Sex crimes, typically defined as crimes of violence involving sex, are one of the worst kinds of crime, damaging its victim both physically and psychologically. For such a horrific crime, a suitable punishment is needed. Castration fits the bill perfectly. It has been shown that for many sex offenders, the crime is caused by both psychological and physical urges – no rational counselling will prevent a repetition of the crime. Thus castration does not only stop further crimes by the offender (one of the main purposes of any punishment), but it is a strong deterrent for prospective offenders. Furthermore, as Douglas Besharov argues, the ‘sexual abuse and violence in prisons merely heightens their propensity to commit further crime’ (Besharow, 1992). Castration as the punishment for sex offenders suits both perpetrator and victim, providing an effective and specific punishment for a specific crime. 

Castration will help the offenders themselves, by freeing them from the urges that motivate them to re-offend. Court testimony has shown that many sexual criminals would dearly like to be free of these urges, but cannot control their actions, much like a heroin addict cannot control theirs. Thus a chemical cure for these urges will free the offender. Dr. Martin Holly, a leading sexologist in Prague, admitted ‘none of the nearly 100 sex offenders who had been physically castrated had committed further offenses (Bilefsky, 2009)’. Dr. Fred Berlin, citing separate studies, claimed re-offending rates dropped below 15% when participants were chemically castrated (Spalding, 1997).

Castration will also help the widespread hysteria about the crimes of a sexual nature. At the moment, there is a massive stigmatisation of sexual offenders, with them being ‘named and shamed’ publicly (for example, by the News of the World newspaper in Britain in the summer of 2000), and hounded off their estates by mobs (as can be seen from the events after the News of The World campaign ). They are also subject to a large amount of violence in prison from other inmates. If castration is introduced, the public would know that these people are no longer a threat, and they would be allowed to get on with their lives. Castration removes both the public stigmatisation and personal suffering of sexual offenders, and should be embraced by the penal system.

The legislative and executive branches of the state is equipped with the power to order sentencing that best suits both the offender and society. For sex offenders that are adjudged to be at risk of re-offending no matter how long or harsh the prison sentence, castration should be ordered. Sexual castration would only be ordered however for those offenders whom it would almost certainly reduce the risk of re-offending, for it attacks the root, hormonal causes of their criminal activity. Once administered, the offender could be assessed and released if it was felt that his rehabilitation was complete and he was no further risk to society.