I would not approve of cutting off paedophiles' testicles, because that would be taking us back to the middle ages.

I would not approve of administering a chemical that renders them permanently impotent or libido-less, because that doesn't allow for rehabilitation or false convictions.

I do, however, approve of what's known as "chemical castration" because they have to keep taking the drugs. But 99% of the people who agree with my first two statements would vote against chemical castration, simply because the name makes it sound barbaric and permanent. Given the way the press talks about chemical castration, they can be forgiven for not understanding its true nature.

If this idea is ever to gain popular support, we will either have to make it very clear to everyone that the effects aren't permanent and the drugs will wear off if not taken regularly, or appeal to their baser instincts in the same way as if the suggestion were to cut their balls off. I'd rather not go down the latter route for what I hope are obvious reasons.