals in prisons and hospitals, making it an almost perfect solution. 17

While a number of constitutional concerns arise with the use of such a procedure, this comment proposes that chemical castration does not violate the Constitution. For those states that require an offender to undergo such a procedure, the health and safety of the offender is taken into consideration and a number of procedural safeguards protect individuals from abuse. 18 Because of these procedural safeguards, it is difficult to think of the treatment as cruel and unusual in any way. Additionally, there is a fundamental right to procreate as well as a right to refuse treatment that must be taken into consideration. 19 However, chemical castration is not in violation of either right as it does not necessarily strip an individual of reproductive capabilities. 20 Furthermore, keeping children safe from sexual predators is the absolute definition of a compelling state interest. Therefore, requiring chemical castration as a condition of parole or probation for pedophiles and child molesters is practical, effective, and constitutional.

A number of issues will be addressed throughout the text of this comment. The next section explains the true makeup of a child molester and how he is a different breed of sex offender. It will also discuss how it is necessary to do more than imprison such offenders, as rates of recidivism are incredibly high. Section III will examine different legislation that has been passed and treatments that have been implemented in dealing with these offenders, and why they have not solved the problem. Section IV will discuss chemical castration and how it is an effective treatment that can succeed in treating these offenders where others have failed. Lastly, section V will look at the constitutionality of requiring such offenders to undergo treatment.

 

Continued from above . . .

A. Sex Offender Registration

Since implementing a life sentence for every sex offender, or even just for every child molester and pedophile is unreasonable and unrealistic, states have taken steps to keep communities safe from released sex offenders. In 1947, California was the first state to have any kind of registry system for sex offenders, and it now has more registered sex offenders than any other state. 53 Today, there are currently over 11,000 registered sex offenders residing in Los Angeles County alone. 54 Throughout the late Twentieth Century, the laws regarding sex offender registration have evolved, in large part, due to the numerous attacks on children. 55 It was not until the 1990’s, after the brutal rape and murder of seven-year-old Megan Kanka in New Jersey, that a public outcry was heard for something more to be done to protect the nation’s children. 56 Unbeknownst to Megan or her family, their new neighbor across the street was a recently released sex offender. 57 When Megan went over to her neighbor’s house to see a puppy, she ended up being raped and strangled to death with a leather belt. 58 No one in the community had any idea that they lived near a sexual predator. 59

After Megan’s death, New Jersey passed an entirely new kind of sex offender registration law. 60 By the late 1990’s, implementing sex offender registration laws was not anything new: over 25 states had already put such laws into action. 61 However, there was a big difference between the laws enacted in New Jersey after Megan’s death and those throughout the rest of the nation. 62 New Jersey became the first state to require public notification in addition to the individual registering as a sex offender. 63 New Jersey’s new law caught political attention as the Federal Omnibus Crime Bill was passing through Congress, which contained the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sex Offender Registration Act (“Jacob Wetterling Act”). 64

President Clinton amended the Jacob Wetterling Act by signing Megan’s Law so that, in addition to requiring every state to compile a registry for sex offenders, the states were required to release relevant information to the public about such individuals residing in the state. 65 Compliance with the act was deemed so crucial that 10% of a state’s federal funding was made contingent upon the timely passage of similar laws in each state. 66 Sex offenders required to register have challenged these laws as an invasion of privacy. 67 Given that the purpose of these laws is to protect the community and keep children safe from sexual predators, the states have held that such regulations are legitimate. 68 The U.S. Supreme Court even ruled that laws requiring sex offender registration and community notification are constitutional. 69 The Court held that the “mere injury to reputation” that these laws may cause, “even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest.” 70 While these laws are a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to ensure the safety of our children. Even with public notification systems in place, a child predator remains dangerous.

B. Capital Child Rape Statutes & Their Unconstitutionality

A number of states have realized that a community’s awareness of convicted child molesters will not, by itself, ensure the safety of its children. In fact, starting in 1993, a number of states went a little too far and enacted statutes that made it a capital crime to rape a child under the age of twelve. 71 Almost twenty years before these states began enacting capital child rape statutes, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Coker v. Georgia that issuing the death penalty for the rape of an adult woman is unconstitutional as it is a disproportionate punishment for a crime in which there is no loss of life. 72 In Kennedy v. Louisiana, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court applied similar logic in finding that implementing the death penalty in cases of child rape was a grossly excessive punishment which violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. 73 At the time the decision was handed down, Louisiana, South Carolina, Montana, Georgia, and Oklahoma all had laws which deemed the rape of a child to be a capital offense. 74

Arguably, these states found the rape of a child to be such a deplorable act that even though the offender had not taken a life, he deserved to have his life taken for the commission of such an act. In fact, the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, stated in an interview that he found the Court’s decision in Kennedy to be an “awful decision.” 75 In reaction to the Court’s decision, Governor Jindal stated: “That’s ridiculous . . . We don’t want anybody in Louisiana harming our children. We think these monsters need to be stopped . . . If there is any other crime other than taking human life . . . that screams out for the death penalty it’s those criminals that harm our children.” 76

While the state requested a rehearing on the case due to certain factual errors, the Court denied the request in October 2008. 77 The Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana still stands, so implementing the death penalty for the rape of a child constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment. 78 Society’s abhorrence to crimes of this nature is obvious. However, the dilemma as to what to do with those who commit sexual crimes against children remains. Imprisonment keeps pedophiles away from children. However, those released back into the community often end up reoffending. The death penalty is far too harsh a punishment, yet more needs to be done to protect our children. Punishing offenders simply is not enough; it is necessary to take all steps possible to rehabilitate them. 79

 

I am pleased to see I am not the only one in agreement to such ideas. Thank you for the wonderful poll, ChrisL. For myself, I would say chemical castration for those who admit their illness to authorities, but have not yet commited any sexual assault on children. Actual castration for convicted offenders. Although, in my opinion, considering such crimes as cause for capital punishment is a rather reasonable concept.

 

Thanks for your comment.

I have brought up sentencing pedophiles to death as well in the past, but people have made the point that then they might just kill the children when they are done with them. So instead of having molested kids, we would have dead kids. Not a very good unintended consequence, but something has to be done before just releasing them back into society and around our children, given the potential danger involved.

When it comes to crimes like this, there is a hard choice to be made. I will always put the children first. Their welfare is much more important to me than the urges of some sick bastard pedo.

 

I notice the person who voted it is "cruel and unusual" punishment did not make a comment to back it up! That's what the idea of a "messageboard" is! Tell us WHY you think it's cruel and unusual.

 

I fully support this for both paedophilia and (at leastrelapse)-rape. If they violate someone else's sexuality, they have lost their right to their own sexuality, imo.

I think it was Poland who were going to experiment with this law, but not sure if it ever got implemented.

 

First of all sex offenders currently receive the lightest prison sentences here in the US, unless it's a violent rape. Pedophiles do however end up on public sex-offender lists for life, and must notify the police anytime they change residents. Now when you say "child sex offenders" I'm assuming you're talking specifically about pedophiles (please correct me if I'm wrong) and not also underage children having accentual sex with each other (because underage kids do have sex with each other willingly even those the law states that minors cannot legally give consent). Many children (that are sexually active) with partners close in age eventually pass that 18 year old mile-marker separately, meaning that if they continue to have sex with each other with out the consent of the parents of the younger child they can be hit with a multitude of charges ranging from statutory-rape to pedophilia, and still be forced for life to be on that child sex offender list for life (even if they were just maintaining a consensual on-going sexual relationship that existed prior to turning 18 years old).

Suggest that it's an obsession, not just a circumstance of one partner reaching the age of 18 before the other partner, and that this obsession is an ingrained fetish that lasts well into adulthood. I did note in the article mentioned that this chemical castration is reversible (by merely ceasing taking the drug) while pedophilia disorders are not reversible despite the lack of current sex drive or sexual activity. The drug is basically like the opposite of Viagra (making the predator temporarily impotent) but all the equipment is still there (like a car parked at a red-light, that make continue speeding just as soon as the light turns green). So not only does this drug not cure anything, but how are you going to ensure that they remain on it or when it is "safe" for them to stop using it?

My biggest issue with any sex offender is only when it is "rape, violent rape, rape of a minor, or homosexual rape on a victim that is heterosexual". All rape traumatizes a victim, but children are often dramatized for life, confused about their sexual identity, and unable to have healthy sexual relationships in the future. So I do believe that pedophilia rape should receive a punishment that permanently prevents them from ever being able to repeat that act again in the future (either physical castration "pillow & stones" or death after public humiliation). But it must be shown that the minor was forced against their will, not just that they were a minor engaging in a sexual act with someone that was an adult. But any adult found to forcefully engaged in a same-sex act with a minor that was heterosexual should receive the harshest minimum mandatory sentence (including death) of public humiliation and physical punishment, without any chance of pardon or freedom. They should never again be allowed to have any physical access or contact with any minor ever again.

 

How do you chemically castrate a female? Maybe I missed that part?

 

Why chemical castration?
Use a dull knife.

 

Very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7% in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7% of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were "made to penetrate" another person — usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as "other sexual violence." And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being "made to penetrate" — either by physical force or due to intoxication — at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1% in 2010, and 1.7% and 1.6% respectively in 2011).

 

Roman style is better - crush'em with bricks.

 

I do not know what to say. Any crime against a child is very severe. Most sexual offenses against children are committed by men and these men generally receive long prison terms. Definitely these men deserve long prison terms and chemical castration.

Most physical child abuse and filicide is committed by women. Yet any man who voices his thoughts about these women would be labelled a threat to society.

 

Nay. If he's unrepentant, just fry the sonofabitch.

 

Even a "castrated" (by chemical means or by the even more Draconian "biological" means) offender can STILL reoffend.

They can use objects, digital penetration, etc.

I don't really see the method in the OP as a "preventative deterrent".

 

Sounds to me like the women get a free pass for same punishment equal to men.

I don't believe in castration of any type because if I understand it correctly, once done, especially castration, it cannot be undone and if down the road it is proven that the man was wrongly convicted, it's too late to reverse what has been done to him.

 

if you removed their testicles, there is a belief that will diminish their desire to have sex with children. If you remove the penis too, some will claim it will remove their ability to rape a child. I would argue it violates the constitutional amendment against cruel punishment/ Child diddlers do have one of the worst rates of recidivism thought so maybe the best solution is long terms of incarceration

 

I vote for life behind bar.It's better.

 

Okay, you are talking about actual physical castration, but what about chemical castration?

 

You need to read the article before you comment. Chemical castration can be reversed.

 

Because there isn't a huge problem with women molesting children. While it happens occasionally, it isn't the norm. Sorry to say but the huge majority of sex crimes are committed by men.

 

Of course I'm talking about pedophiles (adults) who have sex with children. A teenager having sex with another teenager is not a pedophile.

 

Chemical castration takes away sexual desire. They would have no desire to have sex.

 

Well, chemical castration consists of giving the perpetrator drugs that reduce or eliminate the desire to have sex. Why would you think you can't do that with a female? Besides the fact that females are not normally sexually attacking others.

 

Chemical castration significantly reduces the sex-drive, so a man on that cure will most likely not feel the urge to penetrate anyone in any way.