Sexual Offenses Assessment & Treatment

pathfinders criteria of consent

consenting parties must be intellectually equal (similar intellectual maturity and capacity)

can only be given with an explicit statement (not assumed)

cannot be obtained via bribery, threats, coercion, or direct force

When did the public’s focus on non-sexual violent crimes (80s-90s, conincided with the War on Drugs) shift towards sexual and mentally-disordered offenses?

early 2000s

early studies like Rice et al. (1990) found the PCL-R to be predictive of SR with a correlation coefficient of ____.

r = 0.31 for men previously convicted of rape

the early Rice et al. (1990) found that the SORAG was correlated to ____ for SR but also to _____ for VR

r = 0.45

r = 0.46

In early studies, what was found to be the most predictive of SR?

PCL-R score

PPG

previous conviction of sexual or violent offenses

having a male or child victim

never being married

Later research on the SORAG (Barbaree et al., 2001) found that it had a ____ correlation to SR and that the PCL-R had a _____ correlation to SR and was only useful for predicting SR of what type of offender?

r = 0.17

r = 0.09; men convicted of rape and no other sexual offenses

Rice & Harris (2002) found that both the VRAG and SORAG (specifically for sexual offenses) predicted SR & VR at _______ rates

comaprable (not good for the SORAG)

Firestone et al. (1998) found that men convicted of rape had a _____ correlation for SR when using the PCL-R

r = 0.0

Sjostedt & Langstromn (2002) used 4 different risk instruments on Swedish men convicted of rape and found that _____% had recidivated and the PCL-R had ______ to predict at a correlation of _____.

20%, failed, r = -0.12

early 2nd gen methods to predict SR measured what, using what tool?

deviant/illegal sexual arousal

PPG measured changes in blood flow to the penis during visual presentation of various stimuli

shortcomings of PPG

lack of standardization

financial cost, required training

personal intrusiveness

potential cost of false positives and negatives

controlled responses within a laboratory and justice setting

correlation of the PPG to SR

r = 0.22-0.28

What was the issue with using the PPG with youths?

aroused to neutral stimuli lead to trouble establishing a baseline for arousal

alternative 1st gen SR assessment

self-report measures

determining preference by use of known sexual history (type of victim is not consistenly related to preference)

deviant sexual preference

Dr. Seto used _____ _____ to assess sexual deviance. How did it work?

screen time

measured length of time remaining on each slide using microtiming which was compared to the offender’s individual time and to population averages and by tracking eye movement

What percentage of sexual offenders against children had pedophilic interest

50%

prevalence of minor-attracted people in gen. pop

1-5%

DSM-V Criteria of Pedophilia

Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense, and sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child

Individual has acted on these sexual urges OR sexual urges or fantasies cause distress or interpersonal conflicts

Person is at least 16 years old and at least 5 years older than the child(ren) as identified in the first criteria (Excludes people who are in late adolescence who are involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12/13 year old)

Cantor & McPhail (2016) Pedophilia study

self-selected sample

1.8% of males and 0.8% of females have sexual fantasies involving children under 12

1st German pedophilia study

self-selected male sample

2.4% reported sexual excitement during sexual fantasies involving children and also reported having no history of sexual contact with a child

6/~9000 reported seeking psychological services/assistance regarding their sexual preferences

2nd German pedophilia Study

26% reported being intensely aroused

~5% reported a lot of distress to their preferences

twin pedophilia study

1% reported pedophilic interests

5.7% reported hebophilic interests (12-14 years)

10 men of the 5.7% reported having had sexual contact with a child, 96% reported having not had/avoided sexual contact with a child

genetic component of pedophilia is <14%

nonshared environment accounts for 84.5% of the variance

for determining base rate, what kind of measurement was used?

arrests and charges for sexual offenses (instead of convictions used for general and violent offenses)

why do sexual offenses have a low base rate (high chance of false negative)?

victims less likely to report (due to taboo, victim blaming, misogynistic cultures in support of rape, knowing their offenders)

physical evidence was relatively scarce

high amounts of acquittals due to lack of direct evidence and reasonable doubt

intentional solutions to increase SR rates

used longer follow-up times to assess recidivism (false positives become true positives) from 4 years to 6-10 years using charges/arrests as criteria for measurement

(Prentky et al., 1997) findings about recidivism rates with longer follow-ups (men with rape offenses)

19% recidivated after 5 years

26% after 20 years

39% after 25 years

(Prentky et al., 1997) findings about recidivism rates with longer follow-ups (men with child molestation offenses)

19% recidivated after 5 years

30% after 10 years

52% after 25 years

Unintentional Solutions to Inflate SR Rates

legal criteria of SA was modified and designed to bring greater scrutiny and sentencing to sexual behaviors that were less physically violent

SA plea bargains reduced frequency of not guilty verdicts (higher conviction rates)

2nd Gen SR assessment

RRASOR

Static-99

RRASOR (rapid risk assessment for sexual offense recidivism)

scores range from 0-6

0-1 = low risk, 4-5 = high risk, no one score a 6

correlation between RRASOR and SR

r = 0.27

RRASOR correlation to VR

r = 0.20

Static-99

10 item static risk scale

more widely used than RRASOR

correlation between Static-99 and SR

r = 0.33

correlation between Static-99 and VR

r = 0.32

shortcomings of 2nd gen assessment tools

static measures are atheoretical (doesn’t help understand the nature of risk, just based on empirical relationship)

does not reflect dynamic nature of risk

overly simplistic and consisted of few risk items

shortcomings of 3rd gen assessment tools

had a strong (and sometimes stronger) relationship with VR than SR (i.e. not specific to sexual offenses)

base rates of SR were extremely low compared to VR (high chance of overpredicting recidivism)

Olver & Wong 2002 findings showed that what were factors helped to identify the most high-risk individuals

sexual deviance (measured by PPG) and psychopathy

what were the MOST significant factors to predicting SR of adult men according to a 2015 meta-analysis

non-compliance to supervision

psychopathy (specifically factor loading 1)

beliefs and attitudes associated with sexual offending against adults & rape myths

emotional congruence with children

what were the modest factors to predicting SR of adult men according to a 2015 meta-analysis

self-regulation difficulties

atypical sexual interest in children

psychopathy (specifically factor loading 2)

what were the other factors to predicting SR of adult men according to a 2015 meta-analysis

sexual preoccupation (high sex drive/obsession with sex)

atypical sexual interest in adult sexual violence

beliefs and attitudes associated with sexual offending against children

shortcomings of Static-99

overly simple and static

no theory or ability to assess change

are two people who receive the same score similar (only 10 items)

Erasor (2nd gen)

Simplistic and heavily based on static items

No theory and no structured guidance to asses change

Lots of risk factors

Mix of static, dynamic, and environmental factors

3rd & 4th gen assessment

VRS-SO on a scale of 0-72

very low risk (level I) VRS-SO

score of 0-14.5

risk of recidivism after 5 years = less than 3%

risk of recidivism after 10 years = less than 5%

below average (level II) VRS-SO

score of 15-23.5

risk of recidivism after 5 years = 3-6.9%

risk of recidivism after 10 years = 5-10.9%

average risk (level III) VRS-SO

score of 24-39.5

risk of recidivism after 5 years = 7-14.9%

risk of recidivism after 10 years = 11-19.9%

above average risk (level IVa) VRS-SO

score of 40-49.5

risk of recidivism after 5 years = 15-24.9%

risk of recidivism after 10 years = 20-34.9%

well above average risk (level IVb) VRS-SO

score of 50-72

risk of recidivism after 5 years = greater or equal to 25%

risk of recidivism after 10 years = greater or equal to 35%

what are examples of static factors on the VRS-SO that make an offender higher risk?

unrelated to their victim

greater diversity in their victims

new addition to VRS-SO is _________. why is this important?

factor analysis (1, 2, or 3)

heterogenous offenders (do not commit crimes for the same reasons, differnt types of offenders)

factor 1 of VRS-SO

sexual deviance

factor 2 of VRS-SO

criminality (antisocial)

factor 3 of VRS-SO

treatment compliance

continued stumbling block of SR prediction after 3rd gen assessment tools

heterogenous subgroups of offenders (type of SO and motives are separate)

almost no one got a high score across all or most items

people with similar scores vary dramatically in how they obtained their scores and may differ in their levels of risk

differences within and between subgroups of offenders

who is the lowest risk group of SR

heterosexual incest offenders

different types of SO groups

pedophilic and non-pedophilic child offenders

antisocial/rapist offender

exhibitionist/fetish offender

female sexual offender

pedophilic and non-pedophilic child offender subgroups

sexual preference for children (emotional congruence with children)

opportunistic offender against children (incest adult or adolescent offender against accessible child/sibling)

antisocial/rapist offender subgroups

Generally antisocial and violent

Sexually specific violence (sadism)

Relationship specific (angry relational aggression)

female sexual offender subgroups

co-offender

teacher/lover offender

youth sexual offender profile

no history of substance abuse

no history of other criminal behavior

attire and present as geeky

few/no friends

few athletic/social activities

are polite and quiet with clinicians

the type of youth sexual offending is most-likely to be…

opportunistic offenses against a non-preferred sexual target who is younger

sense of desperation combined with sexual and social frustration

catastrophize that this is their only opportunity to ever experience sex

___-___% of all youth who commit a sexual offense will never recieve a 2nd offense charge or conviction

5-7