Two sex offenders are to be “chemically castrated” to stop them reoffending.

 

They have agreed to be given daily tablets or monthly injections that reduce male testosterone to levels found in prepubescent boys.

 

The two are the first to be treated under a new programme that follows a review last year by John Reid, then the home secretary.

 

It is illegal to administer such medication forcibly. Prisoners being considered for the programme are sent a letter saying: “These drugs reduce levels of the male hormone testosterone. This has the effect of decreasing sexual interest and arousal. Although you can still have sex, it is much more difficult. It is possible, however, to adjust the dose to a level where you can have sex with a partner.”

 

The chemical castration programme will focus on those sex offenders who have the most serious conditions of “hyperarousal” and intrusive sexual fantasies.

An advisory document sent to probation officers says these will include prisoners prone to sexual sadism, necrophilia, voyeurism and exhibitionism.

 

Because the treatment is voluntary, prison doctors and probation officers cannot be certain that sex offenders will continue with their treatment. Doctors say the sexual craving returns if the treatment is stopped.

 

The main antilibidinal drug licensed in Britain is Androcur, taken twice daily in tablet form, which opposes the action of testosterone rather than interfering with its production.

 

Leuprorelin, which switches off the production of testosterone completely, through its action on the pituitary gland, is injected.

Both drugs have marked side effects, such as the production of breast tissue, bone weakness and liver problems.

 

Some experts strongly disagree with the use of such medication. Diane Newell, a consultant at RWA, a clinic treating sex offenders in Milton Keynes, said: “Sex offending is a lifestyle problem rather than a physiological problem. It should be treated by reteaching moral boundaries and counselling rather than drugs.”

 

Chemical castration is used by the authorities in Canada, Holland, Sweden and Denmark on a voluntary basis. When the US president, George Bush, was governor of Texas, he signed a law giving sex offenders a choice between compulsory injections or having their testicles removed. Similar laws have been passed in Florida and California, which introduced castration for rapists.

 

Source: Sunday Times

 

The only foolproof way is to cut their balls off, far more effective

The only foolproof way is to cut their balls off, far more effective

 

That wouldn't inhibit the psychological desires though would it, and simple castration might have the adverse effect of creating a serial killer out of a serial rapist ... With your typical serial rapist, the desire is as much psychological as it is physical.. A chemical that would inhibit the psychological desires as well as the physical functions is vastly more effective than castration alone...

 

i think its a good, sensible, idea.... after all if you are 'ill' you go to the docs, get some medicine and hopefully get 'cured'....

I am as against this as I am against chopping off thieves' hands. And it won't surprise you to learn that I'm against the death penalty as well!

 

However monstrous the crime I don't want monstrous things done on my behalf in the name of "law". End of.

I am as against this as I am against chopping off thieves' hands. And it won't surprise you to learn that I'm against the death penalty as well!

 

However monstrous the crime I don't want monstrous things done on my behalf in the name of "law". End of.

 

so youd sooner have rapists wandering around just waiting for the oportunity to strike again eh?...

 

if i was disposed to such an act im sure id seek help so i didnt inflict suffering on my victims. some urges are too compelling (when the bloods rising) to ignore and are uncontrolable. if i was in that situation id certainly welcome a 'cure'.

 

ps.... the comparison to 'hands chopped off' is silly, that prevents the crim conducting other normal acts of living. chemical castration targets only the sex drive.

I think for paedophiles this is a definite course of action to be considered.

For rapists though i dunno, i mean many rapes are 1 off occurances. I think serial rapists should be given it, but that raises the problem of waiting for them to BECOME serial rapits in the first place :rolleyes:

I think for paedophiles this is a definite course of action to be considered.

For rapists though i dunno, i mean many rapes are 1 off occurances. I think serial rapists should be given it, but that raises the problem of waiting for them to BECOME serial rapits in the first place :rolleyes:

 

lol.. ok.... lets castrate every male, thatll solve the problem (and that of population...on the other thread) :lol:

It would be even better if they kept them in jail for life.

It would be even better if they kept them in jail for life.

 

i dont agree..... that means that they get looked after at taxpayers expense and put nothing back into society. chemical castration after any jail term would be better imho.

I should've added with a bread and water diet, hard manual labour and no entertainment like TVs.

I'm sure that would bring the cost down.

Edited January 10, 200817 yr by Naomi Watts

I think for paedophiles this is a definite course of action to be considered.

For rapists though i dunno, i mean many rapes are 1 off occurances. I think serial rapists should be given it, but that raises the problem of waiting for them to BECOME serial rapits in the first place :rolleyes:

 

I agree.. I think we've all seen enough instances of women falsely crying "rape" when none actually took place... So it should only be used against rapists where there is an established pattern of behaviour... Lightening may strike once, but several times...? Nah....

 

As for Paedophiles (and I define a Paedophile as being someone who deliberately targets pre-pubescent children not a bloke who unwittingly picks up a 15 year old in an Over-21s nightclub...) I think it should be a case of one strike and you're out, go directly to Chemical Castration.... -_-

I agree.. I think we've all seen enough instances of women falsely crying "rape" when none actually took place... So it should only be used against rapists where there is an established pattern of behaviour... Lightening may strike once, but several times...? Nah....

 

As for Paedophiles (and I define a Paedophile as being someone who deliberately targets pre-pubescent children not a bloke who unwittingly picks up a 15 year old in an Over-21s nightclub...) I think it should be a case of one strike and you're out, go directly to Chemical Castration.... -_-

 

i dont think the idea was targeting single offences but serial rapists.