Sexual recidivism is an area of significant debate; there have been a variety of studies that have looked at the recidivism rates of adult sexual offenders and adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviours. The Home Office reports (Home Office Crime in England and
36 Wales 2010/2011) that the Police recorded statistics on sexual offences are likely to be significantly diminished by under-reporting and there should be a degree of caution taken when interpreting them. Self-completion reports indicate that only 11 per cent of victims of serious sexual assault reported the offences to the police (Smith et al., 2011). In 2010/2011 the total number of sexual offences recorded by the police was 54,982.
Hood et al (2002) studied the reconviction rates of serious sex offenders, using a sample of 192 offenders, who had been sentenced to 4 years or more in custody. They found there was a <10% reconviction rate for general sex offenders 6 years on and for intra familial offenders a 0% reconviction rate over a 4 and 6 year follow up. In Canada, Harris and Hanson (2004) also conducted a study into recidivism. A much larger study than the previous with 4724 offenders, their study concluded that most sexual offenders do not go on to commit further sexual offences. They also highlight how first-time offenders are even less likely to reoffend. Of those sexual offenders who had not offended for 20 years, they considered their recidivism rate to be 4 %. Another study identified that high risk offenders were found to have a recidivism rate of between 25-50% whereas less high-risk offenders recidivism rate was at <15% (Grubin, 1998). Taft and Wilkinson (2001) found that of all the sexual offenders they studied that returned to prison for a new sexual offence, 50% occurred within 2 years and 67% within 3 years.
Whilst there is a lack of clarity of the true statistics of sexual offences, research indicates that approximately 20% of all sexual crime arrests were committed by adolescents under the age of 18 years (Pastore and Maguire 2007). Research also suggests that half of all adult offenders’ first offence occurred under the age of 18 years and that the adolescent offender is more likely to commit sexual offences as adults than their non- offending peers (Hagon et al, 2001). It is suggested that adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviour and delinquency have a greater risk of violating the rights of others and are at a higher risk of re- offending (Almond et al, 2006). Waite et al (2005) conducted a study of the re-arrest rates for adolescent sexual offenders; this was a ten year follow up study. This study outlined how the literature at that time indicated the recidivism rate for sexual offending was between 2-14% and for non-sexual offending between 8- 54%. This study stresses that the rates of recidivism amongst adolescents is low.
There is a significant degree of contradiction in the research in respect of adolescent recidivism. Moffitt (1993) in her study of Adolescence-Limited and Life Course Persistent
37 Antisocial Behaviour, states that early arrest is an important predictor of long-term recidivistic offending. She goes on to state that there are even higher rates for those offenders who persist in their offending behaviour past the age of 25.
Loeber et al (2008) suggest that recidivism rates are affected by the transition from childhood to adolescence. They suggest the recidivism rates for young adolescents is low, this risk increases in mid adolescence and then subsequently reduces in late adolescence (van de Put, 2011). This supports the findings from Moffitt (1993) and Moffitt et al (1996) who suggest there are high rates of offending in adolescence but that the young offenders appear to desist from offending as they transition to adulthood. There can be difficulty separating out the risk factors for adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviour and adult sexual offenders, Letourneau and Miner (2005) propose that applying adult recidivism findings to adolescent populations is highly problematic, this was supported by research from Miner (2002) who had suggested that the risk factors for adults are not the same as for adolescents.
The Ministry of Justice re-offending data for the period of April 2010 to March 2011 includes 4,632 adult offenders in England and Wale who had previously committed sexual or sexual (child) offences while they were adolescents. This data looked at the type of offences adolescents who displayed harmful sexual behaviours went on to commit if they had gone on to reoffend. This demonstrated a proven re-offending rate of 42.6%. Figure 1 shows the proven re-offences committed in a one year follow up.
What is clear from the information above is that adolescents with a history of harmful sexual behaviour are more likely to non-sexually reoffend. This suggests that risk assessing adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviours when they become adults is not straight forward; any assessment needs to consider broader ranging offending and be able to acknowledge the low recidivism rates. Worling (2002) highlights how risk assessments need to be undertaken with caution, that an assessment is only as good as the information gathered and it is important that risk assessments are reviewed regularly and are time limited. This is echoed by Studer et al (2011) who explored the misuse of risk assessments, they suggested the idea that a high-risk rating for an offender directly relates to the level of intervention needed.
Statistics, like those presented above, can heavily influence the perception of risk. Bonner and Newell (2008) looked at whether ratio bias or temporal construal is more influential in making judgements about risk. They concluded that ratio bias appears to dominate.
38 Therefore, it is highly important to understand the way statistics are presented. In understanding risk, it is important to look further than just the statistics, but it is also important to acknowledge that the under reporting of sexual offences and subsequent lack of conviction influences the way risk is assessed. There may be very different responses to adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviours and are not pursued through the criminal justice route but are rather managed through a social care route; their experiences of assessment, intervention and restriction are likely to be very different.
Figure 1- Reoffending of Young People
10. The relationship between assessment and management