The Truth About IPP Sentences

UK sex offenders being used in chemical castration experiments

Prisoners should never be experimented on

Prisoners should never be experimented on

An experiment designed to ‘chemically castrate’ sex offenders, all of whom are supposedly ‘volunteers’, is being carried out by the Prison Service. The scheme is fully backed by the Ministry of Justice which said it supports the use of drug “intervention” for some high-risk offenders.

However, some believe that it is not possible for the prisoners, often afraid of never being released, to freely ‘volunteer’ for anything, let alone something so potentially damaging and which was previously demanded by tabloid newspapers and populist politicians, child protection charities and women’s groups.

With many sex offenders already serving indefinite sentences (IPP) with no defined release date, TheOpinionSite.org is not alone in suspecting that if a prisoner does not ‘volunteer’ for the controversial and unproven drug treatment, he may never be released. With existing offending behaviour courses for example, which are also supposedly ‘voluntary’,  history shows that if the prisoner does not volunteer to undertake the programme, in most cases he is simply not released.

The idea that any prisoner can ever give free consent for anything is ludicrous. If someone else holds the keys to a person’s freedom, that person is likely to go along with whatever the key-holder says. If a prisoner officer suggests that a prisoner may not be released unless he volunteers for a particular course of action, the prisoner is likely to volunteer very quickly without much thought.

The pilot scheme at HMP Whatton in Nottinghamshire includes chemical castration but mostly involves anti-depressants. “The prisoners are all volunteers”, criminal psychiatrist Don Grubin of Newcastle University said.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “Medication can be used in conjunction with other approaches to managing the risk of sexual offending, such as multi-agency public protection arrangements and accredited sex offender treatment programmes.

“We are looking at the best ways to deliver this service, which is why we are carrying out pilot schemes at HMP Whatton and in the East Midlands probation region.”

How interesting that these measures should be referred to as ‘a service’. Maybe that is intended to make them respectable. It should also be noted that the ‘sex offender treatment pogrammes quoted by the MOJ spokesman are accredited by an MOJ and Prison Service appointed ‘panel of experts’, not by any truly independent source.

Mr Grubin went on to say that the treatment was used for offenders with “a high level of sexual arousal or intense sexual fantasies or urges who aren’t responding to psychological treatment”.

What Mr Grubin was careful not to say was that there is already huge doubt as to whether the  ‘psychological treatment’’, offending behaviour courses by another name, actual works anyway. Successive governments have wasted millions on such courses and still refuse to take heed of any research which does not support their use.

So far, in its obsession with both the treatment and punishment of convicted sex offenders, together with its refusal to acknowledge that most abuse takes place in the home and is not carried out by strangers at all, successive British governments have potentially wasted billions of pounds on courses and other measures that may in fact only reduce reoffending by less than 5% and which may in fact not reduce offending at all.

The truth is that most sex offenders do not reoffend anyway for a variety of reasons and that offending behaviour programmes are used by probation officers primarily as risk-assessment tools rather than with any expectation that they may actually reduce reoffending. The delivery of these courses also keeps armies of otherwise unnecessary people employed.

TheOpinionSite.org believes however that where the use of potentially addictive drugs are concerned, decisions as to their use, particularly on prisoners who cannot give free consent, should not be left to trainee psychologists and young, inexperienced probation officers anxious for career progression.

Most psychologists in the prison service are indeed trainees, usually overseen by a qualified forensic psychologist who is part of the establishment. The use of independent assessors is rare due to the cost and this only makes the situation worse, given the secretive nature of how the prison and probation services function.

Though members of the public, who are often fed a diet of lies and misinformation by both tabloid newspapers and politicians – including power hungry Home Secretaries – may think that any form of castration for sex offenders is a good thing, they usually change their view rapidly when their husband, brother or boyfriend finds himself convicted of a sexual offence, often on little or no evidence.

The fact that these horrendous experiments on prisoners being carried out at HMP Whatton have been kept secret from the public for so long, only increases the likelihood that the authorities have something to hide.

Mr Grubin continued, “You are not giving these drugs to make them safe – you are giving them to lower the risk. “These men … do report marked changes in their lives,” he added.

If the drugs don’t ‘make them safe’ then what is the point of administering them? As for the ‘changes in their lives’, of course there is a change. Everyone changes when they are pumped full of drugs.

This  whole issue also begs the question as to how anyone can accurately assess another person’s risk, most assessments essentially being based on so-called ‘professional judgement’ or, in reality, a guess.

Over the last 20 years or so, the prison and probation services, eagerly supported by MPs and child protection groups, have introduced offending behaviour courses, psychometric testing, a penile plesmysgraph (which allegedly measures sexual arousal), the expensive and ineffective Sex Offenders Register, increased restrictions on released sex offenders, Sex Offender Prevention Orders, mandatory lie detector tests (so unreliable they are not allowed to be used as evidence in court), Travel Prevention Orders, Dangerous Personality Disorder units and now, chemical castration.

Every single measure listed above started as a ‘pilot’ or experiment, most on a ‘voluntary’ basis and every single one of them were later made compulsory either in Law or by effect.

One cannot help but feel that many of these measures have been introduced in order to support and expand the ever-growing ‘public protection’ and ‘child protection’ industries and to keep alive the necessary fears of the public in general and parents in particular, without which there could be no justification for what many suggest amounts to the persecution of a small minority of criminals, most of whom never reoffend anyway and all of whom are branded for life just as surely as though they had a number tattooed on their wrist.

What is worse, all the while this has been going on, successive governments have steadfastly refused to address the principal area of concern regarding abuse – that of the home.

Even the NSPCC and other child protection charities were forced to reluctantly agree that only a fraction of abuse is carried out by strangers; yet these organisations, just like governments, continue to perpetuate the myth of ‘stranger danger’ rather than look at abuse within the home environment. If they did not, they would never receive the huge amounts of money that they get, only 30% of which actually goes to the protection of children, the rest being spent on salaries and the charity itself.

MPs do not want to go there either because they fear a political backlash. Like the charities, police, child protection ‘experts’ and probations officers, they instead find it much easier to make capital out of those who have already been convicted whilst simultaneously ignoring the 90% of abusers who are fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and family friends.

The public are no better, fearing to talk about abuse in the home in case the authorities come in and rip the family apart. Much easier too for members of the public to rely on the ‘monsters’ and ‘fiends’ portrayed by the cheap newspapers rather than to admit that they may be living with an abuser.

TheOpinionSite.org  believes that if Britain is now at the stage where it is prepared to experiment on prisoners, mainly because they cannot fight back, it is time that they gave up criticising Hitler, Saddam Hussein, the present Syrian administration and other ‘inhuman’ regimes.

The fact is that by coercing and effectively blackmailing prisoners into being used as lab rats, the British are proving themselves to be no better. Certainly, it is true that the Americans have been there before us. Even they now agree that their sex offender management protocols are a disaster; yet, as always, the British seem intent on following them.

How long will it be before sex offenders have to wear a badge in public? If you say it cannot happen here, you are completely wrong. It already happens in the United States with registered sex offenders details published on the Internet, the requirement for them to have a sign on their house and a badge on their car, etc.

The British government and the British public need to reflect on where this is all leading. Prisoners, whatever their crime, are neither the playthings of the state nor monsters to be thrown away and experimented on behind locked doors and high walls.

If Britain has any self-respect left at all, which some would consider doubtful, the government should stop these experiments and instead of wasting the hundreds of millions currently being spent on politically beneficial but ineffective and sometimes inhuman treatment, it should spend the money to try and stop abuse at the source; that is, in the home environment – that place where politicians and those with vested interests fear to tread because it is difficult.

Tags: , , , , , ,

12 Responses to UK sex offenders being used in chemical castration experiments

  1. luis
    January 8, 2015 at 2:14 am

    Absolutely Jenny, tomorrow who knows? Everything is gradually walking towards ‘1984’ and ‘brave ew world’ !! And actually I got hundreds of quotations of world personalities that is exactly what they are seeking; a world dictatorship controlled by a few wealthy talmudists, where the rest of populations will be totally enslaved into doing the governments biding !! We see a trend where ‘smart’ technology is being introduced everywhere, from television that can spy of people at home, from contactless ‘smart’ bank cards, to ‘smart’ utilities meters and some already have received the famous RDIF Chip, an electronic device of a size of a rice grain which is implanted under the skin whcih can contain loads of data, a specific number for each citizen and the danger about it, it can control the mind of someone and change behaviors, turning one into a complete slave; nowadays this technology has been improved to a sort of laser tattoo which does the same as the chip !!!
    Brownies are being trained to spy on citizens, people use social networks to splash their habist all over, freedoms of speech is gone on twitter, police forces are increasingly harrasing honest decent people, we got environmental enforcing agents and I lost count of the measures in place to control us all !!
    It’s all a matter of time until the ‘rule of law’, aka, the ‘seven laws of noah’ are imposed on everyone !!!

  2. Jamee
    March 6, 2014 at 1:59 am

    We question the term ‘free choice’ and ‘volunteer’ here. True that most of those individuals are serving what is deemed an indefinite sentence but if the individual decides not to participate then that decision would be accepted and of course continue their ‘accredited treatment programmes’ of which do not provide a great deal of rehabilitation and decreased rates of offending. However the government must be seen to implement such methods as if not for treatment, what would be done with those genuine risky offenders proven to repeatedly and severely commit sexual offences. Not to mention the public outrage and political discrepancies!

    Methods of which can instigate possible positive change should not always be condemned at first instance. If you end up in the criminal justice system as a false positive then this would suggest no devious sexual urges to ‘chemically castrate away’ therefore their participation in this research would be of little use not to mention the negative physiological tests due to this lack of deviant sexuality (PPG) in the first instance making trialling of little use on those individuals.

    In this case the individuals volunteered into the experiment are repeat serious sexual offenders not ‘innocent men wrongly convicted’. Failure to mention the fact that these men may appreciate the opportunity to control their deviant urges which have haunted them and prevented there normal integration with society since childhood making every day a fight with unbearable temptation (for the majority). Through the implementation of a variety of assessment techniques this method could most definitely be a valuable investment into the rehabilitation of offenders. In particular those that are recidivists that repeatedly end up back within the justice system costing millions of the taxpayers money. I’m Shocked to see such a negative take on such progression in HELPING these individuals. Not to mention helping to make society a safer place for all.

    This method could provide prevention and not just intervention, allowing for true ‘freedom of choice’ in treatment or so, whilst it lasts!

    • Arthur
      March 6, 2014 at 10:43 am

      Jamee, I notice you start your response with the word “We”, suggesting that perhaps you work for an organisation with an interest in offenders; maybe the prison service, probation service, etc.

      You certainly seem to know a great deal about this subject (maybe you were a test subject yourself) and have no consideration for the fact that prisoners, by definition, cannot give “free consent” to anything given that they are constantly under sanction.

      I know of two cases where a prisoner at Whatton refused to agree to this medication and as a result were told that their chances of parole would be reduced significantly.

      Only someone who works with or in the criminal justice system could be naive enough to be believe that it is an ethical or trustworthy system. The same can be said about the probation service and police.

      • Jamee
        March 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm

        Hi Arthur, thank you for your reply.
        I am a forensic psychology student and we look into such things as this. In fact I am currently carrying out research into the stigma and unfair sentencing offenders are exposed to and I am very much for fair treatment and would like to use my time in this field promoting it.

        I have recently visited Whatton prison and the attitudes displayed towards treatment through the accredited SOTP was very positive. Although do bare in mind I do not work in this establishment and never have and have no involvement in the implementation of chemical castration.

        Nevertheless I do also see things from the other perspective and in reading this article I could provide a good debate in support. However most sexual offenders suffer from their inability to control their deviant sexual urges. Chemical castration (which is a very heavy label) may appear daunting to many in society who do not understand it’s input as we see by the comments in regards to the article. It is in fact a lifeline for some sexual offenders allowing them the control they need in order to supply the ability to control their offending.

        Please see this recent article of a child sex offender demanding chemical castration treatment to stop his sexual urges towards children and thus enabling him some ability to stop offending. Also notice how the authorities will not issue it to him as he is to young and therefore taking his welfare into account. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563908/Paedophile-nursery-worker-asks-chemically-CASTRATED-curb-sexual-urges-says-hell-human-rights-case-Strasbourg-to.html

  3. Brownie
    April 22, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    What a wonderful idea could they not use sex offenders to test other drugs on for example cures for cancers and such maybe go further and use these people to harvest organs from at least this way these scum will be helping lives instead of distroying them

    • Paul
      April 23, 2012 at 10:33 am

      Brownie, seems to me that you are either a fool or a Nazi.

      If you honestly believe that the justice system never gets it wrong and never sends innocent men to jail, you are undoubtedly a fool. If you believe that people do not make false accustations in order to relieve themselves from taking responsibility for their own lives, you are undoubtedly stupid. May be you are one such person perhaps?

      If you seriously believe in using human beings for experiments, you are showing defined Nazi characteristics and should be prosecuted.

      As for “scum”, to find a perfect example, with views lke yours, just look in a mirror.

  4. Martina H
    April 8, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Yes! Let Doctors play around with a person’s brain chemicals to satisfy the public. I have never heard of such barbaric treatment. It appears that we are still living in the dark ages.

  5. Joe
    March 21, 2012 at 1:34 am

    A really good article. Society needs to stop foaming from the mouths, and start dealing with sex offenses in a real, rational and just plain sensible way. I forgot a word there, and it would be “Humane”.

  6. Oscar
    March 20, 2012 at 3:15 am

    Indeed there are many who are jailed wrongly as Operation Ore proved which I have no doubt was a precursor for governments (US & UK) to control the internet. No government will stand for a entity they cannot control.

    Any action deemed to save the kiddies or prevent the exagerated scourge of “child porn” is accepted without question.

    (as an aside : I have asked those in authority what happens when a policeman views child porn during their work- as they claim viewing a picture commits the crime again- is the crime temporarily suspended when a judge, prosecutor ar police officer views it ?..and if so, how?. I am always met with frightening hostility. I have never progressed to my next question-if the subject of the photo died years ago, how can they be abused again?)

    I think the articel points out a very pertinent point-that we are adopting Nazi ideals gradually.

    I also know of one boss of a ‘child protection” body which has great influence (and who uses the government funds to travel to Asia to satisfy her sexual urges with legal aged men) who is also guilty of “sexual assaults” in that she is known for her capacity for unwarranted fumblings of men she fancies.
    To use her words when I once interviewed her : “do not trust anyone in child protection”.

  7. Ms Justice
    March 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    This is quite remarkable. So the endless years they may have to spend behind bars does not satisfy some people. They want blood. Unbelievable. Why dont they just bring back public executions? Oh I forgot the E.U. wont allow it. There are far too many sex offenders that their case has been massively exaggerated and are serving long sentences. Surely that should be enough. Whats this country turning into? Wait till that G.P.S. tagging comes out. I dont believe it will always be restricted only to offenders. Its the first step of monitoring even further what you are up to, where you are e.c.t. What did George Orwell call it? Thats the one Big Brother.

  8. Jenny Richards
    March 19, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Not all sex offenders are actually guilty of the crime for which they are in prison. There are very many elderly men who have been wrongly convicted without proof, who are serving long sentences for historic sexual offences. Under English law (Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994, Sections 32 & 33)an uncorroborated story of what someone says took place several decades ago is all that is needed. It is unnecessary to provide proof that the crime was committed by the accused, or even that it was committed at all.

  9. Jenny
    March 19, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Nobody loves a sex offender but this is apalling. Today sex offenders, tomorrow – who knows? Anyone who disagrees with the government?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.