The Use of 'Shame' with Sexual Offenders

This article explores the use of shaming mechanisms with sexual offenders, particularly those who offend against children. Shaming, a central concept in the broader theory of restorative justice, may be of two varieties. The first, ‘disintegrative shaming’, characterises the traditional retributive framework of justice and is evident in recent state led and popular responses to the risk posed by released sexual offenders. Far from ensuring offender integration, the net result is often labelling, stigmatisation, ostracism and a return to offending behaviour. The second, ‘reintegrative shaming’, affirms the offender’s membership within law abiding society. This has been used in several jurisdictions as the basis of restorative support and treatment networks for sexual offenders where the community works in partnership with state and voluntary agencies. Contrary to arguments put forward by critics of restorative justice, this article argues that such cases may be particularly suitable for a restorative approach.

''Setting 'Em Up'': Personal, Familial and Institutional Grooming in the Sexual Abuse of Children

The term ‘grooming’ has been used to describe the offender’s actions during the preparatory stage of sexual abuse. This paper will argue that current discourses on grooming have created ambiguities and misunderstandings about child sexual abuse. In particular, the popular focus on ‘stranger danger’ belies the fact that the majority of children are abused by someone well known to them, where grooming can also occur. Current discourses also neglect other important facets of the sex offending pattern. They fail to consider that offenders may groom not only the child but also their family and even the local community who may act as the gatekeepers of access. They also ignore what can be termed ‘institutional grooming’ – that sex offenders may groom criminal justice and other institutions into believing that they present no risk to children. A key variable in the grooming process is the creation and subsequent abuse of trust. Given that the criminal law may be somewhat limited in its response to this type of behaviour, ultimately concerted efforts must be made to foster social and organisational awareness of such processes in order to reduce the offender’s opportunity for abuse.

Indeterminate Sentences for the Severely Personality Disordered

In line with recent incapacitative efforts aimed at dealing with dangerous people in the community, the Government has proposed a new indeterminate sentence to deal with the current gap in the law which exists in relation to dangerous individuals with untreatable severe personality disorders. However, these new measures have serious civil liberty implications and are largely unworkable in practice. It is suggested that rather than introducing these new powers it would be better to consider amending deficiencies which exist in the criminal justice and mental health systems in respect of the management of violent and sexual offenders.

Restorative Justice as a Response to Sexual Offending – Addressing the Failings of Current Punitive Approaches

This article explores the use of restorative justice as a response to sexual crime. The management of high risk sex offenders, particularly in the community post-release, has been a key focus of contemporary popular and political debates on sexual offending. Many offenders fail to come to the attention of the criminal justice system. For those that do, there is the almost blanket application of recent control in the community measures such as sex offender registries and community notification which have failed to prevent reoffending. The response by the media and the public to the presence of sex offenders in the community may also impede offender rehabilitation. The use of punishment alone via formal criminal justice is, therefore, an inadequate deterrent for sexual crimes. Although controversial, this article advocates the use of restorative practices with sexual crime as a proactive, holistic response to the problem and ultimately as a more effective means of reducing the incidence of sexual offences and sex offender recidivism.

Interviewing children with acquired brain injury (ABI).

Research into the lives of children with acquired brain injury (ABI) often neglects to incorporate children as participants, preferring to obtain the opinions of the adult carer (e.g. McKinlay et al., 2002). There has been a concerted attempt to move away from this position by those working in children’s research with current etiquette highlighting the inclusion of children and the use of a child-friendly methodology (Chappell, 2000). Children with disabilities can represent a challenge to the qualitative researcher due to the combination of maintaining the child’s attention and the demands placed on them by their disability. The focus of this article is to discuss possible impediments to interviewing children with acquired brain injury (ABI) and provide an insight into how the qualitative researcher may address these.

Vetting Sexual Offenders: State Over-extension, the Punishment Deficit and the Failure to Manage Risk

This article examines the state regulation of sexual offenders in the particular context of pre-employment vetting. A successive range of statutory frameworks have been put in place, culminating in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, to prevent unsuitable individuals from working with the vulnerable, and children in particular. Contemporary legislative and policy developments are set against a backdrop of broader concerns in the area of crime and justice, namely risk regulation, preventative governance and ‘precautionary logic.’ Proponents of these approaches have largely ignored concerns over their feasibility. This article specifically addresses this fissure within the specific field of vetting. It is argued that ‘hyper innovation’ and state over-extension in this area are particularly problematic and have resulted in exceptionally uncertain and unsafe policies. These difficulties relate principally to unrealistic public expectations about the state’s ability to control crime; unintended and ambiguous policy effects; and ultimately the failure of the state to deliver on its self-imposed regulatory mandate to effectively manage risk.