Dosage of treatment to sexual offenders: Are we overprescribing?
ABSTRACT A sample of 337 offenders who received treatment in a variety of sex offender treatment programs in the Ontario region of Correctional Service Canada between 1993 and 1998 were divided based on the highest intensity sex offender programming that they received (low, moderate, and high). The three groups were compared with reference to a variety of actuarial risk assessment measures, criminogenic factors, and the number and type of treatment programs completed. It was hypothesized that the high-intensity group would have more criminogenic risk factors, higher actuarial scores, and participate in more treatment programs than both the moderate- and low-intensity groups. The results indicate that in general, the hypotheses were supported. Nonetheless, the results suggest that the low-intensity group may be receiving too much sex offender-specific treatment.
- SourceAvailable from: Jeremy N. Thomas[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite an extensive research literature on sexual offending, much of current sexual offender policy within the United States runs counter to such literature, and instead, is based on common, pervasive myths about sexual offenders. Not surprisingly, recent studies on sex offender policy effectiveness suggest that current approaches are both costly and largely ineffective. In this paper, we suggest that a longstanding socio-cultural climate of sex-negativity fuels common fears and misconceptions about sexual offending and about policy related to treatment and supervision. We present a positive sexuality model and consider how the effectiveness of dealing with sexual offending issues could be improved through using a positive sexuality approach to guide policy.Critical Criminology 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10612-015-9270-y
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A sample of 348 high-risk sexual offenders was divided into two groups based on the level of preselection (detained, n = 211, and nondetained, n = 137) and the groups were compared on a number of measures which were related to dynamic risk. The hypothesis was that the detained group would score as being higher need on these instruments than the nondetained group. This hypothesis was supported with the detained group reporting greater levels of hostility, cognitive distortions supportive of offending, sexual obsessions, and sexually deviant behaviours. They also scored as being less assertive and as having a more extensive psychiatric history. These findings were interpreted as being supportive of the assertion that the new Static-99R normative groups are related to preselection based on the differences on dynamic factors.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 04/2012; 57(7). DOI:10.1177/0306624X12443657 · 0.84 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sexual offender civil commitment (SOCC) continues to be a popular means of managing risk to the community in many U.S. jurisdictions. Most SOCC states report few releases, due in large part to the reluctance of the courts to release sexually violent persons/predators (SVPs). Contemporary risk prediction methods require suitable comparison groups, in addition to knowledge of postrelease behavior. Low SVP release rates makes production of local base rates difficult. This article compares descriptive statistics on two populations of sexual offenders: (a) participants in high-intensity treatment at the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC), a secure, prison-based treatment facility in Canada, and (b) SVP residents of the Florida Civil Commitment Center. Results show that these two samples are virtually identical. These groups are best described as "preselected for high risk/need," according to Static-99R normative sample research. It is suggested that reoffense rates of released RTC participants may serve as a comparison group for U.S. SVPs. Given current release practices associated with U.S. SOCC, these findings are of prospective value to clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and triers of fact.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 01/2012; 57(3). DOI:10.1177/0306624X11434918 · 0.84 Impact Factor