Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Sex offenders, chemical castration of
Section G. Crime and punishment

Castration is the removal of any sexual gland (the testes or ovaries) in males or females. This debate is about the process of administering drugs to sex offenders to remove all function in those glands; the main drug used to destroy testicular function is called Depo-Provera. Policies are of two types: voluntary and mandatory. Voluntary castrations are less contentious; sex offenders may opt to take the drugs. Mandatory ones are the meat of this debate. In some US states, castration is mandatory after two sexual offences; in others, it is at the judge’s discretion. In some countries including Poland, Moldova and Estonia, castration can be compulsory immediately upon conviction.

Pros

[1] One of the principal purposes of the punishment for any crime is prevention of re-offence. Chemical castration would take away the sex drive of sex offenders and thus guarantee that they would not re-offend. It would also be a strong deterrent. It is therefore an effective and appropriate punishment.

[2] Sex offenders currently pose a problem for the criminal justice system. They are often victimised in prison and subjected to a witch-hunt and, on their release, are hounded out of each new community by concerned members of the public. Chemical castration would make these people safe — they could live in the community without posing a threat. This would avoid their abuse in prisons, would help reduce the ever-increasing prison population and would allay the fears of concerned members of a community.

[3] For the sake of the offender, chemical castration is the best solution. Offenders often feel that they are ill, or possessed by a physical force outside their control from which they long to be freed. Chemical castration would liberate them from the mental torture and resulting crimes of their condition by removing their sexual drive.

Cons

[1] Chemical castration is not an acceptable form of punishment. In a civilised society, we do not permanently physically alter people as a form of punishment, but always allow for rehabilitation of some kind after a prison sentence has been served. Also, as with the death penalty, miscarriages of justice would have disastrous permanent consequences if chemical castration were the sentence for all sex offences. Would first-time sex offenders be chemically castrated? The punishment is extreme and crude. Prison sentences and psychiatric treatment are to be preferred.

[2] We cannot be confident that chemical castration would be such a magical cure. If sex offending really is just the result of chemical drives, then whatever the punishment, it will not work as a deterrent. Prison would still be needed as a form of deterrent and also to protect society even from those who have been chemically castrated. As for the public’s response, the fear of parents and other members of the community will not be allayed by a chemical procedure — sex offenders will still be feared and hated and the objects of witch-hunts.

[3] Our first thought should be to punish the sex offender. Second, when it comes to treating the sex offender, a more subtle form of counselling and rehabilitation is required, rather than just putting our faith in a one-off physical treatment.

Possible motions

This House would chemically castrate sex offenders.

This House believes that sex offending can be chemically cured.

Related topics

Prison v. rehabilitation