Chemcast

Chemical Castration

According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, "Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. One in six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape, and 10% of sexual assault victims are men." This is a surprisingly high statistic of people in America who have in some way been affected by sexual abuse. In fact, chances are that whether or not you are aware of it, you know someone who has experienced this. With these outstanding statistics, the punishment for convicted sex offenders has become a controversy in the courtroom and in prisons. One punishment that is becoming more and more popular is chemical castration. Some argue that this is cruel and unusual punishment and that citizens of America, no matter what their conviction, should be protected from this. On the other hand, chemical castration can help to prevent these offenders from repeating their acts. Although chemical castration does have a few undesirable side effects, it can play a huge role in controlling a sex offender's sexual urges and aggression, greatly reducing his desire to repeat his crime, and its use is being widely disputed.

Many people against chemical castration will argue that there is no justification for chemical castration and consider it a form of cruel and unusual punishment under the guidelines of the eighth amendment. They believe that this form of punishment violates the dignity of man and inflicts unnecessary pain. They also claim that it violates the United State's standard of decency. All of these things are protected by the eighth amendment (Stinneford, 2006, para. 2).

Those who support chemical castration claim that chemical castration isn't cruel and unusual punishment when you consider the "cruel and unusual" trauma that the victim of a sexual offender has been through. Although some could claim it "violates the dignity of man," chemical castration would allow the offender to continue living his life instead of facing years in prison, and violates his dignity no more than he has violated his victim. The second argument under the eighth amendment claiming chemical castration inflicts unnecessary pain is a huge exaggeration. The only pain the offender will undergo is the pain of the needle when it comes time for his injection. In fact, Depo-Provera, the injection given for chemical castration, is a form of birth control many women today use (Erlbaum). When considering the actual pain that offenders experience during chemical castration, and the affects their crime has had on others, those in support of chemical castration do not consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment.

According to John F. Stinneford of the University of St. Thomas, most sex offenders do not have any type of sexual disorder (2006). Many of these offenders commit their crime because of the psychological high they get from the overwhelming power they experience during their crime. Therefore, chemical castration will not do anything to solve their problem. It will not help someone who is just a bad person, or someone who is very antisocial (Stinneford, 2006). This point is argued against through many studies that have found testosterone to be linked to high levels of violence and sexual aggression. A German study in the 1990's tracked a group of sex offenders who had undergone castration and a group who had not for about ten years. After this time period, the recidivism rate of the castrated offenders was 3% and for the offenders who had not been castrated, the recidivism rate was 46% (Dabbs, 1995). This suggests that chemical castration can greatly reduce not only sexual urges but also aggression that could lead an offender to repeat their crime.

Another argument against chemical castration as punishment for sex offenders is that the drug, Depo-Provera, has many awful side affects. Among these are weight gain, fatigue, blood clots, hypertension, mild depression, hypoglycemia, headaches, nausea, vomiting, skin rash, and impotence. Other side effects include thrombosis, the formation of a clot inside a blood vessel. Thrombosis is a very rare and extreme side effect of chemical castration, which in its worse stages, if accompanied by bacteria, can spread throughout the circulatory system and cause tiny sores and obstructions throughout (Wikipedia, 2006).

Although these side effects are a risk of Depo-Provera, they are not present in everyone who takes these injections. Any woman who has taken birth control has either been warned or experienced first hand the weight gain caused by the changes in hormone levels. Although the possible side effects of Depo-Provera sound severe, they are no different than the side effects of any birth control a woman chooses to take, and they are very rare. Also, many of these side effects are easy to detect in their early stages (Erlbaum). Those in favor of chemical castration point out that if the offender experiences extreme, health threatening side effects, the injections would simply need to be discontinued and another form of punishment for this rare case would then need to be determined.

One of the primary supporting arguments for chemical castration is the money it could potentially save our country if used as punishment for sex offenders. The use of chemical castration as punishment for sex offenders would save our country billions of dollars in prison costs. The average cost of housing a prisoner in Colorado is $28,218, which comes out to $77.31 per day (Criminal, 2004). Depo-Provera injections for sex offenders would need to be administered once a week and cost about $40 per injection (Department of Legislative Services, 2001). This averages out to $5.71 per day. This price will obviously vary from state to state and from offender to offender depending on the regularity and amount of dosages needed. The cost of Depo-Provera is $71.60 less per day that the average cost per prisoner in Colorado. This comes out to $26,134 a year difference between a sex offender sentenced to prison and one sentenced to chemical castration. That is the amount our state would save from having just one sex offender undergo chemical castration rather than serve prison time. Another supporting point for the way chemical castration could benefit our country is that the offender could help pay for their treatments because they would be able to continue working and leading normal lives, with the exception of their injections. Also, since the offender would be out working and living a fairly normal life, they would pay taxes as well, helping our country even more. Chemical castration would save our country billions of dollars and because of this, many are in support of using it for punishment for convicted sex offenders.