Myers and Twenge define prejudice as ‘a preconceived negative judgement of a group and its individual members’. Initially, Crandall and his colleagues describe group norms and how an individual will internalise what is normal within a group. So, it could be said that inheriting learned prejudice forms our group, which is initially our family, then later society at large or subgroups within that society is inevitable. They report that if the norm within the group changes, so it is for the individual group member. So, it is possible that a group prejudice that has been internalised by the individual can shift. So, as Crandall and his colleagues state that we may be able to alter to what is normal within a group, it seems harder to challenge implicit prejudice we might carry from our system of origin, i.e., our families. Crandall and his colleagues state that ‘prejudice against rapists child abusers and thieves is quite acceptable’. I think it is safe to say that all the messages we receive about child sex offenders is negative. The innate disgust attached to the prejudice aimed at child sex offenders seems embedded in our culture, and thus, as we internalise these messages, us as individuals. . Wright and Taylor also name the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ stating that members of the group at which the prejudice is aimed can internalise this prejudiced identity themselves, leading to continued behaviour that confirms the prejudice. Given that we all come from and live within systems which are imbued with implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious prejudice, it seems inevitable that we will internalise these, as the above research has shown. While the recommendations Crandall and his colleagues suggest in terms of reducing prejudice would seem to be appropriate to reduction on a smaller scale, it seems in terms of more socially and globally acceptable prejudice there is much work to be done in creating an opportunity where the individual can be judged just as that. We have noticed at my organisation that there has been a better response to our work with offenders in their 20s, our Young Men’s Group, than our work with older offenders.