Forced Chemical Castration For Paedophiles: Yes Or No

For parents, the debate about what to do with sex offenders who target children seems black and white.

Justice should be swift and continuing, removing the threat of these offenders on children for the rest of their miserable lives. Well, it seems like the justice system in New South Wales is about to take that sentiment to heart. In Western Australia and Victoria, the court can already force offenders to undertake a chemical castration treatment as a part of release conditions.

Now, the NSW Government has a task force that is currently assessing whether chemical castrations, currently offered only voluntarily, should be mandatory for all sex offenders from the moment they are tried and sentenced to prison. This means that the chemical castrations would be a judicial sentencing option, so they would be a part of the punishment like jail time and probation.

What Exactly Is Chemical Castration?

In many ways, the term chemical castration is no longer as correct as it once was. When the treatment was first used, it involved changing the hormonal balance by injecting female hormones into the individual. In cases like Alan Turing, the famed mathematician who was charged for being gay, this had massive effects that many believe led him to commit suicide. These days, chemical castration is just a term that the public finds easy to understand. As Professor Don Grubin, from the University of Newcastle notes, there are a wider range of drugs that can be used in situations like this, some of which mimic castration, and some of which target other areas of sexual arousal.

Why Should It Happen?

Children should be protected in any society. In our society, it seems there are a growing number of children being victimised by individuals who are motivated either by deviant sexual leanings, or by illusions of power best acted out on those who cannot resist. In either case, it needs to be stopped now. The reasons for mandatory chemical castration are quite clear to those involved. Most persuasive is that investigations into child sex offenders recently uncovered that more than 15% of all child sex offenders surveyed were likely to reoffend in the two years following their release. This number is much too high, and even if these treatments protect just one child from abuse, it is enough.

Chemical castrations allow the courts to make the final decision on whether or not criminals will feel a biological need to abuse other children. The drugs work to lower the libido substantially, taking away a major motivation for wanting to perpetrate a sexual crime against a child. Although the treatment is currently offered on a voluntary basis, making it compulsory and a part of a criminal sentence would ensure that it is undertaken by those who need it most, lowering the number of innocents at risk.

Why Shouldn’t It Happen?

There are two big things to consider in arguing against chemical castration for child sex offenders. The first thing is ethics. Is it really ethical to make medical decisions on behalf of a criminal that could seriously change the way that they live their lives? The idea of chemically castrating someone, lowering their libido and changing the hormone level in their bodies, could have far-reaching effects. These effects may even go as far as conflicting with one of the main ethical frameworks of medicine: First, do no harm. Another strong side of this is that, even among those who heartily champion for chemical castration, there is an agreement that the treatments are more effective among those who volunteer to undergo them. 

The second thing to consider is the complexities of sex offenders. Many of the experts against the radical plan to make chemical castration compulsory have argued that there’s more to it than just sex. Yes, many child sex offenders are looking for sexual gratification in perpetrating their crimes, and lowering the libido should put a stop to that. But just as many are playing out their own fantasies and illusions of control on their victims, and the castration will have absolutely no effect on whether that happens or not. Many sex offenders are motivated by opportunity and aggression, instead of the kinds of sexual deviation that these drugs can cure. So, it might be a lot of effort for no results.

What Do You Think?

There are obviously arguments in both directions here, and it’s clear that few cases will be clear cut enough to make generalised statements stand. What do you think about the situation?

Do you agree with forcing these criminals to take drugs in order to curb their deviant sexual behaviours? Or do you think that it’s not ethical or effective to force medications on individuals regardless of their crimes?