Tories put stop to sex offender treatment

[Visionseeker]

Now this is just plain dumb:

Sex offender project in limbo amid funding flap

A program that helps keep convicted sex offenders from committing more crimes is in limbo after being told its funding request has been rejected by the federal government.

Right. That's because we all know how sex offenders can't be cured, so why bother? What's this?

It's got a pretty firm track record of substantially reducing recidivism among sex offenders, by 83 per cent compared to those who don't have (access to the program)

And it's being applied elsewhere?

Great Britain has adopted the program as part of its probation system, said McWhinnie. Several U.S. states, including California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington, also use the program.

Hum, an effective prevention of recidivism, made in Canada and now copied elsewhere, yet unworthy of support from federal coffers. In Con eyes it's simply better to release the perps without treatment so that they can claim another victim; then the Tories can get "tough" on them. Frankly, this mindset makes me sick.

In fairness:

A spokesman in Van Loan's office said by email that "the minister has not made any decisions regarding the organization's request for funding."

But that sounds like damage control to me. The NCPC doesn't tell and organization that they've been rejected unless the answer has come down from the minister or his surrogate. Makes me wonder what other stupid decisions the NCPC might shed some light on.

The Cons don't believe in crime prevention. It denies them victims to exploit politically.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Visionseeker

[eyeball]

The Cons don't believe in crime prevention. It denies them victims to exploit politically.

That's pretty much the only thing I can conclude too. I think its also clear why the enforcement-industrial complex and right wing have such a natural affinity for one another. The different sets of mutual interests are just as interlocked here as they are between the military-industrial complex and the right, for the same reasons. More power, or wealth, either will do. It doesn't really matter.

[Keepitsimple]

I agree with the government taking a very slow approach to this issue. Alcoholics Anonymous for example, is a completely self-supporting organization funded by donations, contributions by members and totally voluntary work. The Sex Offender Circles have been funded for 15 years by charitable donations from Corrections Canada. Once the government spigot has been opened, it's very hard to turn it off - it takes on a life of its own.

[Wild Bill]

Now this is just plain dumb:

Sex offender project in limbo amid funding flap

Right. That's because we all know how sex offenders can't be cured, so why bother? What's this?

And it's being applied elsewhere?

Hum, an effective prevention of recidivism, made in Canada and now copied elsewhere, yet unworthy of support from federal coffers. In Con eyes it's simply better to release the perps without treatment so that they can claim another victim; then the Tories can get "tough" on them. Frankly, this mindset makes me sick.

In fairness:

But that sounds like damage control to me. The NCPC doesn't tell and organization that they've been rejected unless the answer has come down from the minister or his surrogate. Makes me wonder what other stupid decisions the NCPC might shed some light on.

The Cons don't believe in crime prevention. It denies them victims to exploit politically.

And all Liberals can't think logically! How's that for another generalization? One's as true as the other, that is...not at all.

How can you say all conservatives believe this? Have you met them all?

All you can say is that ONE government ministry is apparently stalling on a project that YOU take for granted as worthy!

What we don't know is whether or not Van Loan is personally denying support or if his department is vetting out the organization more thoroughly. If it's a personal thing then again, that's not ALL conservatives! It's simply Van Loan.

This IS a poltically touchy subject! If this organization proves to be and have done what it claims then great! Still, the almost universal consensus has been that sex offenders can't be cured. Now suddenly this group comes out of the woodwork claiming it can be somewhat successful. If Van Loan's department did NOT check these guys out thoroughly before handing out OUR tax money many of us would be some PO'd!

I think you're jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion simply because you don't like conservatives and have a stereotype picture of them in your head.

Me, I'm content to wait and see how things play out. Van Loan has to be careful. If he gives the funding and it turns out that this organization is not as effective as it claims to be the Opposition will be all over him. For that matter, so will many Tory supporters, for wasting tax money on some 'liberal touchy feely', 'effective only symbolically' program.

So let's see what happens. It's early yet. If Van Loan turns the money down, we'd expect to be given good reasons. If we're not, then there will be lots of time to crucify him later!

BTW, is it really proper to set up a poll vote that is really not a vote at all but just a partisan slam?

It gives ALL Liberals a bad name!

[M.Dancer]

Effective treatment of sex offenders ended when they outlawed horse whippings and ruled that castration was cruel.

Used in conjunction I believe they would be very effective in motivating a deviant not to re-offend.

[Hydraboss]

You can't "fix" rapists and child molesters without a gun (or a very large electrical charge). How about we take that money and spend it on victim services???? Does anyone actually care if these not-quite-humans get treatment, and if so, why?

[Visionseeker]

You can't "fix" rapists and child molesters without a gun (or a very large electrical charge). How about we take that money and spend it on victim services???? Does anyone actually care if these not-quite-humans get treatment, and if so, why?

I care. Like it or not, these offenders are eventually released. Effective treatment reduces the likelyhood that they'll produce more victims. This program has proven itself to be quite effective.

[Sir Bandelot]

First of all, as a real conservative this party offends me by calling itself by the same name. It's become increasingly clear that they don't support any form of rehabilitation, either for sex offenders or drug addicts. Their enthusiasm for mandatory minimums is also testament to this attitude- incarcerate, with impunity. But hey, there's big money for the prison industry. And that's what this party is all about.

[Visionseeker]

I agree with the government taking a very slow approach to this issue. Alcoholics Anonymous for example, is a completely self-supporting organization funded by donations, contributions by members and totally voluntary work. The Sex Offender Circles have been funded for 15 years by charitable donations from Corrections Canada.

I see your point. But this is rather different from a self-help group model. Corrections Canada has a mandate to rehabilitate offenders. If Corrections has a proven, cost efficient, program at its disposal that greatly reduces recidivism, it has a duty to incorporate it in the name of public safety.

Once the government spigot has been opened, it's very hard to turn it off - it takes on a life of its own.

I can more readily accept such drive-by generalizations if they can be supported by a relevant example. Can you identify an example of a rehabilitative program under Corrections Canada that has become an open spigot?

[Visionseeker]

First of all, as a real conservative this party offends me by calling itself by the same name. It's become increasingly clear that they don't support any form of rehabilitation, either for sex offenders or drug addicts. Their enthusiasm for mandatory minimums is also testament to this attitude- incarcerate, with impunity. But hey, there's big money for the prison industry. And that's what this party is all about.

What we have now mascarading itself as a Conservative movement is nothing more than a bunch of park yer brains at the door libertarians bolstered by "social conservatives". This Conservative Party knows nothing about conservatism. It is disheartening to say the least.

[Hydraboss]

Corrections Canada has a mandate to rehabilitate offenders.

...and this is the first thing a Conservative majority needs to change. Corrections Canada needs to focus on public safety and incarceration. Prison is supposed to be a deterent.

If Corrections has a proven, cost efficient, program at its disposal that greatly reduces recidivism, it has a duty to incorporate it in the name of public safety.

I call bullshit until some independant, third party studies the results and decides to agree with CC.

[ba1614]

...and this is the first thing a Conservative majority needs to change. Corrections Canada needs to focus on public safety and incarceration. Prison is supposed to be a deterent.

I call bullshit until some independant, third party studies the results and decides to agree with CC.

It's got a pretty firm track record of substantially reducing recidivism among sex offenders, by 83 per cent compared to those who don't have (access to the program)

I too would like to see some independent supporting evidence to support that claim.

If true that it reduces the recidivism by the 83% claimed, then I agree that not supporting them is shameful, provided they have the structure in place to effectively use the public funds.

[Hydraboss]

Like it or not, these offenders are eventually released.

...and this would be step two...stop releasing this scum to prey on others. How many of these people do we hear about with multiple convictions? Not just one or two, but 40 and 50 offences. Would you like one of these subhumans living next door to your kids? (I don't actually expect you to answer that directly...in the history of that question being asked, not a single "hug a thug" type has ever done it. They simply deflect it with some bs statement about how it proves that we need treatment programs.)

So, do you want one of these "rehabilitated" predators living across the street from your kid's elementary school? I mean, at 83% effective, there's only a 17% chance some child will be raped. That's acceptable odds, right?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Sex offenses are violent crimes and those convicted should never be released from custody.

[Sir Bandelot]

Sex offenses are violent crimes and those convicted should never be released from custody.

Not sure about that, but in any case you'd have a long way to go. Even murderers get released eventually.

Maybe they cannot be rehabilitated, no matter what. But what if a person does show genuine remorse, and does change themselves and their life. What if a person was young and naive, or things somehow got out of hand and they made a mistake? I believe they should still be punished, yes... but for life?

Besides the length of sentencing though, it's obvious that this is a step backwards (eliminaing treatment), as are the mandatory minimums and other so-called "tough on crime" agenda of this party. Canada moving back to the sotne ages.

What next, public floggings ala Taliban?

Edited October 1, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Molly]

So, do you want one of these "rehabilitated" predators living across the street from your kid's elementary school? I mean, at 83% effective, there's only a 17% chance some child will be raped. That's acceptable odds, right?

I'd sure as H-E-double toothpicks prefer one who has been through an 83% effective treatment program over one who has not!

Edited October 1, 2009 by Molly

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I will suggest that floggings are over the top, but that permanent incarceration is not. If a person is a danger to society, then society has a responsibility to remove the threat.

[scribblet]

Now this is just plain dumb:

The Cons don't believe in crime prevention. It denies them victims to exploit politically.

It's a dumb poll, unless you are a conservative you cannot know what that individual thinks, so therefore cannot vote in the poll.

Cons might not believe in crime prevention, but Conservatives sure do, as well as strengthening and making sure that sentences are carried out etc.

[Argus]

What we have now mascarading itself as a Conservative movement is nothing more than a bunch of park yer brains at the door libertarians bolstered by "social conservatives". This Conservative Party knows nothing about conservatism. It is disheartening to say the least.

Right, because if only there was a real conservative party with real conservative beliefs and values YOU could support.

[Argus]

I'd sure as H-E-double toothpicks prefer one who has been through an 83% effective treatment program over one who has not!

Who says it's 83% effective? You have to be careful when considering statistics of this nature. Who goes into these programs? Most likely, people who seriously WANT to change. OF COURSE such people are going to have a lower recividism rate than those who can't be bothered.

I mean, I'm sure AA has a higher rate of success in reforming alcoholics than say, nothing. But that's because alcoholics who really want to reform mostly get in touch with AA. The rest - don't.

I'm in favour of it if it works, but seriously, how do you teach someone not to be a sex offender? Other than chemical castration, they're going to continue to have those impulses. So the only thing you can hope to teach them is self-restraint and discipline, and really, that requires their cooperation. They need to want to change.

[Argus]

Maybe they cannot be rehabilitated, no matter what. But what if a person does show genuine remorse, and does change themselves and their life. What if a person was young and naive, or things somehow got out of hand and they made a mistake?

A young and naive rapist? I don't think most of the people who qualify as sex offenders are one-time date-rapists who had too much to drink and got too enthusiastic.

[Molly]

Who says it's 83% effective?

That was your parameter.... so, uh, YOU said '83% effective'.

I'd consider it well worth doing even with a dramatically smaller effectiveness rate, so it doesn't much matter to me whether the stat reflects some hyperbole.

The fact is, we can't keep all offenders from every sort of crime locked up for life, so sooner or later they will be 'living across the street'. Far better there be some kind of treatment program than not.

[Wild Bill]

That was your parameter.... so, uh, YOU said '83% effective'.

I'd consider it well worth doing even with a dramatically smaller effectiveness rate, so it doesn't much matter to me whether the stat reflects some hyperbole.

The fact is, we can't keep all offenders from every sort of crime locked up for life, so sooner or later they will be 'living across the street'. Far better there be some kind of treatment program than not.

Molly, it's right here in the link from the OP!

"Andrew McWhinnie, head of Circles of Support and Accountability, said he was personally informed of the rejection last Friday by Robert Cormier of the National Crime Prevention Centre, which falls under Van Loan's ministry.

<snip>

It's got a pretty firm track record of substantially reducing recidivism among sex offenders, by 83 per cent compared to those who don't have (access to the program)."

So the claim of 83 % comes from McWhinnie, the head of the very organization in question! In fact, if you read the link, McWhinnie is quoted as the ONLY source about the organization's effectiveness!

That's like Imperial Tobacco telling us that cigarettes are good for you!

Like I said, some folks will swallow anything for a chance to knock the Tories.

[capricorn]

"Andrew McWhinnie, head of Circles of Support and Accountability, said he was personally informed of the rejection last Friday by Robert Cormier of the National Crime Prevention Centre, which falls under Van Loan's ministry.

<snip>

It's got a pretty firm track record of substantially reducing recidivism among sex offenders, by 83 per cent compared to those who don't have (access to the program)."

So the claim of 83 % comes from McWhinnie, the head of the very organization in question! In fact, if you read the link, McWhinnie is quoted as the ONLY source about the organization's effectiveness!

Early studies, conducted in the 1970s and 80s, did not detect differences in recidivism rates between sex offenders who had undergone treatment and those who had not. Some recent research has produced similar findings. These findings have been widely publicized, opening the door to public policies predicated on the assumption that “treatment doesn’t work” and sex offenders will invariably recidivate.

Other studies, however, have testified to the positive impact of sex offender treatment. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 43 studies of 9,454 convicted sex offenders (5,078 treated and 4,376 untreated) found that contemporary cognitive-behavioral treatment was associated with a 41 percent reduction in recidivism.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/4.htm

In other words, the jury is still out as to whether the treatment of sexual offenders lowers recidivism rates.

IMO, the present CC program adequately addresses the treatment of sexual offenders.

Sexual Offender Programs

The Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) Sexual Offender Programs are primarily focused on male offenders who have been identified as a result of their offence history.

Two programs are delivered nationally; the Moderate Intensity Sex Offender Program (NMISOP) and the Low Intensity Sex Offender Program (NLISOP). Offenders are referred to the programs based on their risk level and need as assessed by a specialized sex offender assessment. Both programs were accredited by an international panel of corrections experts in June 2000.

The programs are delivered according to Correctional Program Standards. The National Sex Offender Program Guidelines also give useful clarifications in regards to program implementation (selection criteria, program director role, etc.). As well, the programs include a detailed evaluation process that permits a comprehensive program evaluation and outcome analysis of the program's success in reducing the thinking and behaviours associated with sexual violence.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/sexoff-eng.shtml

[noahbody]

Right. That's because we all know how sex offenders can't be cured, so why bother? What's this?

If you pay attention to the story, it never once says that funding is being cut. It says how much they were seeking and that their request for additional funding was denied.

The apparent funding rejection means that rather than doubling the number of sex offenders in the program to about 300, it will likely slip back to fewer than 140 next year.

When something stays at the current level it slips back? Journalism Propaganda at its best.

Edited October 1, 2009 by noahbody