Sexual Offenders

The Australian criminal justice system often responds to serious crimes with harsh, punitive policies (Montresso 2009:13). Despite growing evidence to support the effectiveness of alternative approaches, many individuals remain reluctant to change current approaches (Feix 2007:139). This is particularly evident in the debate surrounding sexual offenders and their treatment (Macgregor 2008). Despite controversy surrounding its effectiveness and punitive benefits, cognitive behavioural therapy in the treatment of sexual offenders has had proven results. Although these results are limited by the approaches grounding in social learning explanations of crime (Ward et al. 2006:156).

The controversy surrounding cognitive behavioural approaches

This group’s positive engagement with the act makes the individual more likely to engage in a sexual crime themselves (Ackers 2011:256). In order for an individual to develop behaviour favourable to sexual deviance, the process of differential reinforcement must occur (Ackers 2011:256). Reinforcement occurs when an individual receives greater positive reward for committing a crime and can include physical or psychological stimulation, social reward or punishment. As a result of experiencing few negative outcomes the behaviour becomes increasingly likely, leading to increased risk of recidivism (Ackers 2011:256).

The application of social learning to sexual offending has been useful (Ward et al 2006: 15). It has offered an explanation of sexual offending which can be supported by research (Burton et al. 2002). However, its effectiveness is limited to certain types of offenders (Marshall et al. 2002). The same can be said for resulting treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy which aim to change an offender’s learnt

2010:238). It has been suggested that prolonged exposure to media portraying sexually explicit material, particularly which idolises violence can create a predisposition toward sexual violence in viewers (Chan et al. 2010:238). This has been supported by subsequent studies, identifying a link between sexually violent material and desensitisation to violence (Chan et al. 2010:238). However, the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography’s report refutes this suggestion claiming that pornography does not result in deviant behaviour (Chan et al. 2010:238). The presence of conflicting data suggests that alternate explanations may exist for sexually deviant behaviour. Whilst some individuals may decide to model the behaviour viewed, it fails to explain those who don’t. This argument suggests that social learning theorists may need to look into alternative explanations in order to accurately suggest that sexual violence is a result of modelling sexual violence from pornographic material (Chan et al. 2010:239). More specifically if treatments aim to address the issue of modelling where it is not the cause, failure may result. This is why it is vital to understand the issue from a number of perspectives, in order to identify the treatment most likely to succeed in reducing recidivism (Marshall et al.