From a Lack of Engagement and Mistrust to Partnership? Public Attitudes to the Disclosure of Sex Offender Information
| Author | Kieran McCartan |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijps.2013.15.3.313 |
| Published date | 01 September 2013 |
| Date | 01 September 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Paper |
From a lack of engagement and mistrust
to partnership? Public attitudes to the
disclosure of sex offender information
Kieran McCartan
Department of Health and Applied Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences,
University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY,
UK. email: Kieran.mccartan@uwe.ac.uk
Submitted 12 November 2013, accepted 17 November 2013
Keywords: public disclosure, child sexual abuse, community engagement,
sex offender reintegration
Kieran McCartan, PhD
(Associate professor in
Criminology) has a track record of public, aca-
demic and professional engagement on sexual
offending and related societal responses. He has
experience of qualitative, quantitative and mixed
method research from funders including Ministry
of Justice, Cabinet Office, ESRC, Bristol City
Council and Wiltshire probation. He co-leads an
ESRC Knowledge Exchange Network (ended
February 2013) on the limited disclosure of sex
offender information and was a visiting Scholar
at the University of Minnesota (spring 2013).
A
BSTRACT
This paper discusses public attitudes to the cur-
rent limited disclosure of sex offender scheme in
the UK. The study focuses on two ‘countries’ of
the UK (ie, Northern Ireland and Wales) where,
up until now, no direct research has been done
with the public on their attitudes to the sex
offender disclosure scheme. This study is based
upon six socially representative local focus groups
(members of the public; three in each locale) with
a total of 35 members of the public between
them. The focus groups are semi-structured in
nature and were interpreted through qualitative
(thematic) content analysis. Results indicate that
the public believed that, in principle, they had a
right to have access to information regarding sex
offenders living in their communities, but when
the practicalities of this were discussed, the par-
ticipants became divided on the validity of dis-
closure. In respect to the limited disclosure
scheme, the participants did not feel that it went
far enough, it was too restrictive, they were
unhappy with the structure of it (especially the
background checks and the confidentiality agree-
ment) and that they did not trust the government
(ie, the police) to run it appropriately. Ultimately,
the participants thought that communities needed
to be more involved in the management of sex
offenders within them, but they were conflicted as
to whether communities could handle this role.
The results of this study reflects and builds upon
the English and Scottish pilots, suggesting that
more work needs to be done on the administra-
tion of the disclosure process.
INTRODUCTION
There is often a fraught relationship, in
policy and related, between individuals,
society and the state (Wood, 2009). Often,
public attitudes do not reflect the realities of
state policy, leading to difficulties and mis-
trust, which is often compounded if there is
already a lack of trust in the state (Newman,
2008). Crime is a high-profile socio-
political issue in the UK (McQuail, 2005),
International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 15 Number 3
International Journal of Police
Science and Management,
Vol. 15 No. 3, 2013, pp. 219–236.
DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2013.15.3.313
Page 219
as well as internationally, resulting in its
being one of the key issues on which the
public look to the politicians for clarity of
vision and, consequently, on which politi-
cians campaign. This often results in dis-
agreement, misunderstanding between the
state and society (in both micro and macro
terms) on crime policy (Wood, 2009);
which is particularly salient in the UK,
given that the UK is composed of four
different ‘countries’, three different legisla-
tions and three different criminal justice
systems. One ‘country’ of the UK that has
heightened levels of mistrust in its own
government and criminal justice system is
Northern Ireland, with its history of organ-
ised violence, social division and conflict
with the state throughout the ‘Troubles’ (ie,
the armed conflict in Northern Ireland)
(Tonge, 2005); historically, and currently
within certain communities, there is an
entrenched perception in Northern Ireland
that the state is biased and not able to
appropriately respond to crime. This public
mistrust in the state to manage offenders is
only heightened in respect of sexual and/or
interpersonal crimes (Brown, 2009).
Sex offenders, especially child sexual
abusers, are the most ostracised offending
population in modern society (Kemshall,
Kelly, & Wilkinson, 2012; Kleban & Jeglic,
2012; McCartan, 2004, 2010, 2012a),
which means that they present a significant
challenge to the Criminal Justice System in
regard to their prosecution, sentencing,
punishment and treatment, as well as reinte-
gration (Keenan, 2012; Kleban & Jeglic,
2012; McCartan, 2012a, 2012b). Child
sexual abuse is a headline story in the UK
and Ireland (Keenan, 2012; McCartan,
2010). This means that government repre-
sentatives (civil servants, policy makers and
practitioners), politicians, media outlets and
the public are all involved in the social
construction of public protection and
offender management strategies surround-
ing sexual abuse (McCartan, 2010, 2012a).
Hence, societal responses to sexual offend-
ing in the UK are constructed out of the
reality and impact of existing discourses.
Public understandings of sex offenders,
their aetiology, offending behaviour, treat-
ment and reintegration are mixed at best
(Kemshall et al., 2012; Kitzinger, 1999;
Kleban & Jeglic, 2012; McCartan, 2004,
2010; Silverman & Wilson, 2002); this is
not because of a lack of material in the
public sphere (ceop.police.uk; McCartan,
Kemshall, & Hudson, 2012; www.nspcc.
org.uk/; Stopitnow.org.uk, 2012a,b,c) or
through, some, professional engagement
(McCartan, 2011; McCartan, Hudson, &
Kemshall, 2012), but rather, members of
the public often not wanting to engage
with informed discourses or educational
resources on the topic (McCartan, 2011).
Kitzinger (2004) explained this differing
public engagement around social issues by
virtue of the fact that there are actually
multiple ‘publics’ and not simply one amor-
phous public. This means that that there
are some publics who are interested and
invested in understanding sexual offending
and it is these engaged publics who read the
available literature, interact with the rele-
vant media and get involved with the asso-
ciated charities and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs, ie, Stop it Now!,
NSPCC, Circles of Support and Account-
ability). Consequently, because there is no
overarching British ‘public’, this means that
there is no overarching ‘public’ perspective
on sex offenders short of a generally
accepted dislike and rejection of them
(McCartan, 2010) by all but a small, often
self-selecting because of personal experi-
ence or heterogonous explanations, selec-
tion of the community (Hanvey, Philpott, &
Wilson, 2011). This means that discussing
sex offender punishment, treatment and
reintegration is often premised by the ques-
tion of which public is it to which you are
speaking, how educated are they and where
have they got their information?
From a lack of engagement and mistrust to partnership?
Page 220
To continue reading
Request your trial