The Pros And Cons Of Sex Offender

When the general populace hears the words “sex offender” or “sexually based offense” the image that is almost instantaneously conjured up is negative, typically involving an adult male, and may include images of rape, sex trafficking, “stranger danger,” or other grotesque sexual misbehaviors. The assumptions the general public tends to make regarding sex offenders are often based on highly publicized stories, personal biases, or other assumptions, and not necessarily on statistical information. The general public may often assume that the majority of sexual offenses are perpetrated by an adult stranger, and therefore, they are safer with people they know, however, research indicates that casual acquaintances or immediate family members commit

Juvenile offenders are responsible for somewhere between 20% and 30% of rapes, and 30% to 60% of all child molestations (Christiansen & Vincent, 2013; Collie, Ward, & Vess, 2008). Other data, such as that from Finkelhor, Ormrod & Chaffin (2009) and the U.S. Department of Justice, suggest that juveniles’ account for at least 26% of all known sexual offenders, and juveniles commit approximately 35.6% of all sexual offenses committed against minors. Juveniles whom commit sexual offenses are more likely to target younger children, specifically those living with them (Finkelhor et al., 2009). Additionally, juveniles are more likely to offend against same-age peers or schoolmates in comparison to adults (Finkelhor et al., 2009). There is also a subset of juvenile offenders, who despite having had some sort of formal consequence to sexual offending behavior, continue to sexually offend and reoffend (Righthand et al.,

Harris & Hanson (2010) assert that the rise of actuarial risk assessment began with a seminal work by Hanson & Bussiere (1998). This article was a meta-analysis that summarized over 60 differing data sets on sexual offenses and offenders (Harris & Hanson, 2010; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). From the analysis, Hanson & Bussiere (1998) identified 70 factors that had a significant correlation with risk for sexual recidivism. According to Hanson & Bussire (1998) there were only two demographic variables that increased risk to recidivate: age of the offender, and whether or not they were single. Additionally, their research yielded criminal lifestyle was a predictor of recidivism (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). They then identified some other factors that could potentially have a moderate increase in potential for recidivism, pending future research, which included prior sexual offending, stranger victim, male victim, and participation in diverse sexual offense behaviors (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). Hanson & Bussiere (1998) further assert that the strongest variable they found related to risk for sexual recidivism was having a sexual interest in children. They note, however, that other factors such as an offender’s relationship with his or her