Does the state have the right to impose chemical castration as an acceptable punishment for sex offenders--as an alternative to imprisonment--or does castration fail to address aggression as an underlying motive for sex offenses? Is chemical castration an inhumane form of punishment, or is it preferable to surgical castration?
I. Chemical castration, a brief explanation
B. Effects of chemical castration, both chemical and surgical.
C. Two problems associated with chemical castration
D. Is castration an adequate treatment?
A. Mr. K, a British pedophile, who wanted surgical, but refused chemical castration.
B. An earlier British pedophile fought for the right of chemical castration.
C. Steve Allen Butler, a Texas black who wanted surgical castration, sparked a controversy that had racial, social, and feminist overtones.
III. The case for chemical castration
A. It should be considered the same as other psychotropic drugs.
B. Why it does not work for all sex offenses.
C. In the cases where it does work, it should be used over surgical castration--more socially accepted.
Does the state have the right to impose chemical castration as an acceptable punishment for sex offenders--as an alternative to imprisonment--or does castration fail to address aggression as an underlying motive for sex offenses (Besharov, 1992, p. 42)? In addition, is chemical castration an inhumane form of punishment, or is it preferable to surgical castration? These are the questions this research will examine.
Chemical castration, which involves the use of hormone suppressors, has proven highly effective for certain sex offenders. The most common drug used is medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), a synthetic progesterone originally developed as a contraceptive marketed as Depo-Provera (Besharov, 1992, p. 42).
According to some experts, this treatment, when give...