Sex Offender Rehabilitation
Please no plagiarism and make sure you are able to access all resources on your own before you bid. Main references come from Murray, C., Pope, A., & Willis, B. (2017) and/or American Psychological Association (2014). You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation regarding treatment. APA format also requires headings. Use the instructions each week to guide your heading titles and organize the content of your initial post under the appropriate headings. Remember to use scholarly research from peer-reviewed articles that is current. Please follow the instructions to get full credit for the discussion. I need this completed by 04/29/20 at 7pm.
Discussion – Week 10
Sex Offender Rehabilitation
Sexual crimes cover a wide range of criminal behavior including, but not limited to, rape, child molestation, lascivious acts, and indecent exposure. They also include acts that, while legal themselves if consensual, were forced upon persons who did not consent, are developmentally disabled, are minors, or have been drugged, just to name a few potential scenarios. An important question for anyone working with sex offenders in any capacity—whether in the criminal justice arena, in human services capacities, or in mental health professions—is whether or not sex offenders can be rehabilitated.
Can sex offenders be rehabilitated? Should sex offenders be treated, or should the focus be on punishing them? If they should be treated, then when and how should treatment be done and what are the treatment implications for counselors?
To prepare for this Discussion, review this week’s Learning Resources on sex offender rehabilitation. Consider your position on whether sex offenders can be rehabilitated and what sex offender treatment should entail, especially as it relates to counseling. You may also wish to search through the sex offender registry for your jurisdiction.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post by Day 4 your position on the degree/extent to which sex offenders can be rehabilitated. Justify your response with references to this week’s Learning Resources. Explain what sex offender treatment should entail and any other consequences sex offenders should face.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.
· Course Text: Murray, C., Pope, A., & Willis, B. (2017). Sexuality counseling: Theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
· Chapter 6, “Sexuality and Mental Health”
· Article: Boroughs, M. S., Valentine, S. E., Ironson, G. H., Shipherd, J. C., Safren, S. A., Taylor, S. W., Dale, S. K., Baker, J. S., Wilner, J. G., O’Cleirigh, C. (2015). Complexity of childhood sexual abuse: predictors of current post-traumatic stress disorder, mood disorders, substance use, and sexual risk behavior among adult men who have sex with men. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 44(7), 1891–1902. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Article: Hames, C., Winder, B., & Blagden, N. (2016). ’They treat us like human beings’-experiencing a therapeutic sex offenders prison: impact on prisoners and staff and implications for treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, (4), 371. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Article: Kim, B., Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (2016). Sex Offender Recidivism Revisited. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 17(1), 105–117. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Article: Levenson, J. S., Willis, G. M., & Prescott, D. S. (n.d.). Adverse Childhood Experiences in the Lives of Male Sex Offenders: Implications for Trauma-Informed Care. Sexual Abuse – A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(4), 340–359. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Article: Marshall, W. L., & Hollin, C. (2015). Historical developments in sex offender treatment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(2), 125–135. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· U.S. Department of Justice (n.d.). The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW). Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://www.nsopw.gov/en-US
Historical developments in sex offender treatment
W. L. Marshall1* & Clive Hollin2 1Rockwood Psychological Services, Kingston, ON, Canada & 2Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Abstract This paper describes our view of the important developments in the history of sex offender treatment with a particular emphasis on aspects of this growth in the UK. We begin where, in our view, treatment of sex offenders was first implemented; that is, at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. After the move across the Atlantic, we note the beginnings of more comprehensive programmes in North America which morphed into the Relapse Prevention model. The implementation of comprehensive programmes in Her Majesty’s Prisons led not only to further refinements but also offered the opportunity for researchers to explore all manner of possibilities. The more recent focus on strength-based approaches is examined, and we then spell out our hopes for the future in terms of treatment, assessment and theory.
Keywords Sex offender treatment; historical developments; treatment programs; assessments; Sex offenders
In the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of London’s Institute of Psychiatry in the 1950s, the nascent behaviour therapy movement was beginning to emerge. Treatments for various disorders, including problematic sexual behaviours, were being developed at the institute. Clinicians/researchers like psychologist Stanley (Jack) Rachman and psychiatrists Malcolm Gelder, Isaac Marks and John Bancroft developed treatment approaches for various types of paraphilic behaviours. These early approaches, however, were mostly limited to reducing deviant sexual interests using a variety of aversive conditioning procedures (see Laws & Marshall, 2003, for a review of those early studies). These approaches were soon exported to North America (e.g., Abel, Levis, & Clancy, 1970; Bond & Evans, 1967; Marshall, 1971), where they were rapidly expanded into programmes that incorporated other targets and other strategies (e.g., Abel, Blanchard, & Becker, 1978; Marshall & Williams, 1975). These latter programmes described the first attempts in North America to assimilate the emerging cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) movement into sex offender treatment. Subsequently, almost all treatment programmes in North America have been described by their authors as CBT with the later addition of relapse prevention (RP) components (see Pithers, Marquis, Gibat, & Marlatt, 1983). Ultimately, CBT/RP approaches
*Corresponding author. E-mail: email@example.com Like memory, history is a reconstruction and, again like memory, this reconstruction is always from a personal point of view. Therefore, we apologise for all those who have made significant contributions, but who we have omitted to mention. We have simply tried to identify major threads in the historical record.
Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2015 Vol. 21, No. 2, 125–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2014.980339
© 2014 National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers
came to dominate North American programmes and influenced treatment in the UK and some European countries as well as in Australia and in New Zealand.
The results of three meta-analytic studies (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hodgson, 2009; Hanson et al., 2002; Lösel & Schmucker, 2005) of treatment outcome encouraged optimism that the treatment of sex offenders could produce reductions in subsequent reoffending and that CBT appeared to be the most promising approach. These studies, along with the development of actuarial risk assessment instruments (see review by Craig, Browne, & Beech, 2008), and particularly the identification of criminogenic factors (see a recent appraisal by Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010) markedly advanced the empirical basis of both assessment and treatment. While the adoption of the actuarial risk assessment approach has been widespread, the adaptation of treatment programmes to incorporate the findings on criminogenic factors has not been as universal. As surveys of North American programmes by the Safer Society (McGrath, Cumming, & Burchard, 2003; McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, & Ellerby, 2010) have revealed, many still address numerous non-criminogenic targets and at the same time fail to address all criminogenic factors. Apparently, evidence takes some time to persuade treatment providers to change what they view as their tried-and-true approaches. When Hanson et al. (2009) demonstrated that Andrews’ (Andrews & Bonta, 2006) Principles of Effective Offender Treatment applied equally to sex offender treatment, a basis was provided for the emergence of a rational, empirically sound treatment approach with sex offenders. Again, however, the field has been slow to adapt.
The negative emphasis of the RP model seemed to many treatment providers to fit well with Salter’s (1988) confrontational approach. In combination, these two models encouraged a negative view, not just of the criminal behaviours of sex offenders, which we all consider to be repulsive, but of the offenders as human beings, as if they had no saving graces and as if they were devoid of any strengths. Therapists following these models aggressively challenged clients at the outset and pressured them to agree with every detail provided in the victim’s statement and the police reports; not the usual way therapy is done with other Axis 1 or Axis 2 disorders. Good therapists work initially to establish confidence in their clients and to develop a positive and respectful relationship before moving on to more difficult issues. We might ask why did so many sex offender treatment providers decide that years of research in all other fields of therapy was irrelevant to dealing with…