Actuarial approaches use risk factors that have been consistently identified in a wide range of research studies of convicted sex offenders. Typically, these factors are previous offences, relationship history and criminality (Beech and Ward, 2004, p 32), and are described as being static (ie they are not amenable to change). Clinical approaches rely on the judgement of the clinician dealing with the individual person who may pose a risk to others. The clinician’s assessment may or may not be based on research literature, but generally includes consideration of the dynamic factors (eg mood, attitudes, physical circumstances – including the availability of victims) affecting the individual under assessment. The actuarial tendency in assessing sex offender risk is strong (Beech and Ward, 2004, p 33) and the research literature continues to indicate that a pure actuarial approach is more accurate in predicting reoffending (Bengtson and Långström, 2007). However, Beech and Ward (2004, p 32) summarise a range of weaknesses with a pure actuarial approach (including its inability to deal with the unusual and contingent dynamic factors, and its dependence on official recidivism data that may underestimate recidivism rates and therefore levels of risk). Recently, Ward and Beech (2015) have critiqued the concept of ‘dynamic risk factors’ as being inadequately theorised and potentially leading clinical practice and research into a cul-de-sac. They argue that the concept needs clearer definition, and that descriptive and explanatory components need to be clearly distinguished. They propose a way forward of developing ‘exemplars’ of sex offending that first describe the phenomenon, and then seek to explain it. This work is in the early stage of development but looks promising as a way of further clarifying psychological approaches to assessing risk.
The third area of theory highlighted by Ward and Hudson (1998) concerns ‘micro-’issues. Two particular areas are given as examples of micro-issues: relapse prevention (RP) and ‘grooming’. Much has been written over many years about relapse prevention (eg Pithers, 1990; Ward, 2000; see also p 131 below). The notion of ‘relapse’ was derived and developed from addiction theory (Marlatt, 1985), which identified and named the stages of ‘relapse’. In relation to sex offending, the model was slightly adapted, but it was very popular from the mid-1980s through to the mid-2000s. RP modules featured in both community and prison programmes. The model has come in for serious criticism from Ward (2000), who proposed an alternative ‘self-regulation’ model of relapse. Understanding the minutiae of reoffending remains an important research target and treatment component, although the pure RP model is increasingly considered to be unsuitable for use with sex offenders (Laws, 2003; Yates et al, 2010). More recently, consideration of the ‘pathways’ to offending model has led to the development of more sophisticated conceptualising of the processes leading to offending behaviour (see pp 132–3 below). Kingston and Yates (2012) and Ward and colleagues (2006), among others, have developed the ‘self-regulation’ model of sexual offending, within which are identified four offence pathways, all of which have implications for intervention(s). The model is conceptually linked with the Good Lives therapeutic model, which is discussed later in the book.
The word ‘grooming’, referring to how a sex offender prepares both potential victims and the environment where s/he intends to offend, has entered the popular vocabulary through media reportage, and (in the UK) through the Sex Offenders Act 2003, which created a specific offence of ‘Grooming’. Olson et al (2007, p 241) describe grooming as ‘the subtle communication strategies that child sexual abusers use to prepare their potential victims to accept sexual contact’. This involves both controlling the victim by concealing the threat posed, and manipulating the environment to ensure that the offence will occur without disturbance. Campbell (2009) presents a clear account of the processes of grooming. She highlights that grooming involves ‘strategies to present a specific image in an interpersonal relationship through the use of language that indicates the sender’s “persona” to the receiver’ (Campbell, 2009, p 432). Campbell (2009, p 434) identifies five particular grooming strategies employed by offenders: supplication (presenting a helpless public persona): intimidation (presenting a powerful or harmful persona): self-promotion (presenting as competent): ingratiation (presenting likeable or affiliative behaviours); and exemplification (presenting a self that is worthy – demonstrating high moral values). Research focusing on the minutiae of the process of offending or grooming strategies enables practitioners to be more aware of the complexities of offending behaviour and more able to interpret seemingly ‘innocent’ behaviours in the context of sexual offending.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
