Reference no: EM133277782

Chemical Castration for Male Sex Offenders

Each year, over 200,000 people in the US become victims of sexual assault. According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest national Network, someone in the US is sexually assaulted every one or two minutes. One in every six women will be raped during her lifetime. The number of children who are sexually molested each year is uncertain, but eh Justice Department estimates that about 1.9 per 1000 children will be raped or assaulted. in 1996, California became the first state to approve the use of "chemical castration." The California law mandates that sex offenders convicted more than once of child molestation will be injected with Depo-Provera or some other testosterone-reducing drug, with the intention of reducing their sex drive. The law allows judges to order first-time offenders to take the drugs. If the felon does not voluntarily submit to chemical castration, he will be surgically castrated. In total eight states currently allow chemical castration of sex offenders. Depo-Provera is a long-acting birth control shot that lasts about three months. Effects of the drug are short term and sex drive returns to normal once the injections stop. However, long-term and permanent changes to a man's body chemistry can occur (including feminizing effects such as gynecomastia-man boobs, loss of body hair, and loss of muscle mass). Adverse health effects such as increased body fat and reduced bone density are also possible. Proponents of chemical castration argue that it is a humane alternative to life imprisonment and allows sex offenders to return to society, while reducing the chances that they will continue to commit sex crimes. Those opposed to chemical castration argue that our entire system of treating and punishing sex offenders is flawed and we need to do more to prevent violent sex crimes (most sex offenders are not driven by sex, but for a desire of control and power over others), therefore chemical castration does not treat the root of that problem. Opponents also argue that the law is an infringement on the right to privacy-the right to control our own bodies and refuse unwanted medical treatments. It also constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," prohibited under the Eight Amendment.

Considering the perspective of Bandura's Theory of Moral Disengagement, how much do you feel the responses offered in this discussion seemed to reflect selective disengagement mechanisms such as moral justification (i.e., we link our moral actions to some socially worthy purpose or moral cause), advantageous or palliative comparison (e.g., we just fixed the person, we didn't kill them), euphemistically labeling, (e.g., this was "treatment" for the criminals problem, as opposed to a drastic and life altering surgery), minimizing (e.g., this is a selective treatment), etc.? Explain and give examples.