Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relationships Between Denial, Risk, and Recidivism in Sexual Offenders

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between denial, static risk, and sexual recidivism for offenders with different types of current sexual offense. Denial was defined as failure to accept responsibility for the current offense and was assessed using the Offender Assessment System. Static risk level (measured using a revised version of the Risk Matrix 2000) was examined as a moderator in the relationship between denial and sexual and violent recidivism. In the full sample (N = 6,891), lower levels of sexual recidivism were found for those who denied responsibility for their offense, independent of static risk in a Cox regression analysis. Higher levels of violent recidivism among those denying responsibility were not significant after controlling for static risk using Cox regression. For specific offender types, denial of responsibility was not significantly associated with sexual or violent recidivism. In conclusion, the presumption that denial represents increased risk, which is common in much of the decision making surrounding sex offenders, should be reconsidered. Instead, important decisions regarding sentencing, treatment, and release decisions should be based on empirically supported factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abel, G., Becker, J., Mittleman, M., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Rouleau, J., & Murphy, W. D. (1987). Self-reported sex crimes non-incarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, P., McKee, B., & English, K. (2000). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaree, H. E. (1991). Denial and minimization among sexual offenders: Assessment and treatment outcome. Forum on Correction Research, 3, 303–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, G. D., Wakeling, H. C., & Howard, P. D. (2010). An examination of the predictive validity of the Risk Matrix 2000 in England and Wales. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beech, A. R., Fisher, D., & Beckett, R. (1999). STEP 3: An evaluation of the Prison Sex Offender Treatment Programme. Home Office Occasional Report. Home Office Publications Unit, London, England. Available from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ-step3.pdf.

  • Beech, A. R., Friendship, C., Erikson, M., & Hanson, R. K. (2002). The relationship between static and dynamic risk factors and reconviction is a sample of U.K. child abusers. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 155–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtson, S. (2008). Is new better? A cross-validation of the Static-99 and the Risk Matrix 2000 in a Danish sample of sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 14, 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blagden, N. J., Winder, B., Thorne, K., & Gregson, M. (2011). ‘No-one in the world would ever wanna speak to me again’: An interpretative phenomenological analysis into convicted sexual offenders’ accounts and experiences of maintaining and leaving denial. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 17, 563–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20: Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Vancouver, BC: BC Institute against Family Violence and the Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

  • Committee on the Judiciary House of Representative. (2010). Federal rules of criminal procedure. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Available from http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/2010%20Rules/Criminal%20Procedure.pdf.

  • Douglas, K. S., Epstein, M. E., & Poythress, N. G. (2008). Criminal recidivism among juvenile offenders: Testing the incremental and predictive validity of three measures of psychopathic features. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 423–438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friendship, C., Mann, R. E., & Beech, A. R. (2003). Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment program for sexual offenders in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 744–759.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, B. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2010). Predicting recidivism amongst sexual offenders: A multi-site study of Static-2002. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 198–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., Morton, K. E., & Harris, A. J. R. (2003). Sexual offender recidivism risk: What we know and what we need to know. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 989, 154–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harkins, L., Beech, A. R., & Goodwill, A. M. (2010). Examining the influence of denial, motivation, and risk in sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 78–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, R., Shute, S., Feilzer, M., & Wilcox, A. (2002). Sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, H., & Grubin, D. (1992). Patterns of denial in sex offenders. Psychological Medicine, 22, 191–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, D. A., Yates, P. M., Firestone, P., Babchishin, K., & Bradford, J. M. (2010). Long-term predictive validity of the Risk Matrix 2000: A comparison with the Static-99 and Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 466–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, R., & Thornton, D. (2007). Evaluating and improving risk assessment schemes for sexual recidivism: A long-term follow-up of convicted sex offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langton, C. M., Barbaree, H. E., Hansen, K. T., Harkins, L., & Peacock, E. J. (2007). Reliability and validity of the Static-2002 among adult sex offenders with reference to treatment status. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 616–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langton, C. M., Barbaree, H. E., Harkins, L., Arenovich, T., McNamee, J., Peacock, E. J., et al. (2008). Denial and minimization among sex offenders: Post-treatment presentation and association with sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 69–98.

  • Leistico, A. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, D., & Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S. (2011). “But I didn’t do it!”: Ethical treatment of sex offenders in denial. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 346–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S., & Macgowan, M. J. (2004). Engagement, denial and treatment progress among sexual offenders in group therapy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looman, J., & Abracen, J. (2010). Comparison of measures of risk for recidivism in sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 791–807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, A., & Willmot, P. (2004). The process of overcoming denial in sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 10, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, C. A. (2000). Predictors of sexual recidivism: Did meta-analysis clarify the role and relevance of denial? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 275–287.

  • Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 191–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S., & Mann, R. E. (2006). A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 155–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R., Cumming, G., Burchard, B., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, K. L., Hanson, R. K., Firestone, P., Moulden, H. M., Greenberg, D. M., & Bradford, J. M. (2007). Denial predicts recidivism for some sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 91–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olver, M. E., & Wong, S. C. P. (2006). Psychopathy, sexual deviance, and recidivism among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, A. C. (1988). Treating child sex offenders and victims: A practical guide. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlank, A. M., & Shaw, T. (1996). Treating sexual offenders who deny their guilt: A pilot study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8, 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Guidelines Council. (2007). Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: A definitive guide. Available from http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Reduction_in_Sentence_for_a_Guilty_Plea_-Revised_2007.pdf.

  • Thornton, D. (2007). Scoring Guide for the Risk Matrix 2000.9/SVC. Available from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-les/psych/RM2000scoringinstructions.pdf.

  • Thornton, D., & Knight, R. (2007). Is denial always bad? Paper presented at the Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego, CA.

  • Thornton, D., Mann, R., Webster, S., Blud, L., Travers, R., Friendship, C., et al. (2003). Distinguishing between and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 223–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S., Harkins, L., & Palmer, M. (2014). The experience of deniers on a community sex offender group program. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Yates, P. M. (2009). Is sexual offense denial related to sex offense risk and recidivism? A review and treatment implications. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 15, 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe St. North, Oshawa, ON, L1H 7K4, Canada

    Leigh Harkins

  2. Centre for Forensic and Criminological Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Philip Howard & Helen Wakeling

  3. National Offender Management Service, Ministry of Justice, London, UK

    Philip Howard, Georgia Barnett, Helen Wakeling & Cerys Miles

Authors
  1. Leigh Harkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georgia Barnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Helen Wakeling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cerys Miles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leigh Harkins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harkins, L., Howard, P., Barnett, G. et al. Relationships Between Denial, Risk, and Recidivism in Sexual Offenders. Arch Sex Behav 44, 157–166 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0333-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0333-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation