Sex Offender Assessment - Research Paper Example

Sex Offender Assessment According to a ruling in Massachusetts in 1981, a sex offender is defined as any person who has been convicted, released from confinement or attending parole under the supervision of the department of youth affair following a sexual offense conviction (Alexander, 1999). Throughout the years, many people have been convicted for this offense. Various theories have been developed to classify as well as understand the etiology of the crimes. However, these offenders have multiple variations in terms of their victim selection, their motivation in engaging in this crime, their willingness to change and the risk of committing the crime again.

It is thus necessary to understand that although sex offender’s typology can be applied in various cases, it is not universal as the offenders are heterogeneous. This paper will focus on analyzing Michael Aulsebrook’s, a Catholic Priest, who was sentenced for sexually abusing a 12-year old boy.Michael Auslebrook, a 55 year old man, was charged with sexually abusing a 12 year old in a court in Melbourne County. He pleaded guilty for having sexually abused the 12 year old on several occasion.

Although this was not the first claim raise against him, the Catholic Church Council put him in charge of a school. He was sentenced by Judge Tim Wood who sent him to prison for a total of two years due to his lack of insight and his exploitation on the 12 year old (Fletcher, 2011).According to Groth’s typology sexual offenders are classified into fixated and regressed offenders. Groth classified the sexual offenders according to their sexual motivations and interest. According to this theory, Auslebrook belongs to the fixated group of offenders.

These groups of offenders are also referred to as pedophiles as they are obsessed with children. According to the Massachusetts treatment centre, a sex offender is classified based on the degree of fixation and amount of contact. Those with sexual interest solely centered on children victim are regarded to have a high fixation. Depending on the time of contact, Auslebrook is classified as “high contact/low physical injury/sadistic” category (Alexander, 1999). Auslebrook was ordained as a priest and put in charge of students in Salesian College.

The victim was introduced to the priest by his mother. He was also encouraged to consult the priest whenever he was undergoing any problem. The priest groomed the boy and bought him treats from the school cafeteria. He further spent a lot of time with the boy during lunch and recess. As the first attempt to abuse the boy failed, the father reassured the boy that he did not have wicked intentions. During the sentencing, the Judge highlighted how the priest lured the boy into his room. The priest convinced the boy to keep their encounters a secret.

During the night, he would lure the boy into his room and rub his genitals while they listened to music. The priest attempted to kiss the boy on several occasions. He also removed the victim’s clothes and positioned himself on top of the boy. The priest would always use a secret signal whenever he wanted the boy to go to his room. After a few years, he was transferred to St Mark’s College in South Australia. During this time, he made contact with the victim’s family and attended the victim’s wedding.

Before the complaint was launched, the priest had maintained close ties with the victim and his wife (Fletcher, 2011).In the case, Judge Tim Wood did not implement any treatment reforms in his disposition. He sentenced the priest to a jail term of two years with a 15 month period of suspension. Over the past years, the treatment of a sexual offender is based on the fact that although they are different they have similar features. The Cognitive-Behavior and Relapse Prevention program will be appropriate for Aulsebrook’s case.

The treatment program aims at acknowledging and managing the risk factor, tackling denial as well as developing empathy for the victims. Although in most cases the sex offender does not give consent, the success of the treatment modality depends on their willingness to adopt change. According to Groth’s classification, Auslebrook has a high risk of committing the crime on another occasion. It is thus necessary to help him develop preventive measures as well as develop socially acceptable sexual relationships (Alexender, 1999).

In my opinion, although Groth’s typology theory is applicable in identifying a sex offender, this theory should not be used to determine the mode of treatment. This is because as human beings as different so are sex offenders. This means that treatment should be individualized and centered towards an individual’s needs. The treatment modalities should be aimed at addressing both the psychological as well as emotional aspects of an individual. It is thus paramount for a judge to understand the sex offenders before sentencing and prescribing a form of treatment.

Reference ListAlexander, M. (1999). Sex offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 101-116.Fletcher, M. (2011). Father Michael Aulsebrooks child-abuse. Broken Rites. Retrieved from http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page265-michael-aulsebrook.html