Are Sex Offenders Rehabilitative and Should the Government Impose the Death Penalty on Them - Literature review Example

Are sex offenders rehabilitative and should the government impose the death penalty on them? Recent, emerging academic debate has polarised opinion as to whether rehabilitation programs geared towards the treatment of sex offenders are in fact successful in reducing “sexual recidivism” (Marques 1999). Resolving this debate is a difficult task due to the inherent limitations of research methodology. For example, Macgregor highlights the point that “evaluations of programs are often hindered by the small sample sizes of treated sex offenders” (2008). Macgregor further develops the argument that if the barometer for measuring successive periods of offender recidivism post-treatment complete treatment is not adequate, this effectively undermines the reliability of any evaluations determining program effectiveness (Macgregor, 2008). Moreover, psychological research and theory has highlighted the diverse complexity of factors pertaining to the aetiology of sex offending such as heterogeneity of types, styles, process mechanisms and degrees of offence severity of offenders. Such complexity is further compounded by their intrinsic interrelationship with a variety of socio-developmental, economic, cultural, physiological and cultural factors (Marshall, 1996). As a result, contemporary complex integrated theories such as Finkelhor’s precondition model (1984) and Marshall and Barabee’s integrated theory (1990) aim to propound a more encompassing theory in order to explain sex offender behaviour. However, the inherent complexity of causal factors clearly arguably limits the efficacy of any treatment program. This is further compounded by the moral debate as to whether sex offenders can ever truly be rehabilitated into society and whether penalties need to be reassessed, with some interest groups campaigning for the death penalty. Whilst the moral grounds for protecting the public interest is undoubtedly sound, the imposition of the death penalty potentially undermines the constitution, with some critics arguing a state intervention too far. This problem is further perpetuated by the problem that research and psychological theorem demonstrates that some offenders can be rehabilitated, thereby highlighting the intrinsic difficulty of legislating for moral issues within the ambit of a cohesive and enforceable legal framework. This analysis will evaluate theorem and research relating to rehabilitation and repeat offending to consider whether sex offenders can in fact be rehabilitated or whether the complex nature of this problem requires deterrent penalty measures to protect the greater public interest. If we firstly consider the problems highlighted by Macgregor in relation to the outcome of treatment programs, it is evident that international studies have consistently focused on meta-analyses, which collate results from multiple evaluations in order to ascertain program effectiveness. For example, Losel & Schmucker’s often cited study of samples of 9000 sex offenders in four different countries utilised a meta-analytic approach and found that 9.9% of treated sex offenders re-offended sexually, compared with 17.3% of non-treated sex offenders (Hanson et al.2002). In addition to demonstrating a link between treatment and recidivism, the results arguably support the proposition that a significant percentage of offenders do not repeat the offence regardless of treatment, which in turn supports the notion that sex offenders can be rehabilitative. Similarly, Losel and Schmucker’s study analysed the results of 69 different studies including 22,000 samples, which found that treated sex offenders reoffended 37% less than untreated offenders (Losel & Schmucker, 2005). Nevertheless, the fact that sexual recidivism does in fact occur in follow up periods to treatment cannot be ignored and the wide discrepancies in figures further undermine the purpose of such research. As such, it is arguable that these very limitations exclude very important findings, which are vital to developing efficacious treatment programs and enabling measured debate as to whether sex offenders can be rehabilitative. Moreover, a general consensus amongst some researchers indicates that the general sizes of treatment effects on sexual recidivism are not large (Hanson et al 2002; Lievore, 2004). Conversely, Marshall & Macguire found that treatment effect sizes produced from sexual recidivism studies were comparable with effect sizes produced from other types of treatment (2003). These included treatment for those with mental health problems, those with physical health problems and those convicted of non-sexual offences (Marshall & McGuire, 2003), which further highlights the interrelationship of complex factors impacting sex offender behavioural patterns. If we consider sexual recidivism, this is generally measured by examining reconviction rates of sex offenders, although Gelb argues that this method may significantly underestimate the extent to which sexual reoffending may occur (Marshall & Barbaree,1988). For example, a Canadian study found that when “unofficial data” relating to sexual reoffending such as re-arrests and probation records were combined with re-convictions, the reoffending rate skyrocketed by 170% (Barbaree & Marshall, 1999). Moreover, self-report data such as surveys completed by sex offenders are considered useful in measuring sexual offences undetected by the system; Gelb (2007). However, such survey responses are inherently limited by the motivation behind the answers given by the samples. Gelb notes that studies using these methods hide the higher rates of sexual re-offending (2007). In a recent overview of treatment program effectiveness, Lievore (2004) described the ideal evaluation design as randomly selecting a group of sex offenders who are willing to undergo treatment, then separating the sample into a treatment and non-treatment control group to compare the recidivism rates. However, Lievore asserts that the ethical implications of denying offender treatment for such purposes, renders this method “fundamentally unattainable” (Lievore 2004; Laing et al., 2006). Marshall and Marshall took this further by analysing the random controlled trial design, concluding that it is not an appropriate method for measuring the effectiveness of sex offender treatment (2007). Interestingly, it has been noted that methodological differences in program evaluations may influence the inconsistencies in sexual recidivism rates (Marques 1999, Lievore 2004; Chung et al. 2006). For example, in the US, one method of sex offender treatment involves cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) based therapy to target the criminal “needs” of sex offenders. The majority of the adult programs predominantly focus on sex offenders who are at a low-moderate and moderate-high risk of re-offending (Marshall 2007). For example, in Australia participants in an equivalent CBT program are separated from other inmates and high risk violent sex offenders, who appear to bypass treatment initiatives (Macgregor 2008). However, these offenders are clearly at high risk of re-offending, particularly those who deny responsibility. As such the categorisation of samples subjected to treatment programs further undermines the ability to conclusively determine whether sex offenders are rehabilitative. Moreover, in context of the wider debate regarding the appropriateness of imposing the death penalty offences, the categorisation of treatment samples lends itself to selective punishment. For example, if we undertake a comparative analysis with Australia, where there is a prison based program for adult sex offenders in every state, the custody based intensive treatment programme in New South Wales operates for moderate-high risk offenders and the CUBIT outreach program operates for low risk offenders MacGregor, 2008). Both programs are prison based and target known risk factors for sexual reoffending such as empathy deficits, cognitive distortions and general self-regulation (Hoy & Bright). Furthermore, an evaluation conducted on the CUBIT programs (Hoy & Bright) compared recidivism rates of 117 treated offenders with those predicted by the STATIC 99 RISK ASSESSMENT measure, an internationally used tool that assesses the recidivism risk of sex offenders. The STATIC 99 risk probabilities measures are based on a large sample of sex offenders in the UK and Canada, (Hanson & Thornton, 2000). The Hoy & Bright study found that 8.5% of sex offenders in the UK who were treated on the CUBIT programs committed a further sexual offence in the follow up period (3.75years). The results of the study have been utilised as a basis to highlight the success of treatment programs and support the proposition that sex offenders can be rehabilitative, particularly when compared with the predicted rate of 26% for offender recidivism (Macgregor, 2008). Whilst these results are undoubtedly encouraging in favour of sex offender rehabilitation success, it is important to note that the STATIC 99 sample had 1.25 yrs extra in which to re-offend compared with the CUBIT sample however this factor was ignored in the comparisons regarding recidivism (Hoy & Bright). Secondly, care needs to be taken when comparing reconviction rates with those offenders in Canada and the UK. The ability of the police and courts to investigate and prove sexual offences may differ across jurisdictions; therefore the comparison of such recidivism rates is inherently limited (Macgregor 2008). Such problems can be overcome by establishing a risk assessment tool that is based on a sample. Nevertheless, in Australia the cubit program seems to have significantly reduced the risk factors associated with reoffending patterns (Macgregor, 2008). Moreover, further statistics demonstrated that 20% of those who withdrew from the program in Australia went on to recommit a sexual offence. Alternatively, Lievore argues that offenders who withdraw from treatment will undoubtedly have different levels of motivation to address their offending behaviour ( ). One possibility is that “drop-outs” are more likely to reoffend with or without treatment. Therefore the treatment effects may be inaccurately amplified due to a lack of a comparison group, which results in strong presumptions being made regarding the treatment effects (Lievore). Indeed an international research study in 2002 addressing recidivism rates indicated that there were no significant effects of treatment on rates of sexual recidivism (Greenberg, Da Silva & Loh 2002). Moreover, academic studies acknowledge the inherent limitations in methodology in this area which prevent studies from identifying smaller treatment effects, resulting in numerous inconsistencies across the data sources (Greenberg et al, 2002). As such, whilst the importance of treatment initiatives cannot be ignored, the inherent limitations of effective research in this area render it impossible to conclude either way whether sex offenders are in fact rehabilitative. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the type of treatment and focus of treatment is important (Hanson et al, 2002) and that future research should focus on the interrelationship of complex causal factors of sex offending behavioural patterns in considering the efficacy of rehabilitation programs going forward. Indeed Macgregor highlights the point that “programs are more effective in reducing sexual recidivism when the design and implementation are attuned to the cultural background of the offenders” (2008). For example, in New Zealand, they have implemented a Kia Marama Treatment program for adult sex offenders against children. Moreover “it has been placed on a par with treatment programs available internationally that are the most effective in reducing sexual recidivism” (Hanson et al, 2002). The treatment is group based, which Bakker et al argues is effective in allowing group members to be challenged by other members (Bakker, Hudson, Wales & Riley, 1998). Moreover, the program incorporates CBT and social learning theory elements which include the following (non-exhaustive): 1) understanding offending behaviour; 2) Arousal conditioning. Which is designed to identify; 3) decrease in deviant sexual arousal; 4) victim impact and empathy; 5) mood management; 6) relationship skills; 7) relapse prevention; and 8) relapse planning and aftercare (MacGregor, 2008). A study of the program demonstrated that 10% re-offended in the four year follow up and 21% who did not receive the treatment reoffended. With regard to adolescent offenders, international research indicates that sex offenders are generally older than most other types of offenders (Hanson et al, 2002). Hanson et al, found that the mean age of over 90,000 sex offenders was approximately 26, with the figure varying between rapists, child molestors and incest offenders (Hanson et al, 2002). However, research indicates that adult sex offenders against children who began offending in their youth are almost twice as likely to re-offend, than those who began offending in their adulthood (Bakker et al. 1998). Other findings indicate that the most high risk adult sex offenders will begin offending in their adolescence (Manderville-Norden & Beech 2004). Moreover, as a general consistent thread in research, the majority of offences are committed by males of which 30-50% consists of child molestation (Perkins, Hammonds, Coles and Bishopp, 1998). Furthermore, approximately 50% of child molesters reported that their first offence was committed during adolescence (Davison and Neale, 2001). The difficulty in obtaining true official statistics for child molestation and rape is that low reporting rates, being as lows as 2% (Silverman & Wilson, 2002). The problem of low reporting supports Kauffmans’s assertion that sex offending “is embedded in intergenerational social and family structures” ( ). It also emphasises the vast underestimation of the prevalence of such offences (Ward and Hudson, 2002). Moreover, Ward highlights the point that there are significant variances in the age and offending style (2002). For example, Ward’s study demonstrates that “situational” child molesters tend to have a latter stage onset of offending behavioural patterns and target family members compared with preferential molesters who have an early onset of offending (Ward, 2002). Furthermore, there are differences in victim preference and offence severity (Feldman, 1993). These complexities are further complicated by the interrelations with various developmental, social, cultural and biological factors (Marshall, 2007), which highlights the need for future research to consider the interrelationship of psychological theorem in determining the efficacy of treatment and sex offender rehabilitation. Various psychological models based on psychoanalytic, behaviourist, social learning, cognitive perspectives offer explanations for the various complexities of child molesters, and can be classified in terms of how general or detailed their focus is (Ward & Hudson, 2001). For instance, single factor theories focus on one causal factor of child sexual abuse such as empathy deficits (Marshall, Hudson, Jones and Fernandez, 1995, cited in Ward, 2002) or biological dysfunction (Herman, 1990, cited in Ward, Hudson and Marshall, 1996). They can therefore give an important explanation of specific elements involved in child sexual offending and their relationship to each other. However they are unlikely to fully account for complex interrelationships of various biological, psychological, socio-cultural and developmental factors involved in child sexual abuse (Marshall, 1996). Similarly, micro level theories, which describe mechanisms associated with the process of child sexual abuse, in terms of cognitive, behavioural, motivational and social factors, may offer a typology of child sexual abusers (Pithers, 1990; Ward, Louden, Hudson and Marshall, 1995, cited in Ward 2002), although they too fail to offer a comprehensive explanation of child sexual offending. However, this limitation could arguably be utilised in an arbitrary manner to justify the proposition that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated and therefore justify calls for the government to impose the death penalty. It is further submitted that whilst various psychological models may not be wholly conclusive in order to explain sexual offending, the fact that treatment programs indicate that a significant proportion of sex offenders do not repeat offend highlights the need for more research in this area. One alternative would be to attempt to integrate a single and descriptive theory into a more comprehensive model in order to provide an all-encompassing explanation of molestation. Some of these questions are addressed by Finkelhor’s (1984) “Precondition Model”, which draws on psychoanalytic, attribution and learning theories, in an attempt to explain the reasons for child molestation (Finkelhor, 1984). The Precondition Model proposes the existence of 4 preconditions, which incorporate four separate factors. Each successive precondition depends causally on the previous one, and a progressive interaction between preconditions and factors is necessary for the offence to occur (Finkelhor, 1984). The arguable strength of the precondition model is the focus on the diverse range of complex issues pertaining to child molestation in particular (Ward & Hudson, 2002). However, it focuses on child molestation and puts forward conflicting reasons for why the vulnerability element of the model results in a sexual offence and why the offence is directed at children (Ward & Hudson, 2002). As such, this further limits the influence of this theory on the development of effective treatment programs. Moreover, the complexity of the causal factors propounded in the precondition model further compounds the difficult issue as to whether sex offenders can be rehabilitated. Arguably, Marshall and Barbaree’s integrated theory addresses the limitations of the precondition model (1990). The integrated theory encompasses the role of developmental, biological, socio-cultural, functional and psychological features and their interrelationships in order to explain child molestation (Marshall & Barbaree, 1990). However, whilst both the precondition model and the integrated theory of child molestation has made significant contributions to the understanding and explaining of child sexual abuse, each lacks a sufficient and all-encompassing explanation of for sexual offending. Furthermore, it is submitted that further development of both theories in areas including offender heterogeneity, developmental and biological factors, could if both developed lead to more comprehensive classification, assessment and treatment programmes for offenders (Marshall, 1996). It is further submitted that such research is fundamental to the question whether sex offenders can be rehabilitative. This would clearly even the playing field in the debate regarding the imposition of the death penalty in this area, which has fuelled controversial debate. The sad and infamous cases of Jacob Wetterling, Megan Kanka, Jessica Lunsford and Adam Walsh, who were all child victims of sex abuse led to a wave of successive legislative reforms requiring convicted sex offenders to register in their home states. Notwithstanding the tragic factual scenario of these cases, the ensuing legislation has proved controversial with some commentators arguing that the Adam Walsh Act is unconstitutional. Two years ago, Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Child protection and Safety Act. The law makes it mandatory for states to maintain a registry with all names of sex offenders and make it accessible to the public. However many critics argue that Congress exceeded its authority and have encroached on state and local control with the imposition of the Adam Walsh Act. Whilst this relates to registration and exposure of sex offenders, the controversy regarding state intervention in this manner clearly has parallels with the constitutional issues posed by the imposition of the death penalty for such offences. Whilst psychological research and sample studies may go towards explaining sex offending behavioural patterns, there remains a distinct lack of an all-encompassing explanation of sex offending. Moreover, the lack of significant comparison groups and inherent limitations of “official” statistics compounds the polarised debate as to whether sex offenders can be rehabilitated. It is submitted that both sample studies and psychological theorem must be developed further in order to evaluate treatment programs. Only then can there be any meaningful consideration in relation to successful rehabilitation and the imposition of harsher state penalties. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakker, L., Hudson, S., Wales, D. & Riley, D. (1998). And there Was a Light: Evaluating the Kia Marama Treatment Programme for New Zealand Sex Offenders Against Children. Christchurch: New Zealand Department of Corrections. Barbaree, H.E.& Marshall, W.L. (1988) Deviant sexual arousal, offence history, and demographic variables as predictors of re-offence amongst child molestors. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 6, 267-280. Feldman, P. (1993) The psychology of crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and research. New York: Free Press. Gelb, K. (2007) Recidivism of Sex Offenders Research Paper. Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council. Greenberg, D.M., Da Silva, J. & Loh, N., (20020) Evaluation of the Western Australian Sex offender treatment unit (1987-1999): A Quantitative Analysis. Perth: The University of Western Australia. Hanson, R.K., Gordon, A., Harris, A.J.R, Marques, J.K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V.l., & Seto, M.C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment of sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14 (2) 169-194. Hoy, A. & Bright, D.A. (in press) Effectiveness of a Sex Offender Treatment Programme: A Risk Band Analysis. Sydney. Lievore, D. (2004) Recidivism of Sexual Assault offenders: Rates, Risk Factors and Treatment Efficacy. A report prepare for the Office of Statement of Women. Australian Institute of Criminology. Losel, F. & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146. Manderville-Norden, R & Beech, A. (2004). Community based treatment of sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression. 10(2), 141-152. Marques, J. (1999). How to answer the question: Does sex offender treatment work? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(4) 437-451. Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H.E., (1988). The long term evaluation of behavioural treatment program for child molesters. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26(6), 499-511. Marshall, W.L., & Barbaree, H.E., (1990) An integrated theory of the aetiology of sexual offending, in W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws & H.E. Barbaree (Eds) Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories and treatment of the offender. New York: Plenum. Marshall, W.L. & Marshall, L.E. (2007) The utility of the random control trial for evaluating sexual offender treatment: The gold standard or an inappropriate strategy? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 9(2), 175-1919. Marshall, W.L., & McGuire, J., (2003) Effect sizes in the treatment of sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(6), 653-663. Perkins, D., Hammond, S., Coles, D., & Bishopp, D. (1998) Review of sex offender treatment programmes. Prepared for the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board. Silverman, J., Wilson, D., (2002). Innocence Betrayed: Paedophilia, the media and society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ward, T. & Hudson, S.M. (2001) Finkelhor’s Precondition Model of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7(4), 291-307. Ward, T. (2002). Marshall and Barbaree’s Integrated Theory of Child Sexual Abuse@ A Critique. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8, 209-229. Read More