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'm sure I've heard that chemical castration doesn't work and makes men more violent but I couldn't point you to a study or say exactly what I heard but it's something that I've definitely heard in passing.

This idea strikes me as a pr stunt tbh. It smells of reform catnip designed to woo certain voters. It doesn't sound like a labour policy. And I'm sure that, given our current PM is a former human rights lawyer (this needs repeating a lot) that the Cabinet is well aware the idea of mandatory won't go anywhere.

I really don't believe there is the evidence for the idea. If it faced a legal challenge the minimum you'd need is robust data that its effective and therefore would be in the public interest for the state to enforce this.

It's a policy I'd say will not happen. Voluntarily yes, maybe. Mandatory. Not a chance.

I thought chemical castration had been proven not to impact on offending.

Without some evidence that CC would reduce sexual crime, I would not support this. I think all it does is satisfy a base urge (and you can see that on this thread, as someone has already said "I'd just chop it off with a rusty tin lid") and actually focusing on the base urges of the public for revenge and punishment, does nothing to protect victims. If we're dishing out punishments based on whether it satisfies the public's bloodlust or not, as opposed to whether or not it actually reduces offending, we are further endangering victims.

I should add Labour could make it official policy, for the purposes of an election, but it's unlikely anything would happen within the lifetime of this parliament. This is one of those policy that would drag on and on and get caught in a legal battle so it'd time out and it'd be into the next parliament (and the problem of whoever was in power then). That for me makes it a potentially dangerous policy because if it goes to court and is refused on human rights grounds it starts to whip up popular support to get rid of 'these stupid human rights laws'.

When you consider this is something that doesn't necessarily achieve the purpose it's supposed to and there's ignorance about this, that's really playing with fire.

I really wish labour would stop and think sometimes.

I think it makes sense that not all sex offenders are the same and they don't all have exactly the same motivation.

The success of this programme is selecting those who actively want not to be obsessed with sex.

If you make it mandatory then you get all the other motivations and it's doomed to fail.

Probably but I was posting more that they seem to be trying to say that sexual offences are caused by men who are in some way "unwell" ie sectioning is a medical approach.

That is what troubles me about this.

As it doesn't address the real issue of male violence against women, whether sexual or domestic.

It just doesn't make sense.

There may be a tiny % of male offenders who voluntarily say they have an issue, obsession or whatever.

Of course, as this info is all being filtered through the media they may have overblown this aspect.

More worrying is the notion that more violent men are going to be let out of prison early.

Pretty sure it is done in Norway and markedly reduced reoffending. I also read on the BBC that the trial here had been successful. I think it works better if it is done alongside some kind of therapy (can't remember the type). Unfortunately these people are not going to be locked up forever and if they're going to let them go then I'd much rather they were castrated than not.

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..

I'm not sure what your logic here is. You could equally say, 'stealing can't be an impulse control issue, because if it were, then no one could leave their door unlocked/purse on a table etc. without it being stolen." In fact stealing is a cold-blooded planned event by some, an impulse issue for others, or sometimes related to other things like drugs.

There is actually quite a lot of research on why people sexually assault, and the idea that it is always about dominance rather than sex isn't supported. Some people are like that. Others do have impulse control, whether it's a cognitive issue, related to drugs, or something else. Others simply don't care about hurting people for sexual satisfaction (sociopaths.)

There is actually quite a lot of research on why people sexually assault, and the idea that it is always about dominance rather than sex isn't supported.

Well I'm an old fashioned radical feminist and irrespective of what the man claims is the reason he did it, he did because as man he feels entitle to subjugate women.

(In my earlier post I should of course added the opportunists, but again taking that opportunity is based on men's sense of entitlement.)

I don’t think the govt are saying they think this will work on every single sex offender and hey presto they’ve solved sex crimes against women.

As a pps have said, trials in UK prisons have found it reduced reoffending so surely it’s worth trying on those who want to see if it works for them.

There’s no way this can be enforced without undermining patient consent. This also takes for granted that we don’t think sex offenders have committed a crime worthy of their being imprisoned. Well I do think they should be in prison. They’ve ruined lives, they need to repay society in some way.

It would be very undesirable if the courts became clogged with legal challenges about prisoners being forcibly drugged. The only people who will get anything out of that will be the lawyers, which I bet we will end up paying for!

As a pps have said, trials in UK prisons have found it reduced reoffending so surely it’s worth trying on those who want to see if it works for them.

Yes I did say I suspect that media reporting has not given a clear picture.

But it would be good to have some background info that has informed this proposal.

ie what % of sexual offences are thought to be because of lack of control of impluse (and what types of offences)
what length of sentence,
how does treatment continue after release from prison
and how is the lack of re-offending monitored and in fact proved to be because of medication that say the impact of being publicly sentenced and identified through the trail process.

Yes. I think the.country which experimented with this was Sweden. They reported poor results because viciousness was not prevented by the drug and in fact made it worse as you have described.

The End Violence Against Women Coalition has concerns that government plans to adopt policies around chemical suppression of perpetrators of serious sexual offences does not adequately reflect the fact that violence against women and girls is rooted in gender inequality and harmful social attitudes, and is a violation of an individual’s human rights. Sexual violence is fundamentally about power and control and can often overlap with other forms of abuse.

It is therefore a concern that the government intends to proceed with a large expansion of what is currently a small pilot in the South West – a significant extension from the review’s recommendation to explore the evidence base.

Instead, we call on government to commit to putting momentum behind policies that explore the prevention of rape and other forms of VAWG more broadly.

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/statement-on-the-independent-sentencing-review/

It's not a guaranteed solution.

For example the pills they use don't completely remove one's sex drive, it just reduces it. This could lead to the user becoming frustrated and ending up trying something more extreme to get arousal.

https://news.sky.com/video/chemical-castration-for-sex-offenders-would-be-voluntary-says-justice-secretary-13372917

Check out this old Mumsnet thread. In a previous trial some of the sex offenders grew breasts, identified as women, were then risk-assessed as if they were female and released back into the Community with their new identity:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3755910-Prisoner-denied-GRS-court-case?page=2&reply=92111284

Making chemical castration drugs mandatory for sex offenders has been questioned by experts leading a pilot for the Ministry of Justice.
What is chemical castration? Ministers to trial plans for serious sex offenders