Firstly I need to apologise for being so irregular with this blog! From now on posts really will be up on a Sunday at 10am! This is an extra for you after seeing a video on Facebook that put so many thoughts in my head I had to write about it. I want this to be a discussion though, so leave a comment down below on your thoughts about this or let me know via my social media links! Let's talk about this.
So, while aimlessly scrolling through my Facebook feed tonight, I came across a video on the BBC Three page (you can watch it here) all about the Indonesian President's announcement that he wishes to start chemically castrating paedophiles in order to "reduce sex crimes and wipe them out over time." Many doctors have already said that they will simply refuse to carry out this treatment, to which the President has said that they will find doctors elsewhere, such as military doctors.
So what exactly is chemical castration? The video defines it as "the use of drugs to reduce a person's sex drive." Chemical castration is used in countries such as Poland, South Korea, the US and believe it or not, right here in the UK (this surprised me too). Many human rights groups in Indonesia and worldwide are already speaking out about this, saying that money would be better spent looking after victims of paedophilia instead of treating them.
Let's look at this from both sides. There is a high rate of recidivism within paedophiles (recidivism is the relapse into criminal behaviour). Serendip Studio claims that 75% of child molesters are convicted more than once. However, it should be noted that there is a difference between a child molester and a paedophile - not all paedophiles will act upon their fantasies! Administering chemical castration has proven to reduce the abilities of paedophiles to assault children. It does this by counteracting biological and chemical tendencies and gives paedophiles a better chance of rehabilitation. On the other hand, it has also been stated that unless chemical castration treatment is maintained, offenders will end up with increased testosterone and are more likely to have renewed sexual fantasies. This means the treatment would have to be done repeatedly, which is obviously costly, time consuming and potentially not all that effective. The drug used, Depo-Provera (used in the US) also has some nasty side effects such as depression, fatigue, diabetes and blood clots. This could be dangerous, especially in the case of depression as paedophiles are more likely to act upon and have increased fantasies when they feel desperate, sad and lonely.
Now let's consider alternatives - The Atlantic claims that only 15-20% of sex offenders commit new offences after release from an institution or prison. This means that surely therapy or early detection and support before an offence has been committed would be more effective in preventing paedophilia. Chemical castration is also not a cure, just a way of dulling down fantasies by reducing testosterone. Speaking to the Telegraph, convicted sex offender Peter, who underwent the treatment even says "it hasn't cut [fantasies] down 100%."
In my opinion, which I think is probably clear reading this (although I tried really hard to tell both sides), I don't agree that paedophiles should be chemically castrated. If it was 100% a cure, then perhaps, but it's not. I agree with Human Rights activists that money would be better spent on supporting victims as well as paedophiles in the form of therapy programs, rehabilitation programmes, etc. I also think that instead money could be used to improve prison systems, which just now only add to feelings of desperation, sadness and loneliness within criminals, which as aforementioned only leads to a higher chance of recidivism.
What do you think? Leave me a comment below. All the links to websites I gathered information from are also below, as well as my social media links! See you on Sunday and thanks for reading!
Facebook - jess.massie.73
Twitter - @jessmassie_
Instagram - @jessicamassie_
Snapchat - jessmassie
WEBSITE LINKS:
BBC 3 Video
Serendip Studio
The Telegraph
The Atlantic
No comments:
Post a Comment