The aggravating and mitigating circumstances that contribute to increased, or decreased, sentence severity for sex offenders have largely been unexplored. Although previous studies have evaluated offending groups who have targeted adult-only, or children-only victims, the current study compares the sentencing outcomes of both offending groups. Using a sample of 519 federally sentenced sex offenders in the province of Quebec the current study explores the extent to which the Canadian criminal justice system penalizes offender- and offense-based characteristics. The results indicate that offense-based characteristics increased sentence severity for offenders who victimized adults and offender-based characteristics influenced sentence severity for offenders who victimized children. Findings are discussed within the context of previous studies to empirically explore sex offender sentencing and compare differences that aggravating and mitigating circumstances have on sentence outcomes.
BeitchmanJ. H.ZuckerK. J.HoodJ. E.DaCostaG. A.AkmanD.CassaivaE. (1992). A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 101-118.
2.
BennettC. (2010). “More to apologize for”: Can we find a basis for the recidivist premium in a communicative theory of punishment. In RobertsJ. V.von HirschA. (Eds.), Previous convictions at sentencing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 73-90). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
CurryT. R.LeeG.RodriguezS. F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Explorations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 319-343.
10.
DalyK.TonryM. (1997). Gender, race, and sentencing. Crime and Justice, 22, 201-252.
11.
EngenR. L.GaineyR. R. (2000). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38(4), 1207-1230.
12.
FraseR. S. (2010). Prior-conviction sentencing enhancements: Rationales and limits based on retributive and utilitarian proportionality principles and social equality goals. In RobertsJ. V.von HirschA. (Eds.), Previous convictions at sentencing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 117-136). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
13.
JohnsonB. D.Van WingerdenS.NieuwbeertaP. (2010). Sentencing homicide offenders in the Netherlands: Offender, victim and situational influences in criminal punishment. Criminology, 48(4), 981-1018.
14.
KingsnorthR.MacIntoshR. C.WentworthJ. (1999). Sexual assault: The role of prior relationship and victim characteristics in case processing. Justice Quarterly, 16, 275-302.
15.
LandK. C.McCallP. L.NaginD. S. (1996). A comparison of Poisson, negative binomial and semiparametric mixed Poisson regression models: With empirical applications to criminal careers data. Sociological Methods & Research, 24, 387-442.
16.
LevesqueR. J. R. (2000). Sentencing sex crimes against children: An empirical and policy analysis. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 18, 331-341.
17.
MaxfieldL. D. (2002). Prior dangerous criminal behavior and sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines. Iowa Law Review, 87, 669-696.
18.
MitchellO. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(4), 439-466.
19.
Oddone PaolucciE.GenuisM. L.ViolatoC. (2001). A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of childhood sexual abuse.The Journal of Psychology, 135(1), 17-36.
20.
PatrickS.MarshR. (2011). Sentencing outcomes of convicted child sex offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20, 94-108.
21.
ProulxJ.St.-YvesM.McKibbenA. (1994). CQSA: Computerized Questionnaire for Sexual Aggressors. Unpublished manuscript.
22.
RobertsJ. V. (1994). The role of criminal record un the federal sentencing guidelines. Criminal Justice Ethics, 13, 21-30.
23.
RobertsJ. V. (1996). Public opinion, public record, and the sentencing process. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(4), 488-499.
24.
RobertsJ. V. (1997). The role of criminal record in the sentencing process. Crime and Justice, 22, 303-362.
25.
RobertsJ. V. (2008). Punishing persistent offenders: Exploring community and offender perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
RubyC. C.DaviesB.DoucetteD.LoosemoreS.OrkinJ. R.WawzonekC. (2008). Sentencing (7th ed.). Markham, ON: LexisNexis.
27.
SimonL. M. J. (1996). Legal treatment of the victim-offender relationship in crimes of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 94-106.
28.
SpohnC.SpearsJ. (1996). The effect of offender and victim characteristics in sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 13, 649-679.
29.
SpohnC.WelchS. (1987). The effect of prior record in sentencing research: An examination of the assumption that any measure is adequate. Justice Quarterly, 4(2), 287-302.
30.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black and male. Criminology, 36, 763-798.
31.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
32.
UlmerJ. T.JohnsonB. (2004). Sentencing in context: A Multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42, 137-177.
33.
von HirschA. (2010). Proportionality and the progressive loss of mitigation: Some further reflections. In RobertsJ. V.von HirschA. (Eds.), Previous convictions at sentencing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 1-16). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
34.
WalshA. (1984). Differential sentencing patterns among felony sex offenders and non-sex offenders. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 443-458.
35.
WalshA. (1994). Homosexual and heterosexual child molestation: Case characteristics and sentencing differentials. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38(4), 339-353.
36.
WelchS.GruhlJ.SpohnC. (1984). Sentencing: The influence of alternative measures of prior record. Criminology, 22(2), 215-227.
37.
WooldredgeJ. (2010). Judge’s unequal contributions to extralegal disparities in imprisonment. Criminology, 48(2), 539-567.
