Jurisdictions in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia now have laws that enable preventive detention of post-sentence sex offenders based on an assessment of the offender’s likely recidivism. Measures of recidivism, or risk assessments, rely on the criminal justice process to produce the “pool” of sex offenders studied. This article argues that recidivism research needs to be placed in the context of attrition studies that document the disproportionate and patterned attrition of sexual offenses and sexual offenders from the criminal justice process. Understanding the common biases that affect criminal prosecution of sex offenses would improve sexual violence prevention policies.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004a). Experimental estimates and projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 1991 to 2009 (Catalogue No 3238.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3238.0
BarbareeH.LangtonC.PeacockE. (2006). Different actuarial risk measures produce different risk rankings for sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 423-440.
6.
BrownJ.HamiltonC.O’NeillD. (2007). Characteristics associated with rape attrition and the role played by scepticism or legal rationality by investigators and prosecutors. Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 355-370.
7.
ChungD.O’LearyP. J.HandT. (2006). Sexual violence offenders: Prevention and treatment approaches [Issues Paper No 5]. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
8.
CourtinJ. (2006). Judging the judges: How the Victorian court of appeal is dealing with appeals against conviction in child sexual assault matters. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18, 266-298.
9.
DoyleD. J.OgloffJ. R. P. (2009). Calling the tune without the music: A psycho-legal analysis of Australia’s post-sentence legislation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 179-203.
10.
Du MontJ. (2003). Charging and sentencing in sexual assault cases: An exploratory examination. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 15, 305-341.
11.
EstrichS. (1987). Real rape: How the legal system victimizes women who say no. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
FinchE.MunroV. (2006). Breaking boundaries? Sexual consent in the jury room. Legal Studies, 26, 303-320.
13.
FitzgeraldJ. (2006). The attrition of sexual offences from the New South Wales criminal justice system. Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 92, 1-12.
14.
GelbK. (2007). Recidivism of sex offenders research paper. Melbourne, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council.
15.
HansonR. K.Morton-BourgonK. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.
16.
HansonR. K.Morton-BourgonK. (2007). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis 2007-01. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Department of Justice Canada.
17.
HansonR. K.Morton-BourgonK. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21, 1-21.
18.
HebentonB.SeddonT. (2009). From dangerousness to precaution: Managing sexual and violent offenders in an insecure and uncertain age. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 343-362.
19.
Home Office (UK’ 2002). Reconviction rates of serious sex offenders and assessments of their risk (NCJ 195379). London, UK: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
20.
JanusE.PrentkyR. (2003). Forensic use of actuarial risk assessment with sex offenders: Accuracy, admissibility and accountability. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 1443-1499.
21.
JonesL. (2004). Offense paralleling behavior (OPB) as a framework for assessment and interventions with offenders. InNeedsA.TowlG. (Eds.), Applying psychology to forensic practice (pp. 34-63). Oxford, UK: BPS Blackwell.
22.
KellyL.LovettJ.ReganL. (2005). A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases (Home Office Research Study 293). London, UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
23.
LangtonC.BarbareeH.SetoM.PeacockE.HarkinsL.HansenK. (2007). Actuarial assessment of risk for reoffense among adult sex offenders: Evaluating the predictive accuracy of the Static-2002 and five other instruments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 37-59.
24.
LievoreD. (2003). Non-reporting and hidden recording of sexual assault: An international literature review. Canberra, Australia: Office of the Status of Women.
25.
LievoreD. (2004a). Prosecutorial decisions in adult sexual assault cases: An Australian study. Canberra, Australia: Office of the Status of Women.
26.
LievoreD. (2004b). Recidivism of sexual assault offenders: Rates, risk factors and treatment efficacy. Canberra, Australia: Office of the Status of Women.
27.
McSherryB.KeyzerP.FreibergA. (2006). Preventive detention for “dangerous” offenders in Australia: A critical analysis and proposals for policy development (Report to the Criminology Research Council). Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.
28.
MouzosJ.MakkaiT. (2004). Women’s experiences of male violence: Findings from the Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
29.
PayneJ. (2007). Recidivism in Australia: Findings and future research (Research and Public Policy Series No 80). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
30.
PhillipsJ.ParkM. (2006). Measuring domestic violence and sexual assault against women: A review of the literature and statistics (E-Brief issued December 6, 2004; updated December 12, 2006). Canberra, Australia: Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia.
31.
ReganL.KellyL. (2003). Rape: Still a forgotten issue (Briefing Document for Strengthening the Linkages—Consolidating the European Network Project). London, UK: Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit.
32.
RichardsonL.HuebnerB. (2006). Sex offender risk assessment (Report prepared for the Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission). Columbia, MO: Institute of Public Policy, University of Missouri.
33.
SpohnC.BeichnerD.Davis-FrenzelE. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.”Social Problems, 48, 206-235.
34.
StadtlandC.HollwegM.KleindienstH.DietlJ.ReichU.NedopilN. (2005). Risk assessment and prediction of violent and sexual recidivism in sex offenders: Long-term predictive validity of four risk assessment instruments. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 16, 92-108.
35.
Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault, Victoria (SSCRSA, 2006). A study of reported rapes in Victoria 2000-2003: Summary research report (based on a study by Dr. Melanie Heenan & Dr. Suellen Murray). Melbourne, Australia: Office of Women’s Policy, Department of Victorian Communities.
36.
TaylorN. (2007). Juror attitudes and biases in sexual assault cases. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice no 344. Canberra. Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Government.
37.
TemkinJ.KrahéB. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford, OR: Hart.
38.
TjadenP.ThoennesN. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
39.
Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC, 2004). Sexual offences final report. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Law Reform Commission.
40.
WarnerK. (2001). Sentencing review 2000-2001. Criminal Law Journal, 25, 332-344.
41.
WebsterC.GartnerR.DoobA. (2006). Results by design: The artefactual construction of high recidivism rates for sex offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 48, 79-93.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
