In 1996, a Nebraska Federal Court showed sentencing leniency to defendant Shasky, a man who had been convicted of receiving child pornography via computer (U.S. v. Shasky 939 F. Supp. 695, 1996). In granting this downward departure, the Court cited Shasky's diminutive stature and weight, and the fact that he was a homosexual state trooper. On top of that, the director of an intensive internationally recognized sex offender treatment program had testified that his progress in this program had been "extraordinary."
The Court found that these factors placed the defendant outside the "heartland" of similar cases, thus making sentencing leniency appropriate.
A few years later, another defendant, Russell Petersen pled guilty to the same offense as Shasky and his attorney made application to the same Court for similar leniency in sentencing.
Petersen was 40 years old, 200 lbs. and nearly 6 feet tall. He was in good health with steady employment. He had also been an enlisted military member of the Air National Guard. He was divorced with 2 children, one of whom had cystic fibrosis.
At his sentencing, Petersen stated that he was a homosexual who had turned to computer pornography because his military service prevented him from expressing his sexual identity (this revelation did little to impress the Court as it soon came to light that he had a 3-year relationship with a man while both were in the military).
A Court-ordered psychiatric evaluation found that Petersen was not suffering from a major mental illness. Despite the charges against him, he could not be clearly diagnosed as a pedophile, and might not even be a true homosexual.
In fact, a therapist he was seeing opined that Petersen was going through nothing more than "an identity crisis" regarding his sexuality. Although having a chronically ill child placed an emotional and financial strain on him, the Court noted that his ex-wife, the custodial parent, bore the brunt of this.
Petersen's counsel engaged the same highly regarded sex therapist who had testified so compellingly and helpfully in the Shasky case to evaluate him for her program. She informed the Court that while Petersen could benefit from treatment, his inconclusive diagnosis and general lack of candor made him a poor program candidate.
In the Shasky ruling, the Court had been particularly concerned that Shasky, because of his small stature, would be unusually susceptible to physical abuse in prison. It was noted that Petersen, a big guy, was not the type to be similarly targeted.
In summary, the Court stated that there was nothing about Petersen's physical, mental, or emotional condition, employment record or family ties to take him out of the "heartland" of similar cases as there had been with Shasky.
Successful Sex Offender Rehabilitation
- Accounting for risk factors to reoffense
- Accounting for events that typically lead to reoffense
- Acceptance of responsibility
- Motivation for change
- Insight into sexual offense cycle
- Absence of distorted attitudes that justify offense
- Remorse
- Relapse prevention plan
| Robert Prentky, Ph.D. Director of Assessment and Modular Unit Director |
Dr. Prentky, Ph.D. comments: How does one determine that treatment has been completed satisfactorily or that an offender has been "rehabilitated"? The treatment process must be linked to those factors that place the person at risk.
For most of the offenders that we treat, a unique chain of events and feelings contributed to their sexual crimes. These events or risk factors occur with some degree of regularity and lead to maladaptive responses, such as withdrawal and isolation, substance abuse, domestic violence, improperly managed and expressed anger, altercations at work, motor vehicle offenses, sexually deviant or paraphiliac fantasies and/or behavior (as in the case of Petersen), and sexually aggressive behavior. Although these risk factors do not always lead to a sex offense, they do place the individual at increased risk to commit an offense. The co-occurrence of these risk factors and opportunity are likely to lead to some form of relapse.
Our task as therapists or examiners is to identify, as accurately as possible, the unique set of risk factors that exist for each client. The client must learn to recognize when he is at risk and when the risk is increasing. Metaphorically, only through knowing what poison ivy looks like can we learn to avoid it. It is critical to remember that these risk factors not only will be different for everyone, they can be, quite literally, anything. Risk factors may involve legal activities (e.g., hanging out at a bar, "cruising" near a park or school, being gainfully employed as a school bus driver or counselor at a camp). Quite often, risk factors involve normative activities (e.g., watching Nickelodeon on television, flipping through the pages of a Victoria Secret catalog, etc.). Because these activities are legal and/or normative does not mean that they are safe (not risky).
The role of assessment in this process should be as clear as it is vital. The task of assessment is to identify the most critical antecedent factors that led to the governing offense/s (e.g., low self-esteem, poor social and interpersonal skills, poorly managed anger, social isolation, depression, feelings of rejection and hurt, substance abuse, etc.). Although it is not always the case, most of the time these antecedent factors are the core treatment issues, as well as the high risk factors.
Although there are no standardized or uniformly accepted procedures for assessing treatment outcome, there are common practices. The most common way is to evaluate the client using scaled items that inquire about treatment-relevant issues: (a) Does the client accept full responsibility for his sexual offense/s; (b) What is the client's internal motivation for changing his behavior; (c) How well does the client understand his sexual assault cycle; (d) How well does the client understand his high risk factors; (e) Does the client have an adequate relapse prevention plan; (f) To what degree does the client evidence remorse or guilt for his crimes; (g) To what extent does the client still express cognitive distortions (distorted attitudes that justify his sexual offenses).
A second way is to use the penile plethysmograph (PPG) to examine deviant sexual arousal. The PPG should never be used, especially in isolation, to make judgments about dangerousness or likelihood of reoffending since the presence of deviant arousal alone is not in itself evidence of dangerousness.
Many individuals harbor deviant fantasies that they never act on. Downloading child pornography tells us that Petersen most likely has sexual fantasies involving children. It does not tell us the likelihood that he would act on those fantasies.
The third way to look at treatment outcome and, more importantly, to manage sex offenders once they have returned to the community, is polygraphy. Although polygraphy is not commonly used to look at treatment outcome per se, it is increasingly used about three months into treatment to force disclosure. Thus, for those who use polygraphy as part of the treatment process, it would not be unusual to use polygraphy at the endpoint of treatment. The meteoric rise in the popularity of polygraphy over the past decade is, not surprisingly, linked to the wave of state and federal legislation governing sex offenders, and the consequent need to find more effective strategies for managing sex offenders in the community.
