Appraising the efficacy of treatment of sex offenders: what judges, parole boards, and the public need to know

Despite assertions that sex offender treatment reduces sexual recidivism, rigorous scrutiny reveals a fragile evidence base characterized by methodological weaknesses, heterogeneous interventions, and unreliable outcome measures. Although some meta-analyses report beneficial effects of treatment, these findings are heavily qualified by selection bias, short follow-ups, under-detection of reoffending, and inconsistent program implementation. This article critically examines the empirical literature, highlights real-world discrepancies in correctional practice, and argues that continued reliance on unevaluated or poorly evaluated programs constitutes an unacceptable risk to public safety. Mandatory, ongoing, jurisdiction-wide evaluation is proposed as an ethical and scientific imperative if sex offender treatment is to play a role in the decision-making of judges, parole boards, and legislatures.