In the American court system, almost anything can happen, and sometimes does. This article is about a man called Hazard Campbell, his lawyers, an opposing lawyer, a controversial medical treatment, and a United States Representative.

Mr. Campbell was the criminal. He entered the American justice system by being arrested for rape, and, like any accused person, he was entitled to a lawyer. Barney Brannen and Michael Hanley were his lawyers.

The opposing attorney was Windsor County (VT) State's Attorney Robert Sand.

Mr. Campbell stood before a judge in a Brattleboro court room and said that he was not guilty. His lawyers said they would rely on an insanity defense if the matter reached trial.

The charges were stiff.

In 1977, said the State's Attorney, Mr. Campbell had attempted to kidnap a Middlebury college student who was out jogging. The women fought him off.

He also was accused of following a Westminister, VT, woman to her house and attacking her. This woman also managed to fight her way free.

Campbell then allegedly tried his hand at nabbing another female jogger, and this time he was more successful. He allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and raped a 26 year old woman.

Shortly afterwards, the cops nabbed him. That was in November 1998. Three Vermont counties had filed charges against him.

Mr. Hazard soon settled into a daily rhythm as an inmate at the Woodstock jail, and the wheels of justice continued to turn. Eventually, the district court judge told Hazard's lawyers that they should either make a deal or get ready for a two-week trial. The lawyers then went to talk with their client, and a deal was reached.

Mr. Hazard would plead "no contest" in exchange for treatment for his sexual compulsion and a 25 year prison term. The treatment was to be in a Canadian facility that specializes in psychosexual disorders, and Hazard would also consent to a procedure called "chemical castration."

State's Attorney Sands professed satisfaction with the deal. It would prevent the victims from having to testify, and, with Hazard being 43, it was probable that he would spend the rest of his days in jail.

Chemical castration entered the public's awareness when California approved its use for sexual offenders. Without going into a lot of detail, the procedure involves getting injections of depo-provera, a drug more commonly used for birth control in women. It has the effect of depressing the sex drive in men, perhaps drastically.

Quoting from Barbara Cramer's webpage on this topic: "It is totally reversible (just discontinue injections), does not deprive the recipient of the ability or enjoyment of sexual encounters nor does it deprive them of the right to procreate."

At a California State University at Northridge website, LaLaunie Hayes writes: "Chemical castration is an ideal punishment for sex offenders. When Depo-Provera is administered, recidivism rates fall to 5%. Their sexual fantasies are lessened as a result of the reduction of testosterone levels. Although men administered this drug are capable of having sexual intercourse, many people argue that chemical castration is cruel and unusual punishment. This argument is countered by the fact that sex offenders are required to get injections only once a month. What is 'cruel and unusual' is allowing sex offenders to attack innocent women and children. This effective therapy will protect future victims. It is an 'offender friendly' way of reducing sexual violence."

Laura Matthies, at this same site, counters: "Chemical castration is not an acceptable form of punishment for male sex offenders, however. Many people argue that chemical castration is 'cruel and unusual punishment,' but others are more concerned with the ramifications of this kind of treatment. Chemical castration as a cure for a disease may be simplistic because it implies that sex crimes are a result of a medical condition. While depo-provera may be effective in lowering sex drive, administering this drug does not address the real motivation behind this behavior. Furthermore, there is no proven effective "cure" for pedophiles, which means that chemical castration has no value for these criminals. Another criticism is the lack of uniform guidelines for use of chemical castration across the states. And what incentives are available to insure that criminals will continue treatment once they are released from custody?"

Charles Bass, New Hampshire's incumbent Second District Representative, was embroiled in a political race for his office with Democratic opponent Barney Brannen, one of the lawyers that represented Hazard Campbell.

Things got interesting on the evening of the primary. Someone, and the world may never know who, sent out anonymous mail that attacked Brannen for having represented Campbell.

As the Concord Monitor reported it, "Bass denied having anything to do with the mailings and telephone calls, yet he fully embraced the substance of the attack. "I don't want to lecture, but what is right and what is wrong is sometimes a major factor in how we vote (in Congress)," Bass told the Union Leader. "I would never represent a monster like this fellow."

One wonders if elected officials promise to protect and uphold the constitution in New Hampshire's Second District, because in the rest of this great country, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Even a person like Hazard Campbell.
 

Barbara Kramer: Chemical Castration

California State University at Northridge: "Is chemical castration an acceptable punishment for male sex offenders?"   Yes     No

Portsmouth Herald: Accused rapist to undergo "chemical castration"

Concord Monitor: Bass delivers a blow that's too low

Charles Bass: United States Representive R-NH

Kudzu Monthly urges our readers to provide feedback for our authors. If you would like to comment on this article, you can enter your comments in the form below. They will be added to this page.