History and Controversies
Early Surgical Castration
In order to understand the controversies behind chemical castration and how it came to exist, we must first look at the history of other forms of castration. Surgical castration has been used for centuries for a multitude of reasons. For example, in the 1700s, pre-pubescent choir members often had their testicles removed to maintain a high singing voice. Surgical castration has also historical been used on sex offenders to prevent recidivism. The effectiveness of surgical castration as a means of punishment has been heavily argued. Data from the 20th century suggests roughly a 90% decrease in recidivism among sex offenders who underwent surgical castration. Surgical castration, however, is seldom practiced presently as many see it as barbaric and immoral due to the fact that it is a permanently disfiguring procedure.
An Emerging Contender
Chemical castration was introduced as part of a series of novel hormonal therapy technologies developed during the 20th century. The first ever recorded use of a hormone for sex drive reduction in men was in 1944. About 20 years later, in 1966, U.S researcher John Money used MPA on a sexual predator, marking the beginning of a revolutionary hormone-suppressing drug that would become the subject of many debates and controversies.
The above map shows where legislation exists for different forms of castration, including chemical and surgical
In the past decade, many countries have employed chemical castration as a form of punishment for sex offenders and pedophiles, including much of Europe and the United States. In the U.S, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida, and California have used chemical castration. In 1996, California became the first US state to legally allow the use of chemical castration on sexual offenders leaving prison and reentering their communities.
Controversies and Advantages
Generally, MPA does not have permanent anaphrodisiac effects; when a male discontinues taking it, testosterone production resumes. However, the hormone has been shrouded in controversies due to the long term side effects that it can cause. Should an offender stop taking MPA, research has shown a high risk of bone density loss and osteoporosis, increased chance of heart attacks, reduced muscle mass, and worsened brain function. There has also been much debate surrounding chemical castration because of possible human rights violations in cases where the practice was forced onto an offender without their consent.
Regardless of these controversies, chemical castration has a few advantages over the aforementioned surgical castration. Since the sexual effects of MPA are reversible, it permits eventual criminal rehabilitation, which, in theory, is the goal of the justice system. Additionally, when done properly, chemical castration should be done by an offender’s own volition; however, seeing as this has been a point of debate, the practice’s voluntary nature can not be a true advantage over surgical castration. Finally, chemical castration is a way of ensuring the general public that sexual offenders reintegrating themselves into society have a lower chance of reoffending.
Sources:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/several-nations-have-chemical-castration-as-punishment/articleshow/8138267.cms
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/chemical-castration-mpa-treatment-sexual-offender
http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/31/4/502.full.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565125/
https://preview.redd.it/1tz9fdz3s7w61.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=dba610fb030898c32800ca561bde1de9625c0d93