The Castration Debate
The castration of sex offenders has been greatly debated with each side making strong points for its use or not. The facts are clear; sex offenders have some of the highest rates of recidivism. For example, child molesters have a 52% of re-offending while rapists a 39% of re-offending (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2001). These statistics show the treatment currently available for sex offenders is not having positive results, or is not available to many sex offenders. Whatever the reason current treatment has not reduced recidivism rates, the lack of results has led many to look to castration as the answer to reduce high rates of sex offender recidivism.
There are three different forms of castration including: surgical, vasectomy and non-surgical chemical castration. Surgical castration is when both testicles are surgically removed and a vasectomy is where a minor surgical procedure where the vasa deferentia (which transport sperm for ejaculation) of a man are severed, and then tied/sealed in a manner such to prevent sperm from entering the seminal stream for ejaculation. While chemical castration is where chemicals (medicine) are given to reduce libido and sexual activity and is not a form of sterilization (Wikipedia: Castration). Specifically, the drug used in chemical castration is Depo-Provera. Today, chemical castration is the form most addressed when talking about castrating sex offenders. The intent of chemical castration is to reduce a man’s sex drive and the ability to get sexual aroused. Statistics on chemical castration have proven that it works in reducing sex offender recidivism but some believe there is a moral principle that should limit the use of castration regardless of its utility.
Some reasons supporters give for castrating sex offenders include castration works, will reduce prison overcrowding and other treatment is not working. The simplest reason for people being in favor of castration is it works. Castration has a very high successes rate in reducing recidivism. According to Wright (1992), “the recidivism rate of sex offenders averages 80 percent before castration, but castration has worked to drop recidivism rates from 84 percent for non-castrated individuals to 2.3 percent for castrated individuals. These studies have also found that 90 percent of men reported they were satisfied with the outcome (Wright, 1992). Since castration reduces recidivism proponents argue it will also lower the prison population. Some supporters propose castration instead of incarceration. A sex offender would have the option to be castrated instead of a lengthy prison sentence. Supporters also believe other treatment is not effective. When compared with castration, other forms of treatment are not as effective. Compared to the 2.3 percent of recidivism of castrated offenders, the 12.8 percent for other kinds of treatment is high. There are no programs that compare to the effectiveness of castration (Wright, 1992). The supporters of castration make a strong case but there are also those who strongly oppose castration.
People opposing castration believe it is morally wrong; a form of cruel and unusual punishment and it does not get at the core of violence and anger surrounding many sex crimes. “As a criminal justice response to the chronic, dangerous sexual psychopath, castration of any kind is morally pernicious and pragmatically impotent. Castration must be rejected on the most essential go grounds: The ‘cure’ will exacerbate the ‘disease’ (Besharov et. al, 1992). People opposing castration believe it is wrong in its self to castrate another human being for any reason. They also oppose castration because they see it as a form of curl and unusual punishment. Their basis for this argument lies in the Eight Amendment, which guards against cruel and unusual punishment. People opposing castration also believe that taking away the sexual physical part of sex offending does not mean a person is cured from the violence behind the crimes. Castration will not remove the source of a violent sex offender’s rage and most sex offenders do not commit their crimes because they can’t help themselves but because they want to (Besharov et. al, 1992). For example, a man in Germany was chemically castrated and in 1980 he strangled and killed a seven year old girl. The castration did not treat his violent aggressive anger. The United States is not the only country having the castration debate but it is also happening in Europe.
Over the past decade the Czech Republic has allowed at least 94 prisoners to be surgically castrated (Bilefsky, 2009). While the Czech Republic believes castration is the best way to tame dangerous sexual predators while other European do not engage in castration. Dr. Martin Holly, a leading sexologist and psychiatrist, said none of the nearly 100 sex offenders who had been physically castrated had committed further offenses (Bilefsky, 2009). Statistics like that cannot be overlooked and prove castration works. However more European countries are debating over the use of chemical castration. “There is intense debate over whose rights take precedence: those of sex offenders, who could be subjected to a punishment that many consider cruel, or those of society, which expects protection from sexual predators” (Bilefsky, 2009). Poland is on the verge of giving judges the power to impose chemical castration on some pedophiles. Whichever side of the castration debate European countries decided to land on, I believe depends more on who is making the decisions and not on whether or not castration works. Evidence clearly shows castration will and does stop sex offenders.
I believe castration is a viable solution for some sex offenders and not others, therefore society has to draw a line between which types of sex offenders are going to be castrated and which ones are going to receive other forms of treatment. I believe there is too much evidence that castration works for it not to be used on sex offenders. Needless to say the debate will be an ever continuing one.
References
Besharov, Douglas J, & Vachhs, Andrew. (1992). Sex Offenders. ABA Journal, 78, 42.
Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 8728461).
Bilefsky, D. (2009, March 11). Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
Castration. (n.d.) In Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org.
Center for Sex Offender Management (2001). Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Retrieved from
Wright, L. (1992). The Case for Castration. Texas Monthly.
No comments:
Post a Comment