Sorry, JASB, you've piqued my interest there. Feel free to not answer if you think it's too personal.
Do you mean the psychologist asked that 'ever had this before' question in a 'how did you get here' type question?

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

Hi
Before my sentencing I paid for an interview with a "psychologist" to improve my understanding of "willing to pay for sex".
The first question I was asked was "have I ever had this sort of interview before?" Over time I gained a better understanding why that question was so important to the approach taken by the interviewer!
It is a shame that in various "judicial" processes, the "approach" taken by "the system" is " we have one process to gain an answer no matter the consequence!"




Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Watching the BBC programme about parole last night, it was clear that they don't really have a clue about re offending. Both men had done all the behavioural courses and been well behaved in prison, prior to their release, so they ticked all the boxes, yet both were recalled within a year of being paroled.

The best indicator of whether somone will re offend, is the number of previous convictions they have. Thats obvious from the stats. Miller is a habitual offender. 

The other thing that did become more obvious from the parole programme is the importance of therapy and mental health support. The ones who had therapy and understood the reasons for their offending did not re offend. My conclusion is that behavioural courses on their own are not enough. Regular offenders know how to bluff their way through them and give the right answers. Short sentences and tick box courses don't work on habitual offenders. Long term therapy is what people like Sam Miller need, but he won't get it, until he does something very serious and gets put away for a long time. 

Genuinely quite surprised reading those comments to be honest. Seems quite refreshing from what I'd have expected to see on an article like this.

That Miller guy's previous convictions I think have certainly 'helped' in him actually getting a custodial sentence. Interesting that they mentioned two previous convictions of impersonating an officer and assault but didn't mention another one which involved following a woman to her home and mashing it up.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/obsessed-menace-banned-metro-jailed-12464231

He had 11 previous convictions by this point and previous time inside so this latest one looks like his 3rd custodial sentence.

And I know they're supposed to always try paint you in a good light but I did get a wee chuckle from his solicitors comments considering what we now know:

“It’s a tragedy because this defendant has made determined efforts to sort his life out..."

“He has drawn a line under this and he has the capacity to stay out of trouble.”

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/cost-jailed-paedophile-false-imprisonment-27184864

Nine months for Sam Miller and a suspended sentence for his accomplice. Comments in the Daily Mail were all along the lines of "the sentences should have been even longer."