"Off with His __": Analyzing the Sex Disparity in Chemical Castration Sentences

lightning_palm · 2022-01-08T11:53:44+00:00

The author of "Off with His __": Analyzing the Sex Disparity in Chemical Castration Sentences (Oswald, 2013) argues that "the punishment of chemical castration is, in effect, reserved exclusively for use against male offenders" and that "systemic problems plague the chemical castration sentencing regime". First and foremost, while chemical castration induces sterility in both male and female sex offenders, it is mostly only effective against male offenders to reduce recidivism (although this too "depends on the attributes of the particular convict"). The author explains that the belief that punishing heinous criminal offenders in an effective and appropriate manner through chemical castration was a laudable purpose, this was not based on rational policy considerations but instead are a result of "the general public becoming enthralled with the idea that modern medicine could provide a 'magic cure'" and that these laws "coincided trend toward more severe sentencing [which] is probably influenced by the media's method of reporting" as well as by the call for law and order that has underlined the campaign rhetoric of some candidates for political office". He goes on to lay out the problems with this. The first reason is the biased "statutes themselves and judicial interpretation of legislative intent [through which the] legislative branch's actions have created a nearly complete statutory bar against women being sentenced to chemical castration, even when they engage in the exact same conduct as men. He laments that "[m]ost shocking of all, perhaps, is the sheer number of examples of such discriminatory statutes, both facially and as applied". Second, men are sentenced more to crimes in general; this is partially because men do in fact commit more crimes, but as the author goes on to explain, "it may also be due, in part, to 'possible discrimination in the police officer's decision to arrest" and third, "[e]ven [women] do commit a sex crime [they] receive more lenient treatment [so that] if a woman committed a specified crime that made her eligible for chemical castration, she would have a much better chance of having her case dismissed or not being convicted than would her male counterpart". Fourth, he states that "vast judicial discretion in the chemical castration sentencing system provides a breeding ground for discrimination". And fifth, Depo-Provera (the drug used to achieve chemical castration which was originally created as a form of female birth control), is only effective at reducing recidivism in men. He concludes that "these actions make the likelihood of a woman being subjected to chemical castration virtually nonexistent", and that "[this] result cannot stand in a society that finds it inherently unjust to sentence offenders differently because of their sex". He proposes (A) to declare chemical castration statutes unconstitutional, (B) to encourage sentencing judges to refrain from sentencing any convict to chemical castration and (C) gives suggestions for reducing the sex disparity in the current castration sentencing regime. Additionally, the paper summarizes the status of chemical castration as a form of punishment in the U.S. and worldwide; I have copied the relevant passages here:

Chemical castration laws in the United States Chemical castration has gained increasing popularity within the United States. Although surgical castration has been performed on prisoners in the United States as early as 1899, California was the first state to enact chemical castration legislation, almost one hundred years later, on September 17, 1996. Now, several states, including California, Montana,"' Florida, Louisiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin "allow a judge to force a sex offender to undergo chemical castration." Although Georgia and Oregon once allowed chemical castration, these laws have since been repealed. Uniquely, Texas "gives the offender the decision to undergo voluntary surgical castration as a condition of release [but] does not [make the same] offer [for] chemical castration." Chemical castration legislation has been proposed but not yet adopted in Pennsylvania (1997), Oklahoma (2002),' Minnesota (2005), Vermont (2008), Alabama (2009), and Virginia (2011). This amounts to a total of at least sixteen states that have either proposed or adopted some type of chemical castration statute.

Chemical castration laws around the world The increasing popularity of chemical castration legislation around the world is likely to normalize these sentences in the United States, despite the sentencing regime's flaws. Although many European countries, including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, and Sweden, have only enacted castration laws as treatment or punishment of sex offenders, Poland was the first country in the European Union to impose chemical castration as a form of punishment, in 2010. However, support for chemical castration is not limited to Europe. For example, the Australian Minister for Police and Emergency Services has advocated for compulsory chemical castration of child molesters and rapists. Similar legislation has been proposed in New Zealand. Russia also recently enacted a law authorizing the use of chemical castration on child sex offenders. Likewise, chemical castration laws have been enacted or proposed in non-Western societies (as recently as this year) in countries such as Taiwan and Turkey. Furthermore, an Indian judge recently "caused a storm . . . when she suggested castration as the most appropriate punishment for pedophiles and serial sex offenders."

Title	"Off with His __": Analyzing the Sex Disparity in Chemical Castration Sentences
Author	lightning_palm
Upvotes	12
Comments	1
Date	January 8, 2022 11:53 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/Male_Studies
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/Male_Studies/comments/ryy7vm/off_with_his_analyzing_the_sex_disparity_in/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/Male_Studies/off-with-his--analyzing-the-sex-disparity-in.1216067 https://theredarchive.com/post/1216067

Comments