Diary of Dan Frank

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

This statement or one somewhat similar to it may be heard around Minnesota courtrooms if Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano gets his way. Emmer is supporting the idea of chemical castration for sex offenders.

The castration would be involuntary and would hopefully reduce the sexual urges in Minnesota’s most dangerous sex offenders, but would this actually work, and what are the ethical implications included in such a decision?

In order to chemically castrate a male, they would simply have to take female hormones, thus decreasing the level of testosterone in their system. A physical castration is when the testicles of a male of surgically removed. Emmer says that this option would be available to criminals if they wish to have this done. While a physical castration is permanent, simply taking testosterone can reverse a chemical castration.

According to Kare11.com, "The head of the state's ACLU branch said it's not clear castration works. The idea also might violate constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment and might be difficult to enforce if administered through hormone injections"

I am going to add to that using an example. Dogs are neutered, which is a physical castration, yet do they not still hump your leg? While the chemical castration would take away the urge for sexual gratification, it would not take away the behavior. If one were chemically castrated they may not get the sexual urge, they used to, but if they did engage in a sexual activity they would experience the same feelings.

And who is to say that the sex offenders would not find a way around their lack of arousal? With the ease of obtaining drugs such as Viagra sexual offenders may be getting injected with female hormones, but the achievement of erection is one pill away.

Do not forget the wide array of ethical issues with such a decision as well. Would this decision be constitutional? Looking at the Kare11.com quote from above, some are already questioning whether or not this can be classified cruel and unusual punishment.

In the 1920's or '30's there was a similar movement called eugenics, where "undesirables" were sterilized without consent. "Undesirables", at the time, were African Americans, prostitutes, homosexuals, and unwed mothers. Sometimes these people would go into the doctor for one procedure and walk out of the office barren. The main problem with the eugenics movement was that it did not treat all Americans as equal, it was cruel and unusual, and who was to decide which people were and were not "undesirable"?

The eugenics movement did not work to solve societies "problems" back in the 20's and 30's, why would it work today? Support of such a bill would be unconstitutional, Un-American, and inhuman. Yes what the criminal has been convicted of is a horrific crime against innocence, but there must be a better solution out there.