Why Call Someone by What We Don’t Want Them to Be? The Ethics of Labelling in Forensic/Correctional Psychology

Abstract

Labelling a person by their past behaviour or a criminal conviction is commonplace throughout forensic and correctional psychology. Labels including “offender” and “sex offender” infiltrate academic writing and conference presentations, names of professional organizations and treatment programmes and, at times, traverse therapeutic work. That such labels are frequently used and rarely advocated against suggests that helping professionals either (i) don’t recognize labelling as an ethical issue, or (ii) don’t consider it their role to challenge. The current paper aims to encourage critical reflection on the use of labels in forensic and correctional psychology. Key concerns are illustrated through a focus on labels commonly assigned to individuals who have sexually abused, where labelling is especially prolific. The scope of labelling is reviewed, and implications for rehabilitation and reintegration discussed. Next, an analysis of the ethics of labelling individuals on the basis of criminal convictions, past behaviour or psychological phenomena is presented. It is argued that the use of such labels contradict core ethical principles including beneficence and nonmaleficence, respect for the dignity of all persons, and responsibilities to society. A de-labelling movement for forensic/correctional psychology and related fields is proposed.

Full text

Running Head: The Ethics of Labelling
Why Call Someone by What We Don’t Want Them to Be? The Ethics of Labelling in
Forensic/Correctional Psychology
Gwenda M. Willis
The University of Auckland
Author Note
Gwenda M. Willis, School of Psychology, University of Auckland.
Thank you to Professor Tony Ward for his helpful comments on earlier drafts of this
paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gwenda M. Willis,
School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New
Zealand.
g.willis@auckland.ac.nz
ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9827-3397
Word count (excluding Abstract and References): 5953

The Ethics of Labelling
Why Call Someone by What We Don’t Want Them to Be? The Ethics of Labelling in
Forensic/Correctional Psychology
Abstract
Labelling a person by their past behaviour or a criminal conviction is commonplace
throughout forensic and correctional psychology. Labels including “offender” and “sex
offender” infiltrate academic writing and conference presentations, names of professional
organizations and treatment programmes and, at times, traverse therapeutic work. That such
labels are frequently used and rarely advocated against suggests that helping professionals
either (i) don’t recognize labelling as an ethical issue, or (ii) don’t consider it their role to
challenge. The current paper aims to encourage critical reflection on the use of labels in
forensic and correctional psychology. Key concerns are illustrated through a focus on labels
commonly assigned to individuals who have sexually abused, where labelling is especially
prolific. The scope of labelling is reviewed, and implications for rehabilitation and
reintegration discussed. Next, an analysis of the ethics of labelling individuals on the basis of
criminal convictions, past behaviour or psychological phenomena is presented. It is argued
that the use of such labels contradict core ethical principles including beneficence and
nonmaleficence, respect for the dignity of all persons, and responsibilities to society. A de-
labelling movement for forensic/correctional psychology and related fields is proposed.
Keywords: labelling theory, Pygmalion effect, professional ethics, desistance, rehabilitation

The Ethics of Labelling
Used to classify a person or object using a word or short phrase, labels are
commonplace in everyday communication. From describing one’s family role or occupation,
to dietary preferences, ethnic identity, religious beliefs and sexual orientation, labels can aide
communication by conveying meaning without superfluous words. Labels are often used to
express defining features of how someone sees themselves (e.g., as a “father”, “vegetarian,”
“American” or “Christian”) and what they do (e.g., a “student”, “mechanic” or “football
player”). However, while labels can serve an adaptive function in everyday communication,
these communication shortcuts can also cause harm. As highlighted in the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, many labels can be perceived as
pejorative and stigmatising (American Psychological Association, 2010b). Examples include
“mental retard” or “schizophrenic” to refer to someone with an intellectual disability or
schizophrenia, respectively. Such labels might be perceived as offensive and reducing the
labelled person to the label assigned, irrespective of the extent to which the label accurately
describes characteristics of the person. For these reasons, a movement towards person-first
language that separates a person from a condition or disorder gained momentum in the 1990s
(American Psychological Association, 1992, 1994). Person-first language is now
commonplace across psychological and educational literature, with notable exceptions. One
such exception and the focus of the current paper is on labels commonly assigned to the
people at the centre of theory, research and practice in forensic/correctional psychology and
related fields. Beyond the stigma, disempowerment and distress that labels such as
“offender” and “sex offender” may evoke, these labels also communicate that individuals
with similar criminal convictions represent homogenous groups. There is a risk that
important messages about the heterogeneity of individuals who have offended are lost, and
opportunities for rehabilitation, reintegration and desistance compromised. The current paper

The Ethics of Labelling
aims to prompt critical reflection and academic discussion surrounding ethical issues inherent
in labelling a person based on a past conviction or criminal propensity.
Concern about labelling persons who have engaged in criminal behaviour is not new.
In 1938, Frank Tannenbaum remarked in his book Crime and the community that by
assigning someone a label, there’s every chance “the person becomes the thing he [or she] is
described as being (Tannenbaum, 1938, p. 20).” Since then, empirical research has
accumulated showing that formal labelling of persons who have engaged in delinquent or
criminal behaviour increases risk for future delinquency or crime, for example through
identity changes, blocked opportunities and increased association with deviant peers (e.g.,
Bernburg & Krohn, 2003; Bernburg, Krohn, & Rivera, 2006; Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, &
Bontrager, 2007; Restivo & Lanier, 2015; Wiley & Esbensen, 2016). Yet to this day, we
continue to refer to men and women in the criminal justice system by the very behaviour we
do not want them repeating. Moreover, many labels used in correctional psychology and
criminology are normative categories (see Ward & Heffernan, in press); as such they have
little scientific validity and may serve to proliferate misperceptions about persons who have
offended. Such labels include “offender”, “sex offender,” “fire setter” and “murderer.” They
are based on a past conviction(s) and communicate little about the person or their propensity
for future offending, which is especially problematic in the case of sexual offending given the
relatively low base rates of sexual recidivism (estimated at 24% over a 15 year follow-up; A.
J. R. Harris & Hanson, 2004). By contrast, other commonly used labels in forensic
psychology reflect scientifically valid constructs associated with psychological phenomena
(e.g., “psychopath”, “paedophile”) and may be more indicative of future propensities.
Notwithstanding their scientific validity; however, these labels are laden with negative
connotations (Imhoff, 2015) and therefore risk stigmatising the individuals to whom theyare
assigned.

The Ethics of Labelling
The use of stigmatising and pejorative labels in correctional/forensic psychology is
especially evident in reference to persons who have sexually offended. These individuals are
often collectively referred to as “sex offenders” or differentiated on the basis of perpetrator,
victim, or crime characteristics and/or legal classifications (e.g., “juvenile sex offender”,
“child molester”, “rapist”, “exhibitionist”, “sexually violent predator”). Using labels
commonly assigned to persons who have sexually abused to illustrate key concerns, this
article begins by reviewing the scope of labelling and implications for rehabilitation and
reintegration. Next, this article evaluates the use of labels against psychologists’ ethical
obligations to clients and communities. Finally, some ways forward in the absence of labels
to which forensic/correctional psychology and related fields have become accustomed are
proposed.
The Scope of Labelling and Implications for Rehabilitation and Reintegration
If community members or media outlets have not beat the criminal justice system to
it, labels are typically assigned upon conviction and sentencing for a sexual offence. Many
countries require individuals convicted of a sexual offence to register their personal details
(including a photograph, home address, identifying information and workplace) on an
electronic register, commonly referred to as a “sex offender
1
register.” Such registers are
accessible to law enforcement and child protection agencies and in some countries, the
general public. Registrants are required to notify authorities as personal details change, and
effectively carry the “registered sex offender” label with them for many years or life. In the
US, where federal legislation requires each state to maintain a publically accessible online
register, at least two thirds of registrants are subject to registration requirements for 25 years
or life (Ackerman, Harris, Levenson, & Zgoba, 2011). Notwithstanding the well-documented
1
Labels will not be used by the author unless referring to current usage, which will be indicated by quotation
marks or italics

The Ethics of Labelling
and potentially risk-enhancing reintegration obstacles that many registrants face such as
housing and employment instability (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson, D'Amora, & Hern,
2007; Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Sample & Streveler, 2003; Tewksbury, 2004,
2005; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000), labelling someone a “registered sex
offender” contradicts accumulating research on the role of pro-social identity changes or
‘cognitive transformations’ in the process of desistance from crime (Giordano, Cernkovich,
& Rudolph, 2002; D. A. Harris, 2014a, 2014b; Maruna, 2001). Desistance refers to the
process of ceasing criminal behaviour after repeated, habitual or career-like engagement in
crime (Farrall, 2010; Laws & Ward, 2011; Maruna, 2001). Indeed, Maruna, LeBel, Mitchell
and Naples (2004) and Maruna and LeBel (2010) have argued that labelling theory may be a
neglected factor in understanding desistance. They suggested that desistance might be
facilitated when behaviour change is recognized by others and reflected back to the desisting
person in a de-labelling process. Given that registers reinforce labels and create obstacles to
community reintegration, it is unsurprising that they have largely failed to impact rates of
sexual recidivism (Levenson, 2016b; 2016c; see also Bierie, 2015).
Labelling in Treatment Settings
Irrespective of registration status, many individuals convicted of sexual offences are
required to attend sexual offence-specific treatment programmes. Around the world, the very
programmes that aim to help clients improve their lives and ultimately prevent future
offending often reinforce labelling in their names (e.g., Corrections Victoria Sex Offender
Programs, Australia; Minnesota Sex Offender Program, US). The acronyms SOTP (“Sex
Offender Treatment Program”) and SOP (“Sex Offender Program”) are especially prolific
(e.g., Washington State SOTP, US; National Offender Management Service SOTP, UK). In
the author’s opinion, there is a risk that labelling treatment participants in the names of
treatment programmes may communicate to clients that helping professionals view them as

The Ethics of Labelling
society does: a homogenous group, highly likely to reoffend and not welcome in the general
community (e.g., Willis, Malinen, & Johnston, 2013). If labelling was confined to
programme names, clients might reasonably conclude that programme names reflect the legal
or political context in which they operate, as opposed to the views of helping professionals.
However, labelling extends beyond programme names. Prior to commencing a treatment
programme, clients are typically asked to sign a consent form confirming that they have
understood the programme’s purpose and what is expected of them, as well as limits of
confidentiality and any other relevant information. At times, the author has observed
labelling seeping into the process of obtaining informed consent, with the word “offender”
inscribed on consent forms to indicate where the client should sign. Some programmes
additionally require clients to sign a “sex offender treatment contract” outlining programme
rules and expectations of clients (Willis, Ward, & Levenson, 2014). In doing so, clients are
effectively forced to succumb to the “sex offender” label and treatment starts not as a
collaborative process capable of fostering pro-social identity change, but with assignment to a
highly stigmatized group.
It is possible that the negative consequences of labelling might be offset by the
therapeutic relationship that develops between the client and therapist. Indeed, general
psychotherapy research (see Wampold & Imel, 2015) and the sexual offending treatment
literature specifically (e.g., Marshall et al., 2003; Marshall et al., 2002) highlight the
importance of the therapeutic relationship on treatment outcome. When therapists
demonstrate genuineness, warmth and nonjudgmental attitudes in their interactions with
clients, they communicate respect. When therapists display empathy and unconditional
positive regard, they communicate that clients are worthy; moreover, they communicate an
awareness that people who have harmed have often themselves been harmed, and left with
maladaptive coping skills as adults through no fault of their own (e.g., Levenson, 2016a;

The Ethics of Labelling
Levenson, Willis, & Prescott, 2015, 2016; Reavis, Looman, Franco, & Rojas, 2013; Willis &
Levenson, 2016). When therapists reinforce client strengths and praise accomplishments,
they communicate belief in clients’ capacities to live a life inconsistent with the labels they
may have been assigned. Over time, consistent displays of warmth, genuineness, empathy
and praise might lead to clients internalizing belief in their own self-worth and capacity for a
better life. In other words, the therapeutic relationship may moderate or buffer negative
outcomes associated with labelling by the criminal justice system by inducing a positive
Pygmalion effect. The Pygmalion effect refers to the power of supervisory expectations on
subordinate performance, and has been studied extensively in education settings (Rosenthal,
2002, 2003). Numerous studies have found that teacher expectations of students influence
student achievement: high expectations lead to higher achievement and low expectations lead
to lower achievement, with stigmatised groups particularly sensitive to expectancy effects
(e.g., Friedrich, Flunger, Nagengast, Jonkmann, & Trautwein, 2015; Jussim & Harber, 2005;
Madon, Jussim, & Eccles, 1997; Rosenthal, 2002). Individuals who have sexually offended
are arguably one of the most stigmatised groups in society (Craig, 2005; Hogue, 1993;
Weekes, Pelletier, & Beaudette, 1995; Willis, Levenson, & Ward, 2010), thus Pygmalion
effects may be particularly pronounced. While not studied explicitly in correctional
psychology, extrapolating findings from education research would suggest that when
therapists, probation officers and professionals believe that men and women with previous
sex crime convictions are worthy and capable of living a law-abiding and productive life, the
men and women too might internalise those beliefs and live their lives accordingly. In other
words, by recognising the humanity of individuals who have harmed and their prosocial goals
and life aspirations, helping professionals can offer clients hope for a future they label and
define. Such an approach is consistent with the Good Lives Model of rehabilitation, where
the client’s conceptualisation of a ‘good life’ guides correctional treatment and supervision

The Ethics of Labelling
(Ward & Stewart, 2003; Willis, Yates, Gannon, & Ward, 2013). On the other hand, a narrow
focus in treatment and supervision on an individual’s offending might reinforce effects of
labelling. To illustrate, sexual offence disclosure exercises are often a requirement for
programme completion (McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, & Ellerby, 2010). At best,
such exercises might encourage clients to acknowledge their past behaviour as well as any
ongoing difficulties that might put them at risk of reoffending (e.g., continued deviant sexual
interest in children). At worst, such exercises might force clients to identify and define
themselves by their past offending behaviour. The latter scenario is consistent with the
author’s observations of several group treatment sessions made during field research in the
US (Willis et al., 2014). Without any prompting from therapists, clients often introduced
themselves with their name, registration status and criminal history information (e.g., “My
name is Roger, I’m a registered sex offender with two felonies for soliciting a minor and one
for sexual violation by rape”).
Labelling in Academia and Beyond
The use of stigmatising and pejorative labels in forensic/correctional psychology is
especially salient outside of therapy settings. Many therapist manuals and guides currently in
circulation for sexual offending treatment providers use labels in their titles and/or content
(e.g., Carich & Musack, 2015; Prescott, 2009; Sawyer & Jennings, 2016; Yates, Prescott, &
Ward, 2010). Similarly, across all issues of Sexual Abuse
2
published in 2015, an average of
between one quarter and one third of articles used a label (or labels) in the article title, while
in 2016, the percentage rose to more than half (51.72%). In the Journal of Sexual
2
Highest ranked journal focused on sexual abuse; ranked 5/58 journals in Criminology and
Penology based on Impact Factor, 2016 Journal Citation Reports Social Sciences Edition
(Thomson Reuters, 2017)

The Ethics of Labelling
Aggression
3
, nearly half (45.95%) of the articles across all issues published in 2015 and more
than half (55%) of the articles published in 2016 contained label(s) in their titles. Across
both journals, labels were used noticeably less when referring to young people who have
sexually offended. The world’s largest professional organizations to which clinicians,
academics and other professionals belong both use labels in their titles: The Association for
the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) and the International Association for the Treatment
of Sexual Offenders (IATSO). Importantly, these examples are not intended to suggest that
professional organizations and the highly respected authors of key texts and journal articles
advocate for the use of labels with clients. It is considered more likely that labelling clients is
advocated against, but that the use of labels outside the therapy room has become normalised.
Labelling therefore permeates into every-day conversation with colleagues, friends and
family, and in media contributions and other public engagement activities. When reporters
and politicians hear professionals talking about “sex offenders” or “sexual predators”, such
language becomes normalised for public consumption. Notwithstanding the impact of such
labels on the labelled individuals, professionals’ use of labels contradicts efforts to address
common misperceptions about recidivism risk and promote evidence-based sex crime
policies in the hope that clients will have opportunities to find somewhere to live, work and
pursue pro-social goals. Indeed, stable housing, employment and the presence of meaningful
pro-social goals are associated with a reduced risk of sexual recidivism (e.g., Willis & Grace,
2008, 2009). Findings from public opinion research suggest that the prototype activated by
the “sex offender” label is of someone with a history of sexual offending assaulting a stranger
victim (e.g., Katz-Schiavone, Levenson, & Ackerman, 2008; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, &
Baker, 2007), consistent with the media’s representation of sexual crimes (e.g., Ducat,
3
Second highest-ranked journal focused on sexual abuse; ranked 32/58 journals in
Criminology and Penology based on Impact Factor, 2016 Journal Citation Reports Social
Sciences Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2017)

The Ethics of Labelling
Thomas, & Blood, 2009; Thakker & Durrant, 2006). Yet it is well established that most
individuals convicted for sex crimes have no prior sexual offence convictions, and abused a
known victim (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; A. J. R. Harris & Hanson, 2004). To the extent
that professionals continue to use stigmatising labels to refer to their clients and research
participants in everyday communication, there is a risk that stereotypes will be inadvertently
activated and reinforced. An emerging body of empirical research supports such a premise.
Imhoff (2015) found that the “paedophile” label was associated with exacerbated punitive
attitudes towards persons with paedophilic sexual interests compared to descriptive, non-
labelling language (i.e., “someone with sexual interest in children,” p. 37). Similarly, Harris
and Socia (2016) found that the “sex offender” and “juvenile sex offender” labels were
associated with greater public support for laws targeting persons who have sexually offended
including publically accessible registers and residence restrictions, compared to neutral
language (e.g., “People who have committed crimes of a sexual nature,” p. 668). In the
broader psychological literature, Granello and Gibbs (2016) found that the label “the
mentally ill” was associated with lower levels of tolerance compared to the term “people with
mental illness.”
Emotive community responses that block opportunities for reintegration and
desistance have prompted a growing literature on public attitudes towards individuals
convicted of sexual crimes, including comparing attitudes between different professional and
demographic groups (for reviews see Harper, Hogue, & Bartels, 2017; Willis et al., 2010).
Ironically, the very studies investigating public attitudes towards individuals who have
sexually offended – including those instigated by the author of the current paper – have fallen
especially vulnerable to labels. As highlighted by Harris and Socia (2016), attitudinal scales
used in these studies often reinforce labelling in their names and item content including the
“Attitudes Towards Sex offenders” scale (Hogue, 1993) and the “Community Attitudes

The Ethics of Labelling
Towards Sex Offenders” scale (CATSO; Church, Wakeman, Miller, Clements, & Sun, 2008).
The CATSO, for example, is comprised of 18 statements to which respondents indicate their
level of agreement, including 12 that use labels (e.g., “Trying to rehabilitate a sex offender is
a waste of time”, “Convicted sex offenders should never be released from prison”). Harris
and Socia (2016) highlighted that such usage of labels:
…implicitly force respondents to make general inferences and statements about a
knowingly diverse population. Ultimately, it may be that the resulting research
tells us more about respondents’ visceral reactions to the “sex offender” and
“JSO” [“juvenile sex offender”] labels than it does about rational assessments
regarding adults or youth who have perpetrated sexual offences (p. 2).
In other words, the use of labels in attitudinal scales might activate the prototype
described previously of someone convicted of recidivist offences and/or who targets stranger
victims. If true, studies utilizing such scales to explore public attitudes would find more
negative attitudes towards persons who have sexually offended than studies utilizing
attitudinal scales void of labels. A recent study by Lowe and Willis (2017) examined this
very hypothesis. Community member participants (N = 391) were randomly assigned to two
conditions and asked to complete different versions of the CATSO: one with labels, and one
with neutral descriptors. As hypothesised, those participants in the labelling condition
endorsed significantly more negative attitudes (based on the CATSO total score) than those
in the neutral language condition. Moreover, participants in the labelling condition were
more likely to voluntarily use labels in response to subsequent open-ended questions
compared to participants in the neutral condition. Findings thus suggested that the use of

The Ethics of Labelling
stigmatising labels by the researchers had a priming effect on participants’ future language
use.
In summary, labelling persons convicted of sexual offences begins upon conviction
and sentencing (if not before), and those labels remain for many years, if not life. Effects of
labelling might be differentially reinforced or mitigated through therapy; however, outside of
therapy, labels are normalized in scholarly publications, legislation and everyday
conversation. The prototype activated by the “sex offender” label might compromise efforts
to influence public responses toward individuals convicted of sex crimes and promote
evidence based sex crime policies (A. J. Harris & Socia, 2016; Lowe & Willis, 2017).
Ultimately, the continued use of stigmatising and pejorative labels risks obstructing processes
associated with desistance from sexual offending (Göbbels, Ward, & Willis, 2012). As stated
by Maruna and LeBel (2010), “not only must a person accept conventional society in order to
go straight, but conventional society must accept that this person has changed as well” (p.
76).
The Ethics of Labelling in Forensic/Correctional Psychology
Ethical issues facing helping professionals working in correctional and forensic
settings have received steady scholarly attention, especially with respect to the dual
relationship problem – or the conflict between working therapeutically with clients whilst
assessing and managing risk to the community and upholding institutional security
(Greenberg & Shuman, 2007; Ward, 2013). Ethical frameworks have been developed to aid
ethical decision making (e.g., Bush, 2006; Ward & Syversen, 2009); however, to the author’s
knowledge, the use of pejorative and stigmatising labels has not been addressed as an ethical
issue confronting professionals working in the forensic/correctional field. It is argued herein
that the failure to identify labelling as an ethical issue is a serious oversight illustrative of the

The Ethics of Labelling
dual relationship problem, whereby helping professionals have become increasingly
influenced by political, legislative and societal demands to the extent that basic ethical
principles underlying psychological practice have been overlooked (see also Gannon &
Ward, 2014). Around the world, ethical codes and guidelines detail ethical values or
principles and associated practice standards for helping professionals. In this section, the use
of labels is evaluated against core ethical principles as outlined in psychologists’ codes of
ethics.
All ethical codes for psychologists emphasize the basic ethical values of striving to
benefit client welfare, and at the very least, doing no harm (beneficence and nonmaleficence).
For example, the American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists
and Code of Conduct explicitly states that “Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom
they work and take care to do no harm…psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and
rights of those with whom they interact professionally…” (American Psychological
Association, 2010a, p. 3). Labels such as “sex offender” have potential for harm; as outlined
previously they stigmatize and isolate, potentially blocking opportunities for pro-social
living. Indeed, as highlighted, emerging evidence shows that the “sex offender” and
“paedophile” labels are associated with increased stigma compared to neutral, non-labelling
language (A. J. Harris & Socia, 2016; Imhoff, 2015). It is therefore the author’s opinion that
in the interests of safeguarding the welfare and rights of people who have abused, helping
professionals have an ethical responsibility to model neutral language in their everyday
communication, as discussed in the next section of this article (“Proposing a De-labelling
Movement”).
Another foundational value of ethical codes is respecting the dignity and inherent
worth of all persons (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2010a; Code of Ethics
Review Group, 2012; The Australian Psychological Society, 2007; The British Psychological

The Ethics of Labelling
Society, 2009), which is also at the heart of Ward and Syversen’s (2009) ethical framework
for forensic practice. In the author’s opinion, labelling someone by their past behaviour (e.g.,
“rapist”, “child molester”) is an excellent example of disrespecting the inherent worth of all
persons. Many other labels commonly used in forensic psychology and related fields risk
disrespecting the dignity of all persons, including labelling someone based on psychological
phenomena (e.g., “psychopath”) or diagnoses (e.g., “paedophile”). It is important to
acknowledge that some individuals who self-identify as paedophilic might choose to use
labels that acknowledge their sexual interest in children (e.g., “minor-attracted person,”
“virtuous paedophile”), for reasons akin to people with substance related disorders and other
mental health problems choosing to label themselves on the basis of their difficulties (e.g.,
“addict,” “Bipolar,” “Schizophrenic”). Indeed, such labels might bring some people a sense
of relief through providing an explanation for their difficulties, and self-identification with a
label might represent an important step in someone’s treatment or recovery. Thus, the same
labels might be perceived as helpful to some people yet stigmatising and pejorative to others.
What is clear is that we cannot make assumptions about how labels might be perceived, and
how someone chooses to label themselves. Indeed, in their guidance for reducing bias in
written language the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association advices
authors to “respect peoples preferences; call people what they prefer to be called” and
moreover that “A label should not be used in any form that is perceived as pejorative; if such
a perception is possible you need to find more neutral terms [emphasis added]” (American
Psychological Association, 2010b, p. 72).
Ethical codes also emphasise psychologists’ responsibilities to society, either as they
relate to other core ethical principles or as a core ethical principle in its own right. Social
Justice and Responsibility to Society is one of the four key ethical principles underpinning
the Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa New Zealand (Code of Ethics

The Ethics of Labelling
Review Group, 2012). The New Zealand code states clearly that “psychologists have a
responsibility [emphasis added] to speak out…when they possess expert knowledge that
bears on important societal issues being studied or discussed” (p. 26) and, furthermore, that
“Psychologists have a responsibility [emphasis added] to speak out…if they believe policies,
practices or regulations of the social structures within which psychologists work, seriously
ignore or oppose any of the principles of this Code [Respect for the dignity of persons and
peoples, Responsible caring, Integrity of relationships, Social justice and responsibility to
society].” Sexual offending frequents media headlines worldwide. As a main source of
public information about sexual offending (e.g., Brown, Deakin, & Spencer, 2008; Sample &
Kadleck, 2008), the media undoubtedly contributes to and perpetuates misperceptions about
individuals convicted of sexual crimes. The media takes labelling one step further,
effectively dehumanizing individuals convicted for sexual offences by labelling them
“monsters” and “beasts” (e.g., Breen, 2004; Forbes, 2014). Despite the media’s
misrepresentation of sexual crimes and proliferation of derogatory language, analyses of
media reports of sexual crimes reveal very minimal input from psychologists and other
helping professionals (Ducat et al., 2009; Greer, 2003; Thakker & Durrant, 2006; Wood &
Dickson, 2013). In the author’s opinion and consistent with the ethical principle of
responsibility to society, there is an onus on psychologists and other professionals to address
societal responses to sexual crimes that undermine rehabilitation and reintegration, including
the use of stigmatizing and pejorative language.
Across ethical codes, there is recognition that societal structures or policies may
sometimes be inconsistent with core ethical principles, and in these instances, psychologists
are encouraged to advocate for change to such structures and policies (e.g., American
Psychological Association, 2010a). For example, the American Psychological Association
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct recognizes that at times conflicts

The Ethics of Labelling
might arise between “ethics and the law, regulations or other governing legal authority” and
between “ethics and organizational demands” (p. 4). Psychologists are advised to take
actions to resolve such conflicts in line with core ethical principles (e.g., beneficence and
nonmaleficence, respect for the dignity of all persons) and that “under no circumstances may
this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights” (p. 4). It is the author’s
opinion that the use of labels highlighted in this paper is a violation of human rights, both to
the labelled individual and to community members: The labelled person has the right to
dignity, and community members have the right to safety. As has been highlighted,
stigmatizing and pejorative labels risk jeopardizing both.
In summary, a clear disparity exists between the use of labels and the ethical
principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, respect for the dignity of all persons, as well
as responsibilities to society. In the author’s opinion, not only does labelling based on past
behaviour, criminal conviction, psychological phenomena or diagnosis contradict
professional ethics, passively accepting others’ use of labels also contradicts professional
ethics. It is the author’s opinion that a de-labelling movement in forensic and correctional
psychology and related fields is therefore long overdue.
Proposing a De-labelling Movement
Before proposing a de-labelling movement, it is important to acknowledge some
exceptions to the status quo – the authors, professional organizations, programmes and
practices that don’t use pejorative and stigmatising labels. Current workbooks in circulation
for use with clients are typically devoid of labels (e.g., Morin & Levenson, 2012; Yates &
Prescott, 2011). While the names of the world’s largest professional organizations dedicated
to sexual offending treatment and prevention contain labels, others do not (e.g., the
“Australian and New Zealand Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse”). Moreover,

The Ethics of Labelling
many treatment programme names are devoid of labels, including the “Te Piriti” and “Kia
Marama” Special Treatment Units in New Zealand which are Māori for “The bridge: A
crossing over to a better life” and “Let there be Light” respectively (Bakker, Hudson, Wales,
& Riley, 1998; Nathan, Wilson, & Hillman, 2003). In Circles of Support and Accountability,
a volunteer-driven reintegration framework, the individuals receiving reintegrative support
are referred to as “core members” (e.g., Wilson & Prinzo, 2001). In addition to these
examples, there are no doubt many helping professionals who actively avoid using labels in
professional and personal dialogue. Nevertheless, labelling dominates.
The first steps towards de-labelling are obvious – labels can easily be removed from
the names of treatment programmes and professional organizations and the titles and content
of books and journal articles simply by substituting labels that can be perceived as
stigmatising or pejorative (e.g., “sex offender,” “abuser”) for behaviour (e.g., “sexual
abuse”). Such changes have been achieved in related fields; for example, in 2005 the US
“National Alliance for the Mentally Ill” became the “National Alliance on Mental Illness”
(National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2017). Similarly in academic writing, as demonstrated
by Harris and Socia (2016) and Imhoff (2015), labels can be replaced with neutral descriptors
that separate a person from their behaviour. The Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (2010b) recommends putting the person first followed by the
phrase (e.g., people convicted of sexual crimes, man with paedophilic sexual interests), which
has been the author’s approach throughout this article. In other words, the American
Psychological Association advocates for postmodified language, which differs from
premodified nouns (e.g., a paedophilic man). Premodified nouns arguably suffer the same
problems as labelling an individual on the basis of a conviction or disorder (e.g.,
“paedophile”), given that the person is defined on the basis of belonging to a highly
stigmatised group. Anecdotally, some professionals consider a move to separating the person

The Ethics of Labelling
from the behaviour too difficult given that more words are introduced into a sentence. It is
the author’s opinion that if we are serious about respecting client dignity, benefiting client
welfare, upholding responsibilities to society and preventing sexual abuse – we should make
the effort. In the author’s experience, writing and talking in the absence of labels becomes
habitual and effortless.
How might the hierarchical structures in which scholars and clinicians work support a
move towards person-first language? Journal editorial boards, book publishers and
conference organizers might consider requiring authors to remove labels from their
presentations and manuscript submissions, as occurs in other fields. The manuscript
preparation guidelines for the journal Aphasiology state that “Aphasiology requires that the
word ‘aphasic’ is written as an adjective, not a noun” for reasons including the offensiveness
of describing a person with aphasia as an aphasic ("Aphasiology Instructions for Authors,"
2015). As above and as advocated by the American Psychological Association (2010b), an
alternate approach would be to promote postmodified language such that a person is not
defined by a disability, condition or past behaviour (i.e., “aphasic person” becomes “person
with aphasia”). The use of postmodified language is epitomised in the field of intellectual
disability research and practice. Since the early 1990s, person first language has become
increasingly normalised; individuals previously labelled “mental retard” are now commonly
referred to as individuals “with an intellectual disability” (e.g., Russell, Mammen, & Russell,
2005). Similar movements have occurred in the broader mental health literature; rarely do
we read journal articles about “schizophrenics” or “borderlines”.
To gain traction in the communities to which persons who have sexually offended
return, language free from labels must be modelled from media interviews and social media
posts to informal gatherings of friends and family. While it will take conscious effort and
practice to remove labels from everyday dialogue, the task is relatively easy. Advocating for

The Ethics of Labelling
the abolishment of labels in news and popular media, legislation and elsewhere presents
greater challenges, given labels have become engrained in many societal structures (e.g., the
U.S. “Sexually Violent Predator” laws). However, as highlighted, ethical guidelines advocate
that psychologists and other helping professionals speak out when societal structures oppose
professional ethics. It is the author’s opinion that passive acceptance of others’ use of labels
such as working for a “Sex Offender Treatment Program” or conducting “Sexually Violent
Predator” evaluations present ethical dilemmas that helping professionals must address. As
stated by Ewing (2011):
…mental health professionals, all of whom are trained in the social sciences,
have been offered a choice between empiricism and employment. In the short
run the payoff, especially for some individual practitioners, has been great, but
in the long run, the damage done to their professions and the people who would
be served by them may prove to be much greater (p. 206).
More recently Prescott (2015) and Brandt, Wilson and Prescott (2015) echoed
similar sentiments. While Prescott, Brandt et al. and Ewing’s (2011) comments
concern working in the context of empirically unsupported legislation in the US, the
same arguments apply to the passive acceptance of labelling. Many helping
professionals work within societal structures that undermine core ethical principles
and therefore face ethical dilemmas to address. Undoubtedly, many community
members will argue that people who have committed crimes – and in particular sexual
crimes – are deserving of the labels they have been assigned given the inexcusable
harm they have inflicted on others. It is not disputed that these individuals are
deserving of punishment; however, punishment is a separate issue not to be conflated
with reducing risk of future harm (see Ward & Salmon, 2009). Persons responsible

The Ethics of Labelling
for sexual crimes do not deserve to be set up for failure, and neither do the
communities to which they return.
The focus of the current paper has been on labels assigned based on one’s
convictions, past behaviour or psychological characteristics that might increase one’s
susceptibility to engage in certain types of offending. It is important to acknowledge
the many other labels commonly used in forensic and correctional psychology, and in
particular the “victim” and “survivor” labels. While such labels may not carry the
same negative connotations as labels assigned to individuals who have perpetrated
sexual abuse, they can nevertheless be counterproductive and disrespectful to
individuals who have experienced abuse. Some people who have been abused might
embrace the “victim” and/or “survivor” labels; indeed such labels might bring them a
sense of strength and empowerment and are often labels of choice (e.g., working as a
“survivor advocate”). Yet other individuals who have suffered sexual abuse may
perceive such labels as disempowering, stigmatizing and/or traumatic reminders of
what has happened to them, not who they are as a person. To reiterate, we cannot
assume how a label might be perceived by the recipient. Instead, we can listen to
clients and research participants and identify what labels they use to describe
themselves, and reflect those same labels back to them.
Conclusion
The use of stigmatising and pejorative labels to refer to people who have (sexually)
offended has become normalised by academics and other professionals, politicians and the
media. The argument to stop using labels is not to minimise the harm these people have
inflicted on others. Rather, that harm is the very reason underpinning the author’s argument
to stop using labels, which is also advocated by the governing style guide in the social and

The Ethics of Labelling
behavioural sciences (American Psychological Association, 2010b) and across professional
codes of ethics. Continued use of stigmatizing, pejorative labels risks obstructing desistance
processes, ostracizing our clients and widening the gap between them and conventional
society. If we want our clients to be a part of conventional society and live by the rules that
govern conventional society, they must first be accepted into conventional society as fellow
men, women, young people, brothers, partners, students, mechanics, sports enthusiasts and
the like. Making lasting behavioural changes presents challenges for everyone, and such
challenges are magnified when other people believe failure is more likely than success.
Whether intentional or not, labelling persons who have sexually offended by what they have
done communicates the expectation they will do so again. We all have a choice. We can
continue to model stigmatising and pejorative language that politicians and the media will no
doubt take one step further, or we can start changing the way we talk about the men, women
and young people we work with and research, in the hope that they too will change.

The Ethics of Labelling
References
Ackerman, A. R., Harris, A. J., Levenson, J. S., & Zgoba, K. (2011). Who are the people in your
neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(3), 149-159. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.001
American Psychological Association. (1992). Guidelines for nonhandicapping language in APA
journals. Retrieved from http://www.apastyle.org/manual/related/nonhandicapping-
language.aspx
American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2010a). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
(With the 2010 Amendments). Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2010b). Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Aphasiology Instructions for Authors. (2015). Retrieved July, 14, 2016, from
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=paph20&page=instruct
ions&#Manuscriptsubmission
Bakker, L., Hudson, S., Wales, D., & Riley, D. (1998). And there was light: Evaluating the Kia Marama
treatment programme for New Zealand sex offenders against children. Retrieved August 1,
2005, from http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/research/therewaslight/index.html
Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect
effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41,
1287-1318. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01020.x

The Ethics of Labelling
Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and
Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67-88. doi: 10.1177/0022427805280068
Bierie, D. M. (2015). The utility of sex offender registration: a research note. Journal of Sexual
Aggression, 1-11. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2015.1100760
Brandt, J., Wilson, R. J., & Prescott, D. S. (2015). Doubts about sex offender civil commitment. In B. K.
Schwartz (Ed.), The Sex Offender (Vol. 8). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.
Breen, M. J. (2004). 'Depraved Paedos and Other Beasts': The media portrayal of child sexual abusers
in Ireland and the UK. In P. Yonder & P. M. Kreuter (Eds.), Monsters and the Monstrous:
Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil (pp. 285-291). Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press.
Brown, S., Deakin, J., & Spencer, J. (2008). What people think about the management of sex
offenders in the community. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 259-274. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00519.x
Bush, S. S. (2006). Ethical practice in forensic psychology: A systematic model for decision making
(1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Carich, M. E., & Musack, S. (Eds.). (2015). The Safer Society Handbook of Sexual Abuser Assessment
and Treatment. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
Chiricos, T. E. D., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and
its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45, 547-581. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-
9125.2007.00089.x
Church, W. T., Wakeman, E. E., Miller, S. L., Clements, C. B., & Sun, F. (2008). The Community
Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders Scale: The development of a psychometric assessment
instrument. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 251-259. 10.1177/1049731507310193
Code of Ethics Review Group. (2012). Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa New
Zealand. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from
http://www.psychologistsboard.org.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=237

The Ethics of Labelling
Craig, L. A. (2005). The impact of training on attitudes towards sex offenders. Journal of Sexual
Aggression, 11, 197-207. 10.1080/13552600500172103
Ducat, L., Thomas, S., & Blood, W. (2009). Sensationalising sex offenders and sexual recidivism:
Impact of the serious sex offender monitoring ACT 2005 on media reportage. Australian
Psychologist, 44(3), 156-165. doi: 10.1080/00050060903127499
Ewing, C. (2011). Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology and Public Policy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Farrall, S. (2010). A short history of the investigation into the ending of the criminal career. Safer
Communities, 9(3), 9-16. doi: 10.5042/sc.2010.0391
Forbes, M. (2014). Beast of Blenheim gets parole, The Dominian Post. Retrieved from
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/64103417/beast-of-blenheim-gets-parole
Friedrich, A., Flunger, B., Nagengast, B., Jonkmann, K., & Trautwein, U. (2015). Pygmalion effects in
the classroom: Teacher expectancy effects on students' math achievement. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 41, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.006
Gannon, T. A., & Ward, T. (2014). Where has all the psychology gone? A critical review of evidence-
based psychological practice in correctional settings. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19,
435-446. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.006
Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, Crime, and Desistance: Toward a
Theory of Cognitive Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990-1064. doi:
10.1086/343191
Göbbels, S., Ward, T., & Willis, G. M. (2012). An integrative theory of desistance from sex offending.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 453–462. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.003
Granello, D. H., & Gibbs, T. A. (2016). The power of language and labels: “The Mentally Ill” versus
“People With Mental Illnesses”. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(1), 31-40.
10.1002/jcad.12059

The Ethics of Labelling
Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (2007). When worlds collide: Therapeutic and forensic roles.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 129-132. doi:10.1037/0735-
7028.38.2.129
Greer, C. (2003). Sex crime and the media: Sex offending and the press in a divided society. Devon,
UK: Willan Publishing.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender
recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.348
Harper, C. A., Hogue, T. E., & Bartels, R. M. (2017). Attitudes towards sexual offenders: What do we
know, and why are they important? Aggression and Violent Behavior doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.011
Harris, A. J., & Socia, K. M. (2016). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex offender”
label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28,
660-678. doi: 10.1177/1079063214564391
Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question (No. 2004-03).
Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Harris, D. A. (2014a). Desistance from sexual offending: Findings from 21 life history narratives.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1554-1578. doi: 10.1177/0886260513511532
Harris, D. A. (2014b). Tales from the trenches: Zooming in on the process of desistance from sexual
offending. In K. McCartan (Ed.), Responding to Sexual Offending: Perceptions, Risk
Management and Public Protection. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hogue, T. E. (1993). Attitudes towards prisoners and sexual offenders. In N. C. Clark & G. Stephenson
(Eds.), DCLP Occasional papers: Sexual offenders (pp. 27-32). Leicester: British Psychological
Society.

The Ethics of Labelling
Imhoff, R. (2015). Punitive attitudes against pedophiles or persons with sexual interest in children:
Does the label matter? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 35-44. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-
0439-3
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Knowns and
Unknowns, Resolved and Unresolved Controversies. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 9, 131-155. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
Katz-Schiavone, S., Levenson, J. S., & Ackerman, A. (2008). Myths and facts about sexual violence:
Public perceptions and implications for prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular
Culture, 15, 291-311.
Laws, D. R., & Ward, T. (2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the
keys. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Levenson, J. S. (2016a). Adverse childhood experiences and subsequent substance abuse in a sample
of sexual offenders: Implications for treatment and prevention. Victims & Offenders, 11,
199-224. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2014.971478
Levenson, J. S. (2016b). Community control of sex offenders. In W. O’Donohue & D. R. Laws (Eds.),
Treatment of Sex Offenders: Strengths and Weaknesses in Assessment and Intervention (pp.
223-241). New York: Springer.
Levenson, J. S. (2016c). An evidence-based perspective on sexual offender registration and
residential restrictions. In A. Phenix & H. Hoberman (Eds.), Sexual offending: Predisposing
antecedents, assessment, and management (pp. 861-870). New York: Springer.
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders
and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 7, 137-
161.
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan's Law on sex offender reintegration.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49-66.

The Ethics of Labelling
Levenson, J. S., D'Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007). Megan's Law and its impact on community re-
entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587-602.
Levenson, J. S., Willis, G. M., & Prescott, D. S. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of
female sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 258-283. doi:
10.1177/1079063214544332
Levenson, J. S., Willis, G. M., & Prescott, D. S. (2016). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of
male sex offenders: Implications for trauma-informed care. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 28, 340-359. doi: 10.1177/1079063214535819
Lowe, G., & Willis, G. M. (2017). “Sex offender” versus “Person”: The influence of labels on
community attitudes and willingness to volunteer with people who have sexually abused.
manuscript under review
Madon, S., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1997). In search of the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 791-809. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.791
Marshall, W. L., Serran, G. A., Fernandez, Y. M., Mulloy, R., Mann, R. E., & Thornton, D. (2003).
Therapist characteristics in the treatment of sexual offenders: Tentative data on their
relationship with indices of behaviour change. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 9, 25-30.
doi:10.1080/355260031000137940
Marshall, W. L., Serran, G. A., Moulden, H., Mulloy, R., Fernandez, Y. M., Mann, R. E., & Thornton, D.
(2002). Therapist features in sexual offender treatment: their reliable identification and
influence on behaviour change. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 9, 395-405. doi:
10.1002/cpp.335
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S., & LeBel, T. P. (2010). The desistance paradigm in correctional practice: From programs
to lives. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in
theory, research and practice. Cullompton, UK: Willan.

The Ethics of Labelling
Maruna, S., LeBel, T. P., Mitchell, N., & Naples, M. (2004). Pygmalion in the reintegration process:
Desistance from crime through the looking glass. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 271-281. doi:
10.1080/10683160410001662762
McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G., Burchard, B., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices and
emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American
survey. Brandon, Vermont: Safer Society Press.
Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S., & Levenson, J. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation
on community re-entry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 20(2), 188-205.
Morin, J. W., & Levenson, J. S. (2012). The Road to Freedom. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
Nathan, L., Wilson, N., & Hillman, D. (2003). Te Whakakotahitanga: An evaluation of the Te Piriti
special treatment programme for child sex offenders in New Zealand. Retrieved 23 April
2008, from http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/pdf/research/tepiriti/tewhaka.pdf
National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2017). About NAMI. Retrieved from
https://www.nami.org/About-NAMI
Prescott, D. S. (2009). Building motivation for change in sexual offenders. Brandon, VT: Safer Society
Press.
Prescott, D. S. (2015). Civil Commitment: Another program is found unconstitutional [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://sajrt.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/civil-commitment-another-program-
is.html
Reavis, J., Looman, J., Franco, K., & Rojas, B. (2013). Adverse Childhood Experiences and adult
criminality: how long must we live before we possess our own lives? The Permanente
Journal, 17(2), 44-48.
Restivo, E., & Lanier, M. M. (2015). Measuring the Contextual Effects and Mitigating Factors of
Labeling Theory. Justice Quarterly, 32, 116-141. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.756115
Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles.
American Psychologist, 57(11), 839-849.

The Ethics of Labelling
Rosenthal, R. (2003). Covert Communication in Laboratories, Classrooms, and the Truly Real World.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 151-154. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.t01-1-
01250
Russell, S., Mammen, P., & Russell, P. S. (2005). Emerging trends in accepting the term intellectual
disability in the world disability literature. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 187-192. doi:
10.1177/1744629505056693
Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: legislators' accounts of the need for policy.
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40-62. 10.1177/0887403407308292
Sample, L. L., & Streveler, A. J. (2003). Latent consequences of community notification laws. In S. H.
Decker, L. F. Alaird & C. M. Katz (Eds.), Controversies in criminal justice (pp. 353-362). Los
Angeles: Roxbury.
Sawyer, S. P., & Jennings, J. L. (2016). Group Therapy with Sexual Abusers: Engaging the Full Potential
of the Group Experience. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Boston, MA: Ginn and Company.
Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal
Probation, 68(3), 30-34.
Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67-82.
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral
consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309-334.
Thakker, J., & Durrant, R. (2006). News coverage of sexual offending in New Zealand, 2003. New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35, 28-35.
The Australian Psychological Society. (2007). Code of ethics. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian
Psychological Society.

The Ethics of Labelling
The British Psychological Society. (2009). Code of Ethics and Conduct. Retrieved from
http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/aa%20Standard%20Docs/inf94_code_w
eb_ethics_conduct.pdf
Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings
(2 ed.). New York: Routledge.
Ward, T. (2013). Addressing the dual relationship problem in forensic and correctional practice.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 92-100. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.10.006
Ward, T., & Heffernan, R. (in press). The role of values in forensic and correctional rehabilitation.
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Ward, T., & Salmon, K. (2009). The ethics of punishment: Correctional practice implications.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 239-247. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.03.009
Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353-360. 10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353
Ward, T., & Syversen, K. (2009). Human dignity and vulnerable agency: An ethical framework for
forensic practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 94-105. 10.1016/j.avb.2008.12.002
Weekes, J. R., Pelletier, G., & Beaudette, D. (1995). Correctional officers: How do they perceive sex
offenders? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39, 55-
61.
Wiley, S. A., & Esbensen, F.-A. (2016). The effect of police contact: Does official intervention result in
deviance amplification? Crime & Delinquency, 62, 283-307. 10.1177/0011128713492496
Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2008). The quality of community reintegration planning for child
molesters: effects on sexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
20, 218-240. doi: 10.1177/1079063208318005
Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2009). Assessment of community reintegration planning for sex
offenders: poor planning predicts recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 494-512. doi:
10.1177/0093854809332874

The Ethics of Labelling
Willis, G. M., & Levenson, J. S. (2016). The relationship between childhood adversity and adult
psychosocial outcomes in females who have sexually offended: implications for treatment.
Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22, 355-367. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2015.1131341
Willis, G. M., Levenson, J. S., & Ward, T. (2010). Desistance and attitudes towards sex offenders:
facilitation or hindrance? Journal of Family Violence, 25, 545-556. doi: 10.1007/s10896-010-
9314-8
Willis, G. M., Malinen, S., & Johnston, L. (2013). Demographic differences in public attitudes towards
sex offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 20, 230-247. doi:
10.1080/13218719.2012.658206
Willis, G. M., Ward, T., & Levenson, J. S. (2014). The Good Lives Model (GLM): An evaluation of GLM
operationalization in North American treatment programs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research & Treatment, 26, 58-81. doi:10.1177/1079063213478202
Willis, G. M., Yates, P. M., Gannon, T. A., & Ward, T. (2013). How to integrate the Good Lives Model
into treatment programs for sexual offending: An introduction and overview. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research & Treatment, 25, 123-142. doi: 10.1177/1079063212452618
Wilson, R. J., & Prinzo, M. (2001). Circles of support: A restorative justice initiative. Journal of
Psychology & Human Sexuality, 13(3-4), 59-77. 10.1300/J056v13n03_05
Wood, N., & Dickson, S. (2013). Reporting sexual violence in Aotearoa New Zealand. Tauiwi
Prevention Project, TOAH-NNEST: Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/4648212/Reporting_Sexual_Violence_in_Aotearoa_New_Zealan
d
Yates, P. M., & Prescott, D. S. (2011). Building a better life: A good lives and self-regulation
workbook. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
Yates, P. M., Prescott, D. S., & Ward, T. (2010). Applying the Good Lives and Self Regulation Models
to sex offender treatment: a practical guide for clinicians. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

The Ethics of Labelling
Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk
criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 375-391.