241) l> Corrections and Prison Practices—Adult ForensicsTins matter continues to be controversial even among the foremost experts in the
field of sex offender research. On the one hand, some believe that sex-offender
treatment is beneficial (Alexander, 1997; Marshall, 1996), while there are some
who do not (Furby, Weinrott, & Blackshaw, 1989; Quinsey, 1998). The method
most often used in determining whether a particular treatment modality has been
successful is the measure of recidivism. Recidivism is considered the best measure
of treatment efficacy since the primary goal of sex-offender treatment is the reduc-
tion of future victimization (R. Prentky & Burgess, 1990). Therefore, in exploring
whether treatment of sex offenders is beneficial, it is essential to examine recidivism
rates between those offenders who receive treatment and those who do not. The
case of Jesse depicts a convicted sex offender incarcerated without treatment for a
number of years for child molestation. Jesse knows that he will reoffend if released
from prison because he is no better equipped to deal with his deviant behavior now
than he was 10 years ago.Jesse is a 36-year-old child molester who has been incarcerated for the past 10 years
for molesting a 9-year-old hoy. As his parole date approached, Jesse acknowledged that
he did not know why he committed his offense in the first place and he was afraid that
he would commit .mother offense if he was released. Jesse pleaded with the parole board
not to release him.
The parole board recognized Jesse's plea as a sign of remorse and released him into
the community. For 1 year, Jesse remained offense-free. Then one day a neighborhood
boy visited Jesse for a piano lesson and Jesse reofFended.
When Jesse returned to prison, he learned abotit sex offender treatment. He wrote
letters and spoke with prison officials requesting that he receive this treatment. The only
response to Jesse's efforts was a prison chaplain who visited him weekly.Literature ReviewJesse is perhaps a rare case in that he outwardly acknowledged that he would re-
offend if he was released and he believed that the only way to prevent a reoffense
was to remain incarcerated. Some experts would disagree with Jesse's position that
remaining incarcerated was the only way in which to prevent a reoffense. In the 10
years that he was in prison, Jesse did not receive any treatment. It is possible that
Jesse would not have reoffended if he had received the proper treatment to address
his inappropriate sexual fantasies and behaviors. Despite the fact that numerous ex-
perts have shown that treatment does indeed reduce recidivism among sex offenders
(Blanchette, 1996), there has been a decrease in funding for sex-offender treatment
programs since the late 1980s (Alexander, 1997).
The lack of funding and available treatment for sex offenders is, in part, due to
public opinion that sex offenders cannot be successfully treated. The accuracy of
such an opinion needs to be explored and is best accomplished through an exam-
ination of recidivism rates among sex offenders. In the most comprehensive study
to date on the effectiveness of sex-offender treatment, Alexander (1997) conducted