Sex Crimes Investigation - Research Paper Example

 Sex Crimes Investigation INTRODUCTION The United States has witnessed an unprecedented growth in sex crime laws in recent decades. With such an extensive and restrictive legislation as well as general thought of sexual offenders are predatory and incurable, there are still many problematic aspects in the area of sex crimes investigation and overall criminal justice for sex crimes. For instance, the classifications of sex crimes, the factors used to determine those crimes, and the sentences imposed on sex offenders vary nationwide, therefore it is difficult to surmise the actual rate of recidivism among sex offenders. Furthermore, it is unclear exactly how many sex crimes are actually reported. Many sex offenses go unreported because the offender is known to the victim, geographical location limits services to the victims, and many victims are embarrassed or in denial that they have been a victim of a sex offense (Lewis, 2003). The unreported sex offenses hinder the ability to know the magnitude of the sex crime problem as it is difficult to determine whether society has an unsubstantiated sense of fear or a valid sense of security. In addition, recidivism and specialization approaches to sex crimes investigation are considered problematical as well. STATISTICS, CLASSIFICATION AND SEX CRIME INVESTIGATION From the statistical perspective, a majority of sexual assault cases involve a perpetrator who has a relationship with the victim (Lewis, 2003). The relationship can range in social distance from a mere acquaintance, to a family friend, to an actual family member. Whatever the case, the victim often times is too embarrassed or does not feel that they will be believed about the sex offense due to the relationship with the sex offender. This feeling of embarrassment has been noted as a consequence of the implementation of the community notification law. The reporting of incest cases has declined due to the fact that family members do not want other family members subjected to public scrutiny due to the community notification law nor do they want to be found out themselves (Farkas & Stichman, 2002). A study conducted on rural areas indicated that geographical location has an influence on whether sex assaults will be reported (Lewis, 2003). Rural areas often are tight knit communities where everybody knows everybody, including the victim and the offender. For this reason, victims often are hesitant to come forward about an attack for the fear that they will be shunned by their fellow community members. Another reason victims often do not report a sexual assault is because they do not actually believe or understand that they have been the victim of a crime. In some very rural areas, people have less contact with others outside of their community, so their perceptions of socially acceptable behaviors are limited. Sex offenses that occur in these areas may be more tolerated due to the fact that they have repeatedly occurred (Lewis, 2003). In addition, some sexual assaults go unreported because the assailant was not a stranger; therefore, these victims do not feel that they fit the stereotype of a rape victim. Practically, many sex offenders are not the strangers that suddenly pounce on unsuspecting victims but rather friends, family members or acquaintances. In fact, only one third of sexual assaults are committed by strangers. SEX CRIME RECIDIVISM One primary motivation for the imposition of harsh sanctions on sex offenders is the widely-held belief that these offenders re-offend at a higher rate than other serious offenders. In the study examining recidivism, Meloy (2005) found that residential instability, a history of drug abuse, percentage of time employed prior to arrest, and the probationer’s number of felony convictions were positively related to probation failure and increased rates of recidivism among sex offenders. Meloy (2005) reported a recidivism rate of 16% for those offenders who were re-arrested for a new crime within a three-year probation period. Langevin et al. (2004) performed a 25-year follow-up study comparing recidivism rates of 320 sex offenders to that of 31 violent offenders. They obtained the lifetime criminal histories of these offenders, from their first encounter with the criminal justice system to their last known conviction or charge. The sexual aggressive and polymorphous (multiple victim types) groups stood out for the large number of other crimes committed (Langevin et al, 2004). These two groups were comparable to violent offenders. Additionally, an overall recidivism rate of 89.6% was reported after five years, and general recidivism was 18-19% higher than sex offense recidivism. According to Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2005), who reviewed 82 sex offender recidivism studies, the observed sexual recidivism rate is typically between ten and fifteen percent after five years. The studies included in their analysis measured sexual recidivism, violent nonsexual recidivism, any violent recidivism, and no recidivism. The reported sexual recidivism rate was 13.7%, the violent nonsexual and overall violent recidivism rate was 14.3%, and the general recidivism rate was 36.2% (Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2005). The strongest individual predictors of recidivism identified in this analysis were low self-regulation, history of nonviolent and nonsexual crime, and psychopathy. From the critical perspective, the various rates of sex offender recidivism are worth noting due to their relevancy to patterns of offending. Statistically, the findings are varied, however; research is seemingly in consensus in the assumption that sex offenders do not recidivate at a higher rate than other offender groups. The notion that sex offenders recidivate at a higher rate than other offenders taints public perception regarding their amenability to treatment. Furthermore this misconception leads the general public and policymakers to believe sex offenders continue to offend sexually, while not accounting for their likelihood of involvement in general criminality. Thus, perpetuated by the infatuation with sex offender recidivism, the public and policymakers adopt the concept of specialization as a means of analysis of sex offenders’ criminal patterns. SPECIALIZATION APPROACH Specialization is often discussed in an attempt to provide insight into the nature of sex offenders and sex offending. The commonly accepted myth suggesting sex offenders specialize in purely sexual criminality is fallible and must be challenged to effectively address these offenders as they encounter the criminal justice system. Specialization, as defined by Lussier (2005), refers to “the probability of repeating the same type of crime when next arrested” (p.270). Specialization constitutes particular patterns of criminal behavior that are persistent and are continuously manifested in offender. Many criminologists indicate that certain criminals will persistently reveal typical patterns of criminal behavior, across time (Lussier, 2005). In accordance with this approach, it is believed that sexual offenders will commit sexual crimes once convicted of the initial sexual offense. A large volume of empirical studies have been performed to assess specialization among sex offenders. For example, Simon (1997) hypothesized that violent offenders, rapists, and child molesters have comparable versatility rates, and do not specialize. Data was collected from official reports and other studies on these three types of offenders. Simon’s findings suggested a correlation of offending characteristics between rapists and violent offenders. For example, seventy percent of rapists and violent offenders had prior criminal records demonstrating substantial versatility in offending. The primary offenses for which these offenders had been convicted were theft, burglary, and drug-related crimes. Similarities were also found in their victim selection: 41.2% of rapists and 49.5% of violent offenders victimized strangers. In fact, these offenders were more similar to each other than to the group of child molesters. The child molesters were reportedly less versatile than violent offenders or rapists. Another significant difference presented by child molesters was their tendency to victimize non-strangers; 94% of these offenders victimized someone they knew. In addition to her findings, Simon (1997) noted the importance of avoiding labeling sex offenders according to their current offense, since they rarely specialize in specific offenses. In accordance with her opposition to the sex offender specialization idea, Simon (1997) argued that specialization approach does not include criminal behavior inconsistent with perceived specialty. Simon (1997) elaborated by mentioning the impact this misconception can have on criminal investigations. By focusing on an offender's most serious conviction, investigators have a tendency to ignore the less serious, when considering an individual as a suspect for a particular crime. She provided an example of a serial rapist who went undetected in Tuscan, Arizona in the 1980s. When law enforcement began their investigation, they were looking for individuals with a prior record of sex offenses. However, when the rapist was apprehended, he had no prior sex offenses, but did have a record containing multiple convictions for drug and property offenses. In a more recent study, Lussier (2005) reviewed the literature on sex offender specialization and found that the level of specialization varies across types of sex offenders, being lower for aggressors of women and higher for aggressors of children. Lussier also found higher rates of specialization over time, and revealed evidence that supported the notion of versatility among sex offenders. First, Lussier (2005) found that aggressors of women were similar to violent offenders in their patterns of criminal activity. Second, he discovered that child molesters were at-risk for recidivism for a longer period of time than aggressors of women. Third, those convicted of a heterosexual sex offense were more likely to be convicted for nonsexual violent and property crimes than those convicted of a homosexual sex offense. As evidenced by the research literature and from the analytical perspective, prior criminal record, victim selection and age are three offender characteristics that are often examined for specialization. However, there are conflicting results as to whether specialization exists within this group of offenders, suggesting this topic requires further research to pinpoint versatility or specialization among sex offenders. Due to the heterogeneity of sex offenders as a whole, and within subgroups, it is essential that distinctions be made between various offender and offense characteristics when analyzing patterns of sex offending. REFERENCES Farkas, M., & Stichman, A. (2002). Sex offender laws: Can treatment, punishment, incapacitation, and public safety be reconciled? Criminal Justice Review, 27, 256-281. Hanson, R. & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The Characteristics of Persistent Sexual Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Recidivism Studies, Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163. Langevin, R., Curnoe, S., Federoff, P., Bennett, R., Langevin, M., Peever, C., et al. (2004). Lifetime sex offender recidivism: A 25-year follow-up study. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 531-552. Lewis, S. (2003). Sexual Assault in Rural Communities. Retrieved Oct 18, 2010 from < http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=419> Meloy, M. (2005). The sex offender next door: An analysis of recidivism, risk factors, and deterrence of sex offenders on probation. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 211-236. Lussier, P. (2005). The criminal activity of sexual offenders in adulthood: Revisiting the specialization debate. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 269-292. Simon, L. (1997). The myth of sex offender specialization: An empirical analysis. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Commitment, 23, 387-403. Read More