Identifying Potential Risk Factors in Sex Offenders: Analytical Essay

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Identifying Potential Risk Factors in Sex Offenders: Analytical Essay

Introduction

Frank Fowler is a thirty-year-old white male who has been arrested and charged for possessing indecent images of children, this was the result of a long-term police investigation into a website known as ‘the water whole’. The images that Frank accessed were rated as level 9 on the COPINE scale which is described as “Grossly obscene pictures of sexual assault, involving penetrative sex, masturbation, or oral sex involving an adult” (Howitt & Sheldon, 2009). The aim of this report is to identify the risk factors that Frank displays in order to suggest potential treatment options while Frank is serving his sentence and after he is released back into the community to reduce his risk of reoffending.

Risk assessment

Structured Assessment of Risk and Need (SARN)

The SARN is a risk assessment tool used across the prison and probation services to identify potential risk factors in sex offenders. The main focus of the SARN is on dynamic changeable risk factors, this makes it possible to suggest potential treatment programmes that will help to address and change the offenders’ negative behaviors. It has been suggested that the SARN needs to be used with caution when dealing with a noncontact sexual offenses such as the crimes committed by Frank (Webster et al, 2006).

Risk Matrix 2000 (RM2000)

The RM2000 is a further developed version of the Structured Anchored Clinical Judgment assessment tool used by police in throughout the 1990s (Thornton, 2007). The framework for the RM2000 as never been formally published however early descriptions can be seen in Grubin (1998) as well as Hanson & Thornton (2000). This assessment uses information about the offender, such as age and marital status to place them into different categories based on their likelihood to be reconvicted for another sexual or violent offense (Thornton, 2007), using the RM2000 Frank can be identified as a medium risk offender.

It has been noted by some that the RM2000 assessment isn’t effective enough alone for suggesting intervention programs as it fails to identify any of the offender’s dynamic risk factors (Helmus, Hanson, Babchishin & Thornton, 2014), due to this I believe that it would be beneficial to use both the RM2000 and the SARN in conjunction with one another. This will help to both addresses Frank’s dynamic risk factors and assess the potential of him reoffending in the future to suggest the best treatment possible.

Risk Factors

Using the information provided by the risk assessment I have been able to identify a number of dynamic risk factors that are cause for concern and need to be addressed during Frank’s rehabilitation. It is believed by many such as Mann, Hanson & Thornton (2010) and Eher et al (2010) that dynamic risk factors are able to be changed in order to lower the risk of reconviction. These risk factors will be the main focus of Frank’s treatment plan:

Lack of self-regulation
Little regard for victims’ emotions
Justification of actions

Negative social influences

Frank has demonstrated that he has a severe lack of self-regulation by giving into his negative thoughts and acting upon them by regularly accessing indecent images of children. During one of Frank’s interviews with the police, he stated that “The stuff just pours out of the screen, it virtually downloads itself” and that he uses child pornography as a coping strategy to help relax and deal with the stress of work. It has been suggested that sex offenders lack proper self-regulation due to acting on impluses rather than taking into account the consequences of their behavior (Kingston & Yates, 2006). It is important that Frank receives support for his impulsivity during treatment as if left unchecked it could potentially lead to further noncontact offenses and possibly even contact offenses after his release. Some research has linked the use of pornography to violent and sexual crimes (Itzin,1992), one famous example of this was the well-known US serial killer Ted Bundy who attributed many of his crimes to the influence of pornography (Howitt, 2018).

Frank shows a complete lack of empathy and disregard for his victims’ feelings and emotions, during his interview with the police he insisted throughout that the children in the images he had accessed were ‘enjoying themselves. Frank also believed that the children would have been proud to show of their bodies and the effects that their ‘posing’ had on men, this is clear evidence that frank has a number of cognitive distortions. Abel et al (1984) describe cognitive distortions as beliefs held by the offender that allow them to justify their negative behaviors,

it is also believed that cognitive distortions occur post-offense and act as a defense mechanism when the offender is challenged by police officers and other professionals in the criminal justice system such as counselors, psychologists, etc.

Another example of Frank’s cognitive distortions is the way in which he tries to justify his actions and downplay the severity of the offence he has committed. Many sex offenders try to find excuses for their crimes, for example saying that they were acting out of ‘love’ or ‘mutuality’ (Lawson, 2009). It is very clear to see from Frank’s interview with the police that he fails to recognize the wrong in his actions, he feels that child pornography is a ‘trade’ and is justifiable as it could possibly provide a source of income for children and their families in poorer parts of the world. Frank also said during his interview that ‘some of these kids know more about sex than I do, id get blown away.’ Frank seems to share a common view amongst peadophiles that its okay to have a sexual relationship with a child because they can enjoy sex just as much as an adult does, this is an extremely important issue to address during his treatment as the only thing that has been stopping Frank from committing a contact crime is the fear of being caught by the police and not any other moral reasoning.

Negative social influences also seem to play a role in Frank’s offending behaviour. Frank was a high-ranking member of a forum based around the discussion and distribution of child pornography, the police recovered a number of graphic chat logs between Frank and other individuals from the water hole detaling sexual encounters with children. Although there hasn’t been any evidence of Frank attempting to actually meet children in real life, the fact that he has made up scenarios in which he has committed contact offenses is highly worrying. It is very common for pedophiles to converse with one another, this can allow them to gain access to even more extreme pornography by trading images, it can also potentially lead to the creation of child sex rings (Hanson & Harris, 2000), it is also due to the nature of their crimes sex offenders only share their experiences with other sex offenders (Bodusszek et al, 2004).

Protective factors

It is important to not just account for the risk factors but also the protective factors as well. The main protective factor relevant to frank in his rehabilitation is his family, Frank is married and has two young children. It is obvious that Frank cares about his family’s opinion on him, at the end of his police interview Frank became aggravated over the fact his children had been interviewed by social workers saying that ‘Their heads will be a mess now, you’ve probably told them I’m a weirdo or something. There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that protective factors can reduce desistance in sex offenders (Darjee & Russel, 2012), Robbe et al (2014) argue that protective factors play an extremely important role in the treatment of sex offenders as risk assesments only address factors that raise the risk of offending and not factors that can reduce the risk. I believe that using Franks daughters as a part of his rehabilitation process will help to challenge some of his cognitive distortions around children. Working with Frank’s wife could also help him to distinguish between healthy sexual relationships and sexual relationships that aren’t acceptable, this would all depend on the willingness of Frank’s family to support him whilst he is serving his prison sentence and when he is eventually released back into the community.

Treatment plan

Rheabilitating sex offenders is an extremely heated topic, the vast majority of the general public would probably prefer to see sex offenders locked up forever, this is especially evident when it comes to peadophiles. In a survey conducted by Willis, Malinen and Johnston (2012) asking members of the public their opinions on sex offenders re-entering the comunity it was found that all groups questioned had a negative attitude towards re-intergration. Despite public opinion, the reality is that a large number of offenders will one day have to be released back into the community, this is why it is incredibly important to try and change the negative behaviors shown by sex offenders through treatment programs while they are serving their sentances and continuing to offer support after their release.

Pre-release treatment

Internet sex offenders treatment programme (I-SOTP)

The internet sex offenders treatment programme (I-SOTP) is an ideal treatment option for Frank as it focuses specifically on the type of offence he has commited. Developed to combat the rising number of sexual offences carried out through the internet (Middleton, 2008) the I-SOTP aims to challenge the offenders cognitive distortions by establishing that the children shown in child pornography are victims of child abuse and challenge any justifications the offender may have for their negative behaviour, in addition to this the treatment teaches effective problem solving stratergies, relapse prevention stratergies and relationship skills. Research has found that the I-SOTP shows evidence of reducing pro offending attitudes in participants (Middleton, 2009). This treatment will help to challenge a number of Franks risk factors, as previously mentioned Frank shows absolutely no empathy towards the victims of child abuse and has attempted to justify his actions and downplay the severity of his crimes multiple times during his interview with the police. A large proportion of the factors that lead to individuals committing non contact crimes also play a role in contact offences. Middleton (2005, 2006) conducted a study to discover whether dynamic risk factors were congruent between non contact and contact offenders, he did this by comparing 191 participants convicted of contact sexual offences with 213 participants convicted of non contact sexual offences, all of the offences were related to children. Both groups completed the standard psychometric sex offender battery assesment (Mandeville-Norden et al, 2006) and it was found that there were a number of charecteristics very prominent in both groups such as intimicy defecits and problems with emotional regulation, this shows that both groups of offenders have the same reasons for offedning in many situations meaning that risk factors shown in non contact offenders need to be addressed as there is a posibility that they could lead to the offender carrying out a contact offence after their release.

Systemic Family and Couples therapy (SFCT)

This therapy is not specifically designed for sex offenders, however it can be tailered in a way that makes it an effective tool in the rehabilitation process. SFCT doesn’t aim to cure any individuals undertaking the treatment, instead it takes a different approach to most therapies by helping the patient use the strengths of their relationships with family members to better cope with their symptoms (Stratton, 2011). In the case of Frank the therapy will allow him to use the relationship he has with his wife and two children to address his cognitive distortions. It is important to consider that the children in the pornography Frank has accesed are not the only victims involved in his crime, his own children and wife will also suffer as a result of his actions, including Franks family as a part of his treatment will potentially make him realise the negative impact his offence has had on the people in his life. SFCT will also help Franks family to better support him after his release from prison if they decide that they want to be involved with his treatment. SFCT works by developing each of the family members individual strengths and resources so that they can better support one another and has a substantial amount of evidence to support its effectiveness.

Horizon and Kaizen

The Horizon and Kaizen programs are interventions aimed at medium to very high risk sex offenders like Frank, both are used in conjunction with one another. The program consists of three main stages, the first stage provides participants with an overview of the programme and helps them to understand what will be expected of them as they progress through treatment. The second stage is conducted through a number of separate modules, these include ‘understanding the old and new me’, ‘strengthening the new me’ and finally the ‘future new me module’. The last stage of the treatment program supports participants who have completed the previous two stages through extra support sessions for the remainder of their sentence. Wilkinson and Powis (2019) identified a number of strengths to the Horizon programme, it has a very high completion rate of 83% and has received lots of positive feedback from staff members. Another positive that was noted during the study is that the Horizon programme is far more strength and future based than previous programmes.

Post-release treatment

Circles of support and accountability

Circles of support and accountability (CoSA) is a sex offender treatment program supported by Circles UK that is delivered all across the country. The aim of CoSA is to support sex offenders upon their re-entry into the comminty through networks of volunteers that ensure the offender remains on the right path (Elliot & Beech, 2012). Research carried out by Elliot and Beech has found that circles can have a massive impact on reoffending reducing the likelihood by 50% in some cases. Wilson et al (2007) argue that is is vital offenders continue to receive support once they are released back into the community as isolation can often lead to a relapse and the creation of even more victims. CoSA would be very beneficial towards Frank’s rehabilitation, one of the prominent risk factors identified was Franks negative social influences, providing him with a proper support network may remove his desire to communicate with other peadophiles (Wilson, McWhinnie & Wilson, 2008).

Relapse prevention

Relapse prevention is arguably the most important factor to any treatment plan, it includes a number of different processes such as evaluating the offenders coping ability in order to help them better manage situations that could possibly lead to reoffending through specific skill training (Laws, 1989) as well as developing avoidance strategies, methods to deal with stress/anger and interpersonal skills (Pithers et al, 1988). One of Frank’s dynamic risk factors is his inability to self-regulate, relapse prevention treatment would provide Frank with skills and tools needed to help him cope once he has been released from prison and re-enters the community (Kingston, Yates, & Firestone, 2012).

Conclusion

It is very clear to see from both the SARN and RM2000 risk assessments that Frank suffers from multiple cognitive distortions and other factors such as a lack of self-control and negative outside influences that are impacting his behavior and leading him to offend. This treatment plan has taken into account these issues and suggested different therapies to help Frank overcome his negative behavior during his rehabilitation. I suggest that while Frank is in custody he partakes in the I-SOTP to help challenge his cognitive distortions and also undergoes SFCT with his family, this will allow him to see the ways in which his actions have impacted the people around him and teach his family ways that they can better support Frank once he has been released back into the community. In order to minimize the chances of Frank committing another offense he should become involved with CoSA, this will provide him with an additional support network and allow him to talk about his issues with people that aren’t going to influence him negatively. Relapse prevention therapy will also help Frank to control his urges after release by helping him to develop new methods to deal with his emotions.