escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links or blue arrows below for full page descriptions

Sex Offenders, recidivism & chemical castration

This has been contributed for us by Marc Alexander, a United Future MP who has done considerable in-depth research into this subject. He is the author of "Justice with Both Eyes Open" and is also United Future's Justice Spokesman. His excellent website can be found here. He is the primary proponent of the use of chemical castration for paedophiles in NZ.

A body of literature has evolved steadily over the past few decades that address the effectiveness of various treatment programmes for sex offenders. Most have inconsistent results partly as a result of the difficulties associated with issues of measurement, standardised assessments of the frequency of sex offences and the unreliability of sex-offenders self-reports.

At present sex offenders are subject to discretionary decisions by the criminal justice system in regard to their treatment. This could include placing the offender in the community on probation; recommending compulsory treatment; and parole to a recommended level with the required duration of supervision, registration with the Police and notification on a sex offender’s register. These are all court sentence decisions based on the risk of re-offending rather than on the actual type of crime committed.

Empirical studies have suggested that the recidivism rates of sex offenders vary wildly, depending on the type of offence committed (for example, child molestation, rape, or exhibitionism). (1) Many of the studies have not been comparable because samples comprised sex offenders from the general criminal population and offenders committed to state hospitals. This has led to difficulties in understanding the influences on the recidivism rates for the different groups.

Recidivism

The definition of recidivism is also variable. Some studies have focused on defining recidivism as an arrest for a crime;(2) others have used successful conviction,(3) while some have targeted sentencing. (4)Studies are variable in length, most being based on a duration of twelve months or less. (5) The results vary wildly. One longitudinal study of twenty-two years revealed an overall reconviction rate of 48 per cent. This can be compared with an estimate of only 38.5 per cent using the conventional procedure for calculating recidivism failure per year. (6)

A more recent study attempted to address these problems using a methodological analysis of the recidivism rates of sex offenders.(7) A sample of 265 male sex offenders was divided into two groups – rapists and child molesters. Those charged with offences on victims sixteen years of age or older were classified as rapists, whilst those whose victims were under the age of sixteen were classified as child molesters. A list of fifty-nine offender dispositions (8) was used. The sample study covered a period of twenty-five years.

The results are dramatic. For rapists there was a stable 2 to 3 per cent recidivism rate for new sexual charges per year, and by the end of the study period the conviction and incarceration rates were 24 per cent and 19 per cent, respectively, compared to the charge rate of 38 per cent. Among the child molesters the cumulative recidivism rate for new sexual charges was 4 per cent per year, dropping to 3 per cent in the fourth year and peaking at increments of 11 per cent between year five and year ten. At the end of the study period the conviction and incarceration rates were 41 per cent and 37 per cent, respectively, with an overall charge rate of 51 per cent. (9) Among child molesters there was a steady rise in charges for new offences, with the rate beginning at 14 per cent, increasing to 37 per cent at year five, and to 75 per cent at the end of the study. The rate of new sexual offences by the end of the study period was 39 per cent for rapists compared with 52 per cent for child molesters. (10)

The alarming conclusion from this study is that recidivism for sexual offences was generally underestimated by 30 to 40 per cent when rates were estimated using the simple proportion of new offences, as in similar studies.

Although the research on sex-offenders does not warrant the conclusion that as a group they are untreatable, results do not confer consistent confidence in outcomes. Cognitive-behavioural and biological treatment programmes strongly suggest some decreases in recidivism but from a law enforcement standpoint should not be solely relied upon to ensure public safety. Other regimes should be considered on a case-by-case basis with respect to any parole provisions.

Chemical/surgical castrations

While most research to date has reviewed surgical castration in Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and Iceland with reported recidivism rates down from 50% to below 5%, Texas has reported repeat offender rates of just 2.2% as compared to a national average of over 20% (the 20% is a low figure but was deduced from a short term study – longitudinal studies show much higher recidivism rates). A report in The New England Journal of Medicine provides further support for the efficacy of chemical castration to reduce recidivism rates, especially that of paedophiles. Depo provera has had widespread overseas use and has proved its efficacy in retarding reoffending although the new drug Triptorelin shows signs of fewer side-effects. The main conclusions are:

• All multiple offending Violent sex-offenders should be remanded in custody under monitoring regimes in prison or in a mental health facility for life.
• Appropriate programmes to be provided to all sex-offenders who volunteer for treatment such as chemical or surgical castration
• Parole provisions for sex offenders to include monitoring, curfews, residential assessments and voluntary chemical castrations where considered to be beneficial as a pre-condition for parole. (11)

Paedophiles and chemical castrations

Recently I received an email from a person who signed himself off as a ‘person traumatised by anti-paedophilia hysteria in an anti-paedophile world’. Let me say from the outset that I am glad that we do live in such a world – I can find no excuse, ever, for excusing paedophilia.

As to the content of the epistle, the anonymous author writes, “Dear Marc Alexander, your actions against paedophilia disgusts me. Your neglect of care towards persons with sexual attractions to children is astounding”.

He goes on to say, “Your actions make me sick. The paedophile community will never forgive you”. This pathetic individual then concludes by wishing me ”happy holidays” by which I assume he means school holidays.

Given the date I received this communication I can only surmise that it was in response to my comments about a paedophilic predator released from prison against the better judgment of all concerned, simply because the law allowed no alternative choice. If that’s the case then the law needs to change. No ifs, buts, or maybes.

While we’re at it lets remind ourselves of the risk posed to the community by Lloyd McIntosh. Remember he was the offender who raped a six year old in 1989, and then brutally raped a 23 month old baby girl within three months of being released in 1993.Then, when re-released later on a 24 hour supervision regime he managed to assault an intellectually handicapped woman while his supervisor remained oblivious, outside the door.

Despite the prevalent belief that child molesters have low re-offending rates, there is another disturbing reality. A 25-year study showed that up to 75% of paedophiles registered new offences during that period. The point is that the sick appetites of paedophiles will not be curbed by a regime of inkblot watching and self-esteem counselling, but require more invasive treatment. While the cognitive behaviourists insist their interventions are working, this is largely a ‘head in the sand’ school of argument because typically, these offenders are white, middle class and educated enough not to get caught right away, hence the low initial rates of recidivism. Just because we haven’t caught them yet doesn’t mean they’re not committing the crimes! And as the 25-year study shows … they do eventually get caught.

So what should we do with them?

If we take the European and United States approach then we could impose chemical castration as a condition of parole. A number of countries already use surgical and chemical castration to good effect with stunning cuts in recidivism rates in Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany Iceland and many states in USA. Depo-Provera for example, has been used quite successfully. Also, a new drug Triptorelin would be a good place to start. While Depo-Provera has reduced paedophile recidivism from 50% to below 5%, Triptorelin has been reported in the New England Journal of Medicine to have a success rate of 100% when used in conjunction with psychotherapy.

What’s more, the side effects are minimal and can be administered easily by monthly injection. Chemical castration cuts reoffending as it cuts unacceptable urges. It works.

While some might find such conditions cruel and unusual, I would argue that paedophilia is even more cruel and has more negative and abnormal effects on the victim. The effect on children is devastating, requiring years of healing and in many cases predisposing the victim to become perpetrators themselves.

At some point we do have to draw a line that cannot be crossed and no matter how distasteful it may appear, use what works and discard what doesn’t. The bottom line is that chemical castration does work for paedophiles. Perhaps this would be helpful to the author of that miserable email to me, though in his case, paedophilia may be one of a number of problems he suffers from. Maybe he could benefit from the kindest cut of all.

Footnotes

1. L. Furby, M.R. Weinrott and L. Blackshaw. ‘Sex offender recidivism: a review’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 105, 1989, pp. 3-30.
2. G.C.N. Hall and W.C. Proctor, ‘Criminological predictors of recidivism in a sexual offender population’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 55, 1987, pp. 111-112.
3. R.K. Hanson, R.A. Steffy and R. Gauthier, ‘Long term recidivism of child molesters’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 61, 1993, pp. 646-652.
4. K.O. Christiansen, M. Elers-Nielsen, L. Le Maire and G.K Sturup, ‘Recidivism among sexual offenders’, in K.O. Christiansen (ed), Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, Tavistock, London, 1965, pp. 55-85.
5. N.D. Maltz, Recidivism, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, 1984.
6. K.L. Soothill, A. Jack and T.C.N. Gibbens, ‘Rape: a 22 year cohort study’, Medicine, Science and Law, vol. 16, 1976, pp. 62-69.
7. R.A. Prentky, A.F.S. Lee, R.A. Knight and D. Cerce, ‘Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: a methodological analysis’, Law and Human Behaviour, vol. 21, 1997, pp. 635-659.
8. Disposition - a technical term used to describe the relationship of personality characteristics and the specificity of crime types.
9. Prentky et al., pp. 648-650.
10. Ibid., p. 651.
11. The 100% effectiveness rate of the monthly-administered drug triptorelin had few side effects and, in conjunction with psychotherapy, was easy to monitor. See Ariel Rosler, M.D. & Eliezer Witztum, M.D., Treatment of Men with Paraphilia with a Long-Acting Analogue of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone, 338 New Eng.J. Med.416 (feb.12, 1998).

This article is by Marc Alexander MP
United Future NZ
PO Box 130037
Christchurch
Telephone 03-374 6804
Email marc.alex@xtra.co.nz
website here (www.Marc-Alexander-MP.org)