“Castrate the rapists." Since the horrific Delhi gang rape of December 16, 2012, this call for retributive justice has been heard repeatedly at protest marches and political rallies, an expression of public outrage in response to increasing reports of sexual violence across India.
Lawyers, activists and law makers have, so far, brushed the idea aside. In 2013, while making recommendations for more stringent rape laws, the Justice Verma committee deemed the notion of castration as punishment to be a violation of human rights and an ineffective solution to the “social foundations of rape”.
But on October 16, the Madras High Court became the first constitutional body to formally recommend castration as a means of punishing people who rape children. While hearing the case of a British national facing paedophilia charges in Tamil Nadu, Justice N Kirubakaran passed an order directing the central government to consider castration as an “additional punishment” for child rapists “in view of abnormal increase in child abuse cases”.
This appeal to popular sentiments was also reflected in a Delhi government advertisement published in city newspapers on Monday. The ad solicits public opinion on questions about child sexual abuse and juvenile criminals: should sex offenders be awarded the death penalty? Should the age of juveniles be reduced from 18 to 15 in cases of serious offences?
The Madras High Court order acknowledges that its recommendation of castration is likely to be seen as “barbaric”, “retrograde” and “inhuman” by “people who claim to be human rights activists”, but asks activists to focus more on the suffering of abuse victims than the rights of sexual offenders.
For many activists, however, the question raised by the subject of castration is not just whether it would violate rights of convicts. There is another, perhaps bigger question: can castration truly prove effective in bringing down the rates of sexual crimes against children?
What is castration?
Surgical castration involves the physical removal of the gonads from the male body, a form of castration that is rarely used by governments as a punishment for sex criminals. The preferred method, in the few countries that do allow this form of punishment, is chemical castration. This involves the ingestion of antiandrogen drugs into the body, which results in a reduction of the sex drive and of compulsive sexual fantasies.
While surgical castration is irreversible, the effects of chemical castration can be reversed if the drug is not administered at regular intervals. The side effects of the drug can include a drop in bone density, an increase in body fat and the inflation of male mammary glands.
It is only in the past 20 years that castration began to be used as legally-enforced punishment.
Around the world
In 1996, California state officially introduced chemical castration for offenders who molest children below 13 years of age. For second-time offenders, this punishment is mandatory. Since then, at least seven other states in the US have allowed for chemical castration, including Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Oregon and Louisiana.
In Europe, Poland enacted a law in 2010 allowing forcible chemical castration of anyone convicted of raping a child below 15, to ensure that the convict’s sex drive is lowered by the time his prison term is completed. Moldova and Estonia followed suit in 2012.
In 2011, South Korea became – as the Madras High Court order points out – the first Asian country to allow judges to sentence child molesters to chemical castration. The first such castration, however, was ordered by a Korean court in 2013, for a sex offender who was also sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Just last week, Indonesia’s attorney general announced that the country will soon introduce chemical castration to punish paedophiles. Like India, Indonesia has also been witnessing a spurt in the number of reported child rape cases.
Not all countries, however, are in favour or forcible castration as a punishment. Portugal, for instance, introduced a voluntary chemical castration programme for convicted sexual offenders in three of its prisons in 2008. Israel and Argentina have also seen individual cases where offenders opted to undergo castration.
Can castration reduce the number of sex crimes in India?
According to Justice Kirubakaran, the fact that chemical castration is already being employed in other countries is a strong reason to introduce it in India. His court order points out the rising number of crimes against children despite the introduction of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in 2012: from 2012 to 2014, the number of reported crimes against children increased from 38,172 to 89,423. Conviction rates for such crimes, however, are as low as 2.4%.
Justice Kirubakaran believes castration would be able to bring down the number of sex crimes in India by serving as an effective deterrent for sexual offenders. Some lawyers, however, are not convinced.
“Higher numbers of rape cases in crime data do not necessarily mean that rape is increasing,” said Persis Sidhwa, a lawyer from Majlis, a Mumbai-based legal-aid non-profit organisation. “Today, more people are going to the police to report sexual crimes, and the police is also recording FIRs in these cases more than before. Sexual violence will always remain underreported, so in a way, increased reporting of these crimes is a good thing.”
If conviction rates in sexual crimes against children are low, it is because of factors unrelated to the harshness of punishment that potential offenders are threatened with. “In India, we have no witness protection law, no official victim-support programme, nobody to help survivors of sex crimes through the process of fighting for justice,” said Sidhwa, who claims that conviction rates for sexual abuse cases taken up by Majlis are as high as 60% because of the victim-support programmes the organisation runs.
‘Focus on prevention, not punishment’
Doctors, too, echo Sidhwa’s views. “Medically, chemical castration can ensure that sexual arousal is reduced, if the drug is administered regularly,” said Dr Mahinder Watsa, a sexologist from Mumbai. “But before taking such drastic measures, why can’t courts ensure that current systems of dealing with sexual offences are improved?”
Psychiatrist Dr Yusuf Matcheswalla is not entirely convinced that chemical castration can truly prevent an offender from repeating criminal behaviour.
“Heinous acts come from the brain, not the testicles, so weakening the sex drive may not necessarily be effective,” said Matcheswalla. “For such criminals, the mind needs to be treated. We need to work more on prevention rather than punishment.”
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Lawyers, activists and law makers have, so far, brushed the idea aside. In 2013, while making recommendations for more stringent rape laws, the Justice Verma committee deemed the notion of castration as punishment to be a violation of human rights and an ineffective solution to the “social foundations of rape”.
But on October 16, the Madras High Court became the first constitutional body to formally recommend castration as a means of punishing people who rape children. While hearing the case of a British national facing paedophilia charges in Tamil Nadu, Justice N Kirubakaran passed an order directing the central government to consider castration as an “additional punishment” for child rapists “in view of abnormal increase in child abuse cases”.
This appeal to popular sentiments was also reflected in a Delhi government advertisement published in city newspapers on Monday. The ad solicits public opinion on questions about child sexual abuse and juvenile criminals: should sex offenders be awarded the death penalty? Should the age of juveniles be reduced from 18 to 15 in cases of serious offences?
The Delhi government advertisement.
The Madras High Court order acknowledges that its recommendation of castration is likely to be seen as “barbaric”, “retrograde” and “inhuman” by “people who claim to be human rights activists”, but asks activists to focus more on the suffering of abuse victims than the rights of sexual offenders.
For many activists, however, the question raised by the subject of castration is not just whether it would violate rights of convicts. There is another, perhaps bigger question: can castration truly prove effective in bringing down the rates of sexual crimes against children?
What is castration?
Surgical castration involves the physical removal of the gonads from the male body, a form of castration that is rarely used by governments as a punishment for sex criminals. The preferred method, in the few countries that do allow this form of punishment, is chemical castration. This involves the ingestion of antiandrogen drugs into the body, which results in a reduction of the sex drive and of compulsive sexual fantasies.
While surgical castration is irreversible, the effects of chemical castration can be reversed if the drug is not administered at regular intervals. The side effects of the drug can include a drop in bone density, an increase in body fat and the inflation of male mammary glands.
It is only in the past 20 years that castration began to be used as legally-enforced punishment.
Around the world
In 1996, California state officially introduced chemical castration for offenders who molest children below 13 years of age. For second-time offenders, this punishment is mandatory. Since then, at least seven other states in the US have allowed for chemical castration, including Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Oregon and Louisiana.
In Europe, Poland enacted a law in 2010 allowing forcible chemical castration of anyone convicted of raping a child below 15, to ensure that the convict’s sex drive is lowered by the time his prison term is completed. Moldova and Estonia followed suit in 2012.
In 2011, South Korea became – as the Madras High Court order points out – the first Asian country to allow judges to sentence child molesters to chemical castration. The first such castration, however, was ordered by a Korean court in 2013, for a sex offender who was also sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Just last week, Indonesia’s attorney general announced that the country will soon introduce chemical castration to punish paedophiles. Like India, Indonesia has also been witnessing a spurt in the number of reported child rape cases.
Not all countries, however, are in favour or forcible castration as a punishment. Portugal, for instance, introduced a voluntary chemical castration programme for convicted sexual offenders in three of its prisons in 2008. Israel and Argentina have also seen individual cases where offenders opted to undergo castration.
Can castration reduce the number of sex crimes in India?
According to Justice Kirubakaran, the fact that chemical castration is already being employed in other countries is a strong reason to introduce it in India. His court order points out the rising number of crimes against children despite the introduction of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in 2012: from 2012 to 2014, the number of reported crimes against children increased from 38,172 to 89,423. Conviction rates for such crimes, however, are as low as 2.4%.
Justice Kirubakaran believes castration would be able to bring down the number of sex crimes in India by serving as an effective deterrent for sexual offenders. Some lawyers, however, are not convinced.
“Higher numbers of rape cases in crime data do not necessarily mean that rape is increasing,” said Persis Sidhwa, a lawyer from Majlis, a Mumbai-based legal-aid non-profit organisation. “Today, more people are going to the police to report sexual crimes, and the police is also recording FIRs in these cases more than before. Sexual violence will always remain underreported, so in a way, increased reporting of these crimes is a good thing.”
If conviction rates in sexual crimes against children are low, it is because of factors unrelated to the harshness of punishment that potential offenders are threatened with. “In India, we have no witness protection law, no official victim-support programme, nobody to help survivors of sex crimes through the process of fighting for justice,” said Sidhwa, who claims that conviction rates for sexual abuse cases taken up by Majlis are as high as 60% because of the victim-support programmes the organisation runs.
‘Focus on prevention, not punishment’
Doctors, too, echo Sidhwa’s views. “Medically, chemical castration can ensure that sexual arousal is reduced, if the drug is administered regularly,” said Dr Mahinder Watsa, a sexologist from Mumbai. “But before taking such drastic measures, why can’t courts ensure that current systems of dealing with sexual offences are improved?”
Psychiatrist Dr Yusuf Matcheswalla is not entirely convinced that chemical castration can truly prevent an offender from repeating criminal behaviour.
“Heinous acts come from the brain, not the testicles, so weakening the sex drive may not necessarily be effective,” said Matcheswalla. “For such criminals, the mind needs to be treated. We need to work more on prevention rather than punishment.”