In almost all human societies sex is a very sensitive subject and the many varieties of sexual behavior evoke various reactions from the many sectors of society ranging from mild repugnance to violent rejection involving brutal physical retaliation. Many of these reactions are conditioned by cultural and religious traditions and there is frequent philosophical disagreement between these viewpoints as to whether a particular sexual relationship is acceptable or not. But some sexual actions are universally considered unacceptable such as rape and pedophilia.
In these extreme actions there are some individuals who are ascertained unable to control their passions and the current legal solutions for these individuals is to sentence them to a term in prison, which has little or no final effect on their uncontrollable impulses and upon their subsequent release into society.
There are attempts to control these individuals freed into society by forcing them to identify themselves to the public which creates a situation in which these strangely driven individuals either attempt to evade identification or live in a misery of open pariah living wherein the public becomes frantic over such an individual in their midst and the individual frequently succumbs to sexual drives and commits further crimes against innocents.
Since sexual crimes are driven by sexual potency it seems to me that all participants might be relieved of the problems by primarily determining the firm guilt of the criminal and then sexually neutering the individual so that there is no longer any further motivation to commit sexual crimes. Most people might consider this an extreme solution but considering the consequences of not doing so, it might be a better and more secure solution than those now current.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
"universally considered unacceptable" is a not an accurate description. Pedophilia is accepted in some modern cultures. Rape is accepted in some cultures. I'm not disagreeing with you on the wrongness of these acts, I'm just saying that an appeal to a universally accepted standard is a vacant appeal.
Our culture condemns these actions. Our cuslture could and should do more to stop repeat offenders. I'm absolutely with you there.
You said that "sexual crimes are driven by sexual potency". I served on a jury in a child molestation case. I voted to send a mother to prison for the rest of her life for crimes she committed against her young son. Her actions had nothing whatsoever do to with the need for sexual gratification or her sexual potency. She was acting out her frustrations and her need for control. Castration would not have stopped her from doing what she did. She could not have been stopped before doing what she did, other than killing her. And if we had let her out she would have done it again to someone else--so she'll have her 100th birthday in prison before she is eligible for parole.
That is an unusual case, but it points out a limitiation of your suggestion. The drives that cause this behavior are varied and complex. Sexual potency is only one of the driving factors. Simple mental illness is another. Having been sexually abused seems to increase the risk of a person becoming an abuser later in life. My sister was drugged and raped by a guy who apparently just had sexual fantasies about women who are asleep/drugged.
And the physical tools used are not always the sexual organs. So are you going to cut off hands and tongues? Where do we stop?
Castration of repeat offenders would probably help. It would probably act as a deterrent for semi-sane new offenders; at least a deterrent from getting caught. It might just cause more rapists and molestors to "shoot it out" rather than be captured alive and castrated.
This is a very complex problem. I am afraid that any easy answer will not accomplish as much as you would like. I'm not necessarily against your suggestion. I'm just saying that it won't accomplish as much as you seem to think it will.
Since your experience in the matter is deeper than mine, I accept your viewpoint on the matter. Nevertheless, I wonder if neutering should be considered in at least those cases where it looks likely to be effective.
As a supplement to my comment I would like to point out that my suggestion was designed to remove the motivation for the criminal action. This would, in the end, be of benefit to both the perpetrator and society in general. It seems to me that the general application of a designated period of punishment may deter further criminal activity in some cases of crime but there is equal (if not more) liklihood that it may engender further antisocial attitudes made more expert by association with an antisocial subset of society. Total sequestration of the perpetrator or capital punishment cuts the gordian knot but is an effective but clumsy solution donating no insight to the core problem of how to restore and integrate an individual to society. This goal is probably a matter of deep insight into the machinery of both social norms and each individual's capability to conform to them to produce a decent life and a productive member of society. And it seems society has neither the economic means nor the expertise nor the patience to properly attack this problem.
I hope the author of this idea realizes that his suggestion is clearly unconstitutional, and would pave the way to all manner of cruel and unusual punishments. Hence I must consider this a bad idea.
For years the USA and Canada sterilized native Americans merely because they were native Americans or judged mentally incompetent with no constitutional protest. People are being executed today in the USA quite legally. If being castrated to prevent criminal action is cruel and unusual punishment, I wonder how execution is blandly accepted as fair punishment for crime. As has been noted in other comment, it may not be a proper remedy for other reasons, but it seems it is not unusual (at least historically) and if it stops kids from being assaulted, I cannot accept it as cruel.
"Chemical castration" has been around for some time for sex offenders.
I think they need a bullet in the head. If you want a short jail sentence to allow any evidence to surface that could prove their innocence that's fine, but they should never be let out into the public again. Keeping people in jail for their entire life costs too much so all life sentences should be converted to death penalty. Bullets are cheap.
There are some sex crimes that my previous comment would not apply to. For example if you are 18 years of age and you have a 15 year old girlfriend, and have a consensual sexual relationship then the death penalty would not apply. Or public indecency ( I think that is considered a sex crime ). Death penalty should only apply in cases of Violent Rape that is provable with out a doubt, and Pedophilia.