Class Notes (835,674)
Canada (509,326)
Psychology (2,710)
PSYC 3402 (135)
Lecture 8

Lecture 8.docx

33 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 3402
Julie Blais

Lecture 8 Outline - Scope/impact - Consequences for victims - Etiology- factors that might cause someone to become (distinguish between someone who has not offended who might offend) - Recidivism- person has offended and been caught, predicts who will continue to reoffend - Risk factors - Risk assessment - Treatment - Special populations - Legislated policies to manage high risk offenders Scope - Victim reports • Sexual assault  8 to 24% of women and 0.6 to 7% for men (Koss, 1993)  2% of Canadians (512,200 people)  Unwanted touching and assaults in last year (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008) • Child sexual abuse (Finkelhor, 1994)  20% of girls and 5 to 10% of boys Scope/impact (cont’d) - Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2007) • Reflects reported crime that has been substantiated through police investigation • In 2007, 24,200 incidents of sexual offences (73/100,000) • Sex offences are 1% of offenses that go through the CJS Sex offenses ~ 1% of all offenses - Most common (fail to comply with probation and parole) - .7 + .4 (even though it’s such a small proportion, it’s one of the ones people are most concerned about) Scope (cont’d) - Federal Sex Offenders - 2004 • 2,947 sex offenders under federal jurisdiction (Motiuk & Vuong, 2005) • 14% of federal offender population - Dec. 2006 • 12% of federal offender population • Although only 1% of crime, they make up 12% in jail (much more likely to get a sentence)- disproportionate Reporting of sex offenses - Average about 10% - Lowest rate for incest (if family member, least likely to report) - Serious sexual attack (more seriously injured, attacked by stranger) are more likely to report WHY DO THE MAJORITY OFVICTIMS NOT REPORT SEXUALOFFENSES? - Embarrassment, want to move on, protecting offender, fearful of repercussions Reasons given by victims - GSS • “Felt it was not important enough” [58%] • “Incident dealt with another way” [54%] • “Felt it was a personal matter” [47%] • “Did not want to get police involved” [41%] - Wolitzky-Taylor et al. (2011) • “Family would find out” • “Others would find out” • “Would be blamed” - More than half thought it wasn’t important enough (which is why more sexual assaults are more likely to be reported - Personal matter- don’t want others/police involved An extreme example… - Rape myths- beliefs that make the offending ok (held by offender and general public) Her majesty the Queen vs. Kenneth Rhodes (2011) - Mr. Rhodes and a pal met a couple of women outside a bar. They wearing high heels, tight tops and no bras. The women had talked about going swimming. Neither of them had a bathing suit. The victim rebuffed Rhode’s sexual advances three times that night, but got in his car where he later stopped in the middle of the highway to rape her. - She told him she was in pain; she asked if he was going to kill her. "It will only hurt for a little while," he said - Offender was not sentenced to jail (only got house arrest) Justice Dewar’s reason for sentencing - “I’m sure that whatever signals there were that sex was in the air were unintentional. But that does not change the fact that they were there, more than just a manner of dress… And they are a relevant, mitigating factor…” - “ …This is a case of misread signals and inconsiderate behaviour... There were signals given by the circumstances and indeed by the complainant, albeit the latter based upon self preservation, which ought not to be overlooked. This is not a case in which Mr. Rhodes’anticipation was groundless.” - “…had the characteristic of a clumsy Don Juan”… - Although she turned down his advances and said she was in pain, judge said there were signals (although many unintentional) but they were there ARE OFFICIAL RATES DECLINING/INCREASING/STAYING THE SAME? UCR police-reported sexual offenses - Rates have been declining since the peak in the early 90s - The climb in the 80s is steeper than other offenses; otherwise the pattern is similar to crime in general - Because victims were more likely to report the offenses because people were becoming more aware of sex - 1984 sex offense laws were broadened (before that it was not an offense to rape your wife/ only counted if it was vaginal penetration) - Sexual assault is much more inclusive Child sexual abuse in Catholic church - Year when alleged abuse began • Increases through 1950s, peaks late 1960s up until around 1980. Dramatic drop from 1980s until 2002 - Year when alleged abuse reported • Negligible reports in 50s-70s. ~5X increase in 1980s, then ~4X increase in 1990s until 2002 Child sexual abuse - 1990-2004, sexual abuse substantiations down 49% (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006) - At least two self-report victimization surveys with children show decreases in sexual victimization in the 1990s (Jones & Finkelhor, 2003) Other indicators of negative childhood experiences show declines - Jones & Finkelhor, 2006 • Declines in physical abuse substantiations, sexual assault victimization among teens, other violent crimes victimization among teens, juvenile victim homicides, and domestic violence - Finkelhor & Jones, 2006 • Declines in teen suicide, running away, juvenile delinquency, and teen pregnancy - Correlated with sexual abuse in childhood, all seem to be declining Possible reasons for decline - Demographic Factors • Aging population • Obesity and other health-related issues (old, fat, and sedated- ain’t nobody want that) • Cultural and Societal Changes  End of sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll  Awareness: children supervised differently • Economic prosperity in 1990s • Better sex offender management and treatment - Why are rates going down? More access to prom, people are being held accountable, older population Consequences for victims - Compared to non-victims, victims are more likely to experience a variety of problems (Beitchman et al., 1992; Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Paolucci et al., 2001; Resick, 1993); e.g.: • Post-traumatic stress disorder • Depression • Sexual functioning  Lack of desire -> Preoccupation with sex  Some lack desire for sex while others are complete opposite and preoccupied with sex  Risk-taking, compulsive sexual behaviour, low sexual satisfaction - Increase frequency of problems if: • 6-18 yrs when abused, injured during abuse, >1 abuser, incest offence (Easton et al., 2011) WHAT ISATYPICALSEX OFFENDER? - Male, masculine, white, low education, weird, and creepy Profile - Most offenders are young - based on official rates • 12-17 years old = 90 per 100 000 • 18-34 years old = 55 per 100 000 - Average age in federal = 44 years of age - Majority (69.1%) are Caucasian (23%Aboriginal) - Most offenders who victimize children are related to the child - Most offenders who victimize adults are acquaintances - Most offenders are males (90-97%) Heterogeneity - Offender Age (young, elderly) - Victim Type (age, gender) - Victim Relationship (stranger, related) - Competence (cognitive impaired, socially skilled) - Work history (unemployed, professionals) - Date of offence (historical, recent) - Degree of Violence (touching, torture) Types of sex offenders - Rapist: adults - Extrafamilial Child Molester: unrelated children - Intrafamilial Child Molester: only related children (a.k.a. Incest offenders) - Non-contact offenders: exhibitionists, voyeurs - Often make distinction between rapist (older victim) and pedophiles (2 types extra- outside family, inter- in family) WHY? - Many reasons. Sexually abused as a child, feel they can’t get sex, gotten away with it before, substance abuse Theory - Negative childhood insecure attachment low self-confidence, poor self-regulation, and inadequate social skillsblockage from appropriate sexual/emotional partners deviant sexual interests and attitudes supportive of sex offendingsexual abuse of children or rape of adults - Pedophilia may be result of malfunction in developing brain - From an evolutionary perspective, rape may have been “adaptive” for some men in some situations RESEARCH ON ETIOLOGY - Whatever the groups are different, it’s a presumption of what caused them to become an offender Challenges - Retrospective correlational studies are usually the only option • Comparison group? • Did x cause them to offend or did their offending cause x or did something else cause both x and offending? - Measures with unknown construct validity • What does it mean when there are no differences on a measure? Deviant sexual interests - Child molesters > non-molesters in sexual arousal to children (e.g., Harris, Rice, Quiinsey, & Chaplin, 1996) • Child molesters have more sexual arousal around kids - Rapists > non-rapists in sexual arousal to rape (Lalumiere & Quinsey, 1994) • Violence fails to inhibit arousal? • Rapists have more sexual arousal than molester (it’s rare for a rapist to have a preference for violent sex or sex it’s more that stuff doesn’t inhibit them) ex: normal relationship if partner says it hurts, will turn other partner off, but rapists want sex whether consent or not) How do you measure sexual interests? - Penile plethysmography (PPG) • Positive: Widely used, large research base • Negative: Ethical concerns, intrusive, expensive, lack standardization, low responders, faking • Looks at pictures of sexually explicit or listen to scenarios and then there is a machine measuring the circumference in the penis - Self-report measures (what turns you on) • Positive: Easy to administer • Negative: Social desirable responding, access to cognition • Not always truthful or be good at articulating interests - Indirect measures (viewing time, IAT [implicit association tests]) • Positive: Hard to fake a socially desirable response, inexpensive • Negative: Construct validity unclear • Computer, individual is shown images of naked of people and each image they must rate how sexually attractive it is (the amount of time they pause on the photo is being measured ) and then you can pick up what they are interested in • Women: may say it is revolting and disgusting but their body shows arousal (there is a disconnect between self report and physiological) Sexual interest in children - Af = adult female: highest - Child molester say they are interested inAF but actually show highest for children on PPG PPG: arousal to rape - Community men and violent offender: highest rate to consenting sex - Rapist: respond to anything with sex (same for consensual and non-consensual) - Sadism: very rare Childhood sexual abuse - Jespersen et al. (2009) meta-analysis • Sex offenders > non-sex offenders - Among CMs, CSAassociated with greater sexual attraction to children (Freund & Kuban, 1994; Jespersen et al., 2009; Lussier et al., 2005) - Only about 30% sex offenders has a history of CSA(but studies range from 15-82%; Jespersen et al., 2009) Psychopathy - Abracen, Looman, Di Fazio, Kelly, & Stirpe (2006); Porter et al. (2000) • CMs < Rapists and nonsex violent offenders  Psychopathy is more for rapists (child molester have lower levels than all offenders) • Rapists = nonsex violent offenders  Rapists similar levels as violent offenders which is higher than most Heterosocial competence - Dreznick (2003) meta-analysis - More for child molesters - Have deficit in this area, difficulty forming meaningful relationships with people their age (rapists don’t have trouble) - Heterosocial competence = “the ability to competently interact with members of the other sex” (p. 170) • Child molesters < non-sex offenders • Rapists = nonsex offenders Attitudes and beliefs - Believing children are sexually motivated and interested in sex with adults • Child molesters > non-sex offenders (Bumby, 1996; Mihailides et al., 2004) - Believing women deserve or are complicit in rape • Rapists > non-sex offenders (Bumby, 1996) - Hostility to women • Rapists > non-sex offenders (Walker et al., 1993) Neurodevelopmental perturbation - > Brain trauma (Blanchard et al., 2003) - Pedophiles………. • Lower IQ (Cantor et al., 2008) • Lower verbal memory (Cantor et al., 2004) • > Left-handedness (Cantor et al., 2005) • Are shorter (Cantor et al., 2007) - Suggests this is something they are born with SEXUALRECIDIVISM Recidivism rates of sex offenders - From 27 to 84 studies with mean follow-up of 5 to 6 years (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004) • Sexual = 13.7% • Non-sexual violent = 14% • Any violent (including sexual) = 25% • Any = 36.9% Sexual recidivism rates (k = 73, n = 35,522) Representative samples? - Most studies oversample higher-risk offenders - Study combining 4 Canadian samples (Hanson et al., 2012) • 77% of sample serving federal sentence • Adult criminal court records: only 11% of sex offenders get federal sentence More representative estimate - Helmus, Hanson et al., 2012 - Meta-analysis: 23 samples, 8,106 offenders - Most sex offenders expected to have 5-year recidivism rates of 7% or less - Although the rates of offending are low, you can still identify who is more likely to reoffend PREDICTORS OF SEXUALRECIDIVISM Static factors - Sexual recidivists were more likely to have prior offense, the older, never married in past Interaction between sexual deviance and antisocial orientation - Sexual deviance and psychopathy interact in predicting sexual recidivism (e.g., Harris et al, 2003; Rice & Harris, 1997) - The combination of the two factors appears to greatly elevate risk of sexual recidivism - Psychopathy and deviant sexual interest = the combinatio
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 3402

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.