Crime and Punishment
Among the biggest criticisms of chemical castration is that the procedure gives the legal system too much power over an individual’s body, forcing physical changes that a government should not have control over. In the past, chemical castration was used as a punishment for homosexuality (such as in the famous case of computer scientist Alan Turing) and other situations understood to be sexual deviancy at the time. Perhaps this misuse of the treatment remains too fresh in the minds of those against it.
In the United States, critics of chemical castration argue that the punishment disproportionately affects men; although it should be noted that, while statistics may be skewed, pedophilia is also more common among men than among women. Despite decades of use of MPA—the most common drug used for chemical castration in the US—the FDA has not approved it as a treatment for sex offenders. Similarly, the Indonesian Doctors Association has refused to administer such a ruling for criminals, citing it as a violation of ethics.
And while some statistics show that chemical castration does indeed reduce the rates of recidivism, not every country that uses the procedure can back up this claim. A representative of Indonesia’s National Commission for Women (NCW) argued that it’s an expensive and ineffective punishment and funds could be used to aid victims.
Do you think chemical castration is a lawful and legitimate punishment for sex offenders? SHARE this article and let you know your opinion.