Disenfranchised Grief in Sex Offender Significant Others

A Life of Grief: an Exploration of Disenfranchised Grief in Sex Offender Significant Others
Former UNO graduate student Dr. Danielle Bailey of the University of Texas-Tyler has published a new report, “Disenfranchised Grief in Sex Offender Significant Others,” that draws largely from interviews with Nebraska registrants and their spouses.

Abstract In criminal justice, researchers have identified disenfranchised grief, or the denial of empathy and social support during the grieving process, in family members who have lost relatives through imprisonment and execution. Although both of these situations involve the physical removal of the offender from the family members’ lives, nonphysical losses may also prompt the grieving process. One of these non-physical losses is a psychosocial loss, in which the person the family members knew is now gone. Given the public stigma of the label “sex offender” and the collateral consequences that occur as a result of that label, it is possible that sex offender significant others experience a psychosocial loss. The current research is an exploratory study that used qualitative interviews with 29 spouses and significant others of convicted sex offenders to explore if and how disenfranchised grief impacts sex offender partners. Findings support both the existence of and the detrimental impact of disenfranchised grief on sex offender partners.

Read the full article here.

9 comments for “Disenfranchised Grief in Sex Offender Significant Others

  1. Kayt
    October 7, 2017 at 11:49 am

    Is this a college paper, something that’s written towards a higher degree, a thesis?

  2. Kayt
    October 7, 2017 at 7:49 pm

    How could anyone even begin to believe that the spouses, children and other loved ones wouldn’t feel anger and grief? Not only of our lives that are lost but of total destruction of our future.

    Challenge me on this, and I promise you that no one could ever know unless they have been through this kind of hell. I will give you not only a few Nebraskan replies, I will give you hundreds of universal replies!

    I say how dare anyone write any kind of essay, thesis or hypothesis on a life such as mine without going through it?!

    • October 11, 2017 at 6:29 am

      Not sure what your beef is here, Kayt. Danielle Bailey interviewed families of people on the registry for her doctoral thesis. She is now a criminology professor, continuing her work on sex offender issues.

      Her work shows clearly that those who grieve for a spouse gone to prison for a sex offense are often isolated. A woman who leaves her SO husband gets all kinds of support because she made the “right” choice. A woman who stays doesn’t get the same kind of support and often takes abuse for making the “wrong” choice. Profesdor Bailey recognized that grief that is not acknowledged can be a much more difficult grief to bear. I think you would agree with that. She isn’t saying we don’t feel grief. She is saying that we endure great pain made worse because the community often refuses to SEE our grief.

      Professor Bailey listened to many of us tell her how the sex offender status of our spouses has affected our lives. She is firmly on our side, on the side of anyone living on the registry.

      She is more than welcome to speak up for me and my family any time she likes.

      • kayt
        October 12, 2017 at 8:12 pm

        Sorry to sound like I have a beef with the Professor, I would not use the word, “beef”, because to call it a “beef” doesn’t capture my thoughts or feelings.

    • Tim L
      October 12, 2017 at 3:02 am

      Having read the good doctor’s work I believe she has done a good job coloring in the negative impacts upon those related to the person labeled a sexually oriented offender. The people have chosen this rout they’ll have to live with the choice to build the SORS. They can thank their leadership!

      • kayt
        October 12, 2017 at 9:10 pm

        If we talk about sex-offenders only, how many are there, does anybody really know? If each had only three significant others in their lives and we multiplied the numbers, how many lives are affected? How could we say that all of these people “chose” their “routes” in life? How could we say that the endless ways that have affected lives could be listed without writing a fairly good sized book, if it could be possible to list all of the negative impacts and I’m not sure that it is?

  3. mike r
    October 10, 2017 at 10:48 am

    Since we do not have a general comments section on this site I want to express myself over this new bill that CA has just been signed into law by Gov. Brown.

    [Equality California]
    Sacramento–California Gov. Jerry Brown today signed a bill to reform California’s sex offender registry, creating a tiered system that will make the registry a more effective tool for law enforcement and bring California’s system in line with the rest of the United States. SB 384 was authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and co-authored by Senators Joel Anderson (R- Alpine), Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), and Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley). The bill was sponsored by Equality California, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the California Sex Offender Management Board and was endorsed by the California Police Chiefs Association and various county sheriffs.

    “California’s sex offender registry is broken, which undermines public safety,” said Sen. Wiener. “SB 384 refocuses the sex offender registry on high-risk offenders and treats low-level offenders more fairly. I’m grateful for Governor Brown’s support. I want to thank the broad coalition behind this bill, including law enforcement, rape crisis centers, and social justice advocates. With this reform, our law enforcement agencies will be able to better protect people from violent sex offenders rather than wasting resources tracking low-level offenders who pose little or no risk of repeat offense. Our sex offender registry is a tool used to prevent and investigate crimes, and these changes will make it a better and more effective tool for keeping our communities safe.” Stop>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    All this BS that is in the CA bill is just smoke and mirrors.No one drops immediately, just shuffles people around and makes about half of the registrants appear to be high risk when they are actually very low level offenders, still places the burden on us to prove we are not dangerous… oh and guess what no body has even mentioned this, but that petition already exist for removal, it’s called filing suit!!!!!A matter of fact, it is an even stringer petition since the court isn’t restrained by mandated consideration factors as is in this bill….I just filed a extraordinary petition to be removed that has a much better chance of prevailing then this so called wanna be petition that will put thousands of dollars in the pockets of lawyers and corrupt officials…If you have the money or the experience to file their stupid petition then you obviously have the money and experience to file suit without their conditions for granting relief…..Smoke and mirrors, follow the money and the recent trend in decisions coming out of the courts and you will see the real reasons behind this travesty of justice that everyone is calling a first step in the right direction..this could actually make it worse since now they will be able to claim “they have the ability for a hearing in court so there’s no due process claims and just gives the courts more tools to deny any challenge, either in their little wannabe petition, which as i explained, each and everyone of us already has access to the courts without mandated consideration conditions. So for anyone planning on filing one of these worthless petitions, bombard the courts with real petitions of your own. I really hope you take a look and see that you have a fundamental right to access OUR courts without their ” permission” !!!Who are they kidding, these people never seem to amaze me….For our forefathers, no right was as fundamental as the capability to access the legal system, i.e., to be the beneficiary of a rule of law that protects one’s rights against the most powerful. Inherent from the beginning was the idea that a right requires a capability of securing a remedy. That remedy must necessarily be found in a justice system. Thus, rights cannot exist and have meaning if the system cannot be accessed, and if it fails to provide a fair and just hearing, and result. All of “rights” law assumes the existence of government, of justice, and of access to it. The core idea of “access to justice” has been referred to by terms such as “access to the courts” and/or “the right to a remedy”; and/or a basic “common law right.” Whatever the language used is, in 39 of our state constitutions, there is some form of the following language:
    All courts shall be open; every person for injury done to his goods, lands, or person shall have remedy by due process of law; and right and justice shall be administered without self denial or delay.
    These remedy clauses are directly traceable to Magna Carta, and frequently appeared in the legal documents of the Colonies, even before the Revolution. They were assumed to be fundamental although not explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
    Access to justice provisions appeared in many of the original 13 Colonies. In Virginia, it was taken for granted as so basic a doctrine of the Common Law and Natural Law, that specification was unnecessary. However, when the preparation of the Bill of Rights occurred, it was modeled upon Virginia’s Declaration of Rights of 1776, and thus the usual “access to justice” clauses were not included. One of the purposes for the Ninth Amendment (“the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) was to be certain that this doctrine, which was so self evident that it was omitted and thus not enumerated, clearly had to be defined as part of our fundamental constitutional heritage. Thus, the Ninth Amendment’s intent was to include these undeniably basic, common law values by a specific (albeit unenumerated) Constitutional clause, protecting unstated individual rights.

    In reviewing constitutional law, from the earliest days of this Republic, the values and principles of access to justice are present, and it is consistently defined as a fundamental right. But in headnote terms, it is sometimes couched as due process of law. At times, it is classified as a privilege and immunity. Or its denial may be termed a violation of equal protection of the law. The right itself has been categorized as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
    Petition for relief when “they” allow you too. Hate to tell them, I have a fundamental right so ingrained in the constitution that it is the actual controversy and issue that prompted the Magna Carte, and our constitution and bill of rights. Access to the courts is the reason the constitution exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Permission to petition the court,,with preconditions even. Give em a frigging break…………
    I wonder, are people going to have a right to a jury, an appeal process? I am not trying to be pessimistic about this, I am just trying to get it across to everyone that you do not need anyone’s permission to file a petition and be giving a right to a fair and just judicial process. it is the foundation of our constitution that we the people have access to the courts for redress. why would anyone wait to file, and file under special mandated consideration rules, without an appeal process, and without a right to choose if you want a jury trial? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever…..Oh and people, you better file before this goes into effect or the court is just going to claim you have access to the courts and due process on their terms, just like they did in Minnesota. it will be much harder for a ruling like that to stand since there we still be no expert testimony or evaluations from anyone except a corrupt DA , But it will be much easier for the lower courts to pass the buck without worry of any type of professional or civil repercussions causing extensive delays on decisions in individual cases. Access to the courts is your god given right people, don’t let them convince you that you somehow need some special permission for doing exactly what “they” are allowing you to do….it’s a sick, repugnant, and a complete lie that these overlords are peddling, I feel for anyone that buys this snake oil….Why would anyone go through there farce, faux, judicial process, you would still have to lawyer up, file petitions with the court clerk, and argue your case, only you will be strapped with their conditions and a judge who’s hands are tied and predetermined through mandated considerations? I never really thought about how deceptive this bill really is when it came to these hearings, I knew there was something just not right but it just sank in and hit me that these idiots are attempting to do exactly what the constitution was created to prevent. to give the average person the right to an unconditional fair and just judicial process. There is no right more fundamental in our history of western society!!@@
    If I seem like I am ranting on about this just realize I am extremely angry and concerned with what these elite are trying to pull off. They are attacking the very fabric of our civilized society and are most basic and fundamental right that has ever been granted to us….Millions of people have bled and waged wars to protect the right to access to the courts, and with one swipe of a pen these aholes are trying to usurp that power….This is extremely serious, and an attempt to take complete control of over their sheeple. I really hope Janice, and every righteous and well intended lawyer or civil rights leaders, take notice and does some thing about this affront at the very core of civilized society…..Despicable, repugnant to the constitutional values, and utterly deceptive, and down right dangerous for all Americans…………….This isn’t even about the registry anymore, this is an attempt to totally supersede our fundamental right to access the courts and to fair and just judicial processes………………I really hope others wake up and see what I am seeing and take action, such as I have, and file in courts without delay………Just my opinion………
    Another thing I have to get off my chest, and bring to the forefront…..We all now have a major, and irrefutable issue and violation of our procedural due process rights, and separation of powers issue( that’s a hole other argument that has to be addressed)…………………..Procedural due process>>>>>>>>>>;They(law makers or anyone besides god him/herself) can not dictate when or why we can petition the courts. They can not put conditions on the procedural due process and our right to a fair and just judicial process, they can not set time tables on when or who can file petitions in our courts, they can not tie a judges hands and dictate what evidence he must consider during our procedural due process, they do not have any authority to dictate to anyone, who, when or how we may access our courts (not their courts) in any way whatsoever without it becoming a procedural due process violation. I really hope others see this, it is so blatant that if it wasn’t so serious it is almost comical. This is like some cartoon or something it is so far detached from reality…………..I bet when I bring this issue up in front of a judge when I go to court,he is going to fall off his bench laughing at how arrogant and belligerent these lawmakers have become…………This bill is unconstitutional in so many ways, but to so blatantly attack our procedural due process rights, or as it is known as ” access to the courts”, and fundamental constitutional foundation is a fatal error and they will be laughed out of court just like the justices did when that state attorney didn’t fully understand our fundamental right to our reputation, I believe it was, and laughed about how he should read the constitution before coming to court………..Oh, I can’t wait to bring this up during oral arguments in my case……I may even have to amend my complaint to include this utter disrespect for the constitution, our individual rights, the judicial branch, our war heroes, our entire country, and to jurisprudence that has evolved over the last 8 hundred years……….

    • Tim L
      October 12, 2017 at 3:10 am

      Dear sir.

      You have created a long post here off topic. OK ,so you are pissed about California opting for redeprivation hearings, not to worry such hearings are not permitted under the constitution. Offenders under the law will be judged again for past wrong doing and thus the new California law violates the prohibited Double Jeopardy clause!

  4. Phys Ed
    October 11, 2017 at 7:00 pm

    All of this may be true, but in sentencing judges pay no attention to it whatsoever, pro se defendants are routinely shunted aside in our courts. I protested the denial of my motion for dismissal of supervised release after three years of compliance with everything except the corrupt sex offender “treatment” program in Illinois. After sitting in that alleged “treatment” group for 4 to 5 months and having to drive 70 miles round-trip to it once a week, I realized it was exactly what has been described in volume 10, issue 4, page 7 labeled at the top “From Our Insiders” Sex Offender Treatment: No Treatment At All.
    It was all utter nonsense, paying $35 to sit there for an hour and 1/2 and listened to myself and others in the group be vilified and referred to as pieces of SH** for a non-violent, non-contact, victimless offense. this was medical treatment? By people who had no doctorate in the psychological skills they purported to have? I walked out – finally – and have been harassed and refused permission to have any contact at all with a nine-year-old grandson I have never met, and a granddaughter that I have not seen for a decade. My daughter who does have a doctorate in pediatric and clinical psychology has been warned by my probation department that her license will be in jeopardy if she allows me to see them or speak to them except on their birthdays and at Christmas. This is how they interpret supervised release. It is entirely punitive because of my insistence on exercising a constitutional right to refuse treatment outlined by Scotus in Cruzan versus director, Missouri Department of Health, wherein it was recognized by chief justice Rehnquist who wrote that opinion that such a right may be inferred by this decision and others similar to it in the past. Myself and my family have suffered terribly under these conditions, which are hardly more than those allowed a plantation black slave in the antebellum South. I am threatened with arrest and prosecution for traveling anywhere outside of a few counties in central Illinois for any reason whatsoever without permission from my Masters the probation department – who by the way has so far refused every request for any number of legitimate reasons a regular citizen might have occasion to want to exercise. I am a lifetime registrant for the above named offense. I was a professional writer with four novels published in the last century, two plays produced in New York City, and upwards of 250 television documentaries that still air both domestically and internationally. I am not now, and never have been a pedophile, and have no paraphilias at all. No competent authority has ever examined me for such. My actual offense was journalistic curiosity. All people who who have spent a lifetime following the arts have a genetic proclivity to try their damnedest to understand the human condition – including at times the bizarre extremes of that condition, which conceivably could lead them to cross a legal line in their research. My case was exactly that, and I feel very much betrayed by the DOJ, or perhaps I should say the DOIJ. Anyone should be able to guess what the “I” in the DOIJ stands for.

Comments are closed.