Plans to use mandatory chemical castration on serious sexual offenders after prison review

[IwantToRetire]

Serious sex offenders could face mandatory chemical castration under plans set to be agreed by the justice secretary to help ease overcrowded prisons.

It comes as a review has suggested that sex offenders and violent criminals could be freed from prison after serving half their sentence under radical plans to overhaul the justice system.

The recommendations from former Tory justice secretary David Gauke could see criminals who have committed violent or sexual crimes, and are sentenced to more than four years, released on parole at the halfway point.

the government is considering expanding a trial from some prisons in southwest England to use voluntary chemical castration to cut reoffending among sexual offenders. Justice secretary Shabana Mahmood is also considering making chemical castration mandatory.

Article continues at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sentencing-review-gauke-prisons-crisis-b2755472.html

and at https://archive.is/znrQd

I heard this on the news this morning. I don’t believe it will stop sex offenders harming more victims. The vast majority of them are not motivated by testosterone fuelled urges. It’s about control, power and breaching boundaries. If they can’t achieve an erection they’ll use something other than their penises or involve other people to harm their victims.

If they volunteer to be chemically sterilised they'd be released from prison? That requires a long term repeat prescription.

Can violent sex criminals really be trusted to stay in the system, surely they'd just come out of prison, change their name to "Davina de la fabulous" or something and leave the country.

I've heard the psychiatrist in charge of the programme speak and it was very powerful.

The treatment is voluntary and aimed at reducing unwanted sexual thoughts. Preventing reoffending is not monitored as an outcome, which is discussed in the article - you could never run a randomized clinical trial for example.

However they do think it will have an impact on reoffending - bearing in mind that these patients are all volunteers who actively want to reduce their sexual behaviour and a lot of offenders would never volunteer.

Some of the examples of successful treatment were very moving and gave insights into quite how 'different' these men are. Two that have stuck in my memory (it was a few years ago now) are:
It's the first time I've ever been able to watch a film without stopping to have a wank about a female character
I can actually have a proper conversation with a woman now without always drifting to look at her tits.

As discussed in the article, it is very unlikely that chemical castration will be mandatory but the voluntary programme is currently very small and expanding it to all the relevant programmes would be a big step forwards.

From my own, purely anecdotal experience I think the voluntary programme has proven it works. However I've met plenty of prisoners who have 'chemical castration' for prostate cancer and it has made zero difference to their risky behaviour. Effectively all sex offenders are not the same, but if there is a group who can be helped not to reoffend with medication that is huge progress.

Not sure what I think of this. Maybe if it was applied carefully. I think it would likely be effective for some but not others.

Just to add - I can't see how it would work on release unless the offender chose to participate.

The medication is either a daily SSRI - and they could just chuck them in the bin, or a regular injection. However the injection has significant side effects as well as long term health effects. And I can't see how you would force offenders to turn up for it or pin them down to give it if they weren't willing.

If its mandatory then it'll get caught in some human rights issue I suspect.

Mandatory medical treatment without consent must surely be a non-starter.

Voluntary treatment should definitely include reoffending as an outcome. But using that outcome as the primary justification for the programme is likely (if it's effective) to increase calls to make it mandatory - despite it being probable that the outcomes of a mandatory programme.would be rather different.

I couldn’t agree more. Anyone who has been a victim of sexual violence understands it is about control and dominance. Reducing sexual function will not stop that.

I would personally forget the ‘chemical’ bit and go for the full chop. I’d happily sign up to do it (with my rusty tin lid).

I look forward to seeing so-called progressives tie themselves in knots about the ethics of this while simultaneously cheering the use of the exact same medications, GnRH agonists, AKA puberty blockers, for children as part of their “gender affirming care”.

Oh, do they suddenly have a glut of unused chemical castration drugs?

From a radio interview the implication was that mandatory would be achieved by having the men concerned sectioned.

On what basis can they have them sectioned?

I partly started this because when I first heard it on the news I couldn't believe they were looking a sexaul abuse as an impulse.

As said up thread, sexual assault isn't an impulse. A moment of not being able to control yourself. If this was true women could never go out in public. Couldn't join the queue for a bus or a supermarket till. Its almost in line with the metality of the Taliban. Women dont go out in public, keep your hair covered etc..

Most sexual assualts are by men who go to pubs and bars with rohypnol, men who pose as school boys on line to entrap school girls, men who lurk on badly lit streets for women walking home alone, men who take advantage of women who have drunk to much or trusted them when they offered to give them a lift home.

How are these attacks impulses. These are planned in advance.

How will a drug stop that activity.

This planned violence against women has nothing to do with sexual impulse.

This is about men showing they have the power to overwhelm women and dominate her in the most intimate and personal way.

I just dont understand.

I thought the last time this was discussed, it was decided that these attacks are about power and medicalising the situation isn't going to help

To be honest, I can't see it happening anyway because it would be a human rights issue. The only way it might happen is if a man agrees to have medical treatment in exchange for early release. Then all that happens is they get released and then find a way to avoid having treatment I suppose

I wonder if they're revisiting this out of desperation to reduce the prison population.

I posted about this on another thread (about the puberty blocker trial) yesterday. I noticed that none of the articles about chemical castration gave any sort of detail about what sort of drugs they meant when they talked about using the same sort of drugs as are used in the treatment of prostate cancer. I wondered if these could be the same drugs (GnRH agonists) as those which are commonly referred to as "puberty blockers", since these are often used in the treatment of prostate cancer.

I found this paper published last year.

Evaluation of selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors and anti-androgens to manage sexual compulsivity in individuals serving a custodial sentence for a sexual offence

To address this gap in the appropriate treatment of PSA in the UK, HMPPS introduced medication as a treatment pathway to manage PSA. In 2007, they facilitated a pilot trial of this novel pathway (Medication to Manage Sexual Arousal; MMSA), which is ongoing. Currently, three types of medication are utilised within the UK prison estate: Anti-Androgens (AAs; Cyproterone Acetate [CPA]), Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists (GnRH Agonists; Triptorelin) and Selective-Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs; Fluoxetine/Paroxetine)

The GnRH Agonist Triptorelin is a "puberty blocker" which is used on trans-identifying children in the UK.

Some doctors are apparently "uneasy" about using these drugs on sex offenders because of the potential side effects.

https://news.sky.com/story/what-is-chemical-castration-heres-why-doctors-will-be-uneasy-about-using-it-on-sex-offenders-13372590

But there are still those who think it could be ethical to conduct a trial using these drugs on healthy children because those children believe that they are transsexual.

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one, but the lightbulb has to really want to change.

Just because voluntary interventions have been seen to work it doesn't follow that compulsory interventions will have the same effect. And there's something very "thin end of the wedge" about compulsory medication.

Wouldn’t the black market race to create a huge viagra dose that reverses the castration anyway? Then they’d just be free to rape as before?

Sounds like an intervention which will only help those who have psychiatric needs, which is what I understood from the article.
I expect those who want early patrol to also volunteer for it in the hope of reversal (or cheating the system).

It can never be mandatory. That's just unethical. And it doesn't solve the problem of those who rape for control not invasive thoughts, which are the majority.

I wouldn't be surprised if it did

It might be useful for those who want it.

As soon as you release it as a way to get out of prison early, it becomes useless.

To those who want it in prison and on being released from prison on the date they are due to be released, it should be freely available.

Otherwise it will simply be abused by those who want to get out early.

Those suggesting this want to reduce the prison population and it will be women who suffer the results.

how is this enforcable?
if it wasn't possible in nottingham (different circumstances, mind), how will it ever be on a larger scale?

I'm sure I've seen a study which says that when this was tried in another country, the offenders just used objects instead of their penis and the attacks become more violent, possibly due to frustration that their weapons of choice, i.e. penis, wasn't functioning properly. Does that ring a bell for anyone else?

Also, anyone who thinks castration makes offenders less dangerous needs to Google Sarah Jane Baker.

This nails it.
Suggesting a medical solution demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of sex offenders. They aren't doing it due to their sex drive. Lack of sex drive will not stop them

Still would fall under a human rights violation.

It would be legally challengeable.