The act of rape is considered one of the worst crimes that can happen to other people. In recent years, there has been much debate about whether sex offenders should undergo voluntary surgery or compulsory treatment. There are many arguments about and against the chemistry or Castration used against known sex offenders.
First and foremost, it is essential to explain the difference between surgery and chemical castration. Episodic surgery is the removal of a human testicle for the purpose of removing his reproductive ability and to control the level of testosterone produced. It is suspected that the outcome of surgery is to completely eradicate sexual desire because the adrenal glands in the kidneys also produce testosterone and may cause males to have sexual desire. The method is now debatable because it cannot be reversed. However, the effect may be overturned by the injection of testosterone, which can be obtained on the road, allowing sex offenders to be punished with criminal and lust. The chemistry also has an effect. But it involves the injection of antiandrogen to reduce testosterone levels. The injection is a synthetic progestin, which tells the brain to stop the hormones that stimulate the testicles to produce testosterone. They work by tricking the brain into believing that the body has enough hormones, so the body stops producing. As a result, the testosterone level in a human body decreases and his sexual desire decreases. Unlike surgery, surgery is a complete opposite. The injection remains in the bloodstream for six to eight weeks. But the effect will decrease rapidly after injection. As with any medication, the doer must have the correct dosage for the injection to be effective. Although the Castration of the chemical is not as polished and permanent as the surgical procedure But it has also been heavily criticized as a possible treatment for sex offenders (Harrison, 2007).
Although both forms of Castration are seen as barbarians But there are some arguments The most obvious thing is that the level of sexual desire of a sex offender decreases. The literature shows low testosterone levels and allows offenders to feel more relaxed and sluggish, which helps them to better control violence and aggression. This will help the sex offenders in the process become members of society (Carpenter, 1998). Another advantage of Castration, which is supported by extensive research, shows that including Castration with other types of treatment greatly reduces the risk of relapse. One research studies the rate of recidivism among twenty-four men. All have included episodes of chemicals and other forms of treatment. Of the twenty-four men who started the study, only one participant committed serious sexual offenses in two and a half years. The crime occurred after the participants withdrew from all forms of treatment. (Rice and Harris 2011) Another argument that supports the Castration of sex offenders is that the judicial system must consider giving priority to the victim before the rights of the offender. Not abandoning the offender due to moral reasons is a weak argument. The victims will be affected by the crimes committed against them for the rest of their lives. Therefore, the punishment should be made as appropriate and will affect the offender throughout the life as well. Although Castration does not prevent other sex crimes from 100% uncertainty, it is still better than no treatment at all.
Although there are many reasons why sexual offenders should be castrated. But there are many arguments as well One of the main reasons why people argue that punishment in the form of punishment is because it violates the rights of the offender. People believe it is a violation of the rights of cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of reproduction, and the right to have a proper relationship between crime and punishment (Miller, 1998). This argument is hard to argue, which may be the reason. Why some people resist the Castration of sex offenders The exact nature of this type of punishment is incompatible with these important principles. Another aspect of the controversy that needs to be considered is what will happen if the offender later acquits him. Epidural surgery is a permanent solution and pure offenders will carry unreasonable scars forever guaranteed. One of these factors makes solving this problem difficult to fight for based on this situation. However, the argument against the Castration of sex offenders is the fact that violent sex crimes are not related to sex at all. They deal with the dominance and control of other people (Harrison, 2007). sex crimes are a symptom of a deeper problem. Therefore it is necessary that both the problem and the symptom be resolved if the offender.
Works Cited
Carpenter, A. (1998). "Belgium, Germany, England, Denmark, and the United States: The Implementation of Registration and Castration Laws as Protection Against
Habitual sex Offenders." Dickinson Journal of International Law, 16(2), 435–57.
Harrison, K. (2007). "The High-Risk sex Offender Strategy in England and Wales: Is Chemical Castration an Option?." The Howard Journal, 46(1), 16-31.
Miller, R. (1998). "Forced Administration of sex Drive, Reducing Medications to sex Offenders: Treatment or Punishment?." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(1), 175-199.
Rice, M., and G. Harris. (2011). "Is Androgen Deprivation Therapy Effective In The Treatment of sex Offenders?." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(2), 315-332.
