I’m working on a Sociology exercise and need support.

Hello, here is the question; Balancing the civil liberties of citizens of our country against the
threat of being victimized by sexual predators, should the government
allow chemical castration of sex offenders? The Answer : The chemical castration of sex offenders should be passed into law. This is because while this goes against the Eighth amendment which forbids the cruelty punishment, the act of molesting children, raping and other sexual violations scar the victims for life (Raktoceri, 2017). In most cases, once the people convicted of sexual crimes are released from prison, they go ahead and become repeat offenders. As a result, there is a high probability that they are going to pose danger to the society once they are released to the community. It is therefore important to ensure that they undergo chemical castration to ensure that their sexual urges are reduced hence making them unable to commit sexual crimes. While the Eight Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment, there is necessity to ensure that the crime committed and the punishment given to the criminal are of equal magnitude. As a result, while chemical castration appears inhumane, so is being a sexual offender. Sexual crimes are violent and lead to lifetime trauma to the victims. Asa result, the offenders need to receive punishment that is going to also affect them for a lifetime while protecting the entire public from future sexual crimes that could be committed by these sexual offenders if they are not chemically castrated. Write 1 comment to each 4 of the classmates I will provide their discussion below.

1- Frederick Montalvo – Wednesday, March 3, 2021, 11:28 AM

When
it comes to sexualized predators, there are different types of sexual
predators. While chemical castration should be allowed for repeat
offenders, in cases, the term sexual predator can be thrown out so
easily nowadays. Therefore there need to be set guidelines to need to be
set as a deterrent. James Hamblin of The Atlantic stated, “Today (June
11, 2019) Alabama enacted a law that will require, as a condition of
parole, that some convicted child sex offenders undergo “chemical
castration.” The new law will mean that those who abused children under
the age of 13 will be injected with hormone-blocking drugs before
leaving prison. The medication will have to be administered until a
judge, not a doctor, deemed it no longer necessary” (Hamblin). Chemical
castration doesn’t have to be inhumane or vulgar but just another form
of justice for those that it affects, which in this case, children under
the age of 13, and it’s a good start to see how this affects society
and whether this approach works or not within the coming years
considering how recent this law was put in place and if successful
expand on a wider scale of sexual predators in general.

source: Hamblin, James. 2019. “Alabama Moves to State-Ordered
Castration.” Health, June 11. Retrieved March 3, 2021
(https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/06/alabama-chemical-castration/591226/). Write the comments for him below? ……

2- Naz RAZAVI –
In the 1920″s chemical castration was originally performed on gay men to stop their sexual impulses, this is also used as a treatment for prostate cancer. This was first adopted in India on use on pedophiles, than expanded throughout the world. Chemical castration in my opinion isn’t the solution it is able to be revisable seen the gonads are not removed. In my opinion chemical castration is more less like a band aid instead I think that sex offenders should have surgical incision to remove there gonads which leads to the loss of libido. In my opinion I wasn’t able to find enough information to support that chemical castration will prevent sexual violent offenses just by lowering a sex offenders sex drive. I am not opposed to the idea of chemical castration, I just don’t think its a long term fix. On the other hand this will make sex predators think twice before committing this crime. Write the comments for her below ….

3- Akesa Oliveti –
I believe that the government should not allow the chemical castration of sex offenders. Douglas and his colleagues have found that even throughout Europe and the U.S., there is a misusage of chemical castration that does not exactly serve its purpose and has issues with who it actually affects (Douglas et. al. 2013). For instance, they mentioned that though chemical castration is able to reduce the levels of testosterone, it still “appears to be ineffective in antisocial or psychopathic sex offenders who do not suffer from paraphilia.” If the government wants to allow chemical castration of sex offenders, I think that there needs to be chemical castration that is universal covering those who also suffer from antisocial psychopathic sex offending and not just a fraction of offenders. Also, in this same study, I found it interesting that chemical castration is being used as a condition to be released. This comes off bizarre to me because of the fact that any sex offender that is set to be released gets to choose whether or not they can lower their testosterone levels hoping it will stop them from sexual urges, or just serve more time while still carrying those sexual urges. Lastly, there seems to be a lack of hard-driven evidence that chemical castration is working beside the mentioning of reduced testosterone levels of the 2.5-7.5% surgically castrated individuals versus the 60-84% of offenders left “untreated.” If we had solid evidence showing a dramatic decrease in sex offending due to castration then I would agree that they should allow it but based on this article, it is lacking. Write the comments for her below? ,…..

4- Diego Lomeli Martin
I do not think that the government should allow chemical castration of sex offenders as the process itself is addressing the wrong focus around the reason to castrate individuals. In the article, “Does castration stop sex crimes?” written by G. Boodman; it discusses the impact of castration on sex offenders. The article states that, “Rape crisis workers say that violence, not sex, is the real problem, which castration fails to address. ‘This misfocuses the issue and feeds into the myths about rape,” said Denise Snyder, executive director of the D.C. Rape Crisis Center. “Sexual assault is a crime of violence and aggression . . . not the product of an uncontrollable sex drive.’ The problem is often in the brain, not the testicles, said Barbara K. Schwartz, director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program at Twin Rivers Correctional Center in Monroe, Wash. A rapist who has been castrated ‘could still be a phenomenal danger. He can go out and, instead of raping people, he can assault them with broom handles or bottles or beat them up or kill them.’” Castration itself is just taking the ability or lowering the sex drive for the individual, but the sex drive and the ability to have intercourse is still a possible thing, which kinda of defeats the purpose. Additionally, the article goes on and says, “Becker, who has treated hundreds of sex offenders, says that studies have shown that about 40 percent of rapists will repeat their crimes So will pedophiles who are interested exclusively in young boys.” These sexual predators will commit their crimes again even if castrated, so I think the government shouldn’t allow castration and find a different way to approach it. Write the comments below for him ?

Thank you