Tag: Desistance

Sexual offending causes serious and sometimes enduring harm. Work with a person who has offended must not minimise that harm, shift responsibility to a victim or confuse explanation with excuse. At the same time, therapy is unlikely to support lasting change if it relies on humiliation, punishment or a rehearsed account that satisfies the practitioner but has little connection to future behaviour.

Therapeutic accountability is better understood as an active and continuing process: recognising choices and their consequences; examining the conditions in which harm occurred; changing relevant beliefs, behaviours and routines; accepting appropriate external safeguards; and developing ways of living that are incompatible with further offending.

Responsibility, admission and legal fact are different questions

In clinical and criminal-justice settings, “taking responsibility” is sometimes treated as though it means giving a complete confession that matches an official account. That may be relevant in some circumstances, but the research does not establish full admission as a universal treatment mechanism or a reliable stand-alone indicator of future sexual reoffending.

A person may admit behaviour while continuing to externalise blame, disregard boundaries or avoid meaningful change. Another person may dispute part of an allegation or legal account while still being able to work on patterns that are relevant to safety, such as secrecy, entitlement, emotional regulation, sexual preoccupation, substance use, relationship difficulties or access to high-risk situations.

This does not mean that denial or minimisation should be ignored. Both can obstruct assessment, affect treatment engagement and cause further harm to victims or others. The task is to understand what function they serve and what can be addressed safely and ethically—not to confuse a therapist’s preferred narrative with a legal finding. Questions of guilt, disputed evidence and the facts proved in a case remain legal matters.

Understanding is not excusing

A formulation asks how relevant factors may have combined in this particular person, at this time and in this context. It may examine developmental experiences, relationships, sexual interests, beliefs, emotional states, opportunity, online behaviour, substance use, self-regulation, isolation, grievance, coping and previous responses to stress.

The purpose is not to remove agency. It is to identify where change is required and what may increase or reduce concern. A clinically useful formulation distinguishes between:

• what is known, reported, disputed or still unknown;
• factors associated with the development of the behaviour;
• factors that may maintain or trigger it;
• strengths and protective factors that can be developed;
• the person’s choices, strategies and opportunities for acting differently; and
• the practical implications for treatment and risk management.

Explanation becomes clinically valuable when it leads to action. If a formulation merely offers an elaborate account of the past but does not inform present decisions, it risks becoming descriptive rather than protective or therapeutic.

Insight must become observable change

Insight and remorse can be meaningful, but neither is sufficient on its own. Sustainable change needs to be visible in the way a person manages ordinary life and responds to pressure. Depending on the individual, the work may include:

The risk-need-responsivity framework emphasises matching the intensity of intervention to assessed risk, targeting needs connected to offending and adapting delivery to the person’s abilities, circumstances and strengths. Desistance research adds that change is usually gradual and non-linear, influenced by agency, hope, relationships, opportunities and social as well as psychological resources.

A strengths-based approach does not replace risk management. It asks what the person needs to build, not only what they must avoid. A plan based entirely on restriction may be difficult to sustain if it leaves someone isolated, without purpose or unable to meet legitimate needs safely.

The therapeutic relationship must combine humanity and challenge

People are more likely to examine difficult material where the therapeutic relationship is clear, respectful and boundaried. Studies in sexual-offence treatment have linked stronger working alliances with treatment participation and change, although an alliance is not evidence that risk has reduced and should never replace structured assessment.

Warmth without challenge can collude with avoidance. Challenge without respect can produce shame, defensiveness or performance rather than reflection. The practitioner needs to remain curious about discrepancies, hold a clear position on consent and harm, and invite the client to become an active participant in change.

Accountability also belongs to systems and professionals. Treatment should have a credible rationale, be delivered within competence, be adapted responsively and be reviewed for quality and outcomes. Poorly targeted or poorly delivered interventions are not made effective simply by demanding more disclosure from the person attending them.

Therapy and formal risk management have different roles

A treating therapist may contribute important observations about engagement, formulation, behaviour and change. That does not automatically qualify them to give a formal forensic risk opinion, determine whether restrictions should change or advise a court on matters outside their expertise.

Formal risk work may require verified records, structured methods, knowledge of the relevant legal and operational context, competence in specific instruments, multidisciplinary information and independence from the treating role. Where therapy forms part of a wider risk-management plan, the boundaries of confidentiality and information sharing should be explained clearly at the outset.

Progress in therapy should therefore be communicated with precision. “Attends consistently”, “can identify relevant triggers” or “has used an agreed strategy in specified situations” is more informative than broad claims that someone is “safe”, “cured” or “no longer a risk”. No clinician can guarantee future behaviour.

Questions for practitioners

• What does accountability mean in this person’s treatment, and how will it be observed?
• Are treatment goals linked to an individual formulation rather than a generic offence label?
• Which dynamic needs, strengths and protective factors are relevant?
• How is the work adapted for culture, neurodiversity, disability, literacy and motivation?
• Could shame, fear, legal advice or role confusion be affecting disclosure?
• What information is missing, disputed or outside the therapist’s remit?
• How will progress be tested beyond self-report?
• Who holds responsibility for formal risk decisions and information sharing?

A balanced model of change

Effective work after sexual offending is neither purely punitive nor uncritically optimistic. It takes harm seriously, expects meaningful responsibility and recognises that sustainable change usually requires more than restriction or remorse. The work should help a person understand their patterns, develop relevant skills, accept proportionate safeguards and build a life in which non-offending choices can be maintained.

Accountability is strongest when it can be seen in conduct: in how someone manages boundaries, responds to risk, treats other people and uses support when difficulties arise.

References and further reading

• HM Prison and Probation Service: The HMPPS Approach to the Management and Rehabilitation of People Convicted of Sexual Offences.
• HM Prison and Probation Service: Offending behaviour programmes and interventions.
• HM Inspectorate of Probation: The risk-need-responsivity model.
• HM Inspectorate of Probation: Desistance—general practice principles.
• College of Policing: Psychosocial treatment for people with sexual-offence histories.
• Ware, J. and Mann, R. E. (2012): How should “acceptance of responsibility” be addressed in sexual offending treatment programs?
• Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L. and Hodgson, S. (2009): The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders.
• Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C. and Riemer, E. K. (2024): The risk, need and responsivity relevance of working alliance in a sexual offence treatment program.
• Risk Management Authority: Standards and Guidelines for Risk Management (2025).

This resource is for general professional education. It is not legal advice, a risk assessment or a substitute for case-specific clinical, safeguarding or legal consultation. If there is an immediate risk of harm, contact the appropriate emergency or statutory service.