The government of Peru has drafted a bill that is going to be placed before the parliament as a response to a nationwide outrage over the rape of a minor girl aged three years by an adult aged 48 years old. This draft bill allows for chemical castration as a penalty for raping a minor. No doubt, sexual offense especially rape is very regretful. Rape is a heinous act and a cause of more serious concerns especially when the victim is a minor girl. The rapist needs to be given exemplary punishment as he deserves and, moreover, the penalty needs to be made tougher with an intention to prevent such rape in the future by compelling others to rethink rape.
But, no doubt, castration can cause very significant sexual harm. The most notable impact of chemical castration, according to available sources, is a significant reduction in libido or an absence of sexual desire. Of course, chemical castration has many other side effects including fatigue, even if it may allow sexual offenders to have normal sexual activity in context with psychotherapy and it has advantages over surgical castration. Moreover, involuntary castration is rendered as a clear violation of rights. It contradicts the right to treatment in which any person needs to provide informed consent for receiving treatment. Since the law aims at the punishment, it has no option for taking informed voluntary consent from the offenders. Thus, chemical castration cannot be an acceptable penalty for any sexual offense.
It is pertinent to note that castration as a penalty for sexual offenses is not new in the world. Chemical castration was authorized by California in 1996 against certain kinds of sexual offenders. In 2011, South Korea introduced chemical castration. A castration penalty was also passed in Pakistan last year for the punishment of serial rapists. But such a clause was immediately removed from the criminal law due to heavy criticism. Moreover, it is not the first move of the politicians of Peru since they discussed the measure earlier. Congress, the unicameral body which assumes legislative power in the Republic of Peru, pushed to include chemical castration as a penalty for those who violate children under 14 years of age in 2018, though the proposal was not implemented.
Of course, the positive aspect is that the controversial bill seems to be less likely to be passed in the Congress of Peru, which is a unitary state with a multi-party system. Indeed, many political leaders, along with human rights activists, are in opposition to the proposed penalty. Some of the Conservative members are in favor of alternative punishment such as the death penalty for the rape of a minor. The chemical castration proposal has also been criticized by Peru’s health minister and the parents of the victim and women’s rights organizations. In addition, to become the law, the bill needs to be passed in the Congress which is controlled by the opposition Conservatives, who are not in favor of such a penalty after the heavy criticism of the rights groups.
Yet, the government of Peru, a presidential representative democratic republic, needs to rethink and cancel the controversial punishment clause from the draft bill and seek more acceptable punishment for sexual offenders. No doubt, sexual offenses need to be prevented and offenders need to be punished. Along with the penalties for the rapists of minors, other measures are also important for the prevention of sexual offenses. In this respect, the improvement of safety, addressing community-level risk factors, a social movement against sexual offense and the promotion of social norms that prevent sexual offense can be effective.
Nota bene: The editorial views expressed are written by the Editorial Team (the Chief Editor) of Dhaka Opinion Magazine.
