Masters

– Beyond community protection: An examination of community protection and public health approaches to sex offenders. Part 1: Regulating the ‘sex offender’. From community protection to a public health approach: what does this signify historically, theoretically and practically' “Imagine a childhood disease that affects one in five girls and one in seven boys before they reach 18: a disease that can cause dramatic mood swings, erratic behavior, and even severe conduct disorders among those exposed; a disease that breeds distrust of adults and undermines the possibility of experiencing normal sexual relationships; a disease that can have profound implications for an individual’s future health by increasing the risk of problems such as substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and suicidal behavior; a disease that replicates itself by causing some of its victims to expose future generations to its debilitating effects. Imagine what we, as a society, would do if such a disease existed. We would spare no expense. We would invest heavily in basic and applied research. We would devise management systems to identify those affected and provide services to treat them. We would develop and broadly implement prevention campaigns to protect our children wouldn’t we' Such a disease does exist – it’s called child sexual abuse!” (Mercy, 1999:317, as quoted in [']). “The criminal law sets the boundaries for what is culpable and deserving of punishment including sexual activity . . . In producing a set of recommendations which demonstrate a balance between protection, deterrence, the rights of the individual and society’s expectation of acceptable behaviour, the review was set a difficult and challenging task to achieve”. (Home Office, 2001:1,6 as quoted in Matravers, 2003:1). In England and Wales the criminal justice system’s attempts to combat sexual offending have resulted in what has been described as a ‘criminal apartheid’” (Soothill et al, 1998 as quoted in Hudson, 2005:13). Section 1: Background: The problem of sexual offending in general and pedophiles in particular! The nature of the beast and necessary definitions: What is sexual offending and who is the child sex offender' “A sex offender is someone who has committed a criminal offence which is characterized by a sexual motive or inappropriate sexual behavior” ('). “Persons who commit sexual crimes are among the least understood of all offenders” (Wilson et al, 2002:375). “Societal disapproval of criminal sex acts poses more harm for children than the acts themselves” (Kleinhan, 2002:238). It has been argued that in recent years there has been an unprecedented explosion of ‘interest’ or should I say ‘concern’ in the topic of child sexual offending generally and sex offenders who offend against children in particular, and how best to deal with them – on a worldwide scale (Kemshall et al, 2001:241). Indeed, commentators have singled out a number of contributory factors underlying the re-emergence of sexual offending as a modern day problem and this has been reflected at a number of different levels - in media and public responses to the risk posed by released sex offenders and in official criminological discourses, whereby an abundance of legislation and policy reforms have been recently enacted within a relatively short period (McAlinden, 2006:197), ‘which seek to single out this group of offenders for greater punishment, fewer rights and potential exclusion from society’ (Hebenton, 2008:3) – a point to which I shall return to later in this paper. However, at the outset it is worth setting it in some context, as it is neither entirely novel, nor unique to Britain, nor our contemporary period (Hebenton et al, 1996:428). As in broad terms, there is nothing new about sex offending, it has in fact been a problem for a very long time (see Rose, 1998:184) and at the same time both the nature and extent of it, remain somewhat difficult to determine' Part of that difficulty is of course in the definition of sexual offending, and as a matter of logic this is, perhaps, a useful starting point. There are various working definitions of the term, as there appears to be no universally accepted definition of what constitutes sexual offending (Kemshall et al, 2001:240). Therefore, in the absence of a definitive definition and because of the confusion that is generated by such varied use, within this paper sexual offending is used exclusively to refer to known male adult child sex offenders or as they are commonly labeled, ‘pedophiles’’ , (although this terminology is itself somewhat problematic and shall not be used throughout this paper in reference to perpetrators of such crimes) regardless of the category of sexual offence/s committed – (as you can imagine the variety of behaviors that qualify as ‘sex offences’ is in itself a topic noteworthy of much discussion but given the remit of the paper it is not necessary nor is there space to consider it further here), as it remains the case that such abusers represent a much larger problem, in terms of risk of harm to children and to communities (Grubin, 1998). And it is how sexual offences and sex offenders are viewed, relative to other kinds of offences and offenders in contemporary Western societies (see Salter 2003 for historical theories and viewpoints and Sampson 1994, for a comparison to other cultures), to which I now turn, in an attempt to shed light on the nature of child sexual offending. According to Hebenton (2008:4) ‘there is no victim more sacred . . . or vulnerable than a child victim and no offender more profane than one who spoils the purity and innocence of children’. It is as a result of such conceptions that sexual offences are taboo, illegal and public fear and anxieties towards sex offenders are pervasive. And, it is society’s obsession with the ‘protection of childhood moral and sexual innocence’ against the perceived ‘dangerousness’ of these ‘sexual predators’ that drives contemporary responses to the regulation of child sex offenders; as the social construction of the sex offender provides the background against which the specific forms of interventions are chosen and leveled against (McAlinden, 2006:205). Furthermore as Kleinhans (2002:242) notes, ‘it is only through such a review of the conceptual framework of ‘childhood sexuality’ within the broader category of ‘gendered and sexualized violence’ that we can even begin to understand these current regulatory approaches’ (but that as Hebenton (2008:4) says, is a story for another time), for it is adequate for the purpose of this paper merely to point to aspects of these ‘emotional attitudes and underlying sentiments’ (ibid). The scale of the problem! “About 1,700 sex offenders arrive on the door steps of communities throughout the country each year” (Home Office as quoted in Lancaster et al, 1995:79). “Any attempt to arrive at a realistic estimate of the actual rate of child sexual abuse in England and Wales has to rely on assumptions, guess-work and a bit of putting ones finger in the wind” (Grubin, 1998:11). “As contrary to what is often believed to be the case, the truth is that the scale of the problem is simply not known” [']. Putting to one side the problems associated with its nature and defining the term, sexual offending, and in particular sexual crimes perpetrated against children, is invariably described as a serious societal problem (McCulloch et al, 2007:18). This therefore, suggests, of course, that there must be a relatively large number of sex offenders in this country. However, such grand theoretical claims need to be supported empirically and this is evidenced by research. As admittedly official criminal statistics do show a steady increase in the number of reported and recorded sexual offences in recent years, and studies of the prevalence of child sexual abuse indicate that sex offending is in fact more extensive than such figures suggest. Interestingly, offenders own accounts of their offending behavior have also shown that it is not uncommon. However, it is difficult to make simple statements about the extent of sex offending on the basis of official statistics. It is well established that due to the hidden and secretive nature of sex offending that they, underestimate the prevalence of sexual offences committed against children - for offenders have many more victims that those for which they have been arrested, and thus give a misleading indication of the true extent of such offending. Given that sexual crimes are fraught with problems of underreporting and other significant difficulties ‘accounting for less than 1% of all offences recorded and only a small proportion of those found guilty or convicted’ (Hudson, 2005:1), it is important to note that sex offenders considered in this way represent only a proportionately small part of the problem given the greater risks that are associated with [unquantifiable offending] (Cobley, 1997:695). Nonetheless, regardless of the evident caution required in interpreting such findings, they raise issues in relation to the most appropriate ways in which ‘both known as well as unknown’ sex offenders should be regulated in the community and are, thus, a contributory factor to, as well as, an effect of the creation of the following approaches. Section 2: History of approaches to the regulation of sexual offenders in the community. “In each of the approaches to the social control of sex offenders discussed, there is a different story told about sex offenders and their victims and how the community and government should respond. In each story, different voices can be heard expressing different values, interests, and beliefs; different views of what the problem is; and different proposed solutions” (Lafond, 1992 as quoted in Petrunik, 2002:485). Historically, there have been several diverse approaches to the problem of sexual offending in society, including: the clinical approach (of predominance in the 1930s - 1950s), in which the sex offender was deemed to be ‘sick’ and ‘deranged’ as the result of a mental or personality disorder, such as psychopathy, which could be reliably medically diagnosed and expertly treated, prior to their release back into the community (for background see Petrunik, 2002; Seddon, 2008) thus, ‘simultaneously serving the community’s interest in safety and the patients interest in a cure’ (Lafond (1998) as quoted in Petrunik, 2002: 486) ; and the traditional justice model approach (of particular significance in the 1970s – 1980s), being primarily concerned with the principles of due process and proportionate penalty and beginning with the premise that all legally sane sex offenders act rationally in terms of rewards and punishment and as a moral agent are to be held responsible for their behavior and its control. Under this model, there is also a concern to avoid duly restricting the liberty and privacy of offenders without just cause, principles of individual civil rights, and equality under the law (ibid; see also for a comparative of these approaches) . However, despite their obvious relevance to broad theoretical debates about regulating sex offenders, for our purposes, it is fair to say that space limitations regrettably preclude a more detailed discussion of these preceding approaches, which thus for the most part are understandably beyond the scope of this paper; and are by any means now well documented elsewhere and hence there is subsequently no need for unnecessary repetition here. As in line with Hebenton’s (2008:5) views that there has been only one hegemonic trope for criminal justice policy in the last decade, this paper shall now consider the ‘CPM’ and how and why specifically this came into being as the dominant approach to the regulation of sexual offenders in contemporary society. Community protection – risk managing the ‘sex offender’ away. “For proponents of community protection, diagnosis, treatment and offender rehabilitation, respect for the liberty, privacy, and security of the person, rights of suspects, offenders, the avoidance of false negatives, and the principles of due process, proportionality, and equity all had to take a back seat to public safety issues and considerations of risk” (Hebenton, 2008:5). “The response is at once political (designed to play on those public fears), instrumental (promising increased public safety through the use of regulatory mechanisms) and deeply emotive (going to the heart of our most troubling anxieties about risk)” (Seddon, 2008:22). Essentially the ‘CPM’ emerged (during the late 1980s and early 1990s) in concert with various populist social movements, (in particular those of women and child protection -allegedly those persons considered most vulnerable), in response to the failure of preceding approaches (as previously discussed) to prioritize public safety and victims rights (McAlinden, 2006:198); and generally increasing concerns about the effectiveness of the government in dealing adequately with the enduring risk of harm posed to the public, by such offenders, following a lack of established and coherent strategies, with which to deal with them (Hebenton, 2008:6); or in more concrete terms, ‘widespread acknowledgement of a fundamental failure of the modernist criminal justice and penal system to deliver its implicit promises – of transforming offenders and reducing crime’ (Kemshall, 2001:244). Such widespread fear and anxieties about the potential dangerousness of convicted or suspected sex offenders living in the community, are largely attributable to sensational high-profile incidents (- although in reality they comprise a very small number), involving ‘the brutal sexual assault and murder or serious injury of a child victim’, (Petrunik, 2002:494) arousing intense emotions and alarmist reactions about the risk posed by ‘predatory pedophiles’, in particular (McAlinden, 2006:199), and fuelled extensively by the stoking of media representations of the same (- “we are living in a modern age when sex crime dominates the tabloid headlines” (Hebenton et al, 1996: 429) and resulting in unnecessary periodic waves of ‘moral panic’ (Cohen, 1972/1980 as cited in McAlinden, 2006:199) about child sexual offending; and a community call for zero tolerance of sex offenders (Petrunik, 2002:483). In this respect, a dominant social narrative has thus been constructed in the popular press, within the public imagination at large (Hudson, 2005:53) and also to a worrying level, in the ‘respectable’ writing about sexual crime (see McAlinden, 2006:199); encompassing powerful notions of the abuser as that of a ‘monster’, or ‘fiend’, ‘a folk devil’, ‘the quintessential outsider’ - and representative of the exuberated risk that they pose to public safety. This position, thus, accepts that child sex offending is prevalent and is likely to continue regardless. According to Thomas’s argument (2005:(')), such generalizations succeed in creating the inaccurate and misleading conception that sex offenders are perceived somehow inherently different from the rest of society, requiring provisions distinct from any other type of offenders. In this respect, it has been suggested that contemporary responses to the problem of sexual offending have a manufactured, moral and emotionally based underside (see Lynch, 2002 for further discussion) and this may go some way in explaining the impetus for such legislative and organizational change (McCulloch et al, 2007:8) . Unsurprisingly, then as a result of the media amplification of sexual offences and concerted public outcry towards sex offenders, coupled with the tremendous pressure on the government to deliver ‘populist punitiveness’ – in the expectation that something will be done to reduce the risk of future sexual offending and ensure that public confidence in the criminal justice system is sustained, ‘by simply doing what the public want’ (Bottoms, 1995 as quoted in Hudson, 2005:24), has meant that community protection and thus the prevention of reoffending has become at the forefront of recent legislation (Simon, 1998:452) and the resulting penal policy developments and practice regulating child sex abusers upon release from custody. (Kemshall et al, 2007:203). As in parallel with moves towards more punitive sentencing responses, [including both the civil commitment of dangerous individuals with severe personality disorders] - namely ‘psychopaths’'] and criminal provisions singling out sex offenders for special consideration and reflected in the nature and length of the sentence imposed , the release of the offender at the end of the sentence and the period of supervision in the community, as part of the extended sentence – ostensibly to protect the public from those offenders who pose a significant risk and who are likely to commit serious harm in the future, increasing attention has been paid to ways of strengthening the arrangements for regulating the behavior, activities and lifestyles of convicted sex offenders following their release from custody into the community more effectively . These proposals have been embodied in a comprehensive range of stringent measures, embedded in the criminal justice system, which are founded on the basic premise that the best way to protect the community and potential victims, children in particular, is through a variety of ‘risk management’ techniques, characterized by the use of increased restriction and exclusion, greater surveillance and supervision and extended monitoring and control of sex offenders (Kemshall, 2001 as cited in McAlinden, 2006:202). Effective regulation is thus, in effect secured by risk management. Indeed, it has been argued that alongside the ‘more emotional populist and political fervor’ (as discussed) the concept of risk (and, more recently, governance) has become the key signifier in the regulation of child sexual abuse and management of sexual offenders in the community generally (Lynch, 2002:530). The central importance of risk within community protection practices generally is indicative of what Feeley had Simon have called ‘the new penology’ or the coined phrase ‘risk society’ (Beck, 2006; and also see Seddon, 2007:24 for a critique) – indeed the ‘CPM’ is perhaps the epitome of this. As Matravers’ (2003) makes clear, ‘this risk penality has been particularly evident in relation to concerns over the risk posed by released sex offenders living in the community where assessing, managing and reducing those risks has become a central concern’. In this context, post-prison release arrangements for sex offenders into society can thus be usefully considered in terms of two interrelated concepts: risk and security (see Loader et al, 2007). As following Ericson and Haggerty’s (1997) model of ‘knowledge-risk-security’ the primary purpose of preventative measures is to increase public safety and ensure public feelings of security through proactively regulating the high-risk posed by persons convicted or cautioned of sexual offences by having managed knowledge of their activities and whereabouts on the basis not so much what they have done, but of what they are and what harm they might do in the future (Rose, 1998:184); (McAlinden, 2006:201). Two pivotal measures, the implementation of ‘SOR’ and the development of multi-agency structures (‘MAPPA’) (Kemshall et al, 2007:203) can be considered in this context, whereby security through knowledge and the instantiation of risk processes to assess, manage and reduce those risks of the ‘critical few’ have become paramount. These are the most influential strategies that have been adopted, so far within the UK, and best illustrate the development and expansion of a ‘CPM’; and thus warrant further discussion in the following section. However, to note, in addition to these, a whole host of other legally supported, supervisory controls, have recently been added to what has now effectively become a ‘legislative melting pot’ for ‘actively tracking’ sex offenders in the community, these have included, license requirements with conditions as to treatment and residence and exclusions placing restrictions on offenders movements and prohibiting specified behavior - and are all extensively used (see Cobley, 2003). The ‘SOR’ phenomenon: an unrealistic sense of security' “What I’m saying is that it’s part of your life now, you have to incorporate your life with it in, the first day you get your period from then on until menopause you have to cope with your life with that in it, you have to. I’ve committed a sex offence now I have to incorporate my life with that in it, I know it’s a stupid example but that’s what it is, it’s part of my life, I have to accept it (as quoted in Hudson, 2005:9). “Registration . . . suggests that we are, indeed, extending the prison outside its physical walls” (Kleinhan, 2002:245). ‘As of 2005/2006, the number of sex offenders with a registration requirement was estimated to be ‘29,973’ (Walker et al, 2006). Prior to 1997, the UK had no effective means by which they could formally monitor sex offenders in the community. As part of the government’s overall ‘public protection’ strategy and following the lead of the United States , in 1996 the Home Office published the Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders, which was later, put into statute in 1997 in the form of the Sex Offenders Act (‘the Act’). ‘SOR’ initially provided for by Part I of ‘the Act’ (although later amended and strengthened by subsequent legislation ), requires certain categories of sex offenders upon release from prison to register their name, address and any changes to these details within a specified period to the local police (Cobley, 2000). This regulatory obligation remains for a period ranging from two years (by way of a caution) to life, depending on the seriousness of the actual offence and sentence length; and the conditions attached to registration for the offenders and degree of notification permitted to the community vary upon the assessed level of risk (Kemshall et al, 2001:242). To note, the issue of ‘community notification’, in particular, remains a difficult and controversial issue, within the UK, as (unlike our US counterpart in the enactment of ‘Megan’s Law’, as discussed) calls for the public to have a general right of access to information contained in the sex offender register, a so-called ‘Sarah’s Law’ have been repeatedly rejected by the government and rules on disclosure remain exceptionally tight . As full disclosure to the community of the whereabouts of sex offenders is invariably regarded as detrimental to public protection and undesirable for the offender. Although the primary responsibility for ‘SOR’ falls upon the police, who in addition to simply just holding the database (known as ‘ViSOR’ - violent and sex offender register) have a statutory duty to undertake an initial formal risk assessment of every offender who registers, the legislative procedures are then inter-grated into a general multi-agency system of risk assessment and management communication strategy (Cobley, 2003:55), as ‘registration in itself cannot deliver public protection ’ (Hebenton et al, 1996). And it is the operating goals of such arrangements , that best reflect what has been described as, the ‘CPM’ (Kemshall et al, 2007:203). From registration to communication: Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. “An arm’s length approach has in effect been adopted!” (Kemshall, 2007:207). To note, ‘MAPPA’ (now established in each of the 42 police and probation areas in England and Wales) was formally created by sections 67/68 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) (and later strengthened by the Criminal Justice Act 2003), legislation prompted by the public pressure to adopt ‘Sarah’s Law’, and providing statutory force in England to the local arrangements that had emerged in response to the risks posed by sex offenders released into the community and as such subject to registration requirements, as delineated above (ibid:206). To summarize, it’s key features are the setting up of formal public protection arrangements by statutory agencies , to work jointly as ‘Responsible Authorities’ , under a duty to co-operate; allowing the exchange of information and knowledge about such offenders; the creation of multi-agency public protection panels to consider individual cases; formulized risk assessments; risk classification of offenders into specific groups; and the subsequent development, implementation, monitoring and review of case management arrangements in order to then determine the nature and appropriate level of necessary intervention to control and reduce the identified risk . Such arrangements are thus the preserve of the experts with the public and victims largely excluded (Kemshall, 2001:238). What works' – questioning the effectiveness of the ‘CPM’. “The centrality of risk-based management to the regulatory framework of contemporary community protection described is well documented; it’s operational logic for policy and practice has, however, been subject to much critical scrutiny” (Hebenton, 2008:15). “The effects which follow too constant and intense a concentration upon evil are always disastrous. Those who crusade not for God in themselves, but against the devil in others, never succeed in making the world better, but leave it either as it was, or sometimes even perceptibly worse than it was, before the crusade began. By thinking primarily of evil we tend, however, excellent our intentions, to create occasions for evil to manifest itself” (Aldous Huxley, 1952:192 as quoted in Kleinhans, 2002:233). “The salient point here being that the expansion and heightening of the intention of control ultimately ends up producing the opposite” ('). “We need to take a step back, reassess our traditional perspectives for addressing this problem, and consider new solutions” (Mercy, 1999:318). Undeniably, the centrality of risk and public protection are now fully instantiated in the current regulatory framework and this has been reflected in both the sentencing options and in the wide variation of control measures used in the community for sex offenders. When it comes to sexual offences, however, this approach does not seem to be working, as the adequacy of these arrangements, are increasingly questioned. As Laws (2000:30) argues such punitive responses to child sexual offending, located predominantly in the criminal justice system are not proving to be effective in protecting the public or enhancing child safety and are of limited practical effect in managing the risk posed by released sex offenders in the community – ‘not only failing but failing miserably’ (Lynch, 2002:555). Indeed, this is evidenced by a number of factors: by the statistical evidence showing the increase in sexual offending incidents generally; by the unprecedented media coverage of exclusive cases prompting punitive public attitudes; by the acknowledged weaknesses and inherent flaws in much of the legislation and practices (McAlinden, 2006:205); offender compliance of the same and comparative lack of research attention given to the effectiveness and outcome of current interventions (Kleinhan, 2002:245); ‘much is assumed, little is documented’ (Brogden et al, 2000). Furthermore as Simon has argued, this ‘monstrous’ approach to sex offenders has transformed penal policy into a politics of vengeance, a professional form of ‘nonce bashing’ (Sheath, 1990 as quoted in McCulloch, 2007:13) that justifies ‘labeling’, ‘stigmatization’, ‘shaming’, ‘categorical social exclusion’ and ‘rejection’ of these offenders from the rest of the community. Such vengeance is re-packaged as public protection, as a tactic of reassurance, an illusion of safety for the fearful public and justified on the grounds of risk management. This raises the fundamental question as to whether in fact this approach in its existing provisions’ deals adequately with the risks this group pose to the public and constructs the crux of the problem as the inability of the criminal justice system to manage these offenders properly and provide an adequate level of community protection. Such apparent failure of the retributive framework and regulatory approaches with respect to sexual offending for both victims and offenders points towards the need to think more constructively and devise a more progressive and ultimately more effective response to the problem (McAlinden, 2006:205) not only managing the risk posed by sex offenders in the community more efficiently, but also to improve the outcome for all those affected by sexual offences. Thus, there is room in the final section of this chapter to discuss the potential of an emerging parallel model, the ‘PHA’ that emphasizes prevention efforts rather than those of community protection. This model can be briefly summarized as follows. Section 3: All change again: the ‘PHA’. “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes” (Marcel Proust as quoted in Mercy, 1999:317). “It is worth noting that, during these past 10 years, the public has been absolutely bludgeoned with pro-health messages about seat belts, first-hand and passive smoking, safe sexual practices, and HIV infection. These efforts, and particularly the antismoking initiative have clearly had an effect on behavior” (Laws, 2000:39). “In promoting our efforts to make our societies safer we must never stop talking never stop hoping, never stop preserving, never give up. And one day we just might be very surprised at the result” (Ibid). An alterative position is offered by advocates of the ‘PHA’ perhaps most attributable to the work of D. R. Laws (2000). In brief, this approach, as applied in the case of sexual offending prevention is located, predominantly outside of the criminal justice system, at multiple levels, as follows- 1. The primary level: in the context of child sexual abuse public health efforts are essentially directed on primary prevention, at which the goal is stopping sexually deviant behavior, before it begins. This requires an understanding of the causes of sex offending, early identification of the problem and prompt intervention before offending takes place or escalates; and provides long-term prevention of adults in engaging in sexual abuse . 2. The secondary level: to some extent overlaps with the primary level, as the goal is also concerned with preventing the progression of first time offenders and similarly those who have recently begun to engage in deviant sexual behavior. However, this level also identifies situational, specific or opportunistic offenders, beginning later in life, whereby efforts are made to prevent them from becoming a generalist. 3. The tertiary level: is for the most part aimed at efforts with established sex offenders, those whose dispositions toward deviant sexual behavior are well entrenched and is directed at stopping the behavior now. These are the individuals most often seen in control in the community initiatives for sex offenders as discussed, and whereby most community protection efforts are directed. (McMahon, 2000:28). Explicit recognition of this approach is sometimes referred to as ‘harm reduction’ and based on ‘the new public health’ principles which emphasize ‘that things can be different and that individuals, problems, and situations that appear hopeless might possibly be changed for the better’ (Laws, 2000:3); thus, in effect, sexual offending in this context is seen as something that can be worked with. Indeed, central to this positive, forward looking perspective is the clear shift of thinking from one of punishment, exclusion, surveillance and management to problem identification, prevention, treatment, change and reintegration in the community (the latter being of particular relevance and will be discussed further in chapter 2) and this is evidenced by the multidisciplinary applications of the model based upon the three levels of interventions. It relies on the targeting and management of environmental factors, in effect the identification and management of risky situations. [The use of swimming pools by sex offenders to ‘groom’ victims and as opportunities to offend is one such example and a key response to this is [‘Leisure Watch’'] (applicable at the primary and secondary levels of prevention) where sex offenders are not necessarily excluded from leisure facilities but must adhere to codes of behavior while present]. Alongside this, there is an emphasis upon risk management and the sex offender’s capacity to take responsibility for their own behavior. This relies upon self-identification and the motivation to seek necessary interventions prior to any escalation of such offending. For example, ‘STOP IT NOW! ’ (‘SIN’) combines education and awareness raising provided by a confidential helpline, offering information, advice and support to those who are concerned about their own sexual thoughts and behaviors or are aware, or suspect abuse (Eldridge, 2000:333). This initiative evidences the progression of a ‘PHA’, illustrating an interesting mix of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies, by an alliance of statutory and voluntary agencies (Kemshall et al, 2003:117). The latter is important, as the ‘PHA’ emphasizes that the prevention of sexual offending is not just the responsibility of professionals ‘who target monitor and detain’ but of all adults and that the wider community has a role in protecting children (Kemshall et al, 2007:212). This is to be achieved through government sponsored and media-based, public education and awareness raising campaigns designed to provide accurate information, generating understanding and vigilance and dispel the popular myths and misconceptions about sexual offending and sexual offenders. Interestingly, in this respect there are a number of issues which the community could be informed about including, that contrary to media portrayal and popular belief, the abuser is rarely the ‘dirty old man’ in the raincoat which we imagine lurking in the corner of the local playground or park seeking opportunities to prey on and ‘groom’ children for sexual offences; in fact sex offenders are unlikely to offend in their own neighborhoods for fear of being recognized (Levenson et al, 2005:168) and the majority of sexual abuse, is perpetrated by people in positions of trust who are known by, and often related to the child, rather than by a predatory stranger; that there are different levels of risk and that not all sexual offenders pose the same degree of high risk, if any at all! (Brown et al, 2007:40), and that in tandem with this recidivism research has shown that there is a relatively low risk that sexual offenders will re-offend given appropriate interventions (Grubin, 1998). Communities in possession of the full facts will be able to handle this problem as it occurs in a considered, responsible and accepted manner and through a ‘community-system partnership’ (between professionals and the public) may be able to assist in the determination of what is the most appropriate action to be taken in addressing the needs of the victim and the community, as well as the needs of the offender in terms of their management and reintegration (McAlinden, 2006:210). The wholesale adoption of such an alternative and promising approach to managing sex offenders in the community may, however, be initially hard to reconcile with the current climate as discussed earlier – entrenching the ‘CPM’ as the only real viable option. Yet, this would be a loss, given the growing recognition that a community protection response is no longer sufficient to solve the problem of sexual offending. As whilst the ‘PHA’ is relatively new it clearly has a lot to offer, not least the hope of regulating and reintegrating current offenders but also a more effective way of providing public protection; broadening the range of strategies needed to reduce the risk of re-offending toward the goal of prevention, whilst changing the way society understands, thinks about and acts towards sex offenders. In the words of Laws (2000:42) ‘we must keep on trying!’.