𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

I’ve been saying it for years – we need to get serious about chemically castrating sex offenders. I actually think we could go further than that for the most heinous of offenders, but it’s a start.

The government is finally moving in that direction, expanding the use of libido-suppressing medication across 20 prisons in England and Wales. Around 6,400 sex offenders could have access to the drugs alongside psychological treatment. That’s pretty good, but I’d still go further.

Instead of recoiling at the phrase “chemical castration” because it sounds unpleasant, ask yourself one simple question: Will it prevent another victim? Because that’s where my sympathy lies. Not with the moral question of preserving the sex drive of a convicted sex offender, but with the woman, man or child who might otherwise become their next victim. Surely protecting innocent people from sexual violence has to be our priority. We also 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.

So this isn’t some medieval punishment dressed up as modern medicine. There’s a legitimate medical treatment here that can potentially reduce one of the drivers of sexual offending. We often use medication to manage conditions and behaviours that pose a danger to patients or other people, so why should this particular treatment suddenly become unthinkable simply because the subject makes us uncomfortable?

The magic pills 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 fiends need to remain behind bars for as long as they pose a threat. The main part where I disagree with the current approach, however, is over choice.

For the highest-risk offenders, where doctors determine that libido suppression is medically appropriate and directly relevant to their offending, I don’t believe we should simply shrug when they refuse treatment. Yeah, there must be medical safeguards, and yeah, serious side effects must be monitored. But nobody is suggesting prison officers should be wandering around dishing out tablets without medical supervision.

We constantly make decisions about criminal justice by balancing individual rights against public safety. When somebody has already committed a serious sexual offence and experts believe there is a treatment capable of reducing the urges connected to that offending, I think protecting potential victims should weigh extremely heavily in that equation. If these drugs can stop even some offenders acting on dangerous sexual urges, we should be using them. For the most dangerous offenders, we should force them to take them.

The needless deaths in Middlesbrough following that horrific crash should be a warning to all of us. Two police officers, PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, are dead, and while the loss of any life is tragic, I can’t escape the feeling that this catastrophe could have been avoided.

Four of the five young men in the car being driven the wrong way down the A66 reportedly had 37 previous convictions between them. Thirty-seven!

They were aged between 17 and 23, were known to police, and some had apparently posted footage of previous police chases on social media. Their records reportedly included car theft, drugs offences, racial abuse, harassment, assaulting police officers and possession of a knife. What a lovely bunch.

So at what point do we stop calling this youthful mischief and admit that the system has failed? If somebody repeatedly commits crimes, gets arrested and then returns to the streets to do it again, where exactly is the deterrent? There must come a point when consequences actually mean something.

And I’m sorry, but parents cannot always be completely removed from this conversation either. When children and teenagers repeatedly get into serious trouble, families have a responsibility to intervene, impose boundaries and seek help before things spiral completely out of control. Obviously, parents can’t control every decision an adult child makes, and responsibility for criminal behaviour ultimately belongs to the person committing it, but PC Blades and PC Clough deserved better.

We need tougher consequences for persistent offenders and parents willing to take aacountability.

THIS week I learned about BPAN for the first time, and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the families living with this devastating disease.

Beta-propeller protein-associated neurodegeneration is a rare genetic disorder caused by mutations in the WDR45 gene, leading to a build-up of iron in the brain. Children can experience developmental delays, seizures and problems with movement and speech, with the disease eventually causing symptoms similar to Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. While there is currently no cure, there is hope.

Action for BPAN was founded by two remarkable mums, Nicole Harper and Kelly Sayers, after their daughters were diagnosed. Kelly’s fundraising efforts have already raised more than £100,000, helping kick-start pioneering gene therapy research.

Now they’re fighting to raise even more. Action for BPAN is holding a gala dinner to fund research that could one day transform the lives of children around the world. So if you can support them, please do. Tickets are available from https://uk.emma-live.com/ActionforBPANGala