Childsex offenders asking for chemical castration

[butnobodytoldme]

Ashley Colville, in Teeside Crown Court, (Mail today, sorry no link) has 17 paedophilia convictions. His lawyer explained he had reached top of the list for chemical castration, but everything stopped for Covid (why?)
And, that there was a random lottery of prisons why do, and don't use the treatment (why?)

The article explained that in comparable countries, castration can be made available by either surgery or chemicals, with the latter being less satisfactory because it reverses, as soon as treatment ends. But UK only offers chemical, and only for a few prisoners in a few prisons (why?)

Yars ago I researched this and recall that in those countries where surgical castration is made available, offenders are often desperate to have it, not only because they don't want to spend their lives constantly in and out of prison, but in some cases because, despite their urges, they are revolted by their own actions.

Castration by either method may not completely remove urges,in all cases, but it helps, at least, and at times works entirely.

I also researched the close relationship between violence in prison and unusually high testosterone (in both men and, more rarely, women) Prisoners don't actively choose to be out-of-control violent, again not only because they don't want repeated sanctions and extended sentences, but because they don't like what they realise has happened. They are not offered hormone re-balancing (why?)

Hormone balancing and surgical castration on request would appear to be a reasonable option, which even the leg-crossing men in parliament could surely not mind, since it would not be part of a sentence, only an option for an acceptable future life.

There again, in some countries chemical castration is part of a sentence, in others it may be offered as an option before choosing the sentence, and there appears not to be any particular reason (other than male MPs shuddering hysterically at the very word) why it could not be incorporated into UK law on both sentencing and parole.

Somewhere, a famous man described reaching extreme age and (presumably) a vanished libido, as being "at last, unshackled from the madman" The prisoners interviewed expressed much the same sentiments. Better have a peaceful, free life with no appetite at all, than have an intact appetite which constantly puts you in prison.

But the absence of interest would need to be periodically monitored, presumably by technology (viewing previously arousing images or descriptions, while wired up to an electode covered skull cap?)

.....prisons which do, .... (not prisons why do!)

I feel very uneasy at mandating any drug or surgical treatment. It's bad enough we have to restrict peoples freedom, but to take away their bodily autonomy as well is even worse. Is there any situation where we enforce any drugs? Not even vaccinations are legally enforceable. What about anti-psychotics, or TB treatment? Can a person be legally obliged to take them (if they are psychotic or have TB) to protect others from their disease or its consequences?

But if testosterone suppression does actually reduce sexual offending, and the prisoner consents and wants to be treated with it, then I cannot see why there should be any barriers.

I think this is a medical treatment which should only be given on medical grounds and in line with NICE guidelines. There is a lack of good evidence about its outcomes.It should not be used as part of the penal system any more than removing hands.

If an adult paedophile is asking for castration to stop them ruining the lives of children, I don't see how anyone could be against that.

I'd even want to introduce it as part of sentencing with a completely clear conscience.

Isn’t it funny not funny how there is debate about whether to give paedophiles drugs to chemically castrate them when the exact same drugs - puberty blockers - are given freely to gender non-conforming children by doctors in gender clinics?

Picking up on what ItsDinah said - I have family working in this field, and unless the evidence has changed, I understood from them it's regarded as an ineffective treatment as sex offenders will often move on to using an implement when they no longer have the libido.

I'm not convinced it's a case of paedophiles begging for this 'to stop them ruining the lives of children' - on the contrary, I'd be very suspicious of the paedophile who says, 'See, look, I'm safe now, I've been chemically castrated and I'm not a risk to anyone any more'.

@NotBadConsidering

Isn’t it funny not funny how there is debate about whether to give paedophiles drugs to chemically castrate them when the exact same drugs - puberty blockers - are given freely to gender non-conforming children by doctors in gender clinics?

Yes, and a surprising strand of thought that in case it is not 100% effective, it's better to continue the system of locking people up then letting them out and taking the chance they will be 100% radically changed as a result of no intervention at all

Is it intended to replace prison, to be after prison, or to be alongside prison?

All paedophiles should have the castration whether they want it or not in my eyes. Disgusting animals don’t deserve a choice when they don’t give a choice to the ones they abuse

I remember watching a documentary on BBC2 about a study where sex offenders had been chemically castrated. It didn't work.

It was ages ago so I can't tell you when or what the study was. I just remembered that many found ways round it, even though it was voluntary. 😬

I think you need to be careful with jumping together paedophiles and sex offenders/abusers that are opportunistic and will abuse anybody they can. It's not always as clear but as they are sexually attracted to children.

I think if a person is only attracted to children and goes on to abuse them then yes , chemical or surgical castration SHOULD be offered to them ( but not part of the sentence). If it's a person that has abused others indiscriminately ( adults and children) then that's not necessarily related to sex urge/ attraction/hormone levels but rather some sort extreme personality disorder where they get off on other peoples pain/discomfort and enjoy the power over them. I don't think chemical or surgical castration would work at all?

But very often both types of offender are lumped together in one category which is wrong as I inside they would need totally separate approaches. I've got a friend that's a prison officer. They work on a wing that houses paedohpiles . Apparently they are the easiest to look after as they are generally clean, tidy and do as they are told. They don't want trouble. But general population is mental in comparison. It's very bizarre, Human behaviour in a petri dish.

My understanding was that it didn't work.

Worth bearing in mind that there are a large number of child sex offenders who do have chemical castration as part of treatment for prostate cancer. They are exactly the same as they were before.

Also abuse takes many forms - it isn't just done with a penis. Most offenders are complex individuals who are highly skilled at manipulation and grooming of adults as well as children. Abuse will be emotional, psychological, neglect as well as sexual. Without a penis they can move on to manipulating another adult, or using another body part or an implement. Not having an erection means nothing.

I'd not take a sex offender's word for anything. It's just another part of grooming, there is always an agenda.

@JellySaurus

Is it intended to replace prison, to be after prison, or to be alongside prison?

It makes sense in all circumstances. Hormone balancing is what some women as well as men require and request, for those overwhelmed with too much testosterone, making them violent. (Some women, too, have extreme PMT which causes them to behave in a way they would not recognise, the rest of the month. It gets them sentenced to prison, then makes them do exactly the same while in there) Prison is always best avoided if possible, and in some cases, people have unwelcome drives to do things, but manage to curb actually carrying them out. If reducing the impulses could be helped by chemicals or surgery, without need to commit an offence, it would be welcome to them and to society.

Instead of, as well as, alongside and following would all be appropriate for any other treatment, so treatment to reduce violence or unwelcome sexual drive would not be an exception.
Part of the treatment would be continuing monitoring as it would with insulin. But in the case of unwanted urges, it would probably need not only blood tests, but also the customary methods of measuring brain-response

Again, I suggest that because something is not invariably 100% effective (like prison sentences) it doesn't mean it should not be tried ever
I read that reducing the hormones does at least reduce some of the violence and some of the sexual urge.
Someone who likes to get drunk and fight may still do it, someone who likes to rape may use an implement.
But with a different hormone balance, fewer people may have anti-social inclinations, or may at least be less extreme, or experience less frequent or compelling urges.

@Linguini

If an adult paedophile is asking for castration to stop them ruining the lives of children, I don't see how anyone could be against that.

I'd even want to introduce it as part of sentencing with a completely clear conscience.

I agree.

“NotBadConsidering

Isn’t it funny not funny how there is debate about whether to give paedophiles drugs to chemically castrate them when the exact same drugs - puberty blockers - are given freely to gender non-conforming children by doctors in gender clinics?“

I was thinking that too. Provided such a person chooses it, why shouldn’t they be allowed either physical or chemical castration given other men can choose these options to become trans gender?

I don’t think it should be mandatory though even though I feel it should be. Neither on the other hand do I think they should ever get out of prison as they are.

Do you have any examples of women whose “extreme PMT” has led to their incarceration please @butnobodytoldme?

Clinically speaking, the most severe version of PMS is PMDD; & as [attempted] suicide hasn’t been a crime in the UK since 1961, unless you believe psychiatric institutions are carceral institutions & are not making the distinction explicit here, it is not PMDD to which you refer.

Women are so overwhelmingly non-violent offenders that women’s violence is always newsworthy. (Of course, stats for the last few years are wrecked by identify as you please. They don’t let adults identify as young offenders though*; nor anyone ID as below age criminal responsibility. Any/all of which would make as much sense.)

Returning to idea of [chemical] castration of paedophiles, when a more general programme of sex offender castration was discussed in this 2010 BMJ article it says that early C20 efforts significantly reduced recidivism rates. There, however, they were frequently trying to prevent the “deviancy” of homosexuality - not exactly a comparable patient population. It was written just as they were starting to use the current range of drugs, so not considering the specific issues with them - but there are ethical questions about any form of castration.

As for compelled medication, in the UK, if you are either sectioned or have a Community Treatment Order you can be forced to take medication. Long-acting Antipsychotic Injections for the treatment of schizophrenia are a common example.

• Well, they don’t usually & haven’t yet in the UK…

The company marketing Lupron type drugs seem to target many diverse markets and is coming under more pressure from lawsuits in the USA where the regulationary framework has been very weak.
I'm not sure I would trust their results and I'm sceptical that this is the way to solve the problem.

www.lupronvictimshub.com/lawsuits.html

@NitroNine

Do you have any examples of women whose “extreme PMT” has led to their incarceration please *@butnobodytoldme*?

Clinically speaking, the most severe version of PMS is PMDD; & as [attempted] suicide hasn’t been a crime in the UK since 1961, unless you believe psychiatric institutions are carceral institutions & are not making the distinction explicit here, it is not PMDD to which you refer.

Women are so overwhelmingly non-violent offenders that women’s violence is always newsworthy. (Of course, stats for the last few years are wrecked by identify as you please. They don’t let adults identify as young offenders though*; nor anyone ID as below age criminal responsibility. Any/all of which would make as much sense.)

Returning to idea of [chemical] castration of paedophiles, when a more general programme of sex offender castration was discussed in this 2010 BMJ article it says that early C20 efforts significantly reduced recidivism rates. There, however, they were frequently trying to prevent the “deviancy” of homosexuality - not exactly a comparable patient population. It was written just as they were starting to use the current range of drugs, so not considering the specific issues with them - but there are ethical questions about any form of castration.

As for compelled medication, in the UK, if you are either sectioned or have a Community Treatment Order you can be forced to take medication. Long-acting Antipsychotic Injections for the treatment of schizophrenia are a common example.

• Well, they don’t usually & haven’t yet in the UK…

One I particularly recall was a documentary on violence in women's prisons, which was not setting out to show hormonal 'derangement' had caused the incarceration, but in the course of the study there emerged a curious thing staff noticed, with a few of the more extreme-problem prisoners.

They and their best friends and cell mates agreed with the observation that they were 'transformed' cyclically. I collect information without necessarily expecting to be interrogated as if writing a thesis, but I do apply scientific rigour and a great deal of scepticism before filing things in my memory as facts!

Most of the filming was in the USA, where of course different States have different rules on sentencing and on conditions of imprisonment. But I think some comparisons were with a UK women's prison with an (unusually?) enlightened and positive regime.

The other academic research was a long time ago, and again, it was the utility of caging then freeing, then repeat offending, repeat caging which I was interested in, versus any other methods. Incarceration rates vary greatly (USA as we know is over the top, but UK is exceptionally high against comparable European countries)

I would not be so credulous as the unfortunate victims of the London Bridge attack, who believed they had 'reformed' a terrorist, nor the still funded, but known to be harmful, identical schemes to gather rapists or paedophiles together and 'reform' them, since even seeing one other 'just like me', is in itself reinforcement, and the 'courses' merely act as teaching notes for the correct thing to parrot.

That's why my posts contain the caveat that I would not believe verbal assertions in preference to brain response measurements. I would certainly be particularly suspicious of people who could take/not take any medication, or vanish and restore their sexual appetite.

I don't need telling that torturers torture for fun, with or without use of erect*ons. But I do think that doing more of what doesn't work is an odd idea.

If any comparable country has any alternative methods, and they have, for many decades, then why on earth does UK carry on differently? It is known most in prison need attention, and that is what they won't get. Women's prisons, in particular, are packed with non-violent offenders. That does not mean shoplifters should be unsanctioned, but incarceration is extremely costly.

I'm suspicious of drugs, let alone of imposed drugs, but as other posters have noted, children are being encouraged to alter their hormonal balance, and have surgery, but rapists are not.

There's also a coterie of people, men and women, who recognise their abhorrent sexual perversions early on and volunteer for 'chemical castration' as a preventative measure before they have done harm. They obviously keep this quiet but be thankful for small mercies I guess. It does beg the question what is behind these abhorrent desires if some people can be self aware enough to take early action.