By Kieran McCartan, Ph.D., Kasia Uzieblo, Ph.D., & David Prescott, LICSW
Over the last
couple of weeks Kieran has been involved in several research and practice
conversations about the complexity of the population that we work with. These
conversations explored the need to recognize that most of the people we work
with, including those who have been victimized and those who have committed sex
crimes, have multiple risks and needs. Clearly, we need to recognize this
diversity in formulating our responses to sex crimes. We have blogged about
this before and our aim with this post is not to tread once again over old
ground, but to reflect on how effective we are at recognizing and managing this
complexity, especially in terms of our practices and contributions to policy
making.
Kieran’s recent conversations
have focused on an independent inquiry into concerns expressed in the UK that
police officers have fared poorly at recognizing
and responding to child sexual exploitation. This is a
challenging area because the children involved often have complex relationships
with the police and the legal and child welfare systems more broadly, which further
complicates outcomes (including reporting, investigations, and impact of these
processes on youth). The reality is that we all need to consider our
professional biases, the evidence we review, the measures that we use, and what
we do with all the information we receive. To what extent do our mental
shortcuts influence the health and wellbeing of others whom we influence? How
can we get better at processing information and becoming more effective in our
work?
The New York Times recently
published a piece titled, “The Question Juror No. 50 in
Ghislaine Maxwell’s Trial Should Never Have Been Asked.” This refers to
jurors being asked whether or not they have been sexually victimized, with the
presumption that they could not be impartial in their judgement. Once again, it
seems that there are implicit beliefs about those with histories of
victimization and a bias towards victims of sexual abuse without understanding
the many ways that people understand, recover from, or grow wiser from their
experiences. We have found ourselves questioning society’s biases regarding what
a good victim should look like, including what they should do and how they
should behave.
A similar thought
can be made about senator Lindsey Graham’s recent statements during the hearing
of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson stated that the number of images of
online child abuse viewed or distributed shouldn’t be considered in sentencing.
She considers other risk management strategies, including substantial internet
supervision, as a valid option. Senator Graham clearly didn’t agree and argued that
the only way to deter these offenders from committing new crimes is by sending
them to jail.
The above suggests
that all too often, the public defaults to dichotomous ideas, such as that
people who abuse others are purely evil, that those who are victimized have had
their innocence stolen and are forever damaged. The reality is that these extremes,
if they exist, are the exception. Human beings are complex and nuanced. Trauma
is complex and nuanced. And rehabilitation is complex and nuanced. Therefore, our
task can be to question how we can best understand and discuss these issues in
a non-biased, informed, reflective manner?
While we certainly
acknowledge that we can have biases of our own, we come back to principles we
can follow, including:
- recognizing complexity
and understanding what it looks like in interviews, testimony, prosecution,
policy, etc.;
- continuing to inform the
public about the complexity;
- continuing to respond to
the black-and-white reasoning we hear from professionals and policymakers;
- placing compassion and
understanding at the center of our practice;
- recognizing our own
biases and frustrations, noting them when they emerge in our practice and
being open to reflect upon them in a non-defensive way; and
- informing our future
professionals, through both formal training as well as informal
conversations as well as support structures, about this complexity.
Maintaining an awareness of our own biases
and a fluid conversation about harm and resilience can keep us out of ruts that can only hinder our effectiveness.