a person or thing as having a certain character or certain claims; a disowning, disavowal’.
While this definition is general in character, it captures the essence of denial across all three types; all of them would reject the ‘certain character’ of a sex offender or the threat of sexual danger. The OED (2015) also offers another pertinent definition: ‘Psychoanal. The suppression (usu. at an unconscious level) of a painful or unacceptable wish or of experiences of which one is ashamed. Now also in more general use, esp. in phr. in denial’. This particular focus is relevant to both workers and offenders; it acknowledges psychological ways of coping with difficult and painful experiences through suppressing any recognition of them.
Worker denial
We suggest that worker denial (of abuse, of harm to children, vulnerable adults and to self) may be rooted in both the anticipation and the actuality of direct work. It has two dimensions: cognitive and emotive. Cognitively, some social work assessments may ignore signs of abuse and trauma or reinterpret them. Emotively, denial represents a failure to recognise the emotional impact of the work. Listening to and/or reading graphic descriptions of sexual harms inflicted upon victims, children and adults is an intellectually and emotionally challenging task (see later). Perhaps the most serious consequence of worker denial is that victims may be left in vulnerable situations and offenders and offending may be ignored.
Societal denial
Societal denial of sexual offending is the failure of governments to recognise the extent of sexually harmful behaviours in the wider population and the harmful impacts of such crimes on victims, families and communities. Cohen (2001, p 1) identifies three forms of denial: literal denial (nothing happened), interpretive denial (something happened but it is not what you think) and implicatory denial (what happened was not really bad and can be justified). A common aspect to all three forms is:
people, organisations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information ‘registers’ well enough, but its implications – cognitive, emotional or moral – are evaded, neutralised or rationalised away. (Cohen, 2000, p 1)
In relation to sex crimes, a key aspect of denial is the social construction of the sex offender as the ‘dangerous outsider’. Having neither family nor community, the sex offender and the threat s/he poses represent a denial of the fact that offenders and victims are most likely to know one another and, in many cases, be related to each other. This fact is ‘disturbing’ and ‘threatens’ the sanctity of the family as a place of safety, love and care.
Offender denial
There is a long history in the literature relating to practice1 with sex offenders of considering denial (see Salter, 1988; Briggs et al, 1998). Such has been the central importance given to denial and taking responsibility for offending that it has had a high profile in treatment programmes, both in the US (McGrath et al, 2010) and the UK (Beech and Fisher, 2004). However, recently, its relevance to sex offender treatment has been questioned (Yates, 2009; Ware and Mann, 2012). Nevertheless, while the centrality of denial and responsibility within treatment programmes may be contested, it remains an issue for social workers, who frequently encounter sex offenders outside of formal therapeutic settings.
Reflective exercise: Identifying and analysing minimisations
Ware and Mann (2012, p 281, emphasis added) ‘use the term denial to mean categorical rejection of the conviction, and the term minimization to refer to the common tendency to omit or underplay certain aspects of the offending or its consequences’.
In this exercise, we would like you to reflect on something that you have done that you feel ashamed of.
1. Can you identify ways in which you minimise your responsibility for this action? Write out things that you say to yourself and/or other people.
2. Can you identify ways in which you minimise the consequences of the action? Write out things that you say to yourself and/or other people.
Having written out these phrases, you can begin to identify patterns in what you are saying to yourself or to others (eg blaming others for what you have done [external attributions] or blaming something inside you [internal attributions]).
3. How do these phrases help you to cope with your day-to-day life? (What function do they serve?)
If you have some experience in working with sex offenders, repeat the exercise while thinking of how an offender spoke of his offences.
For social workers, encountering denial and minimisations from a sex offender can be difficult. A key issue is to listen to what is being said and to check that it has been recorded accurately. In this way, the worker dispassionately collects detailed information. These data are particularly important in assessing sex offenders and the risks that they may pose (see Chapter Five). The emotional impacts of listening and recording without challenging must be acknowledged and discussed in supervision, peer support, therapy or in other supportive relationships (see Chapter Seven).
Recognising the emotional impacts of working with sex offenders
The impacts of working with sex offenders may be different in degree, depending on whether the worker is engaging with the offender in relation to his/her offending behaviour, or whether they are in emotionally charged situations where (sexual) abuse is not yet formally identified but may be a strong possibility. However, there are commonalities across the work spectrum.
The literatures in relation to the effects of working directly with sex offenders, engaging in safeguarding social work and, more generally, social work in stressful situations point to the reductive impact of this work. This occurs in three areas: physical resilience, interpersonal abilities to engage positively in human relationships and professional capacities to observe, to interpret and to act. Although they often overlap, we consider them individually.
Physical resilience
Two areas of impact are highlighted: vicarious trauma (VT) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VT is the taking on by the therapist/social worker of the symptoms (of trauma) experienced and described by the person they are working with. People who sexually harm others not only impose trauma on their victims, but, in many cases, have also been victimised themselves, with female offenders having higher rates of victimisation than men (see Ogloff et al, 2012). VT is experienced through a range of bodily symptoms, for example, alterations to workers’ sex lives, headaches and nausea (Leicht, 2008; Pack, 2011; NSPCC, 2013). Symptoms of PTSD include disordered sleep (Ellerby, 1997; Jackson et al, 1997), recurrent and intrusive dreams, an inability to concentrate, fear (experienced somatically through a range of symptoms), and extreme tiredness (Farrenkopf, 1992). While the impacts may be experienced physically, it is more common that they are felt psychologically and emotionally. This directly affects a person’s ability to relate to others, whether in a personal or in a professional capacity.
Interpersonal abilities to engage positively in human relationships
Listening to graphic details of offences and hearing personal histories of abuse and neglect may adversely affect a worker’s wider view of the world and personal relationships, particularly in relation to issues of personal safety, trust,
