On Chemical Castration

I'm here today to talk about something we all love: male genitalia.

What, this isn't your memory of what it looks like?

Specifically, I'm here to talk about chemical castration.

Don't be scared, buddy. Unless you're a pederast. Then, yeah, okay. Be scared. Also, the "buddy" comment is withdrawn.

A few weeks ago, Poland passed legislation necessitating chemical castration for pedophiles. I was not aghast, but I was certainly surprised. Pedophiles are the scum of the Earth, sure, but this might be going a little far. That night, I went to a party and, lovely dinner guest that I am, I brought this up with some folks there. A lady there said she was fairly sure that the US already practiced this in some cases. I assured her, presumptuous dinner guest that I am, there would have been more press about it, and certainly some sort of outrage. She, being slightly more polite than I, did not argue the point, and conversation moved on. However, when I came home, I looked into it. As it turns out, Polite Lady From The Party was, in fact, correct. California has the strictest policy, in which a pedophile whose victim was under 13 can get chemically castrated after one offense, and it is mandatory after a second offense. There are at least eight other states with a history of chemical castration as a punitive legal measure.

I was absolutely shocked. Not that we did in the US at all, necessarily, but that I didn't know about it. Being one as interested in the legal system and sex as I am, I figured if I didn't know, the average joe probably doesn't know, either. I know there are plenty of laws in our country that I wish were made public knowledge, but this is the sort of thing I think even apolitical people might have opinions about.

Now, before I go any further, let me talk a bit about definitions, here. Chemical castration is not castration. A man does not lose his equipment. The procedure is not even permanent. In fact, one must get another injection every three months. What they do, at least in the US, is use a birth control drug commonly called Depo-Provera. Its original (and still the more common) use is as a prophylactic for women, also administered every three months. In men, however, it lowers libido to the point where (it is my understanding) they do not get erections. This is certainly quite different from cutting off the penis, or as is sometimes done, the testes. Firstly, it negates the argument of "What if he was wrongly accused?" Certainly three months with no libido is a thing to dread, but obviously there is a difference.

Even with all this said, the concept still gives me pause. My immediate reaction is, do we have the right to take away a man's libido and ability to have sex with someone consensually? This is something that may fall under a curtailing of civil rights. I realize it doesn't say "the right to pop a boner" in the Constitution*, but the issue begs discussion.

On the other hand, I once talked about pedophilia with my dad, who was at one point a parole officer for sex offenders, and he told me his thoughts on recidivism with pedophiles. He made the very reasonable point that he didn't understand how people thought rehabilitation would help them. One can't go to rehabilitation to get over their sexual attraction to, say, blondes. It may be an unhealthy and sick desire, but it's a sexual desire all the same, and those don't usually go away just by wanting them to. Having something that would physically keep the person from committing the same crime, but that allows them to live a somewhat normal life, makes a lot of sense. There's not a lot of information on how the use of Depo-Provera affects recidivism, which is unfortunate. In at least one very recent case, there's a man who is requesting actual castration. Admittedly, he made this plea ten days before his trial, and it could well have been a ploy in hopes to endear himself somewhat to the judge or jury. But all the same, it makes one think: undoubtedly there are people who feel a strong attraction to children and feel bad about it, but don't have any measure of recourse. For some, the ability to take away their sex drive may be seen as liberation.

I think what the issue comes down to for me is whether or not it's actually effective. If it isn't, then it's just unnecessary, and won't gain us anything, other than money spent giving these guys more drugs. If they actually prevent rape in the long-term, then I think I'm for it. It may be a curtailing of rights, but I think you forfeit some rights when you start fucking little kids.

What do you think? Is it ever okay? Just in special circumstances? Should we do it with every rapist? I've given my thoughts, but it's not something I've heard a lot of other opinions on, so please tell me what you think.

*If only. If only.

Images via myspace.com, diyvanovel.wordpress.com