Should Serious Sex Offenders be castrated?

 

At a time when global inclination and orientation towards promoting healthy living for all is exponentially gaining momentum, the ability to focus on, evaluate and address emergent social issues and challenges is one of the most critical aspects of the society. This is based on the need to establish a harmonic society that guarantees not just the future but sustainability of the populations. Punishment of criminals is a phenomenon that has been adopted by the society since historical times. Over time, the frequency and magnitude of criminal activity has prompted the society to adopt stricter modes of punishment in a bit to prevent recurrence of crime. However, some forms of punishments that a have been proposed over time have raised various controversies that stem from the moral and ethical sphere. Castration of sex offenders is one such punishment whose assumption has raised various concerns from the public. Specific issues in this regard pertain to its legality, effectiveness and desirability in curbing sexual offenses.

The proponents of this liken the after effects of the process to those manifested in animals, that they become harmless and docile. However, it should be appreciated that this practice has irreversible far reaching implications on the holistic wellbeing of not only the individuals but the society at large. The psychological effects are devastating and impact on the victim’s ability to participate actively in fundamental social and reproductive activities. Individually, I consider the practice to be not only inhumane but also demeaning. As such, it should be shunned at all levels and should only be employed upon and individual’s request. Even in such circumstances, effective counseling needs to be undertaken to ensure that the individual’s decision is well informed. A viable alternative to this crime shoed be life imprisonment that would equally protect the society against the crimes perpetrated by these offenders.

From a legal standpoint, Bradford (2003) ascertains that castration is a violation of the decisions of an individual pertaining to contraception and procreation. Essentially, the law states that the decision to have children or not to have is personal and the government needs to refrain from meddling in the same. This is considered a private decision that needs to be entirely determined by the individual. This also implies that by offering voluntary castration, the criminal justice system infringes upon the rights of an individual. This right is further compromised by the need of the offender to make a choice between castration and imprisonment. In most instances, the offenders are restricted to this and hence are compelled to choose sterilization in order for them to enjoy their freedom.

Of great reference is the fact that castration violates the right of an individual to procreate. Usually, the individual does not have the ability to procreate and these impacts on his self worth. In his review, Bradford (2003) argues that from a cultural point of view, having children is an important factor that enhances the social worth of an individual. Notably, castration compromises this privilege and reduces the social worth of an individual. In addition, the inability to procreate has adverse effects on the economic wellbeing of an individual because of its ability to reduce the labor force that this critical in production. This makes the country to import labor, a measure that is relatively expensive than employment of local labor.

Miller (2008) also contends that castration is a cruel activity because of its characteristic mutilation. Mutilation is a concept that is used to imply degradation of an individual and therefore it is unacceptable. From the legal point of view, it does not qualify to be used as a sustainable form of treatment. At this juncture, Miller (2008) indicates that physical punishment is prohibited by the law that encourages non physical forms of punishment for any forms of crimes that are committed. This is a more enlightened approach that discourages the barbaric strategies that lay undue emphasis on disfigurement and use of physical pain as a form of punishment.

Thus castration “demeans the very worth of the country’s legal system and reduces it to a barbaric status” (Miller, 2008, p. 176). It should be appreciated that counseling and imprisonment have effectively been applied in preventing re offending. More so, they are more sustainable because of their positive impact on behavioral change. Most importantly, these approaches encourage acceptance by the families and communities because they are allowed to participate in the counseling. This acceptance is imperative as it provides the right environment for behavioral change and improvement. In this respect, Bradford (2003) cites that a harsh environment contributes significantly to incidences of re offending.

Unlike counseling, castration does not effectively address the anger and sex urges that come the individuals to participate in sexual violence. It only eliminates procreation and not the aggression of the offender. This makes the offender to engage in criminal activity even after the procedure. This is further augmented by the fact that it reduces the jail sentence of the individual. This compromises the security of the population because of the fact that the offender is allowed to return in the community before the victims heal and are assured that he offender has been punished accordingly. The characteristic anger in the offender has been implicated for encouraging re offending. Thus it does not address the important aspect of public anxiety that undermines social functioning. In this regard, psychological studies posit that the anxiety and relative insecurity undermines the productivity of the public as focus is shifted to this important issue at the expense of participating wholly in important social development issues.

Castration should not be allowed to be a routine treatment for all individuals that are unable to control their sexual urges. It should be employed sparingly and upon the request of the offender. In such instances, it should be combined with counseling to make it more effective. Counseling according to Bradford (2003) is instrumental in addressing intrinsic behavioral constraints that contribute to this social defect. This is also informative as it would educate the offender about the various implications of the practice. Even after castration, the offender should be allowed to complete his or her jail sentence. This would give such offenders a chance to undergo relative treatment and heal completely before returning to the society. At this point, Bradford (2003) argues that once criminals are released back to the communities, effective follow up may not be assured and this would compromise the health of the individuals especially if the same lacks sufficient resources to cater for his or her treatment.

Further, the relevant imprisonment would possibly enhance public confidence that the offender has been effectively punished. This would not only enhance acceptance and reduce re offending but would also encourage reconciliation. In his review, studies assert that sex offense is sensitive issue because of its negative effects and can only be pardoned after effective punishment. Further, it is indicated that the costs of undertaking the castration as much lesser than those employed in imprisonment and counseling. The subsequent release of the sex offender to the public is likely to raise public concern. Essentially, the tax payers contend that their contribution to this institution should be used effectively. Effectiveness in this regard is defined by the ability of the criminal justice system to rehabilitate the individual and ensure that the same does not assume past behaviors. The soaring rates of re offending therefore indicate that the criminal justice system has failed dismally to make appropriate enforcements regarding sustainable punishment.

Further, it is worth acknowledging that sex offense is a mental and psychological act, rather than a physical act and therefore can not be effectively addressed through physical measures. In his review, Miller (2008) indicates that most sex offenders are compelled to engage in this by their internal rage and hatred for women and girls in the society. Castration in this regard would only remedy one consequence of the sexual act, that is, unwanted pregnancy. However, it should be appreciated that in most instances, the perpetrators lay emphasis on making the victims suffer. As such, they employ other crude measures during the act such as bottles to cause physical injury and inflict pain to the victim. Notably, castration if employed alone would not address these psychological concerns. Previous results indicate that compared to castration, psychotherapy had yielded more positive effects. Thus it is widely accepted as the most viable measure of treating sex offenders regardless of the fact that it is complex and requires long periods of time.

Fundamentally, psychotherapy gives the offender a chance to learn how to modulate their emotions and as relative psychological aspects that pertain to empathy, self esteem and impulse control. The ability to control this makes the victim to have full control on the sexual urges that compel the same to engage in sexual offenses. Compared to castration, this is more desirable because besides addressing the behavioral constraint, it still gives the offender a chance to procreate.

Castration has also been unacceptable in the moral domains on the premise that it has far reaching implications on the holistic wellbeing of the society. Basically, the society is charged with the responsibility of determining the wellbeing of an individual. Castration undermines this because then it would be adversely impacting on the functioning of the same. In addition, Miller (2008) asserts that the practice contravenes vital religious values and principles that define ethical practices. Abortion and sterilization is unacceptable in religion because of its impacts on humanity. Further, it is also worth noting that the principle of beneficence postulates that any action can only be considered to be ethical if it has desirable implications. In this respect, castration is an immoral practice because it causes physical pain and mental suffering to the individual.

Conclusion

From the analysis, it can be ascertained that castration as a form of punishment is unacceptable because of various reasons. To begin with, it does not address the underlying issues that contribute to sex offense. Thus it is not sustainable and can be considered to be a key contributory factor to re offending. In addition, it is barbaric and brutal in nature and exposes the perpetrator of the crime to immense physical and mental suffering. In this consideration therefore, it should be shunned at all levels and only employed upon informed consent by the criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

References

Bradford, M. (2003). Treating Sexual Offenders. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 12 (4), 43-67.

Miller, D. (2008). Treatment or Punishment: Castrating Sex Offenders. Psychological Public Policy Law, 3, 170-99.

 

 

 

---

 

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH GRADE VALLEY TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

---

The post Should Serious Sex Offenders be castrated? appeared first on Grade Ninjas.

Welcome to originalessaywriters.com, our friendly and experienced essay writers are available 24/7 to complete all your assignments. We offer high-quality academic essays written from scratch to guarantee top grades to all students. All our papers are 100% plagiarism-free and come with a plagiarism report, upon request

Tell Us “Write My Essay for Me” and Relax! You will get an original essay well before your submission deadline.