‘Scum Cuddlers[1]’: Police and the Sex Offenders’ Register in England and Wales.
Abstract
Police in England and Wales have been given an increasingly important role in community offender management. In many ways removed from what might be regarded as ‘real’ police work, it has nonetheless become a standard way of working for large numbers of police officers. An aspect of this work has brought the police into much closer and lasting professional contact with sex offenders as a result of new responsibilities given them under the Sexual Offenders Act, 1997. This article will discuss the findings of a study with police offender managers (OMs) whose primary responsibility is to monitor and visit registered sex offenders (RSOs) in their homes. The findings suggest that there are a group of police officers who are at a distance from wider police culture and are under-resourced in what is perceived by many of their peers to be a Cinderella role, or indeed one that is not suitable for police officers.
Key words: Offender management, sex offenders, police culture
Introduction
Much has been written about police culture over the years, in particular questioning if it is the monolith it is widely perceived as, or a plurality of cultures resulting from the changing demographics of modern policing. In a wide ranging article, Nickels and Verma (2008:190) summarise research identifying core themes of police culture world-wide; for example the ‘blue line’ authoritarian culture in the UK, China and South Africa, tough attitudes to criminals and a consciousness of power over others in Egypt, India, Singapore and Morocco. Sklansy (2006) meanwhile explored potential changes on traditional policing resulting from an influx of female, ethnic and gay/lesbian officers. In a detailed overview of research on police culture Paoline (2003) explores occupational and organisational cultural traits and the evidence that changing police personnel (rank and file and managers) alongside new functions might also help to dismantle a narrow view of real or traditional policing. Garcia (2006) has commented on the construction of the ‘other’ within police culture, in reference to community oriented policing (COP) initiatives in the United States whilst Greene (2000:302) had said that such initiatives need to become integrated into the entire policing agency rather than regarded as a new project or temporary specialisation. In a British context a recent article has suggested that despite these widespread changes to the composition of the police and their place in the community, there remains a dominant culture which is largely unchanged over decades (Loftus, 2010). This culture continues to be distinguished by a tough law and order focus, hallmarked by crime fighting, danger, chases and arrests – blue light scenarios. Yet in a number of situations, consistently growing in scale and diversity, these activities do not represent what the police do in their everyday work. Instead they adopt roles more akin to other public sector service industries offering help and assistance not only to crime victims but the public more generally as well as other agencies; those not traditionally regarded as their ‘allies’. This article will discuss an aspect of these new policing roles; community sex offender management and its impact upon policing practice and police culture.
Although many police officers are increasingly members of elaborate multi agency partnerships, the police role in monitoring this most vilified group of offenders has received little attention. It has been observed that the police service has less empathy with sex offenders than other criminal justice professionals, indeed were far more stereotypically negative (Johnson, Hughes and Ireland, 2007), so it is likely that any role which calls for a closer relationship with that group is likely to cause some difficulty within police ranks. Of course these difficulties need to be managed as, since 1997, police services in the UK have taken on significant responsibilities for sex offenders in the community resulting from the introduction of the sex offender register in the 1997 Sex Offenders Act. At a stroke this measure ensured that the police were no longer responsible only for the investigation of sexual crimes and the apprehension of sexual offenders, but also for their risk assessment and on-going management in the community. This represented a significant departure from traditional roles and is one that has led to the description of those involved as ‘scum cuddlers’ – at least in certain parts of the police service. In this new role the police naturally sought some assistance from other community based corrections agencies and the probation service emerged as the most appropriate, having had almost sole responsibility for the supervision of offenders up to this point (and would continue to take the lead whilst the offender was subject to any form of supervision). This collaboration fed into what has become an established method of dealing with high risk offenders in the community, the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) (see Kemshall and Maguire, 2001, Anon 1999a, 1999b, 2006). Yet it is important to stress that, due to the length of time offenders spend on the register, the police service invariably end up as the only agency involved in sex offender supervision. It is the nature of this role that this article describes from the perspective of those involved in the task itself; police offender managers (OMs) conducting home visits to registered sex offenders (RSOs).
Although in a sense the management of sex offenders in the community should not be regarded as a major departure from ‘real’ policing, it frequently is for the reason that it is perceived as requiring different ‘qualities’ to that normally associated with a ‘real’ or ‘true’ policing. In essence, these qualities are related to and form part of a need to develop a professional working relationship with the offender which is based outside of normal police-offender interactions. This context is extremely important as it does in part explain the antipathy felt by offender managers from the rest of their colleagues. What needs to be remembered here is that the usual police power relationship with offenders, e.g. regarded as ‘police property’ (Lee 1981 in Waddington, 1999) - is somewhat negated by the fact that those on the register are not (usually) suspected of having committed another crime. The police offender managers are therefore not investigating a crime but instead assessing the on-going risk of committing another crime – a very different scenario. The majority of these offender manager-sex offender interactions take place in the homes of the offenders. The police station is used for initial and annual registration and confirmation of information; risk assessments as such relate to usually unannounced home visits. The police OMs are therefore removed from one of their traditional power bases (see Stenson, 1993 on similar scenarios in social work).
These home visits occupy a peculiar place in police working practices. Because they are what the Americans describe as ‘suspicionless’ (Harvard Law Review, 2007) – that is there is not a suspicion of a new crime – then normal police powers of entry and search do not apply. It was clear that the OMs regarded gaining entry into the homes of registered sex offenders (RSOs) as a major achievement. The police cannot demand entry into the home unless they believe a crime is in process – an extremely rare occurrence in this piece of research. They could also not in any sense ‘compel’ the RSO to speak to them. However, there are fall back powers that if the offender on two occasions refuses a request to enter, the police are then able to apply for a warrant to enter the premise under the Violent Crime Reduction Act, 2006.. However it was evident that the OMs felt that they very rarely needed to resort to such action, with most offenders complying with the request to allow entry. They believed that RSOs generally complied for two reasons; the first was that it was a police officer making the request and the second that they thought that RSOs believed that they had to allow the police access under the conditions of their registration. It was made clear in interviews that the OMs did not disabuse the RSOs of this notion; indeed this misconception on the part of the RSOs was regarded as a tool in their armoury. Perhaps by not fully informing the RSO of their rights the police OMs were harking back to traditional forms of police culture.
Across the UK a number of police officers now hold the role of offender manager – indeed some might call themselves offender managers first and police officers second (Anon and Walker 2008). Offender management best describes a situation where a number of community based agencies work together, either co-located or as an integrated team, on specific problems or offender groups (Millie and Erol, 2006). Such groupings may form part of a wider public protection unit (PPU) within the police service where the responsibility for sex offender management is located. It is interesting however to consider how, what many in the police might term Cinderella roles, are received and perceived within the wider police service. According to Garcia (2006) there may be a degree of ‘agency penalty’ if the role is deemed more widely to be of a lesser status than real police work. This penalty can include less interest from senior management and fewer resources. The sample in this study certainly referred to a squeeze on desk space and cars. It is perhaps strange that such an important and potentially high profile role (especially if it ‘goes wrong’) receives a lesser status and fewer resources.
The research
This article is based upon interviews with 21 offender managers, working within a police public protection unit. They covered a large geographic area representing a mixture of wealthy rural and densely populated urban areas, a number of which experienced high levels of social deprivation. Individual caseloads ranged from 60-90 registered sex offenders. Those involved met with the researcher in groups of two or three, answering a number of questions in a semi-structured format. Interviews lasted approximately one hour and took place in their work setting. Experience of the RSO monitoring role itself within the group ranged from a few months to a number of years; two of the group were retired police officers, re-employed as civilian offender managers. These were the most experienced participants. Two members of the group were police sergeants and acted as the supervisors for the team.
The Sex Offender Register
The sex offender register (SOR) was established under the 1997 Sex Offenders Act. Its purpose, as originally stated by government, was for the police to be able to verify information on known sex offenders, to be able to quickly identify suspects in the event of a crime and, maybe, to prevent further crime. The idea of a register had gained hold as police and social services began increasingly to work together on child abuse cases and as social workers became more interested in perpetrators in their preventive work. Groups such as the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the Police Superintendents’ Association were vocal in calling for some form of register of convicted sex offenders. The public too became more interested in this issue following the sexual abuse and murder of 7 year old Sophie Hook in North Wales. The perpetrator was known to and under observation by the police (Thomas, 2005:154).
Registration periods were determined by the qualifying sentence and ranged from two years to life and importantly were not meant to be additional punishment, rather a period of on-going risk assessment. Over time the community management of high risk offenders has evolved and developed, with the multi-agency public protection arrangements (Mappa) at its heart and home visiting an intrinsic part of the risk management process. Guidelines on the nature and frequency of police home visiting have become clearer and firmer (ACPO, 2010) and the requirements of registration enhanced (Thomas, 2008). There are national minimum expectations, with the lowest risk offender (level 1) seen as warranting an annual visit only, unless there are good reasons to vary. Visiting frequencies increase as determined by the assessed level of risk, but it is likely that there will be local practice variations. It is recognised that resources play a very important part in operational policing and in a time of financial austerity, a scheme reliant upon unannounced (and therefore potentially wasted) home visits could be severely stretched and face challenging questions on its effectiveness.
Purpose of the home visit – risk is dominant
From its early beginnings (Home Office, 1996, Plotnikoff and Woolfson 2000), the SOR has evolved, as has the purpose of home visiting. It is evident that rather than simply verifying information (identified early on as a main purpose), police offender managers are now much more actively involved in monitoring the offender’s behaviour and lifestyle and as a result, continuously assessing their current levels of risk. There was unanimous agreement among all OMs and supervisors as to the purpose of the home visit; it was to gather risk related information or intelligence. In essence this meant information that would indicate a potential increase in risk levels; it was not felt by the group that risk decreasing information was pursued so regularly or indeed as enthusiastically. Although on paper this sounds to be a relatively straightforward task, the means of achieving it was far more complicated in terms of the how of obtaining this information. It was in this respect that the OMs displayed a range of skills and techniques which perhaps took them somewhat outside of the ‘normal’ areas of police practice or even their own personal comfort zone (discussed further below).