Child Sex Offender Research Proposal

Olivia Hall
Research Proposal #1
A Comparison of Juvenile Sexual & Non-Sexual Offenders: Personality and the Past Introduction The DSM-5 describes Conduct Disorder (CD) as a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated. Criteria include aggression towards others, destruction of property, deceitfulness, theft, and serious violations of rules and laws, with onset as early as before age 10. While sexual activity is noted under CD as a possible criterion, not all youth with conduct issues act out in this form. Just as adult sexual offenders are considered to be a different subtype of criminal, with specific characteristics and laws pertaining to them, it is speculated that juveniles who commit sex offenses may possess some specific personalities or psychopathology (Herkov et. al., 1996). Certain DSM-V specifiers suggest lack of remorse, callousness, and superficiality in some types of CD, but this research suggests that offenders seeking sexual means actually possess more internalizing behavior as opposed to externalizing their emotions (Van Wijk et. al., 2007). A 1993 study found no differences in psychiatric symptoms among child criminals, but several later studies found significant discrepancies in individual characteristics and family background. Most notably, past sexual abuse and inhibition were elevated in sexual offending juveniles (Van Wijk et. al., 2007). Offenders also have overall lower number of friendships, increased social isolations, lower self esteem, and more instances of being the victim of bullying (Gunby & Woodhams, 2010). In other past studies, the term familial problems encompasses instances of physical or sexual abuse, significant or intense conflict, and lying and deception among family members, either witnessed parent to parent or experienced parent to child. These occurrences are found to associate with lack of intimacy, distorted realities, helplessness and powerlessness, and misperceptions/lack of critical information in adolescent cognitive structure, and are correlated with traits of adult sexual offenders in general (Baker et. al., 2003). If these specific events and traits are uniquely elevated in test findings of sexual deviants, then poor family structure may be a notable risk factor for future adolescent sexual deviance, allowing teachers, psychologists, and guardians to distinguish between the types of misbehavior youths may be vulnerable to. This study will inquire the following: Compared to non-sexual juvenile delinquents, juvenile sexual
offenders are more likely to have had history of familial problems/abuse and internalizing behavior. Method This study will utilize 100 male juveniles between the ages of 12-17. Participants will be acquired from detention centers and court-mandated programs. One group will contain 50 males who have committed sexual offenses against others, including vaginal/anal penetration, sodomy, exhibitionism, or actual/attempted oral contact. A second group will contain 50 males who have committed non-sexual offenses, such as non-sexual physical cruelty to people or animals, burglary/theft, verbal/psychological bullying, and status offenses. The following materials will be used: Clinical Structured Interview, SAVRY, and MMPI2. The interview will determine participants recollection of family history and early life. Attention will be paid to affirmation of genital touching by a family member or parent, alcohol abuse, taboo/unorthodox sexual practices or beliefs, absence of support structure based on availability and attentiveness of parents, and flat affect within the subject from minimization of problems. Although already convicted of crimes, it is suggested that the youths be administered the SAVRY. Elevated codes of High on items such as exposure to violence in the home, childhood maltreatment, and other historical items will be used to compare that risk factor with the outcome of their behavior/crime. The MMPI-2 will be administered as a supplement to things not discovered in interview, or traits the youth may not be cognizant of (especially if they lack the pro-social emotion typology of CD as identified by the DSM5).Emphasis will be on elevated content scales of: psychopathology, low self-esteem, depression, and family problems, and elevated supplemental scales of repression and introversion. Results will explore the relationship between elevated negative events at home, elevated introverted traits, and type of crime. Limitations to this study include consideration of juveniles who have committed sexual offenses but have been caught for something else, or those who may have experienced sexual abuse but are deviant in other manners. Children are not always open to/comfortable talking about past sexual victimization either, which is an important absence of information that may skew the accuracy of family or childhood experiences. There also may be problems correlating the experienced familial abuse directly to the internalizing traits. There may be other causes for these aspects that cannot be accounted for by family events. Finally, Herkov et. al., found
significant differences in MMPI scores within juvenile sex offenders, based on type of sexual act, which could be a more specific study that is worth examining to get a clearer picture of pathology of specific acts.
References
Baker, A. J. L., Tabacoff, R., Tornusciolo, G., & Eisenstadt, M. 2003. Family secrecy: A comparative study of juvenile sex offenders and youth with conduct disorder. Family Process, 42 (1), 105-116. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=fe67601e-70f94463-895c-aefe9cc0362e%40sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4101 Gunby, C. and Woodhams, J. 2010. Sexually deviant juveniles: comparisons between the offender and offence characteristics of child abusers and peer abusers. Psychology, Psych and Law, 16(1-2), 47-64. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/ehost/detail?sid=f41267e9-72f5-4e9e-94a2ed0bf1e107eb%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4101 Herkov, M. J., Gynther, M. D., Thomas, S., & Myers, W. C. 1996. MMPI difference among adolescent inpatients, rapists, sodomists, and sexual abusers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 81-90. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=f96b0ad c-c1a7-4098-aa72-bbedbc1437d9%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4112 Van Wijk, A. P., Vreugdenhil, C., Van Horn, J., Vermeiren, R., & Doreleijers T. A. H. 2007. Incaarcerated Dutch juvenile sex offenders compared with non-sex offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16 (2), 1-21. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c3bc6ee3-26d04afe-8e0a-f838ff5da7fa%40sessionmgr4003&vid=1&hid=4101

Child Sex Offender Research Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Sex Offender Research Proposal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Sex Offender Research Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Olivia Hall

You might also like