Child sexual abuse and various state institutions’ failures to prevent such abuse have been subject to heightened public interest in recent times. If the ensuing calls for a comprehensive reassessment of our ability to best protect children are to be met, this process of critical scrutiny should include asking uncomfortable questions about the response that convicted sexual offenders receive in the community. This is a matter in which the probation services are well placed to make a contribution.
BrownKSpencerJDeakinJ (2007) The reintegration of sexual offenders: Barriers and opportunities for employment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice46(1): 32–42.
2.
Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2010) Restriction and Rehabilitation: Getting the Right Mix. An Inspection of the Management of Sexual Offenders in the Community. London: HM Probation and HMI Constabulary.
3.
McAlindenA-M (2006) Managing risk: from regulation to the reintegration of sexual offenders. Criminology and Criminal Justice6(2): 197–218.
4.
McAlindenA-M (2009) Employment Opportunities and Community Re-integration of Sex Offenders in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Northern Ireland Office.
5.
McAlindenA-M (2010) Vetting sexual offenders: State over-extension, the punishment deficit and the failure to manage risk. Social and Legal Studies19(1): 25–48.
6.
MillsHGrimshawR (2012) A life sentence really? The resettlement of ex-prisoners with a conviction for a sexual offence and the role of a housing support charity in the process. Report, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, UK, March. Available at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/life-sentence-really
7.
WeaverB (2014) Control or change? Developing dialogues between desistance research and public protection practices. Probation Journal61(1): 8–26.
