By Lee Kyung-min
The Constitutional Court held its first public hearing Thursday to discuss whether the law on chemical castration of sex offenders infringes on their fundamental rights.
Based on opinions gathered through the hearings, the court will determine the constitutionality of the law by the end of this year.
During the hearing, at issue was whether the measure violates offenders’ human rights. There were also heated debates over whether the procedure is the most effective punishment for sex offenders.
The discussion also touched upon whether the chemical injection entails any side effects, and if so, whether any countermeasures can be used.
Lawyer Jang Woo-seung claimed chemical castration is highly abusive and can possibly change a person’s sexual orientation.
“The punishment is excessive, because it involves a hormone injection that might cause an unwanted change to a person’s system,” he said. “It is no less of a punishment compared to physical detention, contrary to its original aim as a supportive measure.”
Lawyer Seo Kyu-young representing the Ministry of Justice said the measure was introduced as a comprehensive approach to prevent sexual violence.
“An average 74 rape cases occur daily, three of them against those under 13,” he said.
“We sought to implement measures that are more effective and fundamental other than depriving offenders of their physical freedom.”
Lee Jae-woo, a director at the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry under the Ministry of Justice said the procedure is effective in curtailing sex drive, but is only temporary.
“The minimum period for treatment required is three years. If the offender is taken off the chemical, the blood testosterone concentration level becomes normal,” he said.