The dynamic predictors of reconviction for women Rosie Travers and Ruth E. Mann This research was driven by a policy question about the extent to which rehabilitative services for women in prison or on probation need to be different to those provided for men: Do women and men have different risk factors for criminal behaviour that will demand different interventions? We examined the nature of the most prevalent and most predictive risk factors for reoffending in a sample of nearly 15,000 women and over 95,000 men on community sentences or leaving prison for whom we had Offender Assessment System (OASys) risk and need assessments. We were interested in whether or not there are risk factors that predict reoffending specifically for women.

Free AccessHeraclitus’ River and Recent Advances in Criminal PsychologyAlexander F. Schmidt and Ruth E. MannAlexander F. Schmidt Institute of Psychology, Social & Legal Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany Department of Psychology, Medical School Hamburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author and Ruth E. Mann Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, England and Wales, London, United Kingdom Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:May 14, 2018https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000327PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditE-Mail SectionsMoreBased on his doctrine of change being central to the universe, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus argued that nobody can step into the same river twice. Roughly 2,500 years later Canadian forensic psychologist Vernon L. Quinsey conjectured: “The universe is homogenous with respect to forensic institutions” (Harris, Rice, Quinsey, & Cormier, 2015, p. 18). According to the rules of syllogistic reasoning one might now be tempted to conclude that forensic systems worldwide are highly innovative places, constantly evolving with the aim to prevent criminality as successfully as possible. Strikingly, the debate that characterizes (scientific and common sense) discussions about rehabilitation has always oscillated between promoting rehabilitative approaches versus more controlling notions of “offender management” to tackle reoffending (Harris et al., 2015, chapter 1). Modern notions discussed on the forefront of offender rehabilitation theory can be traced back to (at least) already the late 19th century. For example, the description of the Ontario Reformatory at Penetanguishene for juvenile delinquents as laid out by its administrator remarkably resembles what contemporary strength-based offender rehabilitation approaches (e.g., the Good Lives Model; Ward, Mann, & Gannon, 2007) regard as conducive to prevent recidivism:(…) there may be seen the effects of introducing the modern and humane system which looks upon a boy as needing moral training and influence more than rigorous discipline; interesting and useful work, with proper recreation, more than hard tasks; home comforts and surroundings more than solitary cell; healthy food more than prison diet; a respectable dress rather than prison uniform. (Christie, 1882, p. 80, as cited in Harris et al., 2015, p. 20)(…) the major aim is to equip the offender with the skills, values, attitudes, and resources necessary to lead a different kind of life, one that is personally meaningful and satisfying (…) (Ward et al., 2007, p. 92)Such strengths-based approaches, however, remain insufficiently tested by empirical research (see Marshall, Marshall, & Olver, 2017, for an overview) to convince the unbelievers that they are better than punitive, controlling approaches, or even cognitive-behavioral risk-based approaches. Yet, driven by behavioral scientists’ aim to produce positive (i.e., publishable) evidence, a vast body of empirical data have been generated over the last 100 years on the fundamental question of “what works” in offender rehabilitation. And furthermore, this research has inevitably produced an informative but almost entirely overlooked byproduct as we now have a fair (and quite robust) idea of what does not work in offender rehabilitation (probably much better than we know what exactly it is that makes some offender rehabilitation programs work). However, we have arguably not yet sufficiently reflected on this evidence base to inform our understanding of the key features of successful versus unsuccessful approaches. Furthermore, by sticking to our academic ideals and humbly insisting in every study report we publish that “more research is needed” before anything is proven to achieve anything, we have played into the hands of those who wish to follow their intuition in deciding what kinds of approaches to invest in. As a consequence, the majority of Western jurisdictions continue to employ approaches that lack an evidence base – or worse even – have been found to have detrimental rehabilitation effects. In practice, the most prevalent answer to criminal behavior in the last decades has strongly shifted toward the punitive and custodial side, casting doubt that we are achieving the academic ideal of empirically-informed progression of forensic systems.As Editors, our shared interest in the division between empirical data and regular practice was the starting point for the present Special Section on recent advances in criminal psychology. We wanted to showcase research which we saw as having a direct implication for criminal justice practice. To begin, in their review of recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews, Barnett and Fitzalan Howard (2018) have used systematic review to compile robust evidence for both ineffective and detrimental (i.e., harmful) secondary and tertiary crime prevention approaches. Their review spans methodologically rigorous studies involving relevant control groups across a range of offense categories. Notably, as laid out above, most of the ineffective prevention approaches are regularly used in contemporary legislations and public sectors. Considering some intriguing theoretical notions, Barnett and Fitzalan Howard then hypothesize about the underlying psychological causes why these ill-designed approaches might not work in reducing criminal recidivism. Alongside their clear conclusions, we hope that their principles for failing interventions might function as a Trojan horse to facilitate dissemination of these seemingly counterintuitive results. Certainly, in our view, they have demonstrated an innovative approach to deriving additional principles of effectiveness from the vast offender rehabilitation literature. Indeed, the fact that in some instances people in criminal justice systems are subjected to mandatory rehabilitation regimens that are actually harmful in terms of reducing the very reasons that initially led to their placement is a vexing ethical (and potentially judicial) dilemma.Our second shared editorial interest is in sexual offending research, and we wished therefore to highlight work that brought new insights to the understanding (and management in case of offenders) of people who do (or do not) commit such offenses. Specifically, as sexual offending frequently leads to lay and professional reactions that resemble moral panics (e.g., Ewing, 2011; Harper & Hogue, 2016; Rogers & Ferguson, 2011) we sought to add some intriguing empirically informed perspectives on the topic. Given that there is a constant increase in detection rates for sexual offenders who use, produce, and/or trade child sexual exploitation materials (i.e., child pornography), the comprehensive overview by Babchishin, Merdian, Bartels, and Perkins (2018) is timely. It pulls together principles from the fast-growing literature into this type of offending to clarify what practitioners and researchers alike need to know about this heterogeneous subgroup of individuals who sexually victimize minors and how these subtypes relate to other child sexual abusers. Babchishin and colleagues strongly recommend to distinguish offenders who exclusively use child sexual exploitation materials from child sexual abusers who also commit contact offenses against minors. Additionally, the fact that a majority of child sexual exploitation material offenders exhibit a remarkably low (official) reoffending risk is probably still not well known or believed. The data gathered here may not appeal to all belief systems, but they provide an impressive state-of-the-knowledge summary of the current research. Finally, the authors consider specific risk assessment measures and face the challenge to outline treatment recommendations for this increasing group of sexual offenders who largely present with low risk but create high anxiety among policymakers. Those trying to tread carefully between these two somewhat contradictory facts will assuredly welcome the careful attention to the issues found in this article. Those involved in research will appreciate the clarity with which present research gaps are pinpointed.Among the most widespread misconceptions about sexual offending is the idea that every individual with pedophilic sexual interests is a child sexual abuser and every child sexual abuser is someone exhibiting pedophilic sexual preferences. In fact, less than 40% of sexual offenders against children can be considered to exhibit actual pedophilic preferences (e.g., Schmidt, Mokros, & Banse, 2013; Seto, 2009). Historically, most research on sexual interest in children has been based on convicted child sexual abusers, which may have biased these estimates – potentially many non-offending individuals with pedophilic preferences could be living their lives with no need of concern from the criminal justice system. Only recently, research has turned to individuals with pedophilic interest from non-forensic community populations (e.g., Cantor & McPhail, 2016; Dombert et al., 2016). Based on the abovementioned stereotype, men with pedophilic sexual interests are among the most stigmatized group in the field of mental disorders (Jahnke, Imhoff, & Hoyer, 2015). Specifically, stigmatization of men with pedophilic sexual interests is probably the only stigma in the field of stigma research that is regarded as socially desirable behavior (Imhoff, 2015). In the present Special Section, Jahnke (2018) gives a thoughtful overview on the counterintuitive repercussions that are linked to stigmatization of individuals with sexual interest in children and their perception of stigmatization stress. Jahnke’s intriguing focal idea is based on the notion that stigmatization stress is indirectly linked to increased risk of future child sexual abuse. So, people who stigmatize pedophilic sexual interest, equating it with child sexual abuse, run the risk of creating the very outcomes they profess to condemn. Importantly, she not only identifies stigma-related problems for this specific population but then outlines clear guidelines for therapists willing to work with these individuals. It is difficult for men with sexual interests in children to find therapeutic help, as most therapists have not been trained to deal with this particular group and, thus, are hesitant to take up this clientele. This understandable reluctance is dovetailed by a remarkable dearth of treatment-specific literature on this topic, particularly as the prevailing clinical notion is that pedophilic preferences cannot be changed (but note a remarkable book by Schwarze & Hahn, 2016, that hopefully will be made accessible to an international readership soon; this book describes various relevant treatment aspects from the perspectives of skilled therapists, men with these sexual interests, and their relatives and friends).Sexual offender risk assessment is a highly relevant and popular research topic but research has somewhat stagnated of late, with the main “big hitter” assessment tools becoming so settled and accepted that the search for new risk factors could be said to lack enthusiasm. So we are delighted to include an article in this Special Section that opens up a new area within the risk assessment literature. Lehmann, Dahle, and Schmidt (2018) provide an overview of how crime scene behavioral indicators can inform the forensic assessment of sexual offenders. Importantly, they show how crime scene behavior substantially increases the validity of risk and sexual deviance assessments above and beyond standard actuarial approaches in the field. They introduce two specific assessment instruments to the reader along with forensic validation strategies that will be particularly helpful in cases where historical actuarial data are lacking (e.g., first-time offenders or offenders who only recently have migrated from other countries). As this line of research is a rather recent development, the authors discuss first implications for risk assessment, risk management, and treatment and identify important research gaps.Given the strong normative and moral connotations in forensic contexts, societies tend to cherish criminal prevention approaches that are primarily fueled by, on the one hand, humans’ normative desire to punish social transgression and, on the other hand, their preferred (lay) theories of how to influence human behavior. This has ever since paved the way for debates that are much stronger based on ideology than on empirical evidence. Criminal justice agencies therefore are still woefully prone to following their hearts in deciding what they should and shouldn’t do with the people in their care. However, interventions based on common sense and moral panic run the risk of fitting the description of correctional quackery (Gendreau, Smith, & Thériault, 2009). Such approaches are characterized by intuitive appeal coupled with an inability to effectively reduce reoffending or – even worse – iatrogenic increases in reoffending rates.Coming back to Heraclitus, one might indeed get the impression that larger parts of forensic systems are stepping in the same river twice (or even more often) and, thus, might be more accurately described as revolving instead of evolving systems. This is particularly obvious in the field of sexual offense prevention (e.g., Ewing, 2011) where (a) the emotional involvement of the public is high, (b) the felt need for politicians and policymakers is pressing, (c) the evidence for effective interventions is absent (e.g., Dennis et al., 2012), rather weak (e.g., Schmucker & Lösel, 2015), or indicates detrimental effects (e.g., Mews, Di Bella, & Purver, 2017), (d) empirical research is particularly difficult due to generally low recidivism base rates (e.g., Hanson, Thornton, Helmus, & Babchishin, 2016; Mews et al., 2017), while (e) the most prolific treatment theory indicates that treating low-risk offenders might actually be detrimental in terms of recidivism rates (Bonta & Andrews, 2016). We do not seek to criticize those who bow to pressures (a) and (b) above; instead, we have to sympathize with the difficulty of knowing what the right or best thing to do is, given the problems outlined in (c) to (e). It seems to be an obvious fact that empirical research alone is not the sufficient answer to all these conundrums. But it is the only way we can move forward in our understanding of what works, what doesn’t work, what helps, and what hinders. Therefore, in summary, we regard it as important to target and rigorously evaluate empirically accessible theoretical claims from crime prevention programs (Oberlader, Schmidt, & Banse, 2018). However, as data alone usually do not convince policymakers in changing the status quo, we wish to emphasize the importance of rigorously extracting patterns from available research, and viewing these patterns with an applied focus through the lens of psychological theory. Accordingly, we hope that the combination of empirical data and explanatory principles outlined in this Special Section will inform practitioners and decision makers, as well as scientists seeking to close research gaps. The shared vision for all must be the potential to continually adjust the course of criminal justice systems toward more effective crime prevention.Alexander F. Schmidt was a Professor for Legal Psychology at the Medical School Hamburg, Germany, and now is a senior lecturer at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany. His primary research interests include criminal psychology with a particular focus on sexual offender assessment and indirect latency-based measures of (paraphilic) sexual interests.Ruth Mann is a psychologist working for Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, England and Wales. Her research interests include the assessment and treatment of sexual offending, rehabilitation of people convicted of crime, and prison culture.References Babchishin, K. M., Merdian, H. L., Bartels, R. M. & Perkins, D. (2018). Child sexual exploitation materials offenders: A review. European Psychologist, 23, 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000326 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar Barnett, G. & Fitzalan Howard, F. (2018). What doesn’t work to reduce reoffending? A review of reviews of ineffective interventions for adults convicted of crimes. European Psychologist, 23, 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000323 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar Bonta, J. & Andrews, D. (2016). Psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). London, UK: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Cantor, J. M. & McPhail, I. V. (2016). Non-offending pedophiles. Current Sexual Health Reports, 8, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0076-z First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Christie, R. (1882). Fifteenth annual report by the inspector of prisons and public charities upon the common goals, prisons, and reformatories of the province of Ontario. Ontario, Canada: Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Dennis, J. A., Khan, O., Ferriter, M., Huband, N., Powney, M. J. & Duggan, C. (2012). Psychological interventions for adults who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12, CD007507. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Dombert, B., Schmidt, A. F., Banse, R., Briken, P., Hoyer, J., Neutze, J. & Osterheider, M. (2016). How common is males’ self-reported sexual interest in prepubescent children? Journal of Sex Research, 53, 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1020108 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Ewing, C. P. (2011). Justice perverted – sex offense law, psychology, and public policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Gendreau, P., Smith, P. & Thériault, Y. L. (2009). Chaos theory and correctional treatment – common sense, correctional quackery, and the Law of Fartcatchers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986209344552 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Hanson, R. K., Thornton, D., Helmus, L. M. & Babchishin, K. M. (2016). What sexual recidivism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 218–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574710 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Harper, C. A. & Hogue, T. E. (2016). Press coverage as a heuristic guide for social decision-making about sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23, 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1227816 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L. & Cormier, C. A. (2015). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risks (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Imhoff, R. (2015). Punitive attitudes against pedophiles or persons with sexual interest in children: Does the label matter? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 35–44. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00085 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Jahnke, S. (2018). The stigma of pedophilia: Clinical and forensic implications. European Psychologist, 23, XX–YY. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000325 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Jahnke, S., Imhoff, R. & Hoyer, J. (2015). Stigmatization of people with pedophilia: Two comparative surveys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0312-4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Lehmann, R. J. B., Dahle, K.-P. & Schmidt, A. F. (2018). Primer on the contribution of crime scene behavior to the forensic assessment of sexual offenders. European Psychologist, 23, XX–YY. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000324 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Marshall, W. L., Marshall, L. E. & Olver, M. E. (2017). An evaluation of strength-based approaches to the treatment of sex offenders. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 7, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-04-2017-0021 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Mews, A., Di Bella, L. & Purver, M. (2017). Impact evaluation of the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme. London, UK: Ministry of Justice. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Oberlader, V. A., Schmidt, A. F. & Banse, R. (2018). Methodische Herausforderungen in der Evaluation von Straftäterbehandlungsprogrammen [Methodological challenges in evaluating offender rehabilitation programmes]. In M. WalshB. PniewskiM. KoberA. ArmborstEds., Evidenzorientierte Kriminalprävention in Deutschland. Ein Leitfaden für Politik und Praxis [Evidence-based crime prevention in Germany. A guideline for politics and practice] (pp. 313–332). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Rogers, D. & Ferguson, C. J. (2011). Punishment and rehabilitation attitudes toward sex offenders versus nonsexual offenders. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 395–414). https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2011.570287 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Schmidt, A. F., Mokros, A. & Banse, R. (2013). Is pedophilic sexual preference continuous? A taxometric analysis based on direct and indirect measures. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1146–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033326 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Schmucker, M. & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 597–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9241-z First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Schwarze, C. & Hahn, G. (2016). Herausforderung Pädophilie – Beratung, Selbsthilfe, Prävention [The challenge of pedophilia – counseling, self-help, prevention]. Köln, Germany: Psychiatrie Verlag. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Seto, M. C. (2009). Pedophilia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar Ward, T., Mann, R. E. & Gannon, T. A. (2007). The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: Clinical implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.03.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google ScholarAlexander F. Schmidt, Social & Legal Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Binger Str. 14-16, 55122 Mainz, Germany, alexander.schmidt@uni-mainz.deRuth Mann, Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, England and Wales, London, United Kingdom, ruth.mann@noms.gsi.gov.ukFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byEuropean Psychologist’s 25th Anniversary Developments and PerspectivesKurt Pawlik, Rainer K. Silbereisen, Alexander Grob, Peter Frensch, and Kristen Lavallee8 January 2021 | European Psychologist, Vol. 25, No. 4 Special Section: Recent Advances in Criminal PsychologyVolume 23Issue 2May 2018ISSN: 1016-9040eISSN: 1878-531X Published onlineMay 14, 2018 InformationEuropean Psychologist (2018), 23, pp. 107-110 https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000327.© 2018Hogrefe Publishing

Sexual interest in children is one of the most strongly predictive of the known risk factors for sexual reconviction. It is an important aspect of risk assessment to identify the presence of such interest, and an important task for treatment providers to address such a sexual interest where it is present. It has been argued that understanding pedophiles’ deviant sexual interest in children can enhance risk assessment, management, and treatment planning. This research study aims to explore the phenomenology of deviant sexual interest in children, the impact it has on pedophilic offenders’ identities, and their views on the treatability of that interest. The study used semistructured interviews and repertory grids to make sense of participants’ experiences. The results revealed three superordinate themes: “‘living’ with a deviant sexual interest,” “relational sexual self,” and “possible and feared sexual self.” The analysis unpacks these themes and repertory grid analysis is used to explore a subset of participants’ identities in more detail. The results reveal that there needs to be an acceptance from both client and therapist that their sexual interest in children may never go away. Through this acceptance, clients could work on enhancing sexual self-regulation, recognizing their triggers, and so managing their sexual thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Implications for treatment are also discussed.

AbstractExamination of the contents of contemporary treatment programmes for sexual offending suggests that many could benefit from greater focus upon established risk factors. After consideration of possible reasons for gaps between evidence and practice, this chapter sets out a model of change and some organizing principles. It is hoped that the overall framework proposed – model of change and associated organizing principles – will encourage debate and permit the development of a new generation of treatment programmes that adhere better to the Risk, Need, and Responsivity principles of correctional rehabilitation and the biological, psychological, and social factors that underpin sexual offending than is currently the case.

Abstract In this chapter, we examine the evidence for the harmful cognitive components of sequences that lead to sexual offending. We assess the evidence to see which of the potential cognitive components have robust research support and which may have been falsely associated with sexual recidivism risk. The chapter sets out what we consider to be the most evidence‐based treatment targets for the cognitive component of cognitive–behavioural treatment. We then consider evidence‐based ways of changing or modifying offence‐relevant cognitions. It is our conclusion that certain cognitive phenomena, such as attitudes supportive of sexual offending and hostile world beliefs, should be addressed in sex offender treatment programmes, but that many programmes may spend too much time on unnecessary cognitive targets such as ‘taking responsibility for offending’ and developing victim empathy. Research on the effectiveness of different methodologies is limited and some approaches, such as schema therapy, can only be considered promising rather than proven. Other approaches, such as cognitive restructuring, have a stronger evidence base but there are also indications that the method may be misused in some programmes.

This chapter is primarily based on research from England and Wales, and referring to male sex offenders aged over 18. It discusses some of the reasons why sex offenders have become a separate subgroup within the prison population; how their experiences are different; and why they present particular dilemmas for prison managers and policymakers. The chapter demonstrates that there are many aspects of sex offender management where limited or no evidence exists, or where the evidence is so inconsistent that it is not possible to draw confident conclusions about the best policy to implement. It focuses on three issues that are of particular interest to the management of sex offenders in prison: the nature of their risk, the hostility that they face because of the nature of their offending, and the uncertainty about what constitutes effective treatment. Sex offenders face considerable public hostility and this stigma permeates throughout decision making about incarceration.

To aid risk assessment, management, and treatment planning it is essential to assess child sexual abusers’ deviant sexual interests (DSI) and preferences (DSP) for sex with children. However, measurement of DSI/DSP is fraught with psychometric problems. In consequence, research interest has shifted to latency-based indirect measures as a measurement approach to complement self-report and physiological assessment. Utilizing the Explicit and Implicit Sexual Interest Profile (EISIP)—a multimethod approach consisting of self-report, viewing time, and Implicit Association Test (IAT) DSI/DSP measures—we replicated phallometric DSI/DSP differences between child sexual abuser subgroups in a sample of intrafamilial, extrafamilial, and child pornography offenders. DSI/DSP was associated with recidivism risk, offense-behavioral measures of pedophilic interest, and sexual fantasizing. It also negatively correlated with antisociality. Distinguishing between child sexual abuser subtypes and being related to recidivism risk, the EISIP is a useful tool for sexual offender assessments.

This article considers factors that support or assist desistance from sexual offending in those who have previously offended. Current risk assessment tools for sexual offending focus almost exclusively on assessing factors that raise the risk for offending. The aim of this study was to review the available literature on protective factors supporting desistance from sexual offending. This article discusses the potential value of incorporating protective factors into the assessment process, and examines the literature on this topic to propose a list of eight potential protective domains for sexual offending. The inclusion of notions of desistance and strengths may provide additional guidance to the assessment and treatment of those who sexually offend. Further research investigations are recommended to consolidate the preliminary conclusions from this study regarding the nature and influence of protective factors in enabling individuals to desist from further offending.

Existing evidence suggests that offenders tend not to specialize in sexual offending in general but that there is some specialization in particular types of sexual offending. This study examined the sexual histories and reoffending of a large, national data set of offenders convicted of a sexual offense and managed in England and Wales by the National Offender Management Service (N = 14,804). The study found that specialization in sexual offending compared to nonsexual offending was most evident for offenders with convictions for accessing indecent images. We also found considerable evidence of specialization within sexual offending, most notably for noncontact offenders, especially again indecent images offenders. Crossover between sexual offense types was very rare for those with contact adult offenses and for noncontact offenders although those with child contact offenses sometimes crossed over to indecent images reoffending. If specialization within sexual offending exists, the use of single risk assessment instruments to predict all types of sexual recidivism may be less effective than previously assumed. A comparison of different prediction models indicated that some items presently used in one-size-fits-all risk tools to predict any sexual reoffending only effectively predict certain subtypes of sexual offending. Statistically there appear to be some potential benefits to creating specialist risk predictors for different subtypes of offending, but further work is needed to justify the implementation demands that would be caused by abandoning one-size-fits-all tools.

Viele Behandlungsprogramme für Sexualstraftäter konzentrieren sich anscheinend auf Ziele, die vielleicht gar keine Verbindung zu den Risiken haben, und dies manchmal auf Kosten empirisch untermauerter Risikofaktoren. Dieses Kapitel betrachtet mögliche Gründe für solche Lücken zwischen wissenschaftlichen Nachweisen und der Behandlungspraxis. Anschließend werden ein Veränderungsmodell und einige Ordnungsprinzipien für Behandlungsprogramme dargelegt, um diese an die Risiko-, Bedürfnis- und Ansprechbarkeits-Prinzipien der Straftäter-Resozialisierung anzukoppeln und auch die biologischen, psychologischen und sozialen Faktoren zu berücksichtigen, die sexuelle Straffälligkeit unterstützen.

Theories of offender motivation for treatment have proposed that external factors may be as important as internal factors in creating a state of readiness for treatment. This paper reports an exploratory study of the barriers to treatment for incarcerated sexual offenders. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interview and questionnaire data from treatment refusers and accepters suggested that refusers were less aware of the effectiveness of treatment, reported seeing negative side effects of treatment in others and felt they had a higher social status in prison which could be damaged by attending treatment. While this study does not demonstrate a causal link between these experiences and the decision to refuse treatment, it seems reasonable to suggest that take-up of treatment could be increased by more sustained efforts to build relationships with treatment refusers and by the provision of accessible information about treatment and its potential benefits.

A sexual offender is thought to have victim empathy when he has a cognitive and emotional understanding of the experience of the victim of his sexual offense. Most sex offender treatment programs devote significant time to developing victim empathy. The authors examine three meta-analytic studies and some individual studies that suggest victim empathy work is unnecessary, or even harmful. Service user studies, however, report positive reactions to victim empathy work. The authors conclude that the enthusiasm for victim empathy work as a rehabilitative endeavor is disproportionate given the weak evidence base and the lack of a coherent theoretical model of change. However, because the research is inconclusive, it is not possible to conclude that victim empathy work is "correctional quackery." We suggest a research program to clarify whether or not victim empathy intervention for sexual offenders has value.

Most empathy research in the forensic context has assumed that empathy has two components. In this two-component model, the cognitive component involves perspective taking, and the affective component involves experiencing appropriate emotion. In this review, we identify how this assumption has both dominated and limited empathy research with offenders, nearly all of which has been conducted with sexual offenders. We propose instead that five components are involved in the experience of empathy: perspective taking, the ability to experience emotion, a belief that others are worthy of compassion and respect, situational factors, and an ability to manage personal distress. We suggest that the non-situational factors that blocked empathy for the victim at the time of a sexual offense are probably other dispositions known to be related to sexual offending, such as sexual preoccupation, generalized hostility to others, implicit theories about children and sex, and/or poor coping with negative emotions. We conclude with directions for practice and research, and urge greater caution in correctional policies on victim empathy programs.

Criminal Behaviour and Mental HealthVolume 22, Issue 1 p. 7-10 Letter to the Editor In defence of NOMS' view about sex offending treatment effectiveness: A reply to Ho and Ross Ruth E Mann, Corresponding Author Ruth E Mann Ruth.Mann@noms.gsi.gov.uk National Offender Management Service (NOMS), London, UKRuth E Mann, National Offender Management Service (NOMS), London, UK. Email: Ruth.Mann@noms.gsi.gov.ukSearch for more papers by this authorAdam J Carter, Adam J Carter National Offender Management Service (NOMS), London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorHelen C Wakeling, Helen C Wakeling National Offender Management Service (NOMS), London, UKSearch for more papers by this author Ruth E Mann, Corresponding Author Ruth E Mann Ruth.Mann@noms.gsi.gov.uk National Offender Management Service (NOMS), London, UKRuth E Mann, National Offender Management Service (NOMS), London, UK. Email: Ruth.Mann@noms.gsi.gov.ukSearch for more papers by this authorAdam J Carter, Adam J Carter National Offender Management Service (NOMS), London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorHelen C Wakeling, Helen C Wakeling National Offender Management Service (NOMS), London, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 January 2012 https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1821Citations: 4Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume22, Issue1February 2012Pages 7-10 RelatedInformation