Although the notion of providing specialized treatment to sex offenders has been widely, and at times enthusiastically, embraced by lawmakers and criminal justice professionals, the larger criminal justice system often maintains and fosters policies and mandates that act as disincentives for offenders to seek out or participate meaningfully in specialized sex offender treatment. This article employs the therapeutic jurisprudence perspective in examining many of the issues and problems associated with adjudicating and treating sex offenders and presents a “treatment track” or deferred sentencing model, which while primarily focusing on offender adjudication, prioritizes the therapeutic needs of offenders and emphasizes the interrelated nature of various criminal justice system components associated with sex offender cases and each component’s potential therapeutic impact on the others.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berliner, L., Schram, D., Miller, L.,& Milloy, C. (1995). Asentencing alternative for sex offenders: A study of decision making and recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 487-502.
2.
Brown, J. M., Langan, P. A.,& Levin, D. J. (1999). Felony sentences in state courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
3.
Edwards, W.,& Hensley, C. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: The problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 83-101.
4.
Furby, L., Weinrott, M. R.,& Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: Areview. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 3-30.
5.
Greenfeld, L. A. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
6.
Hall, G. C. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809.
7.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M.,& Quinsey, V. (1998). Appraisal and management of risk in sexual aggressors: Implications for criminal justice policy. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 4(1/2), 73-115.
8.
Heilbrun, K., Nezu, C., Keeney, M., Chung, S., & Wasserman, A. (1998). Sexual offending: Linking assessment, intervention, and decision-making. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 4(1/2), 138-174.
9.
Henham, R. (1998). Sentencing sex offenders: Some implications of recent criminal justice policy. The Howard Journal, 37(1), 70-81.
10.
Jamrozik, A., & Nocella, L. (1998). The sociology of social problems: The theoretical perspectives and methods of intervention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Kane, J.R.J. (1996). Asentencing model for the 21st century. In D. Wexler& B. Winick (Eds.), Law in a therapeutic key(pp. 203-212). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
12.
Kear-Colwell, J., & Pollock, P. (1997). Motivation or confrontation: Which approach to the child sex offender? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 20-33.
13.
Klotz, J. (1996). Sex offenders and the law: Newdirections. In D. Wexler& B. Winick (Eds.), Law in a therapeutic key(pp. 131-143). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
14.
Klotz, J., Wexler, D. B., Sales, B., & Becker, J. (1992). Cognitive restructuring through law: A therapeutic jurisprudence approach to sex offenders and the plea process. Puget Sound Law Review, 15, 579-595.
15.
Lotke, E. (1996). Sex offenders: Does treatment work?Washington, DC: National Center on Institutions and Alternatives.
16.
Marques, J. K., & Day, D. M. (1998). Sex offender treatment and evaluation project: Progress report. Unpublished manuscript.
17.
Marques, J. K., Day, D. M., Nelson, C., & West, M. A. (1994). Effects of cognitive-behavioral treatment on sex offender recidivism: Preliminary results on a longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 28-54.
18.
Marques, J. K., Nelson, C., Alarcon, J., & Day, D. M. (2000). Preventing relapse in sex offenders: What we learned from SOTEP’s experimental treatment program. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson,& T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook(pp. 321-340). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Marshall, W. L.,& Pithers, W. D. (1994). A reconsideration of treatment outcome with sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 10-27.
20.
McGrath, R. (1991). Sex offender risk assessment and disposition planning: Areviewof empirical and clinical findings. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 328-350.
21.
Meichenbaum, D., & Turk, D. (1987). Facilitating treatment adherence: A practitioner’s guidebook. New York: Plenum.
22.
Perkins, D. (1991). Clinical work with sex offenders in secure settings. In C. R. Hollin & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their victims(pp. 152-167). London: Wiley & Sons.
23.
Petrila, J. (1996). Paternalism and the unrealized promise of essays in therapeutic jurisprudence. In D. Wexler & B. Winick (Eds.), Law in a therapeutic key(pp. 685-706). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
24.
Presser, L.,& Gunnison, E. (1999). Strange bedfellows: Is sex offender notification a form of community justice? Crime & Delinquency, 45, 299-314.
25.
Schwartz, B., & Cellini, H. (1995). The sex offender: Corrections, treatment and legal practice. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
26.
Simon, J. (1998). Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 4(1/2), 452-467.
27.
Smith, B. E., Hillenbrand, S. W., & Goretsky, S. R. (1990). The probation response to child sexual abuse offenders: How is it working?Chicago: American Bar Association.
28.
Smith, R. C. (1995). Sex offender program planning and implementation. In B. Schwartz& H. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender: Corrections, treatment and legal practice(pp. 7:1-7:13). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
29.
Walsh, A. (1986). Placebo justice: Victim recommendations and offender sentences in sexual assault cases. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 1126-1141.
30.
Wexler, D. B. (1995). Reflections on the scope of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, PublicPolicy& Law, 1(1), 220-228.
31.
Wexler, D. B. (1996a). Justice, mental health, and therapeutic jurisprudence. In D. Wexler & B. Winick (Eds.), Law in a therapeutic key(pp. 713-722). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
32.
Wexler, D. B. (1996b). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the criminal courts. In D. Wexler & B. Winick (Eds.), Law in a therapeutic key(pp. 811-829). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
33.
Wexler, D. B. & Winick, B. J. (1992). Therapeutic jurisprudence and criminal justice mental health issues. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 16, 225-231.
34.
Wexler, D. B. & Winick, B. J. (1996). Law in a therapeutic key. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
35.
Winick, B. J. (1996). The side effects of incompetency labeling and the implications for mental health law. In D. Wexler& B. Winick (Eds.), Law in a therapeutic key(pp. 17-58). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
36.
Winick, B. J. (1997). The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 3(1), 184-206.
37.
Winick, B. J. (1998). Sex offender law in the 1990’s: A therapeutic jurisprudence analysis. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 4(1/2), 505-570.
38.
Wylie, M. S. (1998). Secret lives: Pedophilia and the possibility of forgiveness. Family Therapy Networker, November/December, 39-59.
