Chemical castration for sex offenders is a punishment that is rapidly gaining in popularity in the U.S., but does its effectiveness justify the violation of the rights of those treated with it? While chemical castration has been found to be effective in treating one type of sexual offender, chemical castration laws are calling for such treatments to be performed on all types of sexual offenders. The evidence indicates that the limited benefits of chemical castration are outweighed by the significant infringements of rights against those it will not help and the false sense of security that it provides.
Chemical castration is becoming a popular 'get tough' measure against sex offenders that is gaining popularity across the country. In 1996 California became the first state to enact a chemical castration law, and in 1997 three other states followed their lead. Under the California statute chemical castration is mandated for all paroled two-time sex offenders, and within the judge or parole board's discretion for first time offenders. "It will now be possible for judges in chemical castration jurisdictions to condition probation on the convict accepting chemical castration" (Meisenkothen 141). This widespread injection of the chemical castration treatment into the criminal justice system before the effectiveness and weaknesses of the treatment are fully understood is a mistake.
Studies on the chemical castration of sexual offenders have shown it effective in significantly reducing recidivism rates. Paraphiliacs (people with uncontrollable biological sexual urges) are the type of sex offenders that are most affected by Depo Provera (chemical castration) treatment. "Studies have shown that through the use of such a regimen of weekly Depo Provera injections, paraphiliacs' recidivism rates drop substantially from upwards of 90% to as low as 2%" (Meisenkothen 139). Such promising results have prompted much of the popularity o...