10-6-2014 California:
A recent change to California’s legal definition of “sexual exploitation of a minor” has created a new set of problems for therapists, while making therapy more dangerous for many patients–without increasing public safety one single bit. Since many states’ laws often follow California’s, this is an event of national significance.
Psychologists, physicians, and other professionals are “mandated reporters”—they are required by law to report certain things they see or hear in the course of their work. In such cases therapists and doctors are even instructed to violate patient-professional confidentiality. However, mandated reporters are expected to use our discretion in deciding IF something we see or hear rises to the level of having to report it. Properly used, that discretion protects the patient, protects society, and protects the professional.
California’s new law, AB1775, requires therapists and other professionals to report if a patient has knowingly downloaded, streamed, or even simply accessed (that is, viewed) an electronic or digital image in which anyone under 18 “is engaged in an act of obscene sexual conduct.” That’s any image that lacks “scientific, literary, artistic, or political” value. This can range from the most egregious child porn to the most playful sexting.
Most importantly, this law gives us NO DISCRETION in judging the potential danger involved in the behavior we are directed to report.
California requires mandated reporters to judge the words and stories they hear in session every week. Does this patient really want to murder his boss, or is he blowing off steam? Does this patient really want to kill herself, or is she dramatizing how depressed she feels? Decisions about whether or not to break confidentiality and report such conversations to the authorities—so-called Tarasoff situations—are the bedrock of therapists’ ability to deliver high-quality confidential care to patients, while assuring the public that therapists will help offer protection from people who are likely to harm themselves or others.
This law will punish many innocent teens and adults, and will deprive those who look at child porn of the therapy they may desperately want. It puts therapists in a terrible bind, robbing them of any discretion to judge if a given patient is dangerous. Ironically, therapists retain this discretion when patients talk about murder, arson, suicide, or tricking someone into getting pregnant.
The California legislature created this law with the involvement of every almost conceivable stakeholder—child welfare activists, law enforcement, social workers, etc.—except sexologists. It is shocking and frustrating that a law changing the way therapists handle patients who look at sexual images of minors was designed without consulting a single sex therapist, sex researcher, or sex educator.
Speaking practically, getting this law repealed appears impossible. But there is a growing movement to amend the new law, possibly via one or more clinical organizations like the California Association of Marriage & Family Therapists or American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, & Therapists. The goal is to require therapists to evaluate those who look at sexual images of minors—just as therapists do with many other potentially dangerous behaviors—rather than automatically report them.
Research both in the U.S. and abroad shows that a large percentage of people who look at sexual images of minors are not at risk of committing any contact offense. The public, of course, is mostly uninformed that so many people who look at sexual images of minors never touch a minor inappropriately. That’s the deliberate result of the child porn hysteria currently sweeping the country.
Of course, a substantial number of consumers of child sexual imagery are dangerous. They need to be helped so that they don’t hurt anyone. A law that requires therapists to report such people without evaluating their potential for harm, and without treating them, guarantees that such people will remain invisible. They won’t get the help we all want them to get—making this law part of the dreadful problem it claims to want to solve. ..Source.. by Dr Marty Klien
Showing posts with label Sex Offender - Therapy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex Offender - Therapy. Show all posts
October 6, 2014
New Law Undermines Therapy
August 17, 2014
Wake Up California Therapists! Protecting Client Confidentiality per Proposed California Law AB 1775
The Current Situation vs. AB 1775
For a very long time, California psychotherapists have been required to break client confidentiality only when we believe a minor or dependent adult is in imminent danger of serious abuse or neglect or a life is imminently at risk (homicide and/or suicide with a clear plan). Over the years this has enabled us to privately counsel countless men and women seeking help with discontinuing illegal or potentially harmful behaviors, or with diminishing shame and self-hatred over past misconduct. Many of us have helped these individuals develop and maintain healthier, happier, and safer lives – without needing to break our vow of confidentiality.
In California, the thinking has always been, if a client is not imminently likely to perpetrate abuse or harm on himself or another person, it is better to help that person work through his issues than to toss him to the wolves, which might result in arrest, possible conviction, and maybe even jail or prison – any and all of which are (more often than not) undeniably counterproductive to long-term behavior change and emotional healing. (The term “soul-crushing” comes to mind.) Essentially, California clinicians have been free to confidentially help their clients without fear of judicial intervention, except in cases of imminent risk. Furthermore, these reporting requirements have been very much in line with the reporting obligations in most other states.
This could all change very soon with a recently proposed California law, Assembly Bill 1775. In many respects AB 1775’s suggested changes seem minor, but this is absolutely not the case. If AB 1775 is passed and adopted, California therapists will be required to report to authorities any client who “downloads, streams, or accesses” images of any person under the age of 18 engaged in an act of obscene sexual conduct. Again, this doesn’t seem like much of a change, but in fact it’s a game changer. Simply put, this new law would require any therapist who learns that a client has even inadvertently accessed illegal sexualized imagery to report that person to the legal system. And these days it’s pretty easy to stumble upon illegal content, especially if people are looking at “youth” or “teen” Internet porn sites, which are by far the most commonly searched-for categories of porn in both the US and most other countries. And there’s no wiggle room for psychotherapists here, even though this is a crime with no direct victims. In fact, if a therapist fails to report such a violation, he or she could be subject to some fairly draconian sanctions, including loss of licensure, fines, and potentially even jail time. All for trying to help a client who is not a danger to self and does not have an active plan to physically harm or abuse another person.
A Call to Action
Opposing a law like AB 1775 is not a popular stance, as the suggested changes ostensibly protect children and teens from active, in-person sexual abuse. However, as surprising as this may be to many readers (and the legal system), there is no credible evidence linking the viewing of child pornography – even the intentional viewing thereof – to contact offenses against minors. Probably the best and most extensive study on this topic, conducted primarily in Switzerland by Swiss and German researchers, concluded, “Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses.” In fact, this research found that less than 0.05 percent of child porn viewers without a prior hands-on child sex offense went on to commit a hands-on child sex offense (1 out of 220). The study’s lead researcher, Frank Urbaniok, has stated the matter quite clearly, telling members of the press unequivocally that “the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors.” This evidence has been repeated in other studies, with the results cogently discussed by Dr. Michael Seto in his very useful new book, Internet Sex Offenders.
So, to be clear, AB 1775 seeks to punish individuals who are not an imminent danger to themselves or others, along with any California-based psychotherapists who might choose to treat these individuals rather than report them. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that California is often a bellwether state when it comes to issues of psychotherapeutic advancement. For instance, the state’s recent and highly commendable decision to disallow the practice of “gay conversion therapy” on minors has already been mirrored by New Jersey, with New York (and hopefully other states) likely to follow in the very near future. In short, if AB 1775 is passed it may serve as a new nationwide standard, thereby creating significant and mostly unwarranted challenges that could negatively impact distressed clients and therapists all over the country.
As of now, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists has signed off on this proposition, likely not fully understanding the reality of what they are supporting. Or maybe CAMFT – an organization this author has been an active part of for many years – has simply forgotten that the purpose of counselling and psychotherapy is to help clients who want to live differently, not to simply turn them over to the authorities. Either way, it makes no sense that we would sacrifice willing clients who are highly unlikely to harm another person. Furthermore, this law would clearly and without question prevent many individuals who both need and desire assistance with non-contact illicit sexual activity from seeking that assistance. And that is counterproductive not just for the potential client but for our culture as a whole.
If you find that you are disturbed by proposed California Law AB 1775, as I am, and you are a member of CAMFT, please contact the organization and request that it recant its support. If you are a member of a different professional psychotherapeutic organization, such as the California Society for Clinical Social Work, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Psychological Association, please contact that group and/or the California State Legislature to register your opposition to AB 1775. Even if you are a clinician practicing outside of California, if you feel strongly about opposing this proposed law, please let these organizations and the state of California know, recognizing that laws passed in California may soon become the standard in your state, too. ..Continued.. by Robert Weiss LCSW, CSAT-S
February 4, 2011
Utah Department of Corrections offers therapy to dozens of sex offender inmates
Responding to Just another SO comments: This article is only about Utah and no other state/s. And Utah offers therapy to ALL sex offenders who qualify, mentioned in the article. If Utah believed that "No SO Can Be Cured" the state would not make any therapy available. As to "Therapists were constantly being replaced," that is a grievance issue and it SHOULD be brought into court. As to therapy only in the community, here I think there is a far greater issue, being, if ALL SOs are released into the community without ANY therapy, that places the community at greater risk, than if ALL SOs had some therapy -in-prison- to control any impulses that some MAY have. Hence making the community safer, then continuing therapy in the community. Obviously the Parole Board felt that way since they rejected folks for parole who has not completed therapy. Civil commitment -following a sentence- which does not occur in Utah, is a MAJOR problem in the 20 states that do have civil commitment (scroll down that page), and on the federal level as well.2-4-2011 Utah:
Close to one-third of Utah's current prison population is made up of people convicted of sex offenses - a majority of which are crimes against children.
And while many states have a warehousing approach to incarceration, the Utah Department of Corrections offers therapeutic treatment to dozens of sex offenders each year.
The Utah State Prison is one of eight correctional facilities in the country that offers programming for convicted sex offenders.
Though it's not guaranteed, people sentenced to prison for a sex offense may be eligible to participate in the state's Sex Offender Treatment Program, or SOTP.
Steve Gehrke, a spokesman for the state's corrections system, says the prison provides cognitive/behavioral therapy two times per week that focuses on accepting responsibility, victim empathy and relapse prevention. Therapy consists of group psychotherapy, psycho-educational classes, homework and therapeutic activities with other offenders in treatment, according to the department's website.
"All offenders participating in sex offender treatment are expected to achieve satisfactory progress at both an intellectual and emotional level," said Gehrke. "Their progress is measured by observable changes - not simply by completion of assignments or time in therapy."
On average, therapy lasts 18 months, but Gehrke says some inmates progress more quickly and some take longer.
"Progress is based on how hard the offenders work, how motivated they are, and how willing they are to incorporate the changes in effort to show commitment toward rehabilitating their lives without being defensive," he said.
Michael Robinson, a program director at the prison who treats sex offenders, says the most effective treatment fosters a permanent change in thinking and behavior.
"I believe the best philosophy is to treat people with respect and hold them accountable for their choices," he said, "so that their change is lasting instead of trying to just look good, which is often what they did when they were offending."
Looking good, he explained, refers to a trait commonly found in sex offenders who carry out one life in public and a separate one in private.
"They appear normal on the outside," he said. "When they're home, inside is where they show this monstrous behavior."
Robinson says a majority of child sex offenders are not exclusively interested in children. In many cases, he said, perpetrators have a consensual adult sexual partner but simultaneously desire children. Pedophilia, he says, is a diagnosis for people who seek sexual encounters exclusively with children.
When asked how an adult can derive gratification from an underage person, Robinson says the reasons vary.
"Each individual has their own motivation for why they're offending," he said. "Which makes some more amenable to treatment than others."
Robinson says perpetrators may also target a child victim due to an inability to have appropriate adult relationships.
"Sometimes it includes a social ineptness in which they are afraid of rejection in pursuing a sexual relationship in a healthy, socially acceptable manner," he said. "It's still no excuse. It isn't an addiction, it isn't a sickness, it is a criminal choice."
He adds that most child sex crimes come from an individual's desire for control.
"Sexual abuse is a control crime; sex is the tool," he said. "It's not just physiologically sexual, it's also a gratification to have that type of power over another."
The first step in treatment requires participants to give a full disclosure of their offenses in front of their peers. Robinson says he's looking for participants to discuss how they selected their victims and to acknowledge how the crimes affected the victims.
"We're looking for their level of responsibility at the outset of treatment," he explained. "We're looking for emotional connection. Is there remorse as they're sharing this or are they just telling a story and not accepting responsibility?"
That first step, he says, can last up to three months for some inmates.
"Treatment isn't going to be easy for someone who is entrenched in deviant thinking," he added. "It will take a lot of courage to face their horrific choices and be able to recognize the effects of their choices on those that they hurt."
Next, offenders work to develop empathy for victims and focus on relapse prevention.
"Sexual abuse doesn't just happen," said Robinson. "It's planned."
Perpetrators work to develop a fundamental change in thinking and Robinson says he and other trained therapists can tell if inmates are being truthful.
After treatment, inmates are encouraged to prepare for life outside of prison and have realistic expectations of what's to come after their release. It's not uncommon for offenders to become reclusive after release, but treatment helps offenders realize a more social life can help prevent new offenses.
"Some people feel so terrible about themselves they think they need to be locked up for the rest of their lives," Robinson said. "If they don't crawl out of that, they sabotage themselves." ..Source.. Matthew K. Jensen
Average prison incarceration term for people convicted of child sex crimes
(Based on inmates released between January 2000 to December 2010)
• First-degree felony (420 inmates)
Average length of stay: 88 months
• Second-degree felony (481 inmates)
Average length of stay: 69 months
• Third-degree felony (171 inmates)
Average length of stay: 44 months
Source: Utah Department of corrections
Number of current prison inmates convicted of sex crimes involving a child
Women
Aggravated sexual abuse of a child - 3
Rape of a child - 1
Sex exploitation of a minor - 1
Sexual abuse of a child - 2
Sodomy on a child - 2
Unlawful sexual activity with a minor - 1
Men
Aggravated sexual abuse of a child - 434
Child kidnapping - 16
Enticing a minor over the Internet - 27
Lewdness involving a child - 2
Object rape of a child - 6
Rape of a child - 129
Sex exploitation of a minor - 77
Sexual abuse of a child - 449
Sexual abuse of a minor - 4
Sodomy on a child - 176
Unlawful sex conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old - 19
Unlawful sexual activity with a minor - 90
Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (non-intercourse) - 1
Source: Utah Department of Corrections
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
