Autor: Blanas de Marengo, Georgina INTRODUCCION
III- Sorteando obstáculos y dificultades para el fortalecimiento de la centralidad del Estado en materia educativa
individualistic and systemic approaches and stress the importance of psychological traits and states, developmental factors, family environments and peer relationships (Bonta & Andrews, 1988, 2017). Due to the individual focus and emphasis on psychological factors as an explanation of crime (rather than societal causes), a number of these approaches, mainly those working from a clinical perspective using formulation-based methods, position sexual offending as specific or discrete category of crime and seek to explain why a sexual crime is committed as opposed to a non-sexual offense (Finkelhor, 1984; Woolfe, 1985; Ward, 2014).
A large body of work exists on sexual offending and has been categorised by discipline or approach e.g. psychodynamic theories (Cohen et al., 1969; Hammer & Glueck, 1957), evolutionary and biopsychological theories (Malamuth, 1996; Thornhill & Palmer, 2000) or social learning theories (Akers et al, 1985; Marshall & Barbaree, 1990), etc. Ward and Hudson (1998a) developed a ‘levels of theory’ framework for sexual offending theories based on their focus of explanation. This method identifies theories that seek to account for sexual offending as a general entity (Finkelhor, 1984; Marhsall & Barbaree, 1990; Hall & Hirschman, 1992; Malamuth, 1996), from those which look at specific features that
influence or determine offending (Abel et al., 1984; Lalumiere & Quinsey, 1994; Cossins, 2000; Baker et al., 2006), and from those which explain relapse or the offence cycle (Ward, Hudson & Thomas 1998; Ward & Hudson, 1998b; Wolf, 1984; Lane & Ryan, 2010).
Regardless of categorisation method, one of the earliest and most widely recognised
accounts of sexual offending is Finkelhor’s (1984) preconditions model (Figure 1). Finkelhor sought to explain child sexual abuse and proposed four preconditions to the sexual abuse of children: motivation to sexually abuse; overcoming internal inhibitors to sexually abuse; overcoming external inhibitors to sexually abuse; and overcoming the resistance of the child. Finkelhor’s model has received criticism for being too simplistic (Ward et al., 2006) and due to its era of development, the model does not include advances and insights into offending that have developed since the 1980s. It is however still widely referenced, and is incorporated into sexual offending treatment programmes to aid offenders in
understanding the offence cycle along with the cognitive and behavioural mechanisms at work in sexual offending (Fisher, 1994).
Figure 1: Finkelhor (1984) Four Stage Model of Child Sexual Abuse
A second influential theory for sexual offending is Marshall and Barbaree’s Integrated Model (1990) (Figure 2). Marshall and Barbaree argued that vulnerability factors developed from aversive childhood events such as parental rejection, childhood abuse (e.g. sexual or physical), neglect and loss, could inhibit a child’s ability to develop self-regulation skills including being unable to distinguish between aggressive and sexual urges. Such inhibition might lead to the formation of maladaptive coping strategies, including using sexual release as a coping strategy for negative emotions. This model was one of the first to highlight the importance of attachment and intimacy deficits in sexual offending, a line of thinking which has generated much research into attachment and its potential role in offending and
1. •Motivation to abuse. 2. • Overcoming internal inhibitors. 3. •Overcoming external inhibitors. 4. •Overcoming victim resistance.
sexually abusive behaviour (Baker et al., 2006; Van Ijzendoorn et al., 1997). Criticisms of Marshall & Barbaree’s theory include why coercive or abusive behaviour is chosen over soliciting prostitutes for those with intimacy deficits, and in the lack of detail provided by the theory to explain the process of learning (or failure to learn) to differentiate between sexual and aggressive drives (Ward et al., 2006).
Figure 2: Marshall and Barbaree (1990) Integrated Theory of Sexual Offending
For those proposing sex offender typologies, Hall and Hirschman’s quadripartite model (1992) highlighted four factors they considered imperative in committing a sexual offence:
(i) deviant or inappropriate sexual arousal, (ii) cognitive distortions, (iii) affective dyscontrol and, (iv) personality problems. These factors can operate independently or interact, and as such, result in different pathways to committing a sexual offence, potentially explaining the heterogeneity of offending profiles seen in the prevalence data. Despite this strength in recognising different pathways to offending, the model has received criticism for failing to explain why one factor is more important in some people and for a lack of detail in how the factors interact (Ward, 2001).
In line with Ward and Hudson’s levels of theory framework (1998a), Ward and Siegert (2002) identified the strengths of the three seminal theories referred to above (Finkelhor, 1984; Marshall & Barbaree, 1990, and Hall & Hirschman, 1999) and attempted to unify them by ‘theory knitting’. This exercise was undertaken subsequent to critiques of Finkelhor (Ward and Hudson, 2001), Marshall and Barbaree (Ward, 2001) and Hall and Hirschman (Ward, 2002), and produced a multi-factorial Pathways Model (Ward & Seigert, 2002). The model spans cognitive, social, emotional and interpersonal variables and across multiple domains which culminate in five pathways accounting for the aetiology of child sexual abuse (a later model allows for other trajectories resulting in the sexual abuse of a child). Each pathway is viewed as the result of vulnerability factors created by dysfunctional
psychological processing, permitting variability in the clinical presentation of child sexual offenders. The model argues that this variability can be categorised into four clusters which can be ultimately be broken down into the underlying psychological mechanisms of:
emotion dysregulation, intimacy and social skills deficits, cognitive distortions, and distorted sexual scripts. The model argues that it is these mechanisms and their processing of
personal, social and physiological experiences that are the causal factors of child sexual abuse. The strengths of this model are augmented by the strengths of the theories and models it incorporates, however it remains open to criticisms for lacking empirical support for certain elements of the model e.g. if it is more suitable to heterosexual pathway experience (Connolly, 2004), and failing to provide sufficient details regarding the
interaction between the causal factors (Ward et al., 2006). Additionally, the model in the current form is only applicable to adult offenders.
These multi-factorial theories seek to account for the phenomenon of sexual offending in society. A number of more localised theories have been developed to clarify individual
components of the multi-factorial theories, and to explain specific aspects and features prevalent in the act of committing a sexual offence.
One particularly researched theory of sexual offending is that of neurological structures and cognitive functioning (Hendricks et al., 1988; Wright et al., 1990). Early research indicated that handedness had an impact upon an individual’s propensity to commit a sexual offence (Porac & Coren, 1981; Bogaert, 2001), with brain injury, certain forms of tumour, and temporal lobe epilepsy also being implicated (Lisman, 1987; Bear et al., 1984). However, whilst there is some evidence to suggest that neurology or neuroanatomy may play a role or act as a vulnerability factor, research evidence has yet to provide conclusive data for a causal link to sexual offending.
Cognitive functioning in sexual offenders has been explored at a single-factor level with research investigating executive function (Eastvold et al., 2011), theory of mind (Keenan & Ward, 2000), cognitive distortions (Abel et al, 1984) and victim empathy (Ward et al., 2000). Cognitive distortions are patterns of thinking that allow an offender to justify, defend or perceive their crimes as ‘acceptable’. They seek to deny, minimise or externalise blame or any harm caused to a victim, and maintain or facilitate offending behaviour (Abel et al., 1984). Within criminology, Matza and Sykes (1957) identified this pattern of thinking as ‘neutralisation’. They describe it as a method of ‘neutralising’ acts or values that would go against their morals or beliefs, i.e. a process for managing that which is ego-dystonic and at odds with their perceived sense of self. This style of ‘faulty thinking’ is a widely recognised facet of offending profiles and addressing cognitive distortions are a key component of rehabilitation treatment programmes (Gannon, Ward, Beech & Fisher, 2008).
A second theory single factor theory of sexual offending is that of deficits in empathy. Empathy is considered an evolutionary facet that promotes pro-social behaviours and facilitates positive interpersonal relationships and experiences (Hoffman, 2001). It is
frequently categorised into affective empathy (emotional resonance) and cognitive empathy (related to theory of mind and ‘putting yourself in another person’s shoes’) (Davis, 1983; Hoffman, 2001). Sexual offending is a context in which the absence of empathy is noted, either in state (dynamic and contextual) or trait (a stable facet of personality) form and is believed to have a subsequent impact on behaviour in social interactions i.e. causing harm
to another. In this theory, empathy is proposed as a construct whereby its presence may inhibit offending behaviour, or its absence may increase motivation to offend (Araji &
Finklehor, 1985). Empathy ‘deficits’ in sexual offending can be framed as a lack of emotional responding or identification with the victim, or as a lack of perspective taking and deficits in Theory of Mind (Marshall et al., 1995; Ward et al., 2000). The deficits in victim empathy hypothesis has received clinical support and utility, however it is criticised for inadequately defining the concept of empathy and what is lacking (as sexual offenders have been shown to display empathy to victims other than their own, Marshall et al., 2001), as well as for failing to distinguish between a lack of victim empathy and cognitive distortions as separate constructs (Bumby, 2000; Hanson, 2003; Ward et al., 2006). The challenges of defining and evaluating the impact of empathy in sexual offending were highlight by Polaschek (2002) and continue fifteen years later. Such challenges are considered further in Chapters Two (Autism Spectrum Disorders), Six (Interview Study) and Seven (Empathy Intervention Study). Intimacy deficits and attachment difficulties in sexual offending have been highlighted in multifactorial theories (Marshall & Barbaree, 1990; Ward & Siegert, 2002), however these concepts have also been investigated at a single-factor theory level (Marshall, 1989; Rich 2006). Attachment is a key concept in theories of juvenile sexual offending (covered in greater depth in the next section) and research on adult sexual offenders has shown a high prevalence of insecure attachment in sexual offenders(Burk & Burkhart, 2003; Baker & Beech, 2004; Baker et al., 2006). However, despite these high levels, additional evidence is suggestive that insecure attachment (including disorganised) is a vulnerability factor for offending in general rather than sexual offending specifically (Smallbone & Dads, 1998; Rich, 2006).
As with attachment difficulties, an increased prevalence of psychiatric disorders, mental illness and personality disorders in sexual offenders is noted. For example, Fazel et al. (2007) reported sexual offenders to be six times more like to have a psychiatric record (in comparison to the general public) in their Swedish case control study of 8495 participants. In relation to personality disorder, a study in the USA by McElroy et al. (1999) noted high
percentages of cluster A3 (28%), cluster B4 (92%) and cluster C5 (36%) (American Psychiatric Association (APA), Diagnostic & Statistical Manual, 4th Edition. (DSM-IV-TR), 2000) in 36 male sexual offenders in a residential treatment facility following transfer from jail/prison or probation. This prevalence is not only found in Western cultures, and a random sample of 68 offenders in Taiwan’s prison for serious sex offenders identified a lifetime Axis I disorder6 in 69% of the sample, and 59% met the criteria for an Axis 2 disorder7 (Chen et al., 2016). Similarly, to neurological abnormalities or dysfunction, a mental disorder in itself is not considered a causal factor of offending (sexual or non-sexual) but may be a vulnerability factor (Hodgins et al., 2000).
Certain psychiatric disorders can be putatively associated as an additional vulnerability to sexual offending with sexual offending, such as attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) and psychopathy (a particular variant of anti-social personality disorder). Symptoms of ADHD include lack of interpersonal sensitivity and empathy, sensation-seeking and the appeal of high-risk/dangerous situations, hypersexuality, and self-regulation and impulse- control difficulties (Fago, 2003). However ADHD is more associated with general offending than sexual offending specifically (Langevin & Curnoe, 2011).
Psychopathy is characterised by a core presentation of superficial charm and agreeableness coupled with an underlying cold or callous demeanour, capable of displaying extreme acts of antisocial behaviour without remorse or regard for another individual (Hare et al., 1999). Part of the conundrum of psychopathy is the apparent lack of mental illness or disorder of the psyche that is present in other psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia or post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The illusion of rationality seen in psychopathy is
contradicted by impulsive and frequently abhorrent behaviour that is not typical of a ‘sane’ individual. This contradiction was recognised by Pinel and later identified by Cleckley in his seminal work ‘The Mask of Sanity’ (1951, 1982). The presence of psychopathy within the
3 Cluster A Personality Disorders: Paranoid, Schizoid, Schizotypal
4 Cluster B Personality Disorders: Anti-social, Borderline, Histrionic, Narcissistic
5 Cluster C Personality Disorders: Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, Personality Disorder Not- otherwise-specified.
6 Axis I Disorders: Substance related-disorders, Mood disorders, Anxiety disorders, Sleep disorder, Impulse control disorders not elsewhere specified, Adjustment disorders, Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder. 7 Axis II Disorders – Cluster A, B and C Personality Disorders
sex offending population has been investigated at a number of levels. For example, Porter et al. (2000) looked at psychopathy amongst incarcerated offenders, both sexual and non- sexual offenders, and found that sexual offenders with both adult and child victims
(rapist/child molester) showed higher levels of psychopathy compared to child molesters or rapists alone and compared to non-criminals. The overall presence of psychopathy within this study was relatively low within child molester groups8 4.9-14.6% compared to 64% in the rapist/child molester group, 35.9% in the rapist alone category, 34% in non-sexual offenders. This pattern has been replicated in other studies, and although sexual deviance (including sexual interest in children) can present with psychopathy, individuals who offend against child and adult victims have been shown to display higher levels of psychopathy than child molesters alone (Marshall, 1997; Serin et al., 1994; Porter et al., 2009).
Similar to offenders with ADHD, the criminal psychopath typically displays a wide range of anti-social and criminal behaviour, rather than offence specific. However, there is research to suggest that their sexual crimes display higher levels of sadism and violence than other non-psychopathic sexual offenders (Gretton et al., 2001; Greenall & West, 2007). What remains unclear is if the violence employed by psychopaths in sexual offending is ‘deviance’ or instrumental i.e. if it adds to the offender’s sexual arousal or is used as a means to control the victim. Sexual deviancy is considered an important predictor in sexual recidivism
amongst psychopaths (Hawes, Coccaccini & Murrie, 2013; Olver & Wong, 2006), but similarly to non-psychopathic sexual offenders, psychopaths have been shown to be more likely to re-offend non-sexually, and specifically, are at higher risk of re-offending violently (Brown & Forth, 1997; Rosenberg et al., 2005; Hare, 1999).
Psychopathy in relation to ASD and sexual offending will be discussed further in Chapter Two (Autism Spectrum Disorders).
A minority of sexual offenders have a diagnosis of paedophilia or alternative paraphilia, however the most common co-morbid diagnoses include substance abuse, mood disorders and personality disorders (Harsch et al., 2006; Marshall, 2007). With the exception of paraphilias and paedophilia, these prevalence rates are comparable to other offending
8 Porter et al. (2000) sub-categorised child molesters into extrafamilial, intrafamilial and mixed intra/extrafamilial.
populations, often accounted for by high rates of substance misuse (Harsch et al., 2006; Dunsieth et al., 2004).
As illustrated, single factor theories of sexual offending include impaired executive
functioning, theory of mind deficits and a lack of victim empathy in neurotypical populations (Kelly et al., 2002; Suchy et al., 2009; Castellino et al., 2011) but overarching conclusions as to the extent of their impact for most sex offenders have not been reached. Some of the factors identified may be of more pertinence for offenders with intellectual disabilities and/or developmental disorders such as ASD, whose symptomatology includes: deficits in planning and organisation, problem solving difficulties, and poor theory of mind (Woodbury- Smith & Dein 2014; Murphy, 2010; Wing & Gold, 1979), as will be discussed in the next section and following chapter.