Denial in Sex Offending Treatment: Examining Criminal Career Diversity

ABSTRACT

Sex offenders commonly exhibit some degree of denial of their offending. Past research has shown that denial conflicts with treatment completion, but does not necessarily increase sexual reoffending risk. This study explores whether the impact of denial upon the treatment of sex offenders is unequivocal or influenced by other factors, such as criminal career variables and dynamic risk. Thirty-five convicted male sex offenders in Italy were assessed for criminal career characteristics (e.g., heterogeneous versus specialized offending), for the nature of denial, and for dynamic risk factors. Interventions for sex offenders may be more effective if they are designed to differentiate between heterogeneous offenders who are difficult to engage in treatment, and specialized sex offenders who are more likely to engage in and complete treatment, regardless of their level of denial. Heterogeneous and specialized sex offenders pose different risks and these differences need to be taken into account in treatment.

KEYWORDS:

• Sex offending
• Denial
• criminal careers
• responsivity
• treatment

Acknowledgments

A special thank you to Dr. Domenico Minervini, Prison Governor in Turin for facilitating our contact with the sex offenders involved in the study.

The authors are very grateful to Dr. Marco Zuffranieri for his significant suggestions on the methodology of the study.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

¹ The interrater reliability was also calculated for the four different clusters of the CID-SO. Results show that it was also good for Cluster A, ICC_2,2 =.876, with 95% CI [.755 ̶.938]; Cluster B, ICC_2,2 =.888, with 95% CI [.779 ̶.944]; Cluster C, ICC_2,2 =.876, with 95% CI [.754 ̶.937]; Cluster D, ICC_2,2 =.892, with 95% CI [.786 ̶.945].

² In this study, specialized offenders were those who committed only sex crimes, and they were specialized in both official records and self-reports. The duration of sexual abuse was established by the Public Prosecutor General Office (e.g., the beginning and the end of each sex crime committed) and by looking at the criminal proceedings as to whether the judge had enforced art. 81 of Italian Penal Code (i.e. continuity in crime). Continuity in crime allows for a cumulative sentence of the convicted person. For instance, a sex offender in the study was convicted for a sex crime, which included various offenses: the court established that he had been committing sex crimes for 23 years, on different underage male victims. The identified victims totaled 19. Hence, this offender was considered a persistent sex offender.

³ The Surveillance Court is a court that includes the judge or panel that supervises the application and modification of the conditions during conviction; it also decides on applications of alternative measures as well as on all the general benefits such as alternative measures to detention, early release, conditional release, leave permits, permission to work outside the correctional institution, etc. (Canepa & Merlo, 2010).