The views of victim/survivors of sexual violence about perpetrator post-release measures

ABSTRACT

People convicted of sexual offences are increasingly subject to a range of post-prison measures designed to reduce their risk of reoffending, including civil commitment, public offender registers, electronic monitoring and Circles of Support and Accountability. The views of a range of stakeholders, including policy-makers, legislators, and perpetrators themselves, have previously been documented about these measures. However, very little research has sought to document victim/survivors’ views, despite victim/survivors having a vested interest in the efficacy of such measures. This study began to address this gap by investigating the views of victim/survivors of sexual violence about post-release measures for perpetrators. To do this, the research reported here involved conducting semi-structured qualitative interviews with 33 victim/survivors of sexual violence. The research found that victim/survivors favor post-release measures that reflect either purely consequentialist or a hybrid of consequentialist and deontological motivations. The study’s findings will be of relevance to legislators and policy-makers, who increasingly see value in incorporating the views of victim/survivors into the development of measures designed to respond to perpetrators of sexual violence.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexual assault
• child sexual abuse
• victim/survivors
• perpetrators
• post-release policies
• qualitative research

In recent years, sexual offenders have increasingly become subject to a range of post-prison measures designed to reduce their risk of reoffending once they are released from prison back into the community (see generally Simon, 1998; Wacquant & Wacquant, 2009). These measures, which are situated along a spectrum from punitively-oriented to assistance-oriented (Socia et al., 2020; Spoo et al., 2018), seek to achieve this by variously managing, monitoring, supervising, supporting, containing and constraining sexual offenders as they exit prison and re-join the community. Post-release measures include civil commitment, residency restrictions, community notification, offender registers, electronic monitoring, therapeutic interventions, treatment, reintegration support, Circles of Support and Accountability, and chaperone programs (for overviews see Bartels, Walvisch, & Richards, 2019; Kemshall & McCartan, 2017).

In Australia, where the current research was conducted, sexual violence is widespread. The national Personal Safety Survey (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017) found that 1.6% of women (n = 148,000) and 0.6% of men (n = 57,200) aged 18 and over had been sexually assaulted at least once in the year prior to the survey. The number of sexual offenders in prison is rapidly increasing, with the number of prisoners incarcerated in relation to sexual offences increasing 80% over the last decade (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). The overwhelming majority of these prisoners will be released back into the community, with custodial sentences for sexual offences being relatively short (Victoria Sentencing Advisory Council, 2021). Australian state and territory legislation provides for the registration, supervision and monitoring of people with convictions relating to sexual violence after the completion of a custodial sentence (Gelb, Stobbs, & Hogg, 2019; Napier, Dowling, Morgan, & Talbot, 2018).

A burgeoning body of literature documents the views of legislators, policy-makers and practitioners (Day, Carson, Newton, & Hobbs, 2014; Meloy, Boatwright, & Curtis, 2013), the public (Connor & Tewksbury, 2017; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009), parents (Mancini, Shields, Mears, & Beaver, 2010), and perpetrators themselves (Connor & Tewksbury, 2017; Tewkesbury, 2006) about these post-release measures. However, little has been documented about victim/survivors’¹ views, despite this group having perhaps the most vested interest in the efficacy of such measures, and despite the broader context of an increasing focus on victims’ interests as a component of contemporary criminal justice practice (Roberts, 2009; Strang, 2001).

In more general terms, research has consistently demonstrated that victim/survivors are either about as punitive or even less punitive in their orientation towards sexual offenders than the general public (see Harper, Hogue, & Bartels, 2017 for a helpful overview). Most recently, Socia et al. (2020) surveyed three groups about post-release sex offender measures: 1) victim/survivors of child sexual abuse, their loved ones, and service providers in the child sexual abuse prevention sector (n = 199); 2) individuals convicted of sexual offences, their loved ones, and treatment and related service providers (n = 27); and 3) law enforcement personnel and policy-makers with relevant experience (n = 91). Socia et al. (2020) found that the victim/survivor group had a more optimistic outlook and was more likely to believe that child sexual abuse is preventable than the other groups. Broader research into victim/survivors’ more general attitudes toward perpetrators (Ferguson & Ireland, 2006; Nelson, Herlihy, & Oescher, 2002; Spoo et al., 2018) has found that victim/survivors hold more positive attitudes toward sexual offenders than others, with the authors contending that this may reflect victim/survivors’ more comprehensive knowledge of sexual offenders. As Harper, Hogue, and Bartels (2017, p. 206) summarize: ‘The single factor that has consistently been found to potentially have a positive impact on attitudes is exposure to sexual offenders, either in a professional or personal capacity’. In Bandy’s (2015, p. 368) terms, ‘many victims know – and even love – their offenders’.

An allied body of research on victim/survivors’ ‘justice needs’ (not limited to the post-release period) suggests that in general, victim/survivors favor responses to perpetrators that will result in: meaningful consequences for the perpetrator; the exposure of the perpetrator; and the violence not happening again (Clark, 2015; Herman, 2005; Jülich, 2006; Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005; McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019; Richards, Death, & McCartan, 2020). This is reflected in research into victim/survivor views of restorative justice in cases of sexual violence, which demonstrates that victim/survivors (or at least, victim/survivors who have opted to take part in restorative justice processes) describe wanting to have an opportunity to hold offenders accountable, and to communicate to the offender the impacts that the offence has had (Jülich & Landon, 2017; Koss, 2014; McGlynn, Westmarland, & Godden, 2012). However, this research shows that victim/survivors are somewhat reluctant to endorse restorative justice more specifically (Jülich, 2006; Marsh & Wager, 2015), commonly viewing restorative processes as valuable for other victim/survivors of sexual violence, but not themselves (Jülich, 2006; Marsh & Wager, 2015). Victim/survivors have raised concerns that restorative processes will reproduce power imbalances between the perpetrator and the victim/survivor, and that restorative processes are offender-centric, potentially enabling perpetrators to manipulate the process for his own ends (Jülich, 2006).

Victim/Survivor views about post-release measures

In terms of victim/survivor views about post-release measures for sex offenders more specifically, findings from the scant, piecemeal body of literature – most of which centres on support for sex offender registers – are mixed. Levenson and colleagues’ (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Levenson, Fortney, & Baker, 2010) research found no significant differences in support for sex offender registers between those who were sexually abused as children and the general public. This result was confirmed by a more recent study designed to test the same premise with a larger sample (n = 188) (Koon-Magnin, 2015). Craun and Simmons (2012) conducted an online survey with 598 victim/survivors of sexual violence and found only lukewarm endorsement of the idea that sex offender registers protect the public from sexual violence. Importantly, however, they found that, like the public (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007), victim/survivors expressed support for registers despite this doubt about their efficacy. Craun, Kernsmith, and Butler (2011) found in a telephone survey with 728 members of the public that those who had been the victim of a sex offence (or knew a victim of a sex offence) were more likely to support the use of registers for other types of offender, but do not speculate on why this might be the case. Spoo et al. (2018) surveyed 1,173 American undergraduate psychology students, of whom 129 (11%) reported having been sexually victimized. They found that victim/survivors were more supportive of mandatory treatment but less supportive of community notification than the remainder of the sample (Spoo et al., 2018). The authors attribute this to victim/survivors’ greater familiarity with sex offenders (as discussed above).

Qualitative research on victim/survivor views about post-release measures is similarly sparse but provides some intriguing background to the current study. Bandy’s (2015) interviews with 18 victim/survivors revealed a degree of cynicism toward punitive, populist post-release measures. When asked about such measures (eg Megan’s Law, which requires police to release information about registered sex offenders to the public (Levenson & Cotter, 2005)), some of the interviewees ‘rolled their eyes, seemingly in exasperation’ (Bandy, 2015, p. 369). One victim/survivor expressed incredulity about offender residency restrictions given that ‘my offender lived in my house’ (Bandy, 2015, p. 369). Another victim/survivor (in Bandy, 2015) was more direct:

It’s complete political bullshit to say that these so-called get-tough-on-crime sex offender laws are supposed to somehow help victims. If they [politicians] wanted to help victims, they’d address issues like free or affordable [mental health] services … and comprehensive sex ed[ucation] in the schools. They just pass these laws to get reelected (p. 367).

Richards, Death, and Ronken (2021) qualitative interviews with victim/survivors found broad support for Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), a program in which sexual offenders are supported by community volunteers to re-enter the community after prison. In this study, victim/survivors primarily endorsed the additional monitoring of offenders that CoSA offer, as well as the social supports and structure that being in a CoSA would provide offenders. Critically, the authors found that victim/survivors only endorsed CoSA in instances in which the perpetrator had demonstrated accountability, which victim/survivors characterized as ‘personal commitment to behavioral change’ (Richards, Death, & Ronken, 2021, p. 903).

Understanding victim/survivors’ views

Collectively, therefore, the extant literature provides only limited insight into what victim/survivors think about post-release measures for sex offenders. We contend, however, that understanding victim/survivor views about this topic is critical for a number of reasons. The views of victim/survivors can provide insights to inform the development of more effective legislation, policy and practice (Fitz-Gibbon & Walklate, 2018). As McGinn, Taylor, McColgan, and Lagdon (2016) argue, victim/survivors who remain in contact with perpetrators after violence has occurred experience first-hand the changes (or lack thereof) in perpetrator behavior and can thus offer a unique insight into perpetrator intervention measures (see further National Center for Victims of Crime, 2005). Further, incorporating victim/survivor views into policy and practice may play a role in countering the retraumatization that victim/survivors experience by being excluded from criminal justice processes (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2018). This study begins to address this gap in knowledge by reporting findings from qualitative interviews with Australian victim/survivors of sexual violence about post-release perpetrator measures. In doing so it provides critical information about victim/survivor views that could shape post-release interventions for sexual offenders, as well as better address victim/survivor needs and foster community safety.

Theoretical background

Theoretically, scholars usually divide motivations to punish (or justifications for punishment) into two broad categories: deontological and utilitarian (see Table 1). Deontological (or non-consequentialist) motivations are backwards-looking and usually retributive (ie they assert that perpetrators simply deserve to be punished). Deontological justifications rest on the Kantian notion that societies have not only a right but a duty to punish wrongdoers (Deogaonkar Anant, 2021). In contrast, utilitarian (or consequentialist) justifications are forwards-looking and concerned with what might be gained by punishing the offender (eg deterrence of other would-be perpetrators, crime prevention, rehabilitating perpetrators) (von Hirsch, 2017). In short, deontologists argue that punishment can be justified only as being deserved, while utilitarians argue that punishment can be justified only if it results in some consequential good (Dancig-Rosenberg & Dagan, 2019; Duff, 2003). A number of theorists have argued that the impulse to punish may reflect a hybrid of both deontological and utilitarian reasoning (Dancig-Rosenberg & Dagan, 2019; Deogaonkar Anant, 2021). While this theoretical terrain is concerned with punishment rather than the post-release context, we contend that these two stages of the criminal justice response cannot be meaningfully separated. As Yankah (2020, p. 80) has argued, post-release reintegration measures are a state duty – a ‘natural and intrinsic complement to the [state’s] right to punish’. It stands to reason then that victim/survivors’ views of post-release policies – the myriad measures designed variously to manage, monitor, support, supervise, contain and constrain perpetrators during the transition from custody to community – will be strongly influenced by their broader orientations in terms of punishment.

Table 1. Deontological and utilitarian justifications for punishment.

Deontological (non-consequentialist)	Utilitarian (consequentialist)
Backwards-looking	Forwards-looking
Concerned with punishment as deserved	Concerned with what might be gained from punishment (eg crime prevention)
Punishment justified only as being deserved	Punishment justified only if it results in some consequential good

Experimental research shows that ‘victims’ (ie those positioned as victims in a laboratory experiment) usually eschew purely deontological reasoning, instead supporting punishment for utilitarian reasons – on the grounds that perpetrators will be taught not to repeat the behavior – or on a combination of deontological and consequentialist grounds (Funk, McGeer, & Gollwitzer, 2014). Victims see punishment as an act of communication between themselves and the perpetrator, and as a means of instilling moral education; Funk, McGeer, and Gollwitzer (2014, p. 992) found that victims are more satisfied after having punished offenders ‘if offenders indicated that punishment also caused a change in their moral attitude toward their offending behavior’ (see further Boutilier & Wells, 2018; de Vel-Palumbo, Wenzel, & Woodyatt, 2019; Molnar, Chaudhry, & Loewenstein, 2021). These laboratory findings were borne out in Batchelor’s research with victims of serious offending (including sexual offending), which found that ‘victims’ desire for punishment was fulfilled through receiving feedback from the offender’, including about how the offender was responding in prison, and whether the sentence had assisted the offender to reform. Victims’ preference was thus for what von Hirsch (2017, p. 32) would describe as censure (ie explained to the person who is being blamed) rather than merely denunciation (the communication of public abhorrence).

Methodological approach and study design

Against this theoretical backdrop, the research aimed to explore the views of adult victim/survivors of sexual violence about perpetrator post-release policies. As little has been documented about this topic previously, the project was exploratory, and sought to generate new insights into an under-researched area. Qualitative research was adopted to align with this overarching exploratory aim (Babbie, 2015). We were primarily interested in documenting the nature of victim/survivors’ views about sexual offender post-release policies, rather than quantifying the extent of their support for specific measures, although our results may inform studies into the latter in future. To that end, we undertook qualitative, semi-structured interviews (Chan, Fung, & Chien, 2018) with 33 adult victim/survivors of sexual violence. These were broadly informed by the guiding principles of feminist phenomenology, which aims to analyze women’s lived experiences in context and investigate the meanings that women give to their own experiences (Burke, Ferrari, & Mann, 2023; Reinharz, 1992) – to produce ‘first-person testimonies from those who lived them’ (Burke, Ferrari, & Mann, 2023, p. 275). While traditional phenomenology has been criticized for falsely assuming that gender-neutral descriptions of lived experience are possible, feminist phenomenology has a clear socio-political agenda (Weiss, 2021). It aims to produce rich descriptions of lived experience with a focus on gendered experience and/or sexual difference (Simms & Stawarska, 2013), and is not concerned with statistical generalizability but rather with meanings that are ‘deeply, collectively important’ (Burke, Ferrari, & Mann, 2023, p. 275) to participants.

Research procedure

We partnered with national not-for-profit child protection advocacy and support organization XXXXX to recruit victim/survivors for the study. Information about the study, including the Participant Information Sheet, and an invitation to participate, was posted to the XXXXXXX Facebook page between September 2017 and April 2018. Prospective participants were informed that the broader research project, of which this study was one part, aimed to evaluate approaches to reintegrating sex offenders into the community and that the research team was interested to hear from victim/survivors of sexual violence as to how offender post-release measures (could) meet the needs of victim/survivors (see further XXXX, 2020). To be eligible for the study, individuals had to be aged 18 years or above, and self-identify as a victim/survivor of sexual violence. Individuals who wanted to participate were required to contact the research team directly to express their interest and/or ask questions about what participation would involve.

In keeping with a feminist methodological approach (Reinharz, 1992), we commenced the interviews by inviting participants to tell as much of their story as they were comfortable sharing, to provide context for the remainder of the interview questions. Interviewees were then asked a series of questions designed to capture their reflections on the re-entry of sexual offenders following prison (the full interview schedule is available in XXXX, 2020). For example, we asked victim/survivors: whether they think it is important that perpetrators of sexual violence receive support when re-entering the community after prison (and why/not); how victim/survivor needs could be met at this stage; and what victim/survivors think could be done to reduce the risk to women and children when a perpetrator is being released back into the community. Following Weller et al. (2018), we asked open-ended questions to enable participants to identify aspects of their experiences and views that were of particular importance to them. The interviews, which lasted one hour on average, were undertaken by a member of the research team either in-person or via telephone and transcribed verbatim.

The sample

In total, 33 female victim/survivors aged between 20 and 70+ years volunteered to participate. While participation was open to males and other genders, only women responded to the recruitment advertisement (as discussed further below). They had experienced diverse sexual offences overwhelmingly (although not exclusively) perpetrated by males – most commonly fathers, stepfathers, uncles, grandfathers, brothers and cousins, but also peers, partners, church leaders, teachers, neighbours, acquaintances and strangers. The women had experienced diverse types of sexual violence, including penetrative and non-penetrative offences, recent and historical offences, intra- and extrafamilial offences, child sexual abuse and sexual violence as adults, institutional and non-institutional abuse. Approximately half the women had experienced sexual violence perpetrated by more than one individual and/or in more than one scenario (ie could be categorised as having experienced ‘repeat victimization’ (Grove, Farrell, Farrington, & Johnson, 2012)). For example, interviewees reported having been sexually abused as a child and then later raped as an adult in a separate incident.

Unsurprisingly, given that most sexual offending is never reported, as well as the high level of attrition of sexual offences from the criminal justice system (Taylor & Gassner, 2010), in most instances, the perpetrator(s) had not been incarcerated as a result of crimes against the victim/survivors in the current research. Only six participants had directly experienced the release of their perpetrator from prison. While this might shape victim/survivors’ views, we argue that documenting victim/survivors’ views is important nonetheless, particularly given the paucity of research on this topic. Our results provide a broader insight into victim/survivor views beyond those who had directly experienced the incarceration and subsequent release of their perpetrator, and provide a platform on which future research can build. To safeguard participant confidentiality, victim/survivors have been assigned a pseudonym in this article.

Data analysis

After being imported into the qualitative analysis software package NVIVO, the data were coded inductively (ie in a data-driven manner rather than according to pre-determined categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005)) and then analysed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Grbich, 2013). Thematic analysis involves identifying patterns in qualitative data and creating descriptions of these in light of existing literature and theory (Floersch, Longhofer, Kranke, & Townsend, 2010; Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas, 2013). Specifically, we undertook the steps set out by Braun and Clarke (2006) as follows: 1) repeated readings of the data to enable familiarisation; 2) creating initial codes across the entire data set, and collating together data relevant to each of these; 3) searching for themes across these initial codes and grouping data together into potential themes; 4) reviewing themes and checking if the themes reflect the codes generated; and finally, 5) identifying the overarching narratives that emerge. In line with our feminist methodological approach, we have paid particular attention to presenting victim/survivors’ comments in context, ‘to enable women’s narratives to be heard with as little external interference as possible’ (Allen, 2011, p. 28). It should also be noted here that in line with prior research (see eg Richards, Death, & Ronken, 2021), the complex and even ‘kaleidoscopic’ (McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019) nature of victim/survivors’ views make it impossible to report the number of victim/survivors who support or oppose particular post-release measures; to group victim/survivors together into discrete categories in this way would not meaningfully capture victim/survivor narratives, and would do a disservice to the multifaceted nature of survivors’ views. However, in accordance with Mason’s (2018) advice, we have sought to provide the reader with some sense of how frequently themes were located in the data, by utilizing terms such as ‘some’, ‘many’ and ‘most’. Throughout the project, researchers were aware of their positionality as cis, white women, one who identifies as a lesbian and survivor of child sexual abuse. We all occupy relative positions of privilege in our social and professional status and are aware of the potential issues of power this brings to the research process. We are also conscious that as researchers we are asking participants to invest in a process that may not directly benefit them and do so from our position of privilege (Potts, Kolli, & Fattal, 2022). In a conscious effort to be reflexive and respectful in practice, we drew on the lived and professional expertise of an Advisory Committee that included male and female professionals from government and non-government services and an Aboriginal Elder. The Advisory Committee was used across all components of the project to enable multiple ‘checkpoints’ and ensure a diversity of voices contributed to the project.

Results

While victim/survivors’ views about post-release measures for sexual offenders were diverse, in the main they coalesced around three key themes. These are outlined in the remainder of this section.

Victim/Survivors’ views were predominantly consequentialist in orientation

In the main, victim/survivor views reflected consequentialist concerns about preventing future sexual harm to others. Victim/survivors’ recommendations about post-release measures for perpetrators of sexual violence were predominantly prospective rather than retrospective: they sought to prevent future sexual offending rather than to continue to punish offenders for their past offending behavior (see also Clark, 2015). Where state-sanctioned post-release measures failed in their view to do so, victim/survivors recounted taking action ‘into their own hands’ to ensure that their perpetrators would not harm others. For example, victim/survivor Christie described repeatedly contacting leaders within a church congregation to which her perpetrator had returned and suggesting a range of safety measures such as requiring him to have a chaperone. Another recalled taking the following actions (what Miller (2014, p. 804) characterizes as ‘protective practices toward others’) after the release of her perpetrator:

[The perpetrator and his partner] moved to a caravan park … .I wrote letters to the manager of the caravan park. The first time I wrote it was after his conviction and jail sentence, and I wrote a letter to the manager saying he was a convicted pedophile. I don’t know if this was the right thing to do … .I did it as a means of protecting other children in that caravan park (Lana).

Such actions potentially reflect victim/survivors’ belief that the justice system had failed to adequately protect the community following perpetrators’ release from prison as well as their more specific views about how the community might best be protected.

In more general terms, victim/survivors made two overarching recommendations about post-release measures for perpetrators, each embedded in consequentialist concerns: that perpetrators be subject to measures that restrict their physical freedoms; and that they receive psychological intervention.

In relation to the former, while not asked directly about electronic monitoring, this measure was spontaneously proposed by a number of interviewees. As one stated, ‘I would like to know that they’re wearing a tracking device to ensure that they’re not going to violate little kids or an adult, or adults again’ (Tilly). Other interviewees agreed: ‘For the dangerous ones, put the electronic monitoring on … .slap a monitor on them all. And then you can follow them or track them’ (Helena), and ‘[perpetrators need to] have the ankle bracelet or have something so they are monitored 24/7, so that they have so much pressure on them that they are too scared to reoffend’ (Maud). Importantly, such measures were mostly proposed in pragmatic terms rather than out of a desire to further penalize offenders – in other words, on consequentialist rather than deontological grounds. As Karen explained in relation to her support for electronic monitoring: ‘Can they make them wear one of those ankle thingies?….I think that would be good because the main thing is to protect not only past victims but community members that don’t know what they’ve done’. This reflects the findings of McGinn, Taylor, McColgan, and Lagdon (2016) that victim/survivors of intimate partner violence support the threat of consequences for perpetrators on the grounds that this will lead to behavioral change.

In relation to the latter, most victim/survivors expressed a strong desire that offenders receive therapeutic help in preparation for and following their release back into the community. Participants described wanting to know that perpetrators were ‘getting help’ (Danielle, Edie) and/or participating in relevant programs (eg similar to those for domestic violence perpetrators (Kellie)). There was a clear consensus among victim/survivors that such therapeutic interventions for offenders need to be intensive, long-lasting, compulsory, and rigorous. For example, victim/survivor Kathy said: ‘I think [they need] quite intensive, therapeutic work around, I guess why they did what they do … .are they getting the support and … that intensive therapeutic work … .are they getting what they need?’ Sally suggested ‘regular contact with a psychiatrist, I don’t mean a counsellor, I mean a psychiatrist … .And that’s not optional … .and that should be consistent, at least weekly’. Others argued:

We need to change the behavior that’s not going to allow them to continue that behavior that got them in there. [There] Definitely needs to be some kind of program or courses that they need to attend to change that behavior and know that it’s not right (Lana).

Offenders who are going to be reintegrated need therapy – they need to undergo a program with a psychologist or social worker … .They need to complete an offender release program – they need to show they can understand it – the effects of it [sexual violence] on individuals, on families, on communities – you know, learning their triggers, how to manage their triggers (Christie).

Definitely some extreme, intensive … sort of therapy. So, whether that’s in a group setting or one-on-one setting, to ensure that … it would have to be extremely intensive inpatient [therapy], and it would have to be consistent … for a very, very, very, very, very long time (Kaitlyn).

This finding lends support to research that suggests that victims of violent crime favor measures that include a focus on the offender having psychological needs addressed in order to reduce their risk of reoffence. For example, O’Connell and Fletcher (2018) found that only about half of homicide victims’ family members opposed perpetrators’ release on parole, and that their main concern was that the perpetrator had accepted responsibility for the offence and taken steps toward reform (eg participating in programs in prison).

Even support for sex offender registers was largely premised on consequentialist grounds. (Again, interviewees were not directly questioned about offender registers but some spontaneously discussed their views about this post-release measure). For example, Evelyn stated that ‘there needs to be a public sex offender registry … .we need to be aware that Joe Bloggs is a sex offender because it will stop the chances of him grooming someone else’ and Lana stated:

I think that [a public register] is a really good idea. I think if you’re suspicious about someone’s behavior, you can double check that they’re not on the list … .you could be living next to a pedophile and you don’t know. … .So, hopefully he won’t offend again or he can easily be checked up on if someone is worried about him or whatever (Lana).

While some of these victim/survivors acknowledged the potential problems associated with public registers, such as vigilantism or the breach of privacy of the perpetrator, they believed that the preventative benefit of registers would outweigh this concern, again underscoring their consequentialist orientation toward post-release policies. As Tina commented, I think that as a community we also have a right to know that there’s someone that makes us vulnerable. I know due to privacy and things like that, I know that you can’t do that, but I think it makes us vulnerable and it makes them vulnerable as well. Other victim/survivors made similar arguments:

… we need to protect as many as possible and if the inconvenience of him being on the register so everyone can see their name … I don’t care [about perpetrator privacy] … .If you know that someone in your family or someone in your family or your friend’s husband is on the list, you’re gonna make a decision according to that … .so I think that register will help people (Alice).

I think there should be public registers. I think they should be able to know who these people are. Where they live. I know there’s that vigilante mentality, but I still think it’s important that people have public access to those may live in the area or living next door, so they can be much more vigilant (Edie).

As these excerpts of interview illustrate, most victim/survivors’ proposals about offender post-release measures typically did not stem from a desire for vengeance, but instead reflected pragmatic concerns about preventing future sexual harm: ‘to minimize the risk of harm in the community’ (Deidra). Measures such as electronic anklets and public sex offender registers were, in the main, seen as regrettably necessary for rather than deserved by this cohort of offenders (ie viewed in consequentialist rather than deontological terms).

Support for hybrid deontological and consequentialist post-release measures

Less commonly, victim/survivors expressed support for post-release measures on combined deontological and consequentialist grounds, seeing value in both these orientations. For example, Tilly’s support for a public sex offender register was premised on both notions of (backwards-looking) desert and on (forwards-looking) pragmatism:

Okay, they’ve done their time but I do also think I would like to know if there is a sex offender living in my street or next door to me … .what you’ve done is wrong and that should be out there now. It should be on some type of website or something to say old mate is living at 10 Smith Street … .We have a right to protect all our children (italics added).

These hybrid orientations were also reflected in Lana’s story. Lana described having reported her perpetrator to the police on both deontological and consequentialist grounds: ‘he was getting old and I didn’t want him to die and get away with it. So that, and also saving my younger sister were the two primary reasons I decided to go ahead and do it’. As noted above, Lana expressed support for a public sex offender register on the grounds that a register may prevent future sexual harm. In her interview, to check Lana’s meaning, the interviewer (the first author) asked: ‘Correct me if this isn’t the right interpretation. You’re not saying they [perpetrators] should be named and shamed … .It’s more about, “this is important so people can look at it and protect children in their care”’. Lana clarified:

Yes, it is. I would like them named and shamed. I have actually been on marches before … .And I actually went on the march to support naming and shaming of pedophiles and the National Sex Offenders Register … .But I do [also] think people need to be aware if someone is a sexual offender.

In these examples, both deontological and consequentialist motivations underpin victim/survivors’ views about post-release measures for perpetrators. This finding may help explain Craun and Simmons (2012) finding that victim/survivors supported sex offender registers despite holding doubts about their efficacy. While many victim/survivors in the current study believed they would be effective, some also supported registers on the grounds that perpetrators of sexual violence deserve to be listed on a public register (in much the same way that members of the general public support registers despite understanding their limited practical effectiveness in preventing sexual violence (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007)).

Support for consequentialist measures was often contingent on deontological purposes having already been served

Most victim/survivor views about post-release measures were deeply interconnected with their views about perpetrator accountability and treatability. For many victims/survivors, it was more palatable to think about post-release measures if the perpetrator had already served an appropriate prison sentence. For example, one victim/survivor expressed support for assistance-oriented post-release measures but would have preferred these measures to follow a longer prison sentence: ‘I’m not sure that a 6-year sentence is enough, but yes, I think it [post-release assistance] is important’ (Sheryl). Another also reflected on this topic at some length, stating: ‘the biggest thing for me is with integration and when they’re about to come back into society is … [that] they’re not serving enough time. So if someone served 26 years [in prison] … I think it’s a little bit easier to take’ (Alice). She continued: ‘You hear the statistics of the amounts of time that people do [in prison] and think, “Oh that’s ridiculous.” They need to be doing decent time … .and [then] when they get out then we will put these [support] things in place. … .For me it’s all around that time [served in prison], I think that’s the most important thing and then do your programs and stuff’.

These excerpts of interview suggest that victim/survivor support for post-release measures hinges on victim/survivors feeling satisfied that punishment has been adequate. Theoretically, consequentialist motivations among victim/survivors appear to follow deontological ones; support for consequentialist measures is contingent on deontological purposes having already been served. This is further evidenced by the small number of victim/survivors in the study who struggled to discuss post-release measures for perpetrators in their interviews. While this was clearly communicated to interviewees as the purpose of the research, a few victim/survivors found it difficult to express their thoughts on post-release policies on the grounds that doing so felt unthinkable in light of the lenient penalties that perpetrators commonly face. In Rachael’s words:

I struggle with the fact that people get away with it. And I don’t think people really understand the impact that it has on people’s lives. So, just the fact that it’s okay to do these things or … it feels like … there’s not a great deal of punishment, so therefore they’re [the court is] setting a precedent that it’s okay … .In all honesty. I don’t think they should be released. They’ve just ruined someone’s life.

For other victims/survivors, it was not the length of sentence served by a perpetrator (particularly as most sex offenders will not serve a prison sentence), but an acceptance of responsibility and/or display of remorse by the offender that shaped their views about post-release measures. Deidra simply wanted perpetrators to ‘take responsibility and address the issues that are at hand’, and Tamara similarly stated that ‘it’d be great to know that they know what their behavior can do or does to people’. In Sally’s words, ‘there has to be real repenting. There has to be real making amends for what they’ve done. There has to be a real level of empathy and a real level of authentic responsibility’. This builds on Batchelor’s (2023, p. 9) findings that victims of violent crime who had previously felt guilty about the severity of their perpetrator’s sentence ‘became more satisfied that the punishment was not excessive when they received feedback that the offender was unremorseful’. More broadly, this finding reflects the fact that victims tend to be more forgiving of wrongdoers who condemn or even punish themselves, as this is demonstrative of their remorse (de Vel-Palumbo, Wenzel, & Woodyatt, 2019).

For most victim/survivors, offenders who failed to display remorse or take steps to address their offending were deemed not only unsuitable for but incapable of benefiting from such measures. Victim/survivors were unanimous that if perpetrators do not see anything wrong in what they have done, they will be incapable of behavioral change. For example, Tamara said: ‘I want them to know how I feel. And hope that they can take that on as well … .That would hopefully give them the skills to not reoffend’. Carmel agreed: ‘I think maybe they need to understand what they’ve done to somebody else’ (see also McGinn, Taylor, McColgan, & Lagdon, 2016, who found that victim/survivors of intimate partner violence expressed similar beliefs). Thus for victim/survivors, post-release efforts were deemed futile without some form of recognition on the part of the offender that their behavior was harmful, as the following interview excerpts demonstrate:

I don’t know how you put someone back in the community, in a safe way, knowing that they are not remorseful at all … . I think unless you’re willing to admit to something you’re not going to be able to change someone’s behavior (Bianca).

They need to know the onus is on them to … they have to build the trust and they have to prove to society that they’re not going to reoffend. Not in a shameful way, but in a way of taking responsibility for their actions (Romi).

For victims/survivors, if offenders have not served an appropriate sentence, they don’t deserve post-release assistance; if they aren’t remorseful, they will be unreceptive to assistance, rendering such attempts futile. This again demonstrates that victim/survivor support for consequentialist measures may be contingent on deontological purposes having already been met. It also echoes Bazemore’s (1998, p. 770) concept of ‘earned redemption’, which posits that perpetrator reintegration ‘requires a sanctioning approach that allows offenders to make amends to those they have harmed to earn their way back into the trust of the community’ (see also Maruna, Le Bel, Mitchell, & Naples, 2004). While victim/survivors did not commonly report wanting direct amends from their perpetrators, in more general terms they endorsed perpetrators receiving support to re-join the community provided they had ‘earned’ this support. As Hannah eloquently put it, ‘I have no problems with these guys being given support as long as it’s an earned support’.

Discussion

Collectively, the findings outlined above demonstrate that victim/survivors favor post-release measures that reflect either purely consequentialist or a hybrid of consequentialist and deontological motivations (including seeing consequentialist functions as contingent on deontological ones having already been met). Like those in Miller’s (2014, p. 802) study on Victim Impact Statements in cases of sexual violence, victim/survivors ‘consistently demonstrated a strong moral sense of responsibility for the safety and emotional well-being of others and a desire to protect them from physical, psychological, or other harms’. The findings thus reflect the broader literature on victim/survivor ‘justice needs’ and demonstrate that victim/survivor views about post-release measures are closely aligned with those relating to other stages of the criminal justice process (ie wanting meaningful consequences for perpetrators and wanting violence to not reoccur (see, for example, Clark, 2015; Herman, 2005; Jülich, 2006; Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005; McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019; Richards, Death, & McCartan, 2020)). The findings also reflect experimental research that shows that ‘victims’ in a laboratory setting mostly eschew purely deontological reasoning, instead supporting punishment on either purely consequentialist or a combination of deontological and consequentialist grounds (Funk, McGeer, & Gollwitzer, 2014).

This challenges the widely accepted image of the one-dimensionally vengeful victim/survivor that seems to inform increasingly harsh legislative, policy and practice responses to sexual offending (McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019). This is noteworthy as harsh policy measures are often justified on the grounds that they serve victim/survivor interests, based on this image. Indeed, governments increasingly introduce harsh measures in the name of victim/survivors – sometimes literally (Terry, 2011). This image is, however, not supported by the evidence outlined above, which instead underscores victim/survivors’ largely pragmatic concerns about preventing harm to others. While in some cases this extended to support for the punitive responses championed by governments (eg sex offender registers), our research demonstrates that this is premised on the (largely inaccurate (Zgoba & Mitchell, 2023)) belief that such responses are effective.

Our findings also suggest that victim/survivors would be open to ‘assistance-oriented’ post-release measures (Socia et al., 2020) if they were satisfied that perpetrators had been held accountable (ie accepted responsibility and committed to behavioral change) first. This underscores the importance of efforts to increase prosecution and conviction rates of perpetrators and to reduce attrition from the criminal justice system. It also underscores the importance of giving further consideration to expanding restorative justice responses to sexual violence, especially where these have a strong focus on fostering offender accountability. In addition, the findings highlight the importance of ensuring that avenues are available for perpetrators to address their offending behavior.

Conclusion

The research presented in this article set out to explore victim/survivor views of post-release measures for perpetrators of sexual violence. Adopting a theoretical lens focused on justifications for punishment, it found that victim/survivor views about appropriate post-release measures were primarily (albeit often not exclusively or unequivocally) consequentialist in orientation. The study’s findings will be of relevance to legislators and policy-makers, who increasingly see value in incorporating the views of victim/survivors into the development of measures designed to respond to perpetrators of sexual violence (see, for example, Center for Sex Offender Management, 2000, 2016, 2018; National Center for Victims of Crime, 2005).

Limitations and future research directions

As with any piece of research, the study had a number of limitations. Chief among these is that the sample was comprised almost exclusively of white women. This issue appears to have also been experienced by other researchers examining this topic (see eg Craun & Simmons, 2012; Miller, 2014), and perhaps stems from approaches to participant recruitment, which may favor this demographic cohort (Spoo et al., 2018, which adopted a different recruitment methodology, is a key exception). It is reasonable to assume that other groups – including male victim/survivors, victim/survivors with disabilities, and First Nations victim/survivors – may have different views from those of the victim/survivors included in this study, especially as gender differences in punitive orientations have been consistently found in prior research (Dodd, 2018; Gault & Sabini, 2000). This is particularly critical to understand given the overrepresentation of First Nations people (Mace, Powell, & Benson, 2015; McGlade, 2012) and people with cognitive and/or physical disability (Alriksson-Schmidt, Armour, & Thibadeau, 2010; Majeed-Ariss, Rodriguez, & White, 2020) among victim/survivors of sexual violence. This limitation should be borne in mind when interpreting the results. It may also be the case that individuals who have experienced repeat sexual victimization (Grove, Farrell, Farrington, & Johnson, 2012) could be distinguished from those who have not. In addition, whether victim/survivors who know their perpetrators and those who do not have different views about post-release measures would be an important topic for future research. Future research that specifically targets more diverse groups of victim/survivors and adopts an intersectional approach would build on that presented here and provide a deeper insight into this important topic. Further, as noted above, only six participants in this study had experienced the release of their perpetrator from prison, and future studies could focus more specifically on victim/survivor experiences of the post-release period. Finally, our results suggest that victim/survivors’ reluctance to endorse restorative justice in cases of sexual violence might be addressed via measures that foster perpetrator accountability and behavioral change. This too could form the focus of future research; in particular studies could consider victim/survivor views of ‘restorative reintegration’ (Settles, 2009) measures.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.

Notes

1. There has been much scholarship and debate about the relative merits of the terms ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ to refer to people who have experienced sexual violence (Hockett & Saucier, 2015). The term ‘victim’ has largely been superseded due to its connotations of weakness and passivity (Hockett & Saucier, 2015; Hockett et al. 2014) by either ‘victim/survivor’ (Boyle & Rogers, 2020; Guerette & Caron, 2007) or simply ‘survivor’ (Papendick & Bohner, 2017). However, there is some reticence on the part of those who have experienced sexual violence to adopt the label ‘survivor’ due to the pressure it may place on individuals to be ‘healed’ (Bowdler, 2020). As the term ‘victim/survivor’ is broader in nature and avoids the pitfalls of adopting either ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’, it is increasingly used in academic and government publications (eg Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021; Guerette & Caron, 2007; Richards, Death, & Ronken, 2021), and has been utilized throughout this article.