Undetected sexual offending creates challenges for risk assessment since estimated sexual recidivism rates are based on documented charges or convictions. Courts and other stakeholders may be primarily interested in the true risk for sexual reoffense and not simply risk for detected sexual offenses. Attempts to study and quantify the rate of undetected sexual offending have resulted in a wide variety of estimates. In this study, we explore whether sanctions imposed for detected sexual offenses increase the detection rate of subsequent offenses, and thereby suppress undetected sexual offending in an exceptionally high-risk sample who were ultimately committed as Sexually Violent Persons. Results indicate the detection rate of sexual offenses increased following an initial sanction, subsequently decreasing the proportion of undetected to detected offending. This effect only occurred after the first sanction. Overall, the sample had a high detection rate and spent little time in the community before subsequent arrests. These results differ from other reports that high rates of sexual offenses go undetected.
AbbottB. R. (2020). Illuminating the dark figure of sexual recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(1), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2494
2.
AbelG. G.BeckerJ. V.MittelmanM.Cunningham-RathnerJ.RouleauJ.MurphyW. D. (1987). Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626087002001001
3.
AzizianA.OlverM. E.RokopJ.D’OrazioD. M. (2021). A preliminary analysis of sexual recidivism and predictive validity of the Static-99R in men discharged from state hospitals pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. Sexual Abuse. Online first publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063221109726
4.
BouchardM.LussierP. (2015). Estimating the size of the sexual aggressor population. In BloklandA.LussierP. (Eds), Sex offenders: A criminal career approach (1st ed., pp. 351–371). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
5.
BourkeM. L.HernandezA. E. (2009). The “Butner study” redux: A report of the incidence of hands-on child victimization by child pornography offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 24(3), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9219-y
6.
BruningJ. L.KintzB. L. (1977). Computational Handbook of statistics (2nd ed.). Scott, Foresman and Company.
7.
BuddK.DesmondS. A. (2014). Sex offenders and sex crime recidivism: Investigating role of sentence length and time served. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(12), 1481–1499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13507421
8.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10.
DeLisiM.CaropresoD. E.DruryA. J.ElbertM. J.EvansJ. L.HeinrichsT.TahjaK. M. (2016). The dark figure of sexual offending: New evidence from federal sex offenders. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 6(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-12-2015-0030
11.
DorenD. M. (2010). Empirically based risk assessment estimate extrapolations across time and outcome measure. In SchlankA. (Ed.), The Sexual Predator: Legal Issues, Assessment, & Treatment (IV, pp. 18-118). New York, NY: Civic Research Institute.
12.
DruryA. J.ElbertM. J.DeLisiM. (2020). The dark figure of sexual offending: A replication and extension. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(1), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2488
13.
FalshawL.BatesA.PatelV.CorbettC.FriendshipC. (2003). Assessing reconviction, reoffending and recidivism in a sample of UK sexual offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532503322362979
14.
GrothA. N.LongoR. E.McFadinJ. B. (1982). Undetected recidivism among rapists and child molesters. Crime & Delinquency, 28(3), 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112878202800305
15.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005482921333
16.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2003). Solicitor general Canada. Notes on the development of the static-2002 (user report 2003-01). Available fromwww.static99.org
17.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD.PriceS. (2003). Estimating sexual recidivism rates: Observed and undetected [conference session]. In: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) Annual Research and Treatment Conference, St. Louis, MO, United States, October 9, 2003.
18.
HelmusL.ThorntonD.HansonR. K.BabchishinK. M. (2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse, 24(1), 64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951
19.
HelmusL. M. (2021). Estimating the probability of sexual recidivism among men charged or convicted of sexual offences: Evidence-based guidance for applied evaluators. Sexual Offending: Theory, Research, and Prevention, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5964/sotrap.4283
20.
HelmusL. M.ThorntonD. (2015). Stability and predictive and incremental accuracy of the individual items of static-99R and static-200R in predicting sexual recidivism: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(9), 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814568891
21.
HsiehM.-L.HamiltonZ.ZgobaK. M. (2018). Prison experience and reoffending: Exploring the relationship between prison terms, institutional treatment, infractions, and recidivism for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 30(5), 55–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216681562
22.
IaconoW. G.Ben-ShakharG. (2018). Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing. Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000307
23.
KelleyS. M.AmbroziakG.ThorntonD.BarahalR. M. (2020). How do professionals assess sexual recidivism risk? An updated survey of practices. Sexual Abuse, 32(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218800474
24.
KossM. P.GidyczC. A.WisniewskiN. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162
LisakD.MillerP. M. (2002). Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists. Violence and Victims, 17(1), 73–84. https:/doi.org/10.1891/vivi.17.1.73.33638
27.
LovellR.HuangW.OvermanL.FlanneryD.KlingensteinJ. (2020). Offending histories and typologies of suspected sexual offenders identified via untested sexual assault kits. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(4), 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819896385
28.
LussierP.DaviesG. (2011). A person-oriented perspective on sexual offenders, offending trajectories, and risk of recidivism: A new challenge for policymakers, risk assessors, and actuarial prediction?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(4), 530–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024388
29.
MearsD. P.CochranJ. C. (2018). Progressively tougher sanctioning and recidivism: Assessing the different types of sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55(2), 194–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427817739338
30.
MossS.StephensS.SetoM. C. (2022). The association between sentencing and recidivism in men who have committed a sexual offence. Journal of Sexual Aggression. online first publicationhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2021.2015467
31.
NunesK. L.FirestoneP.WexlerA. F.JensenT. L.BradfordJ. M. (2007). Incarceration and recidivism among sexual offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 31(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9065-5
32.
ScurichN.JohnR. S. (2019). The dark figure of sexual recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37, 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2400
33.
SetoM. C.StephensS.LalumièreM. L.CantorJ. M. (2017). The revised Screening scale for Pedophilic interests (SSPI-2): Development and criterion-related validation. Sexual Abuse, 29(1), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215612444
StephensS.KleinL. K.SetoM. C. (2021). Differences in sexual interest in children between men who commit undetected versus detected sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse, 33(3), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219889056
36.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2019). Using Multivariate statistics (7th edition). Pearson.
37.
ThorntonD.HansonR. K.KelleyS. M.MundtJ. C. (2021). Estimating lifetime and residual risk for individuals who remain sexual offense free in the community: Practical applications. Sexual Abuse, 33(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219871573
38.
VillettazP.GillieronG.KilliasM. (2015). The effects on re-offending of custodial vs. non-custodial sanctions: An updated systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 1–92. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2015.1
39.
WeinrottM. R.SaylorM. (1991). Self-report of crimes committed by sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(3), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006003002
40.
WollertR.CramerE. (2012). The constant multiplier assumption misestimates long-term sex offender recidivism rates. Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 390–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093924
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.
