Does Shabana Mahmood really want mandatory chemical castration to be her legacy?
22 May 2025, 14:44
Mandating chemical castration is a dangerous – and unlawful – path for Shabana Mahmood to start down.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
The Independent Sentencing Review, chaired by David Gauke, former Justice Secretary, was published today. One of the recommendations expected to be welcomed by current Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood is in relation to chemical castration.
Ms Mahmood may be trying to woo public support by targeting an easily reviled group of the population, but this is a dangerous – and unlawful – path to start down.
The recommendation of the Review is to: “Build a comprehensive evidence base around the use of chemical suppression for sex offenders and explore options for continued funding of services in this area”. To be clear, this recommendation is solely regarding voluntary participation, although the Review does reference using Poland as an example, where chemical castration is mandatory.
However, according to a government source, Mahmood is expected to welcome this recommendation and go significantly further: to explore whether chemical castration could be made mandatory.
History is littered with shameful examples of forced medical treatment: forced sterilisation in Nazi Germany, chemical castration of gay men in the UK including Alan Turing, and lobotomies carried out on those suffering from mental health issues in the mid-20th century.
I would urge Ms Mahmood to consider whether she wants her legacy to include attempting to force chemical castration upon unwilling people; or even advocating for something so egregious.
A key tenet of medical treatment is that of informed consent: a patient must have capacity, understand the benefits and risks of treatment, and the consent must be voluntary, without influence or pressure from others. Where these conditions are met, the patient’s decision must be respected.
Starting in around 2007, HMP Whatton piloted the use of chemicals to suppress libido – both using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anti-androgens which block hormones such as testosterone.
According to the Review, this was rolled out across six more prisons in 2016, although this is based on ‘anecdotal evidence’ provided to the Review and there appears to be no comprehensive study of the outcomes of these UK-based trials.
It seems inconceivable that this has not already been done, given how radical this programme is, if the pilot has been in place for some 18 years. Its effectiveness is simply not clear.
The risks of this lack of oversight are clear: in 1992, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) introduced the Sex Offender Treatment Programme. This was not properly studied until 2000 – 2012, and in 2017, the analysis confirmed that participation in this programme actually resulted in an increase in sexual offence reoffending.
There is guidance published by HMPPS about the approach which should be taken to those convicted of sexual offences, which refers to the use of medication to manage sexual arousal.
This makes it clear that: firstly, chemical castration is not appropriate for most people with sexual convictions; and secondly, this should only ever be administered with the informed consent of the individual, stating that it “must never be mandated”.
It is one thing for offenders to engage in these programmes on a truly voluntary basis, but entirely another for this to be mandated.
Would this even be considered if the subject group were not sex offenders? Society should be judged by the way it treats those who are most despised: to force medical treatment on any human being is simply unconscionable, regardless of their crime.
________________
Katie McFadden is a senior associate in the criminal defence team at Hodge Jones and Allen. She specialises in defending those accused of serious criminal offences, protest law and youth crime.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email [email protected]
