Having outlined how sex offenders are socially perceived, the history of how sex offenders have been clinically perceived will now be explored. Both sets of perceptions can be seen to inform the supervisory relationship between sex offenders and probation officers, the subject area of this research.
The religious and psychoanalytical models
Bancroft (1974) argues that before the mid-nineteenth century, sexual deviance was considered a sin and the province of theologians rather than medical or psychological practitioners. However, from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, medical perspectives on sexual deviance became increasingly entangled with religious ones. Laws and Marshall (2003), providing a useful historical account of treatment approaches, illustrate how early attempts to treat sex offenders were informed by Freudian, psychoanalytical thinking, with Freud (1905) recording the first sessions with victims of sexual abuse. Calder (1999, p.21) provides a summary of Freud’s theory, explaining that Freud “viewed paedophilia as a form of neurosis, a regression to infantile sexuality or to a phallic stage of development, which results in unresolved Oedipal conflicts.” However, having provided the first psychological theory of sexual abuse, Freud then dismissed the reality of it, citing accounts of sexual abuse as figments of his women patients’
hysterical fantasies. Gonsiorek et al. (1994) point out that this historical refutation had significant consequences, as Freud’s theory of the unconscious has arguably been the most powerful theoretical structure in Western mental
health. Russell (1986) builds on this point, citing Freud’s refutation of sexual abuse, along with the famous Kinsey Reports (1948, 1953), which later also questioned the seriousness of widespread sexual abuse, as contributing reasons why sexual abuse did not emerge as a significant social problem until the 1970s and 1980s.
Hurding (1991) comments on the rise of secular professionalism in the UK in the twentieth century, and thus how the viewing of human dysfunction, including sexual abuse, in terms of sin was no longer generally seen as an acceptable, rational option. The psychoanalytical approach to working with sex offenders has also largely lost favour, at least in the statutory sector. For instance, Wootten (1959) criticised social workers generally for claiming professional status through an uncritical use of psychoanalysis, and claiming mystical powers of effectiveness. Woods (2003, p.27), writing as a psychoanalytical therapist, states that the image of psychoanalytical therapy with sex offenders has also been
“tarnished by a reputation for lengthy treatments providing little improvement, and of psychoanalysts arguing the main aim is ‘not to alter or control behaviour, but to understand it’.” Thus agencies with the task of managing risk, such as the Probation Service, have turned away from psychoanalytic theory.
Psychoanalytical and psychodynamic approaches were also seen as arcane and ineffective (Gendreau, 1996). Moreover, psychoanalytic approaches were seen to neglect important risk domains such as deficits in self-esteem, emotional management and social skills, which were incorporated into later
cognitive-behavioural treatment initiatives with sex offenders (Marshall and Williams, 1975). The psychoanalytical approach was also seen to neglect the power and control issues involved in sexual abuse, issues largely brought to the fore by the feminist contribution to the field (Calder, 1999).
The medical model
Houston et al. (1994) illustrate how until the 1980s, when probation officers, in particular, began working with sex offenders, it was practitioners from the medical and psychological professions who undertook forensic work with sex offenders in the UK. Before the emergence of sexual abuse as a major social concern, sexual offenders were seen as a minority group who were mentally ill or biologically dysfunctional. There are numerous theories of biological causes of sexual deviance such as hormonal and brain function (Emory et al., 1992).
However, there are various criticisms of the medical approach. Emory et al.
(1992) point out that although drugs can lower sexual drive and invasive treatments such as castration and brain surgery can also limit deviant sexual interests, permanently, damage caused to the individual means that these treatments are generally deemed unethical. As with the psychoanalytical approach described above, the medical approach also fails to address power and control issues, and deficits in emotional and social functioning. Jenkins (1990) also points out that biological explanations can act as excuses for sex offenders to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions, claiming lack of control
over innate and irresistible urges, allowing the offender to shift responsibility for his offences onto professionals trying to find an elusive cure.
The behavioural model
Laws and Marshall (2003) outline how behavioural techniques (Skinner, 1938;
Watson, 1913), relying upon positive and negative reinforcement, have historically been used with sex offenders. This has mainly taken the form of deviant fantasy/masturbatory reduction and management techniques. For example, negative reinforcement involves pairing deviant fantasy/masturbation with unpleasant experiences (i.e. shame, boredom, unpleasant smells, low levels of pain), whilst positive reinforcement involves pairing non-deviant fantasy/masturbation with pleasant experiences.
However, Brown (2005) points out that, in practice, behavioural approaches with sex offenders have never been a significant part of treating sex offenders in the British criminal justice system. There is also little evidence that behavioural change in arousal patterns translates to long-term behavioural changes (Quinsey and Earls, 1990; Laws and Marshall, 1993). Also, as with the criticism of the psychoanalytical and medical approaches described above, behavioural approaches to sex offending can be seen as having neglected deficits in emotional management and social functioning skills, as well as power and control issues, until behavioural treatment courses began to morph into cognitive- behavioural treatment programmes (Marshall and Williams, 1975).
The family therapy model
The family therapy approach to sexual offending is, in part, based on systems theory, where sexual abuse is seen as the product of systematic familial and societal dysfunction (Bentovim, 1966). This systemic approach is also heavily influenced by child developmental theorists such as Winnicott (1956, 1958), taking a psychodynamic view of sexual abuse. Woods (2003, p.22) explains how, within this child development perspective, sexual abuse is conceptualised as individuals regressing to an infantile state in which “eroticism, desire, instant gratification and violence” become a dysfunctional response to distress and conflict. Bowlby’s attachment theory (1969) has also been, and remains, influential in the treatment and management of sexual offenders. For instance, Hanson and Bussiere (1998) found that attachment problems, particularly with mothers, were consistent with difficulties in forming stable adult relationships with age-appropriate adults, and also of sexual offending. Marshall et al. (1993) found that poor attachments can also lead to a lack of empathy, and a tendency to sexually objectify others.
The family therapy model of treating domestic abuse has been strongly criticised by feminist theorists (Bograd, 1984; McIntyre, 1984). Although Bograd and McIntyre are predominantly discussing domestic violence, the same criticisms of family therapy have been made with regard to sexual abuse (Calder, 1999). The criticism focuses upon the interactional explanations of sexual abuse put forward
by family therapists. From a feminist perspective, such theories dilute the central problematic issue of patriarchy, whereby men are seen to be socialised into having an elevated sense of entitlement, in relation to women and children, including an entitlement to sexual gratification, legal or otherwise. Jenkins (1990) also makes the point that professionals can also be in danger of colluding with male offenders, shifting responsibility for sexual offending onto perceived difficulties with other family members.
The feminist model
Calder (1999) states how the feminist movement, more than any other, has been effective in illustrating that most sex offences are committed by men known to children in close family and extended family and friendship networks. This tradition can be traced back to the pioneering work of Russell (1986), cited above. MacLeod and Saraga (1988) argue that before the feminist perspective raised awareness of the power and control factors of sexual abuse, the main focus had been on victims of sexual abuse rather than on perpetrators, with sexual abuse tending to be seen (as outlined above) as a psychological problem, often originating from an individual’s perceived dysfunctional past. However, feminist commentators such as MacLeod and Saraga (1988) and Herman and Hirschman (1977) posit that sexual abuse should be seen in terms of power, as part of a patriarchal continuum of male violence against women and children.
This radical feminist approach espouses the view that sexual abuse is not a
problem of psychology or relationships but of social constructions of masculinity and the abuse of power by males.
Despite the significant impact of feminist thought on practising probation officers, Featherstone and Fawcett (1995) chart how postmodern, poststructuralist perspectives, sceptical of universal theories, have challenged the radical feminist notion of fixed power relations, encouraging multifactorial explanations of sex offending, which are described below. Lancaster and Lumb (1999) found that, among probation officers, even those largely in sympathy with a patriarchal perspective on sex offending, most believed that a sociological feminist approach to sex offending, whilst relevant, does not provide a sufficient explanation and treatment paradigm. Similarly, Featherstone et al. (2007) argue that men who perpetrate domestic violence and sexual abuse are not a homogenous group, but occupy a range of masculinities and gender relations, and that there is a need for a variety of approaches and interventions to help them stop their abuse.
Multifactorial models
The various psychological and sociological theories of sex offending have gradually evolved and been adapted into multifactorial models of sexual offending. In this study, I interview men who have committed sexual offences against children, men who have committed sexual offences against adult women and men who have committed Internet offences. The theories described below are mainly relevant to individuals who sexually abuse children, although they can
also be relevant, to varying extents, to all sexual offenders. However, theories relating to sexual offences against women and internet offences, will be discussed in separate sections below.
Probation work with sexual offenders in the UK has been significantly influenced by North American multifactorial theories. Particularly influential was (and remains) Finkelhor’s four preconditions for child sexual abuse (1984). Ward and Sorbello (2003) argue that this was one of the first comprehensive theories of sexual abuse. According to Finkelhor’s theory, there are four stages involved in a sexual offence. 1. A sex offender must be ‘motivated’ to offend (i.e. be sexually or emotionally attracted to children). 2. A sex offender must ‘overcome internal inhibitions’ (i.e. bypass internalised social norms and taboos against sex with children). 3. A sex offender must ‘overcome external inhibitions’ (i.e. remove the child from the protection of others). 4. A sex offender must overcome the victim’s resistance (i.e. persuade the child to have sex by bribes or intimidation).
Finkelhor posits that an offender must go through all four stages in order for a sexual offence to take place, and it is the function of treatment and risk management to interrupt or prevent the offender going through the stages in order to prevent a further sexual offence. Other influential multifactorial theories include Wolfs (1984) influential Cycle of Offending which, similarly to Finkelhor’s theory, describes a sexual offence as a cyclic process, involving various contributory emotions, thoughts and behaviour, phases and choices. However, Wolf breaks down the offence process into a greater number of discrete stages
than Finkelhor does in his model. Warwick (1991) and Fisher (1994) point out how the cyclic theories of Finkelhor and Wolf have had a profound effect on practitioners working with sex offenders in the UK, including probation officers.
Subsequent criminological theories of sexual offending have become increasingly sophisticated. Notable theories include Marshall and Barbaree’s (1990) Integrated Theory, and Hall and Hirshman’s (1992) Quadripartite Theory of Sexual Offending. Both theories describe, in different ways, sexual offending in terms of a developmental process, involving the interaction of dysfunctional historical and current circumstances, behaviour, thoughts and emotions.
A more recent multifactorial theory is the Pathway Theory of sexual offending (Ward et al., 2004). Unlike the above theories, the pathway model allows for four different routes to the committing of a sexual offence. In recent years, trait theory has also become more influential in how practitioners view sex offenders. Ward and Keenan (1999) suggest that individuals brought up in dysfunctional circumstances can develop faulty underlying traits which formulate character i.e.
'implicit theories' or 'schema' about the world, relationships and sex, resulting in distorted thinking.
The above theories are ostensibly related to sexual offences against children.
However, there is some crossover with regard to rapist and internet offenders, with many of the dysfunctions described in child sex offender lives being seen in the lives of individuals who commit sexual crimes against adults and through the
internet. Ward et al. (2004), for instance, posit that it is possible to categorise both child abusers and adult rapists according to the pathway model of sexual offending. Issues of anger and power tend to particularly characterise the crime of adult rape, issues which are not so apparent in the lives of some child abusers and Internet offenders, some of whom tend toward social diffidence rather than aggressive, anti-social behaviour (Ward and Stewart, 2003). With regard to rapists specifically, Groth et al. (1977) posit power and anger as characterising the crime of rape, describing four types of motivation: 1. Power and dominance, 2. Power and reassurance, 3. Anger and excitement, 4. Anger and retaliation.
Prentky and Knight (1985) also described four types of rapist: 1. Compensating, 2. Impulsive, 3. Angry, 4. Aggressive/Sexual. There is significant overlap between the above theories, with different language used to describe similar phenomena and, as with child sexual abuse, classification fails to capture the heterogeneity of rapists and the diverse situations in which rape takes place (Fisher and Beech, 2004).
The research on internet offending is in its infancy, due to the relative newness of the crime. However, Middleton et al. (2006) describe two identifiable groups of internet offenders. The first they termed the ‘predisposed group.’ These were individuals who had pre-existing distorted attitudes about sex and children, had a sexual interest in children, tended to be impulsive, had self-management problems and their goal was likely to be a ‘hands on’ offence. Middleton et al.
(2006) termed the second category of internet offenders, the ‘emotionally
avoidant’ group. These people had low self-esteem, poor coping or intimacy skills and difficulty regulating their emotional state. For this group, use of the internet leads to habituation, disinhibition, emotional dependency, arousal and reinforcement, potentially leading to abuse in the real world.
Mark (1992) outlines how much probation practice in the 1980s and 1990s involved structured confrontational interviews, which pressurised the offender to describe the sexual offence in detail, and in terms of the various models and theories put forward above with regard to sexual abuse, particularly Finkelhor’s and W olfs influential models. Offenders’ accounts of sexual offences were then systematically questioned, with the cognitive distortions and minimisations pointed out, in order to challenge the perceived denial and rationalisations thought to be commonly used by sex offenders. Once denial and cognitive distortions were broken down, the offenders would then be asked to reconstruct their offending in terms of Finkelhor’s and W olfs offence cycles. Finally, the worker would assist the offender to construct a relapse prevention plan, focusing upon managing emotional, cognitive and behavioural triggers of offending (Pithers, 1990).
Sheath (1990) critiqued the effectiveness of the confrontational element in such an approach to working with sex offenders.
The attractions of overtly confrontational interviews, especially for male workers, are manifold and probably explain why the approach had gained in popularity so quickly. Given the often repellent nature of sexual
offenders, the gut reaction of most male officers is to want to kick their teeth in (p. 159.)
Moreover, as will be more fully explained in the next chapter, with the use of motivational interviewing with sex offenders, and the more recent development of the strengths-based Good Lives Model, using confrontation to pressurise sex offenders to view their offending in the light of the theories of Finkelhor and others, has gradually lost favour. However, it is still routine practice for workers to explain the theories of Finkelhor and Wolf to sex offenders in a non- confrontational way, in order to raise awareness of risk triggers (Brown, 2005).
There have been criticisms of the various models of sexual offending, generally attacking the limited way in which the respective models account for the complexity of sexual abuse. For instance, Beech and Ward (2003) argue that Finkelhor’s (1984) model lacks cohesion and consistency, utilising a mixture of theories and constructs from diverse traditions: psychoanalytic, attribution, and learning theories. They argue that both single factors and a combination of factors are theorised by Finkelhor as leading to sexual offending, and no explanation is provided as to why the specific psychological and sociological problems identified should result in a sexual offence, as opposed to any other dysfunctional behaviour. According to Beech and Ward (2003), the sheer wide- ranging nature of the model renders it difficult to test for validity. Similar criticisms are made by Beech and Ward (2003) against Hall and Hirschman’s (1992) multi- causal theory of sexual offending. The theory is criticised by Beech and Ward as
failing to discriminate between deep-lying psychological schema, and more surface distorted thinking. With regard to Marshall and Barbaree’s (1990) model, Beech and Ward (2003) argue that the model, linking developmental difficulties with dysfunctional cognitions and poor emotional management, is too general to take into account the specific factors of why individuals sexually offend. Beech and Ward (2003) argue that many sex offenders, who deliberately groom children, actually show good emotional management resulting in “immaculate planning,” (p. 8), not the lack of emotional management outlined in the theories above. As stated above, building upon these various theories, Ward et al. (2004, p.38) propose a more (in their view) comprehensive and less deterministic model of sexual offending, involving four different pathways, which can lead to a sexual offence. Below is a summarised model of the pathway.
1. The Avoidant-Passive Pathway is characterised by individuals who have a general desire to avoid sexual offending, but lack the coping skills to prevent it.
2. The Avoidant-Active Pathway is also where individuals want to avoid offending, but choose inappropriate coping skills to do so.
3. The Approach-Automatic Pathway refers to an individual who will not go looking for opportunities to sexually offend, but if one presents itself they will impulsively sexually offend, motivated by underlying faulty beliefs about the world.
4. The Approach-Explicit Pathway refers to fixated sexual offenders, who want to offend, often have no particular self management problems, but deliberately apply their often considerable resources to the pursuit of sexual offending.
A more radical criticism of psychological models of human dysfunction is made by strengths-based proponents from the narrative therapy and solution-focused traditions (Epston, 1998; de Jong and Berg, 2002). As will be more fully explained in the next chapter (Section 3.6 and 3.7), such criticism stems from a relativist, social-constructionist perspective, which questions the capacity of psychological models, seen as based on the medical paradigm of assessment, diagnosis and treatment, to capture the complexity of any one person’s relational experience. In the same vein, Parton et al. (1997, p. 67) point out that definitions and explanations of child abuse are more a matter of “moral reasoning and judgment” rather than a “medico-scientific reality.” Coming from a strengths- based perspective, Milner and O’Byrne (2002) argue that Finkelhor’s theory is based on the notion of an individual having various deficits, leading to an abuse of power. The same can arguably be said of the other theories discussed above.
A more radical criticism of psychological models of human dysfunction is made by strengths-based proponents from the narrative therapy and solution-focused traditions (Epston, 1998; de Jong and Berg, 2002). As will be more fully explained in the next chapter (Section 3.6 and 3.7), such criticism stems from a relativist, social-constructionist perspective, which questions the capacity of psychological models, seen as based on the medical paradigm of assessment, diagnosis and treatment, to capture the complexity of any one person’s relational experience. In the same vein, Parton et al. (1997, p. 67) point out that definitions and explanations of child abuse are more a matter of “moral reasoning and judgment” rather than a “medico-scientific reality.” Coming from a strengths- based perspective, Milner and O’Byrne (2002) argue that Finkelhor’s theory is based on the notion of an individual having various deficits, leading to an abuse of power. The same can arguably be said of the other theories discussed above.