student corner Chemical castration

By Lee Bo-ram

“Sowon” (Hope), “Dogani” (The Silenced), and “Han Gong-ju” are the titles of three Korean movies. They have one theme in common: serious sex crimes in Korean society.

While South Korea has a significantly lower crime rate than other countries, it faces the problem of increasing sex crimes. Also, sex offenders have a high recidivism rate.

Against this backdrop, the National Assembly passed a revision to sex crime related laws in 2013 to allow local courts to order some heinous repeat offenders to be subject to chemical castration.

However, this hasn’t been applied to any sexual offenders here so far.

Many critics claim that chemical castration has no real deterrent effect, pointing out that the present laws are good enough to punish perpetrators harshly. In addition, they express concerns that chemical castration may infringe on the sex offender’s human rights.

However, these arguments tend to favor sex offenders rather than victims, and the law must always defend the rights of the victims.

Therefore, chemical castration must be enforced for grave sex offenders.

As it stands now, the legal punishment for sex crimes is far too lenient in South Korea. A 2008 case involving an eight-year-old girl, Na-Young, could prove this point.

One morning on her way to school, Na-young was dragged into a public toilet by a 50-year-old man, Cho Doo-soon. He beat, strangled and raped her there.

His brutal and violent criminal act severely damaged her genitals and inflicted unbearable trauma on her, sending shockwaves throughout the country.

This case was terrible, but the offender was sentenced to a mere 12 years in jail because he was drunk at the time of the crime. Plus, he was a first-time time offender. The penalty was too light.

In order to prevent the repetition of such crimes, the nation should enforce tougher justice. It also must use chemical castration as an effective way to control sex offenders.

Opponents of chemical castration argue that sex offenses are driven by aggression rather than strong sexual impulses. However, most criminals accused of sexual offenses confessed that their crimes were due to being drunk, blaming their drunkenness for the increase of their sexual drive. Therefore, chemical castration is an effective procedure that removes the root cause of sex crimes.

In fact, it significantly reduces the intensity of strong sexual impulses and it will prevent out-of-control sexual desires. Contrary to critics who think this is too harsh a measure to control sex offenders, chemical castration is not about human rights violations because it is akin to medication rather than castration.

The medical examination for side effects and the ongoing medical treatment are mandatory. Therefore, doctors will continue to study and monitor side effects.

Even though there are side effects with chemical castration, though, the sex offender can easily endure this treatment because the side effects only last for a month. Therefore, chemical castration is not only a reasonable punishment, it will also decrease sex crimes.

It must be used in order to prevent sex crimes. The laws now in force punishing sex offenders are far too light, whether the offender is drunk or not.

Chemical castration is a more effective method that directly confronts the cause of sexual aggression. Thus, it is a reasonable measure not only for victims, but also for sex offenders.

The Korean legal system will monitor the health of the offenders for the next 10 to 15 years. And this is not punishment. Chemical castration is a reasonable procedure that safeguards both the human rights of the sex offender and the safety of citizens.

The writer is an English language and literature senior at the Catholic University of Daegu.