Handbook on Sexual Violence (83 page)

This
chapter presents a practitioner’s perspective of working with sexually violent offenders and
Surviving Sexual Violence
by Liz Kelly (1989) provides a central focus for exploring sexual violence within the National Probation Service of England and Wales (NPS). The chapter summarises the breadth of sexual violence, briefly discussing the effectiveness and limitations of interventions used by the NPS when working with an offending population. Commentary considers how Kelly’s continuum and definition of sexual violence is addressed within the Criminal Justice System (CJS), in particular the unhelpful labelling and underdeveloped assessment process for men convicted of sexual violence against an intimate partner. The chapter concludes with a number of proposals.

The scope of sexual violence and the CJS

Kelly (1989) defines sexual violence as physical, visual, verbal or sexual acts that threaten or hurt, degrade or take away a woman/girl’s ability to control intimate contact. Kelly records the enormity of the incidence rates experienced by 60 women interviewed for her study. Women were sampled in the main from social service or crisis centres: 78 per cent experienced three forms of sexual violence at some point in their life; 50 per cent experienced rape; 70 per cent discussed sexual assaults, from being touched indecently by a stranger to forced sexual acts with a partner; 50 per cent had been abused by a family member; and 53 per cent had experienced domestic violence. One hundred per cent of the sample had felt the threat of violence from either a stranger or a known male at some point in their life. The threat of violence experienced by all of these women is alarming and of concern.

In her study, sexual harassment was the most common form of abuse taking place at the workplace or in the street (Kelly 1989). The women described this as ‘intrusive and involved assumptions of intimacy that women felt were inappropriate and/or involved men treating women as sexual objects’ (p. 103). Ninety-three per cent experienced harassment as a ‘normal experience which occurred on an everyday basis’ (p. 81). Sexual harassment, obscene calls and pressure to have sex were the most regular experiences. Kelly could not include these statistics in her overall data analysis as the women reported too many incidents and could not recall individual events accurately.

Perpetrators in her study were neither exclusively known partners nor strangers; indeed Kelly’s definition of sexual violence does not distinguish the relationship status of the perpetrator with the victim. The relationship status within her definition is immaterial. However, the issue of the sexual perpetrator and the victim’s relationship does appear to be pertinent within the wider societal view of sexual violence. Attitudes supporting abuse dominate the media, and myths surrounding rape, for example, are cultivated that hold victims responsible for the abuse of their partner. Myths support the idea that rape is deserved and even enjoyed, the seriousness of abuse is minimised, and victims are doubted and questioned as to why they stay in a relationship if it is so bad (Carlyle 2008).

Evidence suggests that the likelihood of sexual assault is greater for a woman when she is in an intimate or dating relationship, and is perpetrated more commonly by her partner than by a stranger (Abbey
et al
. 2006). Yet the media generate contrary stories of stranger-perpetrated sexual crimes, fuelling myths and moral panic, publishing stories of women and children vulnerable to a subclass of sexual deviants who will never reform (Ducat
et al
. 2009), men lurking behind bushes or outside school gates. Not only do such myths aim to cause widespread fear (Quinn
et al
. 2004) and denigrate individuals (West 2000), they are used to demonise a very small percentage of the male population and minimise the actions of others. Of concern is that such minimisation allows the wider population of men (and women) to disassociate themselves from sexual violence. This disassociation suppresses the voice of victims and fosters a silence, as documented in an earlier commentary by Jan Jordan (see Chapter
12). A continuum of sexual violence should be viewed as

one spectrum, yet society generates an unhelpful offending hierarchy whereby the more severe cases of sexual violence are heard (although not often enough), and the regular and routine sexualisation of and violence against women is silenced. Buying into this hierarchy fosters disassociation and allows many perpetrators of partner abuse not to consider their abuse as sexual. Yet there are common and interesting similarities between those men who offend against partners and those who offend against adult women who are strangers that cannot be ignored.

Such similarities are evident through comparison of different types of offenders. Consider the generally violent/antisocial type of domestic violent perpetrator; he carries out his acts of abuse in a generalised way, is not restricted to intimate abuse, is more likely to misuse substances and have generally antisocial attitudes towards women (
CDVP Theory Manual
2005). Similarly, there is a view that the adult stranger rapist fundamentally expresses hostility and anger towards women generally, has the need to exert and gain power and control over her, and likely uses alcohol as a primary strategy to justify his actions (Craig
et al
. 2008). Rees and Rivett (2005) considered four subtypes of domestic violence perpetrator: antisocial; narcissistic; less antisocial; and borderline emotionally dependent. These can be paralleled to sex offenders who perpetrate abuse against adult women and who present with poor attachment styles, hold antisocial attitudes, are narcissistic and can be personality disordered (Beech
et al
. 2009). Furthermore, both groups present with inadequate relationship skills and poor intimacy levels (Beech
et al
. 2009;
CDVP Theory Manual
2005). Finally, although there are limited studies in relation to men who rape their partners (Finkelhor and Yllo¨ 1987; Groth
et al
. 1977), of the studies available, perpetrators are defined as having similar profiles to those who rape strangers or women in non-intimate relations. And yet, society stereotypes and stigmatises one group of offenders as sexual deviants (Quinn
et al
. 2004) but waters down the stereotype and labelling of offenders who are domestically abusive, despite their many shared offending behaviours.

Kelly’s (1989) small sample alone cannot be generalised to all women. Indeed, research into sexual violence is problematic due to the complex range of definitions used, differing abusive behaviours studied and incompatible methodological approaches (Kelly
et al
. 2005). One significant survey that begins to deal with the issue of representation and generalisation is the British Crime Survey (BCS). In 2008–2009, of the 46,000 participants, three per cent of women aged 16 to 59 reported having experienced either actual or attempted sexual assault in the past 12 months. Police-recorded crime data for the same period registered 40,787 incidents of rape, sexual assault and sexual activity with children and 10,701 incidences of ‘other’ sexual offences (Crime in England and Wales 2008/2009, 2009). The BCS and police-recorded crime data, however, only record offences legally defined; these are much narrower definitions than Kelly’s. Furthermore prevalence, not incidence, is recorded and although intimate violence is recorded as the most common type of violence, it is not defined as sexual violence. This omission accounts for a recorded 226,000 incidents. Other findings support the BCS editors’ view that incidence and prevalence of sexual violence against women by men is under-

reported and therefore potentially underestimated (Bogner
et al
. 2007; Butler and Welch 2009; Taylor and Gassner 2009; Walby and Allen 2004).

Provision within the NPS

No single agency or policy in isolation can deal with the issue of sexual violence (Levenson and D’Amora 2007). In fact, sociopolitical belief systems are so embedded and ingrained that broader cultural, national and societal approaches towards gender need to be challenged (Hearn and Whitehead 2006). Relying on CJS organisations to resolve the issue causes concern for some radical feminists, who argue that the law is in itself oppressive towards women and merely reflects the wider societal problems regarding gender (DeKeseredy and Dragiewicz 2007). Only one per cent of Kelly’s (1989) women interviewed reported their assaults to the police and more alarmingly only a maximum of five men were charged. The difficulty in securing successful prosecution of sexual violence is commonly noted (Kelly
et al
. 2005; Rumney 2009), with many rape cases failing to make it past the investigation stage (Brown
et al
. 2007). Myths in society and the media that support abusive behaviour around date rape or rape where the victim was intoxicated both decrease victims’ confidence in reporting and compromise individuals’ capacity to believe victims (Meyer 2010). Prosecuting cases of sexual violence becomes complex and fraught with issues such as the reliability of evidence from a traumatised victim recalling abuse from many previous years (Porter
et al
. 2003) or indeed victims withdrawing statements later (Robinson and Cook 2006). Given the small minority of offenders prosecuted, CJS agencies are therefore limited in the ways in which they can have an impact on reducing sexual violence within society (Robinson and Cook 2006).

The NPS’s fundamental aim is to both protect the public and reduce reoffending, working predominantly with offenders who are convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to either custodial or community sentences. Men convicted of a sexual assault can be mandated to attend and engage in an offending behaviour programme as part of their rehabilitation. Offending behaviour programmes are accredited interventions built upon theoretical foundations and empirical evidence. Such interventions are known to reduce reoffending (Maguire
et al
. 2010) although there are criticisms of their effectiveness too (Stanley 2009). Accredited programmes delivered by the NPS are based on the ‘What Works’ literature (Maguire
et al
. 2010), adopting a cognitive behavioural approach (CBT), which is known to have a positive effect, particularly when working with sexual offending behaviour (Lo¨sel and Schmucker 2005).

Kelly’s (1989) definition and continuum of sexual violence is all-inclusive and does not specify perpetrator relationship with the victim; however, within the NPS, two separate treatment pathways are available, one for those deemed sexual offenders and one labelled domestic violence perpetrators. For those labelled sexual offenders, each probation area delivers one of three accredited programmes: Northumbria Sex Offenders Group (NSOGP), Thames Valley Sex Offender Group (TV-SOGP) and the West Midlands (C-SOGP) (Mandeville-

Norden and Beech 2004). Each programme is designed to work with a wide range of sexual offences from assaults against intra- and/or extra-familial children and adults to non-contact offences such as indecent exposure or possession of illegal pornography. In recent evaluations offenders completing such programmes had significantly lower reconviction rates, when compared with offenders not completing treatment (Hanson
et al
. 2009; Hollis 2007). For domestic violence offenders two accredited programmes are delivered for low- to medium-risk offenders within the community: the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP) and the Community Domestic Violence Programme (CDVP). Current domestic violence programmes are restricted to offenders who perpetrate abuse to women within the context of an intimate relationship (
CDVP Theory Manual
2005). The success of these programmes is less encouraging, and questions remain regarding the effectiveness of both CDVP and IDAP (Hollis 2007).

Prior to sentencing an assessment by a probation officer identifies a suitable programme for the offender. The pre-sentence report highlights the risk and needs of the offender and advises the court of sentencing options available. A range of eligibility and suitability criteria must be met before programme recommendations are made. For the sex offender group programme, the offender must be a male, over 21 years of age, and have committed a sexual offence. For the domestic violence programme, the offender must be a male and have been assessed as moderate to high risk on the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA). Both are required to have some level of motivation to address their offending behaviour. Whilst offenders may be eligible for group work, some may not be suitable in special circumstances, such as absolute denial, severe disruptive substance misuse, low-level IQ (although poor literacy would not exclude) and some diagnosed personality disorders such as psychopathy (Kennington
et al
. 2002).

Following sentencing, further treatment assessments are made. However, it

is at this stage that detailed treatment assessments stop for men subject to domestic violence programmes. Along with continual risk of harm and risk of reconviction assessments, a Structured Assessment of Risk and Need (SARN) (
PC17/2007 – Assessment and Management of Sex Offenders
2007; Webster
et al
. 2006) is completed for sexual offenders. The SARN framework uses four domains, allowing assessment of 16 dynamic risk factors. These include a sexual interest domain, distorted attitudes domain, socio-affective functioning domain and a self-management domain (Craig
et al
. 2008). SARN provides an assessment of stable dynamic risk factors that can be addressed during treatment along with those acute dynamic factors that project imminence of risk. The higher the deviancy, the more intensive treatment an offender requires. The tool is used dynamically throughout the offender’s treatment, measuring any change in the offender’s deviancy.

Agreeing treatment targets, such as through the SARN framework, enables collaboration between the probation officer, the programme facilitators (accredited staff members who deliver the programme to the group of offenders), and the offender himself. Individualised focus on the offender’s need increases motivation and engagement; indeed a lack of congruence with programme material is thought to have an impact on attrition (Cadsky
et al
.