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 ...

sorry Zippi, I meant my post, not the document.

That's a long piece, will try to look at that later.

I must stop writing "you" in my posts too as it gets me into trouble on mn, I meant one really.

It is 49 pages but very interesting..I'm menatlly digesting it before I add any comments to this thread.

:) I hadn't noticed that, lol, just didn't want you (Zippi) to think I was referring to the document.

Can get very confusing this internet lark, lol.

I think what is easily forgotten is that convicted criminals including paedophiles and other sex offenders are released from prison back into the community and have very little rehabilitation or accountability and are at high risk of re offending.

The purpose of the circles scheme is to make communities safer by giving the sex offender (him or her)individual support to be successfully integrated into society, to understand his crimes and the pain of his victims and to make him accountable in order to prevent new victims.

The circles have strong and open links with agencies who will then have much more information about the sex offender and a powerful system of reporting if he or she is at risk of offending.

They seem a very good idea to me.

The Thames Valley scheme is not a let's have him in for dinner etc thing but a very structured programme.

Basically, a sex offender puts himself forward before prison release. To be eligible he should have recieved treatment for his sexual deviance already and accept it is wrong. A circle is set up for the individual of 4 or 5 volunteers, each of whom has had two days training and met together with a project circles co ordinator. These people are vetted for suitability and come from a wide range of abckgrounds. They then meet a few times without the "core member". Then they meet with him or her and the group meets regularly once or twice a week and then less often as a group as individual meetings take over. There is lots of forthright discussion of the offences and the offender's current behaviour and thinking. Anything remiss is reported back to the probation/police etc. Help is given with accommodation finding and employment. After about 2 or 3 years the official aspect of the scheme is wound down although informal links can continue. A new circle is formed for each offender.

Interesting document. I've had a glance at the case studies, and the volunteers certainly keep the police etc up to date about any concerns they have. It sounds like it can really help.

I read that article (the euro guardian is my monthly treat. a snip at 5euros). Brilliant - an absolute breath of fresh air to hear someone talking sensibly about criminals. I think I'd sign up as a member if I was in the uk and had some time.

There is good evidence in Britain that "family support" reduces most sorts of re-offending.
But against this we know that even compared to Catholic priests the most common form of child sex offender are people close to the family.

Thus I can't see how you will get the number of volunteers families you will need.

Even then, the telling figure is the 60% reduction.
How many kids raped is the other 40% ?

I see paedophiles as a form of toxic waste.
The Guradian would throw a fit if nuclear waste or dioxins were stored in Islington, but is perfectly happy to attack those who don't want paedophiles dropped into council estates.
Make no mistake that lefy suburbs where middle class people drive their kids around in 4 wheel drives don't get paedo refuges built in them.

Why let them out at all, ever ?

DC - most offences are commited by someone close to or in the family, yes, but those offences are commited when the family doesn't know the offender is a peadophile obviously. There are obvious precautions you can take if you enter the relationship with that knowledge.

yes, 40% is still a big number, but the majority of those (according to the article) were for "lesser offences". now a lesser offence in my book doesn't include child rape except in cases where the offender is extremely unlikely to get out of prison anyway.

and the guardian's view on toxic waste is irrelevant.

In the document zippitippitoes linked to, the reoffending was mostly a matter of behaviour that was against parole terms etc. Things like making friends with young girls online (not meeting them). 7 of the 8 offenders who got into trouble had their misbehaviour discovered via the circle.

DC, if paedophiles or rapists know that if they are caught, they will get life – and that will actually mean for ever – you are giving them a hell of an incentive to silence their victims.

From what I understand about prisons (which isn't much, admittedly) it is the possibility of parole which encourages people to co-operate. Take that away, and what incentive do people have to control their anger when something winds them up? Let's face it, many prisoners are there because they can't control their behaviour in the first place. Removing any incentive is a risky thing to do.

Even if our prisons weren't overcrowded, giving every paedophile a life-means-life sentence would make them very dangerous places for officers, visitors, and all the people who work there - admin, teachers, nurses and so on.

Who is suggesting "dropping paedophiles into council estates" for goodness sake DC?!

I can't work out what you're suggesting here

DC if you bothered to read properly then you would see that the circles scheme is a strengthening of accountability of sex offenders and lessens the likelihood of them creating new vicitms because they are invloved in a support group where they build up trust in individuals who are non judgmental and so they are open about their feelings and actively seeking not to re offend.

The alternative is release from prison with nothing more than the obligation to sign on at a police station at an interval as long as 6 months. In some cases they stay in a bail hostel but even then they do not have the close monitoring benefits of the circle scheme.

Surely restorative justice is the way to go. There is no chance that staying in prison forever is a sensible or helpful alternative..without even attempting to explain that we have a regime which pays lip service at least to rehabilitation of offenders anyway ...prisons are full as it is.

I would much rather this ws the way forward where i live than name and shame

I don't like the idea of name and shame - too many innocent victims (like a local elderly grandma whose flat got attacked cos some idiots had picked up some wrong information about a paedophile living there, and there are lots of tales like this).

Bail Hostels (Home Office Approved Premises) do offer a lot of support/control/monitoring and keyworking (although like everything else depends on the staff involved). And there is a network of people actively involved with offenders upon release from prison.

I haven't yet read the article, but from what you've said Zippi, it appears far more structured and regulated than the original Guardian article suggested.

How about focusing attention on the would be offenders before they actually hurt someone? It seems that there are many (usually) men who struggle with this but the support/counselling etc they need and want is woefully inadequate. I would think that for someone struggling with this, that's the time when secrecy/isolation can have terrible consequences.

Some of the men involved don't see it as a problem prior to sentence (and some sadly NEVER see it as a problem), hence they wouldn't ask for help (even if it were forthcoming).

I think the key thing with a scheme like this one is that the people involved with the offender are not "professionals". It's surely about preventing that person from being marginalised. Contact with professionals - even if their role is a caring one - is not the same thing at all, possibly the reverse. Of course I am not saying that there shouldn't be professionals involved - of course there should!

sorry crossing posts here, but in response to your post mrsbang, I should think that it would be those offenders who were able to see their offending as a problem who would be candidates for such a scheme.

It's a complex problem, there is no one solution and I don't think anyone is suggesting that this scheme is suitable for all.

I thought I read somewhere recently that a parenting helpline was inundated with calls from men who wanted not to hurt children by abusing them but felt like they might do so. I don't think these are men who have embraced that whole child-loving, it's all relative nonsense. They are terrified, disgusted with themselves, in despair, and of course, often have their own histories of abuse to negotiate. I really don't see why they can't be offered the support they need.

I never said the scheme wouldn't work, I was sceptical going on the original article. Having glanced at the longer document (too long to read and digest at the moment) and read Zippi's synopsis I can see more potential for it to work.

I also agree prevention is better than cure, but was just pointing out that some (lots) of offenders (of any ilk) often don't see a problem with what they are doing until it's too late (if then).

That may well be true Lionheart (cross-posted), my (indirect) dealings are post-charge/conviction/sentence.

sorry if I came across as critical of you mrsbang, I didn't mean to! (addled brain tonight!)

Oh you didn't. It's interesting to see other people's viewpoints.

I wasn't disagreeing with you with you, either, mrsbang. I'm somewhat sceptical of this myself because although I understand the need to make connections, I just don't see how a social network is going to alter something as complex as the structure and direction of someone's desire.

tbh I can see the scheme working with other types of offenders better than it might with convicted paedophiles