Charles Amos: Castrating paedophiles should just be the beginning of the policy

Charles Amos studied Political Theory at the University of Oxford and writes The Musing Individualist Substack.

In May, Shabana Mahmood started to run twenty schemes of voluntary chemical castration for sex offenders with the possibility of making it mandatory if the trial is successful. Like most people, I wholeheartedly welcome it.

Now that castration has edged itself ever so slightly onto the political agenda, a sensible discussion of how it can be extended to rid ourselves of the criminal class should be debated too; while still strictly adhering to liberal principles.

A simple proposal would be this: Offer all criminals a reduced or no sentence in exchange for their full castration with a cash payment on top. This should reduce criminal genes in future people, thus, significantly reducing down long-term criminality.

The egalitarians might not like it, but it remains true that some people by their very nature are more likely to be criminal than others. Meta-analysis of various studies has shown that between 40 per cent to 60 per cent of the variation in criminality is explained by the influence of genes.

Importantly many studies take twins split at birth and simultaneously study the one brought up by their genetic parents and the other brought up by adopted parents in order to isolate the genetic factor, and, they still find both have enhanced criminality, strongly suggesting crime is in the genes. It stands to reason then that criminals having fewer children will lead to lower criminality, because, upbringing is not the main cause of it. Unfortunately, according to 1990s data, compared to the law abiding, criminals breed like rabbits, having close to twice the number of children.

Given the great difficulty of effectively changing the environment of future criminals, e.g. removing them from their parents, a better way of reducing their number would be eugenics, i.e. non-romantically arranging reproduction to ensure only desirable traits are brought into existence. Respect for individual rights dictates no compulsion may be used; this eugenicist classical liberals of the 19^th Century such as Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner and Francis Galton understood.

Genetics may make criminality among some much more likely, but they do not seal their fate, and, collective guilt by simple association with certain genes is anathema to any concern with true justice. Indeed: Collective guilt via the genes is the ethic of the Nazi. Nevertheless: Voluntary penal eugenics has the potential to both reduce future criminality and still respect individual rights. How?

The state should offer, upon the victim’s consent, all violent offenders, robbers and thieves of reproductive age the choice between the standard punishment today, and, the option of balls off castration with payment, a reduced sentence, or, more lenient terms. No individual rights are violated since criminals are simply given another option. Crucially, the castration option should be calculated so as to reduce the net present value of criminality down relative to the standard option.

Why would criminals choose castration? Criminals have a smaller prefrontal cortex which leads them to less impulse control, meaning, the prospect of castration with £5,000 on the side would be lapped up because many wouldn’t think about the long-term disadvantages, e.g., not being able to have kids. This would still directly save the taxpayer due to the fact the average prison place cost the state £52,092 a year.

In the short-term crime would probably go up, however, over the long term it would seriously diminish crime as genes associated with criminality would die out. Remember genes explain most criminality. Importantly, only a very small number of the criminals would need to be castrated. According to a Swedish study, 63 per cent of violent crime is committed by just 1 per cent of the population, so, castrating them need not cost much future economic output. Given it’s the least productive types who won’t be brought into existence, the potential to save on the £250bn cost of crime, or, about 10 per cent of GDP, should more than make up for fewer children overall.

Even in the short term, however, criminals are so short sighted they might get themselves castrated then reoffend and get locked up anyway. Nice. Plus, chemical castration of paedophiles has been effective in reducing recidivism rates from the expected 50 per cent down to about 4 per cent; I suspect taking the confidence of testosterone out of shoplifters might have the same effect too. To stop the moral hazard of ordinary people deliberately committing crime to get the £5,000 maybe a criminal family history or brain scan and gene testing could be required too.

How could the Left object? I suspect they’ll raise a paternalistic concern, i.e., we must not give criminals the castration option because too many will use it against their best interests. Should we accept people can smoke and become obese though, i.e. people should be free to make mistakes, then, logic demands we allow criminals such freedom as well. Certainly, if criminals with low intelligence can be stopped from being castrated, then, parity of reasoning dictates vasectomies among noncriminal but equally low intelligence people should be prohibited too. No. A second reply will be pointing out how racist – insert Nazi association here – this eugenics policy would be.

The Black population makes up about 12 per cent of prisoners compared to just 4 per cent of the population, thus, the voluntary penal eugenic policy would likely disproportionately impact Black people. This is no point against it though because inequality between the races is not intrinsically bad, e.g. Black people being faster than White people at running is not bad per se.

Provided each individual is treated with justice no objection can be raised, and, a voluntary penal eugenics program does just that. The crucial distinction between unjust eugenics and just eugenics is whether compulsion is involved. This ultimately distinguishes the evil of Adolf Hitler and Madison Grant from the good of Francis Galton and Herbert Spencer; all of whom were eugenicists.

Lastly the Left might just claim eugenics is plain wrong. I doubt Leftists really think the non-romantic planning of reproduction to ensure future people have desirable traits is really problematic. Would they wish to overturn the ban on implanting blind and disabled embryos, or, the abortion of babies with Downs syndrome? I’m not too sure as to the ethics of such laws, but I doubt Leftists want to repeal them, so, they can’t object to voluntary penal castration on the grounds eugenics per se is plain wrong.

Castrating paedophiles is a great policy, but it should only be the start of a wider castration of the criminal class. While stabbers, shoplifters and burglars can’t be compulsorily castrated due to the injustice committed by them not being great enough to warrant such large retribution, a voluntary castration scheme with a money pay off would do much to help stop them reproducing themselves. Although in the short term this might result in an increase in crime, over the long term it would ensure a peaceful society with less crime, fewer prisons and better friends, colleagues and neighbours too.