Sex Offenders Who Are They Can We Predict

  • Slides: 102
Download presentation
Sex Offenders Who Are They & Can We Predict if They Will Reoffend Anna

Sex Offenders Who Are They & Can We Predict if They Will Reoffend Anna C. Salter, Ph. D.

Agenda n Types & Motivations of Sex Offenders n How They Get Access to

Agenda n Types & Motivations of Sex Offenders n How They Get Access to Kids n Risk Assessment: Predicting Recidivism n Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions

Child Molesters Why Do Some Men Molest Children?

Child Molesters Why Do Some Men Molest Children?

1. Deviant Arousal Pattern Sexually attracted to children Otherwise responsible E. g. , teachers,

1. Deviant Arousal Pattern Sexually attracted to children Otherwise responsible E. g. , teachers, priests, youth leaders, doctors, businessmen, etc.

Successful Predators Charming Responsible in Other Ways Do Favors Genial, Affable, Likeable

Successful Predators Charming Responsible in Other Ways Do Favors Genial, Affable, Likeable

Sexually Attracted to Children Q. “How old were you when you began to have

Sexually Attracted to Children Q. “How old were you when you began to have fantasies about children? A. About 13 or 14 Q. How often would you say during masturbation you had sexual fantasies involving children? A. All the time. ”

Sexually Attracted to Children Q. How much of the time do you fantasize about

Sexually Attracted to Children Q. How much of the time do you fantasize about boys? ’’ A. I’d say about half the day. It’s when I’m not doing anything. ”

Minister Who Molested Grandchildren “I suppose that being a devout religious person, if I

Minister Who Molested Grandchildren “I suppose that being a devout religious person, if I had believed with all of my mind and heart that the earth was going to open up and swallow me into hell, I would have went ahead and done it anyway. ”

“People often confuse issues of traits of character with issues of. . . the

“People often confuse issues of traits of character with issues of. . . the type of sexual interest an individual has. Persons who may be compulsive pedophiles, for instance, may obey the law in other ways, may be responsible in their work, may have concern for other persons. ” (Berlin, quoted in Knopp, 1984, p. 9)

2. Antisocial Motivation Criminals Variety of other crimes Want sex; violate anybody’s rights

2. Antisocial Motivation Criminals Variety of other crimes Want sex; violate anybody’s rights

“I plain and simple needed to get some good, hot, kinky sex but resented

“I plain and simple needed to get some good, hot, kinky sex but resented having to rely on the generosity of women. . . My days of begging. . . Were over. ” (Athens, 1997, p. 10)

Antisocial “The way she moved made my rocks shake. I had to have her.

Antisocial “The way she moved made my rocks shake. I had to have her. So I pretended to look for my dog. . . She was polite but bitchy, you know. . . She goes, yea like get lost. Now I don’t give a f. . . , you know. I reach for her neck. F. . . you, I goes and drag her inside the f. . . shed. ” (Stevens, 2001, p. 40)

3. Loneliness Relate poorly to adults Intimidated by women Children accepting, nonjudgmental, open-hearted

3. Loneliness Relate poorly to adults Intimidated by women Children accepting, nonjudgmental, open-hearted

4. Incest Offenders Deviant Arousal Pattern Some Antisocial Some Victims of Opportunity Yes Entitled

4. Incest Offenders Deviant Arousal Pattern Some Antisocial Some Victims of Opportunity Yes Entitled Yes

Incest Offender “I had it in my head that she’s not just a girl,

Incest Offender “I had it in my head that she’s not just a girl, but she’s mine and always will be mine. ” (Gilgun & Connor, 1989, p. 250)

Incest Offender “My home is my castle, and I’ll do what I goddamn please.

Incest Offender “My home is my castle, and I’ll do what I goddamn please. ”

Child Molesters 1. Deviant Arousal Pattern 2. Anti-social Attitudes & Beliefs (Includes Psychopaths) 3.

Child Molesters 1. Deviant Arousal Pattern 2. Anti-social Attitudes & Beliefs (Includes Psychopaths) 3. Emotional Loneliness 4. Incest Offenders

Thinking Errors of Nonsadistic Sex Offenders She wanted me to do those things to

Thinking Errors of Nonsadistic Sex Offenders She wanted me to do those things to her. n She enjoyed it as much as I did. n She was just a little flirt. n He knew what he was doing. n He came on to me. n

5. Sadists Sexually Aroused By Pain, Suffering, Terror and Humiliation

5. Sadists Sexually Aroused By Pain, Suffering, Terror and Humiliation

Sadistic Behavior A man shot off a teenage girl’s arm for the sexual thrill

Sadistic Behavior A man shot off a teenage girl’s arm for the sexual thrill it gave him. ( Abel, 1981)

Sadistic Behavior A serial killer would smother his wife with a plastic bag until

Sadistic Behavior A serial killer would smother his wife with a plastic bag until she passed out and then would have sex. He beat her with belts and burned her with cigarettes. (Groth, 1979, p. 48)

Sadistic Behavior A rapist of thirteen-year girls preferred to anally rape them on cement

Sadistic Behavior A rapist of thirteen-year girls preferred to anally rape them on cement floors so that the rapes would be more painful. (Abel, 1977)

“At no point during the incident was I aware of any anger towards the

“At no point during the incident was I aware of any anger towards the victim, although I now recognize a resentment or jealousy of girls. ” ( Groth, 1979)

Sadistic Offenders 5% of sex offenders

Sadistic Offenders 5% of sex offenders

6. Status Offenders 18 year-old with 15 -year-old girlfriend

6. Status Offenders 18 year-old with 15 -year-old girlfriend

Status Offenders n No violence or threats n No conning or manipulation n Girlfriend

Status Offenders n No violence or threats n No conning or manipulation n Girlfriend within 3 years of age n No pattern of dating younger girls

Typology of Rapists Opportunistic n Pervasively Angry n Vindictive n Sexual Sadistic Non-Sadistic (Knight,

Typology of Rapists Opportunistic n Pervasively Angry n Vindictive n Sexual Sadistic Non-Sadistic (Knight, 1990) n

Who Reoffends More: Child Molesters or Rapists (Knight & Prentky, 1999)

Who Reoffends More: Child Molesters or Rapists (Knight & Prentky, 1999)

How They Find Victims

How They Find Victims

Jobs Teaching Ministry and Priesthood Medicine Sports Camp Counselors Children’s Choirs Any Jobs with

Jobs Teaching Ministry and Priesthood Medicine Sports Camp Counselors Children’s Choirs Any Jobs with Children

Leisure Activities Mentoring/Tutoring Coaching Babysitting Dating Child’s Mother Boy Scouts, etc. Special Olympics Local

Leisure Activities Mentoring/Tutoring Coaching Babysitting Dating Child’s Mother Boy Scouts, etc. Special Olympics Local Church Choirs Youth Groups Any Volunteer Activities Involving Children

Vocational & Avocational Access Not Geographic

Vocational & Avocational Access Not Geographic

Living Near Schools?

Living Near Schools?

Legislative History of Residence Restrictions n In 2004, 14 states had residence restrictions, most

Legislative History of Residence Restrictions n In 2004, 14 states had residence restrictions, most commonly 500 – 1000 feet. n By 2006, 21 states had residence restrictions n Hundreds of local jurisdictions nationwide have passed zoning laws, often 2500 feet (about onehalf mile).

Does proximity to schools increase recidivism? N = 130 Colorado Recidivists & Nonrecidivists Scattered

Does proximity to schools increase recidivism? N = 130 Colorado Recidivists & Nonrecidivists Scattered Geographically Recidivists Lived No Closer to Schools that Non-recidivists

Offenders Living Closer to a School Were Not More Likely to Reoffend

Offenders Living Closer to a School Were Not More Likely to Reoffend

Does proximity to schools increase recidivism? N = 329 Minnesota 2003 High Risk Offenders

Does proximity to schools increase recidivism? N = 329 Minnesota 2003 High Risk Offenders Follow-up 3 – 6 Years 13 Recidivists n None of the offenses occurred in or near schools. n 2 offenses in parks: Offenders drove there

Does proximity to schools increase recidivism? Minnesota April 2007 N = 224 sexual recidivists

Does proximity to schools increase recidivism? Minnesota April 2007 N = 224 sexual recidivists Released between 1990 and 2002 “Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law. ”

“It doesn’t matter where a sex offender lives if he sets his mind on

“It doesn’t matter where a sex offender lives if he sets his mind on reoffending… he can just get closer by walking or driving. ”

Consequences N = 109 Fort Lauderdale, FL 2, 500 -foot zoning laws. Live farther

Consequences N = 109 Fort Lauderdale, FL 2, 500 -foot zoning laws. Live farther away from social services & mental health treatment 40% Live farther away from employment 57% Live farther away from family support 62% Average number of days spent homeless or staying with someone 62 Levenson (2006), in progress.

n Homeless n Unemployed n Without social services n Without mental health treatment n

n Homeless n Unemployed n Without social services n Without mental health treatment n Without family support Less or more likely to reoffend?

Impact “Sex offenders with positive support systems reoffended and violated. . . their probation

Impact “Sex offenders with positive support systems reoffended and violated. . . their probation less often than those who had negative or no support. ” (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004).

Impact Sex offenders with stable employment and social relationships had lower recidivism rates than

Impact Sex offenders with stable employment and social relationships had lower recidivism rates than those without jobs or significant others (Kruttschnitt et al. , 2000).

Iowa n 2000 -foot exclusion zone passed in 2002. n Upheld by Iowa Supreme

Iowa n 2000 -foot exclusion zone passed in 2002. n Upheld by Iowa Supreme Court and 8 th Circuit Court of Appeals (2005)

Impact in Iowa n Within six months, the number of sex offenders across the

Impact in Iowa n Within six months, the number of sex offenders across the state whose whereabouts were unknown nearly tripled (Davey, 2006; Rood, 2006).

Impact in Iowa n Approximately 6, 000 sex offenders and their families were displaced

Impact in Iowa n Approximately 6, 000 sex offenders and their families were displaced by the law, and many reported becoming homeless (Rood, 2006).

Iowa County Attorneys Assn (2006) as more sex offenders become homeless and transient, law

Iowa County Attorneys Assn (2006) as more sex offenders become homeless and transient, law enforcement authorities are less able to monitor their day-to-day activities (Iowa County Attorneys Association, 2006)

Victims groups oppose residence restrictions n National Alliance to End Sexual Violence “Sex offenders

Victims groups oppose residence restrictions n National Alliance to End Sexual Violence “Sex offenders who continually move or become homeless as a result of residency restrictions are more difficult to supervise and monitor, thereby increasing the risk of re-offense…. ”

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence n “Because residency requirements cause instability, which may

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence n “Because residency requirements cause instability, which may increase the risk of re-offense, NAESV opposes residency restrictions. ”

Victims groups oppose residence restrictions n California Coalition Against Sexual Assault Warned against “a

Victims groups oppose residence restrictions n California Coalition Against Sexual Assault Warned against “a general migration of sex offenders to rural communities who simply cannot monitor them, while on the other hand, the remainder of offenders in urban areas will simply go underground, failing to register. ”

Risk Assessment Can we tell Who is likely to reoffend?

Risk Assessment Can we tell Who is likely to reoffend?

Hanson Meta-Analysis Recidivism Follow-up = 5 -6 Years n New Sex Offense 13. 7%

Hanson Meta-Analysis Recidivism Follow-up = 5 -6 Years n New Sex Offense 13. 7% n Any Offense 36. 9% (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004)

Follow-up Period

Follow-up Period

Follow-up Period

Follow-up Period

Long Term Sex Offense Recidivism Follow-up = 15 to 30 Years n New Sex

Long Term Sex Offense Recidivism Follow-up = 15 to 30 Years n New Sex or Violent Offense 42% (Hanson, Steffy et al. , 1993)

Recidivism Follow-up = 25 Years Rapists Child Molesters N FR 136 39% 115 52%

Recidivism Follow-up = 25 Years Rapists Child Molesters N FR 136 39% 115 52% (Prentky et al. , 1997)

Long Term Sex Offense Recidivism Prior Sex Offenses Boy Victims Never Married 77% (Hanson,

Long Term Sex Offense Recidivism Prior Sex Offenses Boy Victims Never Married 77% (Hanson, Steffy et al. , 1993)

Clinical vs. Actuarial Assessment r Clinical Assessment . 10 Actuarial Assessment . 46 (Hanson

Clinical vs. Actuarial Assessment r Clinical Assessment . 10 Actuarial Assessment . 46 (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998)

Accuracy of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Prediction r

Accuracy of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Prediction r

Continuum of Risk Low Risk High Risk

Continuum of Risk Low Risk High Risk

Continuum of Risk Low Risk High Risk 51% - 62% 7% - 12%

Continuum of Risk Low Risk High Risk 51% - 62% 7% - 12%

Known Offenses Vs Reconviction Study Arrests Doren (1998) 27%-47% + Song & Lieb (1995)

Known Offenses Vs Reconviction Study Arrests Doren (1998) 27%-47% + Song & Lieb (1995) 50% +

Known Sexual Assaults Vs. Criminal Charges 2. 4 times (Marshall et al. , 1990)

Known Sexual Assaults Vs. Criminal Charges 2. 4 times (Marshall et al. , 1990)

Known Offenses Vs Caught Recidivism Caught 13% 5 years Follow-Up Average 17% - 19%

Known Offenses Vs Caught Recidivism Caught 13% 5 years Follow-Up Average 17% - 19% Marshall 31%

RRASOR Scores & Recidivism Rates Score 0 5 Years 4. 4 5 49. 8

RRASOR Scores & Recidivism Rates Score 0 5 Years 4. 4 5 49. 8 10 Years 6. 5 73. 1 (Hanson, 1997)

Most Offenses by High Risk Offenders 70% Offenses by 5% of Offenders (Gene Abel)

Most Offenses by High Risk Offenders 70% Offenses by 5% of Offenders (Gene Abel)

Juvenile Crime Offenders 8% Crimes 70% (Beuhring, 2002; Howell, 1995; Kelley et al. ,

Juvenile Crime Offenders 8% Crimes 70% (Beuhring, 2002; Howell, 1995; Kelley et al. , 1997)

Number of Adjudications & Recidivism Adolescent Sex Offenders 3 year Follow-Up No. N Sex

Number of Adjudications & Recidivism Adolescent Sex Offenders 3 year Follow-Up No. N Sex Recidivism 1 2 3 4+ 452 6. 2% 118 26. 3% 37 35. 1% 29 41. 4 (Epperson, 2005)

Rapid Risk Assessment if Sex Offender Recidivism RRASOR 7 Samples N = 2, 592

Rapid Risk Assessment if Sex Offender Recidivism RRASOR 7 Samples N = 2, 592 (Hanson, 1997)

Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism n Prior Sexual Offense n Victim Gender

Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism n Prior Sexual Offense n Victim Gender n Relationship to Victim n Age at Release (Hanson, 1997)

RRASOR n Prior Sexual Offenses None 1 Conviction; 1 to 2 Charges 2 -

RRASOR n Prior Sexual Offenses None 1 Conviction; 1 to 2 Charges 2 - 3 Convictions: 3 to 5 Charges 4 or More; 6 or More Charges (Hanson, 1997) 0 1 2 3

RRASOR Age at Release 25+ 25 - 0 1 Victim Gender Only Females Any

RRASOR Age at Release 25+ 25 - 0 1 Victim Gender Only Females Any Males 0 1 n

RRASOR n Relationship to Victim Only Related Any Non-Related 0 1 (Hanson, 1997)

RRASOR n Relationship to Victim Only Related Any Non-Related 0 1 (Hanson, 1997)

RRASOR Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 Years 10 Years 4. 4

RRASOR Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 Years 10 Years 4. 4 6. 5 7. 6 11. 2 14. 2 21. 1 24. 8 36. 9 32. 7 48. 6 49. 8 73. 1 (Hanson, 1997)

RRASOR Score 0 5 Years 10 Years 4. 4 6. 5 5 49. 8

RRASOR Score 0 5 Years 10 Years 4. 4 6. 5 5 49. 8 73. 1 (Hanson, 1997)

Static 99 RRASOR items 1. 2. 3. 4. Number of Previous Charges & Convictions

Static 99 RRASOR items 1. 2. 3. 4. Number of Previous Charges & Convictions Age at Release Relationship to Victim Boy Victims

Static 99 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Number of Sentencing Occasions Index Non-sexual

Static 99 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Number of Sentencing Occasions Index Non-sexual Violence Previous Non-sexual Violence Ever Lived with a Partner 2 Years Non-Contact Sex Offense Conviction Stranger Victims

Scores Versus Recidivism Score Risk N(%) 15 Years 0, 1 2, 3 4, 5

Scores Versus Recidivism Score Risk N(%) 15 Years 0, 1 2, 3 4, 5 6+ Low Med/High 257(24%) 410 (38%) 290 (27%) 129 (12%) 10% 18% 38% 52%

What do They Measure? n Likelihood of reoffending? n Severity of reoffending? n Timing

What do They Measure? n Likelihood of reoffending? n Severity of reoffending? n Timing of reoffending? n Circumstances fostering reoffending?

Who is More Dangerous? n Exhibitionism 90% n Child 30% Molestation n Killing a

Who is More Dangerous? n Exhibitionism 90% n Child 30% Molestation n Killing a Child 20%

What Works?

What Works?

Characteristics of Studies 117 Studies N = 442, 471 (Smith, 2002)

Characteristics of Studies 117 Studies N = 442, 471 (Smith, 2002)

Impact of Incarceration on Recidivism N = 268, 806 68% American Studies No Change

Impact of Incarceration on Recidivism N = 268, 806 68% American Studies No Change in Recidivism or Slight Increase in Recidivism (Smith, 2002)

High Quality vs. Low Quality Studies High Quality n Random Assignment n Comparison Group

High Quality vs. Low Quality Studies High Quality n Random Assignment n Comparison Group Designs Age Criminal History Antisocial Values (Smith, 2002)

Random Assignment Studies 2 Studies Incarceration Vs Community Slight increases in recidivism (Smith, 2002)

Random Assignment Studies 2 Studies Incarceration Vs Community Slight increases in recidivism (Smith, 2002)

Incarceration: More or Less N = 107, 165 90% American Studies Mean Time for

Incarceration: More or Less N = 107, 165 90% American Studies Mean Time for More: 31 Months Mean Time for Less: 13 Months Slight Increase in Recidivism (Smith, 2002)

Impact of Length of Incarceration Difference in Time Between More & Less Groups 1.

Impact of Length of Incarceration Difference in Time Between More & Less Groups 1. 2. 3. 4. < 6 Months 7 to 12 Months 13 to 24 Months > 24 Months Mean Effect Size (Weighted for Sample Size) -. 01 -. 02. 03. 06 (Smith, 2002)

Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions (Andrews, 1998)

Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions (Andrews, 1998)

Impact of Appropriate Vs. Inappropriate Treatment (Andrews, 1998)

Impact of Appropriate Vs. Inappropriate Treatment (Andrews, 1998)

ATSA Collaborative Study N = 43 studies n n n All treated between 1965

ATSA Collaborative Study N = 43 studies n n n All treated between 1965 – 1999 80% treated after 1980 9, 316 subjects 23 Institutional programs 16 Community programs 3 both

ATSA Collaborative Study Follow-up Periods n Range 1 month to 31 years n Median

ATSA Collaborative Study Follow-up Periods n Range 1 month to 31 years n Median 46 months

Recidivism n Reconviction 8 n Rearrest 11 n Broad 20

Recidivism n Reconviction 8 n Rearrest 11 n Broad 20

Hanson Meta-Analysis Recidivism Follow-up = 4 - 5 Years n New Sex Offense n

Hanson Meta-Analysis Recidivism Follow-up = 4 - 5 Years n New Sex Offense n Any Offense 13% 37% (Hanson & Bussiere, 1996)

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Untreated N = 4298 All programs Sexual 16. 8%

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Untreated N = 4298 All programs Sexual 16. 8%

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated N = 5018 Untreated N = 4298 12.

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated N = 5018 Untreated N = 4298 12. 3% 16. 8% Odds Ratio All programs Sexual . 81

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated N = 5018 Untreated N = 4298 Odds

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated N = 5018 Untreated N = 4298 Odds Ratio Sexual 12. 3% 16. 8% . 81 General 27. 9% 39. 2% . 56 All programs

Current vs Noncurrent n Current means 1) Treatment still offered in 1999 2) All

Current vs Noncurrent n Current means 1) Treatment still offered in 1999 2) All Cognitive Behavioral since 1980 n Noncurrent had no impact on sexual or general recidivism

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Untreated Only current programs Sexual 17. 4%

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Untreated Only current programs Sexual 17. 4%

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated Untreated Odds Ratio 17. 4% . 60 Only

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated Untreated Odds Ratio 17. 4% . 60 Only current programs Sexual 9. 9%

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated Untreated Odds Ratio Only current programs Sexual 9.

ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated Untreated Odds Ratio Only current programs Sexual 9. 9% 17. 4% . 60 General 32. 3% 51. 3% . 57

When Does Treatment Work? n Adults vs adolescents Equally effective n Institutional vs Community

When Does Treatment Work? n Adults vs adolescents Equally effective n Institutional vs Community Equally effective