ost regrettably, it seem to be true that once a pedophile, then always a pedophile.  Upon reflection, though, it is easy enough to see why this might be true.  From the outset, the pedophile’s sexual interest is so distorted and warped as to be beyond the pale.  Surely, a part of what makes sex enjoyable—part of what animates us and gives rise to a longing—is that the person with whom we are having sex appreciates (at least to some extent) what we are doing.  That is why sex is generally preferable to masturbation.  For no matter how much relief masturbation can bring, the activity of masturbation pales in comparison to the satisfaction that comes with having one’s sexual gestures appreciated by another.

No child can have that kind of appreciation.  And no one can possibly think that a child could have that kind of appreciation.  In this respect, the pedophile is more incomprehensible than the rapist, who is incomprehensible enough.  For the rapist can entertain the warped thought that “X would in fact want me if only X had me”.  With a child, however, even this warped thought makes no sense at all. 

The pedophile, then, is essentially a person whose sexual desires have been misconfigured beyond repair.  And this is so on two accounts.  One pertains to the object of the desire, namely a child; the other pertains to acting upon that desire.  A person might recognize that her or his desire for something is disgusting and that realization suffices for the individual to refrain from acting upon that desire.  This sort of psychological structure does not exist with the pedophile.  The pedophile is not at all repulsed by the fact that the object of his sexual desire is a child who can have no appreciation whatsoever for the sex act. 

Now, if this were not bad enough there is the issue of the damage that child sexual abuse does to the child.  The act of pedophilia is a profound violation of a child’s trust.  Children look to adults for affirmation.  There is simply no respect in which a child looks to an adult for sexual gratification.  And this any adult can grasp with a modicum of reflection.  The pedophilia turns the child’s desire to be affirmed by him into an opportunity for sexual gratification.  Therein lies the profound breach of the child’s trust. 

What, then, is the appropriate moral and social response to the person who has committed an act of pedophilia?  The proper answer has to be tied to the recognition that pedophilia is not a crime like others. 

Stealing is wrong; murder is wrong.  Just so, we can understand how a person might have a motive for either of these acts, where the motive does not thereby constitute a misconfiguration of the soul.  If, for example, you killed my wife and children, then my desire to murder you, far from constituting a misconfiguration of my soul, may in fact be ever so natural.  And one can, in fact, steal as form of moral outrage, as when prices are exorbitantly high.  Notice, though, that if you abused my child sexually, it would never cross my mind to get even by abusing your child sexually.  That would be an utterly obnoxious thought.  Yet, if you murdered a member of my family getting even in a like way is at least a possible thought. 

The act of pedophilia is not a wrong like others.  Accordingly, a different response in the form of punishment is appropriate.  This is where the idea of chemical castration comes into the picture. 

In a 1997 response to the idea of chemical castration, the ACLU had this to say:

Mandatory chemical castration interferes with an offender’s fundamental right to procreate and the right to refuse medical treatment (my italics)

The very idea of pedophiles having a right to procreate ought to be an oxymoron, since precisely what arises is the issue of the pedophile sexually abusing her or his very own child. 

There is much to be said for being mindful of the rights of the criminal.  However, there is nothing whatsoever to be said for pedophiles procreating, precisely because they would do serious moral and psychological damage to their own child.

For you see, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the pedophile will say “Wait a minute.  Enough is enough.  The idea of causing such damage to my very own child is so utterly repulsive that I would rather die than do such a thing.  Someone else’s child is one thing; but my very own child: absolutely out of the question”.  Had we any reason to think that pedophiles would reason in this way, then the ACLU’s statement cited above might have a point.  But we do not.  And that is what makes the ACLU’s statement both utterly ludicrous and morally bankrupt.  Defending a pedophile’s right to procreate is tantamount to defending the right to put a child in harm’s way. 

There is also the claim on the part of the ACLU that castrating pedophilia is a form of eugenics.  All that I can say in response is that this is a morally irresponsible use of the language.  It is an instance of playing fast and loose with language.  The idea behind eugenics is that of creating a certain kind of group or race of people.  The chemical castration of pedophiles bears no semblance at all to that idea.  Indeed, doing so is not even about preventing the birth of other pedophiles.  Rather, it is about preventing harm to children. 

Now, to be sure, there are important issues to be addressed with respect to chemical castration.  If it harms the pedophile by, for instance, ruining the individual’s liver or giving the individual diabetes, then that would be a serious strike against the procedure.  If, in general, chemical castration shortened the life-span of the pedophile, then that would be a problem. 

Might there be good moral or health reasons for not imposing chemical castration absolutely?  Absolutely.  But one of them is surely not, as the ACLU claims, that the pedophile has a right to procreate.  Nor is it that doing so amounts to none other than the introduction of eugenics in society.  There is no parallel at all to, say, ridding the society of this group or that group or in order to create a superior group of people.  Eugenics is not about committing a morally reprehensible act.  Rather, it is the thesis that a group of individuals are of a morally reprehensible kind simply in virtue of their being of that kind, and so irrespective of the decency of the lives that these individuals may or may not live.  Nazi Germany was not about killing only the bad Jews?  Why?  Because one was a bad Jew simply in virtue of being Jew.  Pedophiles are not a race of people who live upright lives.  Rather, a pedophile is by definition someone one who sexually abuses children. 

Once more, the ACLU would be right to point out that life is full of risks and that we are not entitled to restrict the freedom and rights of individuals merely because there is a risk that a person might do something wrong.  After all, that will always be true.  I might become a crack-head next year, although presently I would not recognize crack if one served it to me. 

Alas, the pedophile is not simply someone who might do something that is harmful to a child because he does something else such as consume too much alcohol that, in turn, dims his perception of the harm that he is doing to the child.  No, the pedophile is by definition one whose psyche is configured in such a way that he has a sexual preference for children, which he seems prepared to satisfy no matter what.  The very idea that this sort of individual has a right to procreate is easily one or the most morally obnoxious ideas ever advanced by the ACLU.   

Chemical castration, at least the idea of it, is a morally appropriate response to one of the most horrific harms, namely sexual abuse, that a child can suffer.  To hear the ACLU tell it, one would never know that the act of pedophilia constitutes a most egregious, and often permanent, harm to the child, as ne’er a word is uttered in this regard.  This may not make the ACLU evil.  But it does, in this instance, make the ACLU a handmaiden of evil. 

France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, is in favor of chemic castration for pedophiles.  In this regard, I think of Sarkozy as a compassionate realist.  It would, of course, be absolutely wonderful if one could say to the pedophile "Stop that ! ! !  You are hurting innocent children" and the pedophile would indeed change his or her behavior for the better.  But we now know, unlike once upon a time, that in this regard the pedophile does not have an effective moral conscience nor an effective will (to use the felicitious expression by the philosophy Harry Frankfurt).  Against the background: President Sarkozy's proposal of chemical castration is a morally compassionate response to the horror of what a pedophile is like, a response that recognizes that the right to liberty correctly in this instance takes a back seat to the well-being of the innocent child.