strictx ([info]strictx) wrote,
@ 2005-02-17 14:22:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
chemical castration
I felt this was a topic worthy of resurrecting my LJ page ...
KSTP News story

I'll quote the whole article, since it's short and has no byline:

ST. PAUL - Minnesota state lawmakers plan to introduce an extreme bill to make repeat sex offenders less dangerous.

The "asexual rehabilitation" bill would be a form of chemical castration specifically for pedophiles.

Several other states have similar legislation.

The measure is expected to be introduced this afternoon.

I wonder if the good legislators would add a liability clause, stating that evidence exhonorating a person punished by this method entitles the person to a payment of [X] millions of dollars by the state. I can't imagine that compensation measured in smaller units would suffice. (Of course, this is targeted at repeat offenders, so the decreasing likelihood of multiple wrong-convictions mitigates a bit.)

Does anyone remember the bumper-sticker sociology lesson from the '80s: "Rape is a crime of violence, not sex"? I disagree with that but, more to the point, I think the campaign presented a false dichotomy. To state that violence and sex are separable and distinct is to ignore (1) the strong ties between violence and sex in our own animal ancestry (competition for a mate stands out here), and (2) that violence and sex combine very well for many people (BDSM practitioners are not so small a club, I think), even for healthy and well-adjusted people.

So if rape is not a crime driven by sex, what benefit will derive from eliminating the serial rapist's sex drive?

(Post a new comment)


[info]ephender
2005-02-17 02:54 pm UTC (link)
To state that violence and sex are separable and distinct is to ignore (1) the strong ties between violence and sex in our own animal ancestry (competition for a mate stands out here), and (2) that violence and sex combine very well for many people (BDSM practitioners are not so small a club, I think), even for healthy and well-adjusted people.

I love Brian De Palma, too.

(Reply to this)


[info]yaaren
2005-02-17 05:30 pm UTC (link)
god, this is totally inappropriate, but your post just jogged part of my memory of the funny thing that was said the other night - it had something to do with Marilyn Milgnon and if she was a 'top' or a 'bottom' I think, and asking you if I should dress up in judges robes and spank you with a gavel.

On a more serious note, let me tear you apart here for a second. (I wish we were out at the pub doing this!)

I agree with you that sex and violence are linked biologically and culturally, and I wonder why you disagreed with the '80's sociology bumper sticker argument and used it's logic to make your counter-argument?

If you disagree that sex and violence are not separate and distinct, why is it not obvious that removing a serial rapist's sex drive (which is connected to testosterone production, which in increased levels has been linked to aggression, violence, etc.) would also eliminate their desire to commit acts of sexual violence?

Proponents of chemical castration say it reduces the amount of testosterone floating about in a male sex offender's system and therefore reduces violent fantasies and acts. That's why many people (and a few countries and state legislatures) feel that the cajones of serial rapists have gotta go. Or at least offer it as an alternative to prison.

I wish I had some studies to link to here, but we can google for it later.

Some states - Montana? Idaho? (one of those states with lots of mountains and few people but apparently enough child molesters to have legislation passed) - have decided to use chemical castration as an alternative to imprisonment because castration effectively treats recidivism (which I believe is some godawful number like 75%? yikes.) and costs substantially less than incarceration.

What I'm curious to know:

1) Is it permanent like surgical castration, or is it a semi-regular injection?

Ongoing treatment is problematic for two reasons: the state has to keep track of and administer injections; and the state still has control over your person after you have served your sentence.

2) Will this treatment be reserved for repeat offenders, and under what conditions? I'm far from an expert on child molestation, but it seems that chemical castration will not account for all the reasons and conditions under which child molestation occurs... although therapy and treatment has has done little to stop repeat offenders.

3) Will it be an alternative to incarceration or will it be used after an offender's sentence has been served?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]strictx
2005-02-18 06:27 am UTC (link)
Chill out, bunny. I wasn't making an argument. I just thought it was a neat juxtoposition, one which pits the arguments of the anti-rape crowd against the sway of current legislation.

(Of course, I'm not suggesting there should be a "pro-rape" lobby or anything. But you gotta admit, there has been a vocal sector of social thought that seeks to broaden general association of the word "rape" beyond the brutal and the violating, into something like "not-an-enthusiastic-participant." For short I call them the anti-rape people, out of (undue) politeness: I don't easily forget the college-years assaults on my dignity that the anti-rape crowd's banners and chants and brainwashing inflicted.)

I really didn't know what chemical castration was; if it's just a block to testosterone production, then you're right, that cures violent tendencies as well as sexual ones. I just figured it was a pill that shriveled your balls.

That seems less controversial, but can you think of other public-health matters where medication is forcibly administered? Doesn't that sound ideologically icky, overall? Hell, I might think it's keen to forcibly sterilize people after multiple abortions; or maybe even to forcibly abort unborn children of poor parents because they will drain the community's social service resources.

I realize that none of these situations really touches the subject; I just think it's worth speculating on forced medical intervention becoming a common solution for the criminal justice system (or, really, any other social ill).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]yaaren
2005-02-18 11:15 am UTC (link)
But you gotta admit, there has been a vocal sector of social thought that seeks to broaden general association of the word "rape" beyond the brutal and the violating, into something like "not-an-enthusiastic-participant."

Really? I missed this movement. Example?

Anyway, I agree with you that a parallel exists between abortion rights legislation and chemical castration. Similar arguments appear regarding civil liberties, "keep your laws off my body" stuff, and the safety and health (or life/death) of children.


That seems less controversial, but can you think of other public-health matters where medication is forcibly administered? Doesn't that sound ideologically icky, overall?</a>

From what I've read, medical doctors are considered to have committed battery if they forcibly administer medical treatment to "sane" persons. I'm not entirely sure where this leaves mandatory sterilization legislation, but I know that some states pose it as a "prison vs. castration" option.

I dunno. I have a head cold. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…