Perhaps more than any other ‘type’ of offender, those who have committed sexual offences have been systematically vilified, demonised and ostracised from mainstream society. As will be seen, sexual offenders are routinely perceived as an homogenous group that is especially risky and dangerous and wholly outside the acceptable limits of diversity in humanity. This is particularly so for those labelled as ‘deniers’ (that is, those who categorically maintain their innocence). For once, the public, the media, the government, and indeed, large numbers of professionals seem to be in agreement that this group of individuals should not be entitled to the same dignity and rights afforded to everyone else, with the almost unquestioned assumption that this ‘othering’ is entirely right and proper. It is perhaps for these reasons that the literature regarding sex offender desistance is considerably less developed than others. Moves are being made to address this (for example, Farmer et al, 2015), but a number of the challenges sexual offenders face are arguably particular to the nature of their conviction and the literature particularly struggles to separate desistance discussions from the justice system. This chapter, therefore, contains more discussion on the barriers to desistance than others in this volume. Indeed at this stage of debate and research it could be argued that exploring the implications of this unparalleled and deeply entrenched negative culture remains valid. For example, Hudson's (2013) analysis of sex offender identity suggests that their self-perception is very much based on public misconceptions. This chapter also makes some preliminary observations about other relevant issues that are arguably particularly notable for sexual offenders: the role of shame, the role of distortion and denial, the gendered nature of sexual offending and the possibilities for desistance, and the significance of previous victimisation, with an overall aim of identifying a way forward.

It should be noted that one issue that has particularly featured in risk debates when it comes to sexual offending, especially in comparison to other offenders, is that of age (Fazel et al, 2006). This is clearly also a feature of the ontogenetic desistance paradigm and there is therefore valuable in considering this in both theoretical and empirical terms; however, given present constraints and strong coverage of the current literature elsewhere (see for example, Laws and Ward, 2011), this issue is not considered within the scope of the present chapter.