|
Article Excerpt
The literature does not provide practical, targeted alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for sexual offenders deemed at low risk for recidivism. The Sexual Behavior Intervention Program (SBIP) is an innovative level of care in male sex offender treatment that offers communities an option for treating sexual misconduct. SBIP is a focused, psychoeducational program rooted in the restorative justice model, one that attempts to meet the needs of both individuals and the community.
**********
Sexual misconduct is simultaneously a private and a public offense, affecting both individuals and communities. Historically, incarceration rather than treatment has been society's preferred method of dealing with sex offenders, regardless of the severity of the offense (Blackwell & Cunningham, 2004; Burdon & Gallagher, 2002). Incarceration proposes to restore order to the community and healing to individuals victimized. It is consistent with the view that male sex offenders are deviant, dangerous, and likely to recidivate (Cowburn & Dominelli, 2001).
Yet Cowburn's (2005) analysis of three major reviews of research data collected in North America and Europe from the last 50 years concluded that recidivism rates for sex offenders are low--and lowest for first-time offenders with no prior convictions. The U.S. Bureau of Justice places the three-year recidivism rate for 9,691 sex offenders released from prison in 1994 at 3.5% (Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003). Moreover, an extensive body of literature has demonstrated significant differences between sex offender characteristics, sexual misconduct typology, and motivations for offending (Kirsch & Becker, 2006). Consistent with these studies, there has been growing consensus among law enforcement officials, attorneys, and sex offender clinicians that incarceration for all offenders, regardless of risk and offense type, is not the only option to restore order and promote healing in individuals and communities (Doren, 1998; Zehr, 1997).
Momentum is gathering for a shift from the retributive model (incarceration) to a restorative one (rehabilitation) (Zehr, 1997). The model is used not only to treat individuals accused of sexual misconduct but also to address simultaneously victim and community needs for safety, reparation, and healing. Interestingly, as treatment approaches have grown in breadth and availability since the 1980s, the desire of male sex offenders for treatment seems to be on the decline (Langevin, 2006). Langevin attributes this decline in part to sexual predator laws enacted in the 1990s that may inhibit offender admissions and thus participation in therapy. Sexual predator laws are another mechanism for lumping together all sex offenders. Yet motivating sex offenders to enter into and complete treatment is seen as central to improving treatment compliance and outcomes (Kirsch & Becker, 2006; Langevin, 2006).
The literature offers no practical, targeted alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for sexual offenders deemed at low risk for recidivism. This article briefly reviews historical trends in sex offender treatment, differentiates our Sexual Behavior Intervention Program (SBIP) from Sex Offender Treatment (SOT), and outlines the curriculum for SBIP so that treatment providers can deliver a targeted intervention rooted in restorative justice.
AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
There are differences among men who commit sexual offenses and in the types of sexual offenses they commit, but the traditional view obscures these differences (Cowburn & Dominelli, 2001). The resulting one-dimensional view of the offender and the offense is what informs the emphasis on incarceration rather than treatment. Although incarceration removes sex offenders from society for a time, it strains an overpopulated correctional system (Ward & Stewart, 2003). Attempting to deal with this overpopulation, a number of judges have reduced sentences to allow convicted offenders back into society earlier (Witt, Delrusso, Oppenheim, & Ferguson, 1996). In any case, incarceration can only be a short-term fix--offenders ultimately re-enter the community. According to Shaw and Funderburk (1999), postincarceration treatment is ineffectually enforced and monitored.
Traditional SOT assumes that persons who have offended are more alike than unlike and that their pathways to sexual misconduct are similar. Evaluations of its effectiveness have yielded mixed results. Despite the evidence that sex offenders vary, traditional treatment assumes that they possess a relatively fixed set of characteristics, such as propensity to commit violent and abusive behaviors, an ongoing pattern of sexual deviance, poor self-regulation, an unstable lifestyle, and/or an abusive childhood.
Now, however, a more complex view of sex offenders and sexual offenses is emerging, one grounded in both research and practice. The growing body of research on sex offender treatment indicates a need for a more complete picture of the characteristics associated with offenders, the factors that precipitate sexual misconduct, and how characteristics and dispositional factors relate to types of offenses (Center for Sex Offender Management, CSOM, 2001). Still lacking, however, is a clear understanding of (a) the role developmental variables play in etiology and treatment (Craissati & Beech, 2006); (b) the connection between models of etiology and change (Kirsch & Becker, 2006); (c) motivations for completing sex offender treatment (Langevin, 2006); and (d) the extent to which social constructions of masculinity mediate individual behavior and community responses to male sexual misconduct (Cowbum, 2005).
Thus, there is a growing movement away from the "one-treatment-fits-all" modality (Kaden, 1998). Treatment should reflect...
|
