Psychology

Sexual offenses are quite rampant in the United States and have become a significant public health issue. The legal system in the country has consequently installed a vast range of laws aimed at reducing the rates of sexual violence incidences amongst sexual offenders. As a result, sexual offenders live under high restrictions like registration, monitoring, and civil commitment and community notifications. Although these measures are implemented for the sake of reducing recidivism of sex crimes there are emerging facts which point to there being inhibitive elements within the criminal justice system. There seems to be less consideration of the effectiveness of rehabilitative strategies in reducing recidivism. The justice system needs to refocus their attention to the factors within the rehabilitative facilities which have a direct consequence to recidivism rates for sexual offenses. Latessa, Lovins and Lowenkamp (2009) illustrate the shortcoming of the justice system in its failure to put into consideration the risk principle in the sentencing of sex offenders. Evidently, the justice system may be responsible for increasing recidivism of sex offenders which is contrary to their overall objective.

The fields of psychology and law are intricately interwoven in their responsibilities of rehabilitating offenders and restoring order in the society. More often than not, practitioners of these two professions will find themselves at a cross road especially in delegating the outcomes of sex crime trials. Indeed when these two are expected to work together their conclusions may differ extensively due to the inhibitive elements which may be present in the practice of both professions. The criminal justice system in the United States treats sex offenders severely and as they commit them to correctional facilities they are ignorant of the underlying implications. Ideally, the society is convinced that all sex offenders pose similar risks to the society and should thus face similar rehabilitative measures. When sex offenders serve their prison terms and are released back into society there is always a likelihood of repeating the same crime. However, this likelihood varies from one offender to another. Unfortunately this is not considered when assigning treatment to sex offenders and this may be putting the society at risk. This paper seeks to develop further insights into this existing loophole within the criminal justice system as depicted by Latessa et al (2009). The risk principle does apply to rehabilitative options for sex offenders in the endeavor to reduce recidivism rates.

As mentioned earlier, the legal system in the United States has put many legal restrictions on sexual offenders. This has been as a result of the emotional reactions most people have when it comes to judging sex offenders. It is this element which has led to the generalization of sex offenders where their risks for recidivism are inconsequential. In psychology, it is eminent that behaviors and characteristics of individuals vary across a wide spectrum of diversity. There is always a possibility that what appeals to one person may fail to appeal to another person. As such, it becomes paramount that human relations have to be reflective of these differences since they are bound to influence their outcomes. Sex offenders may in some way possess similar characteristics with respect to their offense but they differ greatly in other aspects. An individual sex offender may have strong behavioral and psychological deficiencies which could have contributed to their acts of crime. On the other hand, there are those who were propelled by circumstances and minor negative incidences. While one of these two sex offenders exhibits severe predicaments in their rehabilitation, it is likely that the other requires less effort in treating their problems. This very concept should be enough to propel the law into rethinking the rehabilitative measurements accorded to individual sex offenders. That is, the criminal justice system needs to consult further with psychologists on the evaluation of sex offenders risks for recidivism as it will affect their rehabilitation.

According to Latessa et al (2009, p.245), the risk principle which is among the principles of effective intervention does indeed apply to the rehabilitation of sex offenders. This principle presents a viable argument in favor of different treatments for offenders in different levels of risk. Sex offenders who have a higher risk of reoffending should be subjected to intensive rehabilitative treatments while those at a lower risk should receive less intensive treatment. Furthermore, it is asserted that low risk offenders may develop high risks of recidivism when they are exposed to similar treatments as of those with higher risks. This claim has been supported by psychological theories which explore the learning and acquisition of behaviors. Negative social learning in low risk offenders becomes increasingly heightened when they are exposed to higher risk offenders. In essence, their interactions with higher risk offenders may change their behaviors and mentalities with regards to the sex offenders social relations. In addition, this generalized treatment of sex offenders limits positive social interactions and opportunities for lower risk sex offenders. Instead of allowing lower risk sex offenders to interact with positively influential individuals, rehabilitative measurements only alienate them from the good in society. While their criminal natures are irrefutable, it is vital to have them appreciate the good values within the society which will add to their individual behavior changes.

Latessa et al (2009) in their quantitative analysis of rehabilitative treatments and sex offenders recidivism rates provide conclusive findings which should be adequately considered by law makers and enforcers. Having low risk offenders committed to residential treatments may have adverse effects on the laws objective of deterring crime and reducing recidivism rates. On the other hand, higher risk sex offenders will benefit more from intensive treatments and serve to the best interests of the society. This research may be the first of its kind but nonetheless quite significant. It symbolizes an onset of future interactions between psychology experts and the criminal justice community. These interactions will be more influential when further research is carried out in the assessment of recidivism rates and treatment of different types of sexual offenses. With this, it will be easier the criminal justice to design more effective treatments for sex offenders.

The intersection between law and psychology has always been visible in the United States. It has been there in the judicial court systems when psychologists are involved in court proceedings as expert witnesses. Furthermore, their opinions are highly considered during sentencing of offenders. These relations need to be diversified into addressing treatment of sex offenders in a bid to bring about social change in the society. It may be what will lead to the achievement of the elusive low recidivism rates.