No Tolerance Essay Research Paper What if

No Tolerance Essay, Research Paper

What if our nation where to take a true .no tolerance. approach to sex offenders. What if the old adage .the devil made me do it. was no longer an excuse, thrown out along with .I could not help it. and .I am sick, it.s not my fault.. Whether it is due to media exposure, new community outrage aimed at the offender rather than the victim OR that our nation is truly going to hell in a hand basket, we are bombarded on a daily basis with shocking stories of children being molested, their innocence stolen, their bodies violated. We hear it in a from an adult exposing themselves in seemingly innocent places like a park to others physically abusing a child to horrific stories of kidnap, rape and murder.

In our nation now offer a medical alternative for sexual predators, the option of chemical castration. In this paper I will explore the pros and cons of making this nationwide, non- voluntary, and required in order for a freed felon to submit to in order to remain free. I will explore the constitutional issues raised and will also apply a cost benefit analysis, after which I will apply Kantian theory regarding whether or no it would be moral, in my opinion, to enact such a law uniformly. The main issues regarding this subject is it constitutional. Do we have the right to exact such a price from an individual who has already served their sentence. Is chemical castration successful enough to warrant its. use.

Chemical castration is when the offender is injected intramuscularly with a hormone, known as DEPO-PROVERA, commonly used as a method of birth control for women, once every 1-3 months. The hormone is known to lower sex drive and when used in the more concentrated form, as would be used for these felons, it will reduce the urges that drive these men to commit their crimes. It is totally reversible [just discontinue injections] does not deprive the recipient of the ability or enjoyment of sexual encounters nor does it deprive them of the right to procreate.

Let us start with the side I am not particularly fond of, Amazingly enough, even though I found several sites on the Internet, the sites were not very strongly against the process. In the Faces Constitutional Challenge. article I found the most harsh opposition, and even there I was not in the least swayed. The first potential hurdle would be the Ex Post Facto laws. Any new laws regarding chemical castration could only apply to offenders subsequent to the passing of the statute in each state. Our prisons are already full of offenders who would not, could not be eligible, unless they were to do so voluntarily. The same article also finds problems in our Double Jeopardy laws, .No one can receive multiple punishments for the same offense.. Once a man has served his term he cannot be dealt a second punishment of required medical treatment, although how this differs from court ordered parole is beyond me, this is also a condition for prison release. Finally this particular article points out our constitutional rights regarding .proof of present dangerousness.. How does one prove that this person still poses a threat to society and children once treated. This is one point I can concede holds some merit. For a first time offender, to require a lifetime of hormone injections based of a presumption of recidivism can be unconstitutional, however, once you have a repeat offender I believe certain assumptions can now be made. For moral arguments I found it even more difficult to find opposition. One of the few articles, .Sex Offender Treatment., that labeled itself as .con. posed the question, to warrant imposing this penalty on felons then gave statistics showing a success rate of 94.7% for heterosexuals, 86.4% for homosexuals and the lowest number of 73.5% for rapists. This study was done over a 17 year period involving 5000 offenders. The argument here is whether this is successful enough. I will cover these statistics further when I argue pro castration. Of course no constitutional and moral argument would be complete without the input of the American Civil Liberties Union, who, by no real surprise, do find that chemical castration is cruel and unusual punishment. A.C.L.U. compares chemical castration to the period in America when the mentally retarded and mentally ill were surgically sterilized to prevent procreation of a less than desirable trait and to prevent unwanted pregnancies for those who could not be responsible for birth control or those taken advantage of in facilities. The A.C.L.U. also claims that this method of control can not possibly work since the origin of the problem is not organic and also that unwilling subjugation does not make for success. In agreement with the A.C.L.U. is an article titled ..

This article cites potential pitfalls for this method of treatment due to the fact that chemical castration does not address the underlying psychological defects and the need for therapy. This article views the problem as not a sexual drive but an anger and power issue, it goes on to state that to take an already embittered, volatile person and make him unwillingly submit to this treatment can only exacerbate a bad situation to a much more dangerous one. Finally stated as a cause to not use this method of treatment or punishment are the arguments regarding possible side effects which include breast growth, headaches, weight gain and a lowered sex drive Now for