A recent study of prison facilities revealed that over 90 percent of sexual offenders sentenced to serve time in prison are eventually released back to the community (Marshall, 1998). This revelation informed the decision by the Department of Corrections (DOC) to start the Sex Offender Treatment as a one of the methods for guaranteeing the issue of community safety. The plan has been effective with some facilities like the Monroe Correctional Complex reporting a less that 7% return rate of released sex offenders (Marshall, 1998). At the moment, however, the Sex Offender Treatment programme in the country is held only on a voluntary basis. The reason for not making it compulsory was because the initiators of the strategy were aware that, like any other form of treatment, sexual deviancy management could only be effective provided the individual was willing to seek treatment. The patient had to also be ready to follow the established regimen (Gabbard, 2007). The main goal of the treatment programme is to therefore ensure that the offenders are managed properly whilst in prison, with the primary aim of ensuring public safety when inmates are finally done with their sentences.
With the high success rates of the programme, I personally believe that all sexual offenders should be mandated to take the treatment before they leave the correctional facility. However, they should be given the freedom to choose a time that is comfortable for them to follow the programme. This is so that they can prepare themselves psychologically to accept that what they have could indeed be a psychological problem which can only be addressed through proper science-based treatment. However, there should be an established framework for identifying the eligibility of offenders to join the programme. One of the criteria for selecting individuals that need to be compelled to join the treatment programme is that they should have been convicted of a sex offence and that they should be due for release at some point in the future (Marshall, 1998). This will ensure that the programme is only attended by individuals who require the treatment and not seen as an escape option for inmates to skip normal prison routines. Individuals who successfully complete the programme should be given a certificate or any other legal document to ascertain that they can now safely and comfortably function within the society.
After release from prison, I believe that the released sexual offenders who have already gone through the treatment will be in a position to decide whether or not they would like to continue with the programme. As such, the state should not be required to continue treatment for released inmates as this will be a violation of the individuals’ right to personally select a treatment programme. However, the prison facility from which the inmate was released should be required to have their treatment programme open for released inmates such that they (the released offenders) can seek further consultation when they deem necessary. Some schools of thought may be of the opinion that not making the released sexual offenders adhere to a strict treatment programme may be a violation of the victims’ rights. However, according to me, this argument may not be of appropriate substance as psychological treatment cannot be said to be a magic cure for sexual deviancy. It actually aimed at helping individuals develop self control and therefore can fail to work whether or not the individual is forced to take the treatment.
Reference List
Gabbard, G.O. (2007). Gabbard’s treatments of psychiatric disorders. Vancouver: American Psychiatric Pub
Marshall, W.L (1998). Sourcebook of treatment programs for sexual offenders. Berlin: Springer