Sexual Offensive Behaviour Development of Peter Sutcliffe - Case Study Example

Case Study Name: Institution: Abstract This paper aims at reviewing evaluations, causes, and prevention of sexual offensive behavior development in relation to Peter Sutcliffe, a serial sexual offender. Peter has carried out several sexual offences where he broke into the victims’ houses. He has spent an average of 6 years in prison. There are numerous theories explained in this paper that explain the development of offensive behavior. Most of this theories link such behavior to early childhood experiences. Peter had stressful experiences which led to the development of his aggressive behavior (Ritter, 2014). He had a lonesome childhood as he did not have a chance experience parental love. According to the cognitive theory, violent juveniles were found to have poor moral development compared to non-offensive juvenile. On the other hand, behavioral theory argues that character is acquired as a consequence of daily life experiences as it is the case for Peter Sutcliffe. Case Study Introduction Sexual abuse is a very common and problematic issue in the society. The cruel effect consequences of sexual abuse have resulted to the studies which aim at identifying the etiology of such behavior so as to come up with more effective preventive measures. Most of the sexual offences are carried out by juveniles who are young people. Reports show that most juveniles who are sexual offenders do not have other form of antisocial behavior and majority of them do not have significant difference with juveniles who do not carry out sexual offence (Hudson, Bautista, Reyes‐Meza, Montor & Rödel, 2011). However, they vary on other factors such as knowledge, life experiences, cognitive functioning, metal disorders, child mistreatment, and family violence. There are no precise answers as to why such people engage in sexual offence activities and others do not; however, various researches has been conducted to identify the possible causes. This paper is a case study of Peter Sutcliffe who is a juvenile sexual offender. Though his most current offensive activity involved an offensive weapon, this report concentrates on his earlier convictions. The paper seeks to asses Peter’s background, behavior and the possible cause of his offensive behavior. Background Peter Sutcliffe was born in the year 1986 as the first born of a young couple. However, his parents divorced while he was two years old of age. He was brought up by his mother who worked as a night shift employee in a restaurant. Peter’s childhood life was full of challenges as he was required to spend most of time alone in his mother’s house. The mother would leave him alone in the house all night as she went to work and would come back at dawn. At times, his mother would come home drunk and would harass the young boy accusing him having his father’s traits. His mother rarely showed up for school for meetings and visitations which made him get extensive humiliations from his peers. Peter could go to school without breakfast as his mother returned to the house at dawn drank and would not prepare him breakfast as left for school. He felt neglected and spent most of the times alone even when at school. Consequently, Peter started developing aggressive behavior at the age of 7 where he would harass his female peers by robbing away their play toys. At some point he would pour snatch and pour food belonging to his peers at school; however, such behavior did not disappear even after though beatings from his teacher. At the age of fourteen where he committed a rape offense to one his peers and blackmailed the girl to silence. Months later, the girl spoke out but it was too late because Peter strongly denied the claims and his mother greatly defended him. . The case reached to the law enforcement department but there was no evidence that Peter had committed the offence; hence, the case was dismissed. As time passed by, Peter started leaving the house immediately his mother left for work and would stand by the road insulting women as they pass by. He committed the second rape offense in a neighbors’ house where he sneaked into one evening and raped a five year girl. Again, he escaped away with this offence and subsequently, it became a habit. Three years later, he was arrested. He had sexually molested a young woman who he broke up into her house. He was one of the major suspects an after forensic investigation, he was found guilty. Psychological tests showed that he was under the influence of drugs when he carried out the offence and also suffered from drug addiction. Therefore, he was taken to rehabilitation centre after which he was jailed for six years. He was released after the end of his conviction and his behavior is closely monitored by the law enforcement department. Generally, sexual offenders have been grouped into three categories. The first category includes people who committed sexual offence behavior during their earliest sexual exploration. Such people justify themselves with lack of the necessary guidance and knowledge about sexual activity (Schumann & Ross, 2010). The second category involves people who show felonious acts in a broad manner and the sexual offence is part of the criminal behavior like observed in Peter’s case. The third category involves individuals who are found with abnormal psycho sexual development. These individual are the worst sexual offenders. Moreover, sexual abuse is grouped into three categories; child abuse, rape, and hands-off sexual offence. Additionally, some sexual offences are performed in groups while others are performed by individuals. Juvenile sexual offenders are believed to be brought up in abusive families, just as observed in Pater’s case. It has been suggested that due to abuse and parental abandonment, the children experience attachment turmoil. Consequently, the children will tend to seek the attention of other individual in a negative manner. So as to have their needs satisfied, they tend to posses hostile, insistent, and insistent behavior (Dhakar et al, 2013). Moreover, they lose the ability to relate well with peers as they do not have the social capability to form healthy connections with the society resulting to a feeling of low self esteem as observed in Peter’s case. Hence sexual violence results from such emotions of social ineptitude. The family plays a vital role in the development of sexual offenders. Many researches do not pay adequate attention to the family role in the development of offensive behavior. Young sex offenders are brought up in family aspect where the development of offensive personalities is favored. Various reports demonstrate that majority of juvenile offenders grew up in families where deceptive and secretive activities are common (Terçariol, Almeida & Godinho, 2011). There is an ideology which argues that family secretive and deceptive behavior contributes to development of sexual offense behavior. Sexual offence involves both deception and sexual factors. Deceptive behavior is observed when the offender choice to be secretive about the sexual offense they carried out. Various reports state that majority of sexual offenders come from families where some of their family members faced sexual abuse while they were children. Juveniles and children who underwent sexual abuse struggle with extensive emotions of secrecy and segregation and only few tell of their victimization (Embregts et al, 2010). Therefore, deception and secrecy in the family contribute greatly to the psychology growth of the child. It results to feelings of manipulated reality, intimacy deficiency, and hopelessness; common attributes in sexual offenders. There re various psychological concepts that explains offensive behavior as discussed below Psychodynamic perspective The psychodynamic perspective was founded on the Sigmund ideology. Freud argued that human character including offensive behavior, results from unconscious forces that control a person’s brain. Freud argued that childhood experiences play a significant role on the kind of behavior an adolescent or an adult engages in (Hoier et al, 2013). Conflicts that take place at various developmental stages have a great effect on individual’s psychological ability to function well. According to Freud aggression is a common impulse in human and it is contained in normal individuals who had a standard childhood life. However, if aggression is not well taken care of, or contained to another level, the aggression leaks out and cause an individual to engage in offensive acts. August Aichorm stated that not all individuals who are exposed to stressful childhood develop criminal behavior (Ricci & Mello, 2012). Aichorm further explained that depression anxiety only led to offensive behavior in individuals with a psychological state referred to as latent delinquency. This state is thought to result from poor childhood socialization and it is portrayed in the desire for immediate satisfaction, empathy deficiency and the lack of guilty feeling as portrayed in Peter’s case. Aichorn’s work has been used to describe offensive offenders as people who lack the ability to control their reckless desire for pleasure (Kazemian, Widom & Farrington, 2011). Childhood neglect results to destruction of self-esteem that leads to a person’s inability to handle stressful situations within the conservative society. Underdeveloped egos results to a condition referred to as psychosis that causes an individual to lack the ability to feel empathy fro the people affected by their criminal behavior. Such individuals are dominated by events which occurred during their childhood lives. However, this theory has not been scientifically proofed. Nevertheless, many theories stress the importance of family in the psychological development of a child (Chichinadze, Chichinadze & Lazarashvili, 2011). Cognitive development and violence Cognitive theory is based on how individuals identify their social setting and establish ways of solving problems. The cognitive theory studies the ethical and social development in the study of crime and offence. It was argued that people’s reasoning capability is a developmental process that is sequential and logical. The earliest form of development involves the focusing of concentration to things that are attractive (Buwalda, Geerdink, Vidal & Koolhaas, 2011). The final developmental stages involve the capacity to undertake complex analysis and decision making. Applying this theory into the study of offensive behavior, he stated that all individuals undergo 6 stages of moral development. In the initial stages, people only avoid breaking rules due to fear of punishment. At the sixth stage, individuals avoid breaking the role because they believe it is a responsibility and believe in justice and harmony for healthy co-existence. In connection to this argument, violent juveniles were found to have poor moral development compared to non-offensive juveniles (Branchi et al, 2013). Individuals who obey the law so as to escape punishment are more likely to perform offensive behavior compared to those who take it as a social responsibility. Contrary, individuals with high levels of moral development will keep off offence even when there is an opportunity to do so because they believe it not socially right. From this case, it is clear that Peter lacked such kind more cognitive moral values. Behavioral and Biological Theories Behavioral theory states that various human behaviors are acquired through offensive behavior that is acquired from societal interaction. Behavior researchers state that no one is born with criminal character. Rather, the character is acquired as a consequence of daily experiences. Additionally, various reports show that aggressive juveniles often acquired the behavior from the family setting, as observed in this case study (Pellis & Bell, 2011). Behavioral research has demonstrated that offensive behavior originates from stimulus such as stressful experiences and physical attack; violent behaviors acquired from others; and moral setting that allows partial offence. In relation to this theory, Peter experienced a stressful childhood which contributed to the development of aggressiveness. Moreover, other ideologists state that various types of biological factors lead to hormones play a big role in the development of sexual offence behavior. The most observed is the high levels of testosterone which is thought to lead to increased sex desire and violence. Other biological theories argue that various individuals develop offensive sexual behavior from psychologically or biologically encoded sexual desires (Vlachou, Andreou, Botsoglou & Didaskalou, 2011). Conclusion This paper is about a case study of Peter Sutcliffe who is a juvenile sexual offender. The paper seeks to asses Peter’s background, behavior and the possible cause of his offensive deeds. Peter was brought up by his mother after his parents divorced while he was young. During his early life, Peter faced an extensive stressful environment. He developed offensive behavior where he even ended up in jail. There are various theories which explain the causes of offensive behavior in young people. All these theories are embedded in the kind of life the individual experienced at early childhood. Hence, the family plays a very significant role in the development of offensive behavior in individuals. Most individuals who develop offensive behavior are brought up in abusive families. However, it does not necessarily mean that all individuals who grow up in abusive families develop offensive behavior. More scientifically proofed theories ought to be established to assist in the avoidance of offensive behavior I the society. Bibliography Ritter, B. A. (2014). Deviant Behavior in Computer‐Mediated Communication: Development and Validation of a Measure of Cybersexual Harassment. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 19(2), 197-214. Hudson, R., Bautista, A., Reyes‐Meza, V., Montor, J. M., & Rödel, H. G. (2011). The effect of siblings on early development: a potential contributor to personality differences in mammals. Developmental psychobiology, 53(6), 564-574. Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2010). Why Women Apologize More Than Men Gender Differences in Thresholds for Perceiving Offensive Behavior. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1649-1655. Ricci, L. A., & Melloni Jr, R. H. (2012). Repeated fluoxetine administration during adolescence stimulates aggressive behavior and alters serotonin and vasopressin neural development in hamsters. Behavioral neuroscience, 126(5), 640. Buwalda, B., Geerdink, M., Vidal, J., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2011). Social behavior and social stress in adolescence: a focus on animal models. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(8), 1713-1721. Kazemian, L., Widom, C. S., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). A prospective examination of the relationship between childhood neglect and juvenile delinquency in the Cambridge study in delinquent development. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 2(1/2), 65-82. Pellis, S. M., & Bell, H. C. (2011). Closing the circle between perceptions and behavior: a cybernetic view of behavior and its consequences for studying motivation and development. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 1(4), 404-413. Chichinadze, K., Chichinadze, N., & Lazarashvili, A. (2011). Hormonal and neurochemical mechanisms of aggression and a new classification of aggressive behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 461-471. Terçariol, S. G., Almeida, A. A., & Godinho, A. F. (2011). Cadmium and exposure to stress increase aggressive behavior. Environmental toxicology and pharmacology, 32(1), 40-45. Branchi, I., Curley, J. P., D’Andrea, I., Cirulli, F., Champagne, F. A., & Alleva, E. (2013). Early interactions with mother and peers independently build adult social skills and shape BDNF and oxytocin receptor brain levels. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(4), 522-532. Dhakar, M. B., Rich, M. E., Reno, E. L., Lee, H. J., & Caldwell, H. K. (2012). Heightened aggressive behavior in mice with lifelong< i> versus postweaning knockout of the oxytocin receptor. Hormones and behavior, 62(1), 86-92. Embregts, P. J. C. M., van den Bogaard, K. J. H. M., Hendriks, L., Heestermans, M., Schuitemaker, M., & van Wouwe, H. (2010). Sexual risk assessment for people with intellectual disabilities. Research in developmental disabilities, 31(3), 760-767. Vlachou, M., Andreou, E., Botsoglou, K., & Didaskalou, E. (2011). Bully/victim problems among preschool children: A review of current research evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 23(3), 329-358. Tsuda, M. C., Yamaguchi, N., & Ogawa, S. (2011). Early life stress disrupts peripubertal development of aggression in male mice. Neuroreport, 22(6), 259-263. Hoier, T. S., Shawchuck, C. R., Pallotta, G. M., Freeman, T., Inderbitzen-Pisaruk, H., MacMillan, V. M., ... & Greene, A. L. (2013). The impact of sexual abuse: A cognitive-behavioral model. The sexual abuse of children: Clinical issues, 2, 100-142. Read More

Three years later, he was arrested. He had sexually molested a young woman who he broke up into her house. He was one of the major suspects an after forensic investigation, he was found guilty. Psychological tests showed that he was under the influence of drugs when he carried out the offence and also suffered from drug addiction. Therefore, he was taken to rehabilitation centre after which he was jailed for six years. He was released after the end of his conviction and his behavior is closely monitored by the law enforcement department.

Generally, sexual offenders have been grouped into three categories. The first category includes people who committed sexual offence behavior during their earliest sexual exploration. Such people justify themselves with lack of the necessary guidance and knowledge about sexual activity (Schumann & Ross, 2010). The second category involves people who show felonious acts in a broad manner and the sexual offence is part of the criminal behavior like observed in Peter’s case. The third category involves individuals who are found with abnormal psycho sexual development.

These individual are the worst sexual offenders. Moreover, sexual abuse is grouped into three categories; child abuse, rape, and hands-off sexual offence. Additionally, some sexual offences are performed in groups while others are performed by individuals. Juvenile sexual offenders are believed to be brought up in abusive families, just as observed in Pater’s case. It has been suggested that due to abuse and parental abandonment, the children experience attachment turmoil. Consequently, the children will tend to seek the attention of other individual in a negative manner.

So as to have their needs satisfied, they tend to posses hostile, insistent, and insistent behavior (Dhakar et al, 2013). Moreover, they lose the ability to relate well with peers as they do not have the social capability to form healthy connections with the society resulting to a feeling of low self esteem as observed in Peter’s case. Hence sexual violence results from such emotions of social ineptitude. The family plays a vital role in the development of sexual offenders. Many researches do not pay adequate attention to the family role in the development of offensive behavior.

Young sex offenders are brought up in family aspect where the development of offensive personalities is favored. Various reports demonstrate that majority of juvenile offenders grew up in families where deceptive and secretive activities are common (Terçariol, Almeida & Godinho, 2011). There is an ideology which argues that family secretive and deceptive behavior contributes to development of sexual offense behavior. Sexual offence involves both deception and sexual factors. Deceptive behavior is observed when the offender choice to be secretive about the sexual offense they carried out.

Various reports state that majority of sexual offenders come from families where some of their family members faced sexual abuse while they were children. Juveniles and children who underwent sexual abuse struggle with extensive emotions of secrecy and segregation and only few tell of their victimization (Embregts et al, 2010). Therefore, deception and secrecy in the family contribute greatly to the psychology growth of the child. It results to feelings of manipulated reality, intimacy deficiency, and hopelessness; common attributes in sexual offenders.

There re various psychological concepts that explains offensive behavior as discussed below Psychodynamic perspective The psychodynamic perspective was founded on the Sigmund ideology. Freud argued that human character including offensive behavior, results from unconscious forces that control a person’s brain. Freud argued that childhood experiences play a significant role on the kind of behavior an adolescent or an adult engages in (Hoier et al, 2013). Conflicts that take place at various developmental stages have a great effect on individual’s psychological ability to function well.

Read More