Do Sanctions Affect Undetected Sexual Offending?

Undetected sexual offending creates challenges for risk assessment since estimated sexual recidivism rates are based on documented charges or convictions. Courts and other stakeholders may be primarily interested in the true risk for sexual reoffense and not simply risk for detected sexual offenses. Attempts to study and quantify the rate of undetected sexual offending have resulted in a wide variety of estimates. In this study, we explore whether sanctions imposed for detected sexual offenses increase the detection rate of subsequent offenses, and thereby suppress undetected sexual offending in an exceptionally high-risk sample who were ultimately committed as Sexually Violent Persons. Results indicate the detection rate of sexual offenses increased following an initial sanction, subsequently decreasing the proportion of undetected to detected offending. This effect only occurred after the first sanction. Overall, the sample had a high detection rate and spent little time in the community before subsequent arrests. These results differ from other reports that high rates of sexual offenses go undetected.

How Do Professionals Assess Sexual Recidivism Risk? An Updated Survey of Practices.

Forensic evaluators may be assisted by comparing their use of instruments with that of their peers. This article reports the results of a 2017 survey of instrument use by forensic evaluators carrying out sexual recidivism risk assessments. Results are compared with a similar survey carried out in 2013. Analysis focuses primarily on adoption of more recently developed instruments and norms, and on assessment of criminogenic needs and protective factors, and secondarily, on exploring factors related to differences in evaluator practice. Findings indicate that most evaluators have now adopted modern actuarial instruments, with the Static-99R and Static-2002R being the most commonly used. Assessment of criminogenic needs is now common, with the STABLE-2007 being the most frequently used instrument. Evaluators are also increasingly likely to consider protective factors. While a majority of evaluators uses actuarial instruments, a substantial minority employs Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) instruments. Few factors discriminated patterns of instrument use.