Jun 25

Castration for sex criminals

Premier Anna Bligh yesterday said voluntary chemical castration would be available for pedophiles and other dangerous sex fiends, but only if they consented and it was recommended by a psychiatrist.

The change is one of 22 set to be in place by the end of the year after a review of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sex Offenders) Act, which was sparked by growing concerns about sex offenders being released into the community.

While chemical castration could enable some offenders to avoid indefinite jailing, other reforms would give the Government more power to permanently detain violent offenders and sex criminals serving maximum 10-year sentences for crimes such as incest and indecent treatment. Currently, only dangerous sex offenders serving life sentences can be continually detained.

Civil libertarians said the Government was trying to sideline the judiciary and warned it would face a High Court challenge, but Ms Bligh was confident the reforms would withstand legal challenge.

She ruled out mandating chemical castration – where prisoners take medication to reduce sexual urges – saying research showed mandatory measures did not work.

Civil Liberties Council vice-president Terry O’Gorman accused the Government of trying to look tough because of falling support for Labor.

"This is a clear attempt to sideline Supreme Court judges … because cases are not going their way," he said.

"It is not coincidence that these proposals have been rushed through Cabinet without any consultation on the heels of weekend news reports that she (Ms Bligh) has lost a significant poll lead to (Opposition Leader) Lawrence Springborg."

Fifteen dangerous sex offenders have been jailed indefinitely since the laws were introduced in 2003, while 38 have been released under supervision orders.

Corrective Services Minister Judy Spence said the number living in the community was expected to rise to 100 by 2010.

Under the changes, corrective services officers would have extra powers to decide where sex offenders were housed and if they should be banned from drinking alcohol. And prisoners kept in jail would have their cases reviewed every two years, rather than annually.

Judges would also be forced to consider indefinite sentences when an offender first came before the court, rather than when they were due to be released, and there would be a five-year limit on supervision orders to encourage more judges to keep them in jail.