Challenging Common Misperceptions Associated with Individuals Who Have Sexually Offended

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Robin J. Wilson,1,2 Heather M. Moulden2,3
1 Wilson Psychology Services LLC, Sarasota, United States of America; 2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neuroscience, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 3 Forensic Psychiatry Program, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Canada

Cite: Wilson, R. J., & Moulden, H. M. (2025). Challenging common misperceptions associated with individuals who have sexually offended. International Journal of Risk and Recovery, 7(1), 18-28. https://www.forensicpsychiatryinstitute.com/journal/journal-articles/challenging-common-misperceptions-associated-with-individuals-who-have-sexually-offended/

PDF

In the field of forensic mental health, there are few topics that result in as much controversy as sexual violence. Indeed, society regards perpetrators of sexual violence as being irredeemable and without social value. Attitudes about sexual offending and the individuals who perpetrate it are greatly influenced by portrayals of sensational cases and fictitious monsters, unfortunately without much linkage to known and emerging science regarding perpetration and prevention. These attitudes — often based on no science at all — have informed public policy and legislation for decades, although heightened attention may have emerged in the past several years. This article investigates common misperceptions regarding sexual violence, focusing on the realities of who is at risk to be victimized or perpetrate sex crimes and what the true prospects are for treatment and eventual desistance for individuals who commit sexual offences. Our goal is to provide helpful and evidence-based information in an accessible manner for professionals and laypeople alike. Our hope is that community members may feel more secure, individuals who commit offences will have real opportunities for rehabilitation and eventual community reintegration, and policy may more accurately reflect the science of sexual violence prevention and client rehabilitation.

Key words: sexual violence, community, public policy, desistance, knowledge transfer

Perhaps one of the most contentious domains in forensic mental health concerns the assessment, treatment, and risk management of individuals who have sexually offended. Indeed, sexual violence is an area in which the public has a lot of fear and not necessarily a lot of information. In an America national phone survey, the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM, 2010) asked, among many, two important questions:

  • From whom would you like to receive information about sexual violence?
  • From whom do you receive information about sexual violence?

The answer to Question 1 was experts, and the answer to Question 2 was the popular media. Therein lies the problem.

As a field of practice and scholarly inquiry, sexual violence prevention has garnered significant attention over the last 40 or more years. Driven by high-profile news media coverage of genuinely horrible crimes — often involving children — politicians and the public alike have rightfully demanded approaches that reduce both the onset and persistence of sexual offending. This has led to many public policy initiatives that attempt to contain the risk posed by individuals who have sexually offended. Although science has provided considerable information regarding the efficacy, or lack thereof, of these approaches, the impact of these findings has not contributed to meaningful or evidence-based changes and has generally not filtered down to the community level (refer to Wilson & Sandler, 2021).

The simple truth is that advances in understanding the dynamics of sexual violence and innovations in the approaches used to assess and manage individuals at risk to reoffend very rarely find their way into accessible media. Unfortunately, scientists tend to publish their findings in esteemed, yet obscure journals and trade publications that are largely unavailable to ordinary citizens without access to a university-level library. While we are mindful that this article potentially falls prey to the same difficulties, it is our intention that — through this paper and the open-access special issue in which it is found — we can highlight some critical translation issues and suggest an alternative approach to information sharing and knowledge transfer that promotes accessibility by non-professionals.

Issues and Answers

In this section, we highlight three areas of common misunderstanding when it comes to sexual violence prevention:

  1. The victimization-perpetration cycle hypothesis,
  2. Stranger-danger, and
  3. Can people convicted of sexual offences stop offending?

Victimization-Perpetration Cycle Hypothesis

Despite knowledge translation to dispel myths about the victimization–perpetration cycle (VPC or abused–abuser hypothesis [refer to Baril & Tourigny, 2015; Richards, 2011]), the notion that people who sexually abuse children were themselves victims persists as a mythical pearl of conventional wisdom (Hindman & Peters, 2001). This is likely due to the simplicity of the explanation and the comfort derived from a single cause, against which one can evaluate their own and others’ risk. Often relying on respondent self-report, some research has concluded that sexual offences and sexual abuse of children, in particular, are more common among men who were sexually victimized in their youth (Freund, et al., 1990; Jespersen et al., 2009; Ogloff et al., 2012). However, when the question is posed differently (e.g., longitudinal population designs versus retrospective cross-sectional designs), contradictory findings have emerged (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005, 2009; Widom & Massey, 2015), which suggest the VPC relationship is likely neither causal nor linear (refer to Pedneault et al., 2020). In reality, the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and adult sexual offending behaviour and outcomes is complicated and multifactorial.

One of the most significant barriers to addressing the VPC hypothesis is under-reporting of child sexual abuse (CSA). In the United States, almost half of women and a quarter of men have experienced sexual violence across their lifespans (Smith et al., 2018). Epidemiological research consistently identifies a gap between victimization rates and disclosure, with estimates of about one in 20 sexual assaults being reported to police (Conroy & Cotter, 2017; Cotter & Beaupré, 2014). Under-reporting has implications for VPC in that it:

  1. skews the true relationship between rates of victimization and perpetration of CSA,
  2. undermines access to care and intervention that may support recovery from CSA, and
  3. prevents analysis of the unique contributions of confounding risk and protective or resiliency factors.

Most of the research on VPC relies on self-report by identified individuals who have perpetrated CSA. Some individuals may minimize experiences of CSA due to shame, mislabel experiences as consensual, or conversely over-endorse CSA to explain or rationalize their behaviour or to elicit sympathy from decision-makers (Simons, 2007). This research tends to support the VPC hypothesis, with estimates of CSA among perpetrators ranging from 4% to 60% (Cale et al., 2014; Leach et al., 2016). Indeed, an umbrella review of 19 meta-analyses including over 4 million participants examined the relationship between CSA and various outcomes (Hailes et al., 2019). It found increased odds of sexual (versus non-sexual) offending (OR = 3.4; 95% CI [2.3–4.8]) and CSA perpetration specifically (OR = 2.0; 95% CI [1.4–2.9]) among individuals with a history of CSA. While these rates appear to support the VPC hypothesis, poor study quality indicators precluded the authors from endorsing such a link in the absence of prospective designs that include consideration of confounding variables. Indeed, when such different methodologies and analyses are applied, including mediating and moderating effects, a different VPC picture emerges.

Perhaps the most obvious criticism of the VPC hypothesis is the fact that most victims of CSA are females (4:1 [refer to MacMillan et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2018]), while most sexual offences are perpetrated by males. Furthermore, even among male victims of CSA, a small proportion (about 3%) go on to commit a sexual offence (Leach et al., 2016). What accounts for the differential outcomes and impacts associated with CSA? Simply, research shows that other risk and protective factors significantly influence — and may even account for — the VPC relationship. In one study examining this exact question, adult males who had experienced CSA were divided into those who subsequently sexually offended and those who did not. After correcting for differences in age and education, risk and protective factors accounted for the different trajectories among the two groups. Specifically, positive peer relationships and perceived familial emotional support provided a buffering effect, whereas subsequent fantasy and masturbation related to CSA increased risk of adult perpetration (Lambie et al., 2002).

The role of the family and environmental factors was also found to play critical roles in the VPC relationship in a prospective longitudinal study of CSA victims, their siblings, and a population-based comparison group (de Jong & Dennison, 2017). Compared with their siblings, CSA among male victims did not significantly predict any type of offending, including sexual offences, suggesting that the observed effect on subsequent sexual and general offending could not be attributed to CSA alone. However, when examining the VPC hypothesis among those selected because they have perpetrated sexual abuse, the relationship between CSA and subsequent sexual offending appears to be quite robust, even when controlling for other criminological and psychopathological variables (Drury et al., 2019; King et al., 2019), but may be mediated by sexual life variables, such as early sexual intercourse, more partners, and impersonal sex (Pedneault et al., 2020). Therefore, it appears that other factors related to family and environment, as well as other sexual activity variables, either protect or potentiate the effect of CSA. Therefore, among people who perpetrate CSA, their own victimization is one important contributor to the onset of sexual offending, but it alone does not cause sexual offending, nor is it related to persistent offending or recidivism.

Not surprisingly, the early lives of people who engage in CSA are characterized by much adversity and poly-victimization, beyond CSA (Levenson, Willis, et al., 2016; Reavis et al., 2013). Indeed, other types of maltreatment may interact with and/or magnify the effects of CSA (King et al., 2019; Widom & Massey, 2015) and may contribute to different manifestations of offending and violence, sexual or otherwise (Pedneault et al., 2020). From this perspective, it is important to dispel the notion that victims — male victims in particular — are destined to re-enact the abuse they have endured. Equally important is the appreciation for the specific context in which to interpret CSA risk, and what it means for prevention, intervention, and policy related to sexual offending.

Unfortunately, despite accurate knowledge in the scientific realm about CSA, murky as it may be, the VPC myth persists and influences public opinion and behaviour (extending to jurors’ attitudes), legal decisions, and policy (Cromer & Goldsmith, 2010). Specifically, the VPC hypothesis is an example of people preferring simple explanations to complex ones. Absent efforts from the scientific community to clarify and explain complicated human behaviour, decision-makers — such as voters, jurors, and policy-makers — are likely to be biased by such myths and the assumptions they bring about risk and treatability. In an evaluation of prominent CSA myths, researchers found a tendency for VPC to be endorsed as evidence of CSA being less traumatizing to male victims or portrayed as a certain outcome of CSA (i.e., determinism) and, therefore, related to heightened risk. Indeed, one study found that a history of child abuse was found to be an aggravator (versus mitigator) in capital sentencing deliberations (Stevenson et al., 2010).

The myths we have noted highlight the implicit assumptions that underlie the VPC hypothesis and likely perpetuate barriers to dispelling it. For example, the popular notions that males are unlikely to be sexually abused (or denial of abuse by female perpetrators), are less likely to be traumatized by CSA, or are more likely to grow up to be homosexual after experiencing CSA may contribute to under-reporting of CSA in the general population. In a review of disclosures across 11 studies, the modal rate of CSA disclosure was only 33% (London et al., 2005), with males reporting even less often (Alaggia et al., 2019; Hébert et al., 2009). At a broader level, CSA myth acceptance is positively correlated with disbelief of disclosure when it does occur (Cromer & Freyd, 2007, 2009), further exacerbating the consequences of CSA misinformation among both the broader public and in courtrooms and legislatures (Hamilton, 2008).

In summary, men who have sexually offended may be more likely to have been sexually abused as children, but this link is likely related to the presence of other risk factors or, rather, the absence of protective factors. Importantly, a small proportion of individuals — including males — who experienced CSA will grow up to commit a sexual offence themselves. However, identifying people who have been sexually abused is important in making sure that the response and support is available to facilitate healing and recovery.

Stranger Danger

Nothing strikes fear into the heart of women more than the feeling they are being followed on a dark or secluded walkway. The same is true of the upset and terror experienced by a parent when their child is late for curfew. The former leads many women to take self-defence training while parents teach and reteach their children about not talking to strangers. As a society, we are consumed by stranger-danger. However, how reasonable is it for us to focus our fears — and legislative efforts — on strangers as the likely perpetrators of sexual violence?

When implementing the Ontario Sex Offender Registry (known colloquially as Christopher’s Law, 2000), the provincial government released a trifold flyer in which data were shared regarding the dire situation faced by children abducted for a sexual purpose:

Data indicates [sic] that a rapid response during an investigation of a child abduction for a sexual purpose is critical. Of those victims who were murdered:

  • 44% were dead within one hour after the abduction;
  • 74% within three hours; and
  • 91% within 24 hours.

Although we do not take issue with the information provided in the excerpt, we certainly do take issue with the context in which those data were put forward to a community stoked by fear and lacking in science-based understanding of the issues at hand.
As we have noted in this paper, the popular media — especially crime dramas focusing on serial offenders and otherwise lurid storylines — has great capacity to influence the thoughts and opinions of viewers, who are ultimately voters and community activists. Stranger-danger mythology stemmed from an apparent upsurge in child abductions and/or sexual murders in the United States and United Kingdom in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Wodda, 2018). The narrative eventually focused on dangerous pedophiles (Kitzinger, 1999) and the news and entertainment media ran with it (e.g., the reality television series To Catch a Predator). Policy followed with restrictive legislation that lacked empirical foundation, many named after children who were sexually abused and murdered by strangers and described as memorial laws. Society, and parents specifically, fell prey to the mental shortcut that causes individuals to overestimate the risk of sensational or easily recalled events, regardless of the actual likelihood. Such practices continue today.

Unfortunately, the response was moral panic. What followed was unquestioning support of efforts to address a sensationalized, misdirected, and largely exaggerated threat (Best, 1987). Certainly, nobody wants a family member or anyone they know to fall prey to the sort of offender depicted in such dramatic representations, but how much risk does any average member of the community actually bear?

The literature on sexual violence prevention typically shows a hierarchy of victimization risk, with people being most at risk from family members or intimate partners, then acquaintances, and only then, strangers (Smith et al., 2017). Even then, the rate of stranger-perpetrated sexual violence represents fewer than 25% of cases overall, and this drops to fewer than 10% of cases for child victims, specifically (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013). When we examine American rates of child abduction by strangers (the very root of the stranger-danger myth of sexual abuse), the incidence falls to fewer than 1%, about half of whom are then safely returned to their homes (Hammer et al., 2002; Williams & Bierie, 2015). Despite the reality that child abduction and CSA rarely occur together, sensationalized cases conflate these concepts in the public’s mind, leading to many of the social policies aimed at people convicted of sexual offences, such as sex offender registries (e.g., Megan’s Law, 1996; Christopher’s Law, 2000; Logan, 2011). In the public’s mind, registries improve public safety and help locate abducted children in time, to prevent a tragic outcome (as noted in the percentages reported above when Christopher’s Law was first implemented) by quickly accessing people who have previously committed sexual offences. Unfortunately, this approach assumes that most sexual offences are committed by individuals with prior histories when, in reality, most individuals processed for a sexual offence are caught for the first time (95%; Sandler et al., 2008).
So, what is it that perpetuates the stranger-danger mythology? What is the risk associated with stranger-perpetrated sexual abuse, particularly for children?

There is a disconnect between the likelihood of being sexually assaulted by a stranger, the level of risk, and the fear we attach to individuals targeting strangers. This disconnect is certainly influenced by the degree to which such individuals draw popular attention due to the persistence of their offending behaviours. For instance, although most individuals are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a partner, family member, or friend, individuals who target strangers are at least twice as likely to reoffend as their non-stranger compatriots (Helmus & Thornton, 2015). Similarly, on a popular actuarial risk assessment instrument (ARAI) known as the Static-99R (Hanson & Thornton, 2000; Helmus et al., 2021; Phenix et al., 2016), individuals are scored on any unrelated victims and any stranger victims, recognizing the fact that individuals with such victim profiles tend to reoffend more often. In this way, the stranger relationship as a risk factor is likely a proxy for underlying established variables associated with risk for sexual violence, such as sexual deviance, antisociality, or the psychopathic personality orientation. However, what is missing is that individuals who offend against strangers are significantly more likely to target adults, particularly sex-trade workers, or female adults living or working alone (e.g., students, elderly; [Lowman, 2000]).

Another factor that contributes to increased focus on strangers is the presumption that people victimized by an unknown person are more harmed or have worse outcomes. In a study of 733 adult survivors of CSA, various outcomes were examined among individuals who had engaged in and experienced sexual harm (Ullman, 2007). Perhaps surprisingly, individuals abused by relatives, compared with acquaintances and strangers, described more negative reactions to their disclosure, including disbelief. They also reported more trauma symptoms and endorsed more self-blame. This finding is consistent with research that suggests the impacts of CSA are mediated by the reactions, supports, and interventions upon disclosure, all of which are paradoxically more robust when the perpetrator is a stranger (refer to Lambie, et al., 2002). By far, the more likely event is sexual abuse perpetrated by a known or related individual (e.g., coaches, babysitters, family), which seems to be related to worse outcomes. Oddly, significantly less attention and resources are devoted to the protection of children — and education of the public — regarding these relationship risks and scenarios.

Can people convicted of sexual offences stop offending?

Mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws, civil commitment, lifetime probation — these are all examples of hardline sentencing and risk management policies implemented by legislators seeking to appease their constituents of the risks posed to the community by individuals who engage in sexual violence. These and similar legislative efforts represent so-called “feel-good” laws that tend to be popular with voters but short on empirical support. The intent is to contain or in some cases eradicate the risk posed by individuals who engage in sexual violence (e.g., Florida recently amended its death penalty statutes regarding molestation of children under a certain age). The fuel driving many of these policies is community fear and, ultimately, government policy responses to sensational news media coverage of current events — juxtaposed against a distinct lack of science-based discourse.

Who is to blame for this disconnect between what titillates us and what informs us? An extensive meta-analytic review of the rates of sexual reoffending strongly counters the public’s common belief that all individuals who sexually offended will reoffend (refer to Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005), suggesting that 13% to 15% of such individuals will sexually reoffend in five years post-release. However, these findings are likely dated according to ensuing research (refer to Helmus et al., 2021), which suggests that the average person with a sex offence history is 3% to 7% likely to engage in a new sexual offence over five years of community follow-up. Of course, as noted above, all estimations of reoffending rates need to be considered with under-reporting in mind.
There is no doubt that many individuals in the community have a strong fear and disgust response whenever they hear about sexual violence. A general belief exists among a broad swath of the public (and many professionals) that individuals who sexually offend are incorrigible sex maniacs unable to curb their desires and that they will be that way for the rest of their lives. Evidence for the existence of this perspective lies in the civil commitment procedures common in the United States (Brandt et al., 2015). However, other countries have also investigated establishing similar processes (McCartan & Gotch, 2020). In sex offender civil commitment, certain individuals who have sexually offended are singled out for specialized long-term control, care, and treatment — based largely on a belief that their lifetime risk to reoffend is too high. But is it?

Before the 1990s, risk assessment in sexual violence prevention was limited to clinical judgment — often largely unstructured and based on the idiosyncratic experiences and philosophical beliefs of individual assessors. Various studies of clinical versus mechanical methods of assessing risk (e.g., Monahan, 1981, 2008) clearly showed that structured processes were more accurate, and clinical judgment was often too subjective to be useful. Such findings spurred attempts to objectivize risk assessment processes using empirically derived ARAIs. The most common of these used in sexual violence risk assessment is the Static-99R (refer to Phenix, et al., 2016). It’s a 10-item scale that uses client history and other static and historical variables to gauge the likelihood that a person arrested, charged, or convicted of a sexually motivated offence with an identifiable victim will engage in similar such behaviour in the future. Research assessing the usefulness of ARAIs in sexual violence prevention has found that the Static-99R and its analogues routinely provide moderate predictive validity (area under the curve [AUC] ≈.70, where .50 is chance). Briefly, an AUC statistic is essentially a hit-rate that tells us the general likelihood that a randomly selected person who sexually reoffends will have a higher score on the instrument than a randomly selected person who does not.

The introduction of standardized and cross-validated processes for assessing risk to sexually reoffend dramatically changed the playing field for practitioners. Using ARAIs allowed for more precise identification of individuals at greatest risk to reoffend, so that resources — such as supervision and interventions — could be more finely tailored to risk level and criminogenic need according to the precepts of the risk-need-responsivity framework (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Further, with continued use of ARAIs, researchers have been better able to follow the trajectory of risk for individuals at risk over incrementally longer and longer periods of follow-up. For example, with the Static-99R and its precursor, Static-99, having now been available to practitioners for 25 years, we have a quite sizable number of individuals who were assessed for risk level and then followed for two decades or longer. This has greatly enhanced our understanding of sexual and other reoffending over the long term.

Referencing criminality, generally, Hanson (2018) has suggested that most individuals who break the law likely cross a threshold at about 10 years post-release with no further criminal activity nor risk. With the assistance of various colleagues, Hanson has also done much to chart the long-term reoffence patterns of individuals who have sexually offended. In one study (Hanson et al., 2014), a question was raised whether high-risk sex offenders might remain high risk forever? What these researchers found was that with continued success, individuals at the higher end of the risk continuum released to the community saw incremental but substantial decreases in the likelihood they posed a risk to sexually reoffend over time. That is, the extent to which released individuals were able to establish a workable reintegration plan and follow through on it was inversely related to the continued risk to sexually reoffend. Indeed, while initial levels of assessed risk (using Static-99R) were significantly different across individuals rated as low, moderate, or high risk, these differences all but eroded when looking at only individuals who had survived for 10 years in the community with no renewed, risk-relevant difficulties. Based on these results, Hanson and colleagues (2014) stated that offence history is likely to be a valid, yet time-
dependent indicator of risk to sexually reoffend.

A subsequent study conducted by the same research group (Hanson et al., 2018) expanded on their investigations by questioning whether a person once declared a sexual offender was always a sexual offender. Using a similar long-term follow-up methodology, these researchers tracked sexual and other reoffending across 25 years post-release. They found that no matter what the individuals’ risk levels were at release, positive community reintegration greatly predicted ongoing success. Indeed, they found that after 10 to 15 years, most individuals with a sex offence history were no more likely to engage in new sexual offending than would be an individual with a criminal history that did not include sexual offending. Consequently, the authors suggested that policies such as lifetime probation may be unnecessary. They wrote that empirical processes now exist to adjust risk classifications over time, with the ultimate end being that some individuals previously thought to be at significant risk might eventually be regarded as no longer needing the conditions and restrictions associated with the sex offender label.

Both of the articles noted above dovetail nicely with other research showing that release planning (Willis & Grace, 2008, 2009) and ongoing community support (Wilson & McWhinnie, 2017) are crucial in ensuring that individuals who have sexually offended gain a strong toehold following release from institutional settings (i.e., prison, hospital, or civil commitment settings, among others). Indeed, measures of dynamic sexual violence risk potential (e.g., Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale [McGrath et al., 2012] and Stable-2007 [Fernandez et al., 2014]) typically include variables assessing personality orientation, patterns of behaviour, and values and attitudes. Among these are items that consider prosocial associations, isolation and loneliness, general and sexual self-regulation, and an individual’s ability to negotiate life in numerous domains. The bottom line appears to be that individuals who land safely in the community — aided by a strong reintegration plan and positive community support from family, friends, and others — are at considerably less risk to sexually reoffend. Otherwise, there is credible evidence to suggest that many of these legislative feel-good responses to sexual violence actually result in outcomes caused by these very interventions (e.g., homelessness, poor work opportunities, social isolation and loneliness [refer to Levenson, Grady, et al., 2016]), thereby potentially increasing risk for reoffence.

Since 1994, the Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) movement has slowly migrated across the world, with projects now in place in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and other international jurisdictions (Wilson & McWhinnie, 2013; 2017). What began in Canada as a volunteer-driven restorative justice–informed approach to community-based integration of individuals at high risk or need to sexually reoffend has become an empirically supported model of sexual violence prevention and community building. Based on encouraging initial findings (Wilson et al., 2007) showing substantial reductions in post-release sexual reoffending in populations of largely higher-risk individuals, the CoSA model has proliferated globally. No matter where the model has been implemented, it appears to have had a meaningful effect on the individuals who formerly engaged in sexual violence, the community volunteers, and the community-at-large through lower rates of reoffending (refer to Clarke, et al., 2017; Wilson & McWhinnie, 2013).

Summary and Discussion

In this article, we have highlighted just a few of the common misperceptions held about individuals who have sexually offended. Our main goal in doing so was to provide information about sexual violence risk underpinned by scientific inquiry and not by popular discourse. It has been our contention that the media sensationalize interpersonal violence — particularly sexual violence — with the salacious representations on television bear very little resemblance to the types of sexual offences most commonly occurring. For reference purposes, it is likely that the most common type of sexual offending involves a male exposing his penis to an unsuspecting person. The most common hands-on, or contact, offence involves a male adult molesting a female child in a custodial scenario (e.g., father, stepfather, grandfather). Familial offences are more common than offences between acquaintances. Offences committed by strangers are the least likely to occur (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). Yet, it is the latter type of offences that typically captivate the public and lead to (often misguided) policies and practices regarding sexual violence prevention and management of individuals who have engaged in such behaviours. In reality, serial sexual offending of the Ted Bundy, Paul Bernardo, or John Wayne Gacy variety sells movie tickets but is particularly rare by comparison to the much more common types of offending noted above.

Of particular importance in providing real information about sexual violence and sexual violence risk is that if someone is going to be sexually assaulted, they are much more likely to be assaulted by a family member or a friend. The assessment, treatment, and risk management variables are considerably different to those associated with the rare but sensational scenarios. As we have noted herein, most individuals who sexually offend are relatively unlikely to sexually reoffend. There are some real things we can do to intervene and drive falling rates of sexual offending and reoffending even lower (refer to Finkelhor & Jones, 2012). One critically important thing to do in this endeavour is to speak truth to misperception. That is what we intended to do in this paper.

We first addressed the commonly held victim–perpetrator hypothesis, in which individuals who were sexually abused as children are seen as somehow predisposed to engage in future sexual violence. While there is some evidence to suggest that certain individuals who are sexually victimized do go on to sexually offend, it is not as simple as “you were, therefore you will.” Issues of adverse childhood experiences, broadly, and as other developmental markers, sexual interests and preferences, and situational variables all hold at least some sway in explaining why some individuals engage in sexually abusive acts as adults. These are likely important to consider in assessing individuals who have offended, regardless of a developmental history of CSA.

Second, we looked at the pervasive stranger-danger belief. Although it is certainly wise practice to caution children against talking to strangers and for them to be knowledgeable about good touches and bad touches, the greatest risk to children for sexual harm does not come from strangers. Rather, it is family members and acquaintances who are substantially more likely to sexually abuse them. From a logical standpoint, some individuals who offend take a substantial degree of risk in selecting strangers to victimize (e.g., little known about the victim, difficulty controlling the environment), with acquaintances and family members being comparatively less likely to report because of blurred boundaries and competing social variables. Simply put, it is easier to turn in a stranger than to turn in your next-door neighbour — both of whom are easier (and have fewer complications) to report than your father, brother, or uncle.

Last, we addressed the idea that sexual offenders may not be sexual offenders forever. There has been a prevailing misbelief that individuals who sexually offend are intractable sex fiends who are unable to quell their deviant urges, ultimately going on to commit dozens and dozens of sexual offences over their lifetimes. There are certainly issues about reoffending rates, with under-reporting posing a sincere threat to our true appraisal of the numbers of individuals who go on to do it again. However, there are several findings that support the idea that most individuals who sexually offend are not destined to forever commit new offences. First, studies have shown (e.g., Sandler et al., 2008) that as many as 95% of individuals coming into the correctional system for sexual offending are first-time caught, which means very few previously identified individuals are reoffending — or at least being caught reoffending. A second point to be made is that it appears that — if they are going to — most individuals previously convicted of sexual offences will sexually reoffend within the first five years after release, with even two years of post-release success being a meaningful outcome predictive of eventual desistance from sexual offending (refer to Hanson et al., 2014). (Note that most individuals with sexual offence histories who go on to engage in more criminal offending, typically do so with general or non-sexual criminal conduct.) Based on the long-term data collected by Hanson and his colleagues (2014, 2018), we can say with some certainty that the most dramatic reductions in sexual reoffending are observed in the group of individuals with the highest percentage likelihood to reoffend, provided they land safely in the community. According to Willis and Johnston (2012), the “safest offender” …

  • has a place to live,
  • is connected to support people to whom they are accountable,
  • has work, and
  • has everything to lose by engaging in new offending behaviours.

Of course, as practitioners and concerned members of the community, it is at least partly our responsibility to ensure that individuals who have sexually offended have an opportunity to land safely in the community. While this may cause some to bristle at the thought of ordinary citizens taking responsibility for the post-release experience of individuals who sexually offended, we would suggest that community safety and “no more victims” are goals shared by all. This is the spirit of the CoSA model we referred to, in which individuals who formerly engaged in sexual offending work together with community volunteers, law enforcement officers, clinical professionals, and victim advocates to secure a greater degree of community safety and reintegration potential. This ultimately translates to the growth of social capital and a less violent and sexually treacherous world (Fox, 2015). Various studies have pointed to very real decreases in the rates of sexual offending and sexual reoffending — nationally and internationally — over the past three or more decades (e.g., Finkelhor & Jones, 2012). Working together, we have reduced the harm.

In the name of prevention and community safety, it is easy to see how superficial explanations can be adopted quickly, without further scrutiny. However, left unchecked, these myths have contributed to social opinion and ultimately legislation, which paradoxically misdirect resources and efforts and, even worse, increase risk for reoffence within our society. This paper attempts to identify the worst culprits and provide explanations about where the myths originated, why they are inaccurate, and their consequences. With real information based on actual research, we can do what works to make society safer.

As a final thought, we are committed to the idea that science should be accessible to all. In furthering this aspirational goal, this paper is part of a series of similar manuscripts, each of which attempts to provide clear and understandable information that is accessible to clients, their families, the community-at-large, triers-of-fact (e.g., judges, juries, parole board members), legislators, and individuals involved in criminal justice administration. The practice of publishing important information about the human experience in obscure scholarly publications — inaccessible to most of the groups noted above and (unfortunately) largely overlooked by the scholars who have access — needs to either end or be significantly modified. As they say, knowledge is power. It is our perspective that an informed and empowered community typically makes better decisions in most domains.

Acknowledgement

The authors are appreciative of Drs. Drew Kingston and Liam Marshall for their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Alaggia, R., Collin-Vézina, D., & Lateef, R. (2019). Facilitators and barriers to child sexual abuse (CSA) disclosures: A research update (2000–2016). Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20(2), 260–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017697312

Baril, K., & Tourigny, M. (2015). Le cycle intergénérationnel de la victimisation sexuelle dans l’enfance: Modèle explicatif basé sur la théorie du trauma. Carnet de Notes sur les Maltraitances Infantiles, 1(1), 28–63. https://doi.org/10.3917/cnmi.151.0028

Best, J. (1987). Rhetoric in claims-making: Constructing the missing children problem. Social Problems, 34(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/800710

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct. New York: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003292128

Brandt, J., Wilson, R. J., & Prescott, D. S. (2015). Doubts about SVP programs: A critical review of sexual offender civil commitment in the US (pp. 5-1–5-29). In B. Schwartz (Ed.), The sex offender, Vol. 8. Kingston, N.J.: Civic Research Institute.

Cale, J., Leclerc, B., & Smallbone, S. (2014). The sexual lives of sexual offenders: The link between childhood sexual victimization and non-criminal sexual lifestyles between types of offenders. Psychology Crime and Law, 20(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.736510

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2010). Exploring public awareness and attitudes about Sex offender management: Findings from a national public opinion poll. Washington, DC: Author. https://cepp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Exploring-Public-Awareness-and-Attitudes-About-Sex-Offender-Management-Findings-From-A-National-Public-Opinion-Poll-2010.pdf

Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 1 – Bill 31.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/00c01

Clarke, M., Brown, S., & Völlm, B. (2017). Circles of support and accountability for sex offenders: A systematic review of outcomes. Sexual Abuse, 29(5), 446–478.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215603691

Conroy, S., & Cotter. A. (2017). Self-reported sexual assault in Canada, 2014. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842-eng.htm

Cotter, A., & Beaupré, P. (2014). Police-reported sexual offences against children and youth in Canada, 2012. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/14008-eng.htm

Cromer, L. D., & Freyd, J. J. (2007). What influences believing child sexual abuse disclosures? The roles of depicted memory persistence, participant gender, trauma history, and sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 13–22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00327.x

Cromer, L. D., & Freyd, J. J. (2009). Hear no evil, see no evil? Associations of gender, trauma history, and values with believing trauma vignettes. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01185.x

Cromer, L. D., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). Child sexual abuse myths: Attitudes, beliefs, and individual differences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(6), 618-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2010.522493

de Jong, R., & Dennison, S. (2017). Recorded offending among child sexual abuse victims: A 30-year follow-up. Child Abuse & Neglect, 72, 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.07.013

Drury, A. J., Elbert, M. J., & DeLisi, M. (2019). Childhood sexual abuse is significantly associated with subsequent sexual offending: New evidence among federal correctional clients. Child Abuse & Neglect, 95, Article 104035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104035

Fernandez, Y., Harris, A. J., Hanson, R. K., & Sparks, J. (2014). STABLE-2007 coding manual: Revised 2014. Unpublished manual, Public Safety Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Finkelhor, D. & Jones, L. (2012). Have sexual abuse and physical abuse declined since the 1990s? Durham, NH: Crimes against Children Research Center. https://www.unh.edu/ccrc/sites/default/files/media/2022-02/have-sa-and-pa-declined.pdf

Fox, K. J. (2015). Trying to restore justice: Bureaucracies, risk management, and disciplinary boundaries in New Zealand criminal justice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(5), 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13511403

Freund, K., Watson, R., & Dickey, R. (1990). Does sexual abuse in childhood cause pedophilia: An exploratory study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19(6), 557–568.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542465

Hailes, H. P., Yu, R., Danese, A., & Fazel, S. (2019). Long-term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: an umbrella review. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(10), 830–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30286-X

Hamilton, M. A. (2008). Justice denied: What America must do to protect its children. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720796

Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., & Sedlak, A. J. (2002). Runaway/thrownaway children: National estimates and characteristics. National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196469.pdf

Hanson, R. K. (2018). Long-term recidivism studies show that desistance is the norm. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(9), 1340-1346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818793382

Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348-362.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.66.2.348

Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2014). High-risk sex offenders may not be high risk forever. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), 2792–2813.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514526062

Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Letourneau, E., Helmus, L. M., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000135

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421

Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 119–136.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005482921333

Hébert, M., Tourigny, M., Cyr, M., McDuff, P., & Joly, J. (2009). Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and timing of disclosure in a representative sample of adults from Quebec. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(9), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370905400908

Helmus, L. M., Lee, S. C., Phenix, A., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2021). Static-99R and static-2002R evaluators workbook.

Helmus, L.-M., & Thornton, D. (2015). Stability and predictive and incremental accuracy of the individual items of Static-99R and Static-2002R in predicting sexual recidivism: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(9), 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814568891

Hindman J., & Peters J. M. (2001). Polygraph testing leads to better understanding adult and juvenile sex offenders. Federal Probation, 65(3), 8–15.

Jespersen, A. F., Lalumière, M. L., & Seto, M. C. (2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders and non-sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.07.004

King, A. R., Kuhn, S. K., Strege, C., Russell, T. D., & Kolander, T. (2019). Revisiting the link between childhood sexual abuse and adult sexual aggression. Child Abuse & Neglect, 94, Article 104022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104022

Kitzinger, J. (1999). Audience understandings of media messages about child sexual abuse: An exploration of audience reception and media influence [PhD thesis]. University of Glasgow (United Kingdom).

Lambie, I., Seymour, F., Lee, A., & Adams, P. (2002). Resiliency in the victim–offender cycle in male sexual abuse. Sexual Abuse, 14(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320201400103

Leach, C., Stewart, A., & Smallbone, S. (2016). Testing the sexually abused-sexual abuser hypothesis: A prospective longitudinal birth cohort study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.024

Levenson, J. S., Grady, M. D., & Leibowitz, G. (2016). Grand challenges: Social justice and the need for evidence-based sex offender registry reform. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 43(2), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.3816

Levenson, J. S., Willis, G. M., & Prescott, D. S. (2016). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of male sex offenders: Implications for trauma-informed care. Sexual Abuse, 28(4), 340–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214535819

Logan, W. A. (2011). Megan’s Laws as a case study in political stasis. Syracuse Law Review, 61, 371–411. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1808023

London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 194–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.194

Lowman, L. (2000). Violence and the outlaw status of (street) prostitution in Canada. Violence Against Women, 6(9), 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022182245

MacMillan, H. L., Tanaka, M., Duku, E., Vaillancourt, T., & Boyle, M. H. (2013). Child physical and sexual abuse in a community sample of young adults: Results from the Ontario Child Health Study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.06.005

McCartan, K., & Gotch, K. (2020). International Approaches to the Management of Perpetrators of Sexual Harm Policy: Preventative, Practical, or Political? In J. Proulx, F. Cortoni, L. A. Craig, & E. J. Letourneau (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of what works with sexual offenders: Contemporary perspectives in theory, assessment, treatment, and prevention (pp. 441-454). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119439325.ch25

McGrath, R. J., Lasher, M. P., & Cumming, G. F. (2012). The Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS): Psychometric properties and incremental predictive validity with Static-99R. Sexual Abuse, 24(5), 431–458.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211432475

Megan’s Law (1996). Section 170101(d) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(d)).

Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior (Reprinted as Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques by SAGE Publications). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Crime & Delinquency Issues: A Monograph Series, ADM 81-921, 134.

Monahan, J. (2008). Structured risk assessment of violence. In R. I. Simon & K. Tardiff (Eds.), Textbook of violence assessment and management (pp. 17-34). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Ogloff, J.., Cutajar, M.., Mann, E., & Mullen, P. (2012). Child sexual abuse and subsequent offending and victimisation: A 45 year follow-up study. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 440, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti251190

Pedneault, C. I., Babchishin, K. M., Lalumière, M. L., & Seto, M. C. (2020). The association between childhood sexual abuse and sexual coercion in men: A test of possible mediators. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 26(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2019.1613575

Phenix, A., Fernandez, Y., Harris, A. J. R., Helmus, M., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2016). Static-99R coding rules: Revised — 2016. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sttc-2016/index-en.aspx

Reavis, J. A., Looman, J., Franco, K. A., & Rojas, B. (2013). Adverse childhood experiences and adult criminality: How long must we live before we possess our own lives? The Permanente Journal, 17(2), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/12-072

Richards, K. (2011). Misperceptions about child sex offenders. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 429. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti258908

Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013881

Simons, D. (2007). Understanding victimization among sexual abusers. In D. S. Prescott (Ed.), Knowledge & practice: Challenges in the treatment and supervision of sexual abusers (pp. 56–90). Oklahoma City: Wood ‘N’ Barnes.

Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/46305

Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M.-J., & Chen, J. (2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 data brief–updated release. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/60893

Stevenson, M. C., Bottoms, B. L., & Diamond, S. S. S. (2010). Jurors’ discussions of a defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018404

Ullman, S. E. (2007). Relationship to perpetrator, disclosure, social reactions, and PTSD symptoms in child sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16(1), 19–36.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v16n01_02

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2013). Child maltreatment 2012. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment

Widom, C. S., & Massey, C. (2015). A prospective examination of whether childhood sexual abuse predicts subsequent sexual offending. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(1), Article e143357.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3357

Williams, K. S., & Bierie, D. M. (2015). An incident-based comparison of female and male sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 27(3), 235-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214544333

Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2008). The quality of community reintegration planning for child molesters: Effects on sexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 218–240.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208318005

Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2009). Assessment of community reintegration planning for sex offenders: Poor planning predicts recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(5), 494–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809332874

Willis, G. M., & Johnston, L. (2012). Planning helps: The impact of release planning on subsequent re-entry experiences of child sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18(2), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.506576

Wilson, R. J., & McWhinnie, A. J. (2013). Putting the “community” back in community risk management of persons who have sexually abused. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8(3–4), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100987

Wilson, R. J. & McWhinnie, A. J. (2017). Circles of Support & Accountability: A “how to” guide for establishing CoSA in your location. Needham, MA: Counseling & Psychotherapy Center, Inc. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/circles-support-accountability-how-guide-establishing-cosa-your-location

Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E., & Prinzo, M. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of professionally-facilitated volunteerism in the community-based management of high-risk sexual offenders: Part two — A comparison of recidivism rates. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00480.x

Wilson, R. J. & Sandler, J. C. (2021). What works (or does not) in community risk management for persons convicted of sexual offenses? A contemporary perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 65(12), 1282–1298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18754764

Wodda, A. (2018) Stranger danger! Journal of Family Strengths, 18(1), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.58464/2168-670X.1384