Sex crimes and the new punitiveness

Abstract

In the last few years, new ways of punishing sex offenders have been introduced in many modern societies. However, these sanctions have a broader significance than this: they are part of a broader set of penal arrangements-directed at the criminal population as a whole-which represents a new punitiveness. This seems to be moving the direction of legal punishment beyond the established parameters that had hitherto been set for it in modern society. This had involved punishment becoming increasingly administered by penal bureaucracies, to the exclusion of the general public, being influenced by the opinion of penal experts, and becoming more tempered, consistent and purposeful in form. Sanctions that did not fit these criteria faded out of modern penality. The indeterminate prison sentence was introduced at its outer limits as a residual measure of control to be used against those offenders-frequently sex criminals-for whom the existing penal framework was thought inappropriate. Even so, by the 1970s, these special penal measures were falling into disuse. However, the new punitiveness has not only given new life to them, but has also led to the introduction of measures which seem to reverse or move beyond modernpenal parameters. The article argues that the reasons for these shifts lie in the profound economic and social changes that have taken place in Western societies over the course of the last two decades or so.

Decision-making about volitional impairment in sexually violent predators.

“…Having no firm basis on which to make judgments about this ill-defined notion, participants may have framed their decisions with reference to preferred disposition. That is, participants may have been more apt to endorse a vacuous notion when it supported continued confinement over release (as in the SVP context) or incarceration over hospitalization (as in the insanity context), in line with what Pratt's (2000) suggestion of popular support for tougher measures against sex offenders.…”

Decision-making about volitional impairment in sexually violent predators.

“…Having no firm basis on which to make judgments about this ill-defined notion, participants may have framed their decisions with reference to preferred disposition. That is, participants may have been more apt to endorse a vacuous notion when it supported continued confinement over release (as in the SVP context) or incarceration over hospitalization (as in the insanity context), in line with what Pratt's (2000) suggestion of popular support for tougher measures against sex offenders.…”

Disparity Between Punitive Attitudes Toward Stranger Rape and Partner Rape: Evidence From Cross-National Survey Data

“…Despite their identical legal status, the differential public punitiveness toward both offenses persists in each country studied here. The broad ultra-punitive turn against sexual offending ( Pratt, 2000 ) has not eliminated disparities privileging partner rape. Those respondents who differentiated their punishment recommendations were much more likely to do so in favor of partner rape.…”

The management of sex offenders in the community: from policy to practice

“…The limited evidence that is available to demonstrate that registration, community notification, and residency restriction policies are effective in reducing reoffending has led some to conclude that the laws upon which they are based are 'ill-considered, poorly crafted, and may cause more harm than good' (Human Rights Watch 2007, 3). It has, for example, been suggested that they can result in offenders becoming more socially isolated, with less access to employment, social support, social services, mental health treatments, and so on (Lasher & McGrath 2012;Levenson & Cotter 2005), and thus undermine their successful reintegration back into the community after incarceration (see also Laws & Ward 2011;Levenson 2007;Pratt 2000;Ward 2007). It is in this context that risk management policies, such as those that provide the basis for multi-agency or partnership models of practice, become important in tailoring the level of intervention to the needs of the individual offender.…”

Decision-making about volitional impairment in sexually violent predators.

“…Having no firm basis on which to make judgments about this ill-defined notion, participants may have framed their decisions with reference to preferred disposition. That is, participants may have been more apt to endorse a vacuous notion when it supported continued confinement over release (as in the SVP context) or incarceration over hospitalization (as in the insanity context), in line with what Pratt's (2000) suggestion of popular support for tougher measures against sex offenders.…”

Disparity Between Punitive Attitudes Toward Stranger Rape and Partner Rape: Evidence From Cross-National Survey Data

“…Despite their identical legal status, the differential public punitiveness toward both offenses persists in each country studied here. The broad ultra-punitive turn against sexual offending ( Pratt, 2000 ) has not eliminated disparities privileging partner rape. Those respondents who differentiated their punishment recommendations were much more likely to do so in favor of partner rape.…”

The management of sex offenders in the community: from policy to practice

“…The limited evidence that is available to demonstrate that registration, community notification, and residency restriction policies are effective in reducing reoffending has led some to conclude that the laws upon which they are based are 'ill-considered, poorly crafted, and may cause more harm than good' (Human Rights Watch 2007, 3). It has, for example, been suggested that they can result in offenders becoming more socially isolated, with less access to employment, social support, social services, mental health treatments, and so on (Lasher & McGrath 2012;Levenson & Cotter 2005), and thus undermine their successful reintegration back into the community after incarceration (see also Laws & Ward 2011;Levenson 2007;Pratt 2000;Ward 2007). It is in this context that risk management policies, such as those that provide the basis for multi-agency or partnership models of practice, become important in tailoring the level of intervention to the needs of the individual offender.…”

Decision-making about volitional impairment in sexually violent predators.

“…Having no firm basis on which to make judgments about this ill-defined notion, participants may have framed their decisions with reference to preferred disposition. That is, participants may have been more apt to endorse a vacuous notion when it supported continued confinement over release (as in the SVP context) or incarceration over hospitalization (as in the insanity context), in line with what Pratt's (2000) suggestion of popular support for tougher measures against sex offenders.…”

Disparity Between Punitive Attitudes Toward Stranger Rape and Partner Rape: Evidence From Cross-National Survey Data

“…Despite their identical legal status, the differential public punitiveness toward both offenses persists in each country studied here. The broad ultra-punitive turn against sexual offending ( Pratt, 2000 ) has not eliminated disparities privileging partner rape. Those respondents who differentiated their punishment recommendations were much more likely to do so in favor of partner rape.…”

The management of sex offenders in the community: from policy to practice

“…The limited evidence that is available to demonstrate that registration, community notification, and residency restriction policies are effective in reducing reoffending has led some to conclude that the laws upon which they are based are 'ill-considered, poorly crafted, and may cause more harm than good' (Human Rights Watch 2007, 3). It has, for example, been suggested that they can result in offenders becoming more socially isolated, with less access to employment, social support, social services, mental health treatments, and so on (Lasher & McGrath 2012;Levenson & Cotter 2005), and thus undermine their successful reintegration back into the community after incarceration (see also Laws & Ward 2011;Levenson 2007;Pratt 2000;Ward 2007). It is in this context that risk management policies, such as those that provide the basis for multi-agency or partnership models of practice, become important in tailoring the level of intervention to the needs of the individual offender.…”