Should Serious Sex Offenders be Castrated [please include the two main types of castration]? Why do you agree or disagree with the question? What would be your determination for castration? Does castration work? Is it good social policy? | Castration is the removal of male testes resulting in sterility, decreased sexual desire and inhibition of secondary sex characteristics such as hair growth and deepening of the voice. Castration in humans is sometimes necessary for some cancer prevention or as punishment related to sex crimes.
Chemical and Surgical Castration Chemical Castration Under medical supervision anti-androgen drugs are injected under a multi-week treatment. With lower testosterone levels most men will experience a reduced sex drive, arousal and sexual thoughts. On sexual offenders Depo-Provera a progestin shot is used this chemical castration does not remove the testicles and if the chemical treatment is used to discontinued his testosterone and sperm production may resume.
Surgical Castration. In surgical castration a surgeon makes an incision in the scrotum and pulls out the vas deferens duct until the testicle is completely exposed. The vas deferens is knotted and cut than the testicle is removed. The remaining vas deferens is packed back into the scrotum. After the doctor stitches up the incision then repeats the same procedure to the other testicle. Pros and Cons about Castration Pros * A sexual offence is one of the worst kinds of crime one can commit, damaging there victims both physically and mentally.
For such a horrific crime a suitable punishment is needed. Castration fits the bill perfectly. It has been shown that for many sex offenders the crime is caused by both psychological and physical urges no rational counseling will prevent repetition of a sex crime. Castration does not only stop further sexual crimes witch is the main purpose of this punishment but it is one of the strongest preventative for sex offenders. * Castration will help the offenders by freeing them from the urges that motivate them to commit a sex crime.
Numerous court testimonies have shown that many sex offenders would like to be free of these urges but can not control their actions and a chemical cure can free them from the urge. * Castration will also help the widespread panic about the sex related crimes. At the moment there a huge number of sex offenders and them being “named and shamed” in publicity also harassed by mobs and are subjected to a large amount of violence in prison from other inmates. If castration is introduced the public would know that the sex offender is no longer such a big threat and they are able to move on with their lives.
Cons * The U. S. legal system works on the basis of non-physical punishments for crimes committed. What would happen is the suspect was later acquitted? The castration process could not be reversed. * Even if castration is combined with jail time this treatment is not as effective as prolonging psychotherapy. Also others might see as getting off easy and giving these sex offenders a break. * Castration would not end public anxiety, just as a murder in rehabilitation wouldn’t put the neighbors as ease. Castration wouldn’t end prison violence and indeed any other violence because it is not motivated by fear of the offender repeating the offence but by the desire to punish them further for the original crime. Castration would not work under these circumstances. Castration often fails Given the damage sex offenders do to their victim’s castration doesn’t sound like such a bad idea. There was a case I read about, where a judge ordered a first time sex offender to undergo chemical treatment after finishing with his 20 year sentence and for a ten year probation period he had to take regular injections to reduce his sex drive.
It was obvious the judge still feared that this man would still be a threat to society even after serving time. What happens after the 10 years and if the offender chooses to stop taking the treatment? In another case I read a sex offender voluntarily started with the chemical treatment almost two decades ago and pleaded guilty yet to another sexual assault but this time she was a five year old girl and all his lawyer could say was that his client stopped taking the chemical treatments.
Prisoners opt for Castration. There is an extreme high rise in sexual predators that are opting to under go this procedure in order to reduce their sentencing. Could this procedure back fire? These sexual offenders understand better than the rest of us that a sexual abuse has little to do with sex its self but more to do with physical domination. Castration isn’t likely to stop a sex offender from committing these acts but would only change the way they go about their crimes. It’s not their testicles that cause them to commit sexual crimes but it’s in their heads.
A better alternative Instead of locking away these sexual predators for long periods of time and giving them the option of castration there should be a much more helpful alternative such as high security mental facilities where they came get psychiatric help with a combination of drugs that reduce their sex drive. While chemical castration can turn off the physical urges for a time psychological counseling is needed to help them with the mental addiction and with out it they are more likely to repeat an offence.
I have put much thought into my answer and have came to a conclusion that I think it would be best if any sex offender a first time or a repeat offender should automatically have to get the castration procedure done along with psychological counseling. I feel this way because the psychological counseling would help with the mental addiction and the castration would help to slow down or stop the sexual urge as well as maybe teach them a lesson that it is a privilege to keep there “goods” intact. References http://debatepedia. idebate. org/en/index. php/Debate:_Castration_of_sex_offender
