Is chemical castration an appropriate ‘treatment’ for sex offenders? Why or why not?
At first, I believed that chemical castration was an appropriate treatment for sex offenders who committed the crime more than once, but then I read the USATODAY article and it changed my mind. I believe that sex offenders have psychological problems, especially if they can’t contain themselves and do it more than once. Chemical castration may help with part of the issue, but I agree that instead of jail time, they should go to a high security mental facility. You would think that sexual offenders would learn their lesson after spending a significant time in jail, but that is not the case. Many sexual offenders are repeat offenders.
Is it a treatment or a punishment? Explain your thinking.
I think that chemical castration is more of a treatment than a punishment. Chemical castration only reduces the criminals sex drive, and does not harm them in any other way. I think that jail time is more of a punishment than chemical castration.
Do convicted criminals have a right to privacy, or do they forfeit this right when they commit a crime?
I believe that convicted criminals, especially sex offenders, forfeit their right to privacy when they commit a crime. Opponents of chemical castration argue that the law is a serious infringement on the right to privacy, in particular the right to control one’s own body. The way I look at it is that the sex offender imposed on someone else’s privacy, and performed unwanted acts to another individual without their consent. So why do they deserve to keep their privacy when they can’t do that to others?
Should voluntary requests for castration be honored? In exchange for a lighter sentence?
If a sex offender voluntarily requests castration to be performed, I think that it should be honored because it is their choice. I don’t believe it should be honored in exchange for a lighter prison sentence. In the case of Ricardo Garcia, obviously he would choose to be castrated over going to prison for life. No one wants to spend the rest of their life in prison. Criminals who deserve life in prison for their crimes should never get the option to choose something else for a lighter sentence. That would be taking the “easy way out” and criminals do not deserve those kind of options.
What would someone who holds the Utilitarian position say about this?
I think that they would agree with chemical castration because it is promoting the least suffering for the greatest amount of people. There are more victims to sexual assault then their are sex offenders who will receive chemical castration.