By punter99 - 2 Jul 20 4:51 PM
Independent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdf
I thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders.
McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report.
Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did.
If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly.
Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later.
|
By JASB - 16 Jul 20 12:05 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Two things there. Some people escalate from cannabis from harder drugs, some don't. Likewise, many people who started out viewing legal porn found their use escalating to illegal images, but those things don't prove they will then escalate to contact offending. It's like saying all shoplifters will escalate to robbing banks. The psychological profiles of contact offenders are different to image offenders. Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do. That's how they are able to commit those types of offences. In answer to the point about some image offenders thinking their actions are harmless. They may well think that way and yet at the same time they are still able to appreciate that contact offences against a child are not harmless. As a result, they will never cross that particular line. Hi I am pleased to stress that I did not say "image offenders see their offence as harmless", I said many, by the way they write and contest punishments do not see their responsibility to the victim - the individual(s) in the image - and try to lower the seriousness of their offence. I do feel your words are proving my basic point in that there is a possibility and that has to be taken into account.
As a result, they will never cross that particular line. I can debate its misuse of the word "never", as I did not wake up one morning and decide to act in a way that was an offence, it was the events of a scenario, lack of knowledge to legal matters and the weakness in my emotions at that time. Anti social attitudes
I have written and deleted many responses to your use of this wording as I can see both the supportive and dismissive points to your use. My offence was anti social to some, but compared to many other acts by individuals within society, who can say what is less or more. It is similar to asking which is the worse offence, a drug dealer or a murderer?
I obviously know there is slightly more psychologically to it but to try and remain on topic .
Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do
Again you are grouping individuals classified with the same "label" as identical! Whilst spending time at her Majesty's pleasure, the majority of fellow inmates at Whatton did not have these characteristics. I am not being offensive as I have previously said I read your words with interest on many subjects but surely you see that these sort of assumptions are the same as offenders of others crimes and society making assumptions due to the perception they have formed from whatever source. As you know I do accept my responsibility towards the legality of the offence. However you cannot say that every contact offender has the attributes of the profile you describe. If I had not deemed it acceptable to pay for sexual services within a uncontrolled environment i.e. street walker and not a brothel, the offence would not of happened. If the female had not lied to me; and her other clients about her age, the offence would not of happened. Those elements are not being assertive they are being submissive to a desire for sexual relief and ignorance to every other "self protection" instinct. Every human is an individual, they have their own weaknesses and possible similarities which mathematicians create links to try and show information that suits their objective. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.If re-offending etc statistics were accurate then why am I not deemed appropriate to be removed automatically from the SOR after 10 years? Why do the PPU; on their annual visit, still question in the same manner as when I was arrested i.e. not on actual facts but assumptions on a genetic profile! keep safe and enjoy the weekend. I take your point about the dangers of generalising. So let's look at some real life examples.I've already mentioned Joseph McCann, whose anti social thinking and high levels of assertiveness were clearly in evidence, although he wasn't considered by probation to pose any risk of sexual harm. In the R vs Smith case (link above) there were 4 defendants involved. All were convicted of image offences, but each one posed a different level of risk, when it came to contact offending. 1. WC - had a history of determined disobedience to orders, a disorganised lifestyle, drug-taking and the commission of further sexual offences while under his first SHPO. Other evidence of his risk of contact offending was sending an indecent image to a woman he met online, who had a 4 year old child. 2. BH - no previous convictions, had been on holiday to Thailand, which Probation said was to abuse kids, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this (a classic example of imaginary risk, based on it being Thailand and not France or Germany!). 3. SS - psychiatric reports concluded that he was manipulative, potentially predatory and feigned compliance. Indications of depression and personality maladjustment influenced and perpetuated his risk of offending. 4. JD - this is perhaps the most fascinating of the 4. He was aware of the problems created by his sexuality and the indications were that he would not translate his fantasies, about sexual activity with minors, into contact offending. Taken together, these 4 people give a good indication of the different kinds of risk that internet offenders pose. Because clearly, their offences are all the same, but their risks are totally different. I think I would classify them as follows: WC - high risk, BH - medium, SS - very high, JD - low. I would suggest that most internet offenders are closer to JD and BH, rather than WC and SS. I say this, because the many, many studies into the risks of internet offenders, conducted over the last 10 years, have demonstrated it to be the case. You ask why the PPU don't take the extremely low reoffending rates of SO into account and I suggest it's because most people still belief in the myth that all image offenders secretly harbour a desire to commit contact offences. It is a very common assumption, but I believe, a mistaken one. Now consider this example. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897a72c94e06b9e197fc0In this case - (Parsons vs Regina - 2017) the court did agree to restrictions on contacting children, in spite of him being an internet only offender, because of his browsing or searching for websites which could be used for online chats with young children. Here there is actual evidence of intent to commit a contact offence, not merely assumptions and unfounded beliefs. Hi Punter99 Thanks for the interesting reply. I do see elements were we agree - an individual's risk is not defined solely by their offence and that an individual's past and present circumstances can affect any offence. However though reactions from looking at a picture, naked statue, impression or whatever has always been controversial, as some class them as porn whilst others as art. If we expand this subjectiveness and visit my initial comments in this and other posts, hopefully you will see they were aimed at hopefully getting what society calls "image" offenders to consider their words on the severity of their offence, and that there are victims which they do have a responsibility for. We discussed the self acceptance of some to go from non-contact to contact. We agree that not all do BUT, you seem to disagree that this is possible. I believe that unpredictable scenarios can affect the emotion decision making of an individual and that is hard to predict. I suppose that is why Risk comes into play but the methods and challenges to get this correct are still in their infancy. Society though in the last few decades does not accept the learning curve required so errors are made but not admitted. Example listen to the demands about a cure for Corvid19. In regard to sex offenders "Risk" I feel the system does not look/assess as the individual but is based on the "group label." (1) Why does a SO get labeled as a risk to many none direct dangers yet an individual caught speeding past a "school" who loves games of violence, not seen as a danger / or risk to the lives of children? Think of the drivers cognitive understanding of their acceptance of the risks involved and lack of social attitude (2) Back in '98 I made my first visit to see my father who lived in Thailand with a Thai wife. Before I left he "jokingly" said that if I ever got into trouble and they found I had been to Thailand, accusations would go upwards. One day I will tell you what my PO and the Met Police said when I returned from a 3 months tour of South East Asia whilst on bail. Suffice to say I became a victim of the conflict between them. In fact the Met took me to Court to have me placed on remand as a flight risk. The Judge stated he was confused as if I was a flight risk why did I come back from the trip? Also he praised me for my honesty in all replies to their questions. (3) as you will of read in previous posts I have been classed as unsuitable for any and all SO courses by both independent and Justice Service authorities. Only classed as medium Risk when going from Court to HMP Nottingham. If Whatton had processed my application for assessment more promptly, at my first 6 month (after being sentenced) classification assessment, I would of been move to a D Cat establishment with 7 months of being sentenced. because I was caught during a Police operation along with other individuals, I was processed with these strangers and seen / portrayed by the media to society and sentenced as a group. I was not on a joint indictment hence why I am now trying to understand if the manner they process me; kept on bail awaiting sentence for 2 years whilst the others went to trial, was incorrect (4) One no one has answered, why is a drug dealer who uses children to assist them and (possibly) take advantage of in various ways, not classed as a danger to children and monitored in the same way as a offender who pays for consensual sex service? The facts you mention only go to prove the fact that I keep stressing, in that we are all labelled as a group but all are individuals. It is just unfortunate that; as you have shown, it is not until we - as an individual - are focused on, the reality of us becomes apparent. Be that good or bad. As ever I enjoy our constructive conversations and it is a pleasure to politely disagree with each other over our views on certain aspects. I agree with you that SO are assessed as a group, based on the imaginary risk, posed by an imaginary offender, who is the worst of the worst. I did not say it was not possible for an image offender to progress to contact offending. I said that most, but not all, will not progress to that type of offending. That of course leaves open the possibility, for the PPU, that they might be dealing with one of the ones who will. But crucially, the possibility of an offence being committed is not the same as probability. When risk assessing an individual the authorities should take into account both probability and possibility, using the evidence they have, not merely their assumptions or their beliefs about what might happen. That is what the R vs Smith judgement was all about. It was saying that SHPO must be based on evidence, not assumptions. Take the BH example. He went to Thailand, that much is true, but there was no evidence that he went there to abuse kids. That was a risk that probation imagined. It was not based on any evidence, it was all in the Probation Officers head. I think you already know, from your own experiences, that PPU look at the possibility of us reoffending all the time, but they rarely ever look at the probability. My original point to you, was that you should do the same when you are looking at image or other non contact offenders.
Hi
As I mentioned from the start I do not or am entitled to judge others so I do not class "image" or any other type of offence linked individual as worse or better than me.
Whether it was misread or miswrote by me for you to come to your last sentence conclusion I am not sure.
I will repeat again to clarify, my words are meant for those that think image offences have no victims and therefore have no responsibility for to rethink.
|
|