Sunday, March 14, 2004

Physical Castration for Violent Criminals

Here's a simple, inexpensive solution to decrease violent crime, prison overcrowding, prison rape, pedophilia, predatory catholic priests and the spread of sexually transmitted disease: physical castration on the second conviction for any violent crime outside prision or on the first conviction inside prision or on the first conviction of any pedophile.

Rape in prision leads directly to the spread of AIDS and HIV outside prison as the convicts are released. Curing the root of the problem will have many beneficial effects for society inside and outside of our prisions.

I've been told by a Danish coworker that some of the Scandinavian countries physically castrate males convicted multiple times for rape and that after castration, the recidivism rate of those castrated rapists drops to less than one percent.

For evidence, see:

Horses and cows are routinely castrated in order to make them less aggressive and it works.

Some might argue that physical castration is cruel and unusual but if the extreme animal rights activists aren't concerned about animal castration then it can't possibly be cruel.

Some communities in America perform court-ordered chemical castration of violent convicts. Chemical castration is ridiculous - as soon as the convict stops taking the hormone shots, he's back to his old self. In addition, chemical castration is much more expensive for the government to administer and far less reliable. But, the real point is - if chemical castration is okay, why not physical castration?

One possible way to introduce physical castration is to offer early probation for convicts that agree to be castrated. This way, it's not forced on anyone and we can begin to collect data on the results. Interviews with castrated convicts might even reveal they are much happier in life after castration.

The bottom line is, physical castration will solve a lot of our crime problems and our sexually transmitted disease problems and I truly believe the violent offenders themselves will be much happier for the rest of their lives once their testicles are removed and no longer pumping aggressive testosterone into their bloodstream. And as a side benefit, they'll cure their hair loss and they won't be fathering new hereditary criminals.


At 3/24/2005 06:32:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An excellent idea! I particularly like the idea of pacifying violent criminals and preventing them from breeding. Even if violent behavior had zero heritability, it would be best to prevent violent criminals becoming fathers.

At 4/21/2005 06:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's work to get this idea into law! How can I help? I'm tired of our American children being raped and murdered, becoming prisioners in their homes because parents who want to protect their children won't let them outside yet the criminal is free to roam around the community, including attending soccer meets. If everyone would talk with their neighbors, encourage them to write to their representatives in Congress demanding physical castration of these crimes!

At 5/22/2005 10:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I completely agree! I also had this thought and found this thread by doing a search for 'castration for violent criminals'. There is no logical argument against it.

At 6/29/2005 03:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only one problem. "Cruel and Unusual Punishment."

Gonna have to change the Constitution before we can get that one done wholesale.

At 6/29/2005 04:33:00 PM, Blogger David said...

I don't believe physical castration could be considered cruel and unusual because we do it to animals all the time and other countries do it to people and people here in America often do it to themselves voluntarily.

At 6/29/2005 07:14:00 PM, Blogger Just Another Boy Named Sue said...

I won't speak to whether physical castration would legally be "cruel and unsual punishment." However, what about those people incarcerated who are truly innocent of the crime of which they were convicted? Yes, certainly, these people are few and far between, but they do exist. What happens when you castrate a convicted felon who is later exonerated?

Our system of justice is imperfect. In recognition of this, the punishments meted out by this system must not be irrevocable.

At 6/30/2005 04:18:00 AM, Blogger David said...

That's why I suggested two possibilities: castration on the SECOND conviction, and/or voluntary castration in exchange for early probation. I believe either of these options is more humane than our current three strikes laws. Besides, what's the big deal? It's not like cutting off a penis or a hand. It's only cutting off testicles. I don't see how it's such a horrendous thing. I truly believe the criminals would be happier afterwards and voluntary castrations would allow us to do studies to prove or disprove my theory.

At 6/30/2005 04:24:00 AM, Blogger David said...

I should clarify: I believe we should physically castrate criminals on their second conviction for a VIOLENT offense. Castration will reduce their violent tendencies just like it calms horses and cows.

At 7/05/2005 09:14:00 AM, Anonymous Kelli said...

I totally agree, I was raped at the age of 13 by 3 men. They had raped before and after if something had been done the first time would have been their last and other girls would have been safe

At 8/08/2005 09:14:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if some ppl think that physical castration is cruel, injustice and unusual then please tell me WHAT is rape of a 12 yr old girl?? Please tell me how is it to find a naked rotten body of a young innocent girl, someone's sister, someone's daughter, someone's loved one, haun? How is it? please tell me what happens to the entire families' remainder lives after finding out about their bright young girl's raped dead body??? the day there are satisfying answers to any of these questions above will be the day to question physical castration as being "cruel." by the way only either a stupid person or a rapist him self would think that physical castration is equal or greater in cruelty to any of these things mentioned above.

At 8/08/2005 12:32:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

surgical removal of the "corpus cavernosum" a thick penile muscle, without which penile erection is immpossible, is another way to control the epedemic of rape. after this one can produce all the testosterone they want or inject it for that matter, but that penis is going no where with out this bundle of muscles. denervation alone is not affective because, erection can still be achieved with manual friction. I say that we all should do whatever needed to get these stupid leneant laws changed for the betterment of our kids and their kids and so on...if it was up to me, I would have the "convicted" rapists go under complete castration (penile + testicular); and those who have raped and then Killed their victim, be burned alive in public on a big execution stage so everyone could see how hanus this crime is and put the Gods fear in any future rapists' mind to avoid ending up on that stage. But for now, I guess we should stick to surgical procedures, this should be able to control the rape problem dramatically; if that doesn't work then we'll go to plan b: public executions and humiliations.

At 8/08/2005 12:41:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is to David. I think you did a good thing by starting this disscussion web site. Hopefully, in the near future, we'll all be able to put the rape problem behind us for it is a Voluntary act and CAN BE CONTROLLED.

At 8/09/2005 11:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well let's see; a proper punishment in my view for rape should be a selection from three options given to the convicted rapist:
plan a: cut you testicles off + 10 yrs in prison.
plan b: cut your testicles AND your penis off + serve 2 yrs in jail.
or plan c: serve 20 yr in jail.
Punishment for those who have killed their rape victim should still be death by lethal injection. "eye for an eye"

At 7/05/2006 06:02:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For all practical purposes, women were "castrated" by the churches hundreds of years ago in the expectation that they were obligated to live lives without sex.

For that reason, it is already presumed that males are not opposed to lives without sex, and its absence supposedly doesn't diminish the quality of life.

But, are men ready to apply the same logic to themselves in the debate over chemical castration to avoid unwanted molestation and sexual violence?

They freely administer opinions and laws over the reproductive rights of women - as in the abortion issue - but when it comes to their own sexual and biological concerns, they are apparently deaf to the logic of equal rights and self determination over reproductive mechanics.

If abortion can be permitted or prohibited, then castration can be permitted or prohibited to deal with the social problems created by males.

At 6/19/2008 07:33:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your a sick bastard, especially since "Sex Offenses" are without a doubt exaggerated and makes the victim believe that they were "Violated". Yea, rape isn't right and neither is pedophilia and should be dealt with the way they are now , but to Physically Castrate someone because you want to believe lies from Christianity and Islam? You people are pathetic.

At 9/08/2008 05:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, I was just doing a search of castration as a punishment for violent criminals. I actually am in favour of it. Physical castration significantly decreases male aggression. We neuter our pets, why not consider castration as a way of dealing with violent and aggressive behavior.

At 4/26/2009 01:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of the suggestions here border on sadism sanctioned in the name of justice. It is for this reason that the "lex talionis" was developed- to curb the retaliatory desire that can be foundational to violence (especially when such violence is projected upon someone totally unrelated to the original offender).

A sex offender does not need genitalia to offend, nor does the absence of the sexual pleasure motive make a former offender "safe". Often, the genitals are not the instrument of offense.

Regarding the effects of castration... Castration does not necessarily kill libido entirely, though it can. It makes erections more difficult, preventing full erections & sometimes making them virtually impossible. Furthermore, it reduces muscle mass, increases body fat storage, reduces bone density (resulting in osteopenia & then osteoporosis within a few years), reduces red blood cell count (potentially causing anemia). It contributes to insulin resistance & type 2 diabetes, & may cause hot flashes, gynecomastia etc. It can result in decreased aggression but can increase anxiety, depression, emotional lability, mood swings, instance of hypochondria/decreased pain threshold, & irritability. (Neutered pets have a significantly higher instance of separation anxiety compared to intact ones.) It's not as if sexual function, drive, & general aggression are the *only* factors reduced by castration.

(Note: physical or chemical castration are about the same in effect, with the *theoretical* possibility that chemical castration is reversible. Reality testifies otherwise for many men who've taken anti-androgen drugs, which result in the same low amount of testosterone, for prostate cancer. Often, their testosterone levels [or the functions dependent upon testosterone] do not return to baseline.)

Castration brings real health burdens upon the offender & consequently increases health care costs. Some of the aforementioned conditions like osteoporosis require medications like Fosomax to treat (which may itself cause complications). Or, in the case of type 2 diabetes, this will require meds (& complications from diabetes will require meds)for a lifetime. Assuming the prison system continues much the same way as it does today (with the change of more frequent castration of violent/sexual offenders), this will only add to the cost for taxpayers. They will either have to pay more to cover costs of those in jail or for those outside of jail who have difficulty finding work because of their offense & who consequently must rely on state sponsored health care. Bottom line- taxpayers will have to pay more.

Many drugs decrease libido without negatively affecting health as extensively as castration does. The fact that these are rarely, if ever, suggested indicates that proponents of castration favor harshness, mutilation, & humiliation when other options are available. We don't chop out tongues for verbal crimes, don't saw off hands & arms for theft or libel, & don't lobotomize manipulative individuals for engineering mind games. (Sometimes, these abuses can have equally devastating effects upon the victim compared to molestation or rape.)
Yet the "maiming" approach may be equally powerful ways to prevent reoffense. (Because it's the most effective prevention of re-offense, regardless of other factors, therefore it's the best?) It is out of the general trend of sentencing, then
to propose castration of any sort for someone who commits a sexual crime.

The notion of escalating punishment sounds great but doesn't address fundamental causes nor does it function as a good deterrent. It might have the opposite effect, encouraging criminals to go to greater extremes with a "nothing to lose mentality". & men have known for some time that the punishments for crimes have been increasing, yet the number of perpetrators (both in total & percentage) of these crimes continues to grow.

Those who appeal to statistics, citing how often castration does curb recidivism should take into account that such statistics can be misleading & complicated to interpret, making it hard to tell how effective it is. (Plus, the only person who can attest for one's sex drive & fantasies is the subject himself, & if he's guilty of a sex crime, what benefit would there be for him to acknowledge that his libido & fantasies, though diminished by castration, are still intact? His release depends on him conveying that he's "no longer a threat".)

But more importantly, should pragmatism real over basic fundamental rights? Body integrity & consent are key issues in rape & molestation, yet we want to grant special exception for punishment?

David, the justification that castration is not "cruel & unusual" because it's done to animals without much objection is a red herring. Animals don't punish each other for sexual "offense" or "rape", either.
Castration may not be "unusual" given the frequency of its use in war, medicine, livestock selection,
& "justice", but it is certainly cruel when imposed as a punishment, especially when other options are available or worth exploring.

At 7/04/2009 11:42:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree! Men who rape other men wives,sisters n daughters should loose their right to keep,maintain and service their preciously regarded testicles albeit not in a diplomatic manner but rather in a similar violent way as the rape itself. An eye for an eye. Have them physicaly broken or crushed using a nut crusher or a special priers in order to teach rapists a lesson and to stop the evil crime. If this is done, rape would just fizzle out. Its bitter but its the truth . Lets support it! Tomorrow it could be your mother, your wife or even worse,your precious little,naive but lovely daughter. Yes! Lets cartsate the criminals... With no guilt!

At 11/27/2009 07:40:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think castrating the violent is a fantastic idea. I 100% support it! In fact it's an idea I've often had myself on how to deal with violent criminals.

At 2/21/2017 04:52:00 AM, Blogger Dave Marksmen said...

I'd like to see that applied on the violent females first.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home