 |
 |
Hey, little girl. Your mother told me to drive you home." That's how it starts. You can imagine the rest.
Child molesters and other sexual offenders are among the most vile people living in our ranks today. These sick individuals manipulate the minds and bodies of our youths, causing them irreparable harm during their fragile formative years. They twist the m inds of children, creating a sense of trust before striking down their helpless victims.
The child is scarred by these horrific first encounters with sex, often leaving him or her with a warped sense of proper sexual behavior and a fear of intimacy. These sexual offenders rip away the innocence of youth.
The California legislature has a new way of dealing with these sexual offenders - castration. A new bill there allows for two types of castration: old-fashioned lopping off of the testicles or a drug that takes away sexual drive.
The physical method is designed to remove part of the offending piece of carnage, thereby hindering the sexually offending act. The chemical option is designed to remove the underlying desire of the offender. California legislators believe that this bill will greatly decrease the number of repeat sexual offenders.
When I first heard about the bill, I was disgusted. Then I laughed at how ridiculous it is.
The physical method of castration, the one that involves sharpening the kitchen knife, seems plausible. The sexual offender who no longer has part of his sexual organs should be deterred from the act of violation, even if he does not lose the desire. It s eems like a logical plan to reduce the severity of the sexual offense.
The Eighth Amendment poses a problem for this punishment. This amendment specifically forbids the government from imposing any form of cruel and unusual punishment. Physical castration is cruel. If you don't believe me or can't relate, ask any male on the street and he will lament its cruelty. Physical castration is unusual. Besides the obvious example of John Wayne Bobbitt, I cannot think of many prevalent cases of castration punishment. It should remain that way, so says the Constitution.
The chemical form of castration, using a pill or an injection to reduce sex drive, is laughable. The so-called experts on the California legislature think that they can prevent repeat sexual offenders by this method. It sounds well-intentioned, but the le gislature needs to realize how inappropriate the solution is.
Chemical castration assumes that sexual offenders, after losing their sexual drive, will stop molesting. Anyone who has taken Psychology 101 can tell you that there are many other reasons why sexual offenders commit acts of molestation. These are not indi viduals looking to score on a Saturday night. These are not individuals who want to find physical pleasure with adults but are thwarted in their attempts. These are individuals who like molesting children for the sake of molesting children. They are sick, not desperate. Reducing their sexual drive does not necessarily solve the problem.
Many of these offenders have psychological problems that compel them to molest. Some have been scorned by their parents and seek retribution by destroying other children's lives. Some were sexually abused themselves and have no idea that their behavior is aberrant. Sexual drive is not the problem in these cases, and no amount of sexual-drive-reducing drugs will stop them from molesting children.
The California legislature assumes that it can prevent sexual abuse, but the foundation of its logic is wrong. Gina Kolata, a columnist for The New York Times (Sept.1), said the legislature has faulty information; there is no real evidence that castration hinders sexual offenders.
"Experts say that virtually everything being assumed about child molesters and about castration, chemical or surgical, is a myth, a leap of faith, or just plain wrong," Kolata said.
This leap of faith is too big for our society. We cannot base a horrific new punishment on faulty information, and we cannot allow our disgust to cloud our judgment. These sexual offenders are sick and their actions are reprehensible but we cannot start d own a dangerous path of reactionary punishment that serves no purpose.
Jamie Kanter is a Spanish and pyschology junior. His column, 'On the Flip Side,' appears every other Wednesday.
|
|
|