In my experience with non-disclosure of offence and the sophisticated defence mechanisms offenders use (as they get extensive practice and refinement of their "story" through interaction with the victim, police, legal process, and while incarcerated), it is not effective to enter into a discussion with the client about whether or not they committed the crime. This leads into a quagmire of legalistic arguements - thereby justifying and supporting the offender to remain in denial of the offence and continue his/her "story". Once convicted of a sexual offense there can be NO question about whether the offender committed the offence. As professionals working within the legal system, in addition to knowing the extremely low rate of guilty convictions for sexual offenses, we have to work with offenders keeping the victim and the consequences of the offence on the victim uppermost in our minds. Surely our job is to aim for "No More Victims" - not to second guess a guilty conviction and underestimate the ability of a perpetrator to minimise and deny an offence. The basis of assessment, after a guilty conviction, is how close the offender's statement relates to the sentencing remarks and the victim statement. This highlights the types of denial used, the level of victim empathy, and the awareness of precipitating thoughts, feelings and behaviours leading up to the commission of the offence. There are many detailed clinical interviews designed for use with sex offenders which outline family background, psychosexual development, mastabatory behaviour and fantasy, as well as planning and commission of the offense. Let me know if you would like a copy and/or reference. Further ... A professionally ethical question would be: Why is this self proclaimed innocent man unwilling to participate in further testing to explore his innocence?
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.