Ship of Fools: Content Warning: rehabilitation of people who committed violent or sexual offences

Thread: Content Warning: rehabilitation of people who committed violent or sexual offences Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026397

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

I hope this is filed correctly and not forbidden.

I went to a talk this year at "Greenbelt" about the Rehabilitation of people who committed violent and sexual offences, but there was not time to discuss all of the arguments.

Is it even possible to rehabilitate such people? Is it possible to allow such people to live normally in society, coping with their problems even if they cannot be "cured"? In Florida such people have to live a certain distance from centres of population, leading to certain "colonies" of outcasts a bit like lepers' colonies.

There was a TV programme with Louis Theroux about California apparently people had to carry on living locked up after their sentences were over to prove they had been "cured" and some were willing to be castrated to try to achieve this.

One lady at the meeting said she would never give money to the NSPCC because she said the NSPCC didn't believe it possible to rehabilitate people who committed such offences against children.

I think part of the issue is that feminism treats "rapists" and "rape apologists" using "othering", which is having a convenient yet distant and nebulous enemy to attack without ever getting to know or understand them.

However, one stumbling block to such rehabilitation is that some people who commit such offences tend to rationalize their offences by doing victim blaming or saying it "wasn't really rape" or things like that with varying degrees of tacit or overt support by society.

Also, some people who do such things seem remorseful but seem unable to break out of a cycle of doing such things, it is like an addiction.

Another difficulty with this argument that was not discussed was that some people who commit such offences are just very good at lying. Some might even be "sociopaths" and not care very much about In fact sociopathy in general seems to pose a quite serious challenge to the Christian message that everyone is redeemable and can confess and change their life - are there some people who are so totally selfish that they have no compassion? (Ayn Rand seemed to think it was moral to be completely selfish or something like that? )

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I think one reason why this makes people nervous is that whilst it is unlikely to be impossible to re-habilitation "such people", it is not all that easy to assess the probability.

Are any statistics available? If the probability of reform is fairly low, then the fact that is non-zero is unlikely to bring much re-assurance.

This also raises issues of how the justice system works. If someone has served their time, is their release dependent on then having been re-habilitated? I don't see how it could be given there will be no way to know.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

You might be interested in this site.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
If someone has served their time, is their release dependent on then having been re-habilitated? I don't see how it could be given there will be no way to know.

If someone's release is dependent on them convincing a parole board that they are "safe", then they don't have a specific "time" to serve, they have a life sentence with a minimum tariff of whatever time.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No, I don't believe it's possible to rehabilitate ANYONE. Of anything, ever. If by that we pretend that it's all been dealt with, covered, atoned for, they've ... we've served our time, gone through the twelve step program, payed our debt to society, understood, had the therapy, done the restorative justice and let's pretend it never happened, let's move on. No.

In AA and in all forms of addiction and recovery one acknowledges what one IS. Full transparency. Full confession. Full accountability. Full acceptance. Everything is redeemed. Use it. Every day for the rest of our lives. Prove it.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Sex offenders can be listed at three different levels in my state:

Level 1: The vast majority of registered sex offenders are classified as Level 1 offenders. They are considered at low risk to re-offend. These individuals may be first time offenders and they usually know their victims.

Level 2 offenders have a moderate risk of re-offending. They generally have more than one victim and the abuse may be long term. These offenders usually groom their victims and may use threats to commit their crimes. These crimes may be predatory with the offender using a position of trust to commit their crimes. Typically these individuals do not appreciate the damage they have done to their victims.

Level 3 offenders are considered to have a high risk to re-offend. They usually have one or more victims and may have committed prior crimes of violence. They may not know their victim(s). The crime may show a manifest cruelty to the victim(s) and these offenders usually deny or minimize the crime. These offenders commonly have clear indications of a personality disorder.

In the case of level one offenders they usually can be rehabilitated with on going counseling and probation. I believe after 10 years, if there has been no re-offense, they can petition to have the charge expunged from their record.

Level two offenders basically have slightly more than a 50/50 percent of re-offending. Again, intensive counseling focusing on consequences and cognitive behavioral therapy can help but there is no guarantee of success.

Level three is very unlikely to rehabilitate. They will need continual monitoring and restrictions concerning who they associate with.

I would say about 2/3 of all sex offenders are level one.

Another 30% are level two, with the remainder-5%--level three.

(Yes, I know this does not add up to 100%. I am only talking round figures.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Following on from Raptor Eyes' link, this one is possibly more up to date. Circles UK

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Given that in the UK we tend to let people out of prison eventually, istm that Circles of Support & Accountability is a helpful model for monitoring, prevention and integration(to a lesser extent) people under license. It seems to be a much better system than just letting people out to fend for themselves in a society that shuns them. The worst thing possible for such people is a life of isolation, and Circles provide a regular support structure.(See for example the excellent film The Woodsman starring Kevin Bacon, 2004. Clip here )

In many cases, there is what is known a a 'ladder towards offence' where certain stages are recognisable to the perpetrator and to others (e.g. recurring thoughts, leading to modified activity to heighten the thoughts - could be watching porn or even changing bus routes to go past a school). Circles help to identify the 'ladder' and help the ex-offender to avoid climbing the ladder to the next offence. I know that in some cases the Circle has been so effective that an ex-offender has voluntarily been returned to prison after the ex-offender recognised just how far up the ladder they had ventured, without committing a further offence.

The alternatives are either a lifetime of incarceration, or the real risk of re-offending, neither of which are very attractive.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

In the Church of England, there are specific structures in place to enable churches to care for sex offenders within the congregation while also protecting vulnerable children and adults.

It would be normal for someone on the sex offenders' register to have a recognised "support group" to whom they were expected to be accountable, and who would monitor the ways in which they were involved in the life of the church. The support group would maintain a written contract between the offender and the church leadership specifying (for example with a paedophile) that they always had to sit with a member of the group, couldn't volunteer for church activities involving contact with children or visit a house where there were children resident, but providing space for them to participate in the life of the church as normally as possible.

It would also be normal for most of the congregation to know nothing about this unless the offender wished to make it public.

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :

Do you know what the talk at Greenbelt was called/titled or who is was by?

I went to one by Sara Kewly Hyde, which sounds a little bit different, however seemed to have missed this one you refer too.

Would like to try and find it online to download.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0