Around the World – Should Castration be Used Against Sex Offenders?

Different countries treat and react to pedophila in different ways. I have already mentioned how Canada deals with the issue. While Canada and many countries – such as England, France, and the United States – impose jail sentences and mandatory rehabilitation programs on child sex offenders, there are some countries that deal with the problem of child sexual abuse in very unique ways. For example, in some parts of Europe, physical castration is a way to deal with pedophiles. It has actually been proven to be quite effective thus far, with the number of sex offenders dropping quite drastically. Castration can be either physical (often done through surgery) or chemical (through the use of drugs or injections). When males are castrated, it means they lose the use of their testes; castration causes sterilization and significantly decreases the production of certain hormones such as testosterone. In females, castration involves removing a woman’s ovaries (thereby removing female estrogen). Castration is a procedure that is used on humans to decrease the libido of sex offenders. With regards to sexual offenders, some countries see chemical castration as a much more preferable alternative to penalties such as life imprisonment or the death penalty. This is because castration reduces or eliminates the chance that sex offenders will reoffend.  

         While most states within the United States do not allow castration (and instead impose jail sentences on offenders), there are some states that do. California is one state that allows the use of chemical castration as a punishment for those who are guilty of serious sex offences against children. California law states that anyone convicted of child molestation with a minor under the age of 13 can be treated with chemical castration and that they cannot reject the treatment. There are at least 8 other states that allow chemical castration within their laws, including Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Lousiana, Montana, Oregon, Texan, and Wisconsin. While Canada does not allow castration and instead believes in rehabilitation, rehabilitation programs do not seem to have a significant impact on preventing sexual predators. I think that chemical/physical castration is something that should seriously be considered and enacted into law. Given the fact that many sexual offenders do reoffend (even after undergoing rehabilitation) and endanger the rights and safety of their victims, castration should be an established punishment. Jail sentences are not enough – more needs to be done. Furthermore, not only should castration be used against child sex offenders, it should also be used against rapists. No innocent human being should have to live in danger of having their fundamental rights violated by a sexual predator. The harsher the punishment, the less the chances of people having their bodies be inhumanely violated. 

Here is an interesting video discussing the use of castration:

 

Countries that allow castration:

·         Poland passed a law in 2009 to allow forcible chemical castration of child molesters – this is a very important law to protect children against sexual predators. The law states that anyone who is convicted of raping a child under the age of 15 can be subject to chemical castration to reduce their sex drive (and thereby decrease their change of reoffending)

·         Moldova passed legislation in 2012 for the chemical castration of child molesters

·         Estonia also has included chemical castration of sexual offenders in its law since 2012

·         South Korea enacted a law in 2011 that gave judges the power to sentence sex offenders with chemical castration in cases where they attacked a child under the age of 16

·         Russia, in 2011, passed a law that allowed for the use of chemical castration on convicted sex offenders who attacked children under 14 years of age

When it comes to chemical castration, research has shown that it is very effective in reducing sex drive and has made a significant impact in reducing the sex drive of male sexual offenders. While there are some side effects (such as osteoporosis, blood fat levels, changes in blood pressure, symptom’s that mimic women’s menopause, and changes in cardiovascular health), chemical castration is still important because it actually works in protecting innocent children. The practice of chemical castration in cases where the sexual offender disagrees to being castrated has been called “inhuman treatment” by Amnesty International. However, I personally feel that the practice is acceptable and even necessary. Criminals do not want to be punished through jail sentences or harsh fines – yet these are accepted and necessary punishments for those who break the law. When a child’s fundamental human rights are so grossly and monstrously violated by a sexual offender concerned with nothing other than satisfying his/her desires, then punishments against offenders in the form of practices such as castration cannot be undermined and delegitimized by calling them “inhuman treatment.” While I am a staunch supporter of Amnesty International, I am against its decision to label the castration of sexual offenders as “inhuman.” The only thing that I feel is inhuman is the fact that the rights of children – the most vulnerable citizens within every society – can be violated by sexual predators who often have little to worry about other than a few years in jail. Chemical castration is a necessity to protect the rights of children.  

How do you feel about the topic of castration? Are you in favor of it or against its use? Please share your thoughts.

*For more information on the use of castration, please follow the link below:

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