Maletzky (2006)

Question 1

AIMS

Answer 1

Aims -
- The aims of the study were to evaluate the offenders who had been assessed for
appropriateness of MA on or before release.
- The study followed up the people who had been judged and the ones who including those who did not take up the programme even if it was judged appropriate.
- The aim was to see the outcomes of being on MPA
compared to not being on the treatment.

Question 2

Procedure

Answer 2

• This was a retrospective review because it looked back over the history of the 275 inmates after their release to look at the recidivism rate and to compare
  those on the programme with those not on the treatment that was the main factor in deciding which offenders would be suitable for MPA.
• The 134 deemed suitable for MA were released and their parole officers contacted to see if they were being given the MPA. Some would not receive it despite the recommendation because the community they returned to might not have the resources to provide it or a treating therapist or parole officer might not think it was necessary.
• The dose of MPA was given by injection every two weeks. Of the 134, 79 (59 not cent) received medication and 55 (41 per cent) did
• not. The average doses and timing of the injections not known. However, most of the men were released to the Portland area, where Maletzky was prescribing
  the medication, so there was some knowledge about the dose and it was in general between 200 and 400mg every other week.
• Questionnaires were used to collect the outcome data. These were whether a new offence had been committed since release, whether there had been a
  violation of parole conditions, whether the offender had been re-arrested, whether any re-arrest was down to sexual problems and whether the offender
  was employed. The supervising officer also said whether they thought the offender was doing well’ or not.

Question 3

RESULTS

Answer 3

Out of the 275 original offenders, 134 (48.7 per cent) were recommended to receive MPA and 141 (51.3 per cent) were not.

• MPA, supervisors ‘made certain’ that almost 70 per cent of homosexual pedophiles received MPA as opposed to just 46 per cent of men with heterosexual pedophilia and just 33 per cent of me with mixed offences. This was a significant
  difference when analysis was carried out.

Question 4

CONCLUSIONS

Answer 4

• The conclusion was that those recommended to receive and receiving MPA were less likely to re- offend than those recommended it but not receiving it. The ‘not
  taking MP A’ group had similar findings whether it was recommended for them or not.
• About 31 per cent of those recommended but not receiving the treatment committed a new offence and about 60 per cent of these new offences were sexual ones. This compares to around 27 per cent of those not recommended the
  treatment committing new offence and about 55 per cent of the new offences being sexual. These are very similar figure
  This seems to suggest that deciding who ‘needed’ medication and who did not was not a valid measure