Does Castration Deter Sexual Assault?

[Surreal]

When a convicted rapist is castrated- either chemically or physically- is the procedure effective at preventing recidivism?

After all, he could just as easily rape someone using an object other than his erect penis.

Are there any statistics on this?

Thanks.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I don’t know stats but relaize that rape is a crime of violence…not a sexual crime (although it involves sex). It’s more about power and domination and hurting someone then getting your rocks off.

That said one can see where castration may do nothing since it isn’t about sex. However, testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior and losing the family jewels will likely mellow a person a bit.

All told the above is a waffle…not coming down on either side but I offer it as food for thought. I do have a vague recollection that somewhere, somewhen in the US castration (and life in prison) was offered as an alternative to a death sentence for rape. While in effect I believe almost no one chose castration and opted for death instead. Eventually the law was cast down as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. It does show that the threat of castration might have a strong deterrent effect though. (I will look for cites if I get time…been a long time since that class.)

[IzzyR]

I disagree with all of the preceding post. I believe rape is primarily about sex, with violent sex being a subset of sex in general (IOW, in adition to opportunity, there are probably some people who prefer rapes to to consensual sex as someone might like any other sexual fetish). I believe statistics are pretty clear that rape is highly correlated with the age of the victim, with the peak being in the late teens and early 20s, or thereabout.

So I think it would be quite effective, with the primary motivation reduced or eliminated. Although it should be noted that hormone replacement therapy might offset the impact of the castration itself.

I don’t think castration has been ruled to be cruel and unusual. I believe it was actually chosen as an option by some sex offender a few years back, although the last I read of it, no doctor had been willing to perform the surgery.

[Mephisto]

*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
**I don’t know stats but relaize that rape is a crime of violence…not a sexual crime (although it involves sex). It’s more about power and domination and hurting someone then getting your rocks off. **

I can’t offer an online cite at the moment, but I’ve read several books that support what Whack-a-Mole said in the above paragraph. The only author whose name I can remember at the moment is John Douglas, the retired psychologist/FBI criminal profiler. If I have time later–and I might now that finals have been cancelled thanks to the ice storm–I may be able to dig up a couple of his books, but no promises.

Does castration ever prevent sex crimes? Surely it does. Often? I get the impression that it does not. In fact, in one of Douglas’s books, he says that the motivation of many rapists, while related to sex, is anger. Want to see a rapist get really angry? Castrate him.

Are there statistics? I believe there are but don’t know where to find them.

I would be interested in hearing about how the issues of testosternone levels mentioned by Whack-a-Mole affect everything.
Do castrations

[Mephisto]

Disregard that last sentence fragment in my last post–I wasn’t saying “do castrations.” It was a cut-and-paste accident . . . I’ll let somebody else make the joke.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I found the following which offers some stats:

Legislators argue that castration is justified and appropriate, and that by controlling sex offenders’ irresistible urges to rape or molest again, the operation allows them to be released without endangering the public. Studies of the European experience suggest they could be right. Of more than 700 Danish sex offenders castrated after multiple convictions, relapse rates dropped from between 17 percent and 50 percent to just 2 percent. A Norwegian study showed the same for selected male and female sex offenders (the women had their ovaries removed). In smaller studies of cyproproterone in Scandinavia and Italy, chemical castration was equally effective in some groups of volunteer prisoners, with the most dramatic reductions among pedophiles.

SOURCE: The Unkindest Cut

Addressing IzzyR’s issues the article linked above mentions that some rapes are sexually motivated and castration seems to work best for those folks (pedophiles in particular can be seen to act for sexual gratification over violence). However, the article mentions the following (highlighting mine):

The studies show that castration is effective in criminals with multiple offenses, especially if they are motivated by sex. But proponents are wrongly using the data to justify mandatory application across the board. In Florida and Montana, all rapists are targeted, even though sadists and pedophiles are only a small percentage of the total. Most rapists appear to be motivated by hatred or anger, not sex.

Originally Posted by IzzyR:
I don’t think castration has been ruled to be cruel and unusual.

From the same link I used above:

In 1985, the Supreme Court recognized this when it ruled that involuntary surgical castration constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

[andymurph64]

I have no link and am relying on memory but I remember reading something supporting Whack-a-Mole’s statement. It was something about men using rape as a mating strategy because females were unavailable to him or didn’t wish to put in the energy courting the female. I’m sure anger and/or frustration is involved and the act is violent.

That theory should be testible in that if it is true then castrated rapists should have a significant reduction in raping again.

[KidCharlemagne]

I’ve never liked the “rape as anger not sex” argument much either. I think it’s both. A sexually frustrated person get’s pretty angry - just look at me. Take away the sexual frustration and you take away that aspect of the anger. If the person is still angry they’ll probably move on to murder.

[Mephisto]

Well, the impression I got from John Douglas, who I considered a good source, may be wrong if some of the other stuff I found this morning is correct. There’s still some debate, though.

*Found in the Miami Herald of all places: *
**
While physical castration may have the desired effect of dramatically reducing libido, it shouldn’t be considered a panacea, according to Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic in Baltimore.

“If your goal is to lower testosterone, physical castration will likely accomplish that in a fairly significant way,” he said. “But if a person is sexually oriented toward children and driven to fulfill that desire, castration alone will not be a guarantee that the person will not reoffend.”

Physical castration as punishment is not without precedent, though, Berlin noted. He cited a study done by a psychiatrist in Denmark in which 3,000 men who had the operation were followed for 30 years. The recidivism rate was less than 3 percent, he said.

But chemical castration, Berlin said, would probably be equally effective “and a lot less invasive.” **

and, from the same article . . .

**

Berlin, of Johns Hopkins, says castration might not be enough to reform a pedophile.

He believes both surgical and chemical castration should be accompanied by a program of supervision and whatever counseling is appropriate.

“A person can still have the craving, even though their libido is reduced,” he said. “If he really wants to stop, lowering the cravings might make a very big difference, but not necessarily.” **

[bibliophage]

The rape-as-power vs. rape-as-sex debate would probably be better handled in GD, but I won’t get too worked up about it as long as you bring facts to the table and not unsupported opinions. I seem to recall we have already had the discussion, but I can’t remember whether it was in GQ or GD, and I can’t find it in a search.

Back to the question. Physical castration (after puberty anyway) does not make erections impossible for all men. The adrenal cortex makes small amounts of testosterone, so some men can have erections (and orgasms) after castration. I don’t know how chemical castration works, so I can’t say whether that’s the same. Whether castration reduces the urge to rape (as opposed to the ability) is yet another matter.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
Addressing IzzyR’s issues the article linked above mentions that some rapes are sexually motivated and castration seems to work best for those folks (pedophiles in particular can be seen to act for sexual gratification over violence). However, the article mentions the following (highlighting mine):

The studies show that castration is effective in criminals with multiple offenses, especially if they are motivated by sex. But proponents are wrongly using the data to justify mandatory application across the board. In Florida and Montana, all rapists are targeted, even though sadists and pedophiles are only a small percentage of the total. Most rapists appear to be motivated by hatred or anger, not sex.

Well I’m aware that there is a school of thought that believes this, but I am skeptical. In this case, the term “appear” does not inspire much confidence, and the results of the cited study seem to undercut the claim.

From the same link I used above:

In 1985, the Supreme Court recognized this when it ruled that involuntary surgical castration constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

That does not rule out “voluntary” castrations, of the sort we were discussing earlier. Still, I was unaware of this ruling.

Good link - thanks!

[kanicbird]

I too feel that rape is primarly about sex not power - perhaps power from sex but sex is still the root. I don’t know why the rumor about rape is about power got started but I assmue it’s just dead wrong. If so I would think castration would be effective (also masterbation right before).

That said I’m no expert

[andy_fl]

I support Whack-a-Mole on this. I had heard the same a few days back on NPR (sorry no cite).

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**That does not rule out “voluntary” castrations, of the sort we were discussing earlier. Still, I was unaware of this ruling.
**

What’s the issue with voluntary castration? If a guy wants to lose his own nuts that’s his lookout. There are a lot of things that are fine if you choose to do them to yourself but may be illegal if the state tries to mandate it for you. It would seem to me that involuntary castration should be the real issue.

I’m curious (if any legal eagles know) if offering a choice skirts the issue of involuntary castration (or involuntary anything). That is to say I offer you a choice such as life in prison or castration and 10 years in prison (just an example). Would the Supreme Court likely still declare that cruel and unusual since you have a choice albeit two not very pleasant choices (not that a sentence for rape should ever be deemed ‘pleasant’)?

[Eats_Crayons]

*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
**I’m curious (if any legal eagles know) if offering a choice skirts the issue of involuntary castration (or involuntary anything). That is to say I offer you a choice such as life in prison or castration and 10 years in prison (just an example). Would the Supreme Court likely still declare that cruel and unusual since you have a choice albeit two not very pleasant choices (not that a sentence for rape should ever be deemed ‘pleasant’)? **

WAG: Such a “choice” would be made under duress. The courts don’t tend to like forcing people to make a choice under duress or coercion.

[samclem]

IzzyR said, concerning his theory that rape is about sex rather than power, etc.

Well I’m aware that there is a school of thought that believes this, but I am skeptical.

I disagree with all of the preceding post. I believe rape is primarily about sex, with violent sex being a subset of sex in general (IOW, in adition to opportunity, there are probably some people who prefer rapes to to consensual sex as someone might like any other sexual fetish).

Izzy Could you possibly offer any proof rather than your opinions? This is still in GQ after all.

k2dave ditto

[Speaker_for_the_Dead]

Couldn’t any punishment that isn’t used now be deemed “unusual”?

[IzzyR]

Whack-a-Mole,

I was calling “voluntary” when the convict selects it as an option (which is the case I remember, as well as the case you brought up) and “involuntary” a case where it is sentenced straight out. I looked around a bit and didn’t see anything definitive - the ACLU advocates the position suggested by Eats_Crayons, but I couldn’t find any rulings.

*Originally posted by samclem *
Izzy Could you possibly offer any proof rather than your opinions? This is still in GQ after all.

Actually, no. I think the notion that the primary motivation for a forced sex act is sex is commonsensical - rather like the notion that the primary motivation for armed robbery is money. Further, the performance of the sex act itself would seem to require a certain level of arousal on the part of the rapist. And again, the age distribution of victims is heavily weighted in favor of sexual attractiveness. (Many “rape = violence” assertions make note of the fact that women of all ages can be raped. Which is true - anything can happen, but there is an enormous decrease at older ages).

So in sum, I think the position that it is mostly about sex is straightforward, and the position that it is about violence is the one that needs to be supported. Until I see sufficient support for the latter I shall remain skeptical, proof or no proof. YMMV.

[Surreal]

Good points, IzzyR.

I wonder what the source is for the oft-cited ‘fact’ that ‘rape is all about power, not sex’. The studies Whack-a-Mole found don’t seem to support that ‘fact’.

[istara]

No link, but I read an extensive article on the rehabilitation of sex offenders a few years back, IIRC in Reader’s Digest.

The thing that struck me most in it was reference to a study where they tried chemical castration of child sex offenders. In most cases, where the offender couldn’t rape a child, they would use an object instead to harm or penetrate them.

The article was quite tragic and extremely depressing.