Aplicación a casos concretos

Fisher & Nagin (1978) explored the relationship between crime and sanctions. They conclude there were no clear links on the deterrent effects of punishment on committing crime. More recently McCartan et al (2017) explored the effectiveness of current risk management plans, highlighting how risk management has become about bureaucracy, risk aversion and audit, rather than using current risk management systems efficiently or effectively. In exploring the issue of imposing restrictions on adolescents who have displayed harmful sexual behaviour, the professionals were asked whether they believe having restrictions was important. Of the 25 professionals, just over half (13 professionals) stated that they believed restrictions were important. One commented that they thought some people need restrictions (P18).

Six of the professionals spoke about the importance of restrictions being in place for public protection. Professional P23 stated ‘yes, to the public and risk to themselves, that’s what we are about within the YOT, reducing risks, and reducing harmful behaviour’. This issue of helping the offender to not behave in risky ways was a theme for several professionals.

150 Professional P17 stated ‘Yes, to keep potential victims safe, to give those people opportunity to understand and learn how to value others, which I am guessing they haven’t got if they have offended against someone. I think sometimes people are asking for containment from some of their behaviours’. This was echoed by Professional P12, who added ‘yes, I mean I am primarily thinking of licence restrictions, where it is believed that the individual has the capacity to behave harmfully and if restrictions reduce the likelihood of them behaving harmfully then it is very important’.

There were a number of professionals that offered suggestion as to why restrictions were important. Professional P6 spoke about restrictions being important to reduce the risk of further offending, they commented:

‘I think it just gives a good indication of that person and of what those risks are. I was always told past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, so if you know there are particularly risk factors that a person presents then you are about to monitor them and keep a log of how a person is getting on, where the potential risks are and that’s far more helpful’.

Professional P9 responded in a similar manner, adding:

‘There are some people who have a long history of past harmful sexual behaviour, you would have to think are very likely to offend, then you can think about restrictions around preventing access to potentially vulnerable groups or prevent behaviour that is going to encourage further offences’.

These responses imply there is a link between predicted risk and the implementation of restrictions. Professionals spoke about how restrictions were important to help the offender manage, particularly when they do not have the necessary skills to manage their behaviour for themselves, taking a more developmental approach to risk management. Professional P22 stated ‘if they are not in a position to be able to manage their inhibition then they [restrictions] need to be imposed upon them’. Professional P10 expanded on this point further by commenting:

‘I suppose because, I’m seeing it from my point of view, as a professional, it makes me feel more safer that I have actually put these restrictions in place so that if that

151

person is not quite ready there are those restrictions just to keep their risks contained while they find their feet. Often those restrictions are put in place when they are first released on licence and then slowly taken away, so I suppose it is whether they have those internal controls to manage risky situations and those restrictions help with that’.

Another professional P20 spoke about how restrictions can be helpful to the individual:

‘I think it is not just from the perspective of public protection but also for their protection, depending on their abilities to respond to their environment, they may miss cues, finding themselves in risky behaviour through their deficits’.

Within this study professionals suggest that restrictions may provide the adolescent with harmful sexual behaviour with a degree of containment and therefore aid the young person from not reoffending. English (1998) highlights the importance of containment through multi-agency working, suggesting that agencies need to collaborate, use specific management tools and have clear procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there is shared accountability and that this will provide containment and support for the offender.

In the discussions about behaviour management, many professionals identify how restrictions are useful to address and respond to deficits the individual with harmful sexual behaviour has with internal control. The process of monitoring restrictions allows the young person the opportunity to develop self-management skills. The responses raise issues about young people potentially not having the skills to manage their behaviour without support, echoing the findings in Chapter 5 on developmental deficits and difficulties. It also raises the question that if the assessments do not cover developmental factors sufficiently enough, as suggested within Chapter 5 and 6, then how can restrictions be implemented that could provide support for these deficits or difficulties?

Professional P11 spoke about restriction being imposed as an acknowledgement of the severity of offending, stating ‘It depends on the nature of the harmful behaviour, you can’t possible say no this person has sexually assaulted a 2 year old but we are not going to put any restrictions on them’. This was supported by Professional P23 who stated:

152 ‘It depends on what those restrictions are, I think it varies. Something like a curfew is made by a court because there is a specific risk about night-time activity, but in some cases it has nothing to do with the offences but is a way of making the order more punitive. Then it is not appropriate in terms of the offending but is for the punitive element’.

This raises questions about the purpose of restrictions, whether they are a response to risk or a statement about risk. While just over half of the professionals interviewed believe that restrictions are important there was variation about why, suggesting that they provide a way to denote the severity of the risk of reoffending, or that they are a way to restrict further offending by using past behaviours to predict potential future areas of risks and help to manage and contain the individual.