I present to you 5 of the sickest
men that live within a 5 mile radius of my house. Billy Stone was charged with
2 counts of sexual abuse in the 1st degree. Okey C Burgess was
charged with 5 counts of sexual abuse in the 1st degree. John
Timmens Peel was charged with 8 counts of sexual abuse in the 2nd
degree. Lester Earl Brown was charged with sexual abuse in the 1st
degree and 5 counts of sexual abuse in the 3rd degree. And finally,
there is Craig Bigsby, who was charged with rape in the 3rd degree,
attempted rape in the 3rd degree, 2 counts of attempted sodomy in
the 3rd degree, and 4 counts of attempted sexual abuse in the 1st
degree. What do all of these sex offenders have in common? Their victims were
all children; all under the age of 14.
It is time for us to take a new
course of action in treating these child molesters with the legalization of
chemical castration in addition to traditional therapy. First, we will
investigate why traditional methods haven’t been effective and how chemical
castration is. Next, we will explore the legal and moral implications of
chemically castrating sex offenders. And finally, we will discuss the economic
standpoint of this issue.
Why have traditional methods failed
us? It is the same as how simply talking about addiction doesn’t treat the
addiction itself. It is the same as how simply talking about mental illness
doesn’t treat the illness itself. The Harvard Mental Health Letter concluded
that “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and [is] unlikely to change [without
drugs]” and these desires are caused by imbalances within the brain.
Chemical castration targets the root
of the problem by lowering testosterone in the body and thus lowering the libido
of the person and reducing the likelihood of deviant sexual behavior. Much like
other medical treatments, chemical castration does come with some adverse
health effects. Medroxyprogesterone acetate, or MPA, is the most commonly used
drug for this purpose in the United States and has side effects such as weight
gain, headaches, lowered sex drive, and leg cramps. Whereas, MPA temporarily
reduces the levels of testosterone in the body, harsher drugs such as Depo-Lupron
can completely stop the production of testosterone. However, this does not
result in sterilization unlike surgical castration.
The University of Texas Medical
Branch in Galveston has reported that MPA treatment is in fact more effective
than no treatment at all. Compared 38% reoffending after stopping MPA treatment,
and thus having testosterone levels return to normal, the control group who
refused and never received MPA treatment had 58% reoffend. Those who refused
MPA treatment underwent traditional psychotherapy ranging from two to twelve
years. The university thus concluded that “In spite of … medical side effects, [the]
maintenance [of] MPA offers benefit for the compulsive sex offender by [reducing]
the reoffense rate”. Johns Hopkins University has also found that for a
recidivism rate of 65% for non treated felons, this rate fell below 15% with
MPA treatment.
These drastically lowered
recidivism rates show that chemical castration is successful and does protect our
children. However, many argue that chemically castrating offenders violates the
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Some believe that chemical
castration violates the offender’s First Amendment right to fantasize about
children. But, these people haven’t merely fantasized about children, these
people have committed a sex crime that they were convicted of through our
courts whose trials were deliberated by their peers and who were sentenced by
our judges. These people have committed a sex crime unto children that our
legal system defines as child molestation if the child is prepubescent and as
statutory rape if the child is past the age of puberty. We do not administer
this treatment for just their thoughts. They have acted upon these thoughts and
have victimized these innocent children. It is because of their actions that
they have forfeited their First Amendment rights.
The Eighth Amendment of banning
cruel and unusual punishment is where many have their qualms. Is it cruel and
unusual to treat a person of an addiction that harms our children? In regards
to questions of the violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court
follows a three pronged questioning procedure. Number 1: Is the punishment
inherently cruel or excessive? Number 2: Is the punishment or condition
proportional to the crime? And number 3: Can the state achieve its goal through
less intrusive means? Using antiandrogen methods such as MPA is not considered
inherently cruel, as it assists the offender in ceasing behavior that
ultimately would result in future crimes and future punishments. Additionally,
the importance of preventing future sexual victimization of children and
considering the harm that has already been done to children by the offender,
chemical agents that are shown to have positive results are not considered excessive.
And finally, there is no less intrusive way to approach this problem.
Psychotherapy has failed. Putting offenders in jail does not treat the problem,
it only perpetuates it. With chemical treatment, offenders can take charge of
their own life and create a life that is not affected by a sick addiction to
children.
The guarantee of due process and
equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment also gives rise to the
opposition. However, the US Supreme Court has already addressed various cases
in which the procedures for inmates receiving treatment that are laid out in a
four step process. First, the convicted would have to undergo a psychological
evaluation to determine if a mental illness or abnormality is present. After
the determination, the convicted would undergo a medical evaluation in order to
determine if treatment would be in the best interest of the person. Third, the
mandated treatment would have to be essential for not only the safety of the
convicted but also for the safety of others. And finally, the treatment would
only be administered if there were no other less intrusive options. States that
have already legalized chemical castration all have provisions of mental and
physical evaluations, as we should too, and I have already previously discussed
how this treatment is beneficial for the offender and the community as well as
how chemical castration is the only effective treatment of pedophilia.
This issue is not simply an issue
debated by outsiders, it is one that many pedophiles find appealing in order to
treat their addiction. Larry Don McQuay begged for surgical castration. With a
history of molesting over 200 children, McQuay told the human rights group
Justice for All that he would kill his following victims if the procedure
wasn’t performed after he was released from prison. He said “I don’t like
myself and what I’ve done. ... I am a child molester. A monster. I feel it’s
not me, and that I can be normal, but I need help.” Others, such as Tom, opted
for chemical castration through the drug Depo-Lupron after he was only charged
with stalking teenage boys. He described the feeling as “a big sweet craving… I
would hang around teenagers and things would happen.” He says that he and his
wife are working through his sexual deviance and despite a low sex drive, he
and his wife have become closer through battling this desire and his lust for
adolescent boys is gone.
Economically speaking, chemical
castration would be much more frugal than housing these sex offenders in jail.
In the 2010 fiscal year, the average taxpayer cost of a prison inmate
throughout the United States was $31, 286. Now, say if that inmate were a child
sex offender, a standard 400 mg dose of MPA at $40.00 per week would only
amount to $2,080 a year, 15 times less than the average cost of an inmate. The
extra 29,000 or so tax payer dollars would amply cushion administration costs
and could go towards other federally funded programs, such as education or
Medicare.
Traditional methods of talk therapy
and jail time have overwhelmingly failed and chemical castration has been shown
to be effective through various university studies. In regards to constitutionality
and morality, I have shown how chemical castration does not violate any
Constitutional provision and how offenders are stepping up and asking for this
treatment themselves. Of course, economics is always a factor in these medical
heavy propositions and it has been shown that by adopting these measures we
could save almost 7% in costs per inmate.
With the recidivism rate of child
molesters at an all time high of 40% reoffending within 20 years of their first
arrest, we must take action to protect the projected 117 children victimized
per offender. Chemical castration does not hurt the offender. It treats the
offender. And by treating these people, we provide a safer future for our
children. We provide a brighter future for the offender. One that is free of
this desire for children and one that can become so much more productive than
just sitting in a jail cell, wasting life away. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “The
purpose of life…. Is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to
have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well”. By legalizing
chemical castration we are able to make a difference in their lives, and ours. We
can help them, and this is just a vital step.
No comments:
Post a Comment