.
The retribution theory is not satisfied through the castration process. The offender goes through a minor surgery, suffers some discomfort, and then continues with life close to normal. The offender may also resort to other means of violence because of psychological problems due to the surgical process (Sluder & Roberts, 1993). Michael Cox, the director of the sexual-abuse program at Baylor College of Medicine, says that castration may just increase depression and self-hatred. This could encourage sex offenders to lash out (Lacayo, 1992). Justice might be felt at the time of sentencing, but usually dissipates once the offender is seen, free, back in the community (Sluder & Roberts, 1993).
Incarceration is normally avoided if one volunteers himself for the castration procedure. Legal experts also say that the exchange of body parts for freedom is most definitely unconstitutional (Lacayo, 1992). Dr. Paul Fedoroff, a forensic psychiatrist, thinks that prisoners may volunteer themselves only to obtain the lighter prison sentence and avoid the responsibility of the crime he or she committed. He also states, " we can achieve the same result pharmacologically, and even reduce testosterone to below surgical castration levels by using long-lasting injections. Surgery should be consigned to the old days." (Smithson) Even in 1985, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that surgical, physical castration was cruel and unusual punishment (Sluder & Roberts, 1993). In this respect, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI's) have recently been used to treat sex offenders. In the past, these drugs were used in the typical treatment of disorders such as depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders. It affects what may be the "most important of the brain chemicals in reducing sexual behaviors." (Smithson) The use of drug treatment for hormonal and chemical imbalances is a reversible procedure, whereas castration is not (Lacayo, 1992).