A consideration in to the policy and practicalities of reintegrating Sex offenders.Despite the fact that sex offenders have lower re-offending rates compared to any other type of offenders, the publics’ fear of sex offenders is still quite high (Harris and Hanson, 2004 cited in Fox, 2017). However more recently various legislative measures have been placed in especially both the US and UK which are believed to reduce the chances of re-offending. An example to illustrate this is in the US where restrictions are set on residency, community and sex offender registries have been put in place and to a huge extent this has increased public support (Leverson, Brannon, Fortney and Baker, 2007). Whereas in the UK this is similarly the case with sex offenders. By placing sex offenders on registries also means that they are at an increased risk of vigilante attacks. In the case of sex offenders, vigilantism can take place in the form of social exclusion or retribution, and so by having registration/ community notification of sex offenders it can be argued that public stigmatisation, social isolation is increased when names and addresses of sex offenders are released within the community. Provided the environment of supervised circumstances in which sex offenders are subject to upon their release in to the community is a topical discussion, but also a huge concern for policy makers and more importantly professionals working with sex offenders. It can strongly be argued that the punitive measures which have been placed for sex offenders have increased over the last decade or so (Motivans and Kyckelham, 2007) and the registration and community notification of sex offenders within the US and UK clearly demonstrates this. Haney (2002) clarifies that such measures can have a detrimental impact on a sex offenders’ capability in transitioning back in to a community in terms of carrying on with relationships whether it be a family or an employment based one. On the other hand, the integral support that could perhaps contribute towards reducing the risk of re-offending in sex offenders seems unlikely, nor could they be easily established. Although an attempt in doing so was established- an integration model which helped address the support and accountability of sex offenders. This is known as the CoSA (Circle of Support and Accountability) model, aiding to create a support community for high risk sex offenders serving longer sentences in Canada (Fox, 2017). This was further developed to in order to amplify community safety and provide some form of assurance to the public in fear (Hannam and Petrunik, 2007). This model has been successful within both the US and UK.  During the course of this essay a discussion will be made addressing the social exclusion sex offenders may face upon re-integration and this can be from anything as big as policies which may hinder their re-integration process, to anything as simple as the contradictive society which vilifies sex offenders upon re-integration, yet the same society which expects sex offenders to reform also. Based on the above it will be concluded that as a society we are moving towards a risk based approach in the punishment of sex offenders. However in saying so there is also the assumption that even with practise, past behaviour is used a key focus when addressing sex offenders, perhaps emphasis should be placed on the present progressing towards the future because this raises all sorts of arising questions in to how can sex offenders be expected to reintegrate in to a society which demands reform yet, at the same time holds their past behaviour against them? Unfortunately, it would appear that it is this standpoint on sex offenders which can act as hindrance to their re-integration process.          The CoSA model was developed whenit was found that it had an enormous impact on recidivism (Wilson, Pichea and Prinzo, 2005). Since then the CoSA model hasbeen established in several countries (Rensburg,2012) e.g. the US although this program was originally set out in Canada,the two between them have different environments because it is believed thatthe US submits more to public pressure in order to adopt restrictive policies (Petrunik and Deutschmann, 2008).Nevertheless the program is deemed to provide support and accountabilitycompared to restricted supervision which focuses on compliance and restrictions(accountability in this case). Alternatively, it is alleged that CoSA doesenforce accountability, but within a supportive relationship (Fox, 2016; Hannem, 2013). Based on thisit can be depicted that the strength with this reintegration model is foundwithin the relationships that are built between sex offenders and members atthe program. Fox (2010) points outthat it is within such normative relationship a ‘moral authority’ isestablished.  On the other hand, alimitation is found with this program because of the way they are carried outin different places. This can be slightly problematic especially where someplaces may not have circles of support for sex offenders. For instance, oneplace may very well only use the circles of support for sex offenders who areserving longer sentences, and so this can be seen as defeating the object sincethe CoSA program was initially set up to support all sex offenders regardlessof the severity in the punishment being served. The challenges of reintegrating sexoffenders are much more common as we know, infact many have criticised the viewof sex offenders being released in to the community without supervision orsupport in the first place. This is possibly down two colliding factors;political power and the increase in public pressure from victims’ movements andthe general concerned public in the decline of the rehabilitation aspect ofpunishment in relation to sex offenders. Fox (2017) highlights that aparadigm has come into sight which focuses on the protection for the communityfrom such vilified offenders. Based on this viewpoint it is believed thatmeasures taken including community protection were formed especially andstarting with the US however, at the same time it can be pointed out that thiscan affect a sex offenders’ capability in being able to reintegrate back in tothe community. The most punitive measures, again, is perhaps the sex offenderregistries and community notification policies. It is assumed that in a countrywhere the sex offender registration is still a topical matter of debate itstill has arguably increasing numbers of sex offenders. Public fear wouldsignificantly hinder community integration, but the punitive measures (aspreviously mentioned) which restrict sex offenders do not appear to makereintegration any simpler, rather it has the opposite, detrimental effect onthe reintegration of sex offenders.   Over the last decade, literature ondesistance from crime has flourished. So far research on desistance has focusedon external factors of offenders for example, marriage and employment (Sampson and Laub, 1993) or the internalmotivators for instance, the narrative identity change that takes place viameans or through forms of encouragement(Maruna, 2001; Mc Neil, 2006). Therefore it would appear that literature ondesistance is centred on factors which contribute towards the time periods ofdesistance in crime. In essence, a new identity is established (Farrall andCalverly, 2006). It has been implied that desistance is a result of anopportunity to establish a new narrative in which is non-criminal.  Mc Neil(2010) suggests that as well as primary desistance, territory desistance isthe enduring type to come from a sense of belonging. In the case of sexoffenders however, what is made unclear is how they can encourage a sense ofbelonging where requirements are to be carried out under supervision/registries.         In respect of sex offenders, thechallenges of reintegration back in to community life are much larger becauseof the public attitudes on sex offenders and the restrictive supervision sexoffenders have to experience which can further isolate them. Having said that,there are treatment programmes which can promote desistance however it appearsthat they fail to address the sense of belonging within the community. Thisshows that the reintegration process and not the treatment process isproblematic when addressing the needs of sex offenders. There is theimplication that there is a need for a reintegration design which will be ableto address the needs of sex offenders because there support for sex offendersis lacking. It can be pointed out that the CoSA model has been able to assistsex offenders towards territory desistance by structuring constant socialsupport and sense of belonging found within the community.  Nevertheless Ward and Brown (2004) suggest that a shift is needed away from arisk avoidance approach to instead a positive assistance to individual needs,or in other words, a humanistic approach. This therefore leads to the GoodLives Model (Ward and Gannon, 2006)which would recognise such individualistic needs and more importantly, aims tofocus on the strengths of the sex offender and by doing so essentially improveswellbeing. Not only this, but a provision of a non-judgmental social supportservice would be provided to sex offenders (Fox,2017) and this in all would assist the intangible outcomes sex offendersrequire.  During the course of thisdiscussion it has been pointed out that although sex offenders do have lowerre-offending rates compared to any other offenders, public fear of sexoffenders still is quite high (Harris andHanson, 2004 cited in Fox, 2017). It is this public fear of sex offenderswhich feeds in to various legislative measures taking place, both within the USand UK as much as they are believed to reduce the likelihood of re-offending.Restrictions sex offenders have been placed on e.g. community and sex offenderregistries have gained much of public support (Leverson, Brannon, Fortney andBaker, 2007). By obliging sex offenders on registries means that they are at anincreased risk of vigilantism and this is believed to have a huge impact on thereintegration of sex offenders because of the social exclusion or retributionthat occurs, and so by having registration/ community notification of sexoffenders it is argued that public stigmatisation, social isolation isamplified. Haney (2002) backs this upin entailing that measures have a detrimental impact on a sex offenders’capability in transitioning back in to a community in terms of carrying on withrelationships whether it be a family or an employment based one. It is seenthat there is integral support that could perhaps contribute towards reducingthe risk of re-offending in sex offenders however this seems unlikely. It hasbeen proven that that the social exclusion sex offenders face uponre-integration from anything as big as policies which appears to hinder theirre-integration process, to anything as simple as the contradictive societywhich has vilified sex offenders during the course of the re-integrationprocess, yet this is the same society which expects sex offenders to reform.This further implies that as society we are moving towards a risk basedapproach in the punishment of sex offenders and raises one particular question;how can sex offenders be expected to reintegrate in to a society which demandsreform, yet at the same time holds their past behaviour against them? Asunfortunate as this may seem it would come into sight that it is thisstandpoint on sex offenders which has and still continues to serve as ahindrance to their re-integration process.         References Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker,J. (2007). Public perceptions about sexoffenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.7.137-161.doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform andrebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.McNeill, F. (2006). A desistance paradigm for offendermanagement. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 39-62.Motivans, M., &Kyckelhahn, T. (2007). Federal prosecution of child sex exploitationoffenders, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.McNeill, F., &Weaver, B. (2010). Changing lives?Desistance research and offender management.Glasgow: ScottishHannem, S. (2013). Experiences in reconciling risk managementand restorative justice: How Circles of Support and Accountability workrestoratively in the risk society. International Journal ofOffender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 269-288.Haney, C. (2002,January). The psychological impact ofincarceration: Implications for postprison adjustment. Working paperspresented at the conference “From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarcerationand Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities,” U.S. Agency on Health andHuman Services, Washington, DC.Farrall, S., &Calverley, A. (2006). Understanding desistance from crime: Theoreticaldirections in resettlement and rehabilitation. Berkshire, UK: OpenUniversity Press.Fox, K. (2010). Second chances: A comparison of civicengagement models for offender reentry programs. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 335-353.Fox, K. (2016). Civic commitment: Promoting desistancethrough community integration.Punishment &Society.18(1):68-94.Fox, K. (2017). Contextualising the policy and pragmatics ofReintegrating sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research andTreatment. 29(1): 28–50. Hannem, S., & Petrunik, M. (2007). Circles of Support and Accountability: A community justice initiative for the reintegration of high-risk sex offenders. Contemporary Justice Review, 10, 153-171.Sampson, R. J., &Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in themaking: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.Ward, T & Gannon,A. T. (2005). Rehabilitation, etiology,and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexualoffenders. Agression and Violent Behavior 11: 77 – 94.Petrunik, M., & Deutschmann, L. (2008). The exclusion–inclusion spectrum in state and community response to sex offenders in Anglo-American and European jurisdictions.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 499-519.Van Rensburg, J.(2012). The dawn of Circles of Supportand Accountability in New Zealand.Sexual Abuse in Australia and NewZealand, 4, 53-58.Wilson, R. J., Picheca,J. E., & Prinzo, M. (2005). Circles of Support & Accountability: Anevaluation of the pilot project in South-Central Ontario (Research Report R-168). Ottawa.Ontario:Correctional Service of Canada.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more