We are writing in response to the article in the Opinion section entitled “Punishment too severe” (Feb 27). The article expressed disagreement with a proposal to chemically castrate repeat child molesters. As witnessed by the title, the authors considered this consequence to be too severe.

We disagree with that and also with articles reference that somehow chemical castration is comparable to a thief having his hand cut off. Molestation of a child is hardly comparable to stealing. Chemical castration is hardly comparable to removing a hand for theft. Your article even stated the effects of this procedure were “temporary.” The effects such an act has on a child, however, are far from temporary.

According to Paula Hawkins, author of “Children at Risk,” victims have lifelong scars: suicidal tendencies, psychological disturbances, learning problems, and sometimes “acting out”. Many show “psychological disturbances 20 years after the assaults’, while the offenders are repeatedly given a slap on the wrist, and then released to victimize another child. Imagine what it would be like if this were your child. It is an incomprehensible thought. The loss of innocence that can never be replaced cannot be compared to a sick son-of-a-bitch getting a shot.

Forgive us, or don’t, for our lack of compassion for the molester. We find it hard to have empathy for a child molester having his sex drive temporarily taken away, when this “drive” is directed toward children. We do not feel that chemical castration, in this situation, is “cruel and unusual punishment.” In light of the severity of this crime, why does this alternative seem “cruel?” You can bet compassion played no role in the molester’s thoughts when committing this crime. While we are also not convinced that this is the answer, it certainly does seem like an option to be considered, and then used, or dismissed, based on it’s effectiveness. The question that should be asked is “does it work?” not “is it too severe?”

The article also stated: “Sure, keeping in mind the possibility that a sex offender may strike again may seem like reason enough to give the legal go-ahead, but …”

May SEEM like? You’re damn right it does. If it works, do it. It is also not only possible, but probable, that the sex offender WILL strike again. The very fact that there are many “repeat” sex offenders illustrates that fact and the need for change in our laws. We should be more concerned with protecting our children than protecting a pedophile’s sex drive. The article made very little reference to the children who are the victims of these heinous crimes, choosing instead to focus on concern for the perpetrator.

How proud we would be to say our country has a zero-tolerance policy towards sex crimes against children. We believe the offenders should NEVER get out of jail. If someone molests a child, it is our job to make sure that is the last child they touch. If that means locking them up and throwing away the key, then so be it. If the experts determine that chemical castration would have an impact, then it should be done. Child molestation is one of the most despicable crimes a person can commit, and our laws should reflect that. It is unforgivable and not worthy of compassion.

Betty Harris

Junior

Communication Studies

Gina Mullins

Junior

Pre-business