The government is expanding the use of libido-suppressing medication across 20 prisons in England and Wales, giving around 6,400 sex offenders access to the drugs alongside psychological treatment. Commentator JJ Anisiobi argues that while this is a positive step, the approach should go further, with mandatory chemical castration for the most dangerous offenders.
Medical treatment, not medieval punishment
Anisiobi says that instead of recoiling at the phrase "chemical castration" because it sounds unpleasant, the key question should be: "Will it prevent another victim?" He argues that protecting innocent people from sexual violence must be the priority, rather than preserving the sex drive of a convicted sex offender.
He also stresses the need to understand what these drugs can and cannot do. Sex offenders are not all driven by exactly the same thing. For some, persistent sexual arousal, compulsive fantasies and abnormal sexual urges are significant factors in their offending. Testosterone-lowering drugs can reduce libido and sexual thoughts in appropriate patients.
A South Korean study of 56 imprisoned sex offenders treated with leuprolide found reductions in the frequency of sexual thoughts in roughly three-quarters of participants, alongside substantial reductions in masturbation and sexual fantasies.
Forcing treatment for the highest-risk offenders
Anisiobi argues this is legitimate medical treatment that can potentially reduce one of the drivers of sexual offending, noting that medication is often used to manage conditions and behaviours that pose a danger to patients or other people.
However, he acknowledges the drugs won't work for everyone. For offenders motivated by violence, humiliation, sadism, power or control, lowering testosterone may not remove what makes them dangerous. Those offenders need to remain behind bars for as long as they pose a threat.
His main disagreement with the current approach is over choice. For the highest-risk offenders, where doctors determine that libido suppression is medically appropriate and directly relevant to their offending, he believes treatment should not be refused. He insists there must be medical safeguards and serious side effects must be monitored, but nobody is suggesting prison officers should be dishing out tablets without medical supervision.
Anisiobi concludes that if these drugs can stop even some offenders acting on dangerous sexual urges, they should be used, and for the most dangerous offenders, they should be forced to take them.
