Castration may be the outlet for reducing recidivism rates for sexual offenders. For this purpose, castration is useful because crime in general is “based on high levels of testosterone,” and if one is castrated then his testosterone level will drastically drop (Girard, as cited in Wright, 1992, p.78). The male’s testosterone level determines a male’s body shape as well as produces aggressiveness (Girard, as cited in Wright, 1992, p.78). By castrating a sexual offender there is potential that it could possibly eliminate the aggressive impulses in males and also could create an opportunity for these sexual offenders to be successful in rehabilitation and may even become good citizens (Girard, as cited in Wright, 1992, p.78). With little or no testosterone, a sexual offender may realize that they have no reason to re-offend in any sexual manner. Dr. John Bradford from the Royal Ottawa Hospital in Canada stated, “that as a rule, recidivism rate of sex offenders averages 80 percent before castration, [and] drops to less than 5 percent afterwards” (Wright, 1992, p.81). With this finding, it seems that castration may be the logical procedure, since rehabilitation, education, and counseling does not create a recidivism percentage anywhere close to being that low.
Although castration does seem logical, as it reduces recidivism rates, critics believe that if done at all it should not be voluntary. Serious sexual offenders should not be able to choose whether or not to be castrated, and if castrated should still be sent to prison for their required sentence. Merely castrating a man will take away a man’s sex drive, but that does not make him any more of a good person (Wright, 1992, p.83). Critics of castration believe that sexual offenders have both psychological and physical problems. Castrating a man may take away the drive to be sexual with their victim, but serious sexual offending men also psychologically mess with their victims by taunting and threatening. Serious sexual offenders are also ones who tend to physically hurt their victims. Castrating may lower their likelihood to physically hurt other victims, but the possibility will never completely vanish.Castrating serious sexual offenders may be the only effective answer for sexual offenders. There are other programs such as rehabilitation, counseling, and other forms of treatment that prison systems give to some sexual offenders, but nothing has been proven to be really successful. In Texas prisons, there are nearly eight thousand sexual offenders who are confined for indecent exposure, sex with minors, incest, aggravated sexual assault, and rape. Out of those eight thousand sexual offenders, only two hundred are receiving counseling (Wright, 1992, p. 77). This is just one example on how little faith our prison system has on these therapeutic solutions. If prison systems made it a requirement for egregious sex offenders to be castrated, as well as serve their prison sentence, recidivism rates for pedophiles and rapists might drastically drop. The reason for this argument is because no victim wants to see their offender get out of a lengthy prison sentence because they were castrated. Victims are emotionally and physically distraught by the trauma that they have gone through and the last thing they want to find out is that their offender was let out of his prison sentence because he was castrated. Although castration has not been proven to completely diminish the want to sexually assault someone, research has shown that the recidivism rate of those who have been castrated drops tremendously.
Making castration a requirement for egregious sexual offenders may be beneficial for our society. It may also be beneficial to offer voluntary castration to other offenders who cannot control their sexual urges. In order to make this procedure a voluntary decision, the offenders cannot be egregious sex offenders. Voluntary castration could be based on the seriousness of the offense and the amount of years someone has been sentenced to prison. If the prison sentence is not long term, castration could be offered to those sexual offenders to have the alternative of either choosing castration or serving their prison sentence. Those who are egregious sexual offenders, and have sentences of thirty-seven years, should not have the right to choose castration as a viable alternative to serving their lengthy term (Vanderzyl, 1994, p.84).Although castration should not be rejected as “an unacceptable, ineffective and unconstitutional alternative” (Vanderzyl, 1992, p. 89), it should be used as a mechanism to help the people in our society feel safer. Castration should be a voluntary procedure for those who are not egregious sexual offenders but should be a requirement for egregious sexual offenders, such as pedophiles and rapists. Castration would help lower the sexual drive, that sexually offending men have, and could potentially eliminate those egregious or non-egregious sexual offenders from re-offending. Castration is not necessarily a viable alternative to a therapeutic solution; they go hand in hand. Sexual offenders should have rehabilitation, or counseling, whether they are castrated or not in order to prevent them from re-offending and putting innocent people in danger. It is the duty of the prison system to declare our society a safe place. In order to do this, we must take the right steps to prevent sexual offenders from engaging in those illicit sexual behaviors. It is reasonable to acknowledge that castration, although seen as immoral and unjust to some, may be a practical way to help “cure” sexual offenders from their disease of sexually offending.
References
Castration Definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/castration.
