Chemical castration

While watching CNN’s coverage of the health care circus late Sunday night, I spotted a curious morsel of info crawling along the channel’s news ticker: “Argentina province OKs chemical castration for rapists.”

The strange pairing of televised legalities and Super Bowl-like enthusiasm quickly became insignificant to me. Now I was thinking about a different sort of government-mandated health care — one that requires the weekly administration of Depo Provera — a sex drive suppressing drug — to freed male sex offenders.

At least, these are the chemical castration procedures taken in the eight states of our country that authorize it. That’s right, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin all sanction the practice.

I decided I needed to form an opinion on whether this form of crime prevention was right or wrong. Yet after researching its pros and cons, I simply could not make up my mind. 

Opinion pieces should choose a side, should they not? At least, this is what I have always strived for in my writing. But this issue has made it extremely difficult for me to come to a consensus.

On one hand, an average sentence of 11 years for child abusers is appalling in its brevity, and the 75 percent recidivism rate among child molesters seems unreal. Therefore, an extra precaution to help ensure public safety seems reasonable.

On the other hand, the act of continued punishment after time served seems cruel and even unfair to that tiny sliver of ex-convicts who might have reformed.

There is much more to both of these arguments, of course. For starters, critics of Depo Provera point out that unless the injections are continuously monitored, the castration will be reversed.

For example, convicted child molester Joseph Frank Smith seemed to be cured of his sexual desires thanks to chemical castration and even advocated for its use. However, after discontinuing the treatment in 1989, he returned to prison 10 years later for molesting a 5-year-old girl.

There are also arguments that chemically castrating a pedophile or rapist would be similar to successfully detoxing a heroin addict. Some sex offenders sincerely claim they want to be freed of their sexual urges, and this drug would help.

But the most important issue in all of this is safety. Sexual abuse destroys lives, and its prevention and prosecution are all too important. So if there is a procedure that might assist in deterring this sort of crime, should we support it?

Sexual abuse is the antithesis of humanity’s progress and achievement. It is the act of stooping far lower than even what our most basic instincts can beseech. Yet despite these views, my anger has not swayed me.

By writing this column I had hoped to finally make up my mind and choose a side, but obviously I still have not. Maybe an opinion column doesn’t have to rally to one argument or the other. Maybe an opinion could be confused rather than resolute. Or maybe my inconclusiveness is inexcusable. Either way, hopefully this will provoke some worthy discussion.


E-mail: joskraus@umail.iu.edu