Paedophile castration

Today, the 22nd of May 2025,   it is reported that the Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, is considering castrating sex offenders (as it is being reported by the Mirror and other sensationalist rags).
However,  this is about a form of hormonal treatment to stop sexual urges. It is not “castration” . So all those of you thinking a knife,  can put your blunt razors and blood lust away.
This may seem to be a positive step forward in so many cases, but would not treat the personalities of these offenders.
Most sexual offences, if not all, are not truly about sexual attraction, but are about power.
People, sadly predominately men, who rape, sexually assault, or commit other sexualised offenses are mainly quite pathetic people with no real power in their lives, who feel weak and unworthy.
These are the same people that if they have a relationship will likely be aggressive, or even the other extreme overly passive towards their partner.
They are often, again if not always, sociopathic, and believe that their behaviour is right and societies laws and morals are wrong.
They may present as charismatic,  someone likeable and affable, someone you would want to be friends with.
Drugs do not truly treat sociopathic behaviours beyond causing an at times useful level of sedation.
Their belief that they are in the right, often has other effects upon their personalities such as in many cases gives them confidence, an ability to look you in the eye with no suggestion of guilt, they can in some cases blatantly lie without the give away signs, they also often have an eye for detail. Many are misogynistic,  but that is not their only driving motivation.
A few years  ago the BBC set up Jonathan King, a TV presenter who had been convicted of sexual crimes against children and linked to Gary Glitter (Paul Gadd) and others. During this monolog documentary King stated that he believed that sexual activity with children, even prepubescent young kids was his assisting them into adulthood. This absolutely came across as exactly what he believed was the truth. He blamed society for failing these children by stopping him assisting them.
King was not someone you could describe as thick or stupid, he was a very successful music producer alongside his TV and media careers.
He wrote and presented entertainment USA along with other shows of the time that were BBC flagships. Jenny Powell was one of his professional protégé’s.
Once Gadd was convicted his statements mirrored King’s.
My experience in investigating child abuse often meant working to ensure such people had no access to children.
When we talk of grooming, it’s not just about grooming their potential victims, it’s about convincing the child’s family, any professionals and society as a whole that they pose no risk.
Most reported or disclosed child abuse is interfamilial, meaning someone within the direct or wider family, including parents, step parents, siblings, aunts and uncles, and wider family or even family friends, however, there are still significant disclosures and complaints made in regard to professionals that are involved with children and also complete strangers. These often though are the cases that reach the press and media, as even if there is a conviction in regard to a family member, due to the absolute need to keep the child, victim, survivor safe and anonymous, reporting will be restricted and deliberately ambiguous.
Due to the majority of abusers believing that they are morally right or even entitled, any investigation is difficult and problematic.
To even get a sexual case, whether involving children or adults  into a criminal  court, it involves providing the case with enough chance to satisfy the extremely high level of burden of proof even before looking at actually obtaining a conviction. Without this the CPS will not progress the case to Court.  Obviously (I hope), this is beyond frustrating to the police and social workers, as it often means we professionals may know ourselves who pose risks, but are powerless beyond using legislation such as (CA1989 – ) Children Act 1989 meaning ongoing involvement to take direct action against the perpetrator.  As local authorities we can go to Court to obtain orders such as Care Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, or support the family members or friends with obtaining  Civil Court Orders such as Child Arrangement, and Special Guardianship,  to ensure the child is safe, however, these orders are placed upon the child and those caring for them, not the perpetrator, and does not lead to any criminal conviction of the abuser. Therefore any sentencing or mandatory treatment will not apply.
So yes by all means use this treatment to restrict sexual urges, but also we must realise it will not cure, or even in many cases restrict, nor prevent further offending
This in my personal opinion, simply is just a pathetic politician trying to appeal to a sensationalist bandwagon opportunity to gain votes. It’s not a real world solution.
A better way forward would be mandatory life sentencing, meaning rest of their lives, for all rapes, sexual child abuse, violence against children.
It is also essential that the government continue to review how much control the CPS have at placing constraints on criminal investigations, and lowering the restricting burden of proof imposed before any jury or Judge has sight of the case.
But with overflowing prisons, I believe that will not happen.
In point of fact today the UK Labour (in name only) government has stated  that offenders including those convicted of sexual crimes and crimes against children will now be eligible for even earlier release. In fact upto 5 yrs off their sentences. This again in my opinion is dangerous and enabling. Especially as these (I use the next word with reluctance) ‘people’ will not be “cured” nor “rehabilitated” and will likely continue to pose risks to any vulnerable person they have access to.