Working with Sex Offenders in Prisons and through Release to the Community: A Handbook (Forensic Foc

---

The table is divided in two models based on the two hypotheses. Model 1 is based on the first hypothesis and examines whether sex offenders differ from other offender types with regard to the three measures of social isolation. Model 2 studies the differences between child abusers, other sex offenders like rapist , and nonsex offenders for the social isolation measures. As shown in the table, the explained variance was limited, varying from 3. The results of the regression analyses are described per social isolation measure. The first column of Table 2 shows the results for the regression analysis on the perceived support and relationships with correctional officers.

The findings for Model 1 show that sex offenders reference category were significantly less positive about their relationships with and perceived support from the correctional officers than inmates imprisoned for a violent, property, and other type of offense. When comparing child abusers, other sex offenders, and nonsex offenders, Table 2 first column, Model 2 shows no significant differences in perceived relationships with the correctional officers between the three types of offenders child abusers are the reference category.

In addition, several control variables were found to be significantly related to the perceived relationships with correctional officers. Younger prisoners, prisoners with a non-Dutch background, prisoners who had a partner at the time of the arrest, and prisoners who had been incarcerated before were significantly less positive about their relationships with the correctional officers.

Quick Overview

Furthermore, prisoners housed in special care units reported significantly better relationships with the officers than those in the regular units. These findings were similar in the model with six offense types Model 1 and the model concerning the three offense types Model 2. The second column of Table 2 shows the results for the regression analysis on the perceived support and relationships with fellow inmates. Model 1 showed that compared with sex offenders, all other offender types reported significantly more positive relationships with fellow prisoners.

When comparing child abusers, other sex offenders, and nonsex offenders Model 2 , the results indicated a significant difference between child abusers reference category and nonsex offenders. Nonsex offenders perceived their relationships with fellow prisoners more positively than child abusers. Table 2 shows, however, no significant difference between child abusers and other sex offenders with respect to their relationships with fellow prisoners.

With regard to the control variables, it was found that older prisoners, prisoners with a partner at the time of arrest, and those with prior incarceration spells, were less positive about their relationships with their fellow prisoners. The results for perceived loneliness are displayed in the third column of Table 2. The results show that type of offender was not related to feelings of loneliness in both Models 1 and 2. Sex offenders did not experience a higher level of loneliness compared with nonsex offenders.

In addition, no difference was found between child abusers and other sex offenders. Some control variables were significantly related to the reported feelings of loneliness. Prisoners with a partner and employment at the time of their arrest reported fewer feelings of loneliness. While, prisoners with mental health problems and prisoners with a higher number of prior incarcerations reported significantly higher feelings of loneliness.

Using a large sample of adult male prisoners, this study attempted to increase knowledge on the extent to which sex offenders felt socially isolated during incarceration compared with nonsex offenders. Three indicators of social isolation were used: Data were used from the Prison Project, a large-scale, nationwide study in which prisoners were surveyed 3 weeks after arrival in pretrial detention. The current study hypothesized that sex offenders were more socially isolated during incarceration than nonsex offenders.

In regard to this hypothesis, the study revealed that within the Dutch correctional setting sex offenders experienced somewhat more social isolation than prisoners of other types of offenses. First of all, sex offenders were less positive about the support from and relationships with correctional officers compared with other prisoners. In addition, sex offenders evaluated their relationships with fellow prisoners less positive than prisoners imprisoned for a violent, property, drug, or other type of offense.

However, for the other measure of social isolation, experienced loneliness, no effect of offender type was found. The finding that sex offenders perceive their relationships with correctional staff and fellow prisoners less positive than nonsex offenders aligns with prior empirical research. Previous studies have shown that sex offenders are often treated negatively by fellow prisoners and correctional staff while incarcerated e. Theoretically the different treatment of sex offenders is often explained by stigmatization Tewksbury, According to Goffman , a stigmatized individual is one that is believed not to be human; the individual is devalued by the general population and seen as undesirable and different.

Yet, even more negative is the status of being a sex offender Tewksbury, Additional evidence for the stigmatized status of sex offenders in society are the collateral consequences formed by the criminal justice responses administered in addition to incarceration sentences e.

The findings in the current study could thus indicate that stigmatization of sex offenders in Dutch correctional facilities is a problem. Another explanation suggested in the literature is the limited social skills in sex offenders e. Sex offenders are found to suffer from social deficits, caused by childhood risk factors, such as poor-quality attachments to parents e.

Sex Offenders in Prison: Are They Socially Isolated?

Unfortunately, the current study was unable to explain the found effects of social isolation, as measures for stigmatization and social skills were not included in the data. Although we find some evidence that sex offenders experience more social isolation during imprisonment than nonsex offenders, it has to be noted that the found effects are quite small i.

There are several possible explanations for this. Second, the present study was conducted within the Dutch correctional setting. The prison conditions in the Netherlands are generally considered to be relatively humane and mild. Third, most indicators of social isolation were measured when prisoners were incarcerated for 3 weeks.

This is a relatively short period. It is possible that stronger effects could be found when sex offenders are incarcerated and exposed to a negative treatment for a longer period. Once sex offenders are incarcerated for a longer period, the possibility of this awareness by fellow prisoners and correctional staff increases. Moreover, feelings of loneliness may not be reported because they do not yet feel cutoff from their social network on the outside. The current study also examined a second hypothesis aimed at uncovering whether the level of social isolation differed for child abusers and other sex offenders.

The findings showed no differences between sex offenders who abused a child and those who did not; they were found to experience the three indicators of social isolation similarly. This is interesting as previous studies found differences in social skills and levels of stigmatization of child abusers and other sex offenders, which can lead to increased social isolation e. A possible explanation for this finding is again awareness. Fellow prisoners and correctional staff might not be aware of the status of sex offender in general, let alone the status of child abuser.

Prior studies revealed that incarcerated sex offenders often protect their status as sex offender by not disclosing their offense to fellow inmates or correctional staff out of fear of victimization Schwaebe, Child abusers are even more prone to victimization than other sex offenders Winick, ; Tewksbury, Thus, it is possible that child abusers do not disclose their status, or they merely state being a sex offender Schwaebe, If so, child abusers and other sex offenders might experience similar treatment by fellow prisoners and correctional staff.

Another possible explanation for the finding that child abusers and other sex offenders did not differ in their level of social isolation is the fact that almost half of the child abusers are placed in a special care unit compared with almost a third of the other sex offenders. In these special care units, social isolation is likely limited due to presence of more vulnerable fellow prisoners and correctional officers trained for supporting prisoners housed on these units.

Finally, a more practical explanation is the relatively low number of individuals in the subgroups. It is difficult to find differences in groups of only 46 and 30 prisoners. Before discussing the implications of our study, some limitations need to be addressed. First, our measure of social isolation was limited. In the current study, we merely looked at how sex offenders experience their relationships with fellow prisoners and correctional staff. Other relationships were not taken into account, for instance, no information was included on the social network outside the facility and the quality of these relationships.

If the sex offender has multiple meaningful relationships on the outside, social isolation within the prison environment becomes less likely. This could also explain why no differences were found for the loneliness scale, as social networks on the outside may still be strong, because the offenders were only incarcerated for a few weeks. Therefore, future studies should look into the relationships of sex offenders outside of prison, to establish social isolation. Second, the classification of the sample members was based on the offense they were currently incarcerated for; thus, the prior offending type was not taken into account.

It could be that nonsex offenders in this study actually committed a sexual offense in the past. If fellow prisoners and staff members are aware of the criminal history, this could change the treatment of the prisoner. We were unable to look into this problem; however, we assume that as sexual offending in the criminal history was scarce that the influence would be limited. Yet, future studies should take prior offending type into account. Third, as described above, the present study did not include information on possible explaining mechanisms.

Stigmatization and social skills were not included in the measures of the current study. Therefore, one can only hypothesize the influence of these mechanisms on the results, while it is known sex offender often have limited social skills and experience stigmatization in prison as well as in society. Prospective studies should include these measures of stigmatization and social skills. Fourth, this study was conducted within Dutch penitentiary institutions.

Therefore, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to other countries. Replications of our study in correctional facilities in other countries are needed. Fifth, as stated earlier, the study period was relatively short, after 3 weeks of incarceration prisoners were asked about their experiences. The longer the incarceration, the more these experiences might change, resulting in possible stronger effects.

Thus, future research must incorporate multiple moments in time to administer the survey to the respondents. Moreover, future research should incorporate time after incarceration, to study the effect of social isolation during imprisonment on rehabilitation. Notwithstanding the limitations, the current study holds implications for prison management and prison staff. Evidence was found for somewhat more social isolation in sex offenders compared with prisoners of nonsexual offenses. The relationship with correctional staff was experienced as less positive by sex offenders than other prisoners.

Prison staff should be made aware of this and educated to help build similar relationships with sex offenders and nonsex offenders during their incarceration.

This could prevent social isolation of sex offenders in the correctional facility. Moreover, sex offenders were found to be more likely to report victimization by fellow prisoners. Awareness of this finding among prison staff should give way to timely intervention that can prevent victimization of sex offenders by fellow prisoners. Subsequently, social isolation in sex offenders could possibly be reduced. Placement of all sex offenders in special care units could possible also reduce social isolation, as the prison climate there is softer and the correctional officers are additionally trained and focuses on supporting and counseling prisoners.

However, further research is needed to confirm the indication that sex offenders in special care units are less socially isolated than sex offenders in regular prison units. In the Netherlands, the length of imprisonment is relatively short compared with other countries.

The median length of imprisonment was 1 month, and the average was 3. As an additional check, a factor analysis was conducted on the items related to the three latent dependent variables: Results showed separate factors for the three variables.

A Handbook

In December , not all prisoners were convicted, yet some were still in pretrial detention. For those prisoners, we included the type of offense the prisoner was prosecuted for. Skip to main content. Sex Offenders in Prison: Are They Socially Isolated? Vol 30, Issue 7, pp.

Download Citation If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Via Email All fields are required. Send me a copy Cancel. Request Permissions View permissions information for this article. Anja Dirkzwager 2 Anja Dirkzwager. Article first published online: April 4, ; Issue published: Keywords sex offenders , prison , social isolation , loneliness.

Sex Offenders in Prison Section:. The Current Study Section:. Descriptive Characteristics of 1, Prisoners. Testing the Two Hypotheses. Relationships with correctional officers.

Relationships with fellow prisoners. Conclusion and Discussion Section:. Vol 30, Issue 7, Tips on citation download. The cases of informers and sex offenders. Deviant Behavior, 7, 1 - Attachment disorganization and its relevance to sexual offending. Journal of Family Violence, 21, - Sex offenders and sex offending. The University of Chicago Press.

The challenge in conducting qualitative research with convicted sex offenders. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, - Loneliness in sexual offenders. Crime, shame and reintegration. Intimacy deficits, fear of intimacy and loneliness among sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, - Loneliness and intimacy dysfunction among incarcerated rapists and child molesters. De betrouwbaarheid en validiteit van een handzaam alternatief voor de SCL [ reliability and validity of a manageable alternative for the SCL ].

Maandblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, 61, - De Jong Gierveld, J. A six-item scale for overall, emotional and social loneliness: Confirmatory tests on survey data. Research on Aging, 28, - American prison culture in an international context: An examination of prisons in America, The Netherlands, and Israel. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, - Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues—The Sutherland award address. Criminology, 41, - Moral panic sustenance in the age of new media. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, - Circles of support and accountability: A community justice initiative for the reintegration of high risk sex offenders.

Contemporary Justice Review, 10, - Attitudes towards male and female sex offenders: A comparison of forensic staff, prison officers and the general public in Northern Ireland. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 11 1 , 14 - Attitudes towards prisoners and sexual offenders. Context, assessment and treatment pp 27 - A review of research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, - Google Scholar , ISI. Are there still contrasts in tolerance? Imprisonment in the Netherlands and England 20 years later. JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. You must have JavaScript enabled in your browser to utilize the functionality of this website.

This website requires cookies to provide all of its features. For more information on what data is contained in the cookies, please see our Cookie Policy. To accept cookies from this site, please click the Allow button below. Part of the Forensic Focus series. Be the first to review this product. Email to a Friend.

Working with Sex Offenders in Prisons and through Release to the Community is the first study of its kind to look at a wide range of issues and problems relating to the management of sexual offenders in prisons and their reintegration into the community. Spencer's analysis of the delivery of prison-based offence-specific programmes, both within the broader context of criminal justice systems and the community provides valuable insight into the relationship between prisons and other agencies dealing with sex offenders.

Spencer makes a strong case for implementing treatment for sexual offenders within prisons, as well as the need for support and supervision in the community once released. His multi-agency approach is an innovative and cohesive strategy for effective interventions, and highlights major issues which need to be addressed so that programmes stand a chance of succeeding in a penal setting.

The issues involved in the setting up of programmes, the creation of the right environment, and the support and training of staff, are universally applicable; as are discussions of risk assessment, the links between victims and offenders, sex offenders in special hospitals, women as sex abusers, the use of pornography and sexual offender notification.

This book is essential reading, not only for specialists in the field, but also for students and professionals working in related areas. This book is essential reading for those working in prisons where sexual offenders are being treated or where there are plans to implement treatment programmes. It is an invaluable source of information not only for a variety of staff ranging for senior prison staff to programme facilitators and on line officers, but also for students and professionals working in related areas.

It aims to look at a wide range of of issues and problems relating to the management of sexual offenders in prisons and their reintegration into the community. A variety of important discussions are considered in this book, including definitions of sexual offending, motivations to offend sexually, women as sex abusers, mentally disordered offenders, the use of pornography,notification of information on sex offenders and the link between victims and offenders.

• Erwartungsbildung ökonomischer Akteure: Eine Explikation auf Basis des Grundmodells einer dynamische
• Sonata Op.27 No. 4 - Cello
• Revolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins
• The Breathing Organization
• The Shadow Market
• The 30-Day Business Tune Up
• ASP.NET Data Presentation Controls Essentials