Imagine a town which has outlawed the most conventional form of criminal punishment, imprisonment. It believes that incarcerating a human being in a jail cell for five, 10 or 20 years is cruel and outdated. Instead, it reintegrates “criminals” back into the community with counseling and encouragement. It has concluded that locking up a human being, whatever his crime, is an infringement of his human right to freedom and liberty.

The aforementioned example is a paradisiacal community. When one considers, the act of forcibly incarcerating a human being for a life term in a jail cell could be considered inhumane. However, society isn’t perfect, and we understand that it needs a form of punishment for criminal behavior and for protection of the innocent. So, to the most pressing question: Is surgical castration a fitting solution for convicted child rapists, or is it a cruel and inhuman infringement of their human rights?

Daniel Fiedler points out in his recent article that the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee called castration “invasive, irreversible, and mutilating.” Consider these three points. Irreversible it must be, or the fundamental purpose to reduce recidivism is defeated. Invasive and mutilating, yes, but with the number of these sex crimes having more than doubled in the last five years, and considering the rampant spread of Internet child pornography, strong measures are called for. The U.S. Supreme Court mentions the “mental suffering” caused by castration, suffering which “is always present and follows the individual wherever he goes.” Clearly, however, the suffering of a future child victim is immeasurably more degrading. The act of abducting, abusing and then raping a helpless child is horrendous. If we could grade the severity of varying crimes, child rape must be at the top of the list. Supporters of castration are not arguing that the practice of mutilation is a desirable one in criminal law. The fact that we even have to consider it is depressing. But child rape is more despicable than most other crimes, and the shocking increase in recent years demands a new form of response.

The U.N. convention against torture prevents states from using “acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” This is a laudable treaty and relevant in many instances. When military personnel are accused of using broken glass and pepper spray against terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, the U.N. can condemn this as torture. Yet castration is manifestly different. If the surgery is performed by qualified doctors using anesthetic, it should not be disregarded as so “cruel” and “inhuman.” The surgery itself would be painless.

The U.S. Supreme Court calls castration “barbaric.” Again though, if castration is barbaric, then arguably prison could also be cast in the same light. It forces the cohabitation of violent offenders, drug addicts and other social misfits. Prison also inflicts the mental torture of confinement. This too, is cruel, but we know it to be necessary.

There are potential side effects of castration, such as osteoporosis and an increase in body weight. These are unfortunate consequences of the treatment, but a potential child victim may also suffer tremendous damage to vital inner organs. What’s more, prison also causes long-term illnesses such as paranoia, claustrophobia and mental trauma, without even mentioning the increased criminal tendencies inmates acquire while locked up. Criminal justice often hurts people in some way.

Fiedler suggests that castration will violate “the fundamental concept that individuals are punished for past crimes, not for potential future crimes.” Generally this is so. However, there are perfectly acceptable instances in which law breakers are punished for the possibility of future offences. The removal of a driver’s license for repeat drunken driving or the restraining order for harassment are both examples of the courts protecting society against recidivism.

It is clear that a number of sex offenders are motivated not only by desire. They may be acting out of misogyny or for the desire for power. These theories are apt at explaining rape against adults, but less persuasive when explaining the rape of young children. The fact is that most pedophiles have watched a great deal of child pornography and have even confessed the desire to have sex with children. One young girl in my neighboring town was abducted and raped by her school bus driver on the way home only last month. The sheer stupidity of the crime astounded me: the perpetrator knew he would certainly be caught but his desire was so overwhelming. Of course, castration would not magically solve the sadistic tendencies in some offenders, but it certainly contributes to lessening or eliminating the sex drive itself. A key question is this: If castration prevented the rape and torture of only one child, would it justify the use of that castration? The answer must be yes.

Fiedler correctly stated that the “medieval concept of retribution” no longer has a place in modern society. But here is the key point. Castration should not be considered an act of retribution. To consider it so shakes the moral high ground on which our court should stand. Castration would be retributive if it was performed with a blunt knife, without an anesthetic, and watched by a jeering crowd (that truly would be medieval). But it isn’t. It is a controlled surgery with the primary purpose to prevent the likelihood of reoffending.

Obviously, castration is not the only answer. There are a range of other preventative measures which must be considered including a crackdown on Internet child pornography. Castration cannot undo the horrific trauma the child has been put through. It cannot prevent all new pedophiles from committing this heinous crime. But it will prevent some of these rapists from reoffending, and affirms that protecting children from this increasing menace is our priority. 

By Lewis Eckersley

Lewis Eckersley is the academic coordinator at Yoons Elite School in Changwon City, South Gyeongsang Province. ― Ed.