Lies and deception
Notifications OFF
So we've all been through absolute hell to bring us to the place where we are now. Bit last week I had an interesting chat with a friend (who isn't aware of our situation). There a serving police officer recently promoted to seargent. I was congratulating them on their promotion when they stared to tell me that they have to Monitor sex offenders now!!!! I'm trying to play it cool and brush off the comment when they tell me that they have to visit the homes of offenders to find out how many times they mast**bate during the day. I was literally astounded that I was hearing this, because never...ever has this question been asked of my husband. Maybe that's something that they do monitor in high risk offenders but if it's not then why lie and distort the truth? Other than to incite hate towards anyone accused and charged with an offense that falls within this category.
Rant over...but still disturbed by this xxx
Rant over...but still disturbed by this xxx
Hi,
My partner is classed as a medium risk, we don't live together and do not have a physical relationship (unsure if this makes a difference) and they ask him. I don't think it is a how many times a day question more of a in the last week how many times. I hope this gives some clarification, I would imagine the comment was intended to shock. Most people in society perceive these men as sex crazed so I can only presume the questions come from that xx
My partner is classed as a medium risk, we don't live together and do not have a physical relationship (unsure if this makes a difference) and they ask him. I don't think it is a how many times a day question more of a in the last week how many times. I hope this gives some clarification, I would imagine the comment was intended to shock. Most people in society perceive these men as sex crazed so I can only presume the questions come from that xx
Maybe I am just naive, but I fail to see the relevance of asking such questions, as the answer given cannot be verified, so as far as I can tell it only serves to humiliate the person being asked.
Having read some of the posts on unlock forum I can believe that some offender managers would ask that sort of question. While I haven't overheard every conversation my husband has had when he has been visited it's not something that I have heard them ask.
I would assume that they would ask questions relevant to the risk level, the offence and also that individuals circumstance. There is a huge range of people and offences covered under SOR, so it shouldn't be a one size fits all scenario.
I would assume that they would ask questions relevant to the risk level, the offence and also that individuals circumstance. There is a huge range of people and offences covered under SOR, so it shouldn't be a one size fits all scenario.
Exactly what BitterBean said - This seems more for humiliation than anything that identify increased risk, it can't be verified.
Post deleted by user
I've had more thoughts on this, and, if these questions are asked it should be stopped. Say the answer is zero times. If true, does this make the offender more dangerous? Because he's "bottling it up"? If its 5,10,15 or 100 times, does this make him more dangerous? How do the police know what he was thinking about while he was doing it? Do they ask him that too? And how do they know whether the answer are true or not?
What then happens to this information (assuming it is recorded?) Do the police have the knowledge and training to judge what amount of masturbation is acceptable, and under what circumstances? Or how to utilise that information in a meaningful way to assess risk? I suspect not. Is it passed to someone who may be more qualified to do this, like a psychologist? I doubt it, that wouldnt be affordable.
If this happened to my partner I would get him to challenge it, back in the courts if necessary, as its stupid and irrelevant and therefore pointless, and as I've said already, I think it's intention is simply to humiliate the offender and is abuse of police power. They might as well ask how many times have you worn blue underpants in the last month for all the value there is in it.
What then happens to this information (assuming it is recorded?) Do the police have the knowledge and training to judge what amount of masturbation is acceptable, and under what circumstances? Or how to utilise that information in a meaningful way to assess risk? I suspect not. Is it passed to someone who may be more qualified to do this, like a psychologist? I doubt it, that wouldnt be affordable.
If this happened to my partner I would get him to challenge it, back in the courts if necessary, as its stupid and irrelevant and therefore pointless, and as I've said already, I think it's intention is simply to humiliate the offender and is abuse of police power. They might as well ask how many times have you worn blue underpants in the last month for all the value there is in it.
I'm not too surprised tbh. My partner has been asked this and also how our sexual relationship is ....
It is embarrassing but I'm used to it now. But it does make me feel like I am also responsible for him not reoffending. I haven't seen anywhere to say he is at risk if he doesn't get enough 'attention' from me, yet they frequently ask about our love life. My libido isn't the same as it used to be and I got stuck in the this mind set I had to 'put out' at a certain frequency....
I had told my partner this eventually and he tried to reassure me that our love life isn't that vital and he manages his rehabilitation and its hiss ole responsibility. But he hasn't been told by the police why he asked these details.
What are the police looking for exactly? What does it achieve? Does he become more of a concern for them if he reports dips in our love life?
I guess it would make more sense if offenders were recovering sex addicts but other than that I'm not sure why they need the details
It is embarrassing but I'm used to it now. But it does make me feel like I am also responsible for him not reoffending. I haven't seen anywhere to say he is at risk if he doesn't get enough 'attention' from me, yet they frequently ask about our love life. My libido isn't the same as it used to be and I got stuck in the this mind set I had to 'put out' at a certain frequency....
I had told my partner this eventually and he tried to reassure me that our love life isn't that vital and he manages his rehabilitation and its hiss ole responsibility. But he hasn't been told by the police why he asked these details.
What are the police looking for exactly? What does it achieve? Does he become more of a concern for them if he reports dips in our love life?
I guess it would make more sense if offenders were recovering sex addicts but other than that I'm not sure why they need the details
I think it's arguably a breach of the human right to a private and family life, and would challenge on that basis. There are exceptions, if its in the interests of public safety or the prevention of crime, but I would ask for the evidence of how this protects public safety or prevents crime (eg reoffending) as I bet nothing meaningful is done with the information, and in any case I would argue that its disproportionate as its not gathering verifiable information.
Majestictopaz, I can completely understand your perception that you are in someway responsible for monitoring your partner and its not right - If the same is ever expected of me I will consider it unacceptable.
Majestictopaz, I can completely understand your perception that you are in someway responsible for monitoring your partner and its not right - If the same is ever expected of me I will consider it unacceptable.
It's hard enough trying to get through this journey and to even move on while I understand what our loved ones have done surely to god they should be allowed to have some human rights
I would be interested to know why this is relevant but as you said Lee they think the more times or less men do this it will make them want to offend again and that is just not the case!
Trying to rebuild is probably the hardest thing but give out men just a bit of dignity.
xx
I would be interested to know why this is relevant but as you said Lee they think the more times or less men do this it will make them want to offend again and that is just not the case!
Trying to rebuild is probably the hardest thing but give out men just a bit of dignity.
xx
That seems ridiculous! It's a question you could totally lie about too and unless you'd used online material to aid there would be no way to know. It's just another violation and invasion of privacy.
My hub is asked this everytime they speak to him and he is low risk. Until the last meeting when he had to go re sign his SOR. 2nd year already.
They started asking him about his sexual thoughts, how many times do we have sex and quite alot of different things were asked. My hub said he felt like they were trying to trip him up. He already told me how he been feeling.
Week later they came to visit and ask again, I was not in the room. They told him all the men lie about their sexual thoughts etc .I am so mad at them, their now saying they want a joint visit with probation. I told my hub to say bring it on. Cause iam going to make sure I be in the room.
His mental health team are not happy about it either, they are not sure what their trying to do.
Anne
They started asking him about his sexual thoughts, how many times do we have sex and quite alot of different things were asked. My hub said he felt like they were trying to trip him up. He already told me how he been feeling.
Week later they came to visit and ask again, I was not in the room. They told him all the men lie about their sexual thoughts etc .I am so mad at them, their now saying they want a joint visit with probation. I told my hub to say bring it on. Cause iam going to make sure I be in the room.
His mental health team are not happy about it either, they are not sure what their trying to do.
Anne
Oh my goodness, that is awful! Since when were they fully trained sexual psychologists?! Just when you think this journey can't get any worse you hear things like this. I'm shocked and appauled!
OMG ladies when I posted this I honestly thought my friend was talking sh*te!! But to hear that they do actually ask some people about how many times they masturabe actually sickens me. What on earth would they gain from this information, which incidentally cannot be validated, other than to humiliate the offender. Literally stunned and sickened right now xx
100% agree Lee1969
Post deleted
The police have a list of dynamic risk factors which they use to assess people.
These are changeable factors which relate to the offender’s personal circumstances and behaviour. They include:
sexual interests (eg, sexual preoccupation, sexual preference for children, preference for sexualised violence, other offences related to sexual interest)distorted attitudes (eg, adversarial sexual beliefs, or beliefs that support child abuse, sexual entitlement, rape, rationalisations for offending, viewing women as deceitful)management of relationships (eg, feelings of personal inadequacy, distorted intimacy balance, grievance-oriented thinking towards others, lack of emotional intimacy with adults)management of self (eg, lifestyle impulsiveness, poor problem solving, poor management of emotions)employment status and type of employmenthigh levels of hostility and aggressionlack of self-controldishonestysubstance misusemental ill healthuse and availability of weaponsgrooming behaviour patternsaccess and proximity to victims.
The mas*btion question, is intended to measure the person's level of sexual preoccupation. It is widely used by both police and probation.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/managing-sexual-offenders-and-violent-offenders/identifying-assessing-and-managing-risk/
These are changeable factors which relate to the offender’s personal circumstances and behaviour. They include:
sexual interests (eg, sexual preoccupation, sexual preference for children, preference for sexualised violence, other offences related to sexual interest)distorted attitudes (eg, adversarial sexual beliefs, or beliefs that support child abuse, sexual entitlement, rape, rationalisations for offending, viewing women as deceitful)management of relationships (eg, feelings of personal inadequacy, distorted intimacy balance, grievance-oriented thinking towards others, lack of emotional intimacy with adults)management of self (eg, lifestyle impulsiveness, poor problem solving, poor management of emotions)employment status and type of employmenthigh levels of hostility and aggressionlack of self-controldishonestysubstance misusemental ill healthuse and availability of weaponsgrooming behaviour patternsaccess and proximity to victims.
The mas*btion question, is intended to measure the person's level of sexual preoccupation. It is widely used by both police and probation.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/managing-sexual-offenders-and-violent-offenders/identifying-assessing-and-managing-risk/
Edel2020 you have quoted from the police training module but I still maintain that asking questions about "excessive" masturbation or "deviant sexual fantasies" (another risk factor) is pointless as it's obvious that the correct answer to give will be "no" whether or not it is true.
These may be "relevant factors" from an academic point of view but, short of actually catching them at it, I don't think it's a factor that the police should set much store by when the source of the information is the answer to a question.
It's a bit like monitoring a bank robber by asking him "how often have you been thinking about robbing banks lately?" Of course the answer will be no. Unless they find the person poring over the layout plan of a local bank, or having a book on safe picking on the premises.
These may be "relevant factors" from an academic point of view but, short of actually catching them at it, I don't think it's a factor that the police should set much store by when the source of the information is the answer to a question.
It's a bit like monitoring a bank robber by asking him "how often have you been thinking about robbing banks lately?" Of course the answer will be no. Unless they find the person poring over the layout plan of a local bank, or having a book on safe picking on the premises.
I'll try to answer some of these points by quoting some more things from the police training system .
"Staff should consider the relevance of each factor on a case-by-case basis. All staff involved in assessing risk should be familiar with these factors and review them periodically and at specific points in the monitoring and risk management processes (eg, prior to each home visit)."
So it will not be appropriate to ask every person, about every risk factor.
Human rights.
"An understanding is therefore required as to the impact of actions on the suspects in line with Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life), balanced with the requirements to protect rights of victims under Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture). Staff should therefore assess the potential negative consequences with the potential public protection benefits"
So the human rights of the offender and those of their spouse/partner come second, compared to the human rights of potential victims and the need to protect the public. But,
"An offender manager can ask questions about the offender’s lifestyle and circumstances, but the offender does not have to answer."
"Staff should consider the relevance of each factor on a case-by-case basis. All staff involved in assessing risk should be familiar with these factors and review them periodically and at specific points in the monitoring and risk management processes (eg, prior to each home visit)."
So it will not be appropriate to ask every person, about every risk factor.
Human rights.
"An understanding is therefore required as to the impact of actions on the suspects in line with Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life), balanced with the requirements to protect rights of victims under Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture). Staff should therefore assess the potential negative consequences with the potential public protection benefits"
So the human rights of the offender and those of their spouse/partner come second, compared to the human rights of potential victims and the need to protect the public. But,
"An offender manager can ask questions about the offender’s lifestyle and circumstances, but the offender does not have to answer."
Post deleted
Edel2020
You have clearly done some research into this subject. Is this because your offending family member been subject to this type of intrusive questioning? How do they feel about it? Are they accepting of it because of the reasons given in the police guidance?
You have clearly done some research into this subject. Is this because your offending family member been subject to this type of intrusive questioning? How do they feel about it? Are they accepting of it because of the reasons given in the police guidance?
I might have inadvertantly given the impression that I agree with the police. I don't.
I think the way they treat offenders and their famlies is cruel and inhumane. I am pointing out why the police do their job, in the way that they do. I am not saying it is right!
The reason for quoting the guidance, is to demonstrate what they think about breaching peoples human rights and why they ask the questions that they do. So yes, I am telling you how the police see things, from their perspective, and that can be difficult to hear.
If it were down to me, I would change the law, so that the police do not have a legal right to enter people's homes and to ask these questions. But they do have that power and that is the reality of the situation.
This conversation began with someone asking, why are the police behaving like this? and I have sought to answer that question. I'm sorry if people do not like the answer.
I think the way they treat offenders and their famlies is cruel and inhumane. I am pointing out why the police do their job, in the way that they do. I am not saying it is right!
The reason for quoting the guidance, is to demonstrate what they think about breaching peoples human rights and why they ask the questions that they do. So yes, I am telling you how the police see things, from their perspective, and that can be difficult to hear.
If it were down to me, I would change the law, so that the police do not have a legal right to enter people's homes and to ask these questions. But they do have that power and that is the reality of the situation.
This conversation began with someone asking, why are the police behaving like this? and I have sought to answer that question. I'm sorry if people do not like the answer.
Edel2020
Not at all, your post has been most informative, both in terms of the information in the police training module (thank you for your research) and your insight into how you believe the police are thinking.
What has been hard for me to hear has been the experiences and feelings of partners and family members of offenders who have been subjected to these intrusive and to my mind, pointless questions as the answers are not verifiable. Asking them seems to me to be a complete waste of police time.
Human rights: I understand that maintaining public safety and preventing crime will trump human rights, but what is at issue here is _proportionality _ , which seems to have got lost somewhere along the way. I understand only a very small percentage go on to reoffend, it is *not* proportionate to be asking intrusive questions on the very slight chance it might possibly give some insight into the mental state of the offender and whether they are gearing up to offend again.
Not at all, your post has been most informative, both in terms of the information in the police training module (thank you for your research) and your insight into how you believe the police are thinking.
What has been hard for me to hear has been the experiences and feelings of partners and family members of offenders who have been subjected to these intrusive and to my mind, pointless questions as the answers are not verifiable. Asking them seems to me to be a complete waste of police time.
Human rights: I understand that maintaining public safety and preventing crime will trump human rights, but what is at issue here is _proportionality _ , which seems to have got lost somewhere along the way. I understand only a very small percentage go on to reoffend, it is *not* proportionate to be asking intrusive questions on the very slight chance it might possibly give some insight into the mental state of the offender and whether they are gearing up to offend again.