Q&A: Chemical Castration for a Pedophile
Chemical Castration for a Pedophile
Question
Hello and blessings,
There is a halakhic ruling here: http://halacha.co/%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C/#_ftnref1
It is worth reading the notes there as well.
It says there that chemical castration is prohibited by Torah law, and therefore according to Jewish law he should be imprisoned permanently.
The question can be asked in two forms. There is a hypothetical situation in which “Jewish authority is strong,” and the judge has to decide how to deal with an accused pedophile: whether to imprison him or castrate him.
A second situation is like the question there: the pedophile comes to ask for advice about how to act so that he will not stumble. It is hard to imagine a situation in which he would voluntarily agree to sit in prison, or at least publicize his weaknesses so that people would be on guard against him.
How would you rule in each of these cases? And would you take his personal situation into account (married / unmarried, has children / does not have children)?
Answer
First, in my humble opinion he has the status of a pursuer, and just as it is permitted to kill him—which is a more severe prohibition—it is permitted to castrate him. True, one could discuss the issue from the angle that perhaps he can be stopped by injuring one of his limbs—that is, by putting him in prison—but in my humble opinion there is no obligation to do that, because he then becomes a burden on the public. Just imagine: if there is a serial pursuer, would we permit killing him, or would we forbid it and require posting guards over him day and night? This is the law of an informer, whom they permitted killing (even one who informs about money), and the halakhic decisors wrote that this is because he repeats the offense again and again.
In particular, if we understand that the prohibition of castration exists in order that he fulfill the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, then if he sits in prison he will not fulfill that anyway (and that is just as well, because he would not be able to care for his children).
If the problem is the pedophile himself who comes for advice, then seemingly there is no room to permit him to violate a prohibition (this is not like our consideration when he is viewed as a pursuer with respect to society as a whole, as discussed above). But perhaps one should take into account that he is like someone acting under compulsion, and therefore perhaps there is no distinction, and even he himself is permitted to undergo castration. After all, this is no worse than surgery, which is permitted even where there is no danger to life, in order to improve our lives, even though surgery involves the prohibition of wounding oneself. The Igrot Moshe and the Achiezer have already discussed this at length, and the matter is well known.
Bottom line, it seems obvious to me that it is permitted and proper to subject him to castration.
Discussion on Answer
He is a pursuer not because of the transgression but because of the harm he is expected to cause the minor.
The comparison to rape is obvious, and that is at the root of what I wrote. That is what I meant. It is not an “interesting argument” but the point itself.
True, the original source there is the rape of a betrothed young woman (that is, there is also the dimension of prohibition), but they have already discussed that ordinary rape too has the status of a pursuer.
To continue: actually, this comparison is brought in the Talmud in order to prove that someone pursuing in order to rape is a “pursuer,” and one may save the victim at the pursuer’s expense, just like someone pursuing to murder. The question is whether the comparison teaches that sexual coercion should be regarded as murder. And what about a case where the coercion is not physical, but seduction, or extortion by threats (as in many cases of pedophilia)?
I meant to clarify my question, and you beat me to it…
What is the source that someone who causes harm (psychological harm) without the dimension of a prohibition is a pursuer? Where is this discussed?
Thank you very much
For example, in pursuit of money, as in the law of an informer that I mentioned. Psychological harm is certainly no less serious than monetary loss. See also my article on killing a thief.
They even permit violating the Sabbath because of an eye ailment, and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam disagreed whether that is considered a danger to life or not. And regarding spiritual danger to life, Tosafot and Rashba disagreed (see an article by Rabbi Israeli in Techumin 1 or 2).
And I also mentioned that here we are not talking about killing, but about a prohibition that is at most a negative commandment (and in my humble opinion there is no negative commandment here).
And putting him in prison is also a prohibition (confining someone in a cell).
It should be noted that there are additional grounds for leniency here (with regard to what is defined as the prohibition of “drinking a cup of sterility-inducing potion”)—namely, that the castration is temporary and lasts only as long as the medication is taken, and that it does not damage the reproductive organs, especially since the intention is to prevent a transgression. See the Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, entry: Eunuch / Sterility.
When you determined that a pedophile has the status of a “pursuer,” did you mean only one who actually commits a Torah prohibition in the full sense—penetrative intercourse and male homosexual intercourse—or also someone who behaves like many pedophiles in our time, who do not reach that point? Do such people also have the status of a “pursuer,” and if so, why?
I heard an interesting argument from someone that rape has the status of murder, since the Torah equated them: “For as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, so is this matter.” What do you think?