Justice secretary Shabana Mahmood is looking into a potential of chemical castration for sex offenders. This is a process of lowering testosterone levels with the intention of reducing libido.
The proposal is one recommendation outlined in the recent that was and consider alternatives to imprisonment. The review found that 21% of adults serving immediate custodial sentences had been convicted of sexual offences – making them a significant proportion of the prison population. The idea appears to be that chemical castration would make offenders’ release from prison less dangerous for the public.
A pilot scheme of voluntary chemical castration is already running and is about to be extended to 20 British prisons. But while the review emphasised that consent is a key tenet of medical law, investigating whether chemical castration could be made mandatory. This raises important ethical and legal questions.
Is it ethical?Chemical castration is a dual-purpose intervention. It can be used both to benefit those who receive testosterone-reducing substances – sex offenders may themselves find their sexual desires to be a problem and so wish to have their intensity reduced by medical means – and to protect the public.
One key question, therefore, is what we are aiming to achieve in a programme...
