What is the future of this issue? As I mentioned in my first blog, sexual predators have been around for many years, and are not a threat that will disappear anytime soon. Sex crimes, which go hand in hand with their predators, will not disappear soon either. While they may never go away completely, policies are being implemented in the punishment, and treatment of sexual offenders while incarcerated. Preventative measures are continuously being pushed in hope of decreasing the occurrence of sex crimes.
Controversial questions are often asked throughout the correctional system and law enforcement as to the most effective way to punish sex offenders, for example: how long should they be incarcerated? Should the time incarcerated vary depending on the crime? How long should they be monitored after release? Does psychological treatment really work in preventing the risk of future offenses? Answers to these questions have varied over the years. Some psychologists and policy makers believe that these questions ignore crucial statistics, like the fact that sex offenders are not likely to repeat their crimes with the appropriate treatment. The most common and effective treatment is a modern behavioral model stressing relapse prevention through recognition and avoidance of criminal impulses.
A common misperception is that psychologists do not face challenges in the treatment of sex offenders. They often struggle to convince law enforcement to take treatment seriously, and convince society that their treatment is effective. A common public misperception is about the recidivism rate of offenders. While most will guess recidivism rates to be in the 70s or 80s, the actually percentages are only 10 or 20 percent, which tend to surprise the public.
Offenders commit sexual crimes for different reasons. Psychologists say some reasons include the highly psychopathic behavior of some offenders have increased in repeated offenses. Studies in the last 10 years have determined that factors that increase an offender’s risk of reoffending after release include number of previous offenses, age, sexual preoccupations, and intimacy deficits.
There are countless challenges in the treatment of sex offenders. Psychologist’s treatment offenders does not come in a one size fits all package, and the treatment of each offender is individualized. One challenge that psychologists often face is when offenders do not reveal all previous crimes or sexually deviant thoughts. Offenders do not reveal previous crimes for fear that they will be convicted again. There is no easy way to alleviate this issue, but psychologists are forced to work around it. This stage is most problematic in the early stages of treatment, but can be worked though.
Despite the challenges that psychologists and law enforcement may face, the treatment of sex offenders is in full effect. It may not be a problem that is going away, but it is definitely one that is being addressed by psychologists, law enforcement, and the correctional system.
References:
Kersting, Karen. Monitor Staff: “New Hope for Sex Offender Treatment: Research suggests psychological treatment helps reduce recidivism among convicted sex offenders” Volume 34, No.7, July/August 2008.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Rehabilitation & Treatment of Sex Offenders
While sex offenders are often considered to be mentally ill, there is no simple “cure” for a sex offender. There is no magic pill or easy therapy that can remove sexual impulses that a sex offender may have. The question is, is a sex offender able to be cured, or are they considered a sex offender forever? There has been great debate over the psychology of sex offenders, and various studies have been conducted, producing various results. Studies suggest that sex offenders have not been proved to be “incurable”. They have, in fact, been shown to positively respond to treatment and successfully rejoin society without committing further sex crimes. A sex offender may choose not to reoffend because of their shame of being previously caught and placed on trial. Being convicted may serve as a deterrent against future offenses.
It is extremely difficult to draw conclusions as to why a sex offender commits the crimes, making it even more difficult to determine treatment options. The acts committed by sex offenders differ greatly, making it hard to resolve the issue. Although treatment is not 100 percent effective, courses of treatment can help people who have been convicted of sex offenses to help control their urges, reducing the risk of repeat offenders. It is easier to think of “curing” a sex offender in terms of alcoholism. Offenders, similar to addicts, are never free of their addiction, and are forced to deal with it as part of their everyday lives.
In the 1930s, the first major attempts to treat sex offenders were put into play. Offenders were classified as “mentally disordered” and committed to psychiatric facilities. Starting in the 1970s, new patterns emerged that focused on helping offenders become more aware and to control their high risk impulses. Current approaches include cognitive-behavioral methods, psycho-educational methods, and pharmacological methods.
These treatment methods are often used together, and are most effective when initiated soon after an offender has been incarcerated. There are drawbacks to treatment, unfortunately. The prison environment often interferes with treatment, and sometimes eliminates it completely. Once sex offenders are released, they are often monitored for a period of time, or forced to register in a database similar to Megan’s Law. As previously mentioned, sometimes the shame alone in having to register as an offender is deterrent enough for future offenses. While there are not solid conclusions as to which method of treatment or rehabilitation should be used on sex offenders, studies have shown that treatment is both necessary and beneficial in the prevention of future sex crimes.
References:
Criminal Justice Abstracts. Outcome Evaluation of a High-Intensity Inpatient Sex Offender Treatment Program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol 24. 2008
Roberts, M.L. Criminal Justice Abstracts. Lifers on the Outside: Sex Offenders and Disintegrative Shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
It is extremely difficult to draw conclusions as to why a sex offender commits the crimes, making it even more difficult to determine treatment options. The acts committed by sex offenders differ greatly, making it hard to resolve the issue. Although treatment is not 100 percent effective, courses of treatment can help people who have been convicted of sex offenses to help control their urges, reducing the risk of repeat offenders. It is easier to think of “curing” a sex offender in terms of alcoholism. Offenders, similar to addicts, are never free of their addiction, and are forced to deal with it as part of their everyday lives.
In the 1930s, the first major attempts to treat sex offenders were put into play. Offenders were classified as “mentally disordered” and committed to psychiatric facilities. Starting in the 1970s, new patterns emerged that focused on helping offenders become more aware and to control their high risk impulses. Current approaches include cognitive-behavioral methods, psycho-educational methods, and pharmacological methods.
These treatment methods are often used together, and are most effective when initiated soon after an offender has been incarcerated. There are drawbacks to treatment, unfortunately. The prison environment often interferes with treatment, and sometimes eliminates it completely. Once sex offenders are released, they are often monitored for a period of time, or forced to register in a database similar to Megan’s Law. As previously mentioned, sometimes the shame alone in having to register as an offender is deterrent enough for future offenses. While there are not solid conclusions as to which method of treatment or rehabilitation should be used on sex offenders, studies have shown that treatment is both necessary and beneficial in the prevention of future sex crimes.
References:
Criminal Justice Abstracts. Outcome Evaluation of a High-Intensity Inpatient Sex Offender Treatment Program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol 24. 2008
Roberts, M.L. Criminal Justice Abstracts. Lifers on the Outside: Sex Offenders and Disintegrative Shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Victims of Sex Crimes (Blog Post #6)
While female sex offenders may be a growing number, females are more likely to be the victims of sex crimes. Women are too common the victims of sex crimes, which are often underreported to authorities. According to Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), one in six women will be a victim of sexual assault in their lifetime. Only about 6% of these offenders will ever spend a day in jail, because so many of these sexual assaults are not reported to police. In fact, 60% of sexual assaults against women are not reported to police. Every two minutes, someone is sexually assaulted in the United States. These frightening facts contribute to the huge number of women sex crime victims. Women who have been sexually assaulted are often too scared to report their crime, or feel like reporting to the authorities will not do any good. The growing number of sex crime victims is largely women.
Rape is one of the most underreported sex crimes, but even when it is reported to authorities, it is often not handled properly. The case of Lavinia Masters, who was raped in 1985 when she was only 13, has recently been reopened. She stated that the process of collecting evidence was devastating, but waiting twenty years for her case to come to a conclusion was the worst. He rape kit sat idle until 2005, when the Dallas Police Department re-opened her case as part of an initiative to solve old crimes. DNA testing was not available when Masters was raped, but when her case was re-opened, the police found that the DNA matched a man who was already serving time in prison for unrelated crimes. Even though Masters’ case had finally been solved, she could not prosecute the man because the statute of limitations had run out. The case of Lavinia Masters is an all too common occurrence.
In Los Angeles, for example, there were nearly 7,500 untested rape kits in the system in 2008. These rape kits may contain critical DNA that could either lead to the arrest of offenders, or exonerate those wrongly convicted. The wait for rape victims can be agonizing. One victim said that, “having to wait is like pouring salt on the wound,” and, “to have DNA technology at our disposal is awesome, but we have to take advantage of it.” Today, Masters and other rape victims are pushing to have their cases re-opened, and have new cases tested immediately before they end up in backlog for years.
Problems arise in which rape cases have priority to be tested. Cases involving suspects who are likely to be involved with murder or children usually take top priority. Incidences involving a victim who is attacked by a stranger are usually given the next priority. Rape victims in cases involving acquaintances or spouses sometimes aren’t even tested at all. The problem of solving rape cases is a growing issue, and needs to be addressed. While so many sexual assaults are not reported, it is crucial that all crimes that are reported to authorities take top priority in being investigated.
References:
CNN News, http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/15/rape.kit.backlog/index.html#cnnSTCText October 15, 2009
RAINN: Rape Abuse, and Incest National Network, http://www.rainn.org/statistics Statistics, received October 31, 2009.
Rape is one of the most underreported sex crimes, but even when it is reported to authorities, it is often not handled properly. The case of Lavinia Masters, who was raped in 1985 when she was only 13, has recently been reopened. She stated that the process of collecting evidence was devastating, but waiting twenty years for her case to come to a conclusion was the worst. He rape kit sat idle until 2005, when the Dallas Police Department re-opened her case as part of an initiative to solve old crimes. DNA testing was not available when Masters was raped, but when her case was re-opened, the police found that the DNA matched a man who was already serving time in prison for unrelated crimes. Even though Masters’ case had finally been solved, she could not prosecute the man because the statute of limitations had run out. The case of Lavinia Masters is an all too common occurrence.
In Los Angeles, for example, there were nearly 7,500 untested rape kits in the system in 2008. These rape kits may contain critical DNA that could either lead to the arrest of offenders, or exonerate those wrongly convicted. The wait for rape victims can be agonizing. One victim said that, “having to wait is like pouring salt on the wound,” and, “to have DNA technology at our disposal is awesome, but we have to take advantage of it.” Today, Masters and other rape victims are pushing to have their cases re-opened, and have new cases tested immediately before they end up in backlog for years.
Problems arise in which rape cases have priority to be tested. Cases involving suspects who are likely to be involved with murder or children usually take top priority. Incidences involving a victim who is attacked by a stranger are usually given the next priority. Rape victims in cases involving acquaintances or spouses sometimes aren’t even tested at all. The problem of solving rape cases is a growing issue, and needs to be addressed. While so many sexual assaults are not reported, it is crucial that all crimes that are reported to authorities take top priority in being investigated.
References:
CNN News, http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/15/rape.kit.backlog/index.html#cnnSTCText October 15, 2009
RAINN: Rape Abuse, and Incest National Network, http://www.rainn.org/statistics Statistics, received October 31, 2009.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Blog Post #5: Female Sex Offenders
When you think of a sex offender, what do you think of? More likely than not, you are thinking of a male offender. Information suggests, however, that women and adolescent girls are sex offenders, although they represent the minority of sex offenders. There has been question as to whether this data really reflects an under-occurrence of female offenders, or if female sex offending is simply under-recognized. Studies show that both may be true, with various contributing external factors.
Much like all crime in general, males comprise the vast majority of all arrests, according to an FBI statistic from 2006. Because males are arrested and charged with crimes at a far higher number than women, there is little reason to believe that females would necessarily be responsible for a greater proportion of sex crimes. On the other hand, however, there is evidence that sex offenses initiated by women is likely to be under-identified, even more so than male perpetrated sex offenses. There are several reasons for this, including: societal and cultural stereotypes, professional biases, problems with research methods, among other influences.
Women arrests for sex crimes account for less than 10% of all sex crime cases, out of all adults and juveniles who come to the attention of the authorities (FBI, 2006). More specifically, arrests of women represent only 1% of all adult arrests for forcible rape, and 6% of all arrests for other sex offenses. For juvenile female offenders, females are responsible for 3% of forcible rape cases, and 5% of other violent sex offenses (19% for non violent sex offenses). While the number of arrests for adult women sex offenses has decreased in recent years, the number of adolescent girls coming to the attention for sex crimes has increased significantly. More specifically, between 1997 and 2002, juvenile cases involving female-perpetrated forcible rapes, other violent sex offenses, and non-violent sex offenses rose by 6%, 62%, and 42% respectively.
Sex offending has always been viewed as a male-only crime. This is in part due to society’s gender role stereotypes. Women are viewed at nurturing, caretaking individuals, not violent sex offenders. Women by nature, are seen as unlikely to engage in aggressive or harmful behaviors towards others. There are also sexist beliefs that depict males as controlling sexual encounters, and females as passive and submissive recipients. Misperceptions also exist about the ability of women to sexually victimize males. Because of the huge imbalance of cases between female and male offenders that are brought to attention, society remains unaware of the increasing numbers of female sex offenders.
References:
Center for Sex Offender Management.-Female Sex Offenders http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf
Much like all crime in general, males comprise the vast majority of all arrests, according to an FBI statistic from 2006. Because males are arrested and charged with crimes at a far higher number than women, there is little reason to believe that females would necessarily be responsible for a greater proportion of sex crimes. On the other hand, however, there is evidence that sex offenses initiated by women is likely to be under-identified, even more so than male perpetrated sex offenses. There are several reasons for this, including: societal and cultural stereotypes, professional biases, problems with research methods, among other influences.
Women arrests for sex crimes account for less than 10% of all sex crime cases, out of all adults and juveniles who come to the attention of the authorities (FBI, 2006). More specifically, arrests of women represent only 1% of all adult arrests for forcible rape, and 6% of all arrests for other sex offenses. For juvenile female offenders, females are responsible for 3% of forcible rape cases, and 5% of other violent sex offenses (19% for non violent sex offenses). While the number of arrests for adult women sex offenses has decreased in recent years, the number of adolescent girls coming to the attention for sex crimes has increased significantly. More specifically, between 1997 and 2002, juvenile cases involving female-perpetrated forcible rapes, other violent sex offenses, and non-violent sex offenses rose by 6%, 62%, and 42% respectively.
Sex offending has always been viewed as a male-only crime. This is in part due to society’s gender role stereotypes. Women are viewed at nurturing, caretaking individuals, not violent sex offenders. Women by nature, are seen as unlikely to engage in aggressive or harmful behaviors towards others. There are also sexist beliefs that depict males as controlling sexual encounters, and females as passive and submissive recipients. Misperceptions also exist about the ability of women to sexually victimize males. Because of the huge imbalance of cases between female and male offenders that are brought to attention, society remains unaware of the increasing numbers of female sex offenders.
References:
Center for Sex Offender Management.-Female Sex Offenders http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf
Monday, October 19, 2009
Can Sex Offenders Be Forgiven
Sex offenders are considered to be the worst of the worst in society’s view of criminals. With the rapid advancement of technology, there are countless ways to find sex offenders. Because it is public information, and because it is public information, there are little places for sex offenders to hide. With various online databases like Megan’s Law and e-mail notification systems, society’s awareness of local sex offenders is at an all time high. Does this mean, though, that sex offenders should be treated like monsters? Public awareness of sex offenders is controversial, and should be looked at from both perspectives.
Sex offenders have earned various titles such as the scum of the earth, perverts, pedophiles, garbage, etc. While some of these offenders may even deserve these titles, some of them do not. It is hard to separate the “bad” sex offenders from the “not-so-bad” sex offenders, when they are all grouped into one large group. The idea of acceptance or sex offenders may seem wrong for some, and the thought of forgiving sex offenders can seem near impossible.
As a college student, I live in an apartment complex that is also home to multiple sex offenders. While it made me nervous at first, I do not feel scared or threatened to live where I do. If I had not searched the Megan’s Law database before I moved in, I would not have ever known these men are convicted sex offenders. I have even had conversations with one of the “offenders” who lives by the mailboxes. This elderly man minds his own business, and takes his dogs for walks. When I see him, I offer a friendly hello, just as I would to any of my other neighbors. From a moral standpoint, who am I to judge someone who I do not know? Like I mentioned earlier, I do not know this man’s story, what caused him to commit these crimes, whatever the severity of them may be.
Looking at the issue from a different perspective, I can see the reasoning behind other people’s fear of living near a sex offender. Parents, for example, are often so scared to live close to a sex offender, and feel the need to protection their children. This fear is understandable, and it is a justified reason to feel threatened by an offender living in your neighborhood.
It is common for a neighborhood to try to run a sex offender out of a neighborhood, but the idea of forgiving or even accepting the offender is a much more difficult task. It is important to note that if sex offenders were not required to register, most of society would not be able to distinguish between who is or is not a sex offender. Society’s issues with living near sex offenders has caused great controversy, and has often led to offenders being treated like monsters, not like the human beings that they are.
Sex offenders have earned various titles such as the scum of the earth, perverts, pedophiles, garbage, etc. While some of these offenders may even deserve these titles, some of them do not. It is hard to separate the “bad” sex offenders from the “not-so-bad” sex offenders, when they are all grouped into one large group. The idea of acceptance or sex offenders may seem wrong for some, and the thought of forgiving sex offenders can seem near impossible.
As a college student, I live in an apartment complex that is also home to multiple sex offenders. While it made me nervous at first, I do not feel scared or threatened to live where I do. If I had not searched the Megan’s Law database before I moved in, I would not have ever known these men are convicted sex offenders. I have even had conversations with one of the “offenders” who lives by the mailboxes. This elderly man minds his own business, and takes his dogs for walks. When I see him, I offer a friendly hello, just as I would to any of my other neighbors. From a moral standpoint, who am I to judge someone who I do not know? Like I mentioned earlier, I do not know this man’s story, what caused him to commit these crimes, whatever the severity of them may be.
Looking at the issue from a different perspective, I can see the reasoning behind other people’s fear of living near a sex offender. Parents, for example, are often so scared to live close to a sex offender, and feel the need to protection their children. This fear is understandable, and it is a justified reason to feel threatened by an offender living in your neighborhood.
It is common for a neighborhood to try to run a sex offender out of a neighborhood, but the idea of forgiving or even accepting the offender is a much more difficult task. It is important to note that if sex offenders were not required to register, most of society would not be able to distinguish between who is or is not a sex offender. Society’s issues with living near sex offenders has caused great controversy, and has often led to offenders being treated like monsters, not like the human beings that they are.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sex Offender Housing Restrictions (Post #3)
Sex offenders face a constant battle as to where they are allowed to live. Twenty two states have distance restrictions varying from 500 to 2,000 feet limiting where offenders are allowed to live, work, or even walk. The purpose of these laws are to observe the impact of residence restrictions on sex offender integration, and to better understand the sex offender’s perceptions of these laws. These laws, however, were put it place before there was research proving that they were effective.
Laws vary in each state. In Iowa, sex offenders are not allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school or daycare facility. State figures in Iowa show that sex-abuse crime has remained the same, but the number of offenders failing to register has more than doubled. The law is similar in Georgia, but includes various bus stops and churches as well.
Housing restrictions for sex offenders are often so limiting that there may not be any area in the city for the offender to live. Because of these tough limitations, offenders often end up homeless, or being forced to move away from a city where they grew up, or where they have supportive friends or family.
A survey of 135 sex offenders was conducted in Florida, one of the states which passed housing restriction laws for sex offenders. Most of the offenders who took the survey responded by saying that housing restrictions increased isolation, and did not view the housing restrictions as helpful risk management. Some offenders even said that the isolation created by such restrictions may even increase rates of recidivism.
A different study, conducted in Indiana, examined the consequences, both intended and unintended, of residence restrictions on sex offenders. Data was collected from 148 male sex offenders enrolled in four different outpatient counseling centers. Results from this survey indicated that offenders felt housing stability was difficult to establish, employment opportunities were difficult to find, and social support was almost impossible. Young offenders were particularly impacted because Indiana law prevents them from living with family members, and many cannot find affordable housing in the city.
Considering that the majority of sex offenders are unlikely to re-offend, the strict housing restrictions are unnecessary and harmful to offenders and society. Such discriminating laws to housing restrictions may be doing the opposite of what it was intended for, which is increasing negative acts and reducing the chance of successful community adjustment for many sex offenders.
References
USA TODAY “Sex Offender Residency Laws Get a Second Look” February 2007
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover_x.htm
Levenson, J.S., Justice Research and Policy “Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Unintended Consequences and Community Re-entry” 2007 Criminal Justice Abtracts
Levenson, J.S., Justice Research and Policy. “The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd?” 2007 Criminal Justice Abtracts
Laws vary in each state. In Iowa, sex offenders are not allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school or daycare facility. State figures in Iowa show that sex-abuse crime has remained the same, but the number of offenders failing to register has more than doubled. The law is similar in Georgia, but includes various bus stops and churches as well.
Housing restrictions for sex offenders are often so limiting that there may not be any area in the city for the offender to live. Because of these tough limitations, offenders often end up homeless, or being forced to move away from a city where they grew up, or where they have supportive friends or family.
A survey of 135 sex offenders was conducted in Florida, one of the states which passed housing restriction laws for sex offenders. Most of the offenders who took the survey responded by saying that housing restrictions increased isolation, and did not view the housing restrictions as helpful risk management. Some offenders even said that the isolation created by such restrictions may even increase rates of recidivism.
A different study, conducted in Indiana, examined the consequences, both intended and unintended, of residence restrictions on sex offenders. Data was collected from 148 male sex offenders enrolled in four different outpatient counseling centers. Results from this survey indicated that offenders felt housing stability was difficult to establish, employment opportunities were difficult to find, and social support was almost impossible. Young offenders were particularly impacted because Indiana law prevents them from living with family members, and many cannot find affordable housing in the city.
Considering that the majority of sex offenders are unlikely to re-offend, the strict housing restrictions are unnecessary and harmful to offenders and society. Such discriminating laws to housing restrictions may be doing the opposite of what it was intended for, which is increasing negative acts and reducing the chance of successful community adjustment for many sex offenders.
References
USA TODAY “Sex Offender Residency Laws Get a Second Look” February 2007
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover_x.htm
Levenson, J.S., Justice Research and Policy “Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Unintended Consequences and Community Re-entry” 2007 Criminal Justice Abtracts
Levenson, J.S., Justice Research and Policy. “The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd?” 2007 Criminal Justice Abtracts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment
Juvenile sex offenders are a growing problem in the United States. Juvenile sex offenders make up about one quarter of the total number of sex offenders throughout the nation. Though forcible rape, the most serious of sex crimes for juveniles, has decreased since 1997, other crimes have increased. The problem with juvenile offenders isn’t a question of whether it is a problem, but a question of how to address and resolve the problem.
Robert Longo treated adolescent sex offenders in the early 1980s. Offenses of these juveniles ranged from fondling girls a few years younger than themselves, to the brutal rape of young children. As part of treatment, Longo instructed the boys to keep journals of their sexual fantasies (which he read), and to attend meetings similar to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The boys began by introducing themselves as sex offenders, for example, “I’m Alex, and I’m a sex offender. I sexually offended an 8 year old boy by touching his penis, and making him touch mine.” Studying juvenile sex offenders was new during this time, and Longo later realized that much of his approach was wrong, and that there is no proof in applying adult sex offender treatment programs to juvenile offenders.
One contemporary issue with juvenile offenders is that they are treated the same as adult sex offenders. A well known example is Megan’s Law. Since 1994, federal legislation has required sex offenders to register with the police. In 1996, Megan’s Law went into affect, mandating law enforcement to notify the public about convicted offenders in the community. According to an article from The New York Times, “How Can You Distinguish a Budding Pedophile From a Kid With Real Boundary Problems?”, at least 25 states now apply Megan’s Law to juveniles. That means that on most websites, viewers can find juveniles’ photos, names and addresses. In some cases birthdates and maps to their homes are even available. Juvenile offenders are registered along with serious adult offenders, like pedophiles and adult rapists. One mistake made by a juvenile when he/she was young may alter their entire life, affecting future choices and events in their lives. An example can be made of an eighth grader at a Delaware middle school.
Johnnie (name changed for privacy), arrived at school to find kids pointing and laughing at him. He thought they maybe were laughing at his new haircut, until one kid called him a rapist, and threatened to beat him up. Four years earlier, when Johnnie was 11, he put his hand on his 4-year-old sister’s vagina, over her underwear. Several months later told her to perform oral sex on him. Johnnie’s mother called the police, and he was enrolled in a treatment program, which he completed with honors. According to his grandmother, Johnnie adored his sister; he used to make her pancakes and play wither her, and he even bullied her, like most siblings do. While his actions were by no means appropriate, they may be justified as a curious 11 year old acting on his sexual urges. Johnnie was removed from his home and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Because his offense involved mouth to genital contact, in Delaware this crime qualified as second degree rape. In is unfair to put Johnnie in the same category as an adult offender convicted of repeatedly raping little girls, for example. A poor decision of an 11 year should not require a lifetime of embarrassment, bullying, and struggle.
What kinds of treatment programs are right for juveniles? In rare cases with juvenile sex crimes, incarceration may be needed for severe cases, along with treatment during and after incarceration. It is necessary to have post treatment not only for the “offender,” but for the juvenile’s family. Families sometimes do not know how to educate their children on social boundaries, and sometimes cannot pick up on cues that their child may have abnormal sexual urges or tendencies. Juvenile offenders cannot be treated as equals when it comes to sex crimes in the criminal justice system. The treatment of juvenile sex offenders is obviously a problem, and needs to be addressed on all levels. While the best solution for the treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile sex offenders is still unknown, possible treatments are being practiced and studied until a solution is found.
References:
Jones, Maggie. How Can You Distinguish a Budding Pedophile From a Kid With Real Boundary Problems? The New York Times June 2007.
Robert Longo treated adolescent sex offenders in the early 1980s. Offenses of these juveniles ranged from fondling girls a few years younger than themselves, to the brutal rape of young children. As part of treatment, Longo instructed the boys to keep journals of their sexual fantasies (which he read), and to attend meetings similar to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The boys began by introducing themselves as sex offenders, for example, “I’m Alex, and I’m a sex offender. I sexually offended an 8 year old boy by touching his penis, and making him touch mine.” Studying juvenile sex offenders was new during this time, and Longo later realized that much of his approach was wrong, and that there is no proof in applying adult sex offender treatment programs to juvenile offenders.
One contemporary issue with juvenile offenders is that they are treated the same as adult sex offenders. A well known example is Megan’s Law. Since 1994, federal legislation has required sex offenders to register with the police. In 1996, Megan’s Law went into affect, mandating law enforcement to notify the public about convicted offenders in the community. According to an article from The New York Times, “How Can You Distinguish a Budding Pedophile From a Kid With Real Boundary Problems?”, at least 25 states now apply Megan’s Law to juveniles. That means that on most websites, viewers can find juveniles’ photos, names and addresses. In some cases birthdates and maps to their homes are even available. Juvenile offenders are registered along with serious adult offenders, like pedophiles and adult rapists. One mistake made by a juvenile when he/she was young may alter their entire life, affecting future choices and events in their lives. An example can be made of an eighth grader at a Delaware middle school.
Johnnie (name changed for privacy), arrived at school to find kids pointing and laughing at him. He thought they maybe were laughing at his new haircut, until one kid called him a rapist, and threatened to beat him up. Four years earlier, when Johnnie was 11, he put his hand on his 4-year-old sister’s vagina, over her underwear. Several months later told her to perform oral sex on him. Johnnie’s mother called the police, and he was enrolled in a treatment program, which he completed with honors. According to his grandmother, Johnnie adored his sister; he used to make her pancakes and play wither her, and he even bullied her, like most siblings do. While his actions were by no means appropriate, they may be justified as a curious 11 year old acting on his sexual urges. Johnnie was removed from his home and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Because his offense involved mouth to genital contact, in Delaware this crime qualified as second degree rape. In is unfair to put Johnnie in the same category as an adult offender convicted of repeatedly raping little girls, for example. A poor decision of an 11 year should not require a lifetime of embarrassment, bullying, and struggle.
What kinds of treatment programs are right for juveniles? In rare cases with juvenile sex crimes, incarceration may be needed for severe cases, along with treatment during and after incarceration. It is necessary to have post treatment not only for the “offender,” but for the juvenile’s family. Families sometimes do not know how to educate their children on social boundaries, and sometimes cannot pick up on cues that their child may have abnormal sexual urges or tendencies. Juvenile offenders cannot be treated as equals when it comes to sex crimes in the criminal justice system. The treatment of juvenile sex offenders is obviously a problem, and needs to be addressed on all levels. While the best solution for the treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile sex offenders is still unknown, possible treatments are being practiced and studied until a solution is found.
References:
Jones, Maggie. How Can You Distinguish a Budding Pedophile From a Kid With Real Boundary Problems? The New York Times June 2007.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
