CASTRATION OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS
RECENTLY, the Madagascar Parliament passed a law that allows rapists of minors to be chemically castrated or even be subjected to surgical castration in situations of extreme violence.
Human rights groups highly discussed this move by Madagascar.
Many supported it and hailed it as an apt deterrent to curb sexual violence against minors whereas many criticised it as an “inhuman and degrading treatment” that was inconsistent with the country’s constitutional laws.
Chemical castration involves the use of anaphrodisiac drugs to reduce libido and sexual activity. Unlike surgical castration, which involves removing the gonads through a body incision, chemical castration does not involve organ removal and is not a sterilisation method.
Castration as a form of punishment for sexual offences might not be the lasting solution to restrict such crimes.
However, even if a single offender is subjected to this excessive punishment, it would serve as an example to other perpetrators.
With the ever-expanding gender-based violence against women and children across the world, a stringent penalty against offenders propagates feelings of security and safety.
In 2012, a sessions court in Delhi, India lamented the absence of castration as a form of punishment for paedophiles and repeat sexual offenders.
This observation was noted by the esteemed bench when it sentenced a man to life imprisonment for raping his six-year-old niece.
The Judge, a woman, called on Indian legislatures to explore “the possibility of permitting the imposition of alternative sentences of surgical castration or chemical castration in cases involving rape of minors and serial offenders.”
Transitioning to the other aspect of the issue, it is important to note that castration, whether physical or chemical, does not definitively prevent a man from sexually functioning or from possibly committing rape again. According to a 2005 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, it was discovered that 0 to 10 percent of sexually offending individuals who undergo surgical castration end up repeating their offences.
According to an article published in The Washington Post - Castration is one of the oldest and most controversial methods of treating sex offenders.
It has been used infrequently in the United States in the past 100 years. The practice has been more widely used in Germany and Scandinavia.
With the recent resurgence of the debate on castration, the main question is: Does castration effectively deter sex crimes?
Many proponents of the anti-castration brigade feel that an attempt to change a sex offender’s thoughts through intensive re-education, a process akin to brainwashing might be one of the several humane methods to tackle sexual crimes.
There is a division among therapists who work with rapists and child molesters regarding the most effective approach, whether through drugs, behaviour modification, or re-education.
However, there is a consensus that castration is not helpful, and may even be counterproductive in preventing future sexual assaults.
Rape crisis workers point out that the main issue is violence, not sex, which castration does not tackle.
Sexual assault is a heinous crime rooted in violence and aggression, rather than being attributed to an uncontrollable sexual urge.
The complexities of such behaviour often stem from factors within the human brain. Castration of a rapist does not eliminate the potential threat they pose. Even without the ability to commit rape, such individuals could resort to other violent means such as assault with objects like broom handles or bottles, physical beatings, or even fatal attacks, highlighting the deep-seated issues that drive such dangerous behaviours.