Sex Offender Treatment

“There are approximately 400, 000 registered sex offenders in the US alone and 8 out of 10 sex assaulters reported that their victim was under the age of 18. The median age of victims of imprisoned sex offenders was 13 years old” (National Alert Registry). So what are we doing to try and treat these offenders so they do not reoffend? There are different kinds of sex offender treatment programs and they are offered in different environments. For example, programs in the community and programs available to people incarcerated. Not every sex offender is qualified for a sex offender treatment program or wants to be a participant. There have been some studies done evaluating the effectiveness of sex offender treatment programs, which have had mixed results. More recently, there has been stronger evidence that sex offenders who participate in sex offender treatment programs have positive results with recidivism compared to sex offenders who did not participate. One study found treated sex offenders recidivated in 11% of the cases, whereas untreated sex offenders recidivated 17.6% over a five year period (Holmes & Holmes, 2009).

What are sex offender treatment programs? Sex offender treatment programs (SOTPs) are programs that are designed to help people who have been incarcerated for a sex offense or have an abnormal sexual problem, those who have treatment as a condition of their parole or those who are sentenced to treatment as a condition of their probation. If treatment is applied properly it can have a positive effect. “Effective treatment and management of sexual offenders can reduce sexual re-offending, thereby reducing human suffering and the cost associated with the processing and reincarceration of recidivists (Olver, Wong, & Nicholaichuk, 2008). A successful SOTP is based on its effect on recidivism and whether or not there is a decrease in recidivism. According to Winick and La Fond (2003), “the ultimate goal of sex offender treatment is the reduction of recidivism, some measure of that is the primary yardstick for evaluating treatment.”

There are different kinds of SOTPs offered in different settings. The two basic settings are community based programs and programs that are offered while offenders are incarcerated. Community based programs allow an offender to get treatment while not incarcerated. Community treatment allows the offender to hold a job, maintain a connection to family, friends, and society, and at the same time makes it possible to participate in therapy to change their attitudes and beliefs (La Fond 2005). The second setting for SOTPs is in prison, for people who have been incarcerated for sex crimes (i.e., rape, sexual assault, child molestation etc…). According to La Fond (2005), there are about 1,500 SOTPs available in United States prisons and about 39 states offer SOTPs. Prison-based SOTPs are often mandated for sex offenders as a condition of their incarceration. Most programs in prison revolve around group therapy. Group settings help with cost of SOTPs though it may not be ideal for sex offender therapy.

There are different approaches to treating sex offenders in SOTPs. Three basic approaches are cognitive-behavioral approach, psycho-educational approach and pharmacological approach. According to Bynum (2001), cognitive-behavioral approach emphasizes changing patterns of thinking that are related to sexual offending and changing deviant patterns of arousal; psycho-educational approach stresses increasing the offender’s concern for the victim and recognition of responsibility for their offense; and the pharmacological approach, which is based upon the use of medication to reduce sexual arousal. These three types of approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive but are often used in conjunction with one another. As of lately, the cognitive-behavioral approach is most often used.

One specific SOTP that is being used in Massachusetts is using a cognitive-behavioral methodology. The program has three components: pre-treatment, core treatment and maintenance. Pre-treatment is designed to prepare the offender for core treatment; core treatment involves primary therapy groups, psycho-educational classes, behavioral treatment, community unit and other activities identified in specific participants treatment plans (Hallett, 2006). The first two parts take place in correctional facilities and the last part takes place when the offender is out of prison. According to Hallett (2006), “Since its inception in 1996, more than 200 parolees have been supervised under the program, and none of these offenders have been returned to custody as a result of committing a new sex offense.” Overall the Massachusetts program has had a positive effect on recidivism.

SOTPs can work but with further analysis one can see the setting were some take place may hinder these programs. Since correctional institutions, such as prisons, are not very mentally healthy places in general, SOTPs can have difficultly being effective within prisons. Sex offenders participating in SOTPs in prison are often scared that other inmates will find out they are sex offenders and they might be harassed or hurt by other inmates. Inmates that are not sex offenders feel very strongly about people who commit sex crimes and often times try to punish sex offenders in their own way. Since therapy needs an open, honest, and respectful environment the culture in prison can make this very difficult and it can hinder treatment progress (Schneider, Bosley, Ferguson & Main, 2006). Sex offenders need to admit that they participated in sexually deviant behavior and this can be very difficult if sex offenders are scared to be attacked by fellow prisoners. SOTPs are difficult to implement as it is, but are even harder in the hostile environment of a prison.

Correctional facilities are not structured for the purpose of therapy and consequently there is very little privacy; making it hard for participates to be as open and honest as they might be in a private setting (Schneider et al., 2006). Since therapist and correctional officers have different agendas and goals (correctional officers need to maintain safety and therapist want to help the offenders) they are often at odds with each other (Schneider et al., 2006). This can be very counterproductive for the effectiveness of SOTPs in correctional institutions. Not only is the institution a problem in itself but it is also hard for sex offenders receiving treatment in that type of confined environment to understand and evaluate what circumstances they might come face to face with out in the real world. “If anxiety, depression, anger, rejection, etc. put offenders at greater risk for reoffending, those events experienced in the community will be different than such experiences in confinement” (Campbell, 2004). All of these factors of a SOTP taking place in a correctional facility can be hard to overcome for success after the offender is released and back in the community.

SOTPs can be effective but I believe they need to become more widely available because not all sex offenders are a lost cause. Many sex offenders if given the chance and the opportunity can change and move on to be productive members of society. I believe society and the criminal justice system need to have a more balanced approach between punishment and treatment. It is not best to lock up every single sex offenders, especially since treatment programs have improved and been shown to reduce recidivism.

References

Bynum, T. (2001, May). Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex

Offender Management.

Campbell, T. W. (2004). Assessing Sex Offenders. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher,

Ltd.

Hallett, A. (2006, December). Sex Offender Management Programming in Massachusetts.

Corrections Today, 68(7), 74-81. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from Academic Search

Premier database.

La Fond, J. Q. (2005). Preventing Sexual Violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Olver, M., Wong., & Nicholaichuk, T. (2008, March). Outcome Evaluation of a High-Intensity

Sex Offender Treatment Program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(3), 522-536.

Retrieved April 11, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Schneider, J., Bosley, J., Ferguson, G., & Main, M. (2006). The challenges of sexual offense

treatment programs in correctional facilities. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 34(2),

169-196. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Winick, B. J., & La Fond, J. Q. (Eds.). (2003). Protecting Society from Sexually Dangerous

Offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

The Castration Debate

The castration of sex offenders has been greatly debated with each side making strong points for its use or not. The facts are clear; sex offenders have some of the highest rates of recidivism. For example, child molesters have a 52% of re-offending while rapists a 39% of re-offending (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2001). These statistics show the treatment currently available for sex offenders is not having positive results, or is not available to many sex offenders. Whatever the reason current treatment has not reduced recidivism rates, the lack of results has led many to look to castration as the answer to reduce high rates of sex offender recidivism.

There are three different forms of castration including: surgical, vasectomy and non-surgical chemical castration. Surgical castration is when both testicles are surgically removed and a vasectomy is where a minor surgical procedure where the vasa deferentia (which transport sperm for ejaculation) of a man are severed, and then tied/sealed in a manner such to prevent sperm from entering the seminal stream for ejaculation. While chemical castration is where chemicals (medicine) are given to reduce libido and sexual activity and is not a form of sterilization (Wikipedia: Castration). Specifically, the drug used in chemical castration is Depo-Provera. Today, chemical castration is the form most addressed when talking about castrating sex offenders. The intent of chemical castration is to reduce a man’s sex drive and the ability to get sexual aroused. Statistics on chemical castration have proven that it works in reducing sex offender recidivism but some believe there is a moral principle that should limit the use of castration regardless of its utility.

Some reasons supporters give for castrating sex offenders include castration works, will reduce prison overcrowding and other treatment is not working. The simplest reason for people being in favor of castration is it works. Castration has a very high successes rate in reducing recidivism. According to Wright (1992), “the recidivism rate of sex offenders averages 80 percent before castration, but castration has worked to drop recidivism rates from 84 percent for non-castrated individuals to 2.3 percent for castrated individuals. These studies have also found that 90 percent of men reported they were satisfied with the outcome (Wright, 1992). Since castration reduces recidivism proponents argue it will also lower the prison population. Some supporters propose castration instead of incarceration. A sex offender would have the option to be castrated instead of a lengthy prison sentence. Supporters also believe other treatment is not effective. When compared with castration, other forms of treatment are not as effective. Compared to the 2.3 percent of recidivism of castrated offenders, the 12.8 percent for other kinds of treatment is high. There are no programs that compare to the effectiveness of castration (Wright, 1992). The supporters of castration make a strong case but there are also those who strongly oppose castration.

People opposing castration believe it is morally wrong; a form of cruel and unusual punishment and it does not get at the core of violence and anger surrounding many sex crimes. “As a criminal justice response to the chronic, dangerous sexual psychopath, castration of any kind is morally pernicious and pragmatically impotent. Castration must be rejected on the most essential go grounds: The ‘cure’ will exacerbate the ‘disease’ (Besharov et. al, 1992). People opposing castration believe it is wrong in its self to castrate another human being for any reason. They also oppose castration because they see it as a form of curl and unusual punishment. Their basis for this argument lies in the Eight Amendment, which guards against cruel and unusual punishment. People opposing castration also believe that taking away the sexual physical part of sex offending does not mean a person is cured from the violence behind the crimes. Castration will not remove the source of a violent sex offender’s rage and most sex offenders do not commit their crimes because they can’t help themselves but because they want to (Besharov et. al, 1992). For example, a man in Germany was chemically castrated and in 1980 he strangled and killed a seven year old girl. The castration did not treat his violent aggressive anger. The United States is not the only country having the castration debate but it is also happening in Europe.

Over the past decade the Czech Republic has allowed at least 94 prisoners to be surgically castrated (Bilefsky, 2009). While the Czech Republic believes castration is the best way to tame dangerous sexual predators while other European do not engage in castration. Dr. Martin Holly, a leading sexologist and psychiatrist, said none of the nearly 100 sex offenders who had been physically castrated had committed further offenses (Bilefsky, 2009). Statistics like that cannot be overlooked and prove castration works. However more European countries are debating over the use of chemical castration. “There is intense debate over whose rights take precedence: those of sex offenders, who could be subjected to a punishment that many consider cruel, or those of society, which expects protection from sexual predators” (Bilefsky, 2009). Poland is on the verge of giving judges the power to impose chemical castration on some pedophiles. Whichever side of the castration debate European countries decided to land on, I believe depends more on who is making the decisions and not on whether or not castration works. Evidence clearly shows castration will and does stop sex offenders.

I believe castration is a viable solution for some sex offenders and not others, therefore society has to draw a line between which types of sex offenders are going to be castrated and which ones are going to receive other forms of treatment. I believe there is too much evidence that castration works for it not to be used on sex offenders. Needless to say the debate will be an ever continuing one.

References

Besharov, Douglas J, & Vachhs, Andrew. (1992). Sex Offenders. ABA Journal, 78, 42.

Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 8728461).

Bilefsky, D. (2009, March 11). Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders. New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Castration. (n.d.) In Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org.

Center for Sex Offender Management (2001). Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Retrieved from

http://sexoffender.com/

Wright, L. (1992). The Case for Castration. Texas Monthly.