Sex-Related Offenses - Coursework Example

Introduction Sex-related offenses are crimes that strike the greatest amount of concern and reaction because of their impact to victims and their tendency to victimize vulnerable members of society such as juveniles and women. This perspective is one of the main reasons why many countries, including the U.K, have adopted statutes that required the special provisions for offenders which include psychotherapy as part of their sentence as monitoring and notification of the physical movement of offenders (Shoham, 2001). Based on the U.K’s Sex Offenders Act 1997, convicted sex offenders convicted, under custodial or community sentence or those released back to the community but remain under correctional supervision are required to inform local law enforcement of their identity and conviction or supervision as sex offenders (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2000; National Offender Management Service [NOMS], 2006). Though there is no denying the value of the objective of the provisions there has also been equal concern that the provisions contravene human and civil rights as well as prevent the social integration of previous offenders contravening correction efforts (Thomas, 2003; Grubin & Prentky, 1993). One element of this debate is based on the validity and effectiveness of the provisions: whether they can are based on research or populist considerations. The reinforcement of research evidence is critical in ensuring confidence in the measures while the latter would support social relevance of provisions (Jenkins, 1995). However, Baron (2003) believes that though sex offender notification is driven by either research or populist sentiments, there is a need to determine what is of greater influence to be able to ascertain whether requirements do not undermine the rights of offenders in the process. Crime and Offender Notifications The idea of offenders, not only for sexual-related crime, being required to disclose their movements or to be subject to monitoring is a means of enhancing the ability of law enforcement to ensure compliance with release requirements, prevent recidivism and to develop a reference for possible suspects in the sex crimes with no known perpetrators (Knock et al, 2002; Matravers, 2003). The practice is not a new of unique to the U.K.: the history of the use of markers to denote offenders and their crime has been a practice among society to reinforce the censure for the crime committed and to communicate social consequence (Home Office, 2002). These include permanent marking of offenders via tattoos, prescription or restriction of residence or the subscription to post-incarceration requirements (Bandura, 1975; Thomas, 2000). The strategy is clearly based on sociological perspectives. However, it is the subsequent research that is being emphasized as the prevailing rationale for the measures (NOMS, 2006). Current perspectives on offender notification have shifted its focus from law enforcement keeping track of offenders to the right of the public to expect local law enforcement to be effectively cognizant of possible threats (Bottoms, 2008; Thomas, 2008). This is an emphasis on the prevention of victimization in contrast to creating competencies for law enforcement. However, Estrada (2004) points that such a perspective also implies a tendency, if not an assumption, for recidivism. In the context of sex-related offenses, the implication is that there is a diminished level of rehabilitation of offenders (Murphy and Whitty, 2007). Cross (2005) and Stone (2005) believe that the there has been greatly influenced by the opinion that sex offenses are psychological conditions, corrections can be severely limited particularly in more violent cases where degree of violence or victimization becomes progressive. However, current criteria for notification are not actually based on this but rather the length of imprisonment: any offender whose sentence equal or exceeds a total of three months is automatically required for notification programs (Thomas, 2003). Based onFreudian psychoanalysis and psychoanalysis, the assumption is that individuals are influenced by their social experience and thus, their desires and motivations can be linked to social developments and issues (Plotnik, 2005). Thus, sociological approaches suggest that strategies in managing criminology should adopt the perception is that crime is not just individually motivated, going beyond personal choice, motivations, desires or rewards (Brown, 2003). Thus, measures such offender notification that emphasize social responsibility and accountability are supposed to ease public fears and to reinforce self and law enforcemcent monitoring in previous offenders. However, it should also be recognized that penalties for offenses are based on the level of victimization, recidivism and psychological condition (Broidy et al, 2006; Cross, 2005). Therefore though statutes for offender notification are not directly based on social perspectives on sex-related offenses, they are primary motivation for the measures (Craven et al, 2007). Offender Notification and Sex-Related Crimes According to Criminal Justice System (CJS) (2008b), their study of crime has evolved from being a corollary or application of social science, implying the recognition of research methodologies; into being a distinct field with the recognition of the impact of crime and victimization to society as well as in consideration of its operation as a social institution in ensuring peace, order and stability, recognition of developing social sentiments and considerations. However, the premise that crime as a social construct and individual criminality remains a critical debate or issue amongst criminological theories. Gorton and Boies (1999) and Keith (2002) have documented that penal reforms are among the most sensitive to change and have historically been the focus of criminal justice reforms. Thus, the suggestion is that there is a need to view the application of notification measures as a short term measure. However, recent trends have shown though there has been greater effectivity in crime prevention, social collaboration in rehabilitation and integration in sex and violent crimes, application of notification statues have persisted and can be expected to do so in the future (Squires, 2006). Critcher (2003) believes that though populist considerations may shift, basic moral requirements remain the same, particularly in the protection of vulnerable populations. For Brown (2003), these considerations are reflective of the censure afforded for crimes and the perception that conventional measures against them are not effective in mitigating their risk or impact. Recent researches regarding the influence of sex-related crime have indicated their significance to the development of vulnerability or propensity for such crimes. Holmes and Holmes (2002) research indicate that since sex-related crime impact one of the most intimate aspects of personal development and direct impacts future mental and psychological health. Evidence suggests that majority of sex offenders were victims of sex-related crime or abuse themselves or were exposed to such behavior in their formative years (Currie, 2007). This has emphasized the need for preemptive law enforcement and ironically, the limitations of doing so because of limited information, education and management of sex offenders (Kemshall & Maguire, 2001; Craven et al, 2007). Thus, to be able to afford the public law enforcement programs that are able to deliver the level of protection desired, advocates of notification programs (Jackson, 2004). Discussion In terms of research evidence for the measures, majority of it is based on the need for “police forces have access to much more information which will give them a better chance of assessing the risk to society posed by an offender” (Silverman, 2006). The assumption is that information derived from databasing sex-offenders is essential in developing the competencies for management. Furthermore, by sharing information through a universal database such as the Violent Offender and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR), competencies can be developed collectively between jurisdictions and afford greater capacity to validate research and interventions (“Sex offenders database launched”, 2006; Estrada, 2004). Moreover, effectivity and sensitivity analyses of the measures have indicated that offenders feel greater control from recidivism; victims have greater confidence in law enforcement protection and capability to apprehend offenders; and the police have greater capacity to develop effective monitoring and management programs (CJS, 2008b). There has been a strong recognition of the significance of society in the development of criminal justice programs (Maguire et al, 2007). These programs have reflected the research highlighting those individual factors attributed to crime such as behavior and delinquency can also be linked to environmental or social factors and therefore reinforces the proposition of crime as a social issue and concern (Gavin, 2005; Parks, 2007). In the case of sex-related crime prison sentencing and subsequent offender notification requirements in the UK, the trend has followed closely trends in the U. S. as well research in crime prevalence and recidivism (Braithwaite, 1989; Thomas, 2008). It should be noted however that trends in the UK have also been distinct, particularly in the late 1990’s in related multilateral agreements due to membership to the European Union (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2006). Another factor that government agencies involved in the development of provisions has become more sensitive to have been research and criticism for the measures both within the UK’s and outside it. (Home Office, 2007; NOMS, 2006). As mentioned, current statutes for prison and subsequent police notification of sex-related offenders is based both on research evidence and populist considerations (, 2008a). The predominance of either shifts over time and is sensitive to degrees and concepts of victimization (Garland & Sparks, 2000). For example, requirements for counseling and rehabilitation for juvenile offenders have required treatment for sex-related offences, programs previously limited to adult offenders due to research indicating the greater effectiveness or early intervention in sex-related crime recidivism (Parks, 2007; Wilson & Silverman, 2002). In a similar manner, provisions for notification can also be justified by populist considerations. Based on the research of Lacombe (2008), Grubin (1998) as well as Howitt (1995), serial offenders often are not distinguishable from the population, that in fact it they deliberately practice subterfuge to attack their victims. This opinion is supported by Craissati (2004) in his study which indicated that the one of the basic characterizations attributed to sex offenders is as predatory offenders who assimilate themselves in society to gain access to their victims. Though the Home Office (2007) and NOMS (2006) emphasize the use of research indicators as the basis of prison and notification requirements for offenders, it is clear that its measures are motivated by its need to ensure public safety and mange the fears regarding sex-related crime and victimization (Garland & Sparks, 2000). In a similar manner, to say that populist considerations are dominating statutes diminishes the critique for the measures considering that the requirements remain in force. In effect, researches reflect popular sentiments for the sex-related offenses and at the same time, research serves to validate measures (Faulkner, 2007). Both research and populist considerations have factored into corrections and notification statutes for sex-offenders (Hepburn & Griffin, 2004). It would be difficult to strictly quantify which one has been more critical to the development of statutes since both research and public concerns influence each other. Conclusion As Elton (2007) points out, there is a need to evaluate the impact of measures to offenders and not only consider the level of protection or confidence the measures creates with the public. If measures are utilizing research, then this will be essential in increasing validity of information and further develop information regarding the issue to plot trends and define effectivity thresholds. In the perceptive of populist considerations, this will serve as verification if requirements are companying with developing sentiments regarding sex-crime issues, its offenders, victims and all other social stakeholders. The CJS (2008b) has repeatedly stated that current legislation is not the limitation of the measures that are necessary to reduce the crime and victimization. Technology and globalizations have effectively changed perspectives in criminal justice, changing the requirements and definitions for jurisdiction, prosecution and corrections of sex-crime protection should also follow. Finally, there is still a significant amount of research and social validation that needs to be accomplished to ease criticisms. Moreover, such measures must become systematic and institutionalized in current sex-offender corrections and notification programs. Contemporary criminal justice programs have made significant effort to develop this capacity to ensure that it remains to be socially relevant and effective in society. Thus, whether offender notification programs are to be implemented and regardless of the justification for them, they will require continuous development in response to research that programs have diminished ability to respond to social changes and developing research in equal measure. References Bandura, A. (1975). Social Learning & Personality Development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, INC: NJ. Baron, Stephen W. (2003). Self-Control, Social Consequences, and Criminal Behavior: Street Youth and the General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 11 (40): 403 - 425. Bottoms, Anthony (2008). The Community Dimension of Community Penalties. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, OnlineEarly Articles, February 22. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00515.x Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Broidy, Lisa M., Daday, Jerry K., Crandall, Cameron S., Sklar, David P. and Jost, Peter F. (2006). Exploring Demographic, Structural, and Behavioral Overlap Among Homicide Offenders and Victims. Homicide Studies, 8 (10): 155 - 180. Brown, Jlieulie(2003). An Unsolvable Justice Problem? Punishing Young Peoples Sexual Violence. Journal of Law and Society, Volume 30, Issue 4: pp 506-531 Craissati, J. (2004). Managing High Risk Offenders in the Community. Hove: Brunner-Routledge. Craven, Samantha, Brown, Sarah and Gilchrist, Elizabeth (2007). Current Responses to Sexual Grooming: Implication for Prevention. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 46, Issue 1: pp 60-71 Criminal Justice System (2008a). Available at http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/index.html Criminal Justice System (2008b). Criminal Justice System Strategic Plan 2008-2011. Retrieved on April 7, 2008, from http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/downloads/application/pdf/1_Strategic_Plan_ALL.pdf Critcher, C. (2003). Moral Panics and the Media. Buckingham: Open University Press. Cross, Simon (2005). Paedophiles in the community: Inter-agency conflict, news leaks and the local press. Crime, Media, Culture,Vol. 1: pp. 284 - 300. Currie, Elliott (2007). Against marginality: Arguments for a public criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 5 (11): 175 - 190. Electronic Privacy Information Center (2006). Privacy & Human Rights 2006. Washington: EPIC Elton, Catherine (2007). Behind the Picket Fence. The Boston Globe, May 6. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/05/06/behind_the_picket_fence/ Estrada, Felipe (2004). The Transformation of the Politics of Crime in High Crime Societies. European Journal of Criminology, 10 (1): 419 - 443. Faulkner, David (2007). Prospects for progress in penal reform. JCriminology and Criminal Justice, 5(7): 135 - 152. Garland, David and Sparks. Richard (2000). Criminology, Social Theory and the Challenge of Our Times. Brit J Criminol, 40: 189-204. Gavin, Helen (2005). The Social Construction of the Child Sex Offender Explored by Narrative. The Qualitative Report Volume 10 Number 3. pp 395-415 Gorton, Joe and Boies, John L. (1999). Sentencing Guidelines and Racial Disparity Across Time: Pennsylvania Prison Sentences in 1977, 1983, 1992 and 1993. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 80: pp 37-54. Grubin, D. (1998). Sex Offending Against Children: Understanding the Risk. Police Research Series, Paper 99. Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. London: Home Office. Grubin, D. and Prentky, R. (1993). Sexual psychopath laws. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 3, pp 381–392. Hepburn, John R. and Griffin, Marie L. (2004). The Effect of Social Bonds on Successful Adjustment to Probation: An Event History Analysis. Criminal Justice Review, May 2004; vol. 29: pp. 46 - 75. Holmes, R. and Holmes, S. (2002). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool. London: Sage. Home Office (2002). Strengthening protection against sex offenders and reforming the law on sexual offences. Norwich: The Stationery Office Home Office (2007) Cross-government action plan on sexual violence and abuse. Norwich: The Stationery Office Howitt, D. (1995). Paedophiles And Sexual Offences Against Children. Chichester: Wiley. Jackson, Jonathan (2004). Experience and Expression: Social and Cultural Significance in the Fear of Crime. Br. J. Criminol., 44: 946 - 966. Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Keith, Linda Camp (2002). Constitutional Provisions for Individual Human Rights (1977-1996): Are They More than Mere "Window Dressing?". Political Research Quarterly, 3 ( 55): 111 – 143 Kemshall, H. and M. Maguire (2001). Public protection, partnership and risk penalty. Punishment & Society, 3(2): pp 237–264 Knock, K., Schlesinger, P., Boyle, R. and Magor, M. (2002). The Police Perspective on Sex Offender Orders; A Preliminary Review of Policy and Practice. Police Research Series, Paper 155. London: Home Office. Lacombe, Dany (2008). Consumed With Sex: The Treatment of Sex Offenders In Risk Society. Br. J. Criminol., January, 48: pp 55 – 74 Maguire, Mike, Morgan, Rod and Reiner, Robert (2007). Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Matravers, A. (Ed.) (2003). Sex Offenders in the Community: Managing and Reducing the Risks. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Murphy, Thérèse and Whitty, Noel (2007). Risk and Human Rights in UK Prison Governance. Br. J. Criminol., September; 47: pp 798 - 816 Nash, M. (2006). Public Protection and the Criminal Justice Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. National Offender Management Service (2006). Offender management model. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://noms.justice.gov.uk/news-publications-events/publications/strategy/offender-management-model-1.1?view=Binary Parks, George A. (2007). New approaches to using relapse prevention therapy in the criminal justice system. Corrections Today 69(6) December: 46(4) Plotnikoff, Joyce and Woolfson, Richard (2000). Where Are They Now?: An evaluation of sex offender registration in England and Wales. Police Research Series, Paper 126. London: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit Research and Home Office Sex offenders database launched (2006). BBC News Online, January 17. Retrieved on April 7, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4618158.stm Shoham, Shlomo Giora (2001). Micro-Macro Criminology. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 1 (42): 9 - 57. Silverman, Jon (2006). How the Sex Offender Register Works. BBC Online, January 16. retrieved April , 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4618172.stm Stone, Nigel (2005). Legal Commentary: Developments in Sentencing Young Sexual Offenders. Youth Justice, Vol. 5: pp. 123 - 130. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (3) , 217–228 Thomas, T. (2000). Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Thomas, T. (2003). Sex offender community notification: experiences from America. The Howard Journal, 42(3). pp 217–28. Thomas, Terry (2003) Sex Offender Community Notification: Experiences from America Thomas, Terry (2008). The Sex Offender ‘Register’: A Case Study in Function Creep. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, OnlineEarly Articles. Retrieved on April 7, 2008, from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00514.x Wilson, David and Silverman, Jon (2002). Innocence Betrayed: Paedophilia, the Media and Society. Cambridge University Press. Read More