상습적 성범죄 예방수단으로서의 거세(去勢)에 관한 헌법적 고찰

초록

The high rate of recidivism for sex offenders poses a difficult problem for the criminal justice system and leaves it searching for creative sentencing alternatives. In this context, it is needed to explore new measures to nip habitual sexual offense in the bud. For example, the possibility and feasibility of means such as sex offender registration law, sex offender public notification law, sexual predator law and the like in U.S.A. are needed to be explored. Furthermore on some occasions, castration is needed as a treatment of habitual sexual offender such as sexual psychopath. Particularly, it is needed to enact a law that require chemical castration as a term of parole or probation for certain types of repeat sex offenders. Castration may be performed in two ways: through medication or through the surgical removal of the testes. Surgical castration involves the removal of the male's testes. Surgical castration is virtually irreversible. The alternative method of chemical castration is most commonly accomplished through medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment(MPA), a synthetic progesterone that is manufactured under the trade name Depo-Provera originally developed as a female contraceptive device. When administered to men, Depo-Provera reduces the level of testosterone. Unlike surgical castration, chemical castration is not permanent. Its effects last only as long as the treatment continues. Additionally, chemical castration reduces male sex drive but does not prevent erections or ejaculations. The administration of chemical castration on habitual sex offenders may raise a number of constitutional issues as follows. Firstly, chemical castration has an issue of infringing upon right to self-determination in one' body or reproduction, right to be not impaired in one's body. If the administration of chemical castration is based on informed consent, castration doesn't infringe upon the rights. Secondly, chemical castration has an issue whether it is punishment or treatment. In so far chemical castration is administered as a treatment to certain types of repeat sex offenders like paraphiliacs, it must be respected as treatment. Consequently, This study supposes the adoption of chemical castration on habitual sex offenders as not a punishment but a treatment. Needless to say, chemical castration should not be viewed as a cure-all. In other words, chemical castration alone will not effectively treat most sex offenders. Therefore, to maximize its effectiveness, chemical castration must be combined with several substantive and procedural conditions. The high rate of recidivism for sex offenders poses a difficult problem for the criminal justice system and leaves it searching for creative sentencing alternatives. In this context, it is needed to explore new measures to nip habitual sexual offense in the bud. For example, the possibility and feasibility of means such as sex offender registration law, sex offender public notification law, sexual predator law and the like in U.S.A. are needed to be explored. Furthermore on some occasions, castration is needed as a treatment of habitual sexual offender such as sexual psychopath. Particularly, it is needed to enact a law that require chemical castration as a term of parole or probation for certain types of repeat sex offenders. Castration may be performed in two ways: through medication or through the surgical removal of the testes. Surgical castration involves the removal of the male's testes. Surgical castration is virtually irreversible. The alternative method of chemical castration is most commonly accomplished through medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment(MPA), a synthetic progesterone that is manufactured under the trade name Depo-Provera originally developed as a female contraceptive device. When administered to men, Depo-Provera reduces the level of testosterone. Unlike surgical castration, chemical castration is not permanent. Its effects last only as long as the treatment continues. Additionally, chemical castration reduces male sex drive but does not prevent erections or ejaculations. The administration of chemical castration on habitual sex offenders may raise a number of constitutional issues as follows. Firstly, chemical castration has an issue of infringing upon right to self-determination in one' body or reproduction, right to be not impaired in one's body. If the administration of chemical castration is based on informed consent, castration doesn't infringe upon the rights. Secondly, chemical castration has an issue whether it is punishment or treatment. In so far chemical castration is administered as a treatment to certain types of repeat sex offenders like paraphiliacs, it must be respected as treatment. Consequently, This study supposes the adoption of chemical castration on habitual sex offenders as not a punishment but a treatment. Needless to say, chemical castration should not be viewed as a cure-all. In other words, chemical castration alone will not effectively treat most sex offenders. Therefore, to maximize its effectiveness, chemical castration must be combined with several substantive and procedural conditions.

키워드