Custom «Rehabilitation Issues/counseling for Sex Offenders - Does It Work?» Essay Paper Sample
Table of Contents
- Aims and Objectives
- Secondary Source of Data
- Buy Rehabilitation Issues/counseling for Sex Offenders - Does It Work? essay paper online
- Advantages of Secondary Analysis
- Disadvantages of Secondary Analysis
- Court Procedures regarding Sex Crimes
- The core program
- Adapted Core Program
- The Extended Program
- The Booster Program
- The Rolling Program
- History of Rehabilitation Programs for Sex Offenders
- Evalulting the Rehabilitation program of sex offenders
- Reasons for Evaluation
- Impact of Treatment
- Outcome of Treatment
- Integrity of the Treatment Programs
- Uncontrollable issues in the Rehabilitation Process
- Research Publication
- Conclusions and Recommendations
- Related Sociology essays
Psychotherapy is a topic, which is well-researched and studied, and a lot of literature is available on its outcomes and methods. This literature is enough to gain knowledge about what procedures may be successful in changing the behavior of patients.
Conducting a fairly accurate research on the effectiveness of the rehabilitation process for sex offenders is a difficult task. The relevant authorities are in agreement that there is a shortage of any overwhelming evidence of any particular treatment that pays dividends. Hence, there is no definitive proof of the workability of these programs (Conroy, 2000).
One measure of the effectiveness of a rehabilitation process is the extent of the emotional health of the patient being restored. The effectiveness of therapeutic treatment is often measured by its contribution to restoration of emotional health and normal functioning of the individual. The social norms define the normal behavior in a community and the statistical frequency of sex offenders relapsing also aids in determining effectiveness of may be defined either by reference to the applicable social norms or by statistical frequency. The ultimate goal, which sex offenders seek to achieve from the rehabilitation process, is to prevent any future sexual offences. Self-perceived well-being in other areas of the social norms cannot be identified as a suitable measure for success of the treatment (Conroy, 2000).
Sexual abuse perpetrators are ordered to receive psychotherapy. Among all the possible modalities of treatment available, group therapy is most commonly employed. The fundamentals of group therapy rely on aggressive confrontation, punitive and a mixture of talking therapy and psychoanalysis of the patient. Wakefield & Underwager (1991)say that there is not a defined theory that could tell you the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programs. In fact, counseling for sex offenders is primarily a moralistic act and is based on the emotional response from the community
However, the research method suggested would require a lot of time and finances to conduct it properly. This research paper will focus on the secondary resources of data collection to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for sex offenders.
Aims and Objectives
The aim of this research is to determine the efficacy of the rehabilitation programs for sex offenders. The primary objectives of this research are to determine:
Whether the programs reduce recidivism rates.
The accuracy of the literature available to help to answer the research problem
What procedures are being used and what makes them effective or ineffective.
The extent to which these programs can change the behaviors of the sex offenders in a positive manner.
This research document is prepared by analyzing a number of credible secondary sources of data alone.
Reasons for choosing Secondary Analysis
Secondary Source of Data
This research document used a total of five different secondary sources of data, which included books, articles, journals and official statistic. The researcher analyzed them in order to determine the efficacy of treatment aimed to reduce re-offending. For this purpose, the sources have been carefully selected to include reconviction rates, governments’ role and evaluation studies.
The sources of these studies were the Internet. All sources were carefully analyzed before selecting them.
Advantages of Secondary Analysis
This method of research provides with a credible alternative to primary research. One reason for this is that this research topic has been explored by a number of credible scholars and researchers, who are admittedly a lot more experienced than the researcher of this document. The selected researches have been conducted without any significant limitations of money and time.
Disadvantages of Secondary Analysis
The biggest disadvantage faced while writing this research paper, using secondary research is the lack of familiarity of the researcher with the data. Secondary sources of data can be very extensive and complex. So sometimes this leads to misinterpretation of data and difficulty in using relevant information from the source.
In this section an analysis of the literature available on sex crimes, therapy methods and the background of this crime would be discussed to form an initial understanding of the research question.
Court Procedures regarding Sex Crimes
Researchers have observed that when sex offenders are convicted for sex crimes, the most common disposition is a prison sentence with a mandate to seek therapy in the prison. Another course of action may include, the convicted offender to take up the option of receiving therapy instead of jail time, but that offer is only made after evaluating the behavior of the offender and circumstances of the offence. The offer might be made in juvenile, criminal or even family court (Home Office, 2006).
In case for a divorce or custody hearing, the parent making the allegation could offer to give visitation right to the other parent (the accused), if that person admits to the crime and successfully fulfills the obligations of the therapy program. In case for a criminal court, the defendant might be given a plea bargain if he decides to undergo in a treatment program for sex offenders. This also means that the defendant would not be convicted and spends time in jail. The idea behind these incentives is to encourage sex offenders to go into treatment and averse any future crimes and also give the defendant a chance to make things right. Nicholas (2007) says that, “Often the imposition of external force to be treated is unsatisfactory, and a poorer treatment outcome can be anticipated ... Court orders for treatment in contrast to jail or in addition to jail make it hard to enact any worthwhile treatment program because treatment becomes a sentence rather than a therapy” (p.64). These deals seem to benefit all the concerned parties and hence should be encouraged.
Despite the incentive, there are a number of flaws with this system. Firstly, it is a good idea only if the treatment is found to be effective for the sex offender. Secondly, since the offender is obligated to attend the rehabilitation program as a part of his plea bargain, then attending the treatment becomes his punishments. This thought might have a negative impact on the mind of the offender. Lastly, in most cases, the offender would not be given a choice to select a therapist or a program. This decision is made by the specific agency in command. This may lead to the individual not reacting well to the treatment (Wakefield & Underwager, 1991).
Before analyzing the effectiveness of counseling/ therapy for sex offenders, it would be beneficial to observe the methods being adopted to change the behaviors of the offenders. In this section, the current methods that are employed to treat sex offenders will be discussed.
The initial aim of rehabilitation therapies was to protect potential victims rather than to improve the mental state of the sex offenders. However, it was later realized that both are interrelated. Prisons have a number of therapies available for criminals charged with a sexual offence and are serving a sentence that would allow them to finish the treatment. Before the sex, offenders are taken into the treatment program, they are assessed. The offenders who are in complete denial of the committed crime are not taken in. Then the offender is subjected to a number of standardized tests to determine the level of treatment required by the offender. Currently, there are five basic levels of treatment (Conroy, 2000). They are briefly examined below:
The core program
These programs last for duration of six months and in broken into twenty sessions. The aim of the core program is to motivate the offender to abstain from re-offences by undermining the reasons given by the offender for committing the crimes (Beech et al, 1999).
Adapted Core Program
This program has been designed for an offender with a low IQ level. The original core program uses verbal material but the adapted program uses non-verbal materials, so the offender may be able to better grasp the purpose of the treatment (Beech et al, 1999).
The Extended Program
The sex offenders, which are categorized as high risks are put into the extended program. The offenders who go into this program have already completed the core programs but the staff monitoring them was not satisfied with their progress. This program requires another sixty-eight hour of therapy for the offenders and aims to, “managing negative emotions, particularly through the use of positive and calming cognitions rather than behavioral coping strategies, which may not always be available to the offender” (Beech el al, 1999, pg.36).
The Booster Program
This is a program designed for the sex offenders, who are serving a long sentence and have undergone the extended core or the core program. The aim of this program is to reinforce the offender’s relapse prevention plan, before the sex offender’s sentence is completed (Beech et al, 1999).
The Rolling Program
This treatment program is designed for low risk offenders, who do not need to take as many sessions as the high-risk offenders do. This program is very flexible and lacks a solid structure. The practices adopted in these programs are very simple, such as writing a letter to the victim, writing an account for the offence or contemplating on distorted thinking. All these tasks have to be completed by the offender before he is allowed to finish the program, irrespective of the time taken to do them (Beech et al, 1999).
Cognitive- Behavioral therapy (CBT)
Many researchers have observed that the cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is the most successful method to change the behavior of sex offenders and stop them from committing re-offences. This therapy aims to improve the self-control of the sex offender, in an attempt to, “an individual' internal functioning as well as their overt behavior” (Hudson, 2005: 34). Scholars have attributed the success of this method due to the significance given to the abilities of the sex offender. This approach sees the offender as a rational character, making the offenders understand that their behavior can be controlled by their actions.
The CBT has a very practical approach towards sex offenders, it concedes that the behavior of the sex offenders cannot be changed but they can be taught to control their desires. The simple philosophy also means that the aims of this treatment are very much achievable. In addition, the CBT also teaches sex offenders to identify situations that may lead them to commit another crime and advises them to abstain from them (Hudson, 2005).
History of Rehabilitation Programs for Sex Offenders
Researchers insist that the frequency of sexual crimes has increased significantly in the past two decades (Brown, 2005; Hudson 2005). This had led to an increased attention towards these crimes and the individuals committing them by the media and the governments, around the world. A study conducted by Nicholas el al (2007)in UK,showed that sexual offenders account for only one per cent of the total crimes reported to the police. However, the increased media coverage on the matter has led the governments to take actions to stop these activities, especially re-offences. For this reason, rehabilitation has been made mandatory for all sexual offenders.
In the mid- nineties, structuring of an effective intervention program were being formulated to prevent reoccurrences. ‘What Works’ initiatives were being taken in UK and USA. ‘What Works’ initiative is the evidence-based approach, aimed to reduce sexual offences by already charged criminals. This initiative received a lot of criticism as the government was taking steps to manage and control the threat of recurrence, rather than solving the crime. As a result, the government came up with a new disable for sex offenders to commit the crime again; incapacitation of criminals with more one than offences (Brown, 2005).
At first, the Sexual offences act like 2003, and the criminal-justice Act 2003 dictated that sexual offenders would be sentenced to prison but receiving treatment was not mandatory. However, after reviewing many high-profile cases, such as the abduction and death of a young girl, Sarah Payne, the weaknesses of the legislation became apparent. In this case, the offender, Roy Whiting was released from prison after serving a two-year sentence for an attempted kidnapping of a girl. During his sentence, he was offered counseling but refused to it. However, after the incident rehabilitation process became mandatory as it was recognized that sex offenders need help to counter their false urges (Home Office, 2006).
Even though treatment became mandatory but there was not a single defined procedure, which was to be followed. Researchers analyzed different types of therapy and determined that the cognitive-behavioral therapy has had the most promising results. It is said about the method that, “CBT has been shown in the What Work's literature (McGuire 1995) to be the most effective method of treating offenders” (Beech and Fisher, 2004: 139).
Analysts attribute the success of this modality to the diverse nature of the program. They justify their theories by explaining that different personalities should be dealt accordingly. For instance, one program was prepared for sex offenders with a low I.Q (Hudson 2005).
It is generally believed that the official crime statistics are a lot lower than the actual number of criminal activities taking place. So even though the criminological environment has vouched for the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programs for sex offenders, it is difficult to prove it with acceptable evidence. “Due to the nature of social science research and the nature of these programs, it is unlikely that researchers will ever be able to demonstrate the efficacy of this form of treatment (Brown, 2005:15)
The seriousness of the crime committed and the impact it has on the victim, makes it one of the most heinous crimes. Governments have prepared various research channels to help them formulate policies regarding sex offenders. These channels are tasked to review the current rehabilitation methods and give a suggestion. It is widely believed that there are three important features that should be considered to evaluate the success of these methods. This is the content of the program, the impact of the treatment on the behavior of the sex offenders and the ability of the method to restrict recurrence (Hudson 2005).
Evalulting the Rehabilitation program of sex offenders
Different governments, all around the world are taking steps to evaluate the sex-offender programs in order to improve them. This section of the research paper will illustrate the effectiveness of these treatments.
Reasons for Evaluation
There are numerous reasons for conducting this research. The purpose of rehabilitation is to reduce sexual recidivism and if a treatment can achieve that then it would be deemed a success. The sex offenders, who have received the treatment, allowed to be released after completing their sentence, on the basis that the counseling have helped them, and they would not commit further crimes. So, one of the primary reasons for answering the question, “does it work” is to release criminals, hoping they have changed.
In addition to the primary reason, evaluation of the rehabilitation process is also done for consistency. In order to determine, what types of therapies are successful and what do not have low recidivism rates. This is a very sensitive topic, and only those procedures should be adopted for treatment, which will give the offenders the best chance to change their behavior. So the counseling method has to be monitored to adjudicate their success and in some cases, modification may be made if the results are not satisfactory (Nicholas el al, 2007).
Impact of Treatment
The impact of the treatment can be determined by the effect of the counseling on the main variables that contribute to the causes of sexual offences. The known variables are victim empathy, cognitive distortions and relapse prevention skills. Determining the impact of the treatment on the offender is an important measure, as that helps to adjudge which offenders are high-risk and, which are low-risk.
Want an expert write a paper for you?
Beech el al (1999)undertook a study to evaluate the impact of counseling in United States.
Their study was commissioned by the home office to determine the efficacy of their treatment methods. The research was carried in six different prisons. The researchers used nine different standardized psychological tests and interviewed the sex offenders in order to determine the variables in their characteristics before allowing them to participate in the research. This methodology could make the researchers analyze their primary targets.
The research illustrated some key statistics. Approximately, seventy per cent of the sample showed changes from the original readings of the psychometric. Further observations included. Denial of the offence was reduced, reduction in pro-offending mentality, increase in admittance of sexual interest and an increase in the skills to prevent relapses. The primary target of the ‘sex-offender offender treatment’ is to minimize the denial. Most scholars agree that admittance of guilt is the most important step as it then leads to prevent re-offences. Beech et al also concluded from this research that the treatment is more effective for low risk offenders as compared to high-risk offenders. It is stated, Offenders, who showed higher levels of deviancy, as measured by levels of pre-disposing personality factors and offence related cognitive distortions, showed less improvement than those whose deviancy and denial of deviancy were low (Perkins et al, 1998: 13).
Another concrete analysis of the re-offenses by sex offenders is the one prepared by Husdson (2005), which shows that in a five-year period the re-offense rate of sex offenders is less than fourteen per cent (13.8 %). This number is lower than the general perception of the public regarding re-offense rates by sex offenders. For this research, the analysts followed 477 adult sex offenders for an average six years and observed that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 11.4 per cent.
The impact of the treatment also deals with whether the psychological changes within an offender are maintained for a period of time. For this purpose, the researchers assessed the selected offenders for a period of ten months after their treatment ended. The results for offenders still in prison after nine months of their treatment were very positive. However, the offenders who were released after serving their sentence only showed a positive pattern if their counseling extended more than 160 hours. Beech et al (1999), concluded that high-risk offenders would respond better if they are subjected to an extensive counseling program.
Beech et al (1999) also suggested that rehabilitation programs are achieving their targets with low risk offenders. However, the researchers were not able to collect conclusive evidence that would suggest that the treatment is reducing re-offences as well. Researchers have admitted that, “the ultimate test of the effectiveness of the Core program is the extent to which it reduces further sexual offending” (Beech et al, 1999, pg 78)
Most researchers are in agreement that treatment for sex offenders has resulted in positive effects and has resulted in curtailing re-offenses from offenders. However, these researches are mostly based on the statistics collected after following up on motivated, fewer violent offenders, who would anyhow be less likely to commit a re-offense.
Outcome of Treatment
The outcome of the treatment reflects the extent to which the rehabilitation methods prevent re-offences, in comparison with re-offences committed by offenders who receive no treatment. Scholars agree that using reconviction rates is the most appropriate measure to determine the outcome of treatment. “Reconviction rates are an essential part of the tools of the trade of a criminologist” (Friendship et al, 2003, pg 121).Analysts are of the opinion that ‘Offenders Index’ (OI) is one of the most popular indicators that is used in reconviction studies. The OI consists of the record of convictions for the past five decades. It is a useful database as sex offenders can be easily monitored as their records are kept at the individual level.
Friendship et al (2003) conducted a study to determine the efficacy of rehabilitation of sex offenders. Their study observed the reconviction rates of two different groups of sex offenders. The first group comprised of 1915 adults male sex offenders, in a process of serving four or more years of the sentence but did not participate in a treatment therapy. The other group comprised of 648 adults male sex offenders, serving four or more years of the sentence, taking part in counseling and other rehabilitation methods.
The observations of Friendship et al (2003) showed that the second group (which received treatment) performed better than the other group. Having said that, the reconviction rates of both groups were very low. The difference between the two groups’ reconviction rate differed by just 0.3 per cent. The difference exists, but it is too small to actually attribute it solely to the counseling received by the sex offenders. According to other studies, only five per cent of sex offenders are convicted again for a sexual crime. This is not a high enough number to comprise of significant difference between the two groups of sex offenders used in the research. The researchers claimed, “A reduction would be so small it would be difficult statistically to demonstrate that this difference was due to treatment effect rather than chance factors. In essence, any treatment will be obscured”(Friendship and Thornton, 2001: 289).
Researchers did suggest a solution for this problem. They suggested that the only method to counter low base rates is to extend the duration of follow up, as it would represent a clearer demonstration of the long-term viability of outcomes of the treatment. The recommended follow-up period is ten years. However, most of the researches are sanctioned by the government and they cannot wait for such a long period of time. Apart from the ‘Californian Sex Offender Treatment Evaluation Program (SOTEP) is using a follow-up period of 10 years in their research. The complete research is not available, but the early findings are showing a difference in the rates of reconviction between the two groups..
Although the research by Friendship et al was restricted by a lot of shortcomings, there were some deterministic outcomes from the research. One of the conclusions taken from the research is that receeiving treatment mostly affects low to medium risk sex offenders. They also determined that the rehabilitation process is very much ineffective for high-risk sex offenders as they showed a similar rate of reconviction in both non-treatment groups and treated groups. This finding was also supported by the research conducted by Beech el al (1999). Analysts have defined the high-risk sex offenders in the following words, “those subsequently convicted of a further sexual offence within the four year follow-up period had been identified as dangerous or high risk” (Hood et al, 2002: 1). These observed researches point to one direction; the rehabilitation process requires a lot of changes to deal with high-risk sex offenders more effectively.
Among the shortcomings in the research, comparability of the non-treatment and treated groups received a lot of criticism from other scholars. Even the researchers themselves admitted that the demographic characteristics of the two groups were very different from one another. Most analysts hold the opinion that personalities of the two groups should be similar to produce more accurate results.
There are a number of studies based on reconviction that show a clear pattern between sexual re-offences and treatment, but it would be unwise to use just the data on reconvictions to provide an extended evaluation of the study. “Difficulty in demonstrating that the changes were not due to chance factor's highlight caution in the over reliance of reconviction data” (Hudson, 2005: 44). One reason for not depending entirely on reconviction data is that, some re-offenders might not get caught again. Most of the researches observed for this document recommended that non-official recidivism data should be combined with official reconviction data to gain accurate results.
Falshaw et al (2003)conducted their research accordingly. They combined the non-official recidivism data with the official reconviction data. The results of their study did observe a variation in the official and unofficial data. The recidivism rate of the unofficial data was five times more than the official reconviction rate. Another researcher conducted a similar research and came up with a number which was 2.5 times higher than the official recordings. These work damage the credibility of the scholars who are the proponents of sex offenders rehabilitation program, reasoning that the extent of the success of these programs is not as elaborate as the official recordings suggest.
Despite the difference in the official records and unofficial records, researchers still believe that these figures can be used to benefit the treatment program for sex offenders. As a researcher said, “Used effectively with unofficial sources to aid the evaluation of sex-offender treatment. The inclusion of nonofficial data in evaluations would more accurately describe the impact that treatment has on reducing the risk of future reoffending” (Hudson, 2005: 44).
Integrity of the Treatment Programs
This section will evaluate the integrity of the treatment programs by analyzing their objectives and determining if they met them. This can be determined by evaluating the extent of staff training, the compliance with the treatment manuals, and extent of support for both sex offenders and staffs and the overall management of the therapy. Measuring the integrity of a rehabilitation program is very important as the research has shown that a good treatment leads to higher success rates. So this measure will inform about the chances of sex offenders’ treatment to work.
Many researchers were not happy with the integrity of the treatment programs being employed. Most notably among them, Beech el al (1999), voiced their concern on the inadequate training given to the staff to manage such an enormous task.
Beech et al (1999), first task was to observe the level of enthusiasm and commitment shown by the tutors of the program. A negative enthusiasm and commitment leads towards dropouts in the number of sex offenders wanting to continue treatment. The results of the research showed that the staff was very enthusiastic and committed and correspondingly, all the six programs, which were being monitored showed a very low rate of dropouts. However, the analysis of the extent of training of staff did not show promising results. Among the six prisons that were monitored for their study, staff at four of those prisons admitted that they needed at least a week’s training more. Even though, most of the staff felt they were not fully trained, the study concludes that the sex offenders were happy with the content, and the approaches used by the staff to counsel them. This observation is even more cause for concern for the integrity of the study.
Although most of the staff felt that they were not fully trained, they still recognized the lack of a treatment manager as their biggest hurdle in conducing the treatment program. Beech el al (1999) stated that two of the six prisons had no treatment manager assigned, which would supervise or support the staff. They have written, “Tutors were not properly supported, as required by the accreditation process” (Home Office, 1999). Further reports also suggest that the current staff was overworked, and the treatment could have benefited by employing more staff members, especially female staff members. Beech et al have written the following regarding employing female staff members, “Female tutors bring an important perspective to work such as modeling appropriate social interactions between men and women (Pietz and Mann. 1989 cited in Beech et al, 1999: 86).
Scholars insist that evaluative studies play an important part in the success of the treatment programs, as they report any shortfalls in the employed methods. This leads to lower re-offences as the treatment becomes more effective. Beech el al concluded that the treatment, which passed most of the measures for integrity, has lower re-offence rates than the programs, which were hampered by some problems (Brown, 2005).
Other Factors pertaining to the efficacy of Rehabilitation for Sex Offenders
Until now, most of the factors observed were related to determining the extent of behavior change in the sex offenders. However, there are some other factors that indirectly relate to the effectiveness of the treatment. These factors would be analyzed in this section.
According to the 'managerialist' approach, there is a need to lower costs and at the same time make the better decision. “So the organizations that have sanctioned this research are also concerned with cost factors pertaining to these treatments. As well as wishing to know if sex-offender treatment is effective in reducing recidivism, social policy makers and managers also want to know if treatment is cost effective” (Brown, 2005: 217).
According to sources, the average cost that is spent on treating one sex offender is in the region of $10,000 to $12,000 per anum. This is a significant amount of money to be spent on just one individual. So studies have also been carried out to evaluate the financial sense of conducting these treatment programs. Studies pertaining to this have concluded that successful treatment of sex offenders can save money. Even though enhanced prison interventions cost more than prison alone to deliver, they are better value for money (Matrix, 2007). These calculations take into account the court fees consumed on a sex offender per annum with the rate of recidivism. However, estimating the cost-effectiveness of these programs is a more subjective process than an objective one.
Hurry up! Limited time offer
Use discount code
Uncontrollable issues in the Rehabilitation Process
There are a number of issues that could be encountered in the rehabilitation process, such as if the accusation is true or not, or the accused sex offender may even deny any wrongdoing. The ruling of the court can be postponed due to a bargaining plea, insufficient evidence, denial of guilt, and a social service admitting to making a mistake, and acquittal by the court. The laws require that an accused sex offender should begin treatment immediately, long before the verdict of his case is announced. This fact also has a negative impact on the success of counseling for sex offenders, as an innocent man might be subjected to treatment.
These situations create a lot of problems for the therapists, in regard to treatment as they it is difficult to adjudicate what is to be treated. The rehabilitation process consists of a number of permutations with regards to falsity or truth, unsubstantiated or substantiated allegations and admission or denial of accusation (Beech and Fisher, 2004).
According to Brooks-Gordon et al (2004), only a small quantity of the research material is published. The authors analyzed that the amount of financial investments made into the sex-offender treatment program force researchers to portray the programs to be effective. The publication of Brooks-Gordon is the only one to support this idea.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Efforts are being made to develop the rehabilitation methods for sex offenders for the past five decades now, but as demonstrated through this research, still a lot of issues need to be resolved. Treatment providers, researchers and the government are all willing to label the treatment as a success. However, after close examination of the number of sources and the procedures employed to conduct these studies. It has become very difficult to actually comment on the effectiveness of the treatment of sex offender’s programs and how much it has contributed in reducing re-offences. Even though conclusive evidence is not available, the secondary sources of evaluative research all agree that the treatment does indeed have a positive outcome on the sex offenders.
The public protection acts, media and crime policies demonstrate a different outlook; therapy is failing to effectively deal with the risk of re offence by sex offenders. However, a reason for that could be wariness of the modern society of the risks posed by sex offenders, and hence that has transformed into policies and acts. Governments all around the world are taking multiple measures to efficacy of these treatments, as their failure would lead to drastic consequences.
The studies used in this document, especially by Beech et al provided a good account for the effectiveness of the treatment and the impact of external factors that have a deterministic impact on the success of these methods. Treatment works most effectively for low to medium risk offenders, as the recidivism rates for them were very low. On the other hand, the current treatment procedures are not showing any signs of improvement for high-risk sex offenders.
The current psychometric standardized tests do not provide a means to compare the data between the impact of treatment and the outcome of the treatment. So more tests should be prepared that would show a pattern between these measures.
The sex offenders should be given treatment according to their risk levels.
The efficacy of an extended treatment for high-risk sex offenders has not been evaluated. A research should be conducted to determine if using therapy could change high-risk offenders.
In future researches the sample size of treated and untreated should be increased to overcome the difficulties posed by low base rates
The follow-up period should be increased in future researches. It not only gives the research more credibility but will also help to better determine the long-term impact of the treatment.
The public should be educated sex offenders are a part of the society as well and their corporation could benefit their recovery.
Most popular orders