Explaining Sex Offending in Court Reports
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059304000103 |
| Published date | 01 March 1993 |
| Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Explaining Sex
Offending in
Court Reports
Do
probation officers collude with perpetrators’ denial or
minimisation of responsibility? Anne McColl of Kent
Probation Service and Rosalind Hargreaves, Lecturer in
Social Work at the University of Kent, outline their
examination of a sample of court reports to illuminate the
basis of understanding between offender and reporter.
A~P©’s 1990 guide-
We examined 31 social enquiry
lines on Work
reports on adult male offenders con-
with Men who
victed of sexual offences against
Abuse
Women
children to find out how
offenders’ ac-
and Children ex-
counts of their crimes were conveyed
pxessed the view
to the court, to see whether report-
that ’much pr~ba-
writers were uncritically reproducing
tion involvement
the often spurious explanations offered
has been at best loosely focused and at
and, if so, to consider the practice im-
worst has positively colluded with
plications.
such offenders’. The document
-~ - - ~- - -
Learning to Explain Away
presented a feminist perspective which
we
share and which places the abuse
That sex offenders predominantly ex-
of male adult or parental power at the
plain their behaviour in which they
core of sexual offending.
deny or minimise responsibility is well
The preparation of a pre-sentence
known. But how is it that these ex-
report is usually the first major stage
planations so often appear to be ac-
of Service intervention with sexual of-
cepted ? The concept of ’vocabulary of
fenders. The report, which may be re-
motive’ within feminist literature on
tained by the offender, derives
sexual violence can help us answer that
considerable authority from its accep-
question2. People (in this case sex of-
tance by the court and the way in
fenders) who commit acts that they
which an offender’s explanations and
know others define as wrong go
attitudes are set out may appear to him
through a process of disavowing their
to be validated by that acceptance. If
wrongdoing and proceed to present
the perpetrator’s behaviour is
themselves as ’normal’; they do so
represented in a collusive manner, this
through the use of ’linguistic devices
could prevent or make more difficult
and in terms that are
...
culturally ap-
the development of non-collusive,
propriate and socially acceptable*3 . We
offence-based work during any subse-
can
understand the kinds of linguistic
quent supervision or contact.
devices used by sex offenders by
15
reference to the work of Sykes and
reflect what individuals have learn-
Matza who
suggest that offenders aim
ed to expect that others win find ac-
to neutralise the extent and seriousness
ceptable’ S.
of their offending by presenting and us-
Sex offenders thus use and have learnt
ing rationalisations.1 Sykes and Matza
to use
explanations such as ’I was lone-
characterise five types of rationalist-
ly after my wife left’; ’I was abused as
tions. To illustrate:
~
child’ etc.’. They are also aware that
Denial of Responsibility: ’I’ll never
such explanations might be accepted
know whether Fve committed these
by probation officers (and indeed
offences (indecent assaults on stepson)
magistrates or judges) as reasons for
because I was so drunk during that
their offending. Our research supports
period of time and can’t remember.&dquo;
this possibility.
Denial of Injury: ’It did not do her any
harm; she was nearly 16 anyway’ (man
The Study
in his fifties conviaed-ofunlawful sex-
Each
ual intercourse with girl under
report author provided their
report voluntarily. Any details which
sixteen).
could lead to the identification of
Denial of Victim: ‘She ~as wilting and
either the offender or the author were
previously sexually experienced; she
deleted prior to receipt by us in order
taught me a thing or two’ (as above).
to protect anonymity and confidentiali-
Condemning the ~oa~de~ners: ’It is
ty. The research was conducted by way
only you lot (probation officers) who
of a content analysis of each report.
think this is wrong. Half the men in
Sentences were deconstructed in order
London are doing what I did (as
to determine if an explanation for the
above).
offending was attributable to the of-
Appeal to Fl~gl~e~-Loyalties: ’I did not
fender or to the probation officer. The
cause her any harm; she was abused in
process involved us in deciding
the children’s home by social workers.
whether the origins of a sentence or
I showed her more love than any one
phrase lay in the words of the offender
of them’ (as above).
or in those of the probation officer.
High on the agenda of any sex of-
Some reports used reported speech to
fender when
meeting with a probation
delineate clearly that the idea was that
officer for the preparation of a court
of the offender; others used expres-
report will be the negotiation of a non-
sions such as ’he says’, ’he claims’, etc.
deviant identity. High on the agenda of
In those circumstances we
interpreted
the probation officer will be the desire
the explanations as belonging to the of-
fender.
If explanations are...
To continue reading
Request your trial