The questions given are thus: should a convicted sexual offender be able to consent to surgical castration as a means of avoiding incarceration? Could a judge require this before a sexual offender is paroled? What are the ethics in these cases? The answer to the first question can be nothing but an outright no. While it has been the case before, we have no reason to allow criminals to trade body parts for the punishment and sentencing they have shown themselves to deserve. This is especially true when the amputation involved is actually no real guarantee that the offender will repeat their crime. While seeming like an extreme scenario (and it is), removal of such an offender’s testicles is not necessarily going to eliminate his capacity to assault or molest a child, minor, or even adult. In a similar case, a man convicted of sexual battery on a minor and lewd and lascivious behavior had requested surgical castration as a means of avoiding what would be an almost certain life-sentence. This man was arrested for performing oral sex on an eleven-year-old1 . He did not need his penis or testicles for this heinous act. One might argue that with the loss of the testicles, sex-drive is decreased very much. This is true, but with hormone therapy it can resurface, and while it would not necessarily be easy for a convicted sex offender to get ahold of testosterone injections, it would not, by any means, be impossible. Even the drop in ability to maintain an erection would not necessarily curb the behavior, as often times in situations of rape (and this is especially true in matters of molestation), that the act in itself is less about sex, and more about the gaining of control and/or power that they feel is missing in their life2, and there are means of taking that control sexually without your own genitalia. In short, the simple removal of a body part cannot be taken as penance for a crime committed. After all, we don’t allow the chopping off of a theif’s hand in America, how should castration be any better? In second, no a judge does not have the ethical right to require surgical castration as a condition of parole. This would constitute cruel and unusual punishment (for a cruel and unusual crime, but this cannot be taken into concern), as it would be mutilation, albiet under surgical conditions, as a means of punishment. Paroling of sexual offenders must be based on the effectiveness of psychological and (if very necessary) pharmacological treatment, as well as actually having served their jailtime as punishment, not what body parts they would be willing to sacrifice. Making surgical castration a requirement for parole only makes further litigation more likely, as the offenders could effectively argue that the decision to acquiesce to the program was made under duress, as disagreeing would make them ineligible for parole, and probably also earn them marks for being uncooperative. To require castration is an unethical act. There are a few ethical situations in play, for all parties involved. The judge must be concerned with justice done for the victims of these offenders so that society can place faith in him as a protector, that justice be done by the law so he can maintain integrity among his peers, and that his choices might determine future cases, and by that how predators act to begin with as they are often quite familiar with many of the processes of such cases. The physician who would be performing the procedure is also under a few ethical presses. Is the procedure itself safe? If not, how can someone who’s job is to make people well, undertake a job that puts the patient at unnecessary risk? Will he be liable for litigation, pending some later concern about the ethics of the entire process by the patient? Society itself probably has the fewest, but also the greatest ethical responsibilities. There’s is first of all, the task of protecting those who cannot protect themself. Society is the first line of defense in that sense. Aside from that, society must decide whether they will call for a more moralistic punishment of the convicted sexual offender which may be somewhat more effective in a sense, but will put society at risk for more blowback from the situation, or if they will call for a more legalistic stance, which will still punish the convicted, but likely as harshly, and will protect society itself from more immediate litigious repercussions. Harsher penalties would make sentencing more difficult, but there is the chance that it could help curb a lot of the predation, whereas more sentencing with more leniency would lead to more expedient convictions, and possibly more catching of more sexual predators, although, they would certainly be less fearful of their punishments. In this scenario, recognition of ethical relativism is an absolute necessity, as there are no universal ethical guidelines to operate by. The question of who is more worthy of protection is unbalanced, as a harsher punishment of these two criminals, and allowing of the surgical castration would perhaps be some sort of comfort to the victims, and it may manage to curb these mens’ behavior or even someone else's, but it puts the legal system at a disadvantage, as a weak spot is made vulnerable to litigious attack. Disallowing the procedure would, however be a better way of stopping this behavior from continuing, as they are far less capable of harming more minors while in prison, and they will be able to be monitored more closely while going through their therapy sessions to try and rehabilitate them. It also exposes no weaknesses for attack, and keeps the system at strength for combatting this problem in the future.