There are a number of treatments or responses of varying levels of effectiveness for sex offenders, but the one with the most emotive common label has to be chemical castration. Ironically, it is a medical response often espoused by those with a more law and order orientation, probably because it evokes notions of searing off the offender's balls with acid, or something equally proactive. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), it's nothing of the sort. In fact, most people have no idea what chemical castration is or how it works.
Basically, chemical castration refers to the administration of drugs which reduce testosterone production (anti-androgens) – essentially synthetic version of progesterone (it is more commonly used as a contraceptive for women). The effects of reducing testosterone include reduced libido, erections, ejaculation and sperm production. The idea is that, if the sexual drive of the offender is reduced, they'll be able to better control their offending behaviour. It doesn't magically make someone better, or a non-offender, or even permanently remove their ability to have sex.
Importantly, treatment with anti-androgens requires the compliance of the offender – they aren't strapped to a table and "castrated" permanently, they are given a pack of pills and they have to take them every day. It isn't a treatment in itself, but one component of a treatment regime. There has been a lot of media attention to a proposal to use it in Queensland, but even there it's a voluntary option that an offender my elect to participate in (presumably to get a reduced sentence), not a mandatory option (although you could ague that the alternative of a longer or possibly indefinite sentence makes it less than completely voluntary).
The idea of using anti-androgens for treating sex offenders has been around for at least a few decades, although even now there is little agreement about its effectiveness. To start with, the drugs are expensive and have some unpleasant side effects, which can result in decreased compliance. According to this literature review from 1999, controlled studies have shown some decrease in recidivism for those on anti-androgens, but they are not effective for all patients. It is worth noting that it also found that anti-androgens were no more effective than cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) techniques, which are the preferred treatment modalities in all Australian jurisdictions, and the drop-out rates for CBT are much lower.
One thing to keep in mind about sex offender treatment is that, despite common media portrayals of sex offenders as evil monsters, some of them are highly motivated to change their behaviour (either because they know it's wrong, or they don't want to be locked up again – both may be powerful motivators), although they are often unable to do so without help. I think it's probably reasonable to suggest that someone who will persist with a medication which causes side effects such as weight gain, depression, headaches, hypertension, gallstones, diabetes mellitus and penile and testicular pain is pretty motivated to change their behaviour, and as such is probably more likely to be successful.
Chemical castration may sound great to those after retribution, but as a treatment for sex offenders it's not terribly effective. It's not necessarily bad, but it's certainly a long way from a panacea.
Basically, chemical castration refers to the administration of drugs which reduce testosterone production (anti-androgens) – essentially synthetic version of progesterone (it is more commonly used as a contraceptive for women). The effects of reducing testosterone include reduced libido, erections, ejaculation and sperm production. The idea is that, if the sexual drive of the offender is reduced, they'll be able to better control their offending behaviour. It doesn't magically make someone better, or a non-offender, or even permanently remove their ability to have sex.
Importantly, treatment with anti-androgens requires the compliance of the offender – they aren't strapped to a table and "castrated" permanently, they are given a pack of pills and they have to take them every day. It isn't a treatment in itself, but one component of a treatment regime. There has been a lot of media attention to a proposal to use it in Queensland, but even there it's a voluntary option that an offender my elect to participate in (presumably to get a reduced sentence), not a mandatory option (although you could ague that the alternative of a longer or possibly indefinite sentence makes it less than completely voluntary).
The idea of using anti-androgens for treating sex offenders has been around for at least a few decades, although even now there is little agreement about its effectiveness. To start with, the drugs are expensive and have some unpleasant side effects, which can result in decreased compliance. According to this literature review from 1999, controlled studies have shown some decrease in recidivism for those on anti-androgens, but they are not effective for all patients. It is worth noting that it also found that anti-androgens were no more effective than cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) techniques, which are the preferred treatment modalities in all Australian jurisdictions, and the drop-out rates for CBT are much lower.
One thing to keep in mind about sex offender treatment is that, despite common media portrayals of sex offenders as evil monsters, some of them are highly motivated to change their behaviour (either because they know it's wrong, or they don't want to be locked up again – both may be powerful motivators), although they are often unable to do so without help. I think it's probably reasonable to suggest that someone who will persist with a medication which causes side effects such as weight gain, depression, headaches, hypertension, gallstones, diabetes mellitus and penile and testicular pain is pretty motivated to change their behaviour, and as such is probably more likely to be successful.
Chemical castration may sound great to those after retribution, but as a treatment for sex offenders it's not terribly effective. It's not necessarily bad, but it's certainly a long way from a panacea.
0 comments:
Post a Comment