When it comes to the administration of justice, in no realm is there more controversy than with sex offenders. In many respects, homicide is an easier pill to swallow. We can distance our emotions from a murderer. But, when it comes to sex offenses, even the coldest of us find that our heartstrings work.
Yesterday, the Guamanian legislature took its first step onto a horrifying and controversial path. There are some that believe the best administration of justice when it comes to sex offenders is to make sure their sex drive is radically lowered. By a narrow 8-7 margin, the Guamanian legislature passed the Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders Act, a bill that would create a pilot program for the purpose of chemically castrating sex offenders who are about to be released on parole.
The bill will now go to Gov. Eddie Calvo’s desk for final approval.
The ethics of chemical castration — not just as an administration of justice, but also as a medical procedure — are hotly debated. Is it morally acceptable to use chemical agents, such as Depo-Provera, to stunt a biological process, such as a sex drive? Does chemical castration, as an administration of justice, violate the convicted’s constitutional rights, as many (including the ACLU) charge? What sets chemical castration apart from cutting off someone’s hand for stealing or gouging out someone’s eye for damaging another person’s eye in a fight?
It’s difficult to separate chemical castration from other “eye for an eye” offenses. Of course, it’s not like American culture isn’t giddy for that sort of thing. After all, we still practice the death penalty. But even then, there is a stark difference between killing a convict with a lethal drug cocktail and turning a parolee into a eunuch.
Furthermore, chemical castration comes with a host of side-effects, including increased body fat and reduced bone density, which raises their chances of developing cardiovascular problems and osteoporosis. Other symptoms include depression, breast development, loss of body hair, and other symptoms that mimic female menopause. Knowing that chemical castration comes with these side effects, is it ethical for chemical castration to be an administration of justice? Should the Department of Corrections be afford the ability to alter males into an ambiguous (and in some cases, outwardly feminine) entity?
Chemical castration isn’t even a procedure with any kind of permanence. For the parolee to continue being who they are after re-entering society, the process must be continued, tightly scheduled, and for an indefinite amount of time. If the procedure is stopped, the androgen levels rebuild in the parolee’s body, rendering the process pointless. Ethical dilemmas aside, chemical castration doesn’t come with a guarantee of success for the long-term.
It’s this writer’s opinion that chemical castration, especially as an administration of justice, is an heinous and barbarous act. The Guamanian legislature has taken the first step to committing a human rights atrocity. While I understand that sex offenses are themselves a heinous crime and a disturbing way of exhibiting power and/or pleasure, two moral wrongs don’t make a right. We cannot fall into the same rabbit hole that allowed the death penalty to become a culturally acceptable administration of justice, especially since, in this case, the administration of justice for sex offenders might as well be ripped out of Josef Mengele’s notes.
Social barbarism isn’t the way.
