By Lee Kyung-min
The Constitutional Court will hold a public hearing on May 14 to discuss whether the law on chemical castration of sex offenders infringes on their fundamental rights, the court said Sunday.
After gathering opinions from experts and the public, the court will decide whether the law is constitutional or not by the end of this year.
At issue is whether the measure violates the right of people not to have damage done to their bodies, and the right to make decisions about what happens to their bodies ― two provisions guaranteed by the Constitution. The law as it stands does not require a person’s consent.
The law stipulates that the prosecution can request a court to order chemical castration of a sex offender aged 19 or above who is likely to repeat such crimes. If finding the request reasonable, the court can order castration.
Daejeon District Court raised the issue in 2013, when it filed a petition with the Constitutional Court, claiming that forcing a man, albeit criminal, to undergo such a procedure infringed on individual rights that the Constitution protected.
The petition came as the court was dealing with a case of a man surnamed Lim who was indicted on charges of sexual harassment.
The court said there was no proven effect of the measure, and that other counties required the consent of offenders.
“Although the law has proper purpose, it does not have a proper procedure,” the court said in the petition.
The court filed the petition even though Lim did not ask it to do so ― a rare case. Until a determination is made, Lim’s case is on hold.
The chemical castration law was introduced in 2008 in an attempt to curb sex offenses.
Initially, the bill included a clause about offenders needing to give their consent. But the clause was excluded later, following public uproar over several violent sex offenses committed against minors.
At that time, supporters of the measure strongly called for the punishment, claiming that the people who committed such brutal crimes did not deserve the right to claim their own basic rights.
But opponents ― including human rights groups ― expressed concerns, saying that such an emotion-driven decision could ultimately prevent people from being protected by the law.
Twelve lawmakers proposed a revision bill under which the punishment would require an offender’s consent or that of his legal representatives.
The bill is pending in the National Assembly.