http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
Is this a good punishment and perhaps more effective than incarceration?
Depends on the crime. You might want to flesh this out a wee bit.
Is it? How well does it work to remove their desire to reoffend, compared to physically removing their capacity to reoffend?
For rape and other sexual crimes.
How is it more effective than incarceration? Do you think that a person who was willing to rape someone, then is ‘castrated’, is going to be a model citizen?
I remember reading an article several years ago by a convicted, imprisoned child molester who claimed to have 100+ victims. He said when he was chemically castrated in prison it was the first time he felt like he had control over his sexual urges and he basically said he felt liberated from them. So on that front, that is good. Had he had that before, maybe many of his victims wouldn’t have been hurt.
But at the same time the definition of ‘sex offender’ keeps getting looser and looser. It may have been originally meant to only imply people who engage in forcible rape and child molestation and have a high risk to re-offend, but much like the drug war a moral panic has set in and the standards are getting looser. So any invasive, mandatory procedure is iffy when sleeping with a 17 year old, streaking, being with a woman who lies about her age or having drunken sex are considered reasons to label someone a sex offender.
What would really work is finding a way to break the silence about sexual abuse, since 90% or so occurs where only the victim and perpetrator know about it. But how do you do that and get victims to come forward, and get potential perpetrators to come forward and get help before they act? No idea.
For people with deviant impulses in relation to young children I think it is a sensible and humane idea. Certainly better than locking people up for decades.
I might agree for someone who turned themself in and voluntarily underwent the procedure, along with other well enforced restrictions. Otherwise, you are talking about a rapist who didn’t have much remorse about their crime until they were caught.
problem is castration does not remove the desire to offend, or the ability to attain erection and orgasm. it keeps a child’s voice from breaking, though, so the castrati became the first great pop stars and are said to have slain women every bit as famously as mick jagger.
If rape is about violence and control and not sex, how does castration help?
Don’t forget that women can be sex offenders too. A high school teacher who has sex with her 17 year old student can be convicted and labeled a sex offender for life. Is there a female-equivalent to chemical (or even physical) castration?
We’re not talking about physical, actual castration, as in cutting someone testicles off. But chemical castration – hormone treatments.
And those hormone treatments do not guarantee a loss of libido or ability to get an erection or have intercourse. It makes those things less likely, but it does not eliminate the possibility entirely.
While castration might alleviate some problems for some offenders, I could also see some offenders getting really pissed off at such a punishment and perhaps finding it a motivation to go out an commit more heinous crimes.
Plus it’s easy to get hold of shots of testosterone to counter-back all that.
The biological imperative plays a part. Otherwise, why choose rape over other violent acts?
When people say “it’s not about sex,” they are more saying that sexual desires in and of themselves will not motivate you to rape someone. They are saying that rape can’t be excused by sexual desires, as we (nearly) all have the latter, but don’t all do the former.
There may be some individuals who rape only because they are sociopaths and want to hurt the other person, and know that sex is so special that violating it would cause more pain, but not all violent offenders are sociopaths.
Definitely needs elaboration-which sexual crimes?
For violent rapists and child abusers, I’d be in favor of it. How does the chemical part work? Is it something that is done once, or do the hormone treatments have to be done periodically? Actually, I’d be fine with actual, physical castration as long as the burden of proof in those cases was very high–in other words for very egregious cases of child rape and repeat violent rapists, off with the balls. Frankly, I don’t care if there is a female equivalent or not. I suspect the loss of the balls would be a stronger deterrent than jail time for most men.
Rape and crimes of such nature.
See the link in the OP. It explains that the treatment is continuous and it’s generally reversible. My understanding is that chemical castration sounds a lot more effective than it is: if you do it to someone who wants to get his impulses under control, it can help. If the patient isn’t interested in treatment, it probably won’t do much since for the reasons Broomstick posted: it doesn’t sterilize the person or guarantee they can’t reoffend, or even that they won’t want to.