NCJ Number
178846
Journal
Northwestern University Law Review Volume: 92 Issue: 4 Dated: Summer 1998 Pages: 1225-1246
Date Published
1998
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This article addresses empirical and philosophical objections raised in considering castration in determining sex offenders' sentences.
Abstract
Jeffrey Morse confessed to police his guilt in a sexual assault of a 9-year-old girl and a similar offense several months earlier. During his incarceration and prior to making a plea, Morse discussed with his attorney the possibility of being surgically castrated. Subsequently, Morse pled guilty to aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Prior to sentencing, he was granted permission to leave the jail (under armed guard) to undergo castration, which was done on January 20, 1998. At Morse's subsequent sentencing hearing, four experts testified that surgical castration reduces sex offenders' recidivism rates, and testified to the wisdom of reducing Morse's sentence. State witnesses testified that Morse's risk of reoffending was too high to justify a reduced sentence. The judge sentenced Morse to 26 years in prison, 1 more year than he had previously been offered in a plea bargain, stating that "the trading of body parts for a lesser sentence" would set a "dangerous precedent." Although this sentencing decision may be explicable on political and emotional grounds, this article argues that it was analytically incorrect and that following its precedent would run counter to the purposes of the criminal law. The authors argue that the empirical evidence, although not perfect, strongly indicates that castration dramatically reduces the probability of sex offender recidivism. Second, reducing castrated sex offenders' sentences in appropriate cases would be consistent with the criminal law's utilitarian purposes. Third, offering sex offenders the opportunity to be castrated in return for a reduced sentence is not ethically problematic coercion. 43 footnotes