Would you support physical castration for sex offenders?

[FBM]

The feeling I get from reading that study is that it's suggested as a therapeutic measure due to the lack of success of current psychiatric therapies. The victims and families may get some feeling of revenge from it, but that's beyond anybody's control, I think.

[hadespussercats]

The feeling I get from reading that study is that it's suggested as a therapeutic measure due to the lack of success of current psychiatric therapies. The victims and families may get some feeling of revenge from it, but that's beyond anybody's control, I think.

Well. Yikes.

I can see how that might be, but I still balk at the idea of performing it on the unwilling. Maybe it could be incentivized-- you end up with much longer sentences if you don't, that sort of thing.

[FBM]

The feeling I get from reading that study is that it's suggested as a therapeutic measure due to the lack of success of current psychiatric therapies. The victims and families may get some feeling of revenge from it, but that's beyond anybody's control, I think.

Well. Yikes.

I can see how that might be, but I still balk at the idea of performing it on the unwilling. Maybe it could be incentivized-- you end up with much longer sentences if you don't, that sort of thing.

Criminals are already locked up against their will, so I wouldn't be concerned about that. They lose some of their human rights out of necessity in order to protect the public. I do recall reading somewhere that the incentive program you described does exist in some countries. Or maybe it was proposed in the Korean plan in the OP. Or something like that. Yeah, I'd say shorten their sentences in exchange. Most of those castrated in the study I linked to felt a drastic drop in or disappearance of their libido immediately after the procedure, anyway. And the others' libidos disappeared within a few months. Sounds good to me to let them out after that.

[Warren Dew]

Yep, because the castration would prevent recidivism of direct sex crimes, it might make them mean and lead to assault, sexual assault, murder, various kinds of theft...

But...the study didn't find that. It found the opposite of that in the majority of cases.

One study?

Seven studies, actually, summarized in one paper. I calculated the approximate significance level for one of the studies, and it was something like 20 standard deviations. That's about as certain as relativity, or quantum mechanics, or evolution. The recidivism rate is cut by a factor of 10.

Personally, that convinces me. I don't see it as particularly more barbaric to deprive someone of part of their body than to deprive someone of part of their life, which is what imprisonment does.

I would limit it to forcible rapes, though. And I wouldn't limit it to child victims. People don't quit being someone's child just because they turn 18.

I'm not convinced that making it optional with a sentencing reduction in return makes it any more "civilized". The rare innocent person who was convicted wrongly might still end up doing it to escape decades in jail - they might actually be more likely to take that option.

[rasetsu]

Anytime that mayhem is involved, I think you've crossed the line into cruel and unusual punishment. And simply offering it as a mitigation in plea deals is no better. The same goes for chemical castration and its questionable ethics. Whenever sex crimes are involved, and particularly sex crimes involving children, people's humanity just seems to go out the window. We contemplate punishments for such offenses that we'd be insane to advocate for any other offenses.

[hadespussercats]

The feeling I get from reading that study is that it's suggested as a therapeutic measure due to the lack of success of current psychiatric therapies. The victims and families may get some feeling of revenge from it, but that's beyond anybody's control, I think.

Well. Yikes.

I can see how that might be, but I still balk at the idea of performing it on the unwilling. Maybe it could be incentivized-- you end up with much longer sentences if you don't, that sort of thing.

Criminals are already locked up against their will, so I wouldn't be concerned about that. They lose some of their human rights out of necessity in order to protect the public. I do recall reading somewhere that the incentive program you described does exist in some countries. Or maybe it was proposed in the Korean plan in the OP. Or something like that. Yeah, I'd say shorten their sentences in exchange. Most of those castrated in the study I linked to felt a drastic drop in or disappearance of their libido immediately after the procedure, anyway. And the others' libidos disappeared within a few months. Sounds good to me to let them out after that.

Getting locked up is a different sort of punishment than a forcible amputation.

Chopping off the hands of thieves might be effective, too-- I don't want to live in a society that does that.

[hadespussercats]

Anytime that mayhem is involved, I think you've crossed the line into cruel and unusual punishment. And simply offering it as a mitigation in plea deals is no better. The same goes for chemical castration and its questionable ethics. Whenever sex crimes are involved, and particularly sex crimes involving children, people's humanity just seems to go out the window. We contemplate punishments for such offenses that we'd be insane to advocate for any other offenses.

I was considering the possibility that there were people who wanted it done, who could have it done safely and at no cost to them by the state.

But... yes. I agree with you.

[FBM]

A majority of the people in those reports who were castrated were either satisfied or indifferent towards the results. Very, very few reoffended compared to those who received conventional therapies. I wonder how many child rapes and molestations were prevented? Nobody will ever know, but the difference between an 80+% recidivism rate and a 2~3% recidivism rate speaks volumes to me. This isn't about revenge, nor is it suggested (by me, anyway) out of outrage. It is suggested out of a rational recognition of its efficacy in solving the problem. It works. It works a helluva lot better than anything else on the menu at present. And don't forget that 40+% of those castrated requested it.

Comparing it to chopping off hands is absurd. A castrated male pedophile is more capable of leading a healthy life than before, whereas someone who has his/her hands chopped off is less so. Such a comparison is fallacious in that it likens two things that are actually more different than alike.

[Svartalf]

and maybe they lied through their teeth because maybe helping the study get desired results was a way to look 'cured' and get an early parole...

[FBM]

and maybe they lied through their teeth because maybe helping the study get desired results was a way to look 'cured' and get an early parole...

How could they include people who were still incarcerated in a study on recidivism rates?

[Svartalf]

I misspoke, I meant maybe they thought it would make them look 'cured' and get the Man out of their crotch hair.

[FBM]

I misspoke, I meant maybe they thought it would make them look 'cured' and get the Man out of their crotch hair.

Could be, but it's speculative at best. No way to ascertain whether that claim is accurate or not. In a word, useless. The actual data says that an 80+% recidivism rate was reduced to less than 3%. Even if those who resented it lied about their lack of resentment, the vast majority of them didn't feel so strongly about it as to do anything violent in response. They weren't crippled; they were cured, and an unknown number of children weren't raped or molested as a result. I don't get any sort of twisted pleasure out of the prospect of castrating anyone, but I get a great deal of pleasure out of preventing child rape and molestation.

[rasetsu]

I misspoke, I meant maybe they thought it would make them look 'cured' and get the Man out of their crotch hair.

Could be, but it's speculative at best. No way to ascertain whether that claim is accurate or not. In a word, useless. The actual data says that an 80+% recidivism rate was reduced to less than 3%. Even if those who resented it lied about their lack of resentment, the vast majority of them didn't feel so strongly about it as to do anything violent in response. They weren't crippled; they were cured, and an unknown number of children weren't raped or molested as a result. I don't get any sort of twisted pleasure out of the prospect of castrating anyone, but I get a great deal of pleasure out of preventing child rape and molestation.

It's hard to see how you could have a proper control group here. And there are many components of the placebo effect which could be at issue, in addition to methodological concerns like selection effects. I haven't read the study, nor intend to, but I think it's a bit naive to think that the results of a limited study will reflect real world results.

[FBM]

As Warren Dew pointed out, it's seven studies, spanning multiple societies. I won't be so brash as to claim that I know physical castration will definitely solve the problem, I'm only point out the results of those studies, which strongly suggest it as a much more effective treatment than the ones we've been using, viz, counseling. As to the question of ethics, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, as I'm mostly interested in pragmatics. IMO, the first order of business is to reduce the number of molested and/or raped children. Tweaking the therapy to make it more ethically/aesthetically appealing can wait, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a parent, but I'm trying to put myself in the position of one.

[Beatsong]

Well, we do toss them in jail, but we can't sentence them to a life term (which really isn't life-long, anyway) until they've already repeated their offense a few times. This study shows that it not only drastically reduces their recidivism for violent sexual crimes, but also for nonsexual offenses. Incarceration alone has a recidivism rate of over 80%. Post-castration rates hover around the 2% mark.

I know that study is long and tedious to read, but a surprisingly high number of those studied volunteered for physical castration. Something like 35~40%, iirc. And the number of those who reported being satisfied with the results of being castrated were closer to 50%. A good chunk of the others were indifferent to it. Only a minority expressed resentment. To me, this indicates that most of these people were sick, knew they were sick, wanted to be cured and were grateful after it was done. I don't think we can lump all these sex offenders into the same group as hard-core, lifetime criminals who murder, steal, etc, their way into maximum confinement.

I think the study is pretty compelling, and I'm not surprised many chose castration. Let's face it if you're going to be in jail till you're old then you're not going to be getting any anyway (except maybe involuntarily ), so you might as well just have it done with and at lest have a life to get on with. I also agree about the sickness thing. I think if society could get over the need to go off the emotional deep end every time the subject is raised, it might find that many paedophiles realise and accept this and would be quite accepting of a "cure" - even at the expense of their manly bits.

I don't see how the idea of offering castration as a voluntary alternative to long prison sentences can be faulted by any of the arguments on this thread. It's not being imposed on anyone so isn't "barbaric" (or at least, no more barbaric than the long-term confinement that many prefer it to, and that we all seem to accept). It saves society a lot of money and gives the offender a chance of a life with minimal risk to others. What's not to like?