offences is a ‘sex offender’, so named because they have been convicted of the offence in a criminal court. However, many people sexually harm others without their actions being reported and the offender being convicted; in such cases, the harmful person is known as the ‘perpetrator’. Social workers work with both offenders and perpetrators. In some cases, a person accused of a sexual offence may be innocent and yet be convicted; unless the conviction is overturned by a court, this person remains (technically) an ‘offender’. The word ‘offender’ is, however, problematic for (at least) two reasons: it dehumanises the person referred to and it describes her/him solely in terms of their past actions. Yet, completely avoiding the use of the word ‘offender’ in this book is stylistically problematic. We use the term consciously, recognising its shortcomings. Throughout the book, we also use other phrases, as we have done in this introduction, to dilute the impact of the ‘offender’ word.
Naming the person harmed by sex offences
When referring to the person harmed by sex offences, we use the words ‘victim’ and ‘victim-survivor’. We are aware that the former term is resisted or rejected by many people who have experienced sexual harm. Many prefer the term ‘survivor’ or ‘thriver’, or, indeed, choose not to name themselves in relation to the sexual harm they have experienced. However, for the purposes of this book, it is important that we identify the person that is harmed as a victim. Many offenders deny that there is a victim involved in their actions, and potentially this denial may be inadvertently adopted by social workers.
Naming acts of sexual harm
We use a variety of terms to name acts of sexual harm, including ‘sexual violence’; we take the view that whether an offence involves physical contact or not, it is violating, and can thus be regarded as being sexually violent. We do not engage in the semantic niceties of ‘How violent is violent?’ A victim’s personal experience of violation/violence is not personally comparable with any other violence; to make such comparison fails to understand the harm experienced by individual victims. We also use the terms ‘sexual coercion’ and ‘sexual harm’.
Social worker identities
When we refer to ‘social workers’, we do not assume a homogeneous identity, common type of work placement or qualified status. We recognise that workers have a range of intersecting identities, for example, gender, ethnicity, class, age, sexuality, (dis)ability and faith. These will variously affect how they engage in social work. We ask readers not to make assumptions as to the identities of social workers in the case studies and the practice-based learning exercises, but to consider the exercises firstly from their own identifications and then secondly from other positions.
Author identities
While we recognise the potential diversity of our readership, it is appropriate to say something about ourselves as authors of this book. We are white men who qualified to practice as social workers. Malcolm worked with sex offenders as a probation officer for 12 years and then managed a therapy unit for young victim-survivors of sex crimes before becoming a university academic. Much of his teaching and research has focused on issues related to sex offenders, identities (including masculinities and ethnicities) and diversity. Steve worked with children and young people with sexually harmful behaviours as a social worker in both statutory and voluntary agencies for seven years before also becoming a university academic. His teaching and research has been about working with difficult behaviours and developing creative ways of doing this. Our identities, work experience and education influence how we respond, as erstwhile practitioners and academics, to people who sexually harm others. As such, we recognise the importance of critical reflection to ensure that we are aware of the complexities of practice in this area.
The influence of the news media: seeing through the folk devil and the moral panic
Popular responses towards sex offenders ignore their humanity and are generated and sustained by ‘common-sense’ aspects of most cultures. In most societies, the sex offender is a pariah, a social outcast. Social workers may take on many of these attitudes without giving them critical scrutiny. These attitudes are not a sound basis for professional social work. The first reflective exercise helps readers explore and understand how they feel and what they think about sex offenders.
Reflective exercise: What do you know about sex offenders, victims and sex crimes?
This exercise is designed to help you identify what you know and what you feel about all parties involved in sex crimes. It does not need any prior preparation, but it does require you to answer the questions quickly and honestly. Use a blank piece of paper.
1. Using all types of language to capture how you feel about sex offenders and what you know about them, complete this sentence as many times as you can in 60 seconds: ‘Sex offenders are …’
2. Using all types of language to capture how you feel about victims of sex offenders and what you know about them, complete this sentence as many times as you can in 60 seconds: ‘Victims of sex offenders are …’
3. Using whatever language seems to be appropriate to capture how you feel and what you know about sex violence, complete this sentence as many times as you can in 60 seconds: ‘Sexual violence is …’
4. Where do you find information about sex offenders?
We will return to this piece of work later in the book, when we will ask you to begin to analyse your attitudes and knowledge.
Most people start to develop an understanding of sex crimes and sex offenders from the media (social media, newspapers and television). However, this may be problematic because of how the media, predominantly, represent these issues. Willis et al (2010, p 551), in their study of how public attitudes help or hinder sex offenders refrain from offending, note that the less aware people were of relevant issues, the more likely they were to subscribe to stereotypical beliefs disseminated by news media. In a US study of the attitudes and beliefs of lawmakers, Sample and Kadleck (2008) found that US politicians’ main source of information about sex crimes was the media. Clearly, the news media is both powerful and influential, and requires further consideration.
Since 1991, when Soothill and Walby published Sex Crime in the News, there has been regular academic interest in how sex crimes are reported in the media (Jenkins, 1998; Kitzinger, 1999, 2004; Cowburn and Dominelli, 2001; Critcher, 2002, 2003; Silverman and Wilson, 2002; Greer, 2003; Jewkes, 2011). A common theme in these studies is how the use of stereotypical images, whether the ‘rapist’ of the 1980s or, more recently, the ‘paedophile’, obscures considered discussion of sexual harm and how to reduce it. Academic critique of media representations can be understood through what Garland (2008) calls the ‘study of social reaction’. A key contribution to this considers ‘Folk devils and moral panics’. The concepts ‘folk devil’ and ‘moral panic’ were first coined and brought together by Stan Cohen in 1972. A ‘folk devil’ is ‘A condition, episode, person or group of persons [that] … become defined as a threat to societal values and interests’ (Cohen, 1972, p 9).
A key phrase here is ‘societal values and interests’; Rohloff et al (2013, p 8) point to ‘the deployment of morality to obfuscate dominant ideological interests; to act as a veil over the workings of power’. Society is not homogeneous, but the social construction of the ‘folk devil’ is part of the ‘veil’. The ‘folk devil’ is construed as ‘other’, as apart from and a threat to respectable (middle-class) society. A recent edited collection (Cree et al, 2015a) following an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2012) seminar series identifies a range of folk devils. Here, we select
