Identifying future repeat danger from sexual offenders against children: A focus on those convicted and those strongly suspected of such crime

Abstract

This study provides a 14 – 16-year criminological follow-up, to the end of 2003, of all those convicted or strongly suspected of committing sexual offences against children in one English county, Lancashire, between 1987 and 1989 (inclusive). The main analysis focuses on 124 males (40%) convicted compared with 188 males (60%) strongly suspected but not convicted. The age and sex of the victims and the relationship between offender and victim show no significant association with conviction status, but the former group tend to be older. Of the 103 convicted adult males, 20% were reconvicted for a sexual offence, whereas of the 116 adult males strongly suspected but not convicted, 9% had a subsequent conviction for a sexual offence. However, the difference is largely explained by their predicted risk scores. The risk assessment tool used, Static-99, is shown to be remarkably effective in identifying high-risk members of the two groups. The 93 convicted and strongly suspected males in the total sample aged under 18 tend to offend against acquaintances (54%), and target a female victim (69%) and a younger (5 – 7 years) age group of children (48%). The convicted young males had a higher rate of subsequent sex convictions (14.3%) than those suspected but not convicted (1.4%). The policy implications of the findings are addressed.

Keywords:

• Paedophiles
• child molesters
• recidivism
• sex crimes
• Static-99
• typologies

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Nuffield Foundation for its financial support under the Social Sciences Small Grants Scheme and the Home Office for the provision of the follow-up data. The early support of this study by Julian Prime, John Gunn, and David Thornton is much appreciated. The insightful comments emerging from the review process helped in developing this paper.

Notes

Kirby's thesis focused on detection and did not have data on the outcome of the cases.

These individuals could be convicted at courts elsewhere in England and Wales during 1987 – 1989, but there is no evidence that the sexual offence which interested the Lancashire police has led to a court conviction.

Some of these individuals may have changed their names or provided a wrong date of birth, but there is no reason to believe that the behaviour of this series would be different to any other series being processed by the OI.

Information from the police file was used. In three cases where there were inconsistencies, the age is based on OI data. For offenders who were detected for more than one offence, the offences almost always were committed in the same year. Otherwise the date of the earlier offence was used.

The OI data contained information on Items 1 – 5, 8, and 9. Information was available on Items 6 and 7 in the police file on the detected offences; this information was not available for prior offences. We therefore underestimate the number of offenders with unrelated or stranger victims. The police file also contained additional information on Item 8. For Item 3, non-contact sex offences included possessing obscene material and indecent exposure. Information on Group C offenders was taken from the police file.

If an offender was convicted for more than one target offence, the earlier conviction date was used.

The OI codes for buggery and for indecent assault against a male or female distinguish between those under 16 and those 16 and over. Rape has only been classified by age (under16, 16 and over) since 1995. Unlawful sexual intercourse is divided between girls under 16 and girls under 13. Gross indecency against a child always involves a child, and there is no age information for indecent exposure. Other offences have small numbers of cases, or, as consensual offences, lie outside the range of Static-99.

The rationale in Kirby's study was that all these persons were involved in illegal sexual activity against children. In all, 17 offenders were convicted of ‘indecent exposure with intent to insult any female’ and eight were convicted of rape or attempted rape. These offences do not specify the age of the victim, but they appropriately matched the target offences in the police files.

A dragnet operation is when all possible suspects, including those with previous convictions, are considered for questioning.

The time of release from custody was assumed to be the earliest possible – remission at first eligibility or parole granted on first application – but ignoring any time on remand.