Sex Offenders: Punish, Help, Change or Control?

Theory, Policy and Practice Explored

Jo Brayford, Francis Cowe, John Deering

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415533720
• eBook ISBN: 9781136292194
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Sex offending, and in particular child sex offending, is a complex area for policy makers, theorists and practitioners. A focus on punishment has reinforced sex offending as a problem that is essentially 'other' to society and discourages engagement with the real scale and scope of sexual offending in the UK. This book looks at the growth of work with sex offenders, questioning assumptions about the range and types of such offenders and what effective responses to these might be.

Divided into four sections, this book sets out the growth of a broad legislative context and the emergence of child sexual offenders in criminal justice policy and practice. It goes on to consider a range of offences and victim typologies arguing that work with offenders and victims is complex and can provide a rich source of theoretical and practical knowledge that should be utilised more fully by both policy makers and practitioners. It includes work on female sex offenders, electronic monitoring and animal abuse as well as exploring interventions with sex offenders in three different contexts; prisons, communities and hostels.

Bringing together academic, practice and policy experts, the book argues that a clear but complex theoretical and policy approach is required if the risk of re- offending and further victimisation is to be reduced. Ultimately, this book questions whether it makes sense to locate responsibility for responding to sexual offending solely within the criminal justice domain.

Section two
Types of offences and victims

4
Sex offenders’ identities and identity management

Kirsty Hudson

Introduction

The term ‘sex offender’ ignites a highly emotive response. Depictions of the ‘predatory sex offender’ and the ‘anonymous stranger’ who abducts, rapes and kills women and children renders all convicted sexual offenders as ‘outcasts’ (Farrell and Soothill 2001; McCartan 2010; Sampson 1994; Silverman and Wilson 2002; Soothill and Walby 1991; Young 2004). Such demonisation and hatred is clearly fuelled by the media, in particular the print media. As Brayford and Deering’s chapter in this book discusses, sex offenders, particularly those that offend against children, feature prominently in tabloid and broadsheet papers and frame society’s understanding of sexual offending within such stereotypical imagery. Here, sex offenders become ‘monsters’, ‘beasts’ and ‘sex fiends’ (Thomas 2000: 1), disguising the truth that, in reality, they are friends, family and loved ones (Flatley et al. 2010). As such, the wider public seem unable to distinguish between different forms of sexual offending. Sex offenders become amalgamated into one offending group,¹ often defined as ‘paedophiles’, contrary to the true meaning of the word (Harrison et al. 2010), and indeed whether the individual has even committed an offence against a child. Current media rhetoric therefore ignores the more typical sex offender and, in doing so, renders real offenders ‘invisible’ (Thomas 2000). Previous research has identified how convicted sex offenders seek to divorce themselves from this negative identity (Hudson 2005; Scully 1990; Scully and Marolla 1984; Sykes and Matza 1957). It is their desire to maintain their ‘invisibility’ that this chapter is interested in.

This chapter identifies the ways in which convicted sex offenders construct their identity, both in their eyes and in the eyes of others, and considers the impact and implications of this in terms of treatment and recidivism. Of importance here is how this is shaped by the image of the ‘sex offender’ in the popular media and imagination. While this is, of course, an understandable reflection of the nature of the offence, it is perhaps more indicative of the media’s flawed portrayal of the popular image of the sex offender. Present media practices have clearly contributed to the ‘othering’ of sex offenders in contemporary society. The impact that this has had on a sex offenders’ treatment in the criminal justice system has been discussed extensively elsewhere (see, for example, Garland 2001; Greer 2003; Hudson 2002; Kemshall and Maguire 2001; Kitzinger 1999, 2004a, 2004b; Lynch 2002; Sampson 1994). This chapter addresses the effect that the current way the public perceive and react to sex offenders affects the way that they seek to manage their identity. In particular, it explores how this influences a sex offender’s participation in treatment programmes and other initiates designed to reduce their risk of re-offending. For example, notification legislation is discussed within an identity framework. This chapter therefore identifies ways in which a sex offender’s perception of themselves can hamper crime reduction strategies. It does so, however, by acknowledging that these perceptions are in fact dependent upon public (mis-)perceptions of sex offenders. It concludes by suggesting that current measures designed to treat, control and/or manage sex offenders may need to fully appreciate the wider context within which sex offenders’ identities are located and constructed.

Offending identities²

William James’s (1890) concept of multiple selves has often been used to argue that an individual self comprises multiple identities or, put another way, that different identities – for example, that of a father, a teacher, an offender – make up who we are. Following on from this, Jenkins (1996: 4) draws on the verb ‘to identify’, which he argues marks ‘something active about the word which cannot be ignored’. As such Jenkins (1996: 5) firmly asserts the notion of identity in the realm of ‘social identity’: ‘Social identity is our understanding of who we are and of who other people are, and reciprocally, other people’s understanding of themselves and others (which include us).’³

Taken together, such definitions point to the dynamic, changeable and even negotiable construction of our identity, or indeed one’s ‘identities’, for as Jenkins (1996: 4) writes ‘who we are is always singular and plural – is never a final or settled matter’. In fact, it becomes a ‘process’, dependent on one’s perception of oneself and how others perceive us at any given time. It is within this working definition of identity that this chapter explores how individuals with a conviction of a sexual offence see themselves and subsequently manage their identity.

As mentioned, sex offenders, and in particular child abusers, are repeatedly represented as the ‘bogeyman of our age’ (Silverman and Wilson 2002: 1). It is therefore not surprising that their sense of self is undermined by the enduring ‘stigma’ (Goffman 1963) of a criminal record for a sexual offence. Indeed, research from which this chapter draws upon (Hudson 2005) showed that individuals with a conviction of a sexual offence were acutely aware of how the public perceived them. They, along with the rest of society, faced daily reminders of society’s indignation towards sex offenders. Schwaebe (2005: 618) also found that all the offenders interviewed in his study ‘recognised the basic fact that as sex offenders they were members of a highly stigmatised group’. Importantly, however, the men interviewed in my research also accepted that the ‘popular image’ of a sex offender was that of a child sexual abuser. They were also perceptive enough to realise that given the indiscriminate use of the term paedophile and the connotations and imagery that this evokes within the public consciousness, anyone with a conviction of a sexual offence would be stigmatised in this way. Consequently the research argues that it was ‘no longer the sex offenders’ crimes that are unacceptable, but the sex offenders themselves’ (Hudson 2005: 30).

There is now a general acceptance and belief that the wider public are unable to detach the individual from their offence. Recent research conducted by Collins and Nee (2010) clearly support this argument. Their research showed that trained therapists facilitating sex offender treatment programmes held certain biases and preconceptions regarding sex offenders. Treatment facilitators ‘viewed their clients commonly as manipulative and devious individuals’ indicating an ‘inability by the therapists to disconnect the offender from the offence’ (Collins and Nee 2010: 324). This chapter will go on to explore how these discriminatory attitudes can impact on how those with a conviction of a sexual offence interact with others. First, however, it is important to discuss how this discourse serves to reinforce, or perhaps even establish, a convicted sex offender’s identity and self-concept.

It has already been argued that an individual’s conviction of a sexual offence can be likened to what Goffman (1963) defined as a stigma. However, I have argued that Goffman’s notion of a stigma does not fully encapsulate the acute popular hatred directed towards sex offenders and have instead defined this part of their identity as an ‘extended social identity’. Whereas a social identity is constructed, attributed value (good and bad), and ascribed to individuals from outside sources, an ‘extended social identity’ is then internalised by the individual (Breakwell 2001; Duveen 2001; Hudson 2005). For example, a social identity assumes that an individual’s concept of self is conceptualised in intergroup contexts and therefore dependent on the social setting. An extended social identity recognises that individuals with a conviction of a sexual offence are unable to completely separate their criminal act from their overall sense of self, in the same way as the general public are unable to isolate the person from the crime. The individual’s conviction of a sex offence therefore becomes an extension of who they are.⁴ In doing so it recognises that a stigma, or even a social identity, over simplifies the heightened moral panic surrounding sex offending. Instead it encapsulates the idea that the ‘extended social identity has an existence independent of its presence in any one individual’ (Hudson 2005: 56). It thus recognises that an individual with a sexual conviction has multiple identities (James 1890) and characteristics besides that of a sex offender, but also concedes that their conceptualisation of the self as a sex offender becomes difficult to ever fully escape.

Identity and disclosure

Sociological and social anthropological approaches to identity widely accept that an individual’s self-identity underpins how individuals present themselves to the world (Breakwell 2001; Duveen 2001; James 1890). It is therefore not surprising that a convicted sex offender will attempt to dislocate themselves, at least externally, from this identity by avoiding disclosure of their conviction and instead present more favourable, unique and idiosyncratic qualities that also make up who they are. The desire to present oneself in a more favourable light is, of course, based on an underlying fear of being judged, rejected, excluded (Aresti et al. 2010), threatened or even worse (Evans 2003). Indeed, research conducted by Aresti et al. (2010), looking at the impact of self-change and identity in relation to a group of reformed offenders’ experiences of career opportunities, highlighted the concern these men felt with regard to being accepted by others because of their ex-offender status. These men had been convicted of theft, armed robbery and drug- and fraud-related offences. However, despite their fears, the disclosure of such offences was met, at times, positively. The protests of members of the ‘Residents Against Paedophiles’ on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth, UK – following the death of Sarah Payne in July 2000 and the controversial ‘name and shame’ campaign spearheaded by a Sunday tabloid, the News of the World (Davidson 2008; Evans 2003; Kemshall and Maguire 2002; Thomas 2003) – demonstrate that it is unlikely that the disclosure of a criminal conviction of a sexual offence will be met as positively.

Sex offender notification laws

Of course sex offender notification laws exist, and have been consistently upheld as constitutional, in the United States. In the USA, notification laws require government officials to collect data about the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders and then to make this information accessible for communities to access via internet sites. These laws were intended to prevent future abuse by deterring offenders (Zevitz 2006) and encouraging the ‘public’s adoption of protective behaviour’ (see, for example, Bandy 2011).⁵ However, there have also been reports of extreme community responses as a result of community notification. Consequently, much research has focused on the unintended consequences of these laws, including community reprisals or vigilante action, and the resulting fear that offenders would disengage with registration laws and ‘go underground’ (Fitch 2006; Thomas 2003).

Similar concerns have been raised in the UK (Wood and Kemshall 2007). The UK does not currently have a system of full disclosure; instead it has introduced controlled access to child sex offenders’ information (see Kemshall et al. 2010, Chan et al. 2010). Results from the initial pilot study indicated that those involved in the process – the pilot staff, police, other criminal justice agencies, and applicants – spoke mainly of the benefits of the scheme. In contrast, the most common reaction to the scheme from registered sex offenders was one of anxiety, albeit linked to debates about wider community notification and the potential for all members of the public to be given their personal information and the potential threats to personal safety (Kemshall et al. 2010).

There were in fact no reported incidences of vigilantism within the pilot studies. However, given the reactionary public attitudes (e.g. the anti-paedophile vigilante campaign in the Paulsgrove Estate) and the highly politicised nature of sexual offending, it is not surprising that the possibility of full disclosure evokes real tension among those with a conviction of a sexual offence. Conclusions drawn from my research and research by Wood and Kemshall (2007) found that most offenders rejected the idea of a community notification scheme and also threatened to disengage from criminal justice supervision and management in the event of such a scheme coming into force. What seems important here is not therefore the actual threat, but the perceived threat of community reprisals or vigilante action and the strategies and behaviours that such offenders will use to avoid the threat to one’s self, whether real or not.

Disclosure and the construction of a Master Status

Indeed, the fear and anticipation of being ‘ousted’ as a sex offender draws heavily on Becker’s (1963) concept of the ‘Master Status’. This is similar to the concept of a social identity in that characteristics are ascribed to individuals from outside sources, but it differs in that this label becomes the most salient part of the individual’s character, at least in terms in how they are viewed by others. Similar to labelling theory (Becker 1963; Braithwaite 1989; Plummer 1979) it suggests that one particular aspect of an individual’s identity monopolises that individual, making it difficult for that person to present themselves in any other light. This clearly holds unique implications for individuals convicted of sexual offences. For example, an extended social identity implies that an individual has internalised their sex offender identity. If this individual is then labelled a sex offender, they will be identifiable both intern ally and externally as a sex offender. Understandably, my respondents thus expressed deep concerns that any public identification of them as a sex offender would make it difficult for them to establish an identity as anything other than that (Hudson 2005). For these men, finding ways to manage their identity therefore became a primary concern.

Identity management

Identity management once again recognises the changeable and ‘constr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on contributors
• Introduction
• SECTION ONE Setting the scene
• SECTION TWO Types of offences and victims
• SECTION THREE Settings and approaches to working with sex offenders
• SECTION FOUR Skills, practice and policy development with sex offenders
• Conclusion: sex offenders: punish, help, change or control?
• Index