The Exclusion–Inclusion Spectrum in State and Community Response to Sex Offenders in Anglo-American and European Jurisdictions

Abstract

Continental European and Anglo-American jurisdictions differ with regard to criminal justice and community responses to sex offenders on an exclusion–inclusion spectrum ranging from community protection measures on one end to therapeutic programs in the middle and restorative justice measures on the other end. In the United States, populist pressure has resulted in a community protection approach exemplified by sex offender registration, community notification, and civil commitment of violent sexual predators. Although the United Kingdom and Canada have followed, albeit more cautiously, the American trend to adopt exclusionist community protection measures, these countries have significant community-based restorative justice initiatives, such as Circles of Support and Accountability. Although sex offender crises have recently occurred in continental Europe, a long-standing tradition of the medicalization of deviance, along with the existence of social structural buffers against the influence of victim-driven populist penal movements, has thus far limited the spread of formal community protection responses.

Striving for a good life: The good lives model applied to released child molesters

“…Haines, 2006) and portrayed in the popular media, including the critically well-received film, The Woodsman. In extreme cases, public fear evoked by such offenders has led to instances of public shunning, pickets, vigils and evictions (Petrunik & Deutschmann, 2008). Whether such environmental constraints limit the potential for sex offenders to implement good lives plans has not been studied, thus an additional aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between an overall evaluation of re-entry experiences (considering access to accommodation, employment and social support) and attainment of GLM primary goods.…”

Sentencing Outcomes of Convicted Child Sex Offenders

“…What we can do with child sex offenders can vary greatly from community protection to sex offender treatment (Petrunik & Deutschmann, 2008). The United States has focused more heavily on the punitive end of this spectrum, resulting in large numbers of offenders being incarcerated for long periods and virtually all being labeled for life through offender registration programs (Greenfeld, Beck, & Gilliard, 1996;Whitman, 2007).…”

A methodology for profiling paraphilic interest in Child Sexual Exploitation Material users on peer-to-peer networks

“…For example, it has been well established that sexual offenders who maintain preferences for male children are more resistant to treatment and tend to recidivate at a higher rate (e.g. Hanson & Bussiere, 1998;Harris & Hanson, 2004;Petrunik & Deustchmann, 2008); much as those who sexually offend against both girls and boys maintain a particularly high risk of sexual recidivism (e.g. Langevin et al, 2004).…”