Opinion on a Bill for Physical Castration of Child Sex Offenders
The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) presented its opinion on a Bill for Physical Castration of Child Rapist (hereinafter, "Physical Castration Bill") and a Partial Amendment Bill for the Criminal Act (hereinafter, "Criminal Act Amendment Bill"), which was proposed by Assemblyman SHIN Sang-Jin (Grand National Party) on January 31, 2011.
The Physical Castration Bill and the Criminal Act Amendment Bill state that ‘physical treatment’ involves physically castrating the sex offenders over the age of 18 who are deemed to have incurable and unrehabilitatable sexual impulses to prevent repeat sex offences. It allows prosecutors to request for physical castration on sex offenders against persons under the age of 16 and the court may grant the request.
The NHRCK expressed its opinion to the Speaker of the National Assembly that the introduction of physical castration as a legal measure would not be recommendable. It may violate the principle of prohibition of excessive restriction, principle of double jeopardy, and principle of non-retroactivity, as well as the human dignity, the right to physical integrity, and the right to self-determination.
Firstly, it was assessed that the offenders would be treated as a subject for crime prevention rather than for re-education and rehabilitation. It is against the principle provided at Article 10 of the Constitution, which assures human worth and dignity.
Secondly, the adoption of physical castration may be in breach of the constitutional prohibition of excessive restriction, which ensures that a measure should be introduced to limit the fundamental human rights to the minimum extent possible. The new measure exceeds the degree of restricting rights compared to other measures such as traceable electronic anklets, chemical castration, their personal information revealed on the Internet.
Thirdly, it reasoned that the measure did not comply with the principle of proportionality. The physical castration causes permanent mutilation on the offender in contrast to its limited public benefit in preventing repeat sex offences.
Fourthly, the physical castration bill allows the request for physical castration on prosecuted cases and those already sentenced, violating the principle of double jeopardy and principle of non-retroactivity.
