Sex Offenders Who Are They Can We Predict
- Slides: 102
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 Kids n Risk Assessment: Predicting Recidivism n Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions
Child Molesters Why Do Some Men Molest Children?
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
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 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 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 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
“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. 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
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, 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. ”
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 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
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 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 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 victim, although I now recognize a resentment or jealousy of girls. ” ( Groth, 1979)
Sadistic Offenders 5% of sex offenders
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 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, 1990) n
Who Reoffends More: Child Molesters or Rapists (Knight & Prentky, 1999)
How They Find Victims
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 Church Choirs Youth Groups Any Volunteer Activities Involving Children
Vocational & Avocational Access Not Geographic
Living Near Schools?
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 Geographically Recidivists Lived No Closer to Schools that Non-recidivists
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 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 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 reoffending… he can just get closer by walking or driving. ”
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 Without family support Less or more likely to reoffend?
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 those without jobs or significant others (Kruttschnitt et al. , 2000).
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 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 by the law, and many reported becoming homeless (Rood, 2006).
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 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 increase the risk of re-offense, NAESV opposes residency restrictions. ”
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?
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
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% (Prentky et al. , 1997)
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 & Bussiere, 1998)
Accuracy of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Prediction r
Continuum of Risk Low Risk High Risk
Continuum of Risk Low Risk High Risk 51% - 62% 7% - 12%
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 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 10 Years 6. 5 73. 1 (Hanson, 1997)
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. , 1997)
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 (Hanson, 1997)
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 - 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 Males 0 1 n
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 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 73. 1 (Hanson, 1997)
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 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 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 of reoffending? n Circumstances fostering reoffending?
Who is More Dangerous? n Exhibitionism 90% n Child 30% Molestation n Killing a Child 20%
What Works?
Characteristics of Studies 117 Studies N = 442, 471 (Smith, 2002)
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 Designs Age Criminal History Antisocial Values (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 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. 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 Appropriate Vs. Inappropriate Treatment (Andrews, 1998)
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 46 months
Recidivism n Reconviction 8 n Rearrest 11 n Broad 20
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 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 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 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 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. 9% 17. 4% . 60 General 32. 3% 51. 3% . 57
When Does Treatment Work? n Adults vs adolescents Equally effective n Institutional vs Community Equally effective
- Antigentest åre
- Kurt bumby
- Sex snv
- Xxtesticles
- Sex sex sex
- Secondary sexual characters
- For adult sex
- Cognitive behavioral therapy for sex offenders
- X linked dominant inheritance punnett square
- Sex determination and sex linkage
- Sex determination and sex linkage
- Once a sex offender always a sex offender
- Borstal institution meaning
- Juvenile delinquents act
- Trait theory juvenile delinquency
- Juvenile offenders comprehension check answers
- Youthful offenders act 1854
- Sex can wait
- Sex can wait thin your paint
- Vsepr theory predicts
- Predict the sign of the entropy change
- Predict vipers
- Reading vipers retrieve
- Predict diagnostika
- You light up my life lab answers
- Predict-o-gram
- Control techniques in experimental research
- Predict cyber crime
- Vsepr stands for
- Linear regression predict
- Inspire predict meaning
- Temperature is a measure of the average
- Hatchet chapter 1 questions
- Predict whether cesium forms cs or cs2 ions
- Example of active reading
- Predict the products of the following reactions.
- 1pox1
- Identify predict decide execute
- Searching for specific driving-related clues
- Observe infer predict
- Chapter 11 chemical reactions practice problems
- What phase is this
- Analyzewords
- Macbeth scene 3 act 1
- Predict the sources of water
- Cherry valance physical description
- Lincoln the best way to predict the future is to create it
- Diels alder
- Whats the definition of manifest destiny
- Predict the outcome
- Ocn- resonance structures
- Predict the products of the elimination reaction.
- Endo predict
- Seur predict
- 25112005 color
- Rankings: what are they and do they matter?
- If your conditions are competitive we (place)
- They seek him here they seek him there
- Because you have rejected me i have rejected you
- Jordan 14
- Grammar rules frustrate me they're not logical they are so
- For they not know what they do
- Knowledge not shared is wasted
- Severe skin burns pictogram
- How much can they safely carry
- Food handlers can contaminate food when they:
- Whmis describes the nature of the hazard
- Shy lovers try positions they can't handle
- Blood types and who they can donate to
- Which of the following is a pronatalist pressure?
- What they don't know can't hurt them
- Romans 10 9-15
- Food handlers can contaminate food when they
- If you can imagine it you can achieve it
- Kinds of comparison
- If you think you can you can poem
- If you can not measure it you can not improve it
- If you cannot measure it you cannot manage it
- Can can body percussion
- Curriculum design example
- You can tell harris about it just ____(easily) as i can.
- Kinds of degree
- I can could speak english
- Look at the pictures and complete with can or can't
- Going on a bear hunt dr. jean
- I know nothing is impossible
- If you cant measure it you can't manage it
- Already can or can already
- Any fool can write code that a computer can understand
- So long as men can breathe or eyes can see
- Vertikale kennzahlen
- The modal verb can is used to express
- Sex dovland
- Whats sex linked
- Gamete and zygote
- What does the bible say about sex
- Vivienne westwood destroy nazi shirt
- Sex linked pedigree
- Sex datin
- Contoh soal cumulative incidence
- Type of peotry
- Difference between autosomes and sex chromosome
- Secondary sex character