Category: Sex Offender

Sex Crimes in America

I accept that sex crimes have a real impact on the victims but it is noted and no longer taken significantly. Sex crimes are often overlooked because it isn’t considered to be a serious crime because of the lack of consequences handed out to those who commit these crimes and the fact that it is simply not understood. In this essay you will learn about all who plays a part in enabling the criminals, the statistics on which these things occur, the causes and effects, and finally how sex crimes are dealt with.

How is a sexual assault victim defined? A sexual assault victim is someone who was taken advantage of and was forced into having contact in a sexual manner that they did not want to take part in. The term sexual assault can describe a large range of criminal acts. This can take many forms including attacks like rape, attempted rape, and any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Even through clothes, without that person’s consent, it’s still considered to be a form of sexual assault.

Believe it or not, in the aftermath of a sexual assault or rape, survivors can face extremely difficult and painful emotions and experiences. Every survivor of sexual assualt will respond to traumatic events in their own way and the effects of the trauma can be short-term or long-term after the sexual assault or rape. How a victim responds to these events depends on the person. According to the New York Times, a trauma victim can easily appear calm, quiet, distraught, or overly angry. The article stated that victims may react by self medicating. This could mean engaging in high-risk sexual behavior, withdrawing from those around them, or by trying to regain control. Some even go as far as to initiate sexual abuse so they can know it’s coming. All of these things are signs that the victims are suffering from some form of traumatic event that had occurred in their life. And according to RAINN, only 5 out of every 1000 rapes committed (0.5%) ends in a felony conviction. The Washington Post puts the figure at 7 out of 1,000, but pretty much everyone agrees it’s under 1%. We usually try to make sense of this painfully low number by noting that many rapes aren’t reported, which is true, but the crime is also notoriously under-investigated. And when it is investigated, it’s pretty tough to prove, not because of the crime’s high proof threshold, but because of how little evidence about it we bother to collect.

Often times sexual assault isn’t seen as a crime because those that commit them aren’t held accountable and those that are responsible for holding them accountable don’t do their job efficiently. Often times it’s the people on high pedal stools that take advantage of the system like Nicholas Shumaker. He was convicted in 2017 of the sexual assault on Emma Top.The recommended sentence was four years in a state prison with other violent offenders. The judge gave him one year in a county jail. He was out in nine months. “The professionals in this case generally agree there is no purpose served by Mr. Shumaker going to prison, that it will not change him in any positive way, that it will not help Ms. Top”, said the judge. Top herself told the Star Tribune she felt differently: “I felt like for what he had done, he basically got a slap on the wrist”. A rapist can off with little to no jail time, while a homeless man was sentenced up to three to six years from attempting to buy items with a fake twenty- dollar bill. A lot of the time it’s the judges and the police force we have to hold accountable when things like this occur. And then there’s the law enforcement. 25 law enforcement agencies in 14 states were found destroying rape kits. Even the rape statistics we actually have are likely much too low, because—given a major incentive to lower caseloads and no reporting standard—law enforcement has a history of improperly clearing sexual assaults. For decades, police departments abused the ‘unfounded’ classification reserved for false or baseless rape claims (a practice that helped to undergird the myth of prevalent false-rape claims).

Some may argue that the victims did not come forward right away, doesn’t act like a victim, stayed friendly with their abuser, or that their story doesn’t add up, but all of those things have been proven that the victims aren’t lying but are in fact just afraid of the negative consequences that come with coming forward like Leigh Corfman. She was 14 when she was assaulted while helping upend a Senate race in Alabama by the Republican candidate, Roy S. Mooreall. She waited nearly four decades later to come forward. She said she was worried for years and that going public would affect her children, and her history of divorce and financial mistakes would undermine her account. And besides, criticizing the victims doesn’t help the victims case or prove them wrong but instead help the offenders. You see, offenders encourage confusion and shame and exploit people’s reluctance to identify themselves as victims. Veronique valliere, a psychologist who counsels sexual assault perpetrators and victims and consults with the military and law enforcement, said the offenders she treats list two main statistics used to obscure assaults: they camouflage the act as horseplay or humor, or they act as though nothing happened as a way to keep the victims silent as a way to the victims silent. When it comes to serious assaults the public imagines that they are committed by strangers in a dark alley, and their base of view of how victims should read t on that idea, even though the vast majority of assaults occur between people who know one another. Many people aren’t psychologically prepared to accept how common harrassment and assault are, experts say they tend to look for reasons to disbelieve. And when the media begins to question the victims they also begin to let the offender off the hook which creates a chain of disbelieve.

In despite of all of this, sexual assault survivors are still to this day holding their head high and are living in their truths regardless of what you, the media or me has to say. The ideas about rape inherent indeterminacy (who knows what really happened?) need to change. We can know so much more than we think about what happened to survivors, all it takes is the moral and political will to really think. When it comes to serious assaults the public imagines that they are committed by strangers in a dark alley, and their base of view of how victims should react is on that idea, even though the vast majority of assaults occur between people who know one another. Many people psychologically prepared to accept how common harassment and assault are, experts say they tend to look for reasons to disbelieve. And when the media begins to question the victims and they also begin to let the offender off the hook which creates the chain of not holding the offender accountable.

Despite this, sexual assault survivors are still, to this day, holding their heads high and are living in their truths regardless of what you, the media, or me has to say. The ideas about rape inherent indeterminancy need to change. We can know so much more than we think about what happened to survivors, all it takes is the moral and political will to really think.

Analytical Essay on Correctional Treatment for Sex Offenders

Question 1

In the Sex Crime, Offenders & Society book, chapter 4 goes over a couple of possible theories for sex offending. Out of all theories the book highlights, I believe Neutralization or Drift theory best explains sex offending the best. Neutralization or Drift theory explains that offenders are not deviant, but rather they drift out into reoffending by applying specific rationalizations. The chapter goes over what are cognitive distortions and rape myths as it supports the theory neutralization/drift.

Cognitive distortions refer to individuals’ internal processes, including justifications, perceptions, and judgments to rationalize his/her behavior after committing a sexual offense (Mancini, 2014, p. 83). Cognitive distortions reflect a distorted experience that the offender experienced in their life (Mancini, 2014, p. 83). For example, if a sex offender was sexualized and sexually active as a child, they view children as sexual beings (Mancini, 2014, p. 83). To add on, a large research examined cognitive distortions in sex offenders and found various types of distortions (Mancini, 2014, p. 83). Researchers found that offender type is related to specific cognitive distortions, for example, child molesters find that their cognitions center on flawed ideas about that sexual contact with children is acceptable (Mancini, 2014, p. 83). To clarify, they believe that children are like adults in mental and sexual development thus children are interested in sexual activity with adults (Mancini, 2014, p. 83). Lastly, child molesters may misunderstand social cues (Mancini, 2014, p. 84). For example, they might mistake a child’s kindness as an indication of sexual interest or they might mistake normal child behaviors as sexual interest like when a child asks to be tucked in bed, they view it as a sexual invitation (Mancini, 2014, p. 84).

Rapists of adult women on the other hand, they tend to grip on negative views about women (Mancini, 2014, p. 84). For example, rapists of adult women, they see their acts as acceptable, and not criminal or deviant (Mancini, 2014, p. 84). They believe that the offense would have been avoided if the victim had behaved differently, for example, “if she had not flirted with me this would have never happened” (Mancini, 2014, p. 84). To add on criminologists and psychologists founds that rape myths play a role into this type of behavior (Mancini, 2014, p. 85). Rape myths defined from the book are “attitudes and generally false beliefs about rape are widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women” (Mancini, 2014, p. 85). These myths are divided by three neutralizations, denial of responsibility (many women have an unconscious desire to be raped), denial of injury (rape reports are generally fake), and denial of victim (only certain bad women are raped) (Mancini, 2014, p. 85).

To sum up, neutralization/drift theory best explains sex offending as their mind drifts off to a different world and don’t realize that their actions were deviant and rationalize why they committed to their actions. For example, child molesters believe that children are like adults and that sexual contact with them is acceptable or rapists of adult women believe that women deserved to be raped.

Question 2

Gender is important in sex offending as it plays a big role on how we understand and how we punish for it. Females for example have more of a leeway when it comes to punishment compared to males as males get punished more harshly even when it comes to serious sex offenses like minor victims (Shields & Cochran, 2019). Most people view sex offenders as males as they mostly commit these types of crimes, whereas females have a low rate when it comes to sex crimes.

Typically, the social view of a sex offender is a male, and women are viewed as incapable or innocent to sexual offenses (Shields & Cochran, 2019). As a result, sex offenders are generally always view to be males and are perceived to be a big threat compared to females (Shields & Cochran, 2019). This is false as females are just as dangerous when they commit a sex crime as males are. Scholars believe that a huge number of female sex offenses go unreported as they are often viewed as innocent or incapable of committing a sex crime (Shields & Cochran, 2019). As a result, studies found that female sex offenders are likely to be redirected away from punishments and avoid the courts as they are viewed not dangerous (Shields & Cochran, 2019). A study conducted by Ryan Shields and Joshua Cochran of punishments between male sex offenders and female sex offenders. They found that male sex offenders are more likely sentenced to prison and given longer terms than female sex offenders regardless of the degree of the sex offense and whether the offense was committed on a child victim, females were less likely to spend prison time than to be assigned to a community sanction (Shields & Cochran, 2019). Even though both males and females commit similar sex offenses they get treated differently. It seems that the courts trust female sex offenders more when they are supervised than males as males are viewed to be the true sex predator.

Today, gender is important on how we understand sex offending and how we punish it. Today people view sex offenders as mostly male as they statistically commit more sex offenses than females do. Females offenders today don’t get punished severely as male offenders as the courts don’t view females to be dangerous as male offenders.

Question 3

When it comes to treatment and rehabilitation, gender plays a big role when it comes to which type of treatment and rehabilitation both male and female offenders and victims receive. Specifically, for males offenders as they commit the most sex offense crimes whereas the rate of females who commit sex crimes is lower than the male counterpart. Victims for example seek help after being sexually assaulted and will most likely go through pregnancy and emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy and STDs/HIV (Campbell et al., 2005).

There is a program that was created to help rape survivors called Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) which are specialized nurses who care for sexual assaulted or abused victims as rape victims in the past only received basic services such as medical exams and forensic evidence collection kit (Campbell et al., 2005). Victims felt embarrassed when consulting doctors and were scared to seek further help (Campbell et al., 2005). With SANE victims were able to consult a specialized trained nurse rather than a doctor as these nurses were available 24 hours a day, first response care to sexual assaults in either hospital or non-hospital settings (Campbell et al., 2005).

As for male and female offenders receiving different types of treatments, I believe it’s wrong for gender-specific programming to exist as they both committed a sex offense crime and should be punished accordingly. For example, if a female commits a sex crime against a 13-year-old child their sentencing is less severe whereas a male sex offender they would receive harsher punishment for a similar offense. Today the courts give females a slap on the wrist punishment as they view females to be less threatening compared to males as most people today view sex offenders mostly males as they dominate the sex offense statistics (Shields & Cochran, 2019).

To sum up, gender today can play a big role when it comes to treatment and rehabilitation as male offenders get more supervision as society today views males as they are the only ones who commit sex offenses. Whereas females are innocent and lack the ability to commit such offenses.

Question 4

Correctional treatment can vary for different types of offenders depending on what crime they committed. For example, a sex offender would receive cognitive behavioral therapy and medical/hormonal interventions. While for violent offenders would receive in prison treatment such as The Violent Offender Treatment Program and nonviolent offenders depending on the crime would either receive a rehab program or parole.

There are many reasons why each offender receives different treatment for their crimes, for example, it would be pointless and unjustified for a nonviolent offender who committed vandalism to receive cognitive behavioral therapy and medical/hormonal interventions as cognitive behavioral therapy mainly focuses on sex offenders distorted way of thinking and their beliefs to justify for their crimes (‘Violent Offender Treatment Program (VOTP),’ 2017) and medical/hormonal focuses on medical treatment to reduce a sex offenders sex offending behaviors such as chemical castration which a male offender would receive an injection of synthetic hormones to lower their sexual arousals (Mancini, 2014, p. 213). Another example would be if a violent offender who committed murder to only receive parole where they are more likely to reoffender and commit more murders. Therefore, it is important that each offender receives the correct correctional treatment for their offenses.

The third example would be If a sex offender was just placed in parole and didn’t receive any cognitive behavioral therapy and medical/hormonal intervention they would reoffender and commit another sex crime as they have both been evaluated to be the most effective treatment programs for sex offenders to reduce sexual recidivism more effective than other psychological therapy such as offenders learn new cognitive skills such as ways to think about their actions carefully, delineate problems that might led them to encounter police and setting goals (Mancini, 2014, p. 261). As such cognitive behavioral therapy focuses mainly on offenders’ way of thinking about their actions and responding to a catalyst in a prosocial shape (Mancini, 2014, p. 261).

To conclude, correctional treatment for sex offenders is different from violent and nonviolent offenders as they are each a different set of crimes. Putting a nonviolent offender who committed vandalism in the Violent Offender Treatment Program would be a waste is he/she doesn’t pose much of a threat to society compared to a violent offender who committed murder.

References

1. Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Lichty, L. F. (2005, October 1). The Effectiveness of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs: A Review of Psychological, Medical, Legal, and Community Outcomes. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1524838005280328
2. Mancini, C. (2014). Sex Crime, Offenders, and Society: A Critical Look at Sexual Offending and Policy. Carolina Academic Press.
3. Shields, R. T., & Cochran, J. C. (2019, May). The Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333518551_The_Gender_Gap_in_Sex_Offender_Punishment
4. Violent Offender Treatment Program (VOTP). (2017, September 5). Programs and Practices – What Works in Criminal Justice – CrimeSolutions.gov. https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=561#:~:text=The%20Violent%20Offender%20Treatment%20Program,Agency%20(YSA)%20residential%20facility

Rehabilitation of Sex Offenders after Serving their Sentences: Analytical Essay

1.1 Preventing sexual assault

While there’s no way to eliminate the chance that something may happen, there are strategies that may reduce your risk or give you the confidence to step in to prevent a sexual assault. Safety planning is about brainstorming ways to stay safe that may also help reduce the risk of future harm. It can include planning for a future crisis, considering your options, and making decisions about your next steps. Finding ways to stay and feel safer can be an important step toward healing, and these plans and actions should not increase the risk of being hurt. Become familiar with safe places. Learn more about safe places near you such as a local domestic violence shelter or a family member’s house. Learn the routes and commit them to memory. Find out more about sexual assault service providers in your area that can offer support. Stay safe at home. If the person hurting you is in your home, you can take steps to feel safer. Try hanging bells or a noise maker on your door to scare the person hurting you away, or sleep in public spaces like the living room. If possible, keep the doors inside your house locked or put something heavy in front of them. If you’re protecting yourself from someone who does not live with you, keep all the doors locked when you’re not using them, and install an outside lighting system with motion detectors. Change the locks if possible.

1.2 Psychotherapeutic treatment options

Psychotherapy is intended not to decrease or change sexual arousal, but to help the patient understand and control his or her behavior. Strategic interventions involve group members in taking responsibility for supporting each other’s recovery, enabling the group therapist to create a safe environment that supports confrontation to achieving honesty, without making individuals feel defensive or attacked. The interventions diffuse power struggles, compelling sex offenders to move beyond defensive postures. One option is group psychotherapy, it has been more commonly used than individual psychotherapy. This type of therapy gives members the opportunity to share experiences, gain insight, learn to control unacceptable impulses, and find acceptance. The sex offender treatment program should administer polygraph testing and/or plethysmograph testing (when available) at least annually and this should be noted in the treatment plan.

1.3 Placing victims in separate housing

Surviving prison can be extra tough for a sex offender, especially if their offenses include possessing, distributing, or producing child pornography, or soliciting minors for sexual activity. Sex offenders face being ostracized or targeted by other prisoners and are subjected to enhanced monitoring to ensure they are not engaging in risk-relevant behaviors. In effect, this makes SOMP federal prisons easier for sex offenders, enabling them to stay at the prison without threat to their lives. By housing this specialized population in certain prisons, prison officials can also monitor them more effectively. The Federal Bureau of Prisons created the Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP) as a solution to sex offender management issues. Sex offenders housed at SOMP facilities don’t have much to worry about as far as prison politics and their safety are concerned. But those housed at non-SOMP facilities, particularly at the medium and high-security levels, do run the risk of being assaulted or otherwise harmed. At the lower security levels, being at a non-SOMP facility is less of an issue, as most prisoners simply ostracize sex offenders as opposed to actively causing them harm.

1.4 Safety concerns

Some people believe all sex offenders are high risk and require the same supervision, but that is not the case. Treat each sex offender case on an individual basis to ensure the sex offender receives proper programing to develop the pro-social skills that may prevent them from re-offending. The problem of where to house the most serious of sex offenders is the issue that raises a concern of safety. Sex offenders do not molest children because they live near schools. They abuse when they can establish relationships with children and their families and misuse positions of familiarity, trust, and authority. Local laws tend to create a domino effect whereby neighboring cities enact equal or more restrictive laws to prevent exiled sex offenders from migrating to their communities. Lawmakers should rely on available evidence to guide criminal justice policies and avoid policies that deprive individuals of basic human needs. The process for determining adequate staffing for a jail facility, and making it defensible, is to conduct a staffing analysis on a facility by facility basis. There are simply too many variables such as physical plant design, level of security, level of programs and activities, state and local standards and statutes, etc. to recommend a specific officer-to-inmate ratio. Inmate-to-officer ratios can give a glimpse of how many correctional officers are staffing various facilities since there’s no one number that fits them all. When it comes to city and county jails, however, estimates of inmate-to-officer ratios can be more elusive due to many factors that need to be considered including different jail sizes, types of inmates, and the frequency at which inmates move through the local jail system. Applying the correct ratio of inmates to staff can lower the rates of those being abused by staff within the prisons.

1.5 Strategies for dealing with resistance to treatment

You can’t change anyone else; you can only change yourself. Many counselors have used this common bit of wisdom to help clients overcome problems, but it’s crucial that counselors internalize that idea themselves. The concept of counselors focusing exclusively on their interactions with clients and letting change happen on its own is key to the successful management of resistance and the pivotal point of effective therapy. Working with individuals with sex offense convictions is a specialized area of counseling. There are also “specialties within the specialty” when factoring in the different venues for treatment, including programs in prison, in private practice (often with those on post-prison supervision or probation), and in mental institutions. The individuals within this population are generally quite different, and the dynamics are made even more complex when considering whether the offenders are adult males, adult females, or juveniles. Research supports the best practice of sex offender therapy being conducted in groups whenever possible. Peer support, which includes challenging denial and other thinking errors, is invaluable in treatment and also lends itself to generally better outcomes. Part of the reason for this is that so many sex offenses are based in secrecy. Bringing offenses out into the open is generally conducive to discussion and to the cognitive elements that are so important to reducing recidivism.

1.6 Effect of incarceration on the offenders after their release Sex offenders in prison

The empirical literature has revealed that social isolation can affect the rehabilitation of sex offenders after serving their sentences. This process of social isolation can already start during incarceration due to strained relationships with fellow prisoners and correctional staff. Given that sex offenders often report feelings of loneliness and social isolation, these distinguishing features have been theoretically linked to the etiology and maintenance of sexual offending. Empirically, social isolation and loneliness even have been linked to higher levels of aggression in sex offenders, hence increasing the risk of sexual offending and reoffending. While social isolation can be an issue when sex offenders return to society after serving their sentence, the process of social isolation may already start during the prison sentence itself. Sex offenders may be stigmatized by fellow prisoners and correctional staff, resulting in, for instance, violent attacks and being treated in a negative manner. Sex offenders are often found to face difficulties forming meaningful relationships with other individuals. Several studies found that sex offenders refer to social isolation as perceiving their social networks or relationships as deficient in some way. For example, the sex offenders that do report having social contacts indicate that these relationships are often superficial. Moreover, child abusers also report being more fearful of intimacy in relationships than rapists, which leads to avoiding social contact that can lead to meaningful relationships. During imprisonment, social isolation could be caused by the inmates being cut off from their social networks on the outside. Moreover, if inmates are socially isolated within the prison, they will be deprived of their basic need for social interaction.

References

1. Beech A. & Hamilton-Giachritsis C. Relationship between therapeutic climate and treatment outcome in group-based sexual offender treatment programs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2005;17(2):127-140
2. Bumby, K. M., Talbot, T. B., & Carter, M. M. (in press). Sex offender reentry: Facilitating public safety through successful transition and community reintegration. Criminal Justice and Behavior.

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.

Changes in Sex Offender Registry: Reflective Essay

With respect to adults, my stance on SB 384 is in support of the legislation. Sex crimes are a controversial and sensitive topic among most of the population in the United States. The severity of the crime is a crucial factor that determines the fate of the accused, as well as the accuser. Should someone who has been convicted of numerous child rapes face the same consequences as an 18-year-old that slept with a 17-year-old? It’s a difficult concept to grasp when one must define it legally. It is said that one should not compare the hardships that people face to one another, but in order to fulfill the constitutional right of due process, legally defining legislation must be written in a way to protect victims and determine the appropriate punishment for guilty predators. However, it’s still important to consider protecting the falsely accused or ones that committed very minor sex crimes even though it was consensual, such as the previously mentioned 17 and 18-year-old. Enforcing the 3-tier system in SB 384 will separate the morally good from the corrupt.

One of the main reasons to incarcerate someone is not only to protect any victims, but it should also be to rehabilitate the person so they can become a functioning and beneficial member of society. It is understandable that many would want to see those convicted with minor crimes punished for a long time, but is it right to sentence them to a life of discrimination if they do not re-offend for several decades? Again, it depends on the severity of the crime. Having 3 tiers of severity, or “gradation”, assists those who truly repent their past actions and punishes those who are clearly ill-fit to return to society. The Law Office of Vikas Bajaj, APC makes a valid argument in support of SB 384. “To make matters worse, most of the people on the registry were convicted of low-level offenses and haven’t committed a crime in years. Police and law enforcement agencies tend to spend most of their time completing paperwork for and focusing on these low-level offenders. This prevents them from spending time focused on high-risk and potentially dangerous offenders.” (Bajaj) The legal process is sometimes underestimated regarding the amount of time that is required to successfully convict an accused offender. This does not mean that low-level offenders should just be given a “slap on the wrist” to save time but creating sex registration tiers will save time as well as keep a watchful eye on low-level offenders. This gives law enforcement the chance to focus on high-risk offenders, as stated above.

Adult offenders that have committed minor sex crimes are given the chance to redeem themselves and seek assistance to help them from reoffending and having to register for another decade. Now, ten years is a long time to be on the registry, but the magnitude of a sex crime cannot be forgotten. If an offender has committed a non-violent sex crime and is required to register for the rest of their life, then they may progress to committing violent crimes since they “would have nothing to lose”, aside from prison time. It would provide a way out and would set a goal that they can work to achieve. Lifetime registration cuts all hope of ever returning to a normal life. They would not have to worry about their status affecting many important things such as applying for a job and renting property.

Lifetime registration for all offenders also does not prevent sex crimes from occurring. It may help a bit, but it also greatly affects the amount of work for law enforcement. Laura Arnold, a Riverside deputy public defender, brings up a valid point during an interview with Kelsey Brugger, author of the Independent article “Changes are Coming to California Sex Offender Registry: A New Approach Will Consider Severity of Crimes”. “It’s like putting a GPS on every shark in the ocean because one might attack a swimmer, said Laura Arnold, a deputy public defender in Riverside and expert on sex offender registration laws. “Does it make the public safer? Probably not,” said Arnold, who was in Santa Barbara this week for a law seminar.” (Brugger) I find this analogy accurate. Focus must be given to the more severe cases while keeping the low-level offenders on the backburner, so to speak. It steers the focus onto the high-level offenders while giving a chance at redemption to the low-level accusers. Hopefully, the victims of sex crimes can see this rationale despite the possible, understandable feelings of wanting to see their offender suffer for the rest of their lives.

Although SB 384 gives convicted offenders a chance at a normal life, the most important factors that must be kept in mind are the potential victims that it can help, most importantly the victims of serious and heinous crimes. The Law Office of Vikas Bajaj is quite right in saying that priority must be given to the more serious cases. This is also the main argument from the SB 384 Senate Floor analysis which states that “Law enforcement cannot protect the community effectively when they are in the office doing monthly or annual paperwork for low-risk offenders. when they could be out in the community monitoring high-risk offenders” (Kennedy). I believe the California Legislature drafted language that will truly be beneficial to victims that need the most help. It’s quite unfortunate that there are so many sex offenders that it gives law enforcement a difficult time, but SB 384 will weed out the most dangerous offenders and law enforcement get them off the street.

With respect to minors, I agree with SB 384. It can be simplified to one major factor, and that is the fact that minors still have a significant amount of time to develop before reaching an age where they can face greater consequences if they were tried as an adult. Minors who have committed a tier-one crime would only have to register for half the time of an adult, 5 years, but their age is also indicative of a potentially normal future if they respond to rehabilitation during incarceration.

Simply locking up minors and making them register for life immediately sets them up for a long life of discrimination and hardship. It also takes away any hope of them growing up to be a functioning member of society. They will grow up thinking that there is no point in rehabilitating themselves if it will not help them with the mistake they may have made. However, severity of the crime will still determine how difficult their future may become. This shows an even greater need for SB 384, minors that made a mistake or were charged with a minor sex offense can have a chance to clear their name before reaching an age that hinders their future.

According to the book “Sexual Victimization…” (Author), most statutory rape convictions are not even based on predatory sexual acts, they usually involve two teenagers or one teenager and one young adult, such as a seventeen- and eighteen-year-old, which is technically illegal. It is true that the introduction of age spans may have helped teens who have consensual sex, but it not enough once a case is brought to trial. Nicole Pittman, author of the SacBee article, “Why kids don’t belong on sex offender registry”, makes a solid argument. “Sex offender registration laws stigmatize and isolate the very children they were meant to protect, ensuring their youthful indiscretions follow them into adulthood. Names, photos, and addresses are often made public, leading to vigilante, stigmatization, and severe psychological harm.” (Pittman) As Pittman states, this puts morally innocent minors at risk and does more harm than good. The three-tier system in SB 384 gives minors a chance at a normal life while keeping psychopathic or morally corrupt minors accountable for their crimes.

In the case of J.C. v. The People of California, a minor was ordered by the Juvenile Court to register as a sex offender for life for the crime of performing a lewd act upon a child that was less than fourteen years old. J.C. tried to appeal this decision by stating that “lifetime sex offender registration for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (Source) The California Court then goes on to describe their rational based on not only the defendant’s age but also on his reoccurring offenses and likelihood of reoffending. J.C. comes from a terrible upbringing that included severe abuse and neglect, which is common in the ever-growing foster system. At 12 years old, he forcibly sodomized a five-year-old and was placed on probation and put in the custody of his mother. He then violated said probation a year later when he was caught molesting his disabled sister, a minor. J.C. would then spend the next few years going in and out of treatment programs but to no avail and would be caught reoffending once again. After being given several chances, the juvenile court had no choice but to commit J.C. to the Division of Juvenile Facilities for a maximum of ten years.

The defendant J.C. is a prime example of why S.B. 384 would be beneficial in regard to juvenile sex crimes. Due to his abusive childhood and lack of a stable environment, it is safe to assume that mental illness is a definitive factor in his case. However, because of his continued re-offenses, he would earn a spot in either Tier 2 or 3 and be required to register for a minimum of 10 years to life. The bill would enable law enforcement to focus on juveniles such as J.C. while giving more leeway to minor sex offenders.

I believe SB 384 goes far enough and encompasses the issues with life-long sex offender registration. Offenders convicted of vile sex crimes that put the life of a minor in danger would still be punished adequately while offenders that have successfully rehabilitated themselves can attempt to return to society.

As previously stated, it can be difficult to draft language that resolves a complex issue such as life-long sex offender registration, especially regarding issues that may be of no concern to the general public. In the Los Angeles Times article “Criminal justice leaders seek to end lifetime registry for low-risk offenders in California”, Patrick McGreevy talks about 64-year-old Frank Lindsay, who was convicted of sexually touching a 14-year-old girl forty years ago. According to McGreevy, he has not committed a crime in forty years but was required by law to stay on the registry. Most may be happy with that due to the nature of his crime, but how long is long enough to prove that one has truly rehabilitated themselves? Forty years is certainly a considerable amount of time. McGreevy then describes how Frank Lindsay’s life has been affected by his conviction after all these years. “The listing cost him a business and sustainable livelihood, subjected him to death threats, prevented him from visiting his daughter’s school, and resulted in injuries when he was attacked by an angry, hammer-wielding stranger who broke into his home after seeing his name on the registry…” (McGreevy) Lindsay then goes on to describe how bitter it can make someone. Yes, his crime was abhorrent, but Frank Lindsay deserved a chance at redemption for his good behavior instead of a wall keeping him from full rehabilitation. The passing of SB 384 can help the small population of sex offenders who truly want to repent for their minor crimes. If it was passed during Lindsay’s youth, he might have lived a better life after being taken off the registry after a decade if he did not re-offend. Now it is too late for Lindsay, and the public must recognize these types of situations and give minor offenders a chance without disregarding the seriousness of the crimes and validity of the victims.

The same argument can be said for minors. Minors who commit sex crimes should be punished, but second chances should still be given to those that can completely rehabilitate their behaviors. The focus should be given to juveniles that continue to re-offend and are resistant to rehabilitation. SB 384 makes it easier for law enforcement to tend to said juveniles.

According to the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), the bill also allows more money to be appropriated to programs and services for juvenile victims. They state, “This means hope for thousands of Californians who were put on the registry as children…It is not only a humane policy, it is cost-effective. California spends $140 million a year to register youth, yet the 2017 budget only designated $46,000 for victim’s services and prevention.” (Henriquez et al) The point of enforcing sex crime laws is to bring justice to any victim affected by said crime. An effective system is certainly necessary to keep track of the offenders, but more money should be allocated to aiding the victims, while the registration system should be analyzed to keep costs down but keep track of the most dangerous and likely offenders. SB 384 goes far enough to bring justice to victims and offenders of all ages.

There have been significant changes to SB 384 since it’s passage in 2017. One of the most notable is the assignment of child porn convictions to Tier 3, which is an automatic life-long registration requirement. The general public may be fine with that since the viewing of child porn is heavily frowned up, and for good reason, but Janice Bellucci, a writer for the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, makes some interesting arguments against this. “First, empirical evidence clearly states that those convicted of a CP offense are very unlikely to re-offend. Second… those convicted of a CP offense have not and will not commit a violent or contact offense. Third, there is a fundamental lack of fairness, logic, and rational thinking in requiring an individual convicted once of a non-contact, non-violent offense to register for the same period of time as an individual convicted of multiple violent offenses. (Bellucci) This is a fair point and shows the cons of the changes to SB 384.

This change greatly influences the impact of mandates of SB 384 by putting consensual minors at risk of lifelong registration. As stated previously, minors who engage in sexual acts, despite consent from both parties, can be legally required to register for life if convicted. However, that is only if they were brought to trial. Parents can help in preventing this from happening since they are usually the ones who alert law enforcement thinking it will help protect their child. It’s a fine line but consenting minors should not be treated the same as violent offenders.

While not a direct change to the bill language itself since the 2017 version of SB 384, it is interesting to note that the bill helped homosexual men who faced discrimination and were required to register as a sex offenders for life. SB 145, the old name for SB 384, amended the current law at the time which contained discriminating language against gay men. It stated that if an eighteen-year-old male had sex with a seventeen-year-old female, a judge had the discretion to have leniency. If it was the same situation but with two males, the eighteen-year-old would be required to register for life. “The bill was critical for LGBTQ people…-including gay men who had been unfairly targeted and entrapped by homophobic police from before Stonewall until the present day. Fortuitously, the legislation was later revived as SB 384…and was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown.” (Ocamb) This is a highly significant and timely change in the civil rights world, so it is understandable as to why there is much support. The hope coming to deserving individuals on the registry and proactive law enforcement becomes active January 1st, 2021.

Work Cited

1. Bellucci, Janice. “Janice’s Journal: The Path Forward for CA Tiered Registry (SB 384).” ACSOL, all4consolaws.org/2017/09/the-path-forward-for-ca-tiered-registry-sb-384/comment-page-1/
2. Brugger, Kelsey, et al. “Changes Are Coming to California Sex Offender Registry.” The Santa Barbara Independent, 29 Mar. 2019, www.independent.com/2018/02/15/changes-are-coming-california-sex-offender-registry/.
3. Campos, Lorena. “New Law Reforming California’s Sex Offender Registry Is a Great First Step.” California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 10 Oct. 2017, www.calcasa.org/2017/10/new-law-reforming-californias-sex-offender-registry-is-a-great-first-step/.
4. McGreevy, Patrick. “Criminal Justice Leaders Seek to End Lifetime Registry for Low-Risk Sex Offenders in California.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 18 June 2017, www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-sex-offender-registry-20170618-story.html.
5. Ocamb, Karen. “Democrats Incur LGBTQ Wrath over Sex Offender Registry Bill.” Los Angeles Blade: LGBT News, Rights, Politics, Entertainment, 6 Sept. 2019, www.losangelesblade.com/2019/09/06/democrats-incur-lgbtq-wrath-over-sex-offender-registry-bill/.
6. Pittman, Nicole. “Why Kids Don’t Belong on Sex Offender Registry.” Sacbee, The Sacramento Bee, 13 Oct. 2017, www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article178572756.html
7. Richards, Tara N., Marcum, Catherine D. Sexual Victimization: Then and Now.. [VitalSource Bookshelf].
8. “Sex Offender Registration in California – Senate Bill 384.” Law Office of Vikas Bajaj, APC, www.bajajdefense.com/sex-offender-registration-in-california-senate-bill-384/.

Sex Offender Treatment Program: Reflective Essay on Personal Experience

Abstract

Sex crimes continue to be prevalent within the US population, so much so that they dedicated a whole spinoff of Law and Order to it. There is fascination with these crimes; “how could someone do that?” but also a firm desire to punish these offenders. Counseling within this population is specialized and continues to become more divided due to circumstances (different venues for treatment; prison programs, private practice, mental institutions). This population presents a challenge as well since most of the obtainable data about the sex offender population comes from incarceration. Those incarcerated have very little desire to participate in treatment and resistance can be a hurdle for even the most seasoned of therapists. On top of that, other factors such as co-occurring disorders (addictions, mental disorders), shame, guilt, and negative self-talk add to the difficulty of working with sex offenders. The most difficult part of obtaining research in order to write this paper was wading through the amount of negative journal articles in regards to the offender population. Most articles were centered on punishment, accountability, chemical castration, and recidivism. It is no question that the safety of our society is important (most importantly, our children) however, debilitating an individual who is already incarcerated and full of shame and guilt serves very little purpose and may in fact result in increased recidivism rates. Most disappointingly, these journal articles gathered for research were written by those in the counseling field…which leaves me to conclude that there is not enough being done in counseling the sex offender population. In Irvin Yalom’s novel, Love’s Executioner, he bravely details the mistakes he has made within group therapy, the most important being bias error: “Translation error is compounded by bias error. We distort others by forcing into them our preferred ideas and gestalts, a process Proust beautifully describes: We pack the physical outline of the creature we see with all the ideas we already formed about him, and in the complete picture of him which we compose in our minds, these ideas have certainly the principal place. In the end, they come to fill out so completely the curve of his cheeks, to follow so exactly the line of his nose, they blend so harmoniously in the sound of his voice that these seem to be no more than a transparent envelope so that each time we see the fact or hear the voice it is our own ideas of him which we recognize and to which we listen (Yalom, pg. 59).” This concept is not only important to the academic/therapist/college graduate…it is equally important to the patient, the mother, the friend, the human. How often do we do this? Create an ideal of someone, so that they become a culmination of our beliefs and biases that we have mashed together. For example, many sex offenders in group therapy come from very difficult backgrounds…full of anger, abuse, and unspoken rules. These unspoken rules could be as simple as not putting elbows on the table during dinner, or as emotionally complex as not being able to display emotion for fear of weakness. When dissecting unspoken rules within our relationship packet, most patients had no idea that these rules were unhealthy, and that they perpetuated this negative environment by teaching their children the same rules they grew up with. This bias has become so normal to the individual and so ingrained in his/her life that they pass it on without a second thought. This is a part of life for them, so when obligated to sit down and dissect the negative aspects of their past…they are faced with the realization that what was originally thought of as “normal,” isn’t, and their “reality” isn’t as it should be. When a therapist, or intern student like myself, can identify how this happens in their/my life…empathy and understanding can take place. After all, a different situation may take place but the concept remains the same. He sums up the concept of unity and humanity in The Gift of Therapy: “I prefer to think of my patients and myself as fellow travelers, a term that abolishes distinctions between “them” (the afflicted) and “us” (the healers) (Yalom, 8).” This bias provides the foundation for what will be discussed in this paper; how Yalom’s therapeutic techniques apply to this population, treatment options available today, and my limited experience as it applies to incarcerated sexual offenders.

Contrary to the societal belief that places punishment before treatment, correctional professionals understand that group psychotherapy and treatment is more beneficial than any prison sentence (Andrews et al., 1990). The primary benefit of group psychotherapy is to develop healthy and functional relationships; this becomes increasingly important within incarcerated populations as the only peer support offered is with those who are in a similar situation (Mathias & Sindberg, 1986). Yalom places emphasis on interpersonal process-orientated groups which refers to a style of group therapy that focuses on the here-and-now (Yalom, 1995) yet not much research has been done on this approach. While group psychotherapy is beneficial to offender populations, it is important to note that it is not a cure-all (it is not intended to cure recidivism). The aim of group psychotherapy is to help offenders gain insight into their behavioral patterns (mainly those that encourage illegal behavior) while also increasing their awareness of how they interact with others, and how others view them. Yalom (1995) has identified 11 therapeutic factors that can institute therapeutic change; in regards to the offender, population emphasis will be placed on instillation of hope, universality, and interpersonal learning.

Instilling Hope

Hope is an important theme within therapy, especially when working with populations in the prison environment (Toch, 1992). Inmates need to maintain that hope is possible, because the maintenance of hope corresponds with the constitution of change. According to Yalom, “faith in a treatment mode can in itself be therapeutically effective (Yalom, 1995, p.4).” Since much of the incarcerated population falls prey to resistance, the group therapist must be able to properly communicate why this process is important and effective. For example, the therapist must reinforce a client’s ability and expectation to change and may need to educate the benefits to more resistant clients. Most people know the myth of Pandora, a woman who was molded by Greek god Hephaestus to punish men on earth. Pandora was given a jar by the Gods that was full of gifts and was instructed by Zeus to never open it. Her own curiosity encouraged her to open it one day and resulted in the release of all the evils of mankind. Sickness, poverty, jealousy, and revenge were enacted upon the world, and Pandora seeing what unfolded, quickly sealed the jar again. Everything except hope was released, and it is thought that hope was the only gift left in an effort to comfort the humans in the face of all evil on earth (Hawthorne & Galdone, 1967). The absence of hope among individuals seeking change can lead to a series of consequences from stuck-ness in the therapeutic process or successful suicide. Hope can be difficult to maintain in prison, yet that responsibility falls upon the shoulders of the therapist leading the group. By instilling hope, a therapist only strengthens the relationship of the clients and group involved.

Universality

Even more so than any other population, it is important to mention that shame prevents convicted sex offenders from creating meaningful relationships. This stems from a series of other issues, yet the foundation is the negative belief that no one could understand not only what I have done, but who I am and what my desires are. It is not uncommon for inmates to enter therapy and feel alone in the way that they feel or the difficulties they face. Disconfirming this belief can be a powerful instrument for change and group therapy provides the opportunity for this. A therapist’s job in facilitating this development is to identify commonalities between members in regards to history, behavior, thoughts and feelings, and treatment goals. Sexual offenders present with a high a level of shame due to the criminality behind their behavior and the way that the US legal system is acted out. By learning that others feel the same shame, members will feel less inhibited in sharing their experiences and feelings.

Interpersonal Learning

Interpersonal relationships are instrumental because it enables a client to understand who they are and how they appear based on the reflections of others (Yalom, 1995). For example, the inmate code dictates how those incarcerated live their lives and can be a source of great pride. Morgan et al found that this was especially true with male inmates as the code reinforces the machismo culture typically encountered in the prison system (Morgan, Van Haveren, & Pearson, 2002). A sense of self may be developed due to this code that can come with the respect and admiration of peers.

Interpersonal process groups can rekindle previous emotional experiences resulting in a “corrective emotional experience” (Yalom, 1995). Simply feeling these emotions is not enough, a cognitive layer must be implemented in which the client reflects and makes sense of the emotional turmoil that has occurred in their life. This presents a problem with sexual offenders as awareness of their own emotional experiences and the experiences of others can be difficult to attain. The responsibility falls on the therapist to make sense of emotions that are displayed during group sessions, which can include anger and hostility. In any setting, anger is viewed as progress, yet in incarceration, anger can be dangerous and detrimental. The expression of anger must be released in a therapeutic way as to avoid a violent encounter (Hassine, 1996).

The biggest benefit of interpersonal learning is the creation of a “social microcosm” (Yalom, 1995). In the basest of terms, clients will “keep it real” with each other, displaying true emotions including strengths and weaknesses. The first step of the therapist is to identify individual maladaptive patterns and then prep clients to receive feedback from others within the group. For example, a common issue within the prison population is sleeping during session. In an effort to address this, the therapist may ask group members what they think the impact of this behavior is on the group and how a client may change that behavior. Typically, hearing the disapproval from peers is enough for a client to quit engaging in disrespectful behavior.

Treatment Options

There are a myriad of sex offender treatment options, but for the benefit of this population, the focus will be on the aspects that they find the most helpful and instrumental. The Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project, an inpatient programs for offenders in California, utilized an exit interview to understand what treatment options were the most helpful (Marques, Day, Nelson, Miner, & West, 1991). The results indicated that clients found relapse prevention, individual therapy, and stress and anger management as the most important in recovery. The least important area was sex education. These clients indicated that therapy was overall satisfactory, as staff attitudes tended to be judgmental. Levenson and Prescott (2009) surveyed 44 incarcerated sex offenders in Wisconsin who displayed positive outcomes with therapy, yet divulged that the lack of confidentiality and therapists who seemed judgmental led to a slow progression (Levenson & Prescott, 2009). Beech and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2005) found that group cohesion and a supportive stance from therapists were associated with reductions in offending behavior. These reductions were summed up by an inverse correlation of engagement in therapy and denial, and that those actively engaged in treatment has greater levels of accountability and displayed more progress toward their treatment goals (Beech & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005).

In regards to treating sexual offenders, therapists understand that mitigating risk is a primary concern; society demands protection and we should share a common goal in ensuring that there will be no more victims. This section is in no way meant to dull the horror and tragedy of sex crimes or to take preference of an offender over a victim. However, it would be foolish of us to assume that society does not play a part in perpetuating these crimes. It is our society after all that erects the barriers that stand in the way of the recovery of sexual offenders. The fact is that limited jobs, housing restrictions, and sex offender registration raise risk factors for recidivism. Our restrictive policies feed hopelessness; they fuel the false idea that treatment and recovery are impossible and that relapse is likely. Politicians and law enforcement respond to the public’s demand for justice with stricter regulations and laws for offenders which in turn send a message of “You are not welcome here, and you will never change.” There is also the gray area in which constitutes a sexual offender; I once worked on a case of a 19-year-old male engaging in consensual sex with a 16-year-old female. Many of the people I have shared this story with do not believe this makes a sexual offense, yet that 19-year-old will remain on the sex offender registry for life. The Romeo and Juliet law now prohibits this from being a sex crime as long as there is no more than three years between offender and victim. Too little, too late for my client, yet this is a step forward in the right direction.

Experience

My undergraduate internship at the Community Assistance Center in Honolulu, Hawaii enabled me to work with incarcerated sex offenders in state prison, federal prison, and those on parole or probation in both arenas. This internship turned into a job that I enjoyed for four years before moving to Austin, Texas to complete my master’s program in clinical counseling. Prior to the start of my practicum, I held the same beliefs that many in society do; that those who commit sexual crimes are among the lowest of human beings and that the punishment for that crime should be life in prison. My fear and trepidation towards working with this population proved unfounded, and my clients’ and society’s perception of my role in therapy gave me more insight into my world than any measure of individual therapy ever has. The biggest critic of my population choice was my sister, who expressed frequently her worry about my safety and her general disgust with the offenders that I had grown to empathize with. Even when confronted with the research, that child sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 10% after prison time and treatment (Bench, 2013), she still refused to come to terms with it. Her point of view is the perspective that much of society shares and one that, as a mother of two, I can understand. The treatment of sex offenders is a relatively new concept and although it has worked for many years outside of the US, Americans have an “eye for eye” mentality when it comes to sex crimes. Yet, time brings about changes and if child sex crimes are still as prevalent as ever, then it follows that somewhere/somehow we are failing at prevention. So why not try treatment? Especially when multiple research experiments have shown that treatment can and does work. Barry Maletzky and Kevin McGovern of The Sexual Abuse Clinic located in Portland, Oregon followed 5000 offenders treated in their clinic between 1973 and 1990 using behavior-oriented methods. Some men were analyzed for as long as 17 years post-treatment, and success was achieved with 94.7% of the sample size. Success in this research design was determined by recidivism, which should be broadened with an updated study including other areas of success like treatment/post-treatment outcomes, management of behavior, and interpersonal relationships (McGovern, 1991).

When I entered my practicum, I was under the impression that a pedophile and a sex offender were synonymous. This is not the case; pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. Therefore, not all sex offenders are pedophiles (some desire those older than 11 years) and not all pedophiles are sex offenders (most go their whole lives without giving in to their urges). Differentiating these two terms is important when it comes to societal bias. It is also important to note that there are biological influences that can encourage this behavior. James Cantor is the head of research in the Sexual Behaviors Clinic at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, Canada’s largest mental health and teaching hospital. He has been working on better understanding sexual offending and through brain scans found differences in the white matter of a sexual offender’s brain in comparison to a normal functioning brain. White matter is a shorthand term for groupings of axons and glial cells that transmit signals through the gray matter that makes up the cerebrum (think of gray matter like houses on a specific electric grid and white matter as the cables connecting those houses to the grid). Cantor states: “There doesn’t seem to be a ‘pedophilia’ center in the brain. Instead, there is either not enough of this cabling, not the correct kind of cabling, or it is wiring the wrong areas together; so instead of the brain evoking protective or parental instincts when these people see children, it’s instead evoking sexual instincts. There’s almost literally a crossed wiring (Cantor, 2005).” Not so long ago homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a mental disorder and the biological aspects are still a topic of controversy today. The study by James Cantor is eye-opening and may sway much of public opinion that sexual offenders or pedophiles are “sick.” If biology is taken into account, then treatment does not seem like such a far-fetched idea.

In my experience, there is no assumption more dangerous than to believe that a person’s actions make up the entirety of who they are. One case in particular involved James (name changed), a Micronesian young adult who moved to Hawaii to provide for his family. He was on Oahu for two weeks before engaging in consensual sex with a minor. He knew and understood that she was a minor at the time, however, he did not comprehend that there were legal consequences that came with the choice he made. In Micronesia there is no age of consent and the legal system in place is minimal (practically non-existent). Prison is difficult for even the hardened criminal, yet James struggled more so due to his inability to speak English. Every treatment packet he read in group had to be translated and then comprehended. It took many months for him to understand that what he had done was illegal and carried a sentence of ten years in incarceration; to say he was hopeless is putting it lightly…I often wondered when I would show up to group and find out that he had committed suicide. After seven months of the same group, I saw the beginnings of universality and how this concept changed James. He felt less alone, he shared more willingly, and he persevered in learning English with the assistance of his group members. These interpersonal relationships allowed him to believe that he was more than the sum of his actions and that his original intention to provide for his family was still attainable. Upon the death of my clinical supervisor, Jerry, I flew back home to attend his funeral and was blessed to see more than three hundred of his former clients lined up to bid him farewell. James stood there, tears in his eyes, clutching his newborn daughter with his wife by his side. Upon completion of the sex offender treatment program, Jerry wrote James a recommendation for early release, and five years after entering the system, he walked out a ‘free’ man. While he has many years of probation ahead of him and his name on a registry, he told me how blessed and thankful he was to be given the opportunity to change and fulfill his dream; with a job in construction he saved up enough money to bring his entire family to Hawaii (mom, dad, and seven siblings!) While not every case study ends with a warm fuzzy feeling, this one is a profound reminder that change is possible.

References

1. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, R. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
2. Beech, A., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. E. (2005). Relationship between therapeutic climate and treatment outcome in group-based sexual offender treatment programs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 127-140.
3. Bench, L. L. (2013). Assessing sex offender recidivism using multiple measures: A longitudinal analysis. The Prison Journal, 93(4), 411-428.
4. Cantor, J. M. (2005). Handedness in pedophilia and hebephilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(4), 447-459.
5. Hassine, V. (1996) Life without parole (T.J. Bernard & R. McCleary, Eds.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
6. Hawthorne, N., & Galdone, P. (1967). Pandora’s box: The paradise of children. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
7. Levenson, J. S., & Prescott, D. (2009). Treatment experiences of civilly committed sex offenders: A consumer satisfaction survey. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 6-20.
8. Maletzky, B., & McGovern, K. (1991). Treating the sexual offender. Sage Publications.
9. Marques, J. K., Day, D. M., Nelson, C., Miner, M. H., & West, M. A. (1991) The Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project: Fourth report to the Legislature in response to PC 1365. Sacramento: California Department of Mental Health.
10. Mathias, R. E., & Sindberg, R. M. (1986). Time-limited group therapy in minimum security.
11. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 11, 7-17.
12. Morgan, R. D., Van Haveren, R. A., & Pearson, C. A. (2002) Correctional officer burnout: Further analyses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 144-160.
13. Toch, H. (1992). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14. Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York: Basic

Books.

1. Yalom, I. D. (2009). The gift of therapy. (1st ed.). Harper Perennial.
2. Yalom, I. D. (2012). Love’s executioner. (2nd ed.). Basic Books.