Physical Castration: Should It Be Considered?

          On the topic of castration, there’s physical castration, which entails the surgical removal of one’s genitals.  In Virginia, there’s been much debate about using castration as punishment for sex offenders versus punishing them with civil commitment.  The latter keeps sex offenders in a medical facility after they’ve served their prison sentence; it costs the government $100,000 per offender per year to keep this program running.

Thus, some Virginian lawmakers are pushing for castration, because it will save victims AND save money.   Opponents claim that there is still too high of a chance of re-offense, but proponents argue that castration is cheap and more often effective than not.

Though I do think physical castration seems extreme, there is something to be said for the amount of money it costs to choose the alternative punishment.  Rather than spending $100,000 per year to keep offenders in facilities, why not put that money towards therapy and/or other expenses the victims may incur as they try to put their lives back together?  It seems like a better use of the money to me.  To have people’s tax dollars going to this cause seems ridiculous.

What do you think?  Which is more unreasonable: the government paying $100,000 per year per offender, or physical castration?

(For more information on abuse and other mental health issues, please visit my website)