\documentstyle[doublespace]{article}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9in}
\title{Philosophy and Public Affairs, Paper \#3}
\author{Greg Hudson}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{center}
Thesis: A Benthamite might or might not support the proposal, based on
his or her judgment of several factual issues relating to rape and
castration.
\end{center}
\bigskip
In this essay, I will apply Bentham's principles to assess the
proposal that the punishment for rape shall be castration.  I will
ignore the problem that not all rapists are male.  The basis of this
essay is the 1823 edition of Bentham's {\em An Introduction to the
Principles of Morals and Legislation}.

The utility in the law is in the extent to which it helps prevent
rape, assuming it leaves all other things equal.  Rapists harm their
victims physically and emotionally, and often cause vicarious
suffering to friends of their victims.  When rape is prevalent, even
those who are not victims must be fearful of it.  Thus, rape is
mischief, and preventing rape adds to the general utility.

Castration does not physically prevent rape, so the proposed law can
potentially prevent rape in two ways: it can remove the desire of the
rapist to rape again, and it can act as a deterrent to those who might
otherwise commit rape.

A Benthamite might believe that castration would remove the desire of
the rapist to rape again either because the rapist might feel guilt at
having his actions condemned by society, or more directly, because it
reduces the rapist's interest in sex.  Both of these ideas are subject
to debate, the first because it is speculative, and the second because
many consider the motivation for rape to be unrelated to sexual
attraction.

The other way in which castration might prevent rape is by example.  A
potential rapist would, hopefully, calculate that the pleasure they
might gain from the act is less than the pain of possible castration
and the subsequent lack of interest in sex that that would cause.  A
Benthamite who considers rape to be related to sexual attraction might
find castration to be a more effective deterrent than another
punishment, because of the direct psychological link between sexual
attraction and potential sexual deprivation.  A Benthamite who does
not consider rape to be related to sexual attraction might still find
castration an effective deterrent in the same way that any punishment
is a deterrent.

A Benthamite might oppose the proposal if he or she believes that it
violates the principle of proportionality.  That is, a violent
criminal might elect to commit murder instead of rape, or commit
murder in order to avoid getting caught for rape, judging that
castration is less tolerable than imprisonment or even execution.
Thus the law might subtract from the general utility instead of adding
to it, by increasing the number of occurrences of murder by as well as
decreasing the number of occurrences of rape.

A Benthamite would also oppose the proposal under the argument that
the evil of sufference of castration is greater than the happiness
brought about by its preventing some occurrances of rape.

We have seen that a Benthamite could come down on either side of the
issue, for a variety of reasons, all related to the question of
whether the law would increase the general utility.
\end{document}

