The UK expands chemical castration for sex criminals. Between criminal reform and ethical dilemmas

The measure of chemical castration for pedophiles and other sexual aggressors will be extended in a pilot program covering 20 prisons in the United Kingdom, the British Minister of Justice, Shabana Mahmood, announced on Tuesday. The option could become, in the future, mandatory, depending on the results of the program and the legal acceptability of such an intervention, writes the Daily Mail.

Penitentiary system in the UK is overloaded/photo: Archive

In a statement spoken in front of the House of Communes, Mahmood has invoked the conclusions of a recent report on the recurrence of sex criminals, which recommend continuing the use of the so-called “drugs for the control of problem sexual excitement”. The measure is already tested in the southwest of England and involves the administration of two types of drugs: one that limits sexual thoughts and the other that reduces testosterone levels, thus reducing libido.

The Minister of Justice stressed that the drug treatment is not, nor can, a singular solution, but must be applied with psychological interventions meant to approach the deep causes of sexual crimes – such as the need for control or the dynamics of power abuse.

The model is not a premiere in Europe. In Germany, France, Sweden or Denmark, chemical castration is applied voluntarily, and in some cases sexual criminals are active. Former Minister of British Justice, David Gauke, author of a series of criminal reform proposals, argued that some of those convicted of sexual crimes “are desperate to get rid of these wishes”, and the treatment can provide a control over their own conduct.

“It is not a universal solution, but for some of the criminals it is relevant. It cannot replace the incarceration, but it can reduce the risk of relapse when the release is inevitable,” Gauke said in an interview for Sky News.

According to recent polls, a large part of the British young public supports the measure: 67% of voters under 30 have declared themselves in favor of chemical castration for sex criminals, in a survey conducted in February. Only 24% opposed, signaling an increasingly indulgent attitude regarding the punishment of sexual aggression.

Ethical dilemmas

But the ethical and legal questions are not missing. While some voices demand the extension of the program, others warn about the risk of treating the problem in an exclusively biological way, ignoring the psychological, social and cultural dimensions of sexual crime. Also, the report emphasizes that the treatment has no applicability in the case of those motivated by the desire for domination or violence, and not by the actual sexual desires.

Against the backdrop of an supersaturated penitentiary system – the imprisoned population in England and Wales exceeds 88,000 people, only a few hundred under the historical record – the measure is part of a larger package of reforms aimed at reducing the number of prisoners. Among them: elimination of short punishments under 12 months, except for exceptional cases such as domestic violence, and immediate deportation of foreign citizens sentenced to punishments of up to 3 years.

These proposals have been encountered with harsh opposition critics. Robert Jenrick, the shadow minister, accused the Labor Party of preparing the land for “tacit decriminalization of crimes such as theft, robbery and aggression.” In his opinion, “the reduction of punishments for dangerous criminals would be a palm over the victims.”

International examples add weight, but also controversy. In Kazakhstan, the authorities imposed this year forced chemical castration for 11 convicted pedophiles, in a severe sanctioning campaign of sexual crimes against minors. In this case, the treatment involves up to 24 injections per year, at a total estimated cost of about 278 pounds per detained.

Although such measures seem to respond to a deep public feeling of intolerance to sexual aggressors, the question remains: is the chemical castration a real solution or just a form of symbolic remuneration, which does not approach the systemic causes of the recidivism?

For now, the British government goes on with testing. What will follow, however, depends not only on figures, but also how well the justice system will be able to balance the legitimate desire to protect the society, respecting the fundamental rights, even those who have seriously violated them.