The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

All Inmates Should Be Chemically Castrated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,590 times Debate No: 25967
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The problem of prison rape is a real and horrific one. Mostly heterosexual people are put into an enclosed place without the opposite sex. This results in sexual frustration often leading to rape. The high levels of testosterone in male prisons also leads to more crime.

For the sake of sexual equality, we should also chemically castrate women.

Although there may be other chemicals that we could use two examples of castration chemicals include: Depo Provera for men and Tamoxifen for women.

Because it is reversible if the inmate is found innocent and released then they can quit the treatment and their sex drive will come right back. They have no use for it in prison, and requiring it keeps all inmates including ones who were wrongly convicted safe from being raped.


I shall accept the challenge, and I want to thank my partner for having thoughtfully presented it for consideration.

As I understand, I shall be serving as the protector of incarcerated genitalia or fertility. My partner has issued the following argument, which he believes will reduce the amount of prison rape that goes on.

Problem: Prison rape is going on.
Solution: Castration of all inmates.

Proposition 1: Inmates that cannot have children will not do some raping.
Proposition 2: Inmates that are holding less testosterone will not be as frustrated, and will behave better.
Proposition 3: It is fair to castrate women who are not likely to do some raping, if men are also castrated.

I don't want to waste the time of any readers who might be impatient to learn how this contest might unfold. So I will foreshadow somewhat my counter arguments:

1. Inmates that have no penis, and no desire to procreate, still retain some ability to rape up their comrades. Prosthetics, for example, could be used.

2. I suppose an argument could be made here, but as a strategy for crime reduction, there are many other options that are much easier to implement.

3. This argument leaves me speechless. I maintain that it is unfair. I see no way that the logic applies. Pro will simply need to explain this more fully.

Additionally, I will briefly mention a few other items that come to my mind. In no particular order of importance.

4. Rape is not a sex crime, but a violent crime.
5. Isn't forced castration a form of 'rape?'
6. Rape occurs less often in prison than outside the penal system. Why wouldn't the same logic (that forced castration is well advised as a means of crime prevention), not also apply to those not incarcerated?
7. This is not a serious policy proposal. No public official of note is calling for such Hitlerian actions. We would do well to better understand why not - before we begin this discussion.
Debate Round No. 1


Rape is both a violent and a sex crime. It would be significantly more difficult to do if you can't get it up.

Con clearly does not understand the resolution. I am NOT referring to physical castration, I am referring to chemical (and completely reversible) castration that would only affect the inmates while they are in prison.

How can this policy be inhumane? It is just a safety policy. Since inmates aren't allowed to have sex even consentual sex in prison unless it is for conjugal visits (which I would be open to making an exemption for and allowing temporary suspension of chemical castration medications if it was practical).

No harm can come from this policy. Even without technically being eunuchs the inmates would also benefit from the "eunuch calm".
40% of men who opt for voluntary physical castration desire a "eunuch calm" from it.

I am only proposing chemical castration, but since it would lead to the same reduction in hormones I expect similar results. This new state of mind my lead inmates to more calm and more spirituality as well as a climate of peace in prisons rather than the violence and cliquishness that currently ensues. This could lead to a great reduction in recidivism.


I want to thank my partner for the previous submission.

I need to explain that I am aware that we are discussing chemical, not physical castration. However, there are important caveats to this. I can explain, but as of yet have not been called upon to do so. I do have other objections, however, which I will enumerate.

1. The effects of chemical castration may be permanent, and these side effects include bone density loss. These drugs may also be unsafe. [1]

2. This extreme measure is being proposed as a means to control violent behavior, especially rape. However, safer and less extreme measures exist. These include the forced administering of sedatives, relaxants and psycho reactive medications. Pro must explain why these are less attractive alternatives to the sexually humiliating and potentially dangerous proposal that he puts forward.

3. There are non-pharmacological methods of behavior control, such as limiting inmate contact and privacy, that are demonstrably effective in controlling violent actions. Pro must explain why these are less preferable than his proposal - to simply castrate the lot of the American inmate population.

4. The use of these measures has been found to be illegal. [2]

5. Levying this punishment on inmates who have not, and are not likely to commit the violent crime of rape should not be punished as if they had. Forcing this castration upon unwilling inmates is a form of punishment - without due process or even after having been convicted of any crime. Such actions constitute acts of "prior restraint," where an individual is punished for criminal acts 'prior' to having committed them. This practice is unconstitutional. [3]

[1] [2]
Debate Round No. 2


MasturDbtor forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


1. We can deal with bone density loss by giving inmates more calcium.

It should be noted that "sexual reassignment treatments" including female hormones are approved for mtf transsexuals. Would they approve that if it had potential side effects that were too extreme?


In spite of what Con calls "nonpharmacological behavioral controls" in 2001 140,000 people were RAPED while incarcerated.

Con also argues that prior restraint is somehow unconstitutional. Prior restrain is used in many, many cases. We use prior restraint when we check people at the airport and they haven't even been convicted of any crime. We use prior restraint on some mentally ill people, requiring them to take their pills in order to live outside a mental institution. The invasion of Iraq was an example of prior restraint, given that George W. Bush thought they had WMD, and even Obama keeps "prior restraint" on the table as an option for Iran.


I thank my partner for the recent submission.

I shall offer only rebuttals, since my argument is that this change is not required. From this stance, there is no need to explain the status quo - only why the change in question is uneeded.

"It should be noted that "sexual reassignment treatments" including female hormones are approved for mtf transsexuals. Would they approve that if it had potential side effects that were too extreme?"
My partner argues that the efficacy of these medications is appropriate for gender reassignment, and so should therefore be appropriate for behavior modification of inmates.

The link is not made. I argue that gender reasignement is also innapropriate for inmates who do not wish to recieve this surgery. In a similar fashion, although less extreme, inmates should be permitted to retain some control over the type of decision being proposed here.

The "prior restraint" question.
Pro does not offer any actual examples of the legal use of punishing a law abiding citizen for his potential future criminal activity. The examples he cites are irritants, yes, but irritants that are demanded by the public. For example, there is no legal punitive action taken by air travelers who must wait in security lines - these are simple security measures. Castration, especially if other measures are available, is decidedly not a mere security measure. It is a stern punishment in and of itself, many degrees more severe than taking off shoes in an airport.

"In 2001 140,000 people were RAPED while incarcerated."
To say the least, I am suspicious of these claims. As far as I can determine, the 140,000 rapes figure was produced by Human Rights Watch, a reputable organization with a solid track record of data collection. However, in this case, their studies seem to be inadmissable for my partner - these rapes were not all inmate on inmate, but rather, include a significant number of prison gaurd on inmate attacks and coersions. Overwhelmingly, inmate sexual assaults involved juvenile offenders. [1]

Considering this, Pro will need to also argue that prison staff should be castrated, which I anticipate that he will not do.

The remainder of my partner's argument is non sequitur, and off topic.

Debate Round No. 4


MasturDbtor forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
There have been many glitches on this site lately - this is just one of the debates that I am participating in that has had this happen.
Posted by MasturDbtor 4 years ago
Debate Round Forfeited?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: More in depth arguments by con and pro had two forfeits.