When a person is sentenced to sex offender treatment as part of a plea bargain or sentencing, the therapy itself may become punishment. The person is ordered to attend treatment with an indeterminate sentence and usually cannot select the therapist or the program; therapy programs must be approved by the agencies in control. The distortions and dangers inherent in this situation are reflected in the formation of a group of psychologists in Washington who have initiated a class action lawsuit against the state and against prosecutors who have limited sexual offender treatment programs to a small group approved by the system (www.medem.com).
The therapist who provides such court-ordered treatment for sexual offenders must make regular reports to parole officers, judges, and child protection workers. The therapist is given the power to judge when the treatment has been successfully completed and discharge is granted. This puts the therapist in the role of the jailer. Also, any information given by the sex offender about other victims or offenses must be reported by the therapist.
This difficulty is illustrated by a recent Minnesota case. The client, who was in a sex offender treatment program following his conviction for rape, was asked as part of the treatment to write detailed accounts of other times in which he had sexually assaulted women. He complied and produced a written account of several other incidents. This was then given to the police by the probation officer. The man was later convicted on the basis of this written account and sentenced to nine years in prison .
These circumstances also provide a subtle opportunity for any hostility or pathology in a therapist to affect the therapist's behavior and the process of therapy. A hostile therapist can cause serious emotional harm to patients. The seductiveness of the powerful level of control available to a therapist can cause the therapy to be destructive and damaging. If an admission of guilt is required before being admitted into a program, additional complications and potential hindrances to successful treatment are generated. There are no empirical data to demonstrate that a threshold admission of guilt has any relationship to outcomes. It may, however
prevent both actual perpetrators and innocent people from being able to progress in resolution of their individual situations. It may increase the likelihood of error in the justice system.
When an accused person who is actually innocent enters treatment with the hope of eventually having a relationship his children or of getting some benefit from therapy, it can be disastrous. Successful completion of treatment is often defined by the requirement that the accused admit guilt. It cannot be a general, bland admission, "Yes, I am an abuser," but often must be specific, detailed, given regularly in group, and may include an admission and apology to the victim.
The most important goal of treatment for sex offenders is that they refrain from committing sex offenses in the future. This goal is more important than emotional health or adjustment, self-esteem, feelings of well-being, self-actualization, reported satisfaction with therapy, or improvement as measured by psychological tests.
In conclusion to my research about pedophilia, this type of abuse leaves a scar in the minds of the victims. Pedophilia is diagnosed according to the minds of his pedophiles. According to my research pedophilia is not a severe case of child abuse because the symptoms are not life threatening. Pedophilia is the most common form of child abuse that goes unreported. Pedophiles can be sentenced to time in jail, if convicted, but that doesn't
mean that they have to get treated for their illness. This research proves that most pedophiles don't get past their ill state of mind. I encourage anyone who has been molested or know someone who has been molested to seek professional help. Society does not look at pedophilia as a severe case of child abuse, but the pain and suffering that goes unresolved is a mentally terminal.
