Fascinating Article on "Circles" (Prison, Paedophilia, Society)

[NotQuiteCockney]

There's a lovely piece in today's (Saturday's) Guardian about a Canadian program, in which particularly difficult ex-cons (paedophiles, in the case discussed) are given new volunteer "families". \link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1799618,00.html\Here}.

The ex-con has dinner at a different house every night of the week, and on the 7th night, everyone has dinner all together. The families make sure he is taking his meds. They help him sort out housing etc. They provide support and guidance.

Apparently this program has reduced reoffending rates by 60%, in a group of people very likely to reoffend. And those who do reoffend tend to reoffend for lesser offences.

It's a fascinating idea, although the article doesn't provide any contact info on the UK circles which are apparently starting up ...

The article points out that pedophiles are pretty severely isolated, generally. The circles give them social contact, and accountability. The people in the circle do keep an eye on the ex-con.

Charliecat, I'd like to think that paedophilia isn't really the same as us having sex with our partners. I'd expect the people in the circle are keeping an eye out for inappropriate behaviour in the ex-con (e.g. hanging out in playgrounds, befriending vulnerable single mums), and calling them on it, or reporting the behaviour to the authorities. Which is the sort of thing you'd expect and want a real family to do, but I'd be surprised if many of these people have functional families who are still speaking to them.

Keeping an eye on them? that's the thing with paedophilia, they never seem to be seen or heard until the damage to the child is difficult to hide and by then is probably too late... I met a girl who was forced to have sex with his father since she was 9, her mother just realised about that when she fell pregnant at 17, and TBH pregnancy was the lesser problem she had, how would you cope with the psychological problems caused by it?

So... no, they are isolated for a good reason.

NQC I realise having sex with partners isnt the same, but I was just trying to point out that it is possible to get up to things without anyone else knowing IYKWIM...and the befrienders wouldnt know if they were hanging round playgrounds, or befriending parents with kids as they are only getting to see them for a small piece of a whole day where anythings possible.

If we don't do anything with released paedophiles they are more likely to reoffend, surely? If we treat them as the pariahs they are then they are left to the company of men like them.

This programme seems to work, although the article was short on detail. Maybe having to talk to an ordinary person who is concerned for your welfare every day makes them less likely to hang around playgrounds - because you build up a relationship with that person. I don't know exactly how it works, would like to know more. But anything that stops them re-offending has to be a good thing, surely? And the people who are prepared to spend time with these wretches must be 'good' people?

Or other peadophiles?

I really don't think there is any reason to accuse the people in the circles of paedophilia. I guess whoever sets the scheme up vets them carefully. I'd imagine if you are a paedophile wanting to contact other paedophiles there are easier ways to do it than take part in a scheme like this! But your comment shows how difficult it must be for the people in the circle. Guilt by association. Which makes what they are doing all the more admirable.

In fact NQC said some of them are Quakers, which makes sense, since Quakers believe there is that of God in everyone - there is no-one so evil that they are irredeemable. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I can see why good people would try to do something positive to stop reoffending. Are we really saying that we'd rather leave them to reoffend than let some brave people try to help them change?

That seems a bit unlikely to me, charliecat. I really doubt that the people chosing to help these paedophiles are doing it because they themselves are paedophiles. That's a startlingly cynical and paranoid idea.

I do think just the mere fact of having a dinner arrangement with these people every night would help flag up any problems, or any ill-advised behaviour.

Thank you for posting this NQC. What a brilliant idea - I found it quite moving

Ok then, but im not a particularly BAD person. But I wouldnt have one in my house for dinner.
Would you?

Be sure to read the article before shooting the idea down in flames!

I would be interested in doing this. I think it might be hard, but it sounds like a good idea.

I don't think they're doing it locally to me, it seems to be more Thames Valley, so far. But if it works, then presumably it will spread.

NQC it might be worth contacting the Howard League to ask if there is anything going on where you are?

I would be interested in doing this at some point too. It's a fantastic initiative.

Well ive just read it and it appears it did work for the one bloke.
But it also said ... have reduced the predicted rates of reoffending for this extraordinarily difficult type of offender by some 60%
So it reduced it, but some poor kiddies/babys were got at anyway.
so that would be 4 out of 10 kids or 40 out of 100.

But the point is CC, would the rate of reoffending have been higher without this scheme?

Ok. If the normal rates of reoffending for these offenders (in a set time period) was, say, 70%, so out of 100 offenders, 70 of them would normally reoffend. This program cut reoffense rates by 60%, so instead of 70 offenders reoffending, it would be 28. (In other words, 42 of them who would have offended, didn't.)

The article also said that the offenses were generally much milder - I suspect some of them were breaking bail conditions or perhaps looking at net porn (still bad stuff, but not as bad as actually harming kids). I'd also suspect that maybe some of them might have gone on to do worse things, only the circle people reported them first.

I am slightly uncomfortable with the statistics, because these men chose to be in the program, which means (presumably) that they realise they need help and don't want to keep offending.

And yes, any children being harmed is too many. But doesn't that mean that any improvement is good?

I dont know, some would reoffend and never get caught, some might get run over by a bus, some might have decided never to do it again.
Some might be rubbing thier hands at the thought of having a whole new lot of familys waiting to get at.
We dont know.

I work (indirectly) in this area, and I have read the article.

I can see this sort of scheme working really well with some offenders, not sure about paedophiles. There seems to be an assumption that paedophiles are all (or mostly) low IQ. This is not the case. There is of course isolation, but not always.

I think the scheme is admirable, but I'm not convinced. These offenders groom their victims, but they also groom the people around them too, and could quite easily groom the members of the circle.

And whilst not wishing to sensationalise, I can also see it being used as a paedophile ring. What better cover?

I wouldn't write the scheme off completely, but I know I could not do it, I would not put my children at even the slightest risk in this way, tbh.

I don't think anyone would suggest such a scheme for all offenders, and I highly doubt anyone with children still living at home would participate - that would be unwise and unhelpful imo

But for certain cases, this looks like a potentially powerful tool

I can actually see it working with different sorts of offenders.

I commented about my own children, because the original article referred to the child saying the offender had been to supper last night.

And people can "forget" the crime as they get to know the offender. I've seen it happen.

I dont think its a bad idea. It keeps them out in the open where they can be kept an eye on, and if someone really wants to change then at least thet have to support system in place. The alernative is to force them into hiding and living a secretive life which would increase the risk of them slipping back into their own ways? I think it can only help.

But saying that, I wouldnt do it. But fair play to the people who can.

Agree tamba, in the article it mentions "keeping your enemies close"

That's interesting Mrs Bang. Do you/have you ever worked with paedophiles?

I wonder how they explain all this to their own children and keep them safe. Don't think I'd want to take part which is why I am prepared to admire the people who do.

I have worked (indirectly) with offenders of all levels for over 20 years, currently alongside high-risk offenders, including paedophiles.

WIth regards to our own children, we try to be laidback, (DH is a copper so we can get bogged down if we're not careful) and I try to keep things in perspective, ie they're more likely to be knocked over by a car than be a victim iykwim.

My lads know what their dad does and where I work but perhaps not the sort of people I'm currently working with. How the "circle" members would explain/justify I don't know. Guess it's not that different, other than we're paid for it and this appears to be voluntary.

If you would like to know more then read \link{http://www.quaker.org.uk/shared_asp_files/uploadedfiles/82F718A7-9344-4A5C-A4A7-4B053FF22239_CirclesofSupport-first3yrs.pdf\ Circles of Support the First Three Years}

You will gain a much clearer perspective on the scheme as it has run in this country. It is quite long but well worth the effort.

That doesn't read very well.

Obviously we minimise any risks as far as we can with regard to who/how/where they meet, but the risk from being run over is far bigger.

Obviously statistics are just that - if a child is a victim of either then that is one statistic too many.