Archive for May 29, 2007

Thoughts on chemical castration

May 29th

Prof. Berman points to this story out of Oregon (via Corrections Sentencing) which says that the state is considering employing chemical castration to prevent “high-risk” offenders from re-offending.

The state is close to approving a Corrections Department budget that includes money to expand the state’s chemical castration program. If passed, the state would pay for high-risk sex offenders to receive twice-monthly shots of Depo-Provera, a testosterone-reducing drug.

Depo-Provera, originally developed as a contraceptive for women, creates sexual apathy in men by reducing the level of testosterone. European countries have used the drug since the 1960s to treat sex offenders. It’s less popular in the U.S., and Oregon is one of fewer than 10 states reported to have chemical castration laws.

Prof. Berman asks whether chemical castration (if proven to work) should be employed (actually, why shouldn’t it be). As readers might guess, I am uneasy with this proposition. There are several assumptions here: That we know that “high-risk” offenders will re-offend; that all “high-risk” offenders will re-offend. This does dip into some “Minority Report” territory. I’m quite uneasy by the idea that we will assume that all high-risk offenders are going to re-offend and we need to stop that by subduing the sexual urge by reducing levels of testosterone.

Those are some mighty assumptions and I’m uncomfortable with that. There are (have to be) better alternatives to this. What if we have an offender that, despite being “high-risk” is rehabilitated and wishes to live a normal life? I see visions of Buck v. Bell.

Btw, here are resources for chemical castration and resources against chemical castration.

Tell me how I’m wrong.

sex offenders

A heartening re-integration story

May 29th

Posted by Gideon in sex offenders

No comments

Reader Ilah points to this story about how a family (with three young children) has accepted a released sex offender into their neighborhood [I guess SC has no residency restrictions].

“My husband and I discussed it before we even met Paul [Allan] that we will not go at it like everybody else goes at,” said Cheri Irvin. “We will not run from him out of fear.”So the family made a decision.

“I think the best thing that we can do for someone in this situation, is to accept them back into society with limitations.”

As a result, Paul Allan is now welcome in their home, but not alone with their children. He considers Cheri to be like his sister. This hasn’t stopped neighbors from unleashing their anger, though.

It can be a difficult commitment, because anger at Allen can be directed toward the Irvins.”I have some people that refuse to even be around me,” said Cheri Irvin. “And if any of my things are near them, it’s like, don’t touch them because they are friends.”

“We’ve had notes on our front door warning us he’s a sex offender and we need to stay away from him and all that,” said Joshua.

“It’s a feeling of rejection,” said Allan. “And hate, just pure hate for me.”

A letter was sent to the news station (which lead to the story), which alleged that he was “bothering children and handing out candy on Halloween” (which apparently is against the law). Turns out the kids were the Irvin’s.

This is the way to go. Reintegration into society has to be accompanied by inclusion, not rejection. Rejection, in my opinion, serves to only drive people further into their bad habits and we have re-offenders.

I’m glad to see stories like these, because it preserves my faith in humanity.

residency restrictions