Unfortunately the problems of social deprivation, poor education and family problems are difficult to address and require long-term solutions rather than a “quick-fix”.
1.3.2 Sexual Offending
The term “sexual offences” covers a number of crimes, including rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and gross indecency with a child. Other non-sexual offences can also sometimes have a sexual element, such as sexually motivated murder. Due to problems of under-reporting of crimes, it is difficult to put a figure on the number of sexual offences committed. However, figures for the twelve months up to December 2014 show that there were 80,262 sexual offences recorded by the police in this period (ONS, 2015).
There are six major theories of sexual offending, three of which cover child sexual abuse, one that relates to rape, and two that attempt to explain all types of sexual offending.
Finkelhor’s (1984) “Four Preconditions” model proposes that there are four preconditions that a child molester must pass through prior to an offence. First, there must be a motivation to sexually abuse, such as sexual arousal to a child, emotional congruence with a child, or blockage of sexual expression with an adult. Second, internal inhibitions against offending must be overcome. These inhibitions can be overcome through distorted beliefs about child abuse, becoming disinhibited through the use of alcohol or drugs, or experiencing severe stress. Third, external factors must be overcome to allow the abuse to occur, for example gaining the trust of the child and their family, or the child being left alone. Fourth, the child’s resistance must be overcome, through using force or grooming techniques.
A second theory of child sexual abuse is Hall and Hirschmann’s (1992) quadripartite model. Like Finkelhor’s model this proposes there are four components necessary for an offence to take place: sexual arousal to children; attitudes and beliefs (cognitions) that justify child abuse; poor self-regulation; and personality problems. This theory suggests that vulnerability to committing child sexual abuse is caused by personality problems. Situational factors, including opportunity, determine when this vulnerability is triggered, leading to deviant arousal, emotional disturbance and offence-permitting thinking. Subtypes of child molesters are also proposed based on the relative level of each of these factors. Therefore, some child abusers have greater levels of deviant arousal, others have greater emotional disturbance, and others have more distorted cognitions. Research examining the risk factors for child molesters support the four areas outlined in this theory, providing some support for it.
The third theory is the “Pathways Model” set out by Ward and Siegert (2002), which proposes four separate but interacting psychological mechanisms are involved in child sexual abuse. These are: intimacy/social deficits; distorted sexual scripts; cognitive distortions; and emotional dysregulation. The four components are involved in all sexual offences, but one component dominates each pathway into offending. Offenders with multiple dysfunctional mechanisms form a fifth pathway, hypothesised to be the “pure paedophiles”.
Turning to theories of rape, an interaction model of sexual aggression was proposed by Malamuth, Heavey, and Linz (1993). Specifically, this model proposes that sexual aggression is the result of the interaction of two “paths”: the hostile masculinity path and the sexual promiscuity path. The hostile masculinity path emphasises the role of aggressive intimate relationships and sexual conquest in the concept of masculinity, along with valuing power, risk-taking, dominance and competitiveness. The sexual promiscuity path focuses on the role of sexual behaviours in maintaining self-esteem and peer status, and the appeal of impersonal sex.
Malamuth et al. (1993) proposed that sexual promiscuity is more likely to lead to sexual aggression among men possessing a high level of the characteristics within the hostile masculinity pathway. This suggestion has been supported among non-offender samples using measures of self-reported sexual aggression. However, it remains to be validated on sexual offender samples.
Marshall and Barbaree’s (1990) integrated theory covers all types of sexual offending. This approach takes account of biological, developmental, socio-cultural and situational variables that lead to psychological vulnerabilities. Negative childhood experiences (e.g., poor parenting, abuse) are proposed to lead children to experience problems in forming social, emotional and sexual attachments with other people. During adolescence when hormonal changes occur, aggression and sex can become linked due to both drives originating from the same neural substrates. Poor social skills can lead to rejection of prosocial attempts to be sexually intimate, which results in anger and an increased likelihood of an aggressive response. If the individual experiences support for aggressive behaviour from socio-cultural sources (e.g., peers, media), this will increase the likelihood of aggression. Other situational factors and emotional states, such as substance use, anger or sexual frustration, can also impact on the ability of the individual to inhibit antisocial behaviour. Taken together all these factors can result in a sexual offence being committed.
A weakness of Marshall and Barbaree’s theory is its breadth, meaning that it does not provide explanations for why different types of sexual offending occur. Research has also found that some aspects emphasised by this theory, such as aggressive behaviour and disinhibition, are not shown by all sexual offenders.
Ward and Beech (2006) developed an Integrated Theory of Sexual Offending, which includes biological, neuropsychological, and ecological factors. This theory proposes that sexual offending results from “vulnerabilities” that predispose an individual to sexual offending. According to Ward and Beech (2006) these vulnerabilities arise from the influence of genetics, evolutionary processes and neurobiological processes on brain development. The interaction between these systems and social learning is proposed to lead to the characteristics of sex offenders – deviant sexual arousal, cognitive distortions, and emotional dysregulation.
There are certain factors common to all of these theories of sexual offending. They all suggest that sexual offending results from a mixture of distorted cognitions that allow sexual abuse of others, deviant sexual arousal, poor emotional and impulse management, and problems in relating to other people. Developmental adversity is a likely cause of these problems. A more detailed coverage of these theories can be found in Hollin, Hatcher, and Palmer (2010) and Hollin, Palmer, and Hatcher (2010).
Research into the characteristics of sexual offenders has provided further understanding of their offences. Beech, Oliver, Fisher, and Beckett (2005) provide a summary of such research among rapists. Characteristics commonly found among rapists include: sexual preoccupation; sexual interest in rape/violence against women; sexual entitlement; hostile masculinity and controlling sexual beliefs; distrust of women; lack of emotional intimacy with other adults; grievance schema; poor problem-solving; poor emotional control; and lifestyle impulsiveness. Research with child sexual abusers has revealed some overlaps with these characteristics, including: sexual preoccupation; sexual interest or preference for children; sexual entitlement; beliefs supportive of child sexual abuse; lack of emotional intimacy with adults; emotional congruence with children; poor problem-solving; and personal inadequacy, such as poor self-esteem, emotional loneliness and personal distress (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005).
More recently attention has turned to online sex offenders, with questions raised as to whether these form a distinct group of sex offenders (as opposed to off-line sex offenders) or if it just represents another way in which to offend (i.e. the same people offend both online and offline) (Babchishin, Hanson, & Hermann, 2011). The implication of such theories for the treatment of sex offenders is explored in Chapter 19.
1.3.3 Arson
A large number of major fires within the UK are a result of arson, with official figures showing 21,900 recorded incidents of arson in the 12 months before March 2014 (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015). Arson refers to deliberate setting of fire to property, whereas the term firesett
ing is a broader term often used when referring to young children, and does not necessarily imply intent. Geller (1992) proposed four categories of arson: arson associated with mental disorders; arson associated with medical or biological disorders; juvenile fire-play or firesetting; and arson not associated with any psychobiological factors. Geller included within this last category arsons committed for profit, to conceal a crime, for revenge, vanity, or recognition, vandalism or political arson. The factors associated with arson and firesetting will be considered in more detail next; however, unlike other areas such as sexual offending, there are no clearly articulated theories of arson (see Palmer, Hollin, Hatcher, & Ayres, 2010).
1.3.3.1 Adult arsonists
Among adults, the majority of research has focused on arson among psychiatric populations, even though they are responsible for a minority of arson incidents. This has raised questions as to the generalisability of findings to offenders within the criminal justice system. However, this literature suggests a number of factors that may be associated with arson.
Research with psychiatric populations suggests arson may be associated with a number of mental illnesses, including schizophrenia (Anwar, Långström, Grann, & Fazel, 2011), personality disorders (Hurley & Monahan, 1969), depression (O’Sullivan & Kelleher, 1987), and bipolar affective disorders and mood disorders (Geller, 1992); however, as noted by Gannon and Pina (2010) the literature is sparse and often dated. More recently, Gannon and colleagues have studied firesetting/arson in mentally disordered offenders, finding three pathways into firesetters: fire interest-childhood mental health; no fire interest-adult mental health; and fire interest-adult mental health (Tyler, Gannon, Lockerbie, King, Dickens, & De Burca, 2013). A recent study suggested that the majority of their sample (n = 16/33) fell into the first category (Tyler & Gannon, 2017).
There is also a small amount of evidence for an association between arson and developmental disorders and learning disabilities (Devapriam, Raju, Singh, Collacott, & Bhaumik, 2007; Murphy & Clare, 1996; Ritchie & Huff, 1999). It has been suggested that this relationship is due to a lack of awareness of the consequences of setting fires among these populations.
Functional analysis of arson behaviours has highlighted the importance of social and environmental stimuli in reinforcing arson (Swaffer, 1994), and the interaction of these stimuli with predispositions to committing antisocial behaviours (Fineman, 1995). Canter and his colleagues have attempted to understand the behavioural patterns of firesetting and arson. Canter and Fritzon (1998) used two facets to categorise arson: person-oriented vs. object-oriented arsons; and expressive vs. instrumental arsons. They argued that these two facets interact to give four types of arson: expressive person-oriented; expressive other-oriented; instrumental person-oriented; and instrumental other-oriented. With a sample of adult and juvenile firesetters, Canter and Fritzon reported that individuals in their four categories differed on a number of characteristics. This research has since been replicated by Santilla, Häkkänen, Alison, and Whyte (2003) and Almond, Duggan, Shine, and Canter (2005).
1.3.3.2 Juvenile firesetters
The research suggests that many of the characteristics of young firesetters overlap with those of general juvenile delinquent populations (for reviews, see Del Bove & MacKay, 2011; Kolko, 2001). Young firesetters are more likely to be male, with a meta-analysis of 22 studies by Kolko (1985) revealing that 82% of young firesetters were male, with a similar figure (90%) reported by Del Bove and MacKay (2011). Firesetting in children is often associated with a range of other externalising behaviours. These include aggression, extreme antisocial behaviour, and conduct disorder (Becker, Stuewig, Herrera, & McCloskey, 2004; Dadds & Fraser, 2006; McCarty & McMahon, 2005). Other research has reported high levels of drug and alcohol abuse among firesetters (e.g., Repo & Virkkunen, 1997).
A range of psychological factors has been associated with firesetting in children and adolescents. These include poor interpersonal skills, such as impulsivity, poor assertion skills, and inability to resolve conflicts (Harris & Rice, 1984). There is also evidence that psychiatric problems are more prevalent among firesetting populations (Kolko & Kazdin, 1988; Räsänen, Hirvenoja, Hakko, & Vaeisaenen, 1995).
Parental and family functioning have also been implicated in firesetting. Factors include poor child rearing practices, such as a lack of supervision and lax or inconsistent discipline (Kolko & Kazdin, 1990). Child abuse, maltreatment and neglect are also prevalent among young firesetters. Firesetting has also been associated with parental relationship problems, conflict and violence, and parents who report experiencing personal difficulties and life stresses, and exhibit psychopathology (Kolko & Kazdin, 1991; McCarty & McMahon, 2005; Root, MacKay, Henderson, Del Bove, & Warling, 2008). Young firesetters have also been found to be more likely to have experienced the loss of the mother as compared to non-firesetters, with 40% spending time in an orphanage, foster home or psychiatric facility (Ritvo, Shanock, & Lewis, 1982). There are also increased levels of academic underachievement, school disruption, and suspension/expulsions from school among young firesetters (Hollin, Epps, & Swaffer, 2002). Research has also emphasised the role of children’s exposure to fire materials and fire-competence when examining motivations for firesetting behaviour (Kolko, 2001; MacKay, Henderson, Del Bove, Marton, Warling, & Root, 2006).
Perhaps surprisingly, there have not been many attempts to construct a typology of juvenile firesetters. One study that has done this was conducted by Del Bove and MacKay (2011), finding three groups: conventional-limited; home-instability-moderate; and multi-risk-persistent firesetters, which differed on a range of fire-specific characteristics, individual and environmental factors, and firesetting recidivism and general outcome.
1.4 MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS
“Mentally disordered offenders” is a legal term that refers to those individuals who have a mental disorder and who have also committed an offence, with mental disorder defined by the Mental Health Act (2007) as “… any disorder or disability of the mind”. While not specified within legislation, types of mental disorder include mental illness (schizophrenia and depression), learning disability and personality disorder, along with the special case of psychopathic offenders. There is a body of research examining the relationship between mental disorder and offending. There certainly appears to be some relationship, with both increased prevalence of mental disorder among criminal populations and higher levels of offending among psychiatric populations as compared to the general population (Fazel & Danesh, 2002; Grann, Danesh, & Fazel, 2008; Steadman, Osher, Robbins, Case, & Samuels, 2009).
1.4.1 Why Are Mentally Disordered Offenders a Special Case?
In the eyes of the law, for a person to be found guilty of an offence they have to be criminally responsible. This relates to the distinction in law between actus rea (bad act) and mens rea (guilty state of mind). For an individual to be found guilty, both actus rea and mens rea must be proved, that is, (1) that the act is an offence and the defendant did commit the offence; and (2) that at the time of the offence, the individual knew both (a) that what they were doing was bad, and (b) that what they were doing was wrong (i.e. against the law). In the UK, the McNaughton Rule states that an individual is not criminally responsible if:
At the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
If the defence can prove that such a “defect” or mental disorder existed at the time of the offence, then the person can be found “not guilty” on the grounds that they are not criminally responsible.
1.4.2 Types of Mentally Disordered Offender
The different types of mental disorders and their association with offending will be considered next.
1.4.2.1 Mentally ill
Mental illness includes schizophrenia and depression, and these will be considered in tu
rn. Schizophrenia refers to a group of disorders characterised by disturbances of perception, thought, affect and actions. Individuals often experience hallucinations, delusions and paranoia (the psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia), and withdraw from others. The prevalence of schizophrenia in the general population is estimated to be less than 1% (Simeone, Ward, Rotella, Collins, & Windisch, 2015). The figure is far higher among offenders, with offenders referred for psychiatric treatment having often committed a violent offence. In a systematic review of 81 studies of prisoners from 24 countries, Fazel and Seewald (2012) reported 3.6% of male offenders and 3.9% of female offenders had schizophrenia. A recent study in the US reported that 14.5% of male prisoners and 31% of female prisoners had a current serious mental illness (Steadman et al., 2009). These figures lead to the question of whether schizophrenia somehow causes the offending, or if there is simply an association caused by other factors, for example comorbid substance use (see Douglas, Guy, & Hart, 2009; Van Dorn, Volavka, & Johnson, 2012). It should also be noted that most of the research has examined the association of schizophrenia with violent offending.
When considering why schizophrenia may be associated with offending, three explanations have been proposed: first, that it causes offending; second, that it is a consequence of offending; or third, that it is correlated with offending and both result from other factors (Douglas et al., 2009). With respect to the first explanation it has been suggested that paranoid ideas, command hallucinations and other delusions associated with schizophrenia may influence behaviour, although research shows this is true in only a minority of cases of offending (Monahan et al., 2001).
Forensic Psychology Page 8