By Stephen J. Dubner
Freakonomics Podcast
Originally published June 10, 2015
The gist of this episode: Sure, sex crimes are horrific, and the perpetrators deserve to be punished harshly. But society keeps exacting costs — out-of-pocket and otherwise — long after the prison sentence has been served.
The podcast page is here.
Showing posts with label Sex Offender Treatment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex Offender Treatment. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Punishment or therapy? The ethics of sexual offending treatment
Tony Ward
Journal of Sexual Aggression
Vol. 16, Iss. 3, 2010
DOI:10.1080/13552600.2010.483822
Abstract
The claim that sex offender treatment is a form of punishment and as such cannot be covered by traditional ethical codes is a controversial one. It challenges the ethical basis of current practice and compels clinicians to rethink the work they do with sex offenders. In this paper I comment on Bill Glaser's defence of that idea in a challenging and timely paper and David Prescott and Jill Leveson's rejection of his claims. First, I consider briefly the nature of both punishment and treatment and outline Glaser's argument and Prescott and Levenson's rejoinder. I then investigate what a comprehensive argument for either position should look like and finish with a few comments on each paper.
(cut)
The Core Argument
The ethical problem concerning treatment and punishment is straightforward and can be outlined in terms of two broad possibilities, with some suboptions. First, do actions associated with punishment and treatment coexist within a sex offender treatment programme? And should they? Secondly, if not, is this because (a) they are functionally separate with punishment occurring outside the therapeutic orbit or (b) because only (or primarily) punishment is actually apparent within the therapy context? Prescott and Levenson argue for (a) and Glaser opts for (b). My own preference is for the rather messier option of coexistence, namely the first possibility.
The entire article is here.
Journal of Sexual Aggression
Vol. 16, Iss. 3, 2010
DOI:10.1080/13552600.2010.483822
Abstract
The claim that sex offender treatment is a form of punishment and as such cannot be covered by traditional ethical codes is a controversial one. It challenges the ethical basis of current practice and compels clinicians to rethink the work they do with sex offenders. In this paper I comment on Bill Glaser's defence of that idea in a challenging and timely paper and David Prescott and Jill Leveson's rejection of his claims. First, I consider briefly the nature of both punishment and treatment and outline Glaser's argument and Prescott and Levenson's rejoinder. I then investigate what a comprehensive argument for either position should look like and finish with a few comments on each paper.
(cut)
The Core Argument
The ethical problem concerning treatment and punishment is straightforward and can be outlined in terms of two broad possibilities, with some suboptions. First, do actions associated with punishment and treatment coexist within a sex offender treatment programme? And should they? Secondly, if not, is this because (a) they are functionally separate with punishment occurring outside the therapeutic orbit or (b) because only (or primarily) punishment is actually apparent within the therapy context? Prescott and Levenson argue for (a) and Glaser opts for (b). My own preference is for the rather messier option of coexistence, namely the first possibility.
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
The Ethics of Chemical Castration (Part One)
By John Danaher
Philosophical Disquisitions: Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Originally posted December 15, 2013
Chemical castration has been legally recognised and utilised as a form of treatment for certain types of sex offender for many years. This is in the belief that it can significantly reduce recidivism rates amongst this class of offenders. Its usage varies around the world. Nine U.S. states currently allow for it, as well as several European countries. Typically, it is presented as an “option” to sex offenders who are currently serving prison sentences. The idea being that if they voluntarily submit to chemical castration they can serve a reduced sentence.
Obviously, this practice raises a number of empirical and ethical questions. Does chemical castration actually reduce recidivism? Is it ethically right to present a convicted sex offender with a choice between continued imprisonment or release with chemical castration? Is this not unduly coercive and autonomy-undermining?
The entire article is here.
Philosophical Disquisitions: Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
Originally posted December 15, 2013
Chemical castration has been legally recognised and utilised as a form of treatment for certain types of sex offender for many years. This is in the belief that it can significantly reduce recidivism rates amongst this class of offenders. Its usage varies around the world. Nine U.S. states currently allow for it, as well as several European countries. Typically, it is presented as an “option” to sex offenders who are currently serving prison sentences. The idea being that if they voluntarily submit to chemical castration they can serve a reduced sentence.
Obviously, this practice raises a number of empirical and ethical questions. Does chemical castration actually reduce recidivism? Is it ethically right to present a convicted sex offender with a choice between continued imprisonment or release with chemical castration? Is this not unduly coercive and autonomy-undermining?
The entire article is here.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Child abuse: We’re making the problem worse
By Tracy Clark
Salon.com
Originally published 11/13/2011
The alleged Penn State sex abuse scandal may provide a powerful lesson about institutional corruption — but it’s also a good time for some self-examination. The general consensus among experts who treat sex offenders is that America has taken the wrong approach to dealing with child molesters. In fact, some say that we’re only making the problem worse.
Just last week, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse conference in Canada surveyed the latest research in the field. The narrative that emerged from the meeting is that we should place a stronger emphasis on something proved to actually reduce the recidivism rate: treatment. The potential for bias here is apparent — it’s like incarceration experts highlighting the importance of incarceration — but studies show that treatment, particularly group approaches, can be highly effective. (Although, as a 2009 report put it, “Despite these advances we, as a field, continue to fall well short of the community’s expectation of ‘no more victims.’”)
The entire story can be found here.
Two additional stories on the Penn State sexual abuse case can be found on the same page.
Just last week, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse conference in Canada surveyed the latest research in the field. The narrative that emerged from the meeting is that we should place a stronger emphasis on something proved to actually reduce the recidivism rate: treatment. The potential for bias here is apparent — it’s like incarceration experts highlighting the importance of incarceration — but studies show that treatment, particularly group approaches, can be highly effective. (Although, as a 2009 report put it, “Despite these advances we, as a field, continue to fall well short of the community’s expectation of ‘no more victims.’”)
The entire story can be found here.
Two additional stories on the Penn State sexual abuse case can be found on the same page.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Harford child psychologist pleads guilty to abusing 3 girls
By Mary Gail Hare
The Baltimore Sun
August 22, 2011
A Harford County child psychologist pleaded guilty Monday to child abuse and sexual assault of three young girls he had been treating at his Fallston office.
David Wayne Schrumpf, 55, of Whiteford will serve six years in prison, where he will undergo sex offender treatment, under terms of a plea agreement filed in Harford County Circuit Court. He is charged with one count of child sex abuse and two counts of second-degree assault.
Schrumpf will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He must also surrender his license to practice psychology and cannot seek another in any jurisdiction, according to the plea agreement.
The charges arose after one 7-year-old girl reported to her mother that Schrumpf had touched her inappropriately during a session at his office. Two other victims, who were 9 and 10 years old at the time of the abuse, came forward during the investigation, county State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly said. All the incidents occurred at Schrumpf's office in Fallston over a year beginning in October 2009, Cassilly said.
Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 31 in Harford County Circuit Court before Judge Maurice Baldwin.
* * * * * * * * *
Local Psychologist Arrested on Child Sex Charges
By Collin Hoofnagle, News Editor
The Patriot, John Carroll's Online Student Newspaper
December 9, 2010
According to “The Aegis,” David W. Schrumpf is a licensed psychologist with a practice in Fallston. He was charged Friday, Dec. 3, with 10 counts of third-degree sex offense and 10 counts of sex abuse of a minor.
According to the Aegis, a local woman was discussing appropriate touching with her seven-year-old daughter when the daughter mentioned her psychologist. The mother then talked to her 10 year-old daughter, who is also a patient of Strumpf’s, when the daughter said that Strumpf touches her in private places during sessions.
In the email, Barker said, “While John Carroll has no formal connection with Dr. Schrumpf, we are aware that over the years some of our students have used Dr. Schrumpf’s services for ADHD diagnostic testing or for counseling.”
The Baltimore Sun
August 22, 2011
A Harford County child psychologist pleaded guilty Monday to child abuse and sexual assault of three young girls he had been treating at his Fallston office.David Wayne Schrumpf, 55, of Whiteford will serve six years in prison, where he will undergo sex offender treatment, under terms of a plea agreement filed in Harford County Circuit Court. He is charged with one count of child sex abuse and two counts of second-degree assault.
Schrumpf will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He must also surrender his license to practice psychology and cannot seek another in any jurisdiction, according to the plea agreement.
The charges arose after one 7-year-old girl reported to her mother that Schrumpf had touched her inappropriately during a session at his office. Two other victims, who were 9 and 10 years old at the time of the abuse, came forward during the investigation, county State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly said. All the incidents occurred at Schrumpf's office in Fallston over a year beginning in October 2009, Cassilly said.
Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 31 in Harford County Circuit Court before Judge Maurice Baldwin.
* * * * * * * * *
Local Psychologist Arrested on Child Sex Charges
By Collin Hoofnagle, News Editor
The Patriot, John Carroll's Online Student Newspaper
December 9, 2010
In a Dec. 8 email to parents, Principal Paul Barker said that an area psychologist used by students was recently arrested on child sex charges.
According to the Aegis, a local woman was discussing appropriate touching with her seven-year-old daughter when the daughter mentioned her psychologist. The mother then talked to her 10 year-old daughter, who is also a patient of Strumpf’s, when the daughter said that Strumpf touches her in private places during sessions.
In the email, Barker said, “While John Carroll has no formal connection with Dr. Schrumpf, we are aware that over the years some of our students have used Dr. Schrumpf’s services for ADHD diagnostic testing or for counseling.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)