Amazon.com Widgets

Isn't castration the most logical solution for rehabilitating repeat sex offenders?

  • Castration not enough; penectomy is needed too.

    Sex offenders, most specifically those who rape, should not only have their testicles removed, but their penis too (if male, and the majority of rape cases are committed by males).
    In this case, rape (in the conventional sense) can't be committed by the offender again. It also acts as a deterant to those who would commit it, as the punishment is permanent and well-fitting of the crime committed.
    Castration, as put to in other arguments, can be got around, and with a penis still remaining, rape can be committed again. Without a penis, it cannot, not with the same devastating effects.

  • Testicles provide most of the need for sexual activity.

    Various statistics seem to support that removal of the testicles significantly reduces or eliminates a males urgent uncontrolled lust for sexual intercourse to release the need. Records from European and USA historical use of castration seems to make the offenders less aggressive and in some cases castrated offenders feel that they have benefitted from not having testicles.

  • A to others

    There is no point housing offenders in prison and costing the taxpayers millions of pounds. Neither is there any point using expensive chemicals which also cost. Surgical castration is the answer. A one off operation that removes the ability forever. However, the offender MUST be absolutely guilty without any shadow of doubt.

  • Without testosterone replacement

    As a man who has had both testicles removed, I can say for a fact that removing the testicles removes sexual desire. However if the person has access to testosterone and takes it in large doses then sexual aggression can be increased.

    This is an important issue. Just removing the testicles from the male is not really enough. Removing the penis as well probably would not be enough either. If the reason for rape is not strictly based on sexual desire or sexual need then it will not be effective.

    Thus likely surgical intervention (bilateral orchiectomy) plus monitoring to ensure no testosterone is taken would be necessary.

  • Bad question begets bad answers

    There is no known method of rehabilitating rapists, if by rehabilitation you mean altering their state of mind such that they no longer desire to rape. Castration removes the means to rape and sanely ignores their unalterable state of mind. Operate and let them go. The punishment is the cure.

  • Yes, yes, yes.

    The question is asking about repeat sex offenders. Someone who is a "repeat" offender would not be "innocent." People who argue about rape being about power and control miss the point that taking the offender's power and control (i.E. His sex organs) would remove the perverse sexual pleasure the offender gets from his acts. Finally, when children are involved, particularly involving child porn or admissions or guilty pleas, etc, castration should be the first option, followed by prison.

  • The ratio of reform is too low

    These people are not capable of true reform. You can't change their twisted desires. Thus, it is only logical to put castration on the table as a fit punishment to protect those who cannot protect themselves. As a parent I will always put the right of my child to be unmolested above any claim to human rights.

  • True justice is the easiest solution

    These poor people seem to just keep doing the same thing over and over again. Simple quick fix in my opinion. The best way to cure these individuals is to take the gun out of the murderer's hand. No ammunition, no one gets hurt. Too many innocent people and children are affected with this saddening life change that is practicality irreversible. No one should have through what these poor children/individuals have have experienced.

  • Castration has PROVEN to to efficient

    To quote a source "Physical castration appears to be highly effective as, historically, it results in a 20-year re-offense rate of less than 2.3% vs. 80% in the untreated control group, according to a large 1963 study involving a total of 1036 sex offenders by the German researcher A. Langel├╝ddeke, among others, much lower than what was otherwise expected." Clearly, they can't be rehabilitated by any onther means.
    I do agree that there are SOME cases where an innocent person is convicted, but the law isn't ever black and white, so arguing that way is rather simpleminded. I rather say that this can be given as punishment, when the evident is very strong, and for repeat offenders.

  • The obvious answer is yes

    If sex offenders were castrated we wouldn't have to worry about them continuously attacking. This punishment would also scare other potential sex offenders into not attacking. The way I see it is that if they can make someone feel hurt and pain from such acts, then they should fully live up to the consequences and no other punishment is more suitable.

  • There Are 2 Problems With This

    There are two problems with this: 1. If we're talking "physical castration" if the person turned out to be innocent we would've done irreversible damage to them.
    &
    2. Violent sex offenses are typically about power and control not primarily sexual pleasure. Taking away the testicles isn't going to help if the person has some perverse desire to dominate and control an unconsenting victim.

  • Castration is simply not a reliable option.

    There have been many cases in which those who have been castrated still commit violent sexual crimes. This is because sex alone isn't the issue, it is powered, fortified, and driven by the desire of power and domination. Let's face it people: sex is affluent to come by in today's society.

  • Not the best way, and in fact, it is a sin to take away what God has given them.

    To take away one's genitals is too much. It is always wrong to take away something irreplaceable. Let's say this man took away one's virginity. Though virginity may not be replaceable, does that mean making it fair by taking away the man's genital is right? Does that mean you should take something away from someone else too? No. If rape is wrong, castration is also wrong. I would suggest, counseling as the best punishment. Make the enemies your friends is the best weapon.

  • Corporal punishment is wrong

    Corporal punishment is inhumane, immoral and just damn wrong in our times. Period. Like many people are saying, there are zillions of factors behind the social phenomenon we call rape, and castrating criminals means little more than circumvention of the true causes while probably forcing rapists into even more horrendous and perverted crime.

  • Castration is not logical, because it is mutilation of a person's sex drive.

    Even though castration may have the capability of removing a person's sex drive, this is a tortuous and extreme method of doing so that is irrevocable. If there is a way to have sex offenders rehabilitated, while maintaining their normal sex lives, then they still have the possibility of a normal sex life in the future. But, with castration, this would never be possible.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • I disagree that castration is the most logical solution for rehabilitating sex offenders because one can sexually abuse another without a penis.

    There is a psychological element to those who are sex offenders that cannot be cured by simple castration and studies have shown that castration does not inhibit the desire to offend. For example there are rapists who cannot achieve or maintain an erection but it doesn't stop them from violating their victims with inanimate objects. Unfortunately sex offenders can't be rehabilitated either with counseling or castration. The best way to protect society from these people is to lock them up and throw away the key.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • Castration is not necessarily the best solution to rehabilitate sex offenders as, depending on the nature of their perversion, they may offend in other ways.

    Castration, usually applied chemically, can be an option for treating sex offenders, since some offenders report a decrease in their urges to perform perverted acts after this chemical adjustment, and sometimes even choose the treatment themselves. It is a not a universal option, however, depending on the individual offender. For many, it will not decrease their sadistic urges. These offenders could still commit offensive acts without functioning sexual organs, which are by no means a necessity for violating someone. The applicability of castration depends on the individual case.

    Posted by: tacomoon
  • It has been tried before.

    Back in the day gay men were counted as sex offenders and some were chemically castrated (look up Alan Turing in Wiki if you don't believe it). I doubt it really made much difference. People always find an outlet for the things going on in their brains. Removing someone's ability to produce sperm and hormones does not lead to instant rehabilitation. To call it a disease is also incorrect. It's a mental health problem which does not require multiple doses of ridiculous medications (most of which are placebos), it requires in-depth psychiatry.

  • No. Castrating sex offenders does not rehabilitate them.

    Castrating sex offenders is not a solution to the problem. This treats the symptom and not the disease. The castrated sex offender will most likely turn his anger and need for control into other violent criminal acts. Treatment for sex addiction would be a better solution.

    Posted by: R4v4g3rPavI
  • Castration is NOT the most logical solution for rehabilitating repeat sex offenders.

    Castration is not a reliable method because first of all, a man can still commit sex offences even though he doesn't have testicles. It gives a false sense of security. A sex offender is dangerous to society because there is more wrong with them then just over-active hormones. Their offense is more than just sex. It is violence and manipulation. Castration is not a solution, it is a punishment.

    Posted by: giladren

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.