[Mr Dangermouse]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18402203

Interesting findings.


What do you think going down the line, perhaps sentences could be shortened in exchange for taking these drugs?

[The Mr Z]

Interesting, but I already see a potential flaw shared with anti-depressants and anti-psychotics - the irreliability of the patient to not fail to take the drugs after leaving a controlled environment. As most drugs of this sort need to be taken on a daily basis to be fully effective, if the released offender starts failing, just through accident, to take the drugs a small proportion of the time it can quickly lead to coming off them completely and so loosing their effects.

However this has been a known side-effect of antidepressants for a long time, perhaps an effect which can be put to use.

[Elwyn]

Sounds good if the offender genuinely wants to change, if he doesn't then it's not got going to work. I don't think sentences should be shorter though, changing your future doesn't change your past.

[Chumbaniya]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
What do you think going down the line, perhaps sentences could be shortened in exchange for taking these drugs?

I'm all for the option being there for offenders who feel that overwhelming, unwanted urges are contributing to their behaviour, but I think you get into really sketchy territory when you start actually applying a very real pressure to take mind-altering drugs in order to receive shorter sentences.

Maybe there's a less direct system which could work, whereby offenders can choose to take the drugs, which may then affect their ability to pass some psychological evaluation that contributes to an earlier release (which they could also take without having taken any drugs, so they have the option to try to change through other methods). I just don't think that a system where you can take a drug which takes a couple of years off your sentence works in favour of the public or the offenders (and, when it comes to controlling damaging sexual urges, working in favour of the offender is also, naturally, working in favour of the public).

[L i b]

I find something faintly revolting about the whole thing. It's essentially the Ludovico technique from A Clockwork Orange, removing a person's ability to choose morality and having the side-effect of stopping them from living a potentially normal life.

Anyway, I thought the general consensus was that most sexual offences were not committed for sexual gratification, but rather for a sense of power and to satisfy other such urges?

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by L i b)
I find something faintly revolting about the whole thing. It's essentially the Ludovico technique from A Clockwork Orange, removing a person's ability to choose morality and having the side-effect of stopping them from living a potentially normal life.

Anyway, I thought the general consensus was that most sexual offences were not committed for sexual gratification, but rather for a sense of power and to satisfy other such urges?

Everyone involved in the trial volunteered for the treatment. And reading their testimonials, it sounds rather like the drugs are giving them the ability to choose morality and allowing them to live a normal life. Anti-depressants are primarily designed to restore normal brain functioning, not alter it, you'd be surprised how many people around you are on these drugs or similar, and you consider nothing wrong about them.

I don't see anything more revolting than people who are suffering from depression voluntarily taking anti-depressants. Both have a mental illness they wish to combat by taking the drugs.

These are not the people who commit "most" sex offences, we're talking primarily about paedophiles and serial rapists here. Also, "consensus" is probably just wrong, being a "consensus" given to us by feminist groups and the tabloid media.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by Elwyn)
Sounds good if the offender genuinely wants to change, if he doesn't then it's not got going to work. I don't think sentences should be shorter though, changing your future doesn't change your past.

See, I disagree here. I think it's a waste of money and probably immoral to punish people for the sake of it, if they're not a danger to the public then I'm happy to let them out.

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
See, I disagree here. I think it's a waste of money and probably immoral to punish people for the sake of it, if they're not a danger to the public then I'm happy to let them out.

I agree with this sentiment. Our justice system should move beyond revenge.

However I disagree with earlier parole if the convict partakes in these course because that adds a pressure to do so, undermining the free will of the participant to take the drugs purely for their own desire to get better, and will promote people who would otherwise not partake using the drugs to get out of prison and then relapsing once outside, increasing overall danger to the public.

And I don't think you could effectively find a way to force them to continue using the drugs.

I'd support some sort of scheme independent of the drugs for evaluating when a convicted sex offender can be released that the drugs could potentially help a participant to pass, because I think that significantly reduces the chances of people taking them because of the early release.



Even further, I think before we can even consider creating a wider scheme doing this we need some data and studies indicating how consistently released offenders continue with their drug courses. We need to be certain that there isn't a substantial chance of relapse before we can consider releasing them early.

[james22]

I really hope our prison system can move closer towards all being like this. I don't mean that as in all prisoners take drugs, but all crimminals given the chance to be on schemes which can try to make them more normal, and help them to fit in with society. This is one (albiet minor as it is only an experiment) step in the right direction.

[Carecup]

Assuming this stays on a completely voluntary basis I see no major problem with this as an additional measure for the criminals' safe reintroduction into society.

[Kiss]

Anyone think this sounds familiar?