Probation Forum
| Author | Roger Shaw,Pauline Hill,H.B. Crook,Geoff Barraclough |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057802500208 |
| Published date | 01 June 1978 |
| Date | 01 June 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
PROBATION FORUM
SEX OFFENDERS’ SCHEME
.
We
at the Southend Office were particularly interested to read Roger Shaw’s
article in the March 1978 edition of the journal. I do however believe that in
his enthusiasm for what was undoubtedly a useful experiment, he may have
overstated his claims. In particular, when I consider how careful we were to
establish accurate figures and matching of clients for our article published in
this journal in June I977; I wonder how he can sustain the claim in the last
sentence of the addendum to his article..
The first point is that, as I understand it, the client members did not meet
- twice a week regularly as a group as implied for it was only the social inter-
action group that functioned. I think this may have been because there were
so few client members at any-one time that the second meeting would not in
the circumstances have served any useful purpose.
’ .’
’.
The more important criticism though is the implication that it produced
encouraging results. The group was terminated so early and had no few mem-
bers that I do not believe any conclusions can be drawn. The facts as far as I
have been able to ascertain them are as follows:
~ ..
The volunteers began training in August 1976...
.
The first client began attending in about February 1977.
.
The second client who was subject to a deferred sentence began attending
about April 1977 but on the 3rd June 1977 received an eighteen months
_
sentence for the offences that
.
brought him to the attention of this depart-
’
ment. There its now a strong suggestion that he was not taking his pyre-
scribed doses of androcur during the intervening period. ’
-
The third and fourth clients joined the group in June/July 1977.
The group was disbanded’in August I977. ~ ~ ’
;
There were three other potential members of the group who had been
contacted but two were still serving a prison sentence when the group was
disbanded and the other appears to have been unable to bring himself to
attend group meetings although he was for a period while at liberty taking
androcur.
It would not be logical to include these three people or the one now
serving a sentence in any assessment of the effectiveness of &dquo;conjoint drug
based group therapy techniques&dquo;. - - - - ..
,
.....
I find it, very difficult to accept that one can claim positive results on the
basis of one client receiving group treatment for six -months and two more
for a maximum of three months each, particularly as it has been pointed out
to me that one. of these people was a first offender anyway and another one
had long periods of liberty between prison sentences in the past. I believe
that in his eagerness to support a very worthwhile experiment, Roger Shaw
has over-stated his case and thereby perhaps in the long term has done his
cause a dis-service. It is also my experience of this office and county that the
modest amount of money needed to finance such an experiment would have
continued to be available.
In conclusion, I would very much like to see such a group operating, if only
to find out whether it is effective, for the experience available so far is insuffi-
cient to draw any conclusion.
H. B. CROOK
Probation Officer, Southend.
64
The Author replies:
...
In view of the fact that my article in the March issue dealt with the theory
and mechanics of the scheme together with a footnote to indicate it had ceased
and I did not seek to evaluate it or make claims, the purpose of Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial