Curious about the evolution of SOTP

It's been over 20 years since I've been in treatment, though "Aftercare" was just a few years ago for me.

I stand by treatment as it has reduced recidivism to single digits; so it must work. Because it works, it seems very clear to me that it's beneficial for society and individuals alike. But nothing is ever perfect and no one set of "anything" can meet every need for every individual.

The first providers in my institution emphasized thoughts, feelings, emotions, beliefs; but a year or two later, they lost the contract and another provider was brought in. The new provider stood firm on the Freeman-Longo model, emphasizing risk identification, escape/avoidance and behavior. I did not formally go through the 2nd program, but obtained and devoured the material on my own voluntary steam; and was, of course, heavily introduced to it through the "aftercare" groups.

I found it very helpful; but I do have my own criticisms; these are my 3 major reservations:

1. "One size fits all" doesn't work. The freeman-longo model of cyclic behavior doesn't fit everyone and it is silly to believe that ever offender out there is more or less identical. While I certainly employed the interventions and risk identification components in that material, I don't fit his "trigger - build up - acting out" model. I understand Canada has performed long-term research on sexual offenders and have presented other models. One model is like the "Solar System"; with the Sun at the center (being our attraction) and several factors "orbiting" that sun; with the 1st four "planets" being something like "Victim Selected", "Opportunity", etc. When the planets and sun line up, that is when the offense occurs. As you can probably ascertain, these 2 models are different. (If anyone knows of this model, I'd like to see it and study it more deeply). I guess my point is, then, is that "one size doesn't fit all" and that treatment may be more effective without dogmatically clinging to one particular model; but instead seeking to find the model that fits and designing our strategies around what does fit instead of cramming square pegs into round holes.

2. The Avoidance/Escape model is shame-based. Excessive shame, as I have (and probably still do) endure has problems of its own. It says that we are defective and if we wind up in the wrong place and time under the wrong situations, we will re-offend because that is our basal nature as sick human beings. A recent experience of mine has demonstrated to me that this is not necessarily true. A firm in Florida, YouTube channel SOTV, postulates an approach that is not shame-based and uses other methods rather than avoidance/escape. I'm insatiably curious; but also hesitant to look at it, as the Avoidance/Escape model has worked for me; and to replace or incorporate something that does work for something that doesn't work is unthinkable. But maybe there is a balance that can be struck, and I certainly don't subscribe to the idea of throwing away willy-nilly what does work just because of how it makes us feel. At odds here.

3. Toooo much emphasis on thought-policing. Too much concern about the influence of deviant fantasies. We're going to have them. Some more than others. But to jump from "you had dirty thoughts last night" to "OMG, you're on the verge of assaulting someone; don't you see how dangerous this is!?" is an overreach. The existence of non-offenders who enjoy their deviant fantasies, as well as former offenders who still fantasize yet have existed for decades after treatment without re-offending causes me to question the wisdom of this train of thought. Maybe this goes back to the "one size fits all" as I can certainly see that deviant fantasies may be problematic and trouble for some.

Anyway. I'm just curious as it's been a long time and would like to hear and possibly discuss what treatment was like for others at different times and places.

Sounds very similar if not almost everything we learn't on the SOTP that I have just finished, so maybe looks like very little understanding has changed as time has gone on.

That is a shame if true as you would have expected that with the passage of time more would be understood and treatment (i don't like that word, help is a better word) would be much better by now.

To a degree I totally agree on the "one size does not fit all".

I also recognize the Finkelhor (sp?) model being much the same as the planets and solar system you describe, the main difference being it is 4 chairs, in each chair you use a certain thought that creates a belief, you then use justification arguments to allow your self to commit a crime, you then set up a scenario that allows the time motivation or opportunity, in chair 4 you have overcome your internal barriers and any external barriers by the time you have got to chair 4 then offending is highly likely.

The problem is treatment has to be a one size fits all to an extent, as there is just not the manpower to be able to deal with people one on one for their exact needs.

I have learnt to recognize that there will be situations or times where I may be at risk of offending again, by being aware and having tools to distract my thoughts or possible behavior means I keep myself and other as safe as I possibly can.

I personally found the group I was on pretty helpful, and we did discuss a lot of personal issues within the group, I was amazed at the support offered by 9 other men who I did not know, maybe partly because we were all in the same boat more or less, but everyone one of them seemed to show genuine concern and sympathy and offered support.

Some stuff I just didn't share with the group as I felt it was too personal, but I have opened up more to people in my life that are close to me and do care about me and love me, and their support is amazing.

I think the main thing is the treatment is meant to help you lower your risks of re offending, and if it helps people not offend again then I am all for it, but mostly it is down to the individual and how they feel about their actions.

It's not perfect and probably never will be but it's a start.

Sorry for my belated response.

If you were introduced to the Finkelhor model, it appears that SOTP is broadening its horizons since my participation; as we were taught one model only, which was the "Freeman-Longo" model or a derivative of the same. I would consider that an improvement, however slight.

And in spite of my criticisms, I agree that treatment is a great start. With its promising success in reducing recidivism to single digits, I'd suggest that any changes made to it should be performed carefully and after due thought; after all ... If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

My thoughts as of late are not that it's defunct; but that it is often considered "the beginning and the end" and I seriously doubt that it is the "end" of self discovery and risk reduction.

-- Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:17 am --

PS I have found a book by Finkelhor and have bookmarked it for later purchase and reading. Tx.

A few good books on this subject are:
http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-co ... n-63.4.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Protecting-Our-Ki ... 1440838623
http://www.amazon.com/Caught-Prison-Loc ... 0691164053
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520262065
A really good article is:
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

-- Sun Nov 22, 2015 9:46 pm --

Gerste wrote:A few good books on this subject are:
http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-co ... n-63.4.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Protecting-Our-Ki ... 1440838623
http://www.amazon.com/Caught-Prison-Loc ... 0691164053
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520262065
A really good article is:
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

Also read The Scarlet Letter for classic parallels, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, who added a "W" to his name to distance himself from Nathaniel Hathorne, a sitting judge at the notorious Salem witch trials. Also read the play The Crucible by the late Arthur Miller.

Gerste wrote:A few good books on this subject are:
http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-co ... n-63.4.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Protecting-Our-Ki ... 1440838623
http://www.amazon.com/Caught-Prison-Loc ... 0691164053
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520262065
A really good article is:
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

-- Sun Nov 22, 2015 9:46 pm --

Gerste wrote:A few good books on this subject are:
http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-co ... n-63.4.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Protecting-Our-Ki ... 1440838623
http://www.amazon.com/Caught-Prison-Loc ... 0691164053
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520262065
A really good article is:
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614

Also read The Scarlet Letter for classic parallels, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, who added a "W" to his name to distance himself from Nathaniel Hathorne, a sitting judge at the notorious Salem witch trials. Also read the play The Crucible by the late Arthur Miller.

"...Nathaniel Hathorne, a sitting judge at the notorious Salem witch trials." I intended to say "John Hathorne," Nathaniel's father.