Chemical Castration - Objections

Objections

Although chemical castration is presented as a humane alternative to lifelong imprisonment or surgical castration, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the coerced administration of any drug, including antiandrogen drugs for sex offenders. They argue that forced chemical castration is a "cruel and unusual punishment", and therefore should be constitutionally prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. They also stated that it interfered with the right to procreate, and could expose users to various health problems. Law professor John Stinneford has argued that chemical castration, by exerting control over the mind of sex offenders to render them incapable of sexual desire, and subjecting them to the physical changes caused by the female hormones used, is a cruel and unusual punishment.

It has also been argued that, based on the Fourteenth Amendment, the procedure fails to guarantee equal protection - although the laws mandating the treatment do so without respect to gender, the actual effect of the procedure falls disproportionately upon men. In the case of voluntary statutes, the ability to give informed consent is also an issue; in 1984, the U.S. state of Michigan's court of appeals held that mandating chemical castration as a condition of probation was unlawful, on the grounds that the drug medroxyprogesterone acetate had not yet gained acceptance as being safe and reliable and also due to the difficulty of obtaining informed consent under these circumstances.