Translating the Sexual Abuse Evidence Base into Effective Policy and Practice

How the risk principle reduces recidivism: The impact of legislative revisions on the release and reoffense rates of individuals convicted of sexual offenses.

“…Today, most Western countries have implemented sexual offending-related laws and policies based on a mixture of deterrence and rehabilitation considerations (e.g., McCartan et al, 2018;Rettenberger, 2018;Smid, 2018). Particularly in Anglo-American countries, the emphasis is often on deterrence and surveillance, even if there are also policies and legislation focusing on assessment and intervention (e.g., in cases of involuntary civil commitment under sexually violent predator statutes; Harrison, 2013;Thomas, 2013).…”

“…Generally, it is important to note that the penal law reform in Austria in 2008 must be considered and interpreted against the background of other criminological, societal, historical, political, and psychological developments. The two most important aspects in this context are the phenomenon of a general decrease in crime and (sexual and violent) recidivism rates and the general increase in public, media, and political concern about sexual offending in the past decades in all Western countries (e.g., McCartan et al, 2018;Rettenberger, 2018;Smid, 2018). Regarding the latter, it should be considered that in Austria-as in many other countries-sexual offending in general and sexual recidivism in particular (individuals who are already known to the law enforcement authorities) are an intensively discussed issue of public concern.…”

“…Because those individuals are already identified as persons who have committed crimes in the past, the public usually expects that the judicial authorities are particularly attentive when it comes to release decisions in these cases. For example, the majority of the U.S. population supports repressive and punitive sexual offense policies such as registration, notification, and residency restrictions, which could imply negative collateral consequences for both the individuals convicted of a sexual offense (e.g., by straining their personal relationships or impeding stable housing and employment opportunities; Cubellis et al, 2018; measures to control, treat, and supervise individuals convicted of sexual offenses (Hermstad, 2013;Levenson, 2018;McCartan et al, 2018;Rettenberger, 2018;Schlank, 2018). The U.S. registration and notification policies for individuals convicted of sexual offenses are a prominent measure .…”

“…Since then, all other U.S. states enacted similar laws (Thomas, 2013). Also, many European countries-for example, the Republic of Ireland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Wales-implemented different types of sexualoffending-specific policies during the past 3 decades (Harrison, 2013;McCartan et al, 2018;Rettenberger, 2018). However, in Europe, a stronger fundamental rights impact (e.g., Basdekis-Jozsa et al, 2013) led to laws that were more obligated to the individual's dignity and rights.…”

‘Once a finger is pointed at you, that part of you has gone’: The completion of Horizon programme in the community and carceral citizenship for men with sexual convictions

“…If the participants were leaving prison there are a range of familiar terms to describe this process, for example, re-entry, reintegration and resettlement. This article uses the term ‘community integration’ (see McCartan, 2022: 9–10; McCartan et al, 2021; Winder, 2022: 12), which does not presume the participants were integrated before sentencing and is inclusive of people on community sentences or custodial sentences. The term community is considered essential to the reintegration of men convicted of sexual offences (McAlinden, 2011, 2016; McNeill, 2012; McNeill and Graham, 2021).…”