Castration: A Proposed Treatment Strategy For Sex Offenders

Castration by some is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. Others view it as a way for a convicted sex offender to obtain a reduced sentence, and yet there are some whom believe it may be the only cure. Many questions arise concerning several issues, methods, and results. Are we as Americans allowing the judicial system to toy with our bodily integrity?

Castration first began in Europe in Denmark in 1929 and continued to spread through the 1930’s into Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Holland. The United States was unchanging in their belief that the rights of the individual outweighed the interests of the community in general. Then, in 1938, Judge Lawrence Neil Turrentine, of the San Diego County Superior bench, began offering voluntary castration and long probationary periods to convicted sex offenders. If they declined this offer, then their only other alternative was a lengthy prison sentence. No actual opposition arose from this dicey substitute, but no endorsements were offered either.

Following World War II, studies were produced that demonstrated the ineffectiveness of physical c

Critics have argued that the right to procreate is violated because the drugs eliminate the desire to even engage in normal sexual relations. Yet, studies have shown that an individual on Depo-provera can engage in intercourse and can still conceive

children. The sex drive is not completely eradicated, just reduced to a controllable level (Meisenkothen, 1999).

General deterrence is not created by the use of castration. This is because those who have been castrated, as opposed to imprisoned, have voluntarily chosen to do so. Secondly, there is no real guarantee of a conviction in a sex offense because of complex legal challenges, not to mention that rape could be one the most under-reported crime. Specific deterrence is a flawed notion, also. Some medical instances have shown that castrated men have often been able to continue sexual behavior for up a year after the surgery (Sluder & Roberts, 1993). A man is still perfectly capable of an erection, even though semen is no longer produced (Lacayo, 1992). Also, sexual assault can involve

Incarceration is normally avoided if one volunteers himself for the castration procedure. Legal experts also say that the exchange of body parts for freedom is most definitely unconstitutional (Lacayo, 1992). Dr. Paul Fedoroff, a forensic psychiatrist, thinks that prisoners may volunteer themselves only to obtain the lighter prison sentence and avoid the responsibility of the crime he or she committed. He also states, “… we can achieve the same result pharmacologically, and even reduce testosterone to below surgical castration levels by using long-lasting injections. Surgery should be consigned to the old days.” (Smithson) Even in 1985, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that surgical, physical castration was cruel and unusual punishment (Sluder & Roberts, 1993). In this respect, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI’s) have recently been used to treat sex offenders. In the past, these drugs were used in the typical treatment of disorders such as depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders. It affects what may be the “most important of the brain chemicals in reducing sexual behaviors.” (Smithson) The use of drug treatment for hormonal and chemical imbalances is a reversible procedure, whereas castration is not (Lacayo, 1992).

Some topics in this essay:
Sluder Roberts, Supreme Court, Depo-provera FDA-approved, Fourteenth Amendment, Sexology McConaghy, Pawlak Oct, Bradford June, United Europe, SOTEP SOTEP, Sand Diego”, chemical castration, sex offenders, meisenkothen 1999, sluder roberts 1993, sluder roberts, roberts 1993, cruel unusual, unusual punishment, physical castration, cruel unusual punishment, lacayo 1992, sex offender, sex offender treatment, bradford june 1998, roberts 1993 green,