Should Convicted Rapists Face the Chopping Block?

A man convicted of paedophilia multiple times is now once again on trial in France for a crime he cannot seem to stop committing. Francis Evard admitted his guilt during the first day of his trial but said he can’t explain why he continues to rape male minors, only that he has “impulses,” according to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal. Oh, but don’t worry about Evard; he has already come up with a plan to help him help himself. Evard has asked for his testicles to be surgically castrated, as in removed from his body. Evard wrote to Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France, asking that he be allowed to break France’s law against surgical castration. Sarkozy has not replied to this request or commented on it publicly. If convicted, 63-year-old Evard will most likely spend most of his life in jail where he will not be able to harm any children. However, is it right that Evard remain a financial drain on the French penal system when he is wiling to undergo a procedure that would, in theory, allow him to stop committing the crime that resulted in his jail time?
If someone wants their testicles surgically removed or chemically castrated, that should be their own personal choice. However, the government does have some say in what happens to a man’s own personal pair. Every country seems to have a different opinion and law regarding surgical and chemical castration. Some are for it; some are horrified by it. In France, surgical castration is illegal, even when requested by the man attached to the testicles. In October 2009, Poland passed legislation that will allow for a judge to order chemical castration for sex offenders who have been convicted of raping children under the age of 15. In Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland and Sweden, convicted child molesters can choose to have chemical castration to reduce or eliminate their sexual urges. Surgical castration is legal in the Czech Republic; Zimbabwe is considering passing similar legislation that would allow for the castration of convicted male rapists. In Canada, several repeat child molesters have voluntarily submitted to castration in the past decade. In 2000, a convicted paedophile in Quebec voluntarily had himself castrated in order to reduce his sentence. If a man is willing to give up his cojones in order to curb his sexual impulses, why not? Rewarding any convicted rapist who is willing to surgically or chemically castrate themselves in exchange for a lesser sentence or a shorter stint in the slammer is a smart way of reducing overcrowding in jails.

However, surgical castration must remain an individual choice, not a lawful threat. Sure, it would be delightfully vengeful if a judge could punish every convicted sex offender by sending them to the chopping block but there are too many moral and ethical implications to consider. What if a man who involuntarily loses his testicles is later found to be wrongfully convicted? I don’t possess male anatomy but my understanding is that balls don’t grow back once they are gone. Also, many people consider castration mutilation, akin to Female Genital Mutilation, when a woman’s clitoris is partially or fully removed. If surgical castration became a lawful punishment for male rapists and paedophiles, would an equal law be passed for female rapists? Would the law only apply to those convicted of molesting children or would all rapists be at risk for losing part of their anatomy? Where would the line be drawn?

While surgical castration seems like a fitting punishment for rapists and paedophiles, chemical castration would be the more humane option. Chemical castration consists of injections that would reduce or even completely kill a man’s sex drive (and hopefully hurt. A lot). Chemical castration should, in theory, curb a man’s sexual desires enough that he would not feel the urge to misuse his junk for evil, but would still leave him physically intact. This would remove many doubts about whether surgical castration is too close to outright mutilation. If used properly, chemical castration could provide convicted rapists and paedophiles a chance to serve shorter sentences and rejoin society. Do they deserve a chance to leave jail early? Maybe not, but a solution must be found to repeat offenders and overcrowded jails. The government of Canada (along with the government of France) needs to examine the law and decide if it would be feasible to create a system that would reduce the amount of repeat offenders by chemically castrating convicted rapists and paedophiles.