Is It Ethical to Chemically Castrate a Child Sex Offender?

When it comes to its convicted child sex
offenders, Australia is considering nipping
the problem in the bud, literally. The
country may soon require perpetrators to be
chemically castrated instead of sent to
prison, VICE News reports.
New South Wales’ justice minister, Troy
Grant, would like the treatment to be made
mandatory since the rate of recidivism for
sex offenders is so high, according to the
Australian Broadcasting Corporation . About
17 percent are arrested for a similar crime
within two years of being released from
prison. Currently, sex criminals can
volunteer for treatment, but are not required
to undergo it.
Child sexual abuse runs rampant in
Australia. Thirty percent of the population
reports having fallen victim to it in their
lifetime, 10 percent of whom say the abuse
was “severe,” a report by the Australian
Institute of Criminology found.
Anti-libidinal treatment is nothing new. In
fact, courts in Western Australia and
Victoria can already mandate libido-
reduction treatment to convicts who have
been deemed dangerous by prison
standards.
In the US, child sex offenders could
potentially be sentenced to life in prison;
many opt to undergo anti-libidinal treatment
instead of extended prison stays, especially
since even after sex-offending convicts are
released, at least seven states mandate
they remain in confinement.
Compared to other offenses, recidivism
rates for sex criminals in America are not
as high. Only about 5 percent are sent
back to prison within three years for a
similar crime. Yet states such as Iowa,
Florida and California can require sex
offenders to be administered libido-
eliminating treatment.
Sex offenders may not be a particularly
sympathetic group since they pose a
serious threat to the most vulnerable
members of society, children. Still, many
feel chemical castration goes too far.
Both Amnesty International and the
American Civil Liberties Union in the US
have condemned the practice, calling it
inhumane.
“At first sight, forced chemical castration
could be taken as a matter-of-course
decision; however, it is incompatible with
human rights, which are the foundation of
any civilized democratic society,” read a
statement by Amnesty International in
March 2012.
In addition to the controversy around
forcing people to take drugs they may not
want in their bodies, the drugs used for
chemical castration don’t come without their
fair share of side effects, namely symptoms
mimicking menopause in women.
While chemical castration is touted as very
effective, data surrounding it are difficult to
measure. Sex offenders have been shown
to have higher levels of testosterone — the
hormone responsible for libido and sexual
function — but no clear cause-and-effect
relationship between high levels of
testosterone and sex offending has been
established, according to study in the
Journal of Korean Medical Science.
Teetering between a punishment and
treatment, chemical castration will forever
remain a question of both criminal justice
and medical ethics. While sex offenders do
need to be punished to deter them from
committing similar crimes in the future,
they also need to be rehabilitated. Is anti-
libidinal treatment the best way to go about
it?
“In a way, I liken it to cutting the hand off
the thief,” Don Grubin, a professor of
forensic psychiatry at Newcastle University,
told CNN . “It’s very symbolic.”