Adult Sexual Offenders - Research Paper Example

Treatment and public perception Of Adult Sex Offenders Name of student Institution Introduction Crime has become part and parcel of our daily lives with reports hitting the media headlines with others even being censured. The public domain has been on the fore front in giving their views of sexual offenders in particular. Research has been underway to explain this behavior and explore the best way to treated and integrated these offenders back into the society. This paper will review the study carried out by Fortney, T., Levenson, J., Brannon, Y., & Baker, J. (2007). Myths and Facts about Sexual Offenders: Implications for Treatment and Public Policy. Along the following topics: Theories explaining criminal behavior, the main purpose of the study, study participants, data gathering procedures and instruments, the study findings, general discussion, contribution of the study to the general topic, limitations and how they can be dealt with in future research, authors and personal conclusion. In locating the study within the general field, theories have been put forward to explain this behavior; prior researches have also been done in this field dating back to Furby et al. (1989) studies on treatment outcome with sexual offenders. Hall (1995) performed a Meta-analyses on 12 studies involving treatment with sexual offenders (N= 1,313).The analysis covered all treatment outcome studies with sexual offenders since the (Furby et al., 1989) study. A small r = 12, overall effect size was found for treatment versus comparison conditions .19 versus 27 was the overall rate of recidivism for sexual offenders who were treated and untreated respectively (Hall, 1995). The studies used sexual offenders who had completed some form of treatment and the non completers. Becker & Murphy. (1998) conducted another study on what we know and don’t know regarding assesment and treatment of sexual offenders.they found out that pschoanalytic models were mainly used to treat mental cases whereas behavioral therapp was employeed in the social perspective. Most programs focus on attempts to develop victims empathy within the offender under the asumption that recognition of victims impact will serve as a motivator to avoid future offending behavior (Becker &Murphy 1998). Theories explaining criminal behavior Different works from scholars in psychology have put forward possible theories to try and explain the origin of criminal behavior. These explanations base mainly on personality, biological and social perspective as explained below. Psychoanalytic theory Freud, (1961), All humans have natural drives and urges repressed in the unconscious. He further hypothesizes that all human beings have criminal tendencies. The theory suggests that criminal behavior is learned trough faulty identity of the child with the parents. The resulting negativity ensues into development of disturbances in the child’s personality. The antisocial impulses are directed either inward resulting in criminal behavior or outward to bring out a neurotic in the child. Relating this to sexual offenses, children may learn this from observing parents committing the crime to others such as in case where abusive fathers rape their spouses or even children which end up damaging their personality and carried into adulthood. Cognitive development theory According to Kohlberg (1958), in development of moral reasoning, suggests that criminal behavior results from the way people tend to organize their thoughts concerning morality and law. He describes a three level stage model that explains the occurrence of crime. The pre-conventional level, children moral reasoning is dictated by obedience and avoiding punishment. The conventional level, at late middle childhood, the moral reasoning is based on expectations of family members and significant others. The post conventional stage in early adulthood, involves value for the legal regulations but with reasoning going beyond the social domain. Kohlberg proposes that delinquency only results if the individual does not successfully transit through these stages. Getting the views of the public therefore serves as an extrapolation of these theories. Review The research found that the rate of children victimization by strangers, sex offenders number that fell victims of sexual abuse in their childhood, the number of sex related crimes that are brought to authorities attention were overestimated by both the public and sex offenders. The public, compared to the offenders, overestimated sexual recidivism frequency and efficacy related to sexual offenders’ treatment. Purpose of the study The purpose of the study was to determine extend of perceptions about sexual offenders basing on misconception and empirical evidence. Study participants The subject population of this study comprised of 192 adults whose identity was “non sex offenders”. This composition was located at Brevard County, east coast of Florida. They were waiting to be served at (DMV) Florida Department of Motor Vehicles. The group forming the comparison constituted of 125 adults in sex offenses in attendance at the various outpatient treatment facilities. The offender sample was a purposive convenient sample (Fortney, et al. 2007). Data collection procedure and instruments The data was collected at the place where the participants were located. Informed consent was obtained from the relevant involved bodies in addition to participants signing informed consents after explaining to them the purpose of the study and getting their approval for participation. The information was confidential and anonymity was maintained. Self report questionnaires designed to gather relevant information from the offenders and the community on their perceptions of adult sexual offenders was used. The offender’s questionnaire differed slightly from the other sample’s questionnaire by asking on sexual offending history and nature of sexual offenses. Study results and findings Findings from the study revealed that; Offenders reported 13% while the community posted 50% of strangers reported to assault adults. Offenders had 46% boys and 54% girls being abused by people they knew while the community posted 58% and 632% respectively. In a nut shell, the research found that the rate of children victimization by strangers, the number of sex offenders that happened to fall victims of sexual abuse in their childhood and the number of sex related crimes that are brought to authority’s attention were overestimated by both the public and sex offenders. The public, compared to the offenders overestimated by sexual recidivism frequency and efficacy related to sexual offenders’ treatment. General discussion In the overall discussion of the study, several researches carried out can be considered for comparison and evaluation of this study. Wright, et al. (1997), extended intergroup contact hypothesis in relation to prejudice, concluded that the offenders usually have contact with fellow offenders and they share information on preventing further crimes and ways of cooperating with the larger society just as this study hypothesized. Basing on the public views regarding recidivism rates of offenders, a mode of 90% was posted for this particular study suggesting that approximately a third of the offenders will go back to committing fresh crimes. A comparison with meta-analyses on the same by Hanson & Bussiere, (1998) and Hanson &Bourgon, (2005), an average consistency of 14% was registered for recidivism rates on sexual offenses. This study therefore shows some reasonable degree of consistency with others and the validity and reliability is therefore not compromised. Contribution of the study to the general knowledge of the topic This research is fundamentally important in a number of ways. In the first place, considering the impact that public perception can place on the social framework, the research findings can be employed in focusing more efforts on education models that can be taught to the society to reduce the stigma associated with sexual offenders. The insight gained into the real perceptions and beliefs of the offenders themselves can be very instrumental in formulation of intervening measures that can be effective in addressing the problem. Limitations of the study and how to address them in future Despite the contributions of the research, one identified limitation that needs to be addressed is evident. The choice of the comparative sample is compromised since deciding on people waiting to be served is not a good idea considering their heightened anxiety levels due to waiting for long. Some may have filled the forms in a hurry with much attention focusing on being served. This might have compromised the results in a way or another. It is therefore recommended that that in future, selection should be definite and participants selected must be comfortable without any other mental preoccupations. Tewksbury & Lees, (2006); Zevitz, Crim, & Farkas, (2000) realized that attempts to randomly select registered offenders for inclusion in survey research have often led to small samples. This is exactly what the study did for its sampling, in future, it is proposed that both the registered offenders and unregistered be included in the sample so that the reliability and validity of the research methodology and findings are not compromised in any way by sample size. Conclusion The authors of the paper concluded that the society’s perception of sexual offenders is exaggerated, overestimated and the views seriously distorted by unreliable myths. Both the offenders and the public are misinformed about the issue (Fortney et al., 2007). In my own view, it is essential for more focus and resources to be channeled on educating the society and offenders in particular about the existing perceptions in trying to address the existing social gap. The media should play its role in presenting the real views on the ground rather than promoting propaganda. References Becker, J. V., & Murphy, W. D. (1998). What We Know And Do Not Know About Assessing And Treating Sex Offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(1-2), 116. Hall, G. C. N. (1995). Sexual Offender Recidivism Revisited: A Meta-Analysis Of Recent Treatment Studies. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 63(5), 802. Fortney, T., Levenson, J., Brannon, Y., & Baker, J. (2007). Myths and Facts about Sexual Offenders: Implications for Treatment and Public Policy. Sexual Offender Treatment, Volume 2, (Issue 1), pg 1-17. Freud, S. (1961). The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19). London: Hogarth. Hanson, K., & Bussiere, T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, (2), 348-362. Hanson, K., & Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154-1163. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In J. Lickona, Moral development behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Harper & Row. Tewksbury, R.., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, (3), 309-334. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, (1), 73-90. Zevitz, G., & Farkas, A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Assessing the simpact in Wisconsin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of justice. Read More