The fight against sex offending however has the tendency to be high on the government’s agenda as they argue sexual crime and in particular the fear of sexual crime has a profound and damaging effect on the social fabric of communities (Home Office, 2006, Pg 7). In 1991 the Criminal Justice System toughened the sentences given to sexual offenders, making this particular group of offenders more eligible for custody. This first of a wave of legislation put into place throughout the 1990s, toughened penalties, extended sentences and increased the monitoring of offenders within prison and in the community. In addition to this in 1991 the Home Office introduced the national Sex Offender Treatment Programmes (SOTP). These programmes were put into place by the HM Prison Services for the ‘integrated assessment and treatment of sex offenders’ (Thornton, 1991; cited in Beech, Fisher and Beckett, 1998, Pg, 9). The SOTPs are based on the ideas of a form of cognitive-behavioural therapy to reduce the possibility of reoffending. The cognitive aspect involves recognition of the distorted thoughts that the offenders hold, this then allows them to reflect on the illegal sexual acts they have committed and understand the impact they have had on the victim. The behavioural aspect involves reducing sexual arousal to inappropriate fantasies or forced sexual activity (Cobley, 2005). The behavioural treatment used is intended to teach offenders to be in command of or in change the deviant sexual arousal and fantasies that they have and to remove them and develop suitable fantasies as an acceptable alternative. Cognitive therapy tackles the distorted thinking commonly found with sex offenders (Beech, Fisher, Beckett, 1998, Pg. 13).
The SOTP is made up of seven components: the Enhanced thinking skills programme, the Core Programme, the Adapted Programme, the Extended Programme, the Rolling Programme, the Better Lives Booster Programme and Healthy Sexual Functioning. Their main aims are to rehabilitate sex offenders and reduce reoffending (Falshaw, 2003.), it attempts to do this by altering the way in which an individual’s cognitive functioning works as well as their obvious outer behaviour and so enhancing their overall self control. Theories such as Finkelhors Precondition Model (1984) and Marshall and Barbarees’s Integrated Theory (1990) suggests poor social skills and a lack of empathy are factors which can lead to sexual offending (Ward & Sorbello, 2003 Pg, 5-6). The programmes used within these theories often involve the development of problem solving, creative thinking, social perspective, moral reasoning and social skills and critical thinking in order to help the offenders control their criminogenic and abnormal needs. Beech, Oliver, Fisher, & Beckett (2005, Pg 23) stated that the SOTP is currently running in 28 prisons in England and Wales with around 1,000 men completing treatment every year, with large‐scale research showing that sex offenders who receive treatment, in both prison and community settings, have a lower sexual reconviction rate than those who do not receive treatment (Ministry of justice, 2010, Pg, 1).
However the effectiveness of sex offender treatment programmes is a fiercely debated topic (Brown, 2005 Pg. 15). The debate for the Sex Offender Treatment Programmes has come from the difficulty of proving its effectiveness. Due to the nature of social science research and the nature of these programmes, it is unlikely that researchers will ever be able to demonstrate the efficacy of this form of treatment (Brown, 2005). The issues with proving the effectiveness of the SOTP lies with many different reasons. There are relatively small percentages of sex offenders passing through the criminal justice system compared to other types of offenders, dealing with them however requires a considerable amount of resources to treat these types of offender’s, this means there is often a need to assess the effectiveness of the programmes. It’s important to assess whether sex offenders can actually be treated and reduce sex offending as if they are seen to be effective then it is likely that those sex offenders who have completed the programmes will be released back into the community as they are seen as posing a lower risk to society (Brown, 2005: 151). It is therefore important to see whether the risk of the offender to the general public has in fact been reduced by the programmes, and for as stated by Brown, Deakin & Spencer (2008, Pg 9) informing criminal justice policy developments, in providing appropriate resettlement strategies for sex offenders and in devising the appropriate levels of community based support for sex offenders as they reintegrate into the community in the post-sentence period.
There is also often the issue of reconviction rates particularly the official reconviction rates for sex offenders. Like all official statistics that are recorded by the police there is usually a level of criticism surrounding them. This feeling is often being felt by criminologists, the reason for this is that is has long been felt that the official crime statistics published for England and Wales for the most part misjudge the actual level of crime. The non-recorded figure is often referred to as the dark figure of crime, the dark figure of crime unreported to the official agencies has been known since the 1830s (Young, 1991, Pg 37). This figure is often partly gained by victimisation surveys such as the British Crime Survey (BCS), however due to the sensitive nature of sexual crimes; this information is not often given during this type of research. These along with other disadvantages mean that there is not a truthful or reliable response to whether sexual offenders reoffend. Criminologist Prof David Wilson of Birmingham City University, who once worked on the sex offender treatment programme at Grendon prison, says psychological profiling can indicate whether such a criminal is less likely to re-offend - but ultimately, the nature of the offence makes it impossible to be absolutely certain. "It's incredibly difficult to have confidence that someone has changed their behaviour if they are a sex offender," he says. "The only real indication is if they stay out of trouble for a significant period of time - five, 10, 15 years." BBC News. (2011). This then provides very good reason for there to be more research into the effectiveness of sex offender interventions and treatment programmes and their success rates.
There are also the issues with public opinion towards these kinds of offenders and the programmes in place to treat them. It could be debated that the more severe predatory sexual abuse is being over publicised in the media making the public notice this type of sexual abuse as much more severe than it is. Due to the evil status that sex offenders have been branded with within the media, there would seem to be no ethical constraints on how members of the public believe sex offenders should be managed (Hudson, 2005: Pg. 22), nor about how they should to be treated while in prison. The general public’s fear and anger towards this type of crime and offender has led to ‘demand for increased security, and the containment of risk and danger, thus the focus of penal policy has changed dramatically and public protection now appears to be a dominant theme’ (Garland, 2010). Because of this much of society is aware and relatively tolerant of the types of treatment programmes (SOTP) being used for sex offenders, although would not know what these programmes were made up of nor the theories and reasoning underpinning these treatments.
The general public are the majority of the time tolerant of these programmes to the extent of which they support the treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders because it may allow them to refrain from further abuse of innocent victims; however not 100% are happy that they do work. In response to such public demand the UK government, through the voice of John Major said we should "condemn more, understand less" (Macintyre, 1993) demonstrating the clear change in the dynamics of the criminal justice focus. This is evidenced not only by high incarceration rates, but also in the changing roles of probation officers who are de-emphasizing their social work role to concentrate on increasing their control and risk functions (Brown, 1993). The general public’s view of sex offenders is rather simplistic and imperfect; yet should not be ignored, as it is one of the key players in how sex offenders are dealt with in the community and in prison.
As shown in the essay above the current methods currently in place within Sex Offender Treatment Programmes are ones that although highly talked about and studied the effectiveness of the SOTPs is not as clear-cut as people are lead to believe. It has also shown that sex offending is a very debatable issue within society. Sex offenders are seen to be some of the most dangerous types of offenders and so are feared by the general public, however, it has also shown that in spite of sex offending being a real problem it is also somewhat of a moral panic as the fear of this type of offending is inconsistent to the amount of these types of crimes being committed compared to other violent crimes. You can see that although the general public are fearful of sex offenders they are happy with the programmes in place to treat them, but without feeling 100% happy that they actually work. Although research over time has shown that these programmes are more successful in reducing reoffending than not using any intervention or treatment measures at all, it has also shown that they may not be as successful as we are led to believe. By improving methods of testing the programme’s effectiveness and by completing more research into the different components of the SOTPs they could be enhanced and therefore increase success rates. Although the operation of these recommendations may be difficult, it is very essential that the government gives them particular consideration if public protection and offender treatment is as high on their agenda that they want people to believe.
Reference List
BBC News. (2011). Who, what, why: When is a sex offender not a risk?. Retrieved May 7th 2012, From,
Beech, A. Fisher, D. Beckett, R. (1998). STEP 3: An evaluation of the prison sex offender treatment programme. Home Office. London.
Beech, A. Leam, C. Browne, K. (2009) Assessment and Treatment of Sex Offenders: A Handbook. Retrieved May 7th 2012, From
Beech. A., Oliver. C., Fisher, D., Beckett, R. (2005). STEP 4: The Sex Offender Treatment Programme in Prison: addressing the offending behaviour of rapists and sexual murderers. London: Home Office.
Brown, I. (1993) The Changing Role of Probation and Parole: A View to the Future, Retrieved May 7th 2012, From, http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/dce13209-622b-49f4-8f68-7d5c7c4e3ec9/Brown-Isiah-paper.aspx
Brown, S. (2005). Treating Sex Offenders: An introduction to sex offender treatment programmes. Cullumpton: Willan Publishing.
Brown, S. Deakin, J. Spencer, J. (2008). Study of Public Attitudes Towards Sex Offender Reintegration. Retrieved 7th May 2012, From,
Cobley, C. (2005). Sex Offenders: Law, Policy and Practice. (2nd Ed). Bristol: Jordan.
Crown Prosecution Service. (2010). Sexual Offences Act 2003. Retrieved April 3rd 2012, from
Falshaw. L., Friendship. C., Travers, R., Nugent, F. (2003). Searching for What Works: An evaluation of cognitive skills programmes. London: Home Office.
Garland, D. (2010) The culture of control, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hale. C., Hayward. K., Wahidin, A., Wincup, E. (2005). Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Home Office. (2006). Information relating to Sex Offender Treatment Programmes (SOTP). London: Home Office.
Hudson, K. (2005). Offending Identities: Sex offenders perspectives on their treatment and Management. Cullumpton: Willan Publishing.
Macintyre, D. (1993) Major on Crime: ‘Condemn more, Understand less’, Retrieved 7th May 2012, From, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/major-on-crime-condemn-more-understand-less-1474470.html
McGuire, J. (2004) Understanding Psychology and Crime: perspectives on theory and action. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ministry of justice (2010). What Works With Sex Offender? Retrieved April 30th 2012, From
Nicholas, S. Kershaw, C. Walker, A. (2007). Crime in England and Wales 2006/07. London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Pyatt, J. (2008). Judge lets new perv walk free. Retrieved April 30th 2012, From
The Sun. (2012). Pervert in motor with girl and boy. Retrieved April 30th 2012, From
Thomas, T. (2000). Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society. Cullompton: Willan
Ward, T. Sorbello, L. (2003). Explaining Child Sexual Abuse: Integration and Elaboration. London: Sage.
Young, J. (1991). The Exclusive Society: Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in late modernity. London: Sage Publications.