![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
According to the Dangerous Prisoners Sexual Offenders Act 2003 (DPSOA), an offender is considered ‘dangerous’ if there is an ‘unacceptable risk’ that he will commit ‘serious sexual harm’. Current legislation operates within an actuarial justice framework, whereby increasing resources are spent on those considered at greater risk. There is limited research on the efficacy of this approach. The current study examines sexual recidivism rates of a sample of DPSOA offenders. Court files of 104 community-supervised dangerous sex offenders (Mage = 50.7 SD = 10.8) were examined to determine date and type of re-offending. Recidivism was operationalised as time until arrest (for a sexual conviction/contravention). The overall level of sexual recidivism was low (7.69%). Kaplan–Meier analyses of survival curves identified no difference in rates between risk categories. While this likely suggests that they are not dangerous or an unacceptable risk, the strict conditions of supervision may be effective in preventing sexual re-offending. Further, limitations in empirically understanding the construct need to be considered.
Ethical standards
Declaration of conflicts of interest
Michael T. Rowlands has declared no conflicts of interest
Gavan Palk has declared no conflicts of interest
Ross McD. Young has declared no conflicts of interest
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Queensland University of Technology and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study