Working With Denial in Convicted Sexual Offenders

• Author: Belinda Winder,Karen Thorne,Mick Gregson,Nicholas Blagden
• Published date: 01 March 2013
• Date: 01 March 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11432301
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

57(3) 332 –356

© The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X11432301

ijo.sagepub.com

432301IJO57310.1177/0306624X11432301Blagden

et al.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

1Nottingham Trent University, UK

2HM Prison Service, UK

Corresponding Author:

Nicholas Blagden, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK.

Email: nicholas.blagden@ntu.ac.uk

Working With Denial in

Convicted Sexual

Offenders: A Qualitative

Analysis of Treatment

Professionals’ Views and

Experiences and Their

Implications for Practice

Nicholas Blagden1, Belinda Winder1, Mick Gregson1,

and Karen Thorne2

Abstract

Denial in sexual offenders represents the first barrier to successful treatment a clinician

is likely to face. However, there is currently no research focusing on the experiences of

treatment professionals who treat and manage deniers. This study aimed to bridge this

research gap and to gain an insight into the perspectives and experiences of professionals

who treat and manage sex offenders in denial. The purpose was to ascertain their views on

whether deniers are amenable to treatment, whether they should be offered treatment

(as presently they are excluded from sex offender programmes), and what they believe

may work with this population. A qualitative methodology was used, and treatment

professionals were interviewed using semistructured interviews at a HM Prison in England.

The main findings indicated that participants viewed denial as a barrier to treatment and

that categorical deniers should be excluded from treatment. Implications for treatment

are discussed, and it is concluded that viewing denial as a barrier to treatment impedes

constructive work with offenders. It is argued that denial as an organising principle for

treatment needs rethinking and that admittance may not be required for personal reform.

Keywords

denial, sexual offender treatment, qualitative, prison

Blagden et al. 333

Introduction

The majority of sexual offenders deny some aspect of their offending when first enter-

ing prison (Barbaree, 1991; Schneider & Wright, 2004). It has been found that around

30% to 35% of the incarcerated sexual offender population deny outright1 that they

have committed an offence (Hood, Shute, Feilzer, & Wilcox, 2002; Kennedy &

Grubin, 1992). This has implications for the criminal justice system and the wider

society. Research has demonstrated that sex offender treatment programmes (SOTPs)

can reduce the number of sex offenders that are reconvicted (K. Hanson et al, 2002;

Losel & Schmucker, 2005). However, access to treatment often comes with stipula-

tions—the acceptance (albeit partially) of responsibility by the offenders for their

actions is a prerequisite for entry into most treatment programmes (Marshall,

Thornton, Marshall, Fernandez, & Mann, 2001). Categorical deniers (“I didn’t do it,

I wasn’t there”), even if they were inclined to do so, are not usually permitted to par-

ticipate on SOTPs. Such individuals will also typically serve longer sentences as they

cannot demonstrate that they have addressed their offending behaviour (O’Donoghue

& Letourneau, 1993).

Denial presents a complex problem for clinicians/therapists, and it is generally

the first barrier to successful treatment that needs overcoming. Indeed, most prison-

based SOTPs in North America and the United Kingdom have a focus on offender

responsibility-taking. McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, and Ellerby (2009) find

that 91% of treatment programmes in the United States included “offender responsi-

bility” as a treatment target. Furthermore, 33.4% of adult programmes in the United

States required full disclosure for successful programme completion. These find-

ings mirror the definition of denial in sexual offenders by the Association for the

Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), which states that denial is “the failure of sex-

ual abusers to accept responsibility for their offences” (ATSA, 2001, p. 63).

However, there is conceptual ambiguity regarding denial (Vanhoeck & Van Daele,

2011). For instance, denial can be regarded as a unidimensional phenomenon (offend-

ers are either in denial or not) or considered a spectrum or continuum of behaviours.

This includes partial denials/minimisations (“It wasn’t that bad,” the victim exagger-

ated), denials regarding planning (“It wasn’t planned”), extent (“This happened, that

didn’t”), responsibility (“It’s not my fault”), and excuses/justifications (“It was the

alcohol”). Whereas most of these partial denials would be permitted at the commence-

ment of treatment, categorical denial is not permitted. Forensic settings consider denial

as something that needs to be challenged and overcome before successful treatment

can occur (Northey, 1999). There is, however, little evidence that overcoming denial

is necessary as it has been found to be unrelated to recidivism (R. Hanson & Bussiere,

1998; Marshall, Marshall, & Ware, 2009).

Indeed, the casual direction of taking responsibility as a condition for successful

personal change has been challenged (Maruna, 2004; Maruna & Mann, 2006). Maruna

and Mann (2006) point out that given that denial and minimisations occur after offending,

it is difficult to conclude that they are causally related to offending. Crime desistance