Personal though about sex offenders

  

Watch:

TVF International, (2001). Paroling Sex Offenders (02:30) [Video file].

Films on Demand

. in Week 5’s activities.

https://fod-infobase-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/p_ViewVideo.aspx?xtid=30042&loid=4466

Discuss your personal thoughts on the video.

What is the most important thing that you have learned from this class about working with sex offenders?

  

Write paper on the struggles related to reentry after institutionalization.

Describe the effects of mental illness on recidivism

I was incredibly lucky. My worst injuries were just a few cuts and bruises and smoke inhalation. Three people died.

And there were several people lost limbs. Some people lost two limbs.

There are people who shatter the lives of others.

People were saying there’s a madman in the church and he’s got a sword. People were coming into the

presbytery and some were covered in blood, and people were looking for towels.

There are people who commit unimaginable crimes.

His first few attacks were just of any woman he could see on a street at the right time. He then graduated to

prostitutes and he sought out and hunted down prostitutes.

What is it that makes people commit crimes like these?

Sunday, the 28th of November, 1999. A perfectly ordinary winter’s day in South London. At Saint Andrew’s

Catholic Church in Thornton Heath, morning mass had just finished.

It was the first Sunday of Advent, so I said the 8:30 mass. It was a very nice congregation and it was a very quiet

devotional mass. And I came back from the church and along to the presbytery, which is about five doors from the

church. And made a cup of coffee and was doing some work on the computer.

The next service was taken by another priest. It was as popular as ever, with a congregation of 400, young and

old.

First I realized something was odd, was voices raised and then people running past. And I suddenly saw the fear

and terror in people’s faces, and recognized they were parishioners. So that’s when I realized something seriously

was up.

It was just after 10 AM. A naked man burst into the church, wielding a three-foot samurai sword. He was striking

out randomly at the terrified congregation.

People were saying there’s a madman in the church. And he’s got a sword. And people shouting, call the police,

call the police. So I ran back to call the police. When I was calling the police and people were coming into the

presbytery, and some were covered in blood and people were looking for towels.

The scene in the church was one of carnage. The swordsman had attacked 11 people, seriously injuring several.

One man’s jaw bone was sliced through, severing three front teeth at the root. Others were left unconscious. The

attacker was eventually overpowered by members of the congregation, who used an organ pipe. a Zimmer frame,

and a crucifix to restrain him.

It was like a scene of devastation. Benches had been knocked over. People’s handbags, people’s jackets. Then I

saw on the right that there was a man who was being held down by others. So I realized fairly quickly he had been

restrained. But there were people screaming and shouting who had been injured.

The naked samurai swordsman was a local man, Eden Strang. As he faced trial, the big question was, why had he

done it? Was he an evil sadist, intent on harming as many people as possible for his own pleasure? Or was he

just insane? Was Eden Strang mad or bad?

At one extreme, the bad person could be what we label as a psychopath. This is someone who lacks a

conscience, who acts impulsively and in a very selfish way, just to get excitement. So if their form of excitement

happens to be doing horrible things to other people, then this inevitably will follow, because of their disorder. So

this is the bad person. And the other extreme, the mad person, may have such a severe illness, where they’ve lost

contact with reality, to such an extent they literally don’t know what they’re doing.

The law says that such a mad person cannot be held responsible for their actions, and therefore shouldn’t be

found guilty. But first, the courts have to find out, are they really mad or just bad? And that’s where psychologists

and psychiatrists begin to look into the mind of a defendant. Are there signs of mental illness that might excuse

their behavior?

What you’re primarily looking for, in terms of the needs of the court, are whether the person is able to plead to the

challenges they’re facing, and attend trial. And whether there is evidence of mental abnormality. From the

psychiatric point of view, to you’re assessing them to see whether you think they should receive psychiatric

treatment.

It’s a crucial decision for both prisoner and society. A dangerous offender who’s found guilty will be given a prison

sentence and locked up. But a dangerous offender who is said to be mentally ill might be found not guilty,

because of his illness, and thus end up in hospital instead of prison. That’s why some offenders might try to fool

the experts into believing that they have mental health problems.

If a patient does successfully fake a mental illness, and the court orders them to go to hospital for treatment, and

they then make a miraculous recovery, the way the law is at the moment, they are then free to apply to leave

hospital. Because they no longer need treatment, because they’re better. They cannot then be sent to prison. And

they cannot be tried again for the same crime.

That’s why experts have to be extremely careful in judging whether someone is mad or bad. They do this by

interviewing the subject and examining various aspects of their personality and background, before making a

judgment about their mental health.

You would look at previous criminal behavior, in relation to the behavior that caused them to be in the current

situation. And then you take a general history, about their family background, their personal life history. You’d

want to look at various factors that might be important, such as drug or alcohol abuse. And indeed you’d then look

for any evidence of mental disorder. Also be a personality abnormality.

Eden Strang was assessed for signs of mental illness before his trial. He was found to have a tragic history. As a

child, he was sexually abused by a family friend. His stepfather died of a heroin overdose when he was eight, and

he lost his mother to AIDS when he was 13. Strang was also the victim of several racist attacks, one of which

nearly killed him. He did have a hard life. But he also did well at school and gained a computer degree. He moved

to London, had a good job, married and started a family. He was said to be a hardworking man, devoted to his

wife and five-year-old daughter. But neighbors said he changed considerably when he was made redundant.

It was clear, I think, to the family, that he was depressed. He was out of work. His personality seemed to have

changed radically. And some of the neighbors said that he was always very neat, well-dressed, very well-spoken,

very polite. And that in the months leading up to it, he was looking after himself. He was staying in bed. And he

was much scruffier than he had been. So there were warning signs, but people just put it down to depression.

It’s vital that the psychologists and psychiatrists examine the background of these subjects, to build up an

accurate character assessment. But the experts must also do some patient detective work.

We were to make sure that we were able to identify auditives in the witness statements on account of the

offending, which would suggest the possibility that there’s a serious mental health issue. It’s also important to seek

out historical records, because many offenders with mental health problems have a history of contact with

psychiatric services. But because sometimes they live in all different areas and have a rather dislocated lifestyle, it

can take considerable effort to find out that history.

But the experts rely on more than just the interview and personal history. They have to look deeper, into the

unknown mind of the criminal.

It’s often useful in assessing people who’ve committed a serious crime to see whether that is part of their general

temperament. Whether they are the impulsive, violent type, or whether this is an out of character offense. Which is

often the case when mental illness is involved. This is very different from someone who is normally the aggressive

type who’s always losing their temper. Often that type knows where to draw the line, and they don’t commit the

ultimate crime of murder.

There are tests that are specially designed to assess a person’s state of mental health at the present time. And

also what we call their premorbid state, how they were before they became disturbed. Because from a legal point

of view, it’s their state of mind at the time that is critical.

Eden Strang told the psychiatrists before his trial that God had told him to strip naked and fight devil worshippers

and witches. He believed they came at night and sexually assaulted him and his family.

He did what he did. And that wasn’t contested in court. And the facts were admitted by all sides in the case. The

real question was, was he aware and responsible for what he was doing? And the evidence was very clear that he

was in such a state of mind, that he felt compelled to do what he had to do. He had no choice, and therefore it

wasn’t a free decision. And therefore neither legally or morally could he be held responsible.

You can’t get much madder than he was, the psychiatrist was reported as saying. He diagnosed paranoid

schizophrenia. Strang had retreated into a dangerous fantasy world. The jury took 10 minutes to find him not

guilty, because he was insane. He was sent to a psychiatric hospital.

We felt, is as parish, that it was a just verdict and a just punishment, in the sense that he would be getting the

treatment that he would deserve. So treatment, rather than punishment, I think is a better description of what we

felt. Because he obviously needs help and we hope he’ll get it.

Eden Strang attacked 11 people that Sunday morning. Some of them will never fully recover, and none of them

will never forget. But everyone agreed that he was a very ill man who needed treatment rather than punishment.

But what happens when two experts have opposing views after assessing the same offender? Whom should the

jury believe?

When the London Nailbomber came to trial, that was exactly the dilemma which faced the jury. The previous year,

London had been terrorized by a series of vicious nail bombs. People were desperate for the killer to be brought

to justice. But when the bomber was caught, he said it wasn’t his fault. He claimed to be suffering from a mental

illness that drove him to plant the bombs that killed three people. The police didn’t believe him. But what did the

jury think? After the break, we look at the case of David Copeland, the London Nailbomber.

You’ve caught your man. He’s not denying the charges. So what made him do it? Is he mad or bad? How do you

tell?

In any important case, lawyers hire experts to give their opinions about a particular area. A pathologist who

explains how a murder victim died. An engineer who examines a car to see whether it caused a fatal accident. Or

they might be a psychologist or psychiatrist, employed to examine the criminal mind. But those experts don’t

always agree with each other. Occasionally, an expert for the defense and one for the prosecution give different

opinions to the court.

It was Descartes who first observed that the world’s experts in different fields did not agree with each other. The

same applies today, in spite of the enormous amount of research and science, there are very few things that we

are in 100% agreement on. So it is inevitable that sometimes leading experts will fundamentally disagree with

each other. And the British justice system is that the court will hear both sides in arriving at their conclusion.

That is what happened when the London Nailbomber, David Copeland, came to trial. During the spring of 1999, a

series of nail bombs went off in London, injuring 139 people and killing three. The police anti-fascist groups

thought a racist organization had launched a terror campaign.

The first attack was in Brixton, South London, where there’s a large West Indian community. A bomb, packed full

of nails to cause maximum injury, went off in the middle of its busiest shopping area on a Saturday.

The second came exactly a week later, in Brick Lane, home to a large Bangladeshi community. Again, the bomb

was full of nails. But miraculously no one was seriously hurt. There were fears that a third bomb would hit another

minority group the following week.

I was actually leaving work at about 5 o’clock. I must have got to the Admiral Duncan at about 6:00. It was the first

really sunny evening of the spring that got all the doors open to the streets. And I decided to meet some friends

here for a Friday night, out with the lads, sort of drink. I was here for about half an hour when suddenly there was

an enormous blue flash. And cabling being ripped out of the ceiling.

I think I realized fairly quickly what had happened, because about 10 minutes before the bomb exploded, I was

actually in the loo, reading a Metropolitan Police notice: Bombs, beware. And I thought, yeah, a gay venue

probably will be next. Because we’d already had a bomb in Brixton and in Brick Lane.

I was incredibly lucky. My worst injuries were just a few cuts and bruises, and smoke inhalation, which caused a bit

of a problem with my chest at the time. But there were people– three people died. I think the fourth member of

that group was in a coma for a while. And there were several people who lost limbs. Some people lost three limbs.

After looking through thousands of hours of CCTV footage, police identified David Copeland, a Nazi sympathizer

and homophobe, as the Nailbomber.

Someone who used to work with his father and him recognized David Copeland on CCTV pictures in Brixton.

Thought about it for a while, and then rang the police to say he thinks he knows who the person in the pictures is.

Copeland was actually arrested, I believe, in the early hours of Saturday morning. So not long after the bomb had

in fact exploded. It was just a little too late for people in the Admiral Duncan.

Copeland came to trial a year later. The issue for the jury was not whether he had planned and planted the

bombs. He has admitted that he had. The critical decision rested on Copeland’s state of mind, and on that, the

experts disagreed.

There were several psychiatrists that did actually come down with the verdict that he was insane. There was one

very senior psychiatrist that decided that he wasn’t. The defense, obviously trying to go for the angle of he’s mad,

not bad. Which, of course, is their job to do.

I kept changing my mind, hearing evidence. I’ve no medical training myself. I was there as a victim and a member

of the public. And I kept changing my mind. I would hear some evidence and think, well perhaps he is a bit mad.

And then I would hear other evidence, and think, it’s too calculated, it’s too efficient. It’s too cold, it was planned

over too long a time to be real insanity.

Was Copeland suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, a mental illness which severely diminished his responsibility

for the attacks, as suggested by the defense? Or did he, as the prosecution claimed, merely have a personality

disorder, that could not excuse his actions? The jury had to listen to the evidence from both sides and make up

their own minds.

It’s quite difficult to define personality disorder succinctly. But I would probably describe it as a pervasive and

persistent disorder in psychological functioning, which has an impact on an individual’s interpersonal and social

functioning, employment, and brings them sometimes into contact with the criminal justice system. The important

thing about personality disorder is that it cannot be a diagnosis based on a particularly unpleasant offense or a

particular attitude to an agency or professionals. It has to be based on evidence from across the individual’s adult

lifespan.

Jackie Craissati was one of the psychologists to assess David Copeland before his trial. She gave evidence for the

prosecution. Far from being mentally ill, Copeland’s insight and cognitive flexibility had impressed her.

The defense disagreed. Their psychologist diagnosed Copeland as suffering from severe mental illness, paranoid

schizophrenia. Two equally reputable experts have made their judgments, but they disagree. How is the jury to

decide which one is right?

Probably the most stressful scenario for someone like myself, as an expert witness, is when my opinion differs

significantly from the psychologist’s opinion who’s working for the other side. In the criminal proceedings,

ultimately we have to go and fight it out in court. And the strategy for the barristers is to discredit us as experts. So

there can be all sorts of unpleasant criticisms towards each other, or that somehow provoked by the legal system.

Whereas perhaps we’d prefer to have a frank academic discussion over a cup of coffee. We’re not allowed to do

that.

So how can two equally reputable experts examine the same person and come up with different answers?

Psychiatrist Jeremy Coid knows that psychiatry is an inexact science.

Fortunately this is a relatively rare occasion. In most cases it isn’t contested. But when it does happen, does I’m

afraid to say, make us look a little stupid. The reason for this is perhaps twofold. First of all, one has to be honest

and admit the fact that psychiatry is not a precise science. That there is a lot of room for a margin of error. The

other thing that one has to consider is indeed the legal system. In this country the adversarial system. That in fact,

it is set up to have people of different opinion on different sides. And there may well be some selection of

individuals according to the decision making or the opinion that they’re likely to have.

A survey was conducted which asked psychologists if they had ever been asked to change an assessment report

to favor the side they were working for. 27% said they had been asked to modify reports by solicitors, and more

than half of these had agreed to do it.

It shouldn’t make any difference to one’s opinion if the prosecution or the defense are paying the bill.

Even though I’m professor of forensic psychiatry, I do not remember being trained to think about how much I

should be charging, or whether the fact that I’m opposing somebody court who is getting a larger fee than me

really matters or not. Of course it matters.

I can’t say that it isn’t a temptation sometimes, particularly if a defense solicitor requests a change in the report.

Not to try and please them, because they seem to be paying you a lot of money for your opinion and they don’t

like what you said. It’s very, very important that we’re not influenced in that way.

I think that one should adhere to the principle of not being affected by this. One should be aware of what one’s

doing. And I would like to say that I’m proud that perhaps the majority of reports I’ve written on serious offenders,

[UNINTELLIGIBLE] have maybe not seen the light of day. They have not gone to the court, because I’ve not said

things that would be helpful to them.

Another reason why opinions differ is the behavior of the offenders themselves. Have they managed to con the

experts with stories of tragic childhoods or convincing displays of mental illness? Many of them are, after all,

criminals with track records in deception.

When you’re seeing an offender, it can be very difficult to remain impartial and objective. And that often relates to

the nature of the offense, and reading the witness statements, which can be very distressing for professional to

read. An that often you might enter an interview then feeling quite hostile towards the offender.

It can work the other way. And particularly if you don’t have clear documentation regarding their offense and their

history. It can be quite easy to be seduced into agreeing with the offender that maybe they have been rather

misjudged and hard done-by. It’s a constant state of monitoring oneself, one’s own reactions, having

documentation, talking to colleagues, checking out your feelings and your opinions about people. And the more

disordered they are, or the more seriously offending, the more that’s a risk, in terms of trying to manage how you

feel about things.

With increasing knowledge about psychology, it is always a danger that the patient will be so skillful that they will

be able to fake mental illness. This is why, when doing an assessment, we need to be constantly on our guard,

looking for signs of faking. And indeed we need to look into the background of the patient to see if there’s any

history of telling fibs. It is notoriously difficult to be able to detect someone who all their life may have been

practicing telling lies. The confidence trickster type. These people are very plausible. So it is very difficult to always

spot when we’re up against this.

Assessment tests contain questions designed to catch out a liar. But some people have a nagging suspicion that

prisoners are able to fake signs of mental illness to get more lenient sentences. The experts don’t necessarily

agree.

I think that what there have been are studies where actors have attempted to sustain over time symptoms of

mental illness and have found it exceptionally difficult. I think one of the key issues is not so much the symptoms

of mental illness, but the relevant facts, which may or may not relate to mental illness, of the case. The basic,

most important– the fundamental thing that you do, is you check all your facts. You’d never carry out an

assessment until you’d read every piece of evidence you can get your hands on. And get hold of the previous

hospital case notes, and to see whether there’s previous evidence of what the person’s telling you. And can you

corroborate the evidence from somebody else who knows them well?

If a prisoner successfully fakes signs of mental illness, or an expert misdiagnoses them, they will get a more

lenient sentence than they perhaps deserve. They may go to hospital instead of prison. They may be let out to

terrorize the population once again.

The jury in the trial of Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, knew that they mustn’t get it wrong.

It began in the summer of 1975, with an attack on a woman outside a pub. And at the time, it was simply seen as

an unpleasant, but fairly unimportant attack, in criminal terms. It was quite serious in terms of the injuries done to

her, but it was dismissed at the time as either an attempted robbery or a domestic.

Over the next six years, the Yorkshire Ripper put terror into women all over the country.

His first few attacks were just of any women he could see on a street, at the right time, when he was in the mood.

He then graduated to prostitutes. And he sought out and hunted down prostitutes. He finally got caught in ’81 in

Sheffield, actually. He was arrested simply for being with a prostitute. Effectively curb crawling. He wasn’t arrested

for an attack.

But when they arrested him, they took him back to the police station. And there was a Sergeant, who for some

reason– the classic Bobby’s [? mouse, ?] if you like– decided to go back and look at the crime scene. And why did

he do that, no one knows, really, other than his instinct. That there was something else. And his manner. And

there behind a wall he found a ball-peen hammer, which of course was the Yorkshire Ripper’s trademark weapon.

They went back and they started to question Sutcliffe. And he collapsed almost immediately. And owned up who

he was.

Despite evidence from the prosecution and defense that Sutcliffe was suffering from mental illness, the jury found

him guilty of 13 brutal murders.

The jury may have thought that he was intelligent, and that he may have been sufficiently knowledgeable to fake

the symptoms of mental illness. They may have thought that, even if he was suffering from a mental illness,

because there’s always the element of doubt, that it was only fair that he should go to

prison.

The jury could have reached a different verdict and found Sutcliffe not guilty because of insanity, but they didn’t.

What happened next was interesting. Because when Peter Sutcliffe arrived to prison, he still had the mental illness

which had been diagnosed by the psychiatrists. And so it was apparent to the prison staff that he was talking to

himself, he was obviously distracted and preoccupied by voices that he was hearing. So the prison staff of course

called in the psychiatrist to assess his mental state. And he was indeed suffering from a particular form of

paranoid schizophrenia. So the recommendation of the psychiatrist was that he be moved from prison to go for

treatment in a secure hospital. And that is what happened about a fortnight after he’d been sentenced to life in

prison.

Peter Sutcliffe is still in a psychiatric hospital. There was strong evidence at the trial that he was mentally ill.

At Nailbomber David Copeland’s trial, the experts didn’t agree whether he was mad or bad. And so the jury had to

choose between the opposing opinions.

A lot of the burden is put on the jury. They are required to listen to the evidence. They can take guidance from the

judge, in particular when the judge does the summing up. But at the end of the day, the jury have to make the

decision.

On July 1, 2000, a jury decided that David Copeland was responsible for his actions. He was given six life

sentences. There was great euphoria in the courtroom at the verdict. When the foreman of the jury actually said

guilty, a great roar went up from the victim’s gallery. It was like Arsenal had just scored a goal or something. I’ve

never heard a roar quite like it.

The trial is not the only time that experts are called on to assess a prisoner. When dangerous offenders have

served a sentence, the authorities have to decide if they are safe to be released back into the community. And the

wrong decision could have devastating consequences.

After the break, we hear about George, a pedophile serving his third conviction for sexually assaulting young

boys. He says next time he could kill. George is nearing the end of his sentence. Is it safe to let him out?

You’re mad, you go to hospital. You’re bad, you go to prison. But what happens when it’s time to be released?

Offenders in both prisons and psychiatric hospitals are assessed throughout their sentences.

It is really continuous process. And depending on the nature of the offense, could involve psychologists, could

involve the police, could involvement mental health specialists, and certainly would involve the probation service.

Kevin Chambers is a convicted rapist. He served six years in prison and was released from one Wormwood

Scrubs in September 1999, after getting time off for good behavior.

Within hours of his release, Chambers made his way to Ipswich and raped again. In an underpass there, he raped

an unknown woman. A CCTV operator tracked Chambers through Ipswich and contacted the police. They caught

up with him in a nearby street, and it wasn’t long before he was back behind bars.

Like all prisoners, Chambers was assessed before his release to see how risky would be to let him out. The final

decision, however, lies with the parole board, the group of people brought together by the Home Office.

In many cases, it is a very difficult decision. Thank goodness it’s the tribunal panel that makes the final decision,

not the doctors or the people who’ve done the assessment.

When an individual’s case goes before the parole board, there will what is known as the parole dossier that

accompanies the individual. And in that dossier there will be a huge array of different reports. They will have

reports from virtually every discipline in the prison. They’ll have a report from the probation officer in the

community. They’ll have a report often from the probation officer within the prison.

And certainly in terms of high risk, or sex offenders, there are often the victim statements that would need to be

considered by the parole board. There would also be some actuarial scores within the dossier, in terms of the

likelihood of re-offending. Because that would also inform and influence the decision.

So how can this risk assessment go so wrong?

The assessments can go wrong. I think they go wrong when you’re not clear exactly what it is you’re doing and

who you’re doing it for. I think you’ve got to think, who this assessment is for, where is he going to go, what’s the

purpose of it all, and then how good is your assessment? Did you do it well? Did you do it in the way that you

should? I think that if you think through those various things, you usually do the best you can. You always worry

that you’ve forgotten something, missed something out. We have a lot of strategies in place to deal with that. We

check our files, we check each other’s files, we have consultation meetings, we talk to peers, we have supervision,

we have outside supervision and peer supervision. We have meetings about clients with other agencies. So there

are many, many tools we have to try and stop ourselves making a mistake.

If I look back on ones I have regretted, I’ve regretted ones I made in the early stages of my career. You

sometimes need to have seen quite a lot of cases before you’re really good at forensic psychiatry. I think that if I

go back, thinking perhaps on the worst, was one when I was called by a colleague to see a patient in the hospital.

Who he thought was very dangerous, and I didn’t think was dangerous at all. And told him so in no uncertain

terms, which I think is what I most regret about it. And that patient tried to kill him a fortnight later.

Jackie Craissati works with sex offenders. She runs their treatment programs and makes decisions about their

release from prison, a highly emotive and controversial subject. One of her patients is a 40-year-old pedophile

who has offended several times. To protect patient confidentiality, Jackie has combined his case history with

details of another case, and given him the name of George.

I was asked to see George because he was halfway through a six year sentence for the indecent assault of an

eight-year-old boy. And the question asked to me was whether he could be released on parole, rather than at the

end of his served sentence, and whether I would provide treatment in the community. Because he originally came

from my area.

Craissati went to visit George in prison, having read up on his case from witness statements and early probation

reports.

He’s been convicted on three occasions. And the first time, in his very early twenties, was a very violent offense on

a stranger. A young boy. He was heavily intoxicated. And he raped the boy and left him in a park. He went to

prison for a fairly long time for that offense. And in some years later, was re-convicted for a slightly less violent

offense, but nevertheless serious, against another boy who he didn’t know. This time alcohol wasn’t involved,

although he had been in the pub before it happened. But he wasn’t intoxicated. He received another sentence, no

treatment.

On his release, George ended up living on the streets and befriended a young boy, whom he eventually sexually

assaulted. Again, he was convicted.

I suppose the easiest thing to decide upon was his level of risk. Because we were all agreed, there are a number

of scales available to determine risk at a very simple level. But they’re very useful and reasonably accurate. And

because he has repeated offenses, and male victims, and a whole range of offending behavior, he quite clearly

comes out as high risk.

So if George was to be released, there would have to be strict conditions to ensure he didn’t reoffend. One option

was drug treatment.

The obvious thing for someone like George would be to seriously think about anti-libidinal medication. That is, a

medication which not only reduces your sex drive, but also has a significant impact on someone’s fantasy life. The

trouble with this medication is that it has side effects, that are potentially significant. And secondly, it’s an all or

nothing thing. You either– if you take them, you have no sex drive, and if you don’t take them, you do. But in

prison, George had got engaged. The authorities approved of his fiance. She had no alarming history, and

appeared to be a normal person with a job and a home.

Clearly for George, there was a strong hope that he could be somehow become normal through this relationship.

It seemed very important not to dismiss it out of hand. So that left us with a dilemma, because it was an important

element of the relationship that it could become sexual once he was released.

Jackie Craissati needed to know why George kept offending before she could judge whether he was likely to keep

on doing it. As usual, she administered psychological tests, but relied a lot on George’s history and her interviews

with him. Like many sex offenders, George had an unhappy childhood full of violence and neglect, and abuse by a

relative. This can distort the way sex offenders see their own victims.

George was befriended by a distant uncle who between the ages of about eight and 10 had sexually abused

George. In fact he talked about the abuse as receiving a lot of attention, that she was sexually aroused,

eventually, by it. That therefore he must have enjoyed it and somehow he must have consented.

Jackie Craissati felt that the abuse George suffered as a child was one of the main causes of his offending. She

recommended further treatment for this. She also insisted on certain bail conditions. Although he was a high risk

offender, under the law he had the right to be released at the end of his sentence. But society also had the right to

be safe. This makes an assessment before release from prison a very difficult decision.

One has to see, in this country and indeed across the Atlantic in the USA, a considerable hardening in attitude

towards such individuals. We’re no longer in the liberal ’60s and ’70s. And so there is an increasing concern, some

of it legitimate, some of it I think at times completely over the top. One could actually argue, indeed, a moral panic

sometimes occurs about dangerous individuals. Fortunately, the reality of life in this country and even the USA, is

that we are fairly safe. These terrible crimes that sometimes occur are one in a million occurrences.

However, I think it depends on how much society will tolerate. And what is acceptable to a society in terms of

walking away from the terms of the law that is acceptable within that society to lock people away.

A balance had to be struck between George’s right to be released, wanting to live with his fiancee, and the safety

of his local community. Any plan had to satisfy the parole board that he would be safely supervised.

In the end we were able to negotiate an agreed plan. Which was that he should go to a high staff probation hostel

with some specialist input, that he should attend our treatment program, and that he should be allowed, quite

early on, overnight leaves, one at a time, to go and stay with his fiancee. And the police knowing which nights he

was out at his fiancee’s flat, and when he was in the hostel. And he hours of his curfew and so on.

If George was released at the end of his fixed term sentence, there would be a period of three to four months

where he would be under formal supervision. After that, he would be a free man, answerable to no one. Jackie

Craissati felt that this was too sudden a return to society. She wanted a slower reintroduction into normal life.

The problem for the parole board is that whilst we might say, in terms of management, please let him out because

we have longer to manage him and settle him back in and check out this relationship. From their point of view

they’re taking a risk because of his potential reoffending during that period. So in fact, in this instance we

recommended parole on those grounds. And he had it refused. And so we’ll come out to the same plan, three

months before the end of his sentence.

There has been a recent change in the law. And some sex offenders and violent offenders can now be subject to

what’s called extended periods of supervision. So a sex offender could, in fact, be released on licence for ten

years. And somebody who comes out with a violent history could be released on licence for a period of five years.

No matter how detailed and accurate the assessment, and how good the management by the authorities on his

release, there is never a guarantee that offenders like George will not reoffend.

Between 12% and 18% of sex offenders may go on to be reconvicted within two years of release. But only 10%

would be a sexual offense. Whereas in fact 77% of burglars would be reconvicted within two years of coming out

of prison.

The statistics only include offenders the law knows about. There could be many more who reoffend and never get

caught. So by letting someone like George out, there is a risk. But then again, most offenders cannot be locked up

forever.

The risks of him reoffending are high. And we’re talking about a long term risk, because the problem is that sex

offenders often don’t reoffend very quickly. So that we may have reduced his reoffending rate. And it may be

years and years before he reoffends. But the chances of him reoffending between now and his death, say of old

age, are going to be quite high.

Some people think it’s safer to lock up people like George and throw away the key.

I do know there are, of course, fairly strong feelings among the communities that all offenders, whatever they’ve

done, should receive long periods of imprisonment. Thereby removing the problem from society. But I think that’s

a false premise. It’s built on the basis– suggests that an individual who commits a crime is not capable of making

changes. And actually many do. And many go on to lead quite successful lives. So I think throwing away the key is

often the term that is used for across the board offenders. But I think it takes away the positive changes that

people can make.