Castration As Punishment (Oct 2008) Llowell Williams

Today, in modern America, we deal with our criminals in mostly basic ways: through payment of a debt (in the form of money or time) or a punishment (imprisonment or, for the most severe crimes, execution). This paper discusses a highly unique but controversial form of punishment: castration (namely, of sex offenders). There are those who argue for and against, but as it stands, most of the modern world does not have any form of castration-as-punishment, either voluntary or involuntary. This immediately speaks to the controversial nature of such a punishment. However, there are proponents of castration (at least of a voluntary nature) who claim it to be an effective and just institution. Lawrence Wright explains his position of supporting castration. Some convicted sex offenders have sought voluntary castration, in exchange for a shortened prison sentence. Such offenders claim that castration is the only way to change their (as they claim) uncontrollable behavior that causes them to commit illegal acts. Wright shows evidence from studies that seem to indicate that castration causes an increase in the effective prevention of repeated offenses. Some reason that since castration greatly reduces the release of the testosterone hormone, offenders are no longer as driven to aggression, and their unhealthy sex drive is curbed (which would make castration a form of incapacitationin theory, at least, the offender will be unable to commit such acts again). Although such an argument approaches the issue from the perspective of castration as a means of incapacitation (since, as it would seem, castration lowers or removes the potential for repeated offenses), advocates may try to claim it as a form of rehabilitation: helping the offender to become a more balanced and normal person. However, castration alone cannot be seen as rehabilitation, unless it is coupled with rehabilitative programs.

The positive results of the various studies on castration have lead Wright and other supporters to claim that it is a form of treatment that is more effective and beneficial than current programs. They cite statistics that display the low rate of success of current rehabilitative programs and their effort to prevent sex offenders from committing repeated offenses. If combined with therapy and rehabilitation, castration, Wright says, can significantly increase the success of such programs. Some convicted sex offenders even talk about how they would prefer to have the option to be voluntarily castrated in exchange for a lessened prison sentence. Others say that being castrated may grant them a freedom from the impulses that cause them to commit offenses in the first place. Wright and others argue that it is important to implement castration in such a way; to use and view castration as a form of retribution would be erroneous and non-beneficial. Implemented as a form of rehabilitation, it is believed that castration can be effective in curing sex offenders of their criminal tendencies. He argues that even though mandatory castration may be a bit extreme, voluntary castration should be implemented for those who seek it. Naturally, there are those who refute these kinds of arguments, opposing castration all together. Vanderzyl argues against castration for a number of reasons. She explains the danger of institutionalizing castration, stating that it could be the opening of a doorway to state sponsored eugenics, something potentially dangerous to civil liberties. Vanderzyl goes on to propose that castration would be a violation of Constitutionally protected rights. The Eight Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual treatment, and she argues that castration qualifies as both. Many view castration as a form of physical mutilation, an affront to a right to procreation, and a method of degradation. Using these definitions, castration is not only a violation of the Constitution, but a human rights violation in general. Critics of rehabilitative castration say that such a procedure doesn't account for other factors that affect an offender's behavior. Many sex offenders have a violent and hateful nature which can/will persist. Castration may even reinforce such unhealthy mentalities. It may reinforce the idea that they

are the victim and make them an angrier person. It is likely that, although they may not commit another sex offense, they will vent these frustrations through different criminal behavior. Studies on the sex offenders who've undergone castration and their lives afterward have come under criticism as well. Such critics point out that these studies that focus on the habits of castratees after release only monitor their subjects for a short time, and do not factor into their propensity towards non-sexually based criminal behavior. Vanderzyl also suggest that castration misses the point entirely. Sex crimes rarely have anything to do with sexual motivations. Rather, it's a form of exerting power over someone else and/or exhibiting hatred/anger towards women or children. Taking away the sex drive and the ability to reproduce wouldn't have much an affect on a person with such motives. Instead, the problems lie with a mental illness or some sort of metal distortion that needs to be addressed with counseling and therapeutic rehabilitation. Although Wright makes some good arguments in support of institutionalized castration, it is hard to look past the drastic nature of such a punishment. Criticisms of the studies relating to the incapacitative effectiveness of castration point out flaws of such studies. To properly argue that it is more effective than current treatment of sex offenders, a better, more comprehensive study needs to be done. Beyond that, there is little that can be argued either way with any form of empirical evidence. Effectiveness aside, one must turn to the moral and philosophical nature of castration. Those who argue that castration is a form of cruel and unusual punishment (as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment) must address the cases where convicted sex offenders actually request themselves to be castrated voluntarily. Such people were quoted several times in the selection, stating their various reasons behind such a desire. One offender believes that being castrated will help him control himself, and prevent him from committing more offenses. This seems to imply two things: 1. The offender is not really responsible for his actions and 2. These actions are motivated entirely or mostly by hormones and sex drive. To disassociate the offender from his offense, would seem to actually be

counterproductive in their rehabilitation. To not take responsibility for actions may lead to a repeat of offenses. Also, to imply that hormones and sex drive have such a powerful influence in a human devalues the very nature of humanity: the ability to think independently and have freewill. These two implications seem rather flawed. Another offender explains that he would be voluntarily castrated in order to avoid prison. This seems obvious that the offender is simply opting for the route of least pain (at least in his opinion); not anything else. This undermines what would be the purpose of castration, and is more of an example of someone acting with restricted agency rather than someone freely choosing castration. It is highly doubtful anyone would freely castrate themselves if they were not given the option to do it (after being convicted, of course). In essence, castration seems to be questionably effective and can qualify as cruel and unusual. Even though Wright maintains that it is not a form of retribution, it's hard to imagine those in favor of castration not at least having that in their minds as a factor. Why not castrate violent criminals like murders or children abusers? Wouldn't the lowered testosterone prevent such crimes? Such arguments aren't even considered, likely because, even though they may not admit it, castration supporters likely see castration as fitting the crime in a sort of poetic justice: a form of retribution. Instead of turning to extreme and rather archaic forms of punishment, we need to find less radical ways to rehabilitate sex offenders.