Chemical Castration - Research Paper Example

Chemical Castration INTRODUCTION Sexual crime received an extensive attention from both the American public and policymakers during the last twenty years (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). The federal government and state legislatures have enacted and implemented a variety of laws aimed at reducing sex crime rates and victimization. For example, the body of legislation directed against of sexual offense consists of residency restriction policies, community notification laws, sex offender registration norms and, of course, chemical castration. Practically, the number of chemical castration policies has multiplied for the last decade, and as Kruttschnitt et al. (2000) have explained policies emerged without having adequate empirical and scientific reasoning behind them. Indeed, implementation of chemical castration strategy to deter sex crimes largely rests on misconception and is not supported with sound theoretical and empirical foundations. From the critical perspective, chemical castration cannot be considered as cure-all treatment against sexual crimes and it should not be applied universally for all sex offenders. UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITY OF LEGISLATION ON SEX CRIMES One of the most notable characteristics of sex crime policy is a broad diversity of policies, laws, and public and legal initiatives that exist. The list includes residency restraints norms, chemical and surgical castration, parole release and sex criminal registration procedures, community notification and policies, offenders’ electronic monitoring, lifetime supervision initiatives, etc. (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). From the critical perspective, the enactment of this broad regulation has been largely dictated by the resonance from numerous child abduction and murder cases. For instance, in 2005 Jessica Lunsford was abducted in Florida by John Couey, an unregistered recidivist sex offender. After being repeatedly raped for several days, Jessica Lunsford was murdered and buried in Couey’s backyard. Jessica Lunsford’s tragic incident received significant public attention due to the failure of the law enforcement to control and monitor sex criminals living in the community. As a reaction to the public criticism, same year the Florida legislature enacted the Jessica Lunsford Act, and this policy initiative has been supported by forty-two other states, which eventually adopted similar restricting laws. More specifically, the Jessica Lunsford Act and similar laws mandate accurate background checks of all school employees who have contacts with children, more thorough and strict monitoring of sex criminals, increased punishment for those sex criminals who failed to register in their state, and many other regulations and restrictions (Wright, 2008). More recent additions to the sex offense policies include the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which aims to broaden the range of crimes administered by state sex criminal registries, makes failure to register with a law enforcement agency a federal crime, and contains provisions to develop a national sex offender database. In contemporary context, the number of specific sex crime policies emerged. For instance, some states successfully adopt and expand sex criminal acts which limit sex offenders’ residency options, broaden civil commitment policies and chemical castration for sex crime recidivists, and even develop gateway laws, specific legal norms aimed at identifying potential future sex criminals (i.e., offenders that have not yet been involved in sex crimes) (Petrunik, 2002). The opponents of these restricting policies argue that they are largely based on misconceptions regarding the sex crime and sex criminals. Rationale behind the nationally adopted sex criminal registry and community notification laws is an evident illustration of such misconceptions. These policies are largely based on the assumptions that sex crimes are often committed by strangers living in the community. However, according to empirical research data about 85 percent of all sex crimes are perpetrated by the offenders, who are familiar to victims (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). The same algorithm of thinking can be applied to chemical castration policies. For instance, it is believed that sexual assaults are committed due to sexual arousal and inability of criminal’s to control own sexual desire. However, in reality not all sexual crimes are perpetrated by offenders experiencing sexual feelings or passions toward their victims. Therefore, it is possible that some controversial but nationally accepted policies like chemical castration can be resting on entirely theoretical foundations and subjective assumptions regarding the sex offense and psychology of sex criminals. Because some of these policies clearly lack the empirical research support, questions arise about their validity and efficiency in reducing sex crime rates and recidivism. CRITIQUE OF CHEMICAL CASTRATION AS POLICY Chemical castration represents one of the most debated and politically charged efforts to deter sexual crimes and their recidivism. From the historical perspective, castration methods of sex crime deterrence were broadly practiced in the United States during so called psychopathy decades during 1930s-1950s (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). However, these policies eventually lost their appeal and public support because sex “panic” faded and questions on the legality and effectiveness of chemical castration started arising (Meyer and Cole, 1997). In their analysis of the castration policies, Meyer and Cole (1997) indicated that the return of chemical castration can be considered as a public answer to the resonance sexual offending cases. According to Meyer and Cole (1997), chemical castration appeared to be on the policymakers’ radar because policymakers believed that reducing offenders’ level of testosterone would result in subsequent reductions in sexual interest among perpetrators, and would eventually lead to gradual decline in sexual crime rates. With the recent advent of reversible chemical castration methods like Medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the state legislature received green light to include chemical castration as deterrence tool for certain types of sex criminals (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). California and Florida became the first states to pass chemical castration statutes (Scott and Holmberg, 2003), and were immediately followed by many other state legislatures. Simultaneously, this process has been facilitated by federal courts upholding the execution of chemical castration as a constitutional practice in order to treat sex criminals and not punish (Scott and Holmberg, 2003). Public policy experts believe that among all other specific policies aiming to deter sex crime and recidivism, chemical castration represents the most controversial public and legislative response to sex crimes (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009; Scott and Holmberg, 2003). Chemical castration policies require that sex criminals systematically receive doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate or any other approved synthetic hormone (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). According to Wright (2008), in states which have enacted castration policies, chemical castration can take the form of a court-ordered sanction or be administered as volunteer procedure in exchange for a reduced sentence or a condition for parole release. Although castration policies may vary to certain degree from state to state, the main focus of chemical castration policies is sex crime recidivists and dangerous sex offenders (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). Chemical castration involves a multi-step process, comprised of psychological evaluation of the criminal and follow up legal procedures. If court approves the administration of chemical castration, the sex criminal is required to systematically take medication that depresses his sexual desire (Scott and Holmberg, 2003; Wright, 2008). The major argument of chemical castration proponents is that if male’s sexual urges are pharmacologically depressed and he can no longer maintain an erection, the offender will be unlikely commit sex crimes, which involve penile penetration. Moreover, chemical castration policymakers target and try to prevent sexual battery, which according to policymakers constitutes the most common type of sex offense. In addition, because policymakers believe the majority of sex crimes is committed to fulfill offenders’ sexual desires and needs, those crimes can be prevented and recidivism ceases if male sex criminals are physically incapable of experiencing an erection. Because chemical castration can be applied only to male sex criminals, the fundamental reasoning for this policy is that only males perpetrate sex crimes. Indeed, in reality the vast majority of sex offenses are committed by male criminals, however, empirical evidence also indicates numerous episodes in which sex crimes are committed by females. In 1995, 99 percent of sex criminals committed forcible rape were males (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). Simultaneously, data from more recent studies revealed that women comprise about one percent of all arrestees for forcible rape and about six percent for different types of sex crimes (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). Although the idea that males commit the most sex crimes is empirically sustained, female sex criminals are still responsible for committing almost ten percent of reported sex crimes. Because chemical castration policies target exclusively male criminals, this policy seems to be discriminatory and ineffective in regard to female sex offenders. Moreover, because empirical research focusing on sexual offenses committed by female population is almost nonexistent, there is no agreement reached on how to improve this situation. It leads to conclusion that chemical castration is not universally effective deterrence method due to exclusion of female sex offenders. Another typical assumption regarding validity of chemical castration policies is that sexual battery or forcible rape is the most common sex crime committed by offenders. According to Reddington and Kreisel (2009), forcible rape is defined as sexual intercourse with another person by the use of forcible compulsion involving the penis, another body part or any foreign object. According to empirical research, although sexual battery is a very common and grievous type of sex crime, the majority of sex offenses committed usually involves other types of victimization, such as sexual assault (inappropriate touching and fondling), lewd and lascivious acts, such as prostitution and pornography, and other sex crimes (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). As Reddington and Kreisel (2009) indicate, the 2003 research on sex criminals revealed that of more than 9,500 released sex offenders about 3,000 were qualified as “rapist” while other 6,500 were named as “sexual assaulters.” Moreover, in 1995 law enforcement agencies reported 34,500 arrests for forcible rape, while other sex offenses accounted for 95,000 arrests (Reddington and Kreisel, 2009). Therefore, it is evident that the majority of sexual offenses committed do not fall into categories of sexual battery or forcible rape. Moreover, most sexual crimes represent sexually inappropriate conduct rather than contact involving penetration of the penis or any other object. From this perspective, chemical castration policies are likely to impact only those offenses, which qualify as sexual battery. Final misconception regarding sex crime in this analysis posits that sex offenses are triggered solely by the sexual desires of criminals. According to expert opinion, sex crime is often caused more by a desire to control a victim than solely sexual reasons (Terry, 2005). In the analysis of sexual criminals, Terry (2005) distinguishes specific types of offenders such as mass rapists which commit sexual offense out of a desire to express power over victims. Simultaneously, there are sexual offenders that have clearly sexually sadistic motivations and they commit sex crime to satisfy their purely sexual needs. However, Terry (2005) introduces some psychiatric studies examining the motivations and feelings behind sexual battery, and concluded that sex has never been the dominant reason for sexual batteries. Instead, the desire to control a victim and impose power over her has been recognized as almost universal feelings behind rape. From the critical perspective, chemical castration has been specifically designed to lower male’s testosterone levels in order to alter criminal’s sexual drive, and thus it possible has little or no effect on individual’s urge to control. This conclusion evidently calls into question the validity and efficiency of chemical castration policies. CHEMICAL CASTRATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CONTROVERSY There is a widespread discussion that as a criminal policy, chemical castration of sex offenders violates the constitutional norms and legal principles. For instance, according to the First Amendment every individual has freedom of speech and expression (Meisenkothen, 1999), which by extension means the right to entertain sexual fantasies (Scott and Holmberg, 2003, p.505). According to the decisions made by the US Supreme Court, the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to receive information and ideas (Scott and Holmberg, 2003, p.507). Because chemical castration eradicates sexual thoughts and desires, the policy violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Chemical castration to the certain degree can be considered as unusual and cruel punishment, which is directly prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Scholars agree that castration can definitely be qualified as cruel and unusual punishment, which violates principles of humanity and human dignity (Meisenkothen, 1999). Moreover, from the critical perspective, the practical effect of chemical castration can be even compared to surgical castration because both methods take away the men’s ability to procreate (Meisenkothen, 1999). Finally, chemical castration violates the fundamental right of any individual to procreation (Meisenkothen, 1999). This right has been described as one of the basic civil rights of man, which is one of the most pivotal and fundamental human rights (Douglas cited in Scott and Holmberg, 2003). Due to the mechanism of MPA treatment, chemical castration effectively prevents all desire and ability of an individual to engage in normal sexual relations. Therefore, by the definition it is impossible to have legislatively approved criminal policy which contradicts the principles of the state’s major law, the Constitution. CONCLUSION For the last two decades, the United States has witnessed an unprecedented growth in sex crime laws. There is a conventional belief that sexual offenders are predatory and incurable. Indeed, one of the primary motivations for the imposition of harsh sanctions on sex offenders such as chemical castration is the widely-held thought that these offenders re-offend or are likely to reoffend at a higher rate than other serious offenders. Traditionally, from the criminal justice perspective, sexual offenders depending on the type of sexual offence received different therapeutic treatments (group therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, etc.) which occurred within correctional facilities or specialized institutions. Chemical castration recently has reemerged as “panacea” for sex crime problem. Policymakers of chemical castration believe that imposing a hormonal control over male’s sexual drive would yield beneficial results in terms of sex crime rates decline. However, a more careful analysis of chemical castration revealed that it cannot be considered a universal solution. Being directed only against male sex offenders, chemical castration policy complete ignores sex crimes committed by female criminals. Furthermore, the majority of sex crime does not involve sexual penetration of a victim like in cases with rape and sexual battery, therefore testosterone decrease does not change most of sexual offenders. Moreover, sex crime is not always about satisfying offender’s sexual drive, but in the majority of cases it is about execution of control and power over victims. Finally, from the judicial perspective, chemical castration as policy contradicts the United States constitutional law, because it clearly violates individual’s freedom of expression, right to procreation and overall is unusual and cruel punishment. REFERENCES Meisenkothen, C. (1999). Chemical Castration – breaking the cycle of paraphiliac recidivism. Social Justice. 26(1), pp.139-155. Retrieved Nov 10, 2010 from ProQuest Criminal Justice Periodicals. Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen C., and Shelton K. 2000. “Predictors of Desistance among Sex Offenders: The Interaction of Formal and Informal Social Control.” Justice Quarterly, 17:61-88. Reddington, F. and Kreisel, B.W. (2009). Sexual Assault: The Victims, the Perpetrators, and the Criminal Justice System. Carolina Academic Press Petrunik, M. (2002). Managing Unacceptable Risk: Sex Offenders, Community Response, and Social Policy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(4), pp. 483-511. Retrieved Nov 10, 2010, from Scott, C.L. and Homberg, T. (2003). Castration of Sex Offenders: Prisoners’ Rights versus Public Safety. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 31, pp.502-509. Retrieved Nov 10, 2010 from < http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/31/4/502.pdf> Terry, Karen. (2005). Sexual Offenses and Offenders: Theory, Practice, and Policy. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing. Wright, R. (2008). “Sex Offender Post-Incarceration Sanctions: Are There Any Limits?” New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 34:17-50. Read More