{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01739850869925435, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.637362637362638, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“But I Didn’t Do It!”

This article addresses ethical questions and issues related to the treatment of sex offenders in denial, using the empirical research literature and the ethical codes of American Psychological Association (APA) and National Association of Social Workers (NASW) to guide the ethical decision-making process. The empirical literature does not provide an unequivocal link between denial and recidivism, though some studies suggest that decreased denial and increased accountability appear to be associated with greater therapeutic engagement and reduced recidivism for some offenders. The ethical codes of APA and NASW value the client’s self-determination and autonomy, and psychologists and social workers have a duty to empower individual well-being while doing no harm to clients or others. Clinicians should view denial not as a categorical construct but as a continuum of distorted cognitions requiring clinical attention. Denial might also be considered as a responsivity factor that can interfere with treatment progress. Offering a reasonable time period for therapeutic engagement might provide a better alternative than automatically refusing treatment to categorical deniers.