A fair punishment for an unforgivable crime
The only satisfying way to make up for the psychological effects of rape on a victim is to remove a rapist’s ability to commit that crime altogether. Chemical castration is the practice of using hormonal chemicals and anti-androgens to shut down testosterone production. This treatment renders a patient incapable of having children, as well as removing their genetic capacity for sexual activity.
Art by Sara Polster
This is the perfect punishment for convicted rapists. The treatment isn’t about whether or not a rapist deserves to have kids–it’s about whether or not a kid deserves a rapist as a parent, and the answer is no. The treatment also makes a patient's libido decrease significantly.
While this is a severe punishment, many countries have already adopted this procedure for certain sexual offenders. Indonesia, Madagascar, Poland, Russia and South Korea involve chemical castration for serious or repeat rape charges. In some places, such as Argentina, the United Kingdom, Germany and some states in the United States, chemical castration is a voluntary treatment for offenders. In these cases, the procedure often comes as a part of the negotiation deal for parole.
Some argue that this treatment is nonconsensual no matter what, because in cases of negotiation deals it’s a choice between time in jail and castration. Since it’s under strict terms, the consent given by an offender isn’t truly consent. But to be frank, rapists shouldn’t need to give their consent for this type of thing. A survivor of rape didn’t give their consent, either, so it’s really fitting that a rapist doesn’t have to for the procedure to take place. Another concern is the brutality of the treatment. It’s argued that chemical castration is a dehumanizing procedure–which it is. Rape is also a dehumanizing action, which makes this treatment spot-on in its justice. In fact, it’s less dehumanizing as offenders will be put under anesthesia and won’t feel or remember any pain from the procedure. The same can’t be said for rape survivors. With these justifications in mind, Bella Gulko (’27) describes why it’s a fair punishment.
“Rape is a really serious crime and it can cause a lot of emotional traumatic distress within a person. It’s definitely a really horrible topic,” Gulko said. “I don’t think that the sentence right now is as harsh as it should be because of that psychological damage that it causes… I think [castration] is a great idea.”
One thing can be said about this procedure, however, that has hardly been mentioned, which is that chemical castration has been used before as a tactic applied to eugenics. Therefore, this punishment should go through several levels of superiors to ensure that there is no bias in a ruling for chemical castration. It’s not this case of, “chemical castration to all, and to all a good night!”–of course not. However, in cases where there is compelling evidence against the accused, it is the correct action to take. It’s insane that some legislation requires the convicted to be a repeat offender to consider the procedure. Why wait? Therapy, yes; jail, yes; castration, also yes.
No matter the gender of either rapist nor survivor, it’s a fitting punishment. In the case of a female offender, the treatment is the same hormone therapy used to treat certain breast cancers. They decrease sex drive in women and have the same overall effect as chemical castration does on male offenders. In some cases, the procedure for female rapists is ovary removal. Rapists are statistically more likely to be men, no matter the gender of the survivor, according to a report in 2021 from the United States Sentencing Commission. In this report, they found that 93.5% of total perpetrators of sexual assault in 2021 were male. If the concern is consent, why should a demographic that is largely male have to give their consent while a demographic that is largely female has that right stripped away from them? This sudden outrage at a lack of consent is honestly more sexist than activist.
All issues surrounding this topic have to do with the humanity of it all. Rape is among some of the most brutal and dehumanizing crimes that can be committed against any single person. Nobody should be concerned about the humanization of a serious rapist. To commit that crime against another human being takes a tremendous lack of empathy which should be reflected back onto the perpetrator at the trial.
Chemical castration shouldn’t be the default for rapists, of course, nor should it be the only response in a rape crime. It must be mixed with psychological treatment to both the victim and the assaulter. The deeper drives of the crime of rape–power, control and anger–must be addressed. It has to be monitored and the case must have strict guidelines that make castration the truly correct response to the rape. The ultimate concern should be watching what demographics of people are sentenced to this procedure; people should be watching to make sure this doesn’t devolve into pure eugenics. However, the fact that opposers to this procedure haven’t spoken on that monitorization once is extremely telling. The fact is, opposing this treatment has nothing to do with human rights, only male rights. It’s not about humanity if the only demographic that’s focused on is men. Chemical castration for rapists should be implemented globally as a punishment–give them the same treatment they give their victims.