Content uploaded by Jill S Levenson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jill S Levenson on Jul 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Jill S Levenson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jill S Levenson on Jun 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Myths and Facts about Sexual Offenders:
Implications for Treatment and Public Policy
Timothy Fortney
1
, Jill Levenson
2
, Yolanda Brannon
3
& Juanita N. Baker
4
1
Florida Institute of Technology,
2
Lynn University,
3
Florida Institute of Technology,
4
Florida Institute
of Technology
[Sexual Offender Treatment, Volume 2 (2007), Issue 1]
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent perceptions about sexual offenders
are based on empirical evidence or misconceptions.
Background: Sexual offenders have often been under the spotlight of media attention and public
censure. Legislatures in the United States and abroad have passed increasingly restrictive and
intrusive laws in order to protect the public from convicted sexual offenders. Sex offender policies
are often passed hastily and are not based on scientific evidence but on emotional reactions to high
profile, violent, disturbing cases.
Method: Data were collected in Brevard County, Florida from 192 community members and 125
sexual offenders in outpatient treatment, all of whom were surveyed regarding their knowledge
about five common themes. Comparisons between groups were analyzed, as were comparisons
between participants responses and published data.
Results: Results revealed that both sex offenders and the public overestimated the rate by which
strangers victimize children, and overestimated the number of sex offenders who were victims of
sexual abuse in childhood. Both offenders and the public overestimated the number of sex crimes
that come to the attention of authorities. The public more extensively than offenders overestimated
the frequency of sexual recidivism rates and underestimated the efficacy of sexual offender
treatment in comparison to the literature.
Conclusions: Common misconceptions may interfere with offenders treatment and reintegration
into society as well as influence legislatures to pass laws that are misguided and inefficient.
Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
Key words: sex offender, public perception, sexual abuse, myths, misconceptions, public policy
Sexual victimization has become one of the most publicized issues of our time (Edwards & Hensley,
2001). Sexual assault of children and adults is now recognized as a common and deleterious social
problem which impacts victims, their families, and communities (Briere & Elliot, 2003). Sex
offenders are often under the spotlight of media attention and public scrutiny, however many of the
preconceived notions surrounding sexual abuse appear to be based on misconceptions rather than
empirical evidence (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2000; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, &
Baker, 2007; Levenson & D'Amora, 2007; Zgoba, 2004). Given the enormous attention that is paid
to sexual offenders, both in the U.S. and internationally, there is a specific need for more accurate
information to be disseminated to the public. Public policies informed by scientific evidence are
more likely to be effective in achieving goals of community protection (Levenson & D'Amora, 2007).
In fact, evidence-based treatment and social policy is the most ethical approach and should be a
goal for all practitioners and lawmakers (Douglas, Cox, & Webster, 1999; Grove & Meehl, 1996).
Because public perception can influence policy development (Sample & Kadleck, 2006; Zgoba,
2004), it is important to gain an understanding of the degree to which community members
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 1 of 17
demonstrate valid knowledge about sex offenders. As well, in order to more effectively provide
therapy, it is essential to explore the way in which sexual offenders themselves incorporate the
negative stereotypes perpetuated about them in the media and popular culture. The present study
investigated the knowledge of both the general public and sexual offenders about sexual abuse in
five critical areas: 1) who commits sexual offenses; 2) the rate at which offenders come to the
attention of authorities; 3) the rate at which sex offenders were sexually victimized in childhood; 4)
recidivism rates; and 5) treatment efficacy.
Background
Who commits sexual assaults?
Having a realistic awareness of who commits sexual offenses can help to foster a more
comprehensive appreciation of the phenomenon of sexual abuse in society. Though most
contemporary sex offender policies have been inspired by random acts of sexual violence against
children, researchers have established that individuals known to the victim commit the vast majority
of sex offenses (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997;2000). The Department of Justice reported that
34% of sexually abused minors were assaulted by relatives and 59% of their perpetrators were
acquaintances (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). About 49% of victims under the age of 6 are
abused by family members and only 7% of sex crimes against minors are perpetrated by strangers
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Comparatively, in 73% of adult sexual assault cases, the
perpetrators were relatives or acquaintances, with 27% described as strangers (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2000). This phenomenon appears to be consistent cross culturally. For instance, in a
study of 414 secondary students in South Africa it was found that friend was the most commonly
described perpetrator of all types of sexual abuse (Madu & Peltzer, 2001). Therefore, though laws
are most often designed to prevent sex crimes by strangers, victims are much more vulnerable to
assaults by known perpetrators.
Rates of detection
In 2004, nearly 210,000 rapes and sexual assaults occurred in the U.S. involving victims over the
age of 12 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Sexual crimes, like most crimes, tend to be
under-reported, and actual victimization rates are believed to be much higher than rates of
detection. Though 50% of violent crime victims over age 12 contacted the police, only 36% of the
sexual assault victims over age 12 reported the crime to authorities (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2005). Sexual abuse of young children is even more likely to go unreported for many reasons,
including dependence on caretakers, minimal interaction with outside protectors, underdeveloped
cognitive abilities, and diminished capacity to articulate (Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005;
Fontanella, Harrington, & Zuravin, 2000). Studies using polygraph examinations to elicit disclosures
have found that sex offenders have often committed sex crimes that went undisclosed and were
never reported to police or child protection agencies (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, & English, 2000;
English, Jones, Pasini-Hill, Patrick, & Cooley-Towell, 2000; Heil, Ahlmeyer, & Simons, 2003).
Official reports are therefore likely to underestimate actual incidence of sexual violence, and rates of
detection for sex crimes against young children are probably lower than the 36% described by the
Department of Justice.
Childhood sexual abuse reported by sex offenders
Research has revealed a wide variation in the estimated incidence of childhood sexual abuse
among offenders (Hanson & Slater, 1988; Hindman & Peters, 2001; Schwartz, 1995). It is often
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 2 of 17
assumed that early sexual maltreatment creates a cycle of abuse that will be repeated when the
child becomes an adult. Among incarcerated criminals, 45% described themselves as being the
victim of sexual assault (Schwartz, 1995). Becker and Murphy (1998) estimated that 30% of sexual
offenders were sexually abused as children. An earlier study (Groth, 1979) found that 63% of
incarcerated sex offenders reported being sexually abused as children or being pressured into
sexual activity by an adult. A meta-analysis of empirical studies containing a total of 1,717 subjects
found that 28% of sex offenders reported a history of childhood sexual abuse, (Hanson & Slater,
1988) significantly greater than the 17% rate of sexual victimization of boys in the general
population suggested by Hunter (1990). Results of another study showed that 67% of sex offenders
initially reported experiencing sexual abuse as children, but when polygraphed, the proportion
dropped to 29%, suggesting that some men may fabricate or exaggerate early childhood trauma in
an attempt to rationalize their behavior or gain sympathy from others (Hindman & Peters, 2001). A
review of all published empirical articles written in English after 1989 found that the average child
sexual abuse rates in the general public were about 17% for women and 8% for men (Putnam,
2003). So, in general the research suggests that slightly less than a third of sex offenders report
childhood sexual victimization, which appears to differ markedly from reported rates in the general
population.
Sex offense recidivism rates
Approximately 1-2% of adult males will eventually be convicted of a sexual assault, but this does not
mean that they are all equally likely to repeat their crimes (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson &
Morton-Bourgon, 2005). Recidivism rates vary based on the type of offense and other risk factors
such as offender age, degree of sexual deviance, criminal history, and victim preferences (Hanson
& Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Thornton, 1999). Nonetheless, sex offenders are often reputed to be
incorrigible and recent laws have been justified with testimonials that the majority of sexual
offenders will go on to reoffend.
In fact, most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually over time (Harris & Hanson, 2004). In a
longitudinal study that followed 4,724 known sex offenders over a period of 15 years, 24% were
charged with, or convicted of, a new sexual offense (Harris & Hanson, 2004). The U.S. Department
of Justice found that 5% of 9,691 sex offenders released from prison were re-arrested for new sex
crimes within three years (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). In two meta-analyses of 82 recidivism
studies involving over 29,000 sex offenders from the U.S., Canada, and Europe, recidivism rates
were observed to be 14% over four to six years (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson &
Morton-Bourgon, 2005). Contrary to oft-cited rhetoric, rapists are more likely to reoffend than child
molesters, with average recidivism rates of about 20% and 13% respectively (Hanson & Bussiere,
1998). The violent nonsexual recidivism rate has been tracked at 14% along with a general
recidivism rate of 36% after an average follow up period of 5 to 6 years (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
2005). International studies reveal similar recidivism rates including 13% over 12 years in a
Norwegian study, and 10% over 12-24 years in study based in Denmark (Grubin, 1997). Though
often thought of as the most persistent and dangerous criminals, sex offenders are among the least
likely criminals to recidivate or to kill their victims (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003; Sample, 2006;
Sample & Bray, 2003;2006). Despite these relatively low recidivism rates, there is a strongly held
public perception that sex offenders demonstrate a high probability of repeating their crimes
(Levenson et al., 2007; Levenson & D'Amora, 2007).
As follow up periods lengthen, the cumulative number of recidivists can only increase, though this
does not translate into a corresponding increase in the rate of recidivism. For sex offenders, as well
as all other criminals, the likelihood of repeating the crime diminishes with lengthier periods of time
that the person abstains from that behavior (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Thus, the proportional
recidivism rate five years after release from prison is much higher than the recidivism rate 15 years
after release. In other words, recidivists are most likely to reoffend within the first few years of
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 3 of 17
release.
Treatment Effectiveness
Empirical data describing the effectiveness of sex offender treatment are mixed. The randomly
designed Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP) study found no differences
between treated and untreated groups in sexual or violent reoffending of both rapists and child
molesters over an eight year follow-up period (Marques, Wiederanders, Day, Nelson, & van
Ommeren, 2005). When those who had successfully completed treatment goals were compared
with those who had not, however, there was a significant difference with treated groups
demonstrating lower recidivism rates (Marques et al., 2005). Other studies have concluded that sex
offenders who did not participate in psychological treatment had a higher recidivism rate (17%) than
those who received cognitive behavioral therapy (10%) (Hanson, Gordon, Harris, Marques, Murphy,
Quinsey, & Seto, 2002). Treatment for first time offenders seems even more promising; 9% of first
time offenders in treatment recidivated, compared to 27% of those who went untreated
(Nicholaichuk, Gordon, Gu, & Wong, 2000). So, while the treatment outcome literature is not
unambiguous, there is reason to believe that many sex offenders benefit from therapy and can learn
to control their behavior.
Public perceptions
Public perception surveys have typically focused on citizens opinions about community protection
policies. For instance, studies in Washington and Wisconsin found that most residents were familiar
with Megans Law and strongly supported community notification (Phillips, 1998; Zevitz & Farkas,
2000). Only one known investigation has directly surveyed community members to specifically
examine their knowledge about sex offenders. Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker (2007)
found widespread acceptance of myths related to sex offenders. For instance, on average, nearly
200 citizens surveyed in Florida believed that three-quarters of convicted sex offenders reoffend,
that two-thirds were sexually abused as children, that sex crime rates are on the rise, that sex
offenders reoffend at rates much higher than other criminals, and that half of treated sex offenders
will recidivate (Levenson et al., 2007). The current study expands on that research in two ways.
First, we describe the knowledge of community members as well as the knowledge of sex
offenders. Second, we examine the concordance of both groups responses with myths or facts by
statistically comparing their perceptions to empirical data found in the scholarly literature.
Comparing sex offenders and public perceptions
Since sex offending is kept secret and offenders often deny or minimize their deviance even to
themselves, they are reluctant to reveal their status to others. Of course, public notification has
increased awareness of sex offenders living among us, and extensive media attention often
highlights egregious or recidivistic cases. Therefore, sex offenders may seem to the public to be
unknown, different, mysterious, and very frightening. Attitudes toward sexual offenders perhaps
can be best understood in terms of theories of prejudice and stereotypes. The in-group, meaning
society, has stereotypical ideas about the out-group of sexual offenders. Often stereotypes are
formed in order to reduce fear and manage interactions, and can develop even from arbitrary
identifiable differences (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1988). Hostilities can readily escalate
between in-groups and out-groups especially when groups are competing to meet needs.
Information alone, or simply exposing hostile groups to each other, does not seem to reduce
prejudice (Sherif et al., 1988). Interaction and personal relationships with out-group members,
however, can contradict negative expectations, leading to positive relations, greater acceptance,
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 4 of 17
and lower levels of prejudice (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). This theory, known
as the extended intergroup contact hypothesis, can be applied to sex offenders and the public. If
sex offenders internalize the prejudices of society, then we should expect no significant differences
between sex offenders and the publics beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. On the other hand,
because sex offenders in treatment are exposed to education by their therapists, and also come in
contact with other sex offenders, a more accurate view of themselves and the problem of sexual
abuse might result.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to examine sex offenders and public perceptions about sex
criminals and sex crimes. It was hypothesized that inaccurate beliefs are prevalent among both
groups. Specifically, we postulated that 1) both samples will overestimate the rate at which
strangers assault victims; 2) both samples will over-report the rate at which offenders come to the
attention of authorities, 3) both samples will overestimate the childhood sexual abuse rates among
offenders, and 4) both samples will overestimate recidivism rates. Because offenders participating
in and paying for treatment may be invested in therapeutic intervention and believe that counseling
works to prevent recidivism, we hypothesized that 5) the public will underestimate treatment
effectiveness more than offenders. We examined the differences between both groups survey
responses and published empirical data. We also compared the publics responses to those of sex
offenders. Because sex offenders are exposed to the experiences of other offenders and
information from therapists, in accordance with intergroup contact theory, we expected that sex
offenders responses would differ from those of the public and would be less inaccurate.
There are two fundamental reasons why this research is important. First, public perception can have
an impact on the development of social policy (Sample & Kadleck, 2006; Zgoba, 2004), and an
understanding of common beliefs can help focus education efforts to address the misconceptions
that are most typically endorsed. Second, gaining insight into sex offenders views of themselves
can help guide treatment interventions. From a cognitive behavioral perspective, it is important to
understand the negative core beliefs that perpetuate dysfunctional behavior (Eldridge, 1998). This
research can help identify commonly held negative core beliefs in order to confront those distortions
and promote positive change (Marshall, Anderson, & Fernandez, 1999; Morin & Levenson, 2002;
Steen, 2001).
Method
Participants
This study was conducted by surveying 192 adults who were identified as non-sex offenders. The
data were collected from individuals waiting for services at Florida Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) offices in Brevard County, which is located on the east coast of Florida near the Kennedy
Space Center. The comparison group included 125 adult sex offenders attending outpatient
treatment facilities in Brevard County, Florida, most of whom were subject to sex offender
registration and notification laws. The sex offender sample was a purposive convenience sample.
The sex offenders included in this study lived throughout Brevard County but the public sample was
more centrally localized. According to the U.S. Census, Brevard County is populated by 519,387
citizens, with 20% older than 65, 22% under age 18, and a median household income of $40,099
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Caucasians comprise 87% of the countys population (8%
African-American, 5% Hispanic). In 2000, 86% of the adults residing in Brevard County had
completed a high school education. Compared to the census statistics, our public sample contained
more Hispanics (14%) but our offender sample was more consistent with census data (4%
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 5 of 17
Hispanic).
Demographic data such as gender, ethnicity, income, and prior sexual abuse characteristics are
reported in Table 1. This information was reported by participants. There were significant
differences in the gender distribution between the community and the offender sample, which
contained only three females. The samples also differed significantly in terms of income, ethnicity,
and education. Specifically, the public were higher earners, more ethnically diverse, and more
educated than the sex offenders.
There were significant differences between the groups regarding childhood sexual abuse, with the
offender sample endorsing a significantly higher abuse rate than the community sample. This
pattern was consistent even when females were omitted from the analysis due to the lack of
females in the offender sample.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Community and Sex Offender Samples
Offender Sample Public Sample
Differences
between
groups
Valid n Percent Valid n Percent
chi
2
(df = 1, N =
312)
Gender 95.9***
Male 117 97.5% 82 42.7%
Female 3 2.5% 110 57.3%
Race 12.7**
Caucasian 90 75% 130 69%
African American 12 10% 21 11%
Latino 5 4% 27 14%
Asian American 4 3% 5 3%
Other 10 8% 5 3%
Income 20.7***
Under 20,000 32 26% 21 11%
20,000 to 30,000 33 26% 41 21%
30,000 to 40,000 21 17% 35 18%
40,000 to 50,000 7 6% 25 13%
Over 50,000 22 18% 61 32%
Missing 10 8% 10 5%
Childhood Sexual Abuse 49 39% 41 21%
46 38% 15 18%
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 6 of 17
Childhood Sexual Abuse (male
only)
Years of Education Mean = 12.6 Mean = 13.7 t(301) = - 3.01**
Note. ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Within the sex offender sample, the average number of reported victims was 2.4. Characteristics
regarding the relationship to the victim, victim type, gender of the victim, and time in treatment are
listed in Table 2.
Within the sex offender sample, the average number of reported victims was 2.4. Characteristics
regarding the relationship to the victim, victim type, gender of the victim, and time in treatment are
listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Characteristics of the Sex Offender Sample
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Relationship to Victim Victim Type
Parent/Parent Role 14 11% Child <6 6 5%
Relative 19 15% Child 7-12 17 14%
Friend of Family 14 11% Teen 13-17 62 50%
Acquaintance 44 35% Adult only 11 9%
Stranger 21 17%
a
Child & Teen 9 7%
Not reported 13 10% Teen & Adults 1 1%
Child, Teen & Adult 5 4%
Not Reported 14 11%
Gender of Victim
Males 11 9%
Females 93 74% Mean SD
Both Genders 8 6% Number of Victims 2.4 4.5
Not Reported 13 10% Age of Victim 14 9
Months in Treatment 41 63
Note.
a
Those identifying victims as strangers were all internet related offenses.
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 7 of 17
Instruments
Self report questionnaires were developed to gather information from both the community and the
sex offender samples about perceptions of sexual offenders. The questions on both the offender
and the community questionnaires were parallel with minor variations needed to make it appropriate
for each sample. The offender questionnaire deviated from the community questionnaire as it also
asked additional questions about the nature of their offenses and history of sexual offending.
Identical demographic information was collected from both samples.
Participants were asked a series of questions designed to determine the accuracy of their
knowledge about sex offenders, recidivism, and sex crime statistics. The survey asked respondents
to choose an answer that best represented their belief on a scale that ranged from 0 to 100% in
increments of 10%. The mean response was then tabulated. For instance, participants were asked
What percent of convicted sex offenders do you believe will commit another sexual offense? and
were asked to choose the percentage that best represented their belief. The survey questions are
listed in Table 3. Participants were also asked to rate their agreement with statements describing
the effectiveness of sex offender treatment (see Table 5). These items were ranked on a Likert
scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being completely false and 5 being completely true.
Procedures
Informed consent was obtained according to ethical guidelines for human subject research, along
with a statement explaining anonymous participation. The questionnaires were confidential,
anonymous, and were approved by both a University Institutional Review Board and the DMV.
For the collection of data from the public sample, the participants were invited to voluntarily
participate in the anonymous survey in the waiting room of the DMV office. Researchers
approached individuals using a standardized script describing the purpose of the study and asking
for their participation. If the participant agreed to take part in the survey, he or she was presented
with a questionnaire and an informed consent form. The informed consent was reviewed with
participants and they were instructed to fill out the questionnaire without placing their name or any
identifying information on the questionnaire. Approximately three people who were approached
declined to answer the questionnaire because they were unable to read English comfortably, and
five were dropped from the sample after being self-identified as sex offenders.
Information from the sex offender sample was collected by clinicians in local sex offender treatment
programs who were provided with the rationale and purpose of the study and trained in data
collection procedures. They were first asked by the researchers if they could visit group therapy
sessions to invite clients to participate. Clients were assured of their confidentiality and that
participation was entirely voluntarily and in no way a condition of their treatment or probation. They
were provided questionnaires and letters of consent. The treatment provider then collected
questionnaires during group therapy sessions. Participants were instructed to place the completed
questionnaires in a self-addressed postage paid envelope. Treatment providers were also instructed
as to the confidential nature of the questionnaires. The researchers attended some treatment
sessions to observe compliance with standardized procedures.
Results
First, we asked about the number of sexual assaults committed by strangers. The offenders
reported that strangers commit 32% of sexual assaults against adults, and the community sample
believed that strangers are responsible for about 50% of victimizations (see Table 3). Offenders
reported believing that 46% of boys and 54% of girls are sexually abused by someone they know.
The community sample believed that 58% of boys and 63% of girls are sexually abused by a known
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 8 of 17
perpetrator.
Table 3: Differences between group responses and published data
Survey Question
Published
Data
Offender
Mean %
t-value
Offenders
Public
Mean
%
t- value
Public
What percent of sexual assaults of adults
do you believe were committed by
strangers?
27%
a
32% 2.6** 49% 15.2***
What percentage of sex offenders do you
believe come to the attention of the
authorities?
36%
b
43% 3.27*** 46% 7.84***
What percent of adult sexual offenders do
you believe were sexually abused as
children?
28%
c
54% 10.44*** 67% 25.7***
What percent of convicted sex offenders do
you believe will commit another sexual
offense?
14%
d,e
21% 4.5*** 74% 41.18***
What percent of rapists do you believe
re-offend in a sexual manner?
20%
d
34% 5.87*** 74% 34.64***
What percent of child molesters do you
believe re-offend in a sexual manner?
13%
d
27% 6.99*** 76% 42.31***
Note: t-value represents the difference between each group’s mean response and published data.
a
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002)
b
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005); 36% represents report estimates for victims over age 12.
c
(Hanson & Slater, 1988)
d
(Hanson & Bussiere, 1998)
e
(Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005)
In comparing the participants responses to published data we utilized the Department of Justice
finding that 27% of sexual assaults of adults are committed by strangers (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2002). Both the offender sample and the community sample significantly overestimated
the percentage of sexual assaults committed by strangers.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that both samples would believe that the majority of offenders will come to
the attention of authorities. Both groups beliefs about the rate at which sex offenses are detected
were compared to the Department of Justice finding that law enforcement is notified in 36% of all
rapes and sexual assaults of victims over 12 years old (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). While
neither group believed that the majority of sex crimes are reported, both groups significantly
overestimated the rate at which sex criminals are caught (see Table 3).
Hypothesis 3 postulated that both groups would report a belief that the majority of offenders were
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 9 of 17
sexually abused as children. The community and offender responses were compared to the findings
reported by Hanson & Slater (1988) that 28% of sex offenders were sexually victimized in
childhood. It was found that both the offender sample and the community sample significantly
overestimated the sexual abuse rates among offenders (see Table 3). We asked participants to
report their own sexual experiences before the age of 15, as asked by the question, When you
were under the age of 15 did you have a sexual experience with someone 5 or more years older
(e.g., touching of sexual areas, fondling, sexual kissing and hugging, and oral, vaginal, or anal
penetration, etc.)? We found that 38% of the male sexual offenders endorsed this statement,
compared to 18% of the male community sample, and this was a significant difference (see Table
1).
Hypothesis 4 was concerned with recidivism rates. The average public response indicated that
about three-quarters of sex offenders will go on to commit new sex crimes (mode = 90%). The
responses of the survey participants were compared to the findings of Hanson and Bussiere (1998)
and Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2005) who reported a remarkably consistent average sexual
recidivism rate of about 14%. These studies were selected due to their rigorous methodology and
large sample sizes. It was found that the offender group and to a much greater extent the
community sample both significantly overestimated the average recidivism rate for all sexual
offenders (see Table 3). Both groups perceived recidivism rates for rapists and child molesters
were then compared to the respective 20% and 13% rates found by Canadian researchers (Hanson
& Bussiere, 1998). Both groups significantly overestimated rates of recidivism (see Table 3).
The responses of the public sample were compared to those of sex offenders, and significant
differences were found between the groups (see Table 4).
Table 4: Differences between groups regarding common beliefs about sex offenders
Survey Question
Offender
Sample
Mean
Percentage
Public
Sample
Mean
Percentage
t-value
What percent of sexual assaults of adults do you
believe were committed by strangers?
32% 49% -6.80***
What percentage of sex offenders come to the
attention of authorities?
43% 46% -1.23
What percent of adult sexual offenders do you believe
were sexually abused as children?
54% 67% -4.8***
What percent of convicted sex offenders do you
believe will commit another sexual offense?
21% 74% -23***
What percent of rapists do you believe re-offend in a
sexual manner?
34% 74% -14.8***
What percent of child molesters do you believe
re-offend in a sexual manner?
27% 76% 19.42***
Note. ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 10 of 17
Hypothesis 5 looked at beliefs about treatment effectiveness. Both samples were asked to rate the
truthfulness (completely false, somewhat false, neutral, somewhat true, completely true) of the
following statement: Sex offenders who receive specialized treatment will commit another sexual
offense. Table 5 reports the frequencies of responses by group. The differences between the two
groups were statistically significant. Of the offenders, only 13% thought this statement was
somewhat or completely true, compared to 51% of community members.
Table 5: Responses to Sex offenders who receive specialized psychological treatment will commit
another sexual offense. This statement is...
Offender Sample,
n = 125
Community
Sample,
n = 192
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Completely False 43 36% 2 1%
Somewhat False 38 31% 24 12%
Neutral 24 20% 69 36%
Somewhat True 12 10% 78 41%
Completely True 4 3% 19 10%
Note: Differences between groups were significant. ?2(4, N =
313) = 110, p < .001.
Discussion
Overall, the results of this study supported the hypotheses and highlighted that the public
subscribes to popular myths about sex offenders. We found that both the general public and sex
offenders are generally misinformed on the topic of sexual abuse. As hypothesized, the public
tended to display more grossly exaggerated disparities from the research data. Sex offenders,
unlike most citizens, have extended contact with other sex offenders, and in therapy they receive
and share information in order to prevent reoffense and better cope with the societys prejudices
and restrictions. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have a more realistic view of sex crimes,
offender characteristics, victim-offender dynamics, and reoffending, supporting Wright, et al.s
(1997) extended intergroup contact hypothesis regarding prejudice.
The sex offenders and the community sample both overestimated the number of sexual offenses
committed by strangers. Myths of stranger danger ignore the disturbing reality that children are at
much greater risk for being sexually abused by adults that they know and trust than from predators
lurking in schoolyards. Current public policy tends to be passed in reaction to highly publicized
stranger abductions, especially those that result in sexually motivated murders of children.
Unfortunately these are poor cases on which to base social policies such as community notification
and residence restrictions, as they do not represent the most common scenarios in which children
are sexually molested. Until parents are better educated about the situations in which children are
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 11 of 17
likely to be abused, and the grooming patterns of offenders known to their victims, little can be
expected in terms of enhancing child protection from sexual violence with policies that emphasize
victimization by strangers.
For the offenders themselves, it is important that they receive accurate information as part of their
treatment programs. In the current study, all of the offenders were enrolled in treatment programs,
and yet they continued to underestimate the rates at which children are molested by someone that
they knew prior to the offense. Having an accurate picture of who is at risk can serve as a powerful
relapse prevention tool to help offenders recognize and avoid situations in which they have
opportunities to cultivate relationships for the purposes of grooming or re-offending. The
stereotypical fear of a creepy guy snatching a child from a playground or luring a youngster into a
car with promises of candy may allow sex offenders to continue to minimize their potential to
reoffend with distorted rationalizations: I would never do that.
Both groups appeared to overestimate the number of offenders who were themselves victims of
sexual abuse. Offenders, however, were more realistic in their impressions, perhaps due to some of
them knowing that they themselves were not abused nor were many others in their treatment
groups. Though the rate of abuse that our offenders reported is similar (albeit somewhat higher) to
the literature in this area and higher in comparison to males in the community, the public perception
that a majority of offenders are abused as children appears to be prevalent. Important to note is that
we did not ask whether respondents considered themselves to have been abused, but rather we
asked whether they had experienced sexual activity as a child or young teen with someone at least
5 years older. Males in particular do not always define such experiences as sexual abuse,
though such events meet statutory criteria for a sex crime in most states.
The adamant belief that sexual offenders recidivate at extremely high rates was certainly evident in
the responses of our public sample. The public overwhelmingly endorsed the belief that the vast
majority of offenders will be rearrested for new sex crimes, though published data consistently
indicate that, on average, less than a quarter will do so. Beliefs that treatment for sexual offenders is
ineffective were also prominent. Though we still have much to learn about improving the efficacy of
sex offender treatment, research does indicate that cognitive behavioral therapies hold promise and
that many offenders can benefit from psychological intervention (Hanson et al., 2002). If a more
balanced view of the benefits of treatment were known, lawmakers and the public might have more
confidence in the clinical community and be more willing to support rehabilitation efforts.
Furthermore, such information can be shared with offenders, perhaps bolstering their motivation
with the knowledge that many treated sex criminals are able to refrain from offending in the future.
These findings have important implications for policy and practice. Public perceptions about sex
offenders and sex crimes differ significantly from empirical data, so it comes as no surprise that
lawmakers and their constituents lobby for harsh punishments and intrusive monitoring for those
who seemingly pose a threat to community safety. The media tend to promulgate and reinforce the
perceptions identified here, often leading to misguided approaches that are fueled by anger and fear
rather than scientific evidence (Proctor, Badzinski, & Johnson, 2002; Sample & Kadleck, 2006).
Broad policies that treat all sex offenders equally despite their heterogeneity divert attention and
resources from monitoring the highest risk offenders. As a result, these laws are less likely to be
effective in enhancing public safety, and may inadvertently create a false sense of security for
community members.
In terms of rehabilitation, the economic and social marginalization of sex offenders resulting from
poorly developed policies can create psychosocial stressors that may increase dynamic risk for
reoffense. Negative moods, instability, and lack of social support have been associated with sexual
reoffending (Hanson & Harris, 1998;2001). Defiance theory suggests that harsh sanctions perceived
as unfair by criminal offenders can set up a counter-therapeutic reaction when offenders lament the
injustice of discrimination and rebel against societys iniquitous treatment of them (Sherman,
1993). In fact, conformity to the norms of society and desistance from crime are enhanced when
offenders are given opportunities for community integration, civic contribution, and investment in
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 12 of 17
prosocial roles such as employment, property ownership, and parenting (Kruttschnitt, Uggen, &
Shelton, 2000; Rowe, Kloos, Chinman, Davidson, & Cross, 2001; Sherman, 1993; Uggen, Manza, &
Behrens, 2004; Uggen, Manza, & Thompson, 2006). Ostracizing sex offenders may divert their
energies and attention from the real task of learning therapeutic skills and positive cognitions to
prevent future abuse, and leave them overly focused on their anger at society and sense of
unfairness.
The extent to which sex offenders accept and internalize the misconceptions identified here can
have an impact on the sex offenders self esteem, locus of control, and motivation for self
improvement. The offenders self esteem is fragile and vulnerable due to feelings of shame and
humiliation and public perceptions can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy (Anechiarico, 1998).
Clinicians should be aware that a humanistic counseling approach can counteract some of the
negative effects of a rejecting society (Jones, 1999) and that therapist validation and acceptance
can be instrumental in facilitating treatment progress (Marshall 2005). Therefore it is important for
practitioners to have an accurate understanding of the nature and pervasiveness of an offenders
misconceptions to adequately plan treatment interventions.
Harris and Hanson (2004) made several important arguments for changes in the manner in which
sex offender management is conducted. For instance, they noted that allocating the majority of
resources to offenders at highest risk for relapse better serves the public. Conversely,
over-pathologizing offenders and imposing higher levels of treatment and supervision than what is
needed based on their risk level is not cost-effective and could have a negative impact on offenders
with consequences to public safety. A paradigm shift whereby policy is driven by empirical data,
rather than popular misperceptions, cannot be accomplished, however, unless the public begins to
develop a picture of sex offending that is more consistent with the literature.
This study did have some limitations. Data were collected from only one county in Florida, which
limits the ability to generalize these findings. We acknowledge that treatment samples may differ
from the universal population of registered sex offenders, and that the potential for perceived
coercion of probationers exists. On the other hand, attempts to randomly select registered offenders
for inclusion in survey research have often led to small samples (e.g.Tewksbury & Lees, 2006;
Zevitz, Crim, & Farkas, 2000). The therapists who facilitated data collection may have biased the
offender sample in unknown ways. We also recognize that our method for recruiting a
representative public sample may have led to bias. For instance, drivers may differ from those who
do not drive. As well, Florida residents are required to renew their license in person only once every
six years, and therefore DMV samples may include disproportionate numbers of participants
recently relocated to Florida.
Nonetheless, these data reinforce that accurate information needs to be presented to the public.
The populace relies primarily on media for their information on this topic, and stereotypes and
misperceptions are continuously propagated. If legislators have similar beliefs to the community
sample, then they do not have a valid understanding of sexual abuse and sexual offending. Instead
of looking to the experts and the scientific literature to enact laws that would more efficiently
address the problem of sexual abuse, lawmakers may be conceding to pressures from their
misinformed constituents or their own prejudices.
Authors Note
We appreciate Chief Charles E. Gowan of the Central Field Operations Division of Driver License
for giving approval to collect data from DMV offices in Brevard County FL; to the managers at the
Department of Motor Vehicle Driver's License offices located in Melbourne and N. Melbourne,
Florida, the employees for allowing customers in this study to participate in a supportive
environment; those who kindly volunteered to participate in the survey; the following sex offender
therapists: Duncan Bowen, Sonya Taylor, Richard McClain, and Dan Decaprio and their clients for
their support and completion of the questionnaires; and Katherine Gifford, Amy Gammon, and
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 13 of 17
Ashley Thompson Franklin of Florida Institute of Technology, for help in entering data.
References
Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, P., McKee, B., & English, K. (2000). The impact of polygraphy on
admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: Journal of
Research & Treatment, 12(2), 123-138.
1.
Anechiarico, B. (1998). A closer look at sex offender character pathology and relapse
prevention: An integrative approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 42(1), 16-27.
2.
Becker, J. V., & Murphy, W. (1998). What we know and do not know about assessing and
treating sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4(1/2), 116-137.
3.
Briere, J., & Elliot, D. M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported
childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205-1222.
4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in
1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of Data on
rape and sexual assault. (No. NCJ-163392). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law
Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics (No. NCJ 182990). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
7.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Criminal Victimization. Retrieved 11/16/02, from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm
8.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). National Crime Victimization Survey, 2004 (No. NCJ
210674). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
9.
Center for Sex Offender Management. (2000). Community Supervision of the Sex Offender:
An Overview of Current and Promising Practices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice.
10.
Douglas, K. S., Cox, D. N., & Webster, C. D. (1999). Violence risk assessment: Science and
practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4(2), 149-184.
11.
Edwards, W., & Hensley, C. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation
and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(1), 83-101.
12.
Eldridge, H. (1998). Maintaining Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.13.
English, K., Jones, L., Pasini-Hill, D., Patrick, D., & Cooley-Towell, S. (2000). The value of
polygraph testing in sex offender management (Research Report Submitted to the National
Institute of Justice No. D97LBVX0034). Denver: Colorado Department of Public Safety,
Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics.
14.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The victimization of children
and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10(1), 5-25.
15.
Fontanella, C., Harrington, D., & Zuravin, S. J. (2000). Gender differences in the
characteristics and outcomes of sexually abused preschoolers. Journal of Child Sexual
Abuse, 9(2), 21-50.
16.
Groth, A. N. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York: Plenum
Press.
17.
Grove, M. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal and formal
prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy and
Law, 2(2), 293-323.
18.
Grubin, D. (1997). Inferring predictors of risk: Sex offenders. International Review of
Psychiatry, 9(2), 225-231.
19.
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 14 of 17
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual
offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348-362.
20.
Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., &
Seto, M. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the
effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 14(2), 169-194.
21.
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2001). A structured approach to evaluating change among
sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 13(2), 105-122.
22.
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism. Ottawa,
Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
23.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual
offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73(6), 1154-1163.
24.
Hanson, R. K., & Slater, S. (1988). Sexual victimization in the history of child sexual
abusers: A review. Annals of Sex Research, 1(4), 485-499.
25.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for
sex offenders. (No. User report 1999-02). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of
Canada.
26.
Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question (No.
2004-03). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
27.
Heil, P., Ahlmeyer, S., & Simons, D. (2003). Crossover Sexual Offenses. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 15(4), 221-236.
28.
Hindman, J., & Peters, J. M. (2001). Polygraph testing leads to better understanding adult
and juvenile sex offenders. Federal Probation, 65(3), 8-15.
29.
Hunter, M. (1990). Abused boys: The neglected victims of sexual abuse. . Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
30.
Jones, K. D. (1999). The media and Megan's law: Is community notification the answer?
Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 38(2), 80-88.
31.
Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex
offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17(1),
61-88.
32.
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex
offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,
7(1), 1-25.
33.
Levenson, J. S., & D'Amora, D. A. (2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual
violence: The Emperor's New Clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(2), 168-199.
34.
Madu, S. N., & Peltzer, K. (2001). Prevalence and patterns of child sexual abuse and
victim-perpetrator relationship among secondary school students in Northern Province
(South Africa). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(3), 311-321.
35.
Marques, J. K., Wiederanders, M., Day, D. M., Nelson, C., & van Ommeren, A. (2005).
Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California's
Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research & Treatment, 17(1), 79-107.
36.
Marshall , W. L. (2005). Therapist style in sexual offender treatment: Influence on indices of
change. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 17(2), 109-116.
37.
Marshall, W. L., Anderson, D., & Fernandez, Y. (1999). Cognitive behavioural treatment of
sexual offenders: John Wiley & Sons.
38.
Morin, J. W., & Levenson, J. S. (2002). The Road to Freedom. Oklahoma City, OK: Authors.
Distributed by Wood and Barnes Publishing.
39.
Nicholaichuk, T., Gordon, A., Gu, D., & Wong, S. (2000). Outcome of an institutional sexual
offender treatment program: A comparison between treated and matched untreated
40.
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 15 of 17
offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 12(2), 139-153.
Phillips, D. M. (1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington's citizens. Olympia,
WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
41.
Proctor, J. L., Badzinski, D. M., & Johnson, M. (2002). The impact of media on knowledge
and perceptions of Megan's Law. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13(4), 356-379.
42.
Putnam, F. (2003). Ten year research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3), 269-278.
43.
Rowe, M., Kloos, B., Chinman, M., Davidson, L., & Cross, A. B. (2001). Homelessness,
mental illness and citizenship. Social Policy and Administration, 35(1), 14-31.
44.
Sample, L. L. (2006). An examination of the degree to which sex offenders kill. Criminal
Justice Review, 31(3), 230-250.
45.
Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminology and Public
Policy, 3(1), 59-82.
46.
Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest
patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83-102.
47.
Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2006). The role of the media in sex offender legislation.
Unpublished manuscript.
48.
Schwartz, B. (1995). Group Therapy. In B. Schwartz & H. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender
(pp. 14.01 - 14.14). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
49.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1988). The Robbers
Cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University
Press
50.
Sherman, L. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445-473.
51.
Steen, C. (2001). The Adult Relapse Prevention Workbook. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society
Press.
52.
Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Consequences of sex offender registration: Collateral
consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309-334.
53.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Population Estimates. Retrieved June 17, 2004, from
http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/tables
54.
Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Behrens, A. (2004). Less than the Average Citizen: Stigma, Role
Transition, and the Civic Reintegration of Convicted Felons. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon
(Eds.), After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration (pp. 261-293).
Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
55.
Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Thompson, M. (2006). Citizenship, democracy, and the civic
reintegration of criminal offenders. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 605(1), 281-310.
56.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact
effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73(1), 73-90.
57.
Zevitz, R. G., Crim, D., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification:
Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 18, 375-391.
58.
Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Assessing the
impact in Wisconsin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of justice.
59.
Zgoba, K. M. (2004). Spin doctors and moral crusaders: The moral panic behind child safety
legislation. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(4), 385-404.
60.
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 16 of 17
Authors contact information
Timothy Fortney, Florida Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, 150 W. University
Blvd., Melbourne, FL 32901, (321) 674-8104 timothydfortney@yahoo.com
Jill Levenson, Lynn University, 3601 N. Military Trail, Boca Raton, FL 33431, (561)
237-7925 jlevenson@lynn.edu
Yolanda Brannon, Florida Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, 150 W. University
Blvd., Melbourne, FL 32901, (321) 674-8104
Juanita N. Baker, Florida Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, 150 W. University
Blvd., Melbourne, FL 32901, (321) 674-8104, FAX: (321) 674-7105 bakerj@fit.edu
Please direct correspondence to
Jill Levenson, Lynn University
3601 N. Military Trail
Boca Raton, FL 33431
(561) 237-7925
E-mail: jlevenson@lynn.edu
or
Juanita N. Baker
Florida Institute of Technology
School of Psychology
150 West University Boulevard
Melbourne, FL 3290
(321) 674-8104
E-mail: bakerj@fit.edu
Sexual Offender Treatment | ISSN 1862-2941
Page 17 of 17
