Juliette Gallagher
AP English Language
Mr. Henrick
21 May 2017
Is Castration a Solution?
Introduction
300,000 women are raped each year, and 75 percent of those sex offenders are recidivists—repeat offenders. Jail time or probation punishment has not been effective in stopping sexual predators, so surgical or chemical castration in males has been instituted. This physical punishment is used in an effort to keep violators from offending repeatedly. There is a lot of controversy over this method of recidivism prevention, but drops of recidivism rates, lowering sexual drive, and decreasing aggressive urges are some of the effects from castration of the male gonads. But will castration really prevent sex offenders from repeating their crimes?
Background
So, what is castration, and where did it come from? Castration, also known as gonadectomy, is the removal of the male testicles. The method of castration dates way back, starting in Europe. After World War II, the Europeans scaled back on this method due to concerns of being inhumane after the Holocaust. The procedure can be done through surgery, when a doctor makes an incision into the scrotum and removes the testes. It can also be administered chemically, through anti-androgen drugs. This lowers the male’s testosterone level and decreases his sex drive. The drugs given for chemical castration were originally used for treatment of prostate cancer males. The difference between the two is that chemical castration can be reversed—discontinuation of the medications will cause testosterone and sex drive levels to go back up, allowing sexual ability to go back to normal. The most common drugs chosen for castration contain MPA, which is the active ingredient in birth control. These hormones, meant for women, lessen testosterone in the male, weakening sexual urges. Castration laws in the U.S. differ state by state—Florida require the offense to be a repeat crime; California require the offense to be repeat child molestation; Montana allows the punishment after one offense of rape or incest. Some countries, like Germany and the Czech Republic, offer it as an option other than lifetime in jail. According to the OLR Research Report, in California, the law states “Courts may order first offenders of certain sex crimes committed against children under age 13 to undergo MPA treatment or its chemical equivalent before they are paroled. They must order repeat offenders on parole to undergo such treatment before parole. Offenders may choose surgical castration instead of chemical treatment.”
PRO #1
Castration as a punishment to sexual predators has been shown to drop recidivism rates significantly. Referencing the International Debate Education Association, in a 1960 study in Denmark, 900 castrated sex offenders were interviewed about their crime activity post castration. The outcome suggested that repeat offense rates dropped after surgical castration from 80 percent to 2.3 percent. The probability of a sex offender repeating his crime went from close to 100 percent to almost 0 percent. This is extremely important when considering the consequence of castration, because this study says the goal has been almost met entirely. In 1991, a John Hopkins Study said that less than 10 percent of 626 chemically castrated patients committed sexual offenses after 5 years of the treatment. Chemical castration reduces libido—castrated men are still able to have sex, but their desire is dramatically decreased. In Korea, a study of 38 patients that were chemically castrated found a decrease in intense and consistent sexual drive, frequent masturbation, and sexual dreams. However, throughout the first 2 months after receiving the treatment, the patients discovered the surprise of a fill of testosterone levels and intense sexual desire. Another Korean study found that chemically castrated males had reduced sexual thoughts in the majority of patients, but not all of them.
PRO #2
Chemical castration has been proven to decrease the ability for a male to become sexually stimulated. There are many different hormones chosen for chemical castration, including Estrogen, Flutomide, Degarelix, Cypretorone-Acetate, and Medroxyprogesterone Acetate. According to The Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, Medroxyprogesterone Acetate “suppresses or lessens the frequency of erection and ejaculation and lessens the feeling of sexual drive and the mental imagery of sexual arousal”. These drugs contain active ingredients that block androgen production, which is the sex hormone male persons release. Estrogen is the female hormone that women take for imbalance occurrences. When a male takes this hormone, his body starts to go down on testosterone and takes in estrogen, which lowers sexual drive and aggressive traits of the person. The intake of these drugs therefore reduces the chances of repeat sexual offenses by the castrated man.
COUNTERARGUMENT #1
Some people argue to claim that rape is all about power, not sex, so castration cannot be effective. But in a German study done in 1997, the data proved otherwise. The study found that up to 50 percent of castrated men still could become erections and have sex, but their ambition was extinguished or weakened. Over 80 percent no longer masturbated; 70 percent stopped having sex altogether. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins University and expert on treating sexual offenders, stated that castration works “mainly in those who are sexually aroused by their crime … sadists and pedophiles.” Castration takes the desire away from those with an anomalous sexual nature, often to their advantage. In some states and other countries, castration is given as an option to be released from jail sooner, and many volunteer for the procedure. In an article on Psychology Today, Dr. Gabriel Gavin wrote about a patient who was a sex offender at a young age. He raped and murdered a girl, and turned himself in to get chemically castrated. Studies have shown that many sex offenders want to be castrated because they feel out of control and don’t want to act this way, but they still do.
This further backs the claim that castration is a relief to those who commit the crime.
COUNTERARGUMENT #2
Doctors argue against the effectiveness of castration because experiments have shown that it will not take sexual drive away from males entirely, thus being ineffective. Dr. Andrew Kramer, a urologist from the University of Maryland, says “You can be castrated and still have an intact penis. If he was castrated, his testosterone levels would drop significantly but not all the way to zero. Most testosterone is produced by the testes, but some is made in the adrenal glands above the kidneys.” Evidence such as this suggests that sexual desire and ability cannot be entirely diminished because of alternative paths for testosterone to be produced, allowing predators to offend again. Hansen and Lykke-Olsesen reviewed the treatment of Danish sex offenders in 1997. Hansen monitored 43 criminals who committed the offense of murder, attempted murder, or severe bodily injury in connection with a sexual offense. 24 inmates had originally refused surgical treatment and chose to be detained for a longer period, and 19 decided to receive castration. However, two of the 2 that decided against castration changed their mind and were released, then sexually reoffended. In the follow‐up study period, there were 21 inmates who agreed to surgical castration for an early release on probation ( 6–18 months after the operation). Two of the 21 castrates committed other sexual crimes more than 15 years after orchiectomy. These new sex crimes occurred after their physicians gave both individuals testosterone substitution therapy. Of the 22 who were not castrated, 8 sexually reoffended. Their new crimes occurred despite a lengthy incarceration for their original sexual crimes (noncastrated persons spent an average of eight years in detention versus two years for the castrated individuals). Therefore, the comparative rates for sexual recidivism were 10 percent (more than 15 years after surgery and after being provided replacement testosterone) in the castrated group, and 36 percent in the noncastrated group (unknown follow‐up period).
RESULTS
From several points made from experts, studies, doctors and reports, the punishment of chemical and surgical castration is seemed to be proven effective. In the majority of the studies viewed, they were very successful and the goals were almost met 100 percent. Repeated data of recidivism rates dropping after the procedure prove that castration is an extremely adequate and sufficient way of preventing sexual offenders from committing future offenses.
Conclusion
Every 98 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted. 73.3 percent of released rapists are recidivists. One solution to preventing released rapists from committing again is through chemical and surgical castration. Data of recidivism rates decrease, weakened sexual drive intensity and frequency, and lowered testosterone levels leading to drops in aggressive urges all led to the conclusion that castration of sexually aggressive predators is an effective punishment to preventing repeat crimes.