Pretrial Diversion for Intrafamilial Child Sexual Offending Does Biological Paternity Matter?

Diversion programs are generally reserved for offenders rated as low risk. The scant recidivism data on incest offenders classify intrafamilial offenders as lower risk than extrafamilial pedophiles. Even so, few community-based treatment programs accommodate offenders who sexually abuse children. Ac...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Criminal justice and behavior Ročník 39; číslo 4; s. 552 - 570
Hlavní autoři: Titcomb, Caroline, Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, De Puiseau, Berenike Waubert
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.04.2012
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
Témata:
Abused children
Child abuse & neglect
Children
Clinical outcomes
Community
Community based
Community-based treatment
Criminal justice
Demography
Diversion programs
Fathers
Incest
Indexes
Offenders
Offending
Offenses
Paternity
Pedophilia
Pretrial
Recidivism
Risk assessment
Sex offenders
Subtypes
Treatment methods
Treatment programs
Victim offender relations
Victims
father–daughter sex abuse
intrafamilial sexual assault
pretrial diversion
recidivism
sex offender
ISSN:0093-8548, 1552-3594
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Diversion programs are generally reserved for offenders rated as low risk. The scant recidivism data on incest offenders classify intrafamilial offenders as lower risk than extrafamilial pedophiles. Even so, few community-based treatment programs accommodate offenders who sexually abuse children. Access to treatment programs for intrafamilial offenders is rare. Using a sample of 214 intrafamilial offenders who pled guilty on referral to a community-based pretrial diversion program for intrafamilial offenders, the authors explored whether biological fathers, typically classified as incest offenders, and nonbiological fathers, traditionally classified as extrafamilial pedophiles, benefited equally from diversion. Biological and nonbiological fathers were systematically compared to determine whether diversion programs should take the victim’s relationship to the offender—biological or nonbiological—into account when determining diversion eligibility. Effect sizes confirmed that the two subgroups of intrafamilial offenders were substantially similar on demographic features, characteristics of the index victim and index offense, and prior offending history. The victim–offender relationship was unrelated to acceptance into treatment, treatment completion, and sexual reoffending. These findings advance knowledge of sex offender subtypes and indicate that policies and practices that distinguish biological from nonbiological father offenders should be reconsidered. At a minimum, exclusion of nonbiological intrafamilial sex offenders from community-based treatment programs appears unwarranted.
Bibliografie:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0093-8548
1552-3594
DOI:10.1177/0093854811433678