Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Sex Offenders Who Are They & Can We Predict if They Will Reoffend Anna C. Salter, Ph.D."— Presentation transcript:

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

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

3 Child Molesters Why Do Some Men Molest Children?

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

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

6 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.”

7 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.”

8 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.”

9 “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) (Berlin, quoted in Knopp, 1984, p. 9)

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

11 “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)

12 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)

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

14 4. Incest Offenders Deviant Arousal PatternSome AntisocialSome Victims of OpportunityYes EntitledYes

15 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)

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

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

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

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

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

21 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)

22 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)

23 “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)

24 Sadistic Offenders 5% of sex offenders

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

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

27 Typology of Rapists Opportunistic Opportunistic Pervasively Angry Pervasively Angry Vindictive Vindictive Sexual SexualSadisticNon-Sadistic (Knight, 1990)

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

29 How They Find Victims

30 Jobs Teaching Ministry and Priesthood MedicineSports Camp Counselors Children’s Choirs Any Jobs with Children

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

32

33 Vocational & Avocational Access Not Geographic

34 Living Near Schools?

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

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

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

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

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

40 “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.”

41 Consequences N = 109 Fort Lauderdale, FL 2,500-foot zoning laws. Live farther away from social services & mental health treatment40% Live farther away from employment57% Live farther away from family support62% Average number of days spent homeless or staying with someone62 Levenson (2006), in progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

48 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)

49 Victims groups oppose residence restrictions National Alliance to End Sexual Violence 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….”

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

51 California Coalition Against Sexual Assault 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.” Victims groups oppose residence restrictions

52 Risk Assessment Can we tell Who is likely to reoffend?

53 Hanson Meta-Analysis Recidivism Follow-up = 5-6 Years New Sex Offense13.7% New Sex Offense13.7% Any Offense36.9% Any Offense36.9% (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004)

54 Follow-up Period

55

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

57 Recidivism Follow-up = 25 Years NFR Rapists13639% Child Molesters11552% (Prentky et al., 1997)

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

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

60 Accuracy of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Prediction r

61 Continuum of Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk

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

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

64 Known Sexual Assaults Vs. Criminal Charges 2.4 times (Marshall et al., 1990)

65 Known Offenses Vs Caught Recidivism 5 years Follow-Up CaughtAverageMarshall 13%17% - 19%31%

66 RRASOR Scores & Recidivism Rates Score5 Years10 Years (Hanson, 1997)

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

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

69 Number of Adjudications & Recidivism Adolescent Sex Offenders 3 year Follow-Up No.NSex Recidivism % % % (Epperson, 2005)

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

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

72 RRASOR Prior Sexual Offenses Prior Sexual Offenses None0 1 Conviction; 1 to 2 Charges Convictions: 3 to 5 Charges2 4 or More; 6 or More Charges3 (Hanson, 1997)

73 RRASOR Age at Release Age at Release Victim Gender Only Females0 Any Males1

74 RRASOR Relationship to Victim Relationship to Victim Only Related0 Any Non-Related1 (Hanson, 1997)

75 RRASOR Score5 Years10 Years (Hanson, 1997)

76 RRASOR Score5 Years10 Years (Hanson, 1997)

77 Static99 RRASOR items 1. Number of Previous Charges & Convictions 2. Age at Release 3. Relationship to Victim 4. Boy Victims

78 Static99 1. Number of Sentencing Occasions 2. Index Non-sexual Violence 3. Previous Non-sexual Violence 4. Ever Lived with a Partner 2 Years 5. Non-Contact Sex Offense Conviction 6. Stranger Victims

79 Scores Versus Recidivism ScoreRiskN(%)15 Years 0,1Low257(24%)10% 2,3Med/Low410 (38%)18% 4,5Med/High290 (27%)38% 6+High 129 (12%)52%

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

81 Who is More Dangerous? Exhibitionism90% Exhibitionism90% Child Molestation30% Child Molestation30% Killing a Child20% Killing a Child20%

82 What Works?

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

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

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

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

87 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)

88 Impact of Length of Incarceration Difference in TimeMean Effect Size Between More & Less(Weighted for Sample GroupsSize) 1. < 6 Months to 12 Months to 24 Months > 24 Months.06 (Smith, 2002)

89 Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions (Andrews, 1998)

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

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

92 ATSA Collaborative Study Follow-up Periods Range1 month to 31 years Range1 month to 31 years Median46 months Median46 months

93 Recidivism Reconviction8 Reconviction8 Rearrest11 Rearrest11 Broad20 Broad20

94 Hanson Meta-Analysis Recidivism Follow-up = Years New Sex Offense13% New Sex Offense13% Any Offense37% Any Offense37% (Hanson & Bussiere, 1996)

95 ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Untreated N = 4298 All programs Sexual Sexual16.8%

96 ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated N = 5018 Untreated N = 4298 Odds Ratio All programs Sexual Sexual12.3%16.8%.81

97 ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated N = 5018 Untreated N = 4298 Odds Ratio All programs Sexual Sexual12.3%16.8%.81 General General27.9%39.2%.56

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

99 ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Untreated Only current programs Sexual Sexual17.4%

100 ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data TreatedUntreated Odds Ratio Only current programs Sexual Sexual9.9%17.4%.60

101 ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data TreatedUntreated Odds Ratio Only current programs Sexual Sexual9.9%17.4%.60 General General32.3%51.3%.57

102 When Does Treatment Work? Adults vs adolescentsEqually effective Adults vs adolescentsEqually effective Institutional vs CommunityEqually effective Institutional vs CommunityEqually effective


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google