Columns

Should We Chemically Castrate Sex Offenders?

Matt Lynch argues that we should; Jeremy Stewart disagrees.

 
 
Matt: 
There is a 47 percent recidivism rate amongst sex offenders in New Zealand. This is an abhorrent statistic to tolerate while a viable solution to the problem lies within reach: that solution is chemical castration.
 ‘Chemical castration’ refers to the application of hormone-reducing (and thus sex-drive reducing) drugs such as Depo Provera. The application does not sterilise the recipient, and is completely reversible. An injection once every twelve weeks is all that is required, and the cost is negligible.
A sentencing guideline could be that an offender is to be on the drug for 50 percent of their prison sentence after they serve their time. If they re-offend, then they are put on the drug for life.
There are three important reasons we should use the drug:
Firstly, it will reduce offending. Psychological problems may be the root of the offending but we can stop the physical manifestation of that problem by using Depo Provera. We already address the psychological problem by imposing sentences that include compulsory psychological care, and this is clearly insufficient to address the problem of recidivism. The combination of psychological care and drug prescription is a common way to combat psychological problems and what I am proposing is no different.
Secondly, the offenders will not suffer. It will not restrict any perceived “right” to reproduce. Reproduction can still be accomplished via IVF. The sex offenders are hardly going to suffer any reduced quality of life because they cannot reproduce ‘naturally’; many other people live fulfilling lives without being able to reproduce ‘naturally’, and they haven’t done anything at all to justify this limitation. Moreover, many sex offenders will probably agree to the treatment if they are serious about rehabilitation.
Thirdly, it won’t undermine the fundamentals of our justice system. It will rehabilitate the offender, and protect our society. It will also go some way to rehabilitating the victim. Moreover it is not an unfair restriction of liberty – we already have other preventative punishments such as preventative detention, parole, and supervision. 
Something needs to be done to prevent sexual re-offending, and chemical castration is a rational solution.
 
Jeremy:
The mandatory chemical castration of sex offenders is a form of cruel and unusual punishment that offends basic principles of human rights. Furthermore, it is ineffective in reforming offenders and thus cannot be justified as a solution to the problem of sexual offending in New Zealand.
As a democratic nation we accept that some rights ought not be impinged upon – broadly, these can be divided into civil rights and human rights. We accept that by due process of law, civil rights may be restricted; this is done every time a convicted offender goes to prison. Human rights, however, are not so easily displaced. We accept, for example, that it is never acceptable for the state to physically torture its citizens, as this interferes with one’s bodily integrity.
This same principle must also apply to sex offenders. However repugnant an offender’s actions may be, it is not legitimate for the state to intervene in something as intimate as one’s sexual desires. It is widely recognised that sexual health is an integral part of one’s overall well-being. By chemically castrating offenders, the state is saying that these people will never be entitled to the opportunity of a life with consensual sex, and are not worth reforming through rehabilitation.
Furthermore, chemical castration does not address the underlying causes of sexual offending and as such is an ineffective form of prevention. It is clear that sexual desire is only one element of sexual offending. It is no coincidence that much sexual offending involves violence, with violent tendencies forming part of the motivation for sexual offenders. 
Chemical castration ignores this problem, and assumes that simply turning off sexual desires instantly reforms offenders. The reality is that chemical castration will cause these offenders to become further ostracised from the community, and in all likelihood remain violent offenders.
Chemical castration is a lazy and illegitimate solution to the problem of sexual offending in New Zealand. An increased emphasis on rehabilitation of sexual offenders (and obviously imprisonment where offenders are an imminent threat to the public) provides a more effective and socially justifiable means of solving this problem in the long term.
 
Debatable is a column written by the Otago University Debating Society. They meet every Tuesday at 7pm in Commerce 2.20.