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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
