The Persistent Sexual Offender— Control and Rehabilitation
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057802500207 |
| Author | Roger Shaw |
| Published date | 01 June 1978 |
| Date | 01 June 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
61
The
Persistent
Sexual
Offender—
Control
and
Rehabilitation
(A
Follow-up)
ROGER
SHAW
THE
ARTICLE
published
in
the
March
PROBATION
JOURNAL
prompted
many
enquiries
from
probation
officers
and
other
interested
parties.
It
was
written
a
year
ago
as
a
description
of
the
theory
and
mechanics
of
a
scheme
aimed
at
managing
sex
offenders
within
the
community,
but
was
not
published
until
March,
by
which
time
the
exercise
had
ceased.
It
is,
therefore,
timely
to
explain
how
the
scheme
developed
from
that
described
in
the
article,
the
lessons
learned
from
the
exercise
and
to
comment
on
some
of
the
questions
which
have
been
raised,
particularly.
in
regard
to
the
saturation
effect
on
the
volunteer
workers,
regularity
of
drugtaking
and
the
precise
reason
the
scheme
ended
so
prematurely.
I
started
to
look
at
the
possibility
of
employing
a
libido
suppressant
drug
to
reduce
sexual
drive
to
manageable
proportions
in
Spring
1974.
Investigation
rapidly
showed
that
the
main
problem
would
be
ensuring
that
the
client
took
the
substance
regularly.
The
scheme
described
in the
earlier
article
was
gradually
formulated
and
in
the
autumn
of
1975
the
search
began
for
suitable
volunteers.
Five
were
considered,
from
which
three
commenced
weekly
small
group
training
sessions
in
the
Summer
of
1976.
None
were
from
the
existing
pool
of
volunteers.
All
were
in
their
twenties,
two
female
and
one
male.
The
training
sessions
included dis-
cussions
with
magistrates,
doctors
and
a
representative
of
Scharing
Chemicals
who
make
Cyproterone
acetate.
A
local
general
practitioner
with
an
interest
in
the
penal
system
agreed
to
give
his
time
freely.
But
for
this
the
scheme
could
not
have
operated
since
Cyproterone
acetate
can
only
be
prescribed
by
a
doctor.
During
the
period
of
operation
eight
clients
were
approached
and
invited
to
take
Cyproterone
acetate.
It
is
significant
that
only
one
refused.
The
first
client
to
take
the
drug
commenced
in
July
1976.
He
was
on
parole
licence
having
been
imprisoned
many
times
for
indecent
assaults
on
children.
He
never
became
a
full
member
of
the
scheme
in
that
he
did
not
attend
the
social
interaction
group
fearing
that
volunteer
workers
might
talk
about
him
outside
the
group.
He
was
the
only
client
to
doubt
the
integrity
of
the
volunteers
in
that
respect.
He
remained
on
Cypro-
terone
acetate
until
I
left
14
months
later
and
during
this
time
supervision
had
been
aimed
almost
entirely
at
reinforcing
his
drug
taking.
Two
clients
serving
periods
of
imprisonment
agreed
to
participate
in
the
scheme
on
release.
The
volunteers
visited
them
for
group
contract
establishment,
and
the
Medical
4~cer
in
the
prison
agreed
to
put
them
on
Cyproterone
acetate
three
weeks
before
their
release.
They
corresponded
regularly
with
the
volunteers
in
the
group.
It
is
relevant
that
one
of
these
men
was
still
anxious
to
join
the
scheme
on
his
release
even
after
he
was
refused
parole.
The
first
client
to
meet
the
volunteers
did
so
in
February
1977,
having
commenced
Cyproterone
acetate
in
the
Autumn
of
1976.
The
volunteers
could
not
work
with
clients
sooner
because
of
an
undertaking
given
to
senior
management
that
they
would
first
be
registered:
a
logical
and
To continue reading
Request your trial