The Internal World of the Juvenile Sex Offender

Through a Glass Darkly then Face to Face

Timothy Keogh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Topic: Psychology
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429921117
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The book argues the case for the usefulness of an empirically based understanding of the internal world of juvenile sex offenders as a way of humanely relating to their difficulties. It details the extent and nature of juvenile sex offending and its impact on victims and provides an extensive psychoanalytically oriented description of this offender group. The background of these offenders is examined, focusing on their experience of abuse, especially sexual abuse. Attention is paid to the unique characteristics of these offenders, particularly their attachment difficulties. The value of attachment theory and the concepts of psychopathy and malignant narcissism are then explored as a means of viewing their internal world. This internal world is also viewed through an empirical lens, which reveals them to have impaired psychic representations of human relationship, different needs for relationship and, in the most psychopathic group, an obfuscation of that need. The implications of these findings are then considered and the application of these understandings of their internal world is then explored.

Part I
The Forensic Focus

Chapter One

The nature of juvenile sex offending

“Navigating quiet worlds inhabited by strangeness Things no one identifies with”

(Murphy, 1996, p. 313)

Juvenile sex offending is an issue of major public concern, yet currently little is understood about its origins. In particular, there is a very limited understanding of the motivations and the internal world of the offender. The serious nature of juvenile sex offending has, however, led to a re-examination of previously held views and an urgency to know more about its causes and methods of prevention (Barbaree, Hudson, & Seto, 1993; Becker, Harris, & Sales, 1993; Lakey, 1992; Ryan, Miyoshi, Metzner, Krugman, & Fryer, 1996; Seto & Lalumière, 2010; Sickmund, Snyder, & Poe-Yamagata, 1997). Previously, the significance of juvenile sex offending has been minimized, with offenders often regarded as sexually curious, or engaged in sexual experimentation associated with their emergent sexuality (Davis & Leitenberg, 1987; Lakey, 1994; Quinn, 1992). The behaviour was often naïvely viewed as self-limiting with age and maturity (Barbaree, Hudson, & Seto, 1993; Finklehor, 1979), with offences committed by juveniles considered unlikely to be serious in nature (Becker & Able, 1985; Groth, 1977). Stereotyped social attitudes have also supported such perceptions (Anderson, Simpson-Taylor, & Herrmann, 2004). Subsequently, evidence has challenged these views and highlighted the simplicity of such accounts and the need for further research into the complex motivations of juvenile sex offenders (Anderson, Simpson-Taylor, & Herrmann, 2004; Davis & Leitenberg, 1987; Dolan, Holloway, Bailey, & Kroll, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, & Seidler, 2001; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000; Seto & Lalumière, 2010; Snyder & Sickmund, 1995).

Pervading the research is confusion about the definition of juvenile sex offending internationally (Vizard, Monck, & Mirsch, 1995). There are also many variations in the nomenclature used to describe subgroups of sex offenders. Sexual offending is usually defined as non-consensual sexual behaviour involving another person and encompassing force and/or manipulation (Ryan, Leversee, & Lane, 2010; Vizard, Monck, & Mirsch, 1995). It is often categorized according to the nature of the sexual activity (e.g., sodomy) and the degree of direct physical contact (e.g., molestation vs. rape) with a victim (Burton, Miller, & Shill, 2002). Sex offender behaviour frequently incorporates features of sexual disorders, especially paraphilias (Hilton & Mezey, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler & Blaszczynski, 2000). Different offence sub-types have been identified (Burton, Miller, & Shill, 2002; Graves, Openshaw, Ascione, & Ericksen, 1996; Herkov, Gynther, Thomas, & Myers, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, & Seidler, 2001; Knight & Prentky, 1993; Snyder & Sickmund, 1995) with a trend towards typologizing juvenile sex offenders. One of the most popular typologies is based on victim age and nature of the sexual behaviour involved in the offence (e.g., rapists with peer-aged or adult victims or child victims). Other authors (O’Brien & Bera, 1986; Sinourd, Hoge, Andrews, & Leschied, 1994) have utilized typologies based on the extent of previous offending (i.e., the extent of antisocial behaviour) and personality characteristics.

Notwithstanding these considerations, and despite indications that juvenile sex offenders are a heterogeneous group in terms of their clinical characteristics (Seto & Lalumière, 2010; Worling, 1995), much of the literature and many approaches to treatment regard them as a homogeneous group by not acknowledging apparent sub-group differences.

The extent and nature of juvenile sex offending

In the past fifteen to twenty years, the incidence and recidivism rates of juvenile sex offending has shown little sign of levelling or declining (Belanger & Earls, 1996; Brannon & Troyer, 1995; Dolan, Holloway, Bailey, & Kroll, 1996; Flatley, Kershaw, Smith, Chaplin, & Moon, 2010; Hagan, King, & Patros, 1994; Hunter, 2000; Långström & Grann, 2000; Ryan, 1997; Ryan, Leversee, & Lane, 2010; Sniffen, 2009; Snyder, Sickmund, & Poe-Yamagata, 1996; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The National Violence Against Women Survey (Rosen, Fontaine, Gaskin-Lanlyan, Price, & Bachar, 2009) found that 13.5% of women and 5% of men in a US sample are sexually abused at some stage during their life. Eighty to ninety per cent of the victims are young women, a large proportion of these children (Lamont, 2011; Sniffen, 2009), with 83% of victims being less than twenty-four years of age. Juvenile sex offenders are responsible for up to half of all sex offences against children (Deisher, Wenet, Paperny, Clark, & Fehrenbach, 1982; Hunter & Figueredo, 2000; Sniffen, 2009) and 20% of all forcible rapes against peer aged or older victims (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995; Truscott, 1993).

Added to the serious and extensive nature of juvenile sex offending, there is a significant under-reporting of sexual assault, especially in cases of child sexual abuse (Groth, 1982; Sniffen, 2009). This might be due to fear and intimidation of victims. Also, despite the number of reports of sexual abuse of children, the actual conviction rates for such offences are still very low (Burton, Miller, & Shill, 2002; Finkelhor, 1979, 1984). This is important, as the majority of adult sex offenders begin offending sexually or demonstrating deviant sexual interest during adolescence and can continue in an unremitting way (Abel, Mittleman, & Becker, 1985; Långström & Grann, 2000; Valliant & Antonowicz, 1992). Thus, although adults commit many of these offences, juvenile sex offenders are responsible for a significant proportion of such offences, highlighting the significance and importance of identifying and treating the juvenile offenders appropriately.

Sex offending can also begin earlier than adolescence, with rates of child molestation by other children under the age of thirteen years accounting for between 13% and 18% of all childhood sexual abuse cases and 11% of all forcible rape charges (Butts & Snyder, 1997; Gray, Pithers, Busconi, & Houchens, 1999).

The impact of juvenile sex offending

Although sexual violation of children and adults (especially women) has occurred throughout history, the articulation of its impact is a more recent phenomenon (Clum, Calhoun, & Kimerly, 2000; Dallam et al., 2001; Ellis, 2002).

The significance of these rates of sexual abuse becomes apparent when the effect this abuse has on its victims is considered. Sexual abuse sequelae for women include somatic symptoms, medical problems, and psychiatric diagnoses (especially depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder) (Asmussen, 2010; Dickinson, deGruy, Dickinson, & Candib, 1999; Rosen, Fontaine, Gaskin-Lanlyan, Price, & Bachar, 2009), as well as difficulties in performing the roles of wife, mother, and income earner (Finklehor, 1984). More than three out of four men and women who have been abused meet the criteria for a lifetime disorder of mood, anxiety, or substance abuse (Molnar, Bukar, & Kessler, 2001). For many victims of sexual abuse, the development of dysfunctional behaviour reduces their capacity to become part of the workforce. These data thus highlight the economic and emotional impact of sex offending.

Sexual abuse of children can have other, serious traumatic effects. For example, sexual abuse can result in raised levels of cortisol in the brains of children and infants, retarding the development of the brain and nervous system, which are still mylenating (Glaser, 2000; Meany, 2001). This might subsequently reduce the child’s capacity for psychological adjustment (King, Mandansky, King, Fletcher, & Brewer, 2001).

Children who are sexually abused are also more likely to be subsequently arrested themselves for sexual assault. Specifically, they are five times more likely to sexually abuse a stranger and are eight times more likely to sexually abuse a family member (Dutton & Hart, 1992; Widom, 1989). Reports show that 40% of juvenile sex offenders have histories of being victims of sexual abuse (Cooper, Murphy, & Haynes, 1996; Hunter & Figuerado, 2000; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000; Ryan, Miyoshi, Metzner, Krugman, & Fryer, 1996; Worling, 1995).

The costs associated with the incarceration and supervision of juvenile sex offenders are sobering (Lotke, 1996; Miller, Fisher, & Cohen, 2001). For example, the average cost of incarcerating an offender is approximately $US22,000 per year (excluding treatment costs), while the cost of community based supervision can be up to $US15,000 per year. These costs do not include the costs of adjudication, which have been estimated to be as high as $US180,000 per offender (Marshall, 1996). The extent and nature of such costs prompt governments to develop strategies to prevent juvenile sex offending and to increase the sanctions and legal consequences of sexual abuse against others. These data vindicate the need to better understand juvenile sex offenders, given the seriousness and extensiveness of their offending, the misery that it causes their victims, and the costs of their offending to society.

Despite the increasing number of studies that describe juvenile sex offenders and their offences, until recently there has been scant understanding of the aetiology and the motivations underpinning juvenile sex offending (Cooper, Murphy, & Haynes, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, & Seidler, 2001). Overall, there have been few comparative studies which have identified the unique characteristics of such offenders or have incorporated a range of self-report, projective and collateral data (Keogh & Hayes, 2003). Research has been plagued with methodological problems, notably small clinical samples, which have hampered the development of an empirically based, aetiological framework from which to view juvenile sex offending.

Notwithstanding this, recent research and an emerging clinical profile of juvenile sex offenders indicate that some of these offenders show poor, yet variable, capacity for attachment and differential levels of psychopathy (Awad & Saunders, 1991; Cooper, Murphy, & Haynes, 1996; Goodrow & Lim, 1998; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000; Kobayashi, Sales, Becker, & Figuerado, 1995; Marshall, Hudson, & Hodkinson, 1993). Specifically, significant numbers of these offenders offend following a history of antisocial behaviour, which suggests that psychopathy might be strongly linked to sex offending in a subgroup of offenders (e.g. Ford & Linney, 1995; Gregory, 1998). While psychopathy is usually associated with low levels of empathy and concern for victims, some juvenile sex offenders, in contrast, appear not to display such characteristics, but manifest other pathology, suggestive of difficulties negotiating relationships in a satisfactory way (Ward, Hudson, & Marshall, 1996).

Capacity for attachment and level of psychopathy seem to be potentially helpful constructs in understanding and differentiating sub-groups of juvenile sex offenders, as well as providing data concerning the likely nature of their internal (intrapsychic) worlds. Psychopathy and capacity for attachment also appear to be related (Crittenden, 1997a) and might together contribute to understanding sub-groups of juvenile sex offenders who display unique personality characteristics (Gacono & Meloy, 1994; Kenny, Keogh, & Seidler, 2001).

Although there has previously been little or no research targeting attachment, scant research regarding the relevance of psychopathy, and no research examining an association between these factors in a juvenile sex offender population (Goodrow & Lim, 1998; Leguizamo, 2000; Loving & Russell, 2000; Marshall, 1993), new research suggests their connection and relevance (Keogh & Hayes, 2003).

There has been a limited amount of research that has identified the salience of attachment in the area of adult sex offending (Kear-Colwell & Sawle, 2001; Ward, Hudson, & Marshall, 1996). Taken together, these other reports further support important links among attachment, psychopathy, and juvenile sex offending, with an implication that these variables could be used to inform early intervention and prevention strategies and ensure that juvenile sex offenders are appropriately assessed, adjudicated, and treated.

To appreciate more fully the motivations and behaviour of juvenile sex offenders and their probable links to these constructs, it is important to look more closely at their characteristics and differences.

Chapter Two

The characteristics and differences of juvenile sex offenders

“Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous”

(Plato, 427 BC, cited in Wall, 2011, p. 247)

Juvenile sex offenders as a group have generally been shown to have significant psychopathology that is different from that of non-sexual offenders (Seto & Lalumière, 2010). They also appear to be different psychologically from other non-offending adolescents (Dolan, Holloway, Bailey, & Kroll, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, & Seidler, 2001; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski 2000; Keogh & Hayes, 2003; van Wijk et al., 2006), although they may present as similar to other adolescents, often appearing like “the boy (or girl) next door” in many other respects. As a group, they also exhibit heterogeneity in terms of their psychopathology, which appears to account for differences in their sexual offence types.

Characteristics of juvenile sex offenders

Juvenile sex offenders have been found to be predominantly male, despite an increase in the number of female sex offenders (Burton, Miller, & Shill, 2002), with the typical offender being fourteen years old and offending against children who are female and seven years of age (Dolan, Holloway, Bailey, & Kroll, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000). Although Afro-American and Hispanic offenders are over-represented in US samples (Davis & Leitenberg, 1987; Hsu & Starzynski, 1990; Vinogradov, Dishotsky, Doty, & Tinklenberg, 1988), juvenile sex offenders in other western cultures, including the UK and Australia, have been found to be from Anglo-Celtic and European backgrounds (Dolan, Holloway, Bailey, & Kroll, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000; Manocha & Mezey, 1998; van Wijk, van Horn, Bullens, Bijleveld, & Doreleijers, 2005).

Developmental difficulties are common among this group of offenders, with up to 30% of them having delayed developmental milestones (Dolan, Holloway, Bailey, & Kroll, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski 2000). Their families typically exhibit dysfunction, especially extensive drug and alcohol abuse (Graves, Openshaw, Ascione, & Ericksen, 1996; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000; Seidman, Marshall, Hudson, & Robertson, 1994), domestic violence, and frank sexual aggression (Epps, 2000; Kobayashi, Sales, Becker, & Figuerado, 1995; Ryan, Miyoshi, Metzner, Krugman, & Fryer, 1996; Zakireh, Ronis, & Knight, 2008). Such offenders have also been found to be commonly exposed to sexual coercion within their families (Seidman, Marshall, Hudson, & Robertson, 1994; Leguizamo, 2000; Zakireh, Ronis, & Knight, 2008; Zgourides, Monto, & Harris, 1997).

Many juvenile sex offenders often have had close relatives who are offenders and are consequently often exposed to sexually abusive attitudes and values demonstrated by family members, who themselves often exhibit a range of sexual deviance (Awad & Saunders, 1991; Daleiden, Kaufman, Hilliker, & O’Neil, 1998; Kahn & Lafond, 1988; Kobayashi, Sales, Becker, & Figuerado, 1995; Krauth, 1997). There is also an over-representation of adoptees among juvenile sex offenders (Ryan, 1997) and up to two-thirds of such offenders have spent time in care (Dolan, Holloway, Bailey, & Kroll, 1996; Keogh et al., 2004), experiences that are associated with disruption to attachment.

As a group, these offenders also under-achieve at school, with high rates of school behaviour and learning problems (Awad & Saunders, 1991; van Wijk, van Horn, Bullens, Bijleveld, & Doreleijers, 2005), which include significant deficits in reading, mathematics performance (Lewis, Shanock, & Pincus, 1981), language and speech (Epps, 2000; Davis & Leitenberg, 1987; Fehrenbach, Smith, Monastersky, & Deisher, 1986; Ford & Linney, 1995; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000; Lakey, 1994; Vizard, Monck, & Mirsch, 1995). Juvenile sex offenders have also been found to be arrested in their moral development and to resort to a preconventional level of moral reasoning to account for their offending behaviour (Ashkar & Kenny, 2006).

In terms of the developmental histories of these offenders, a number of authors have pointed to the prevalence of many serious developmental and family risk factors, many of which are known to contribute to impaired capacity for attachment (Atkinson & Zuckermann, 1997; Kenny, Keogh, & Seidler, 2001; van Wijk, van Horn, Bullens, Bijleveld, & Doreleijers, 2005). Notwithstanding this, there is much variability in their experiences of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and neglect (Seto & Lalumière, 2010).

Although some research findings reveal that these offenders are not characterized by significant psychopathology or psychological adjustment difficulties (Dalton, 1996), most research finds clear evidence of such problems (Aljazireh, 1993; Kavoussi, Kaplan, & Becker, 1988; Lakey, 1992; Reid & Gacono, 2000; Seto & Lalumière, 2010; van Wijk, van Horn, Bullens, Bijleveld, & Doreleijers, 2005).

The documented psychopathology of juvenile sex offenders, however, represents an unlikely amalgam of features, which suggests that they are not all alike in terms of their personality and psycho-pathology (O’Callaghan & Print, 1995). Some profiling studies have revealed problematic peer-age interactions related to social anxiety, social withdrawal, social isolation (Awad & Saunders, 1991; Fehren-bach, Smith, Monastersky, & Deisher, 1986; Groth, 1977; Groth & Loredo, 1981; Miner & Dwyer, 1997), a preoccupation with self, and an obsessive self-absorption (Smith, Monastersky, & Deisher, 1987; Lakey, 1994; Kenny, Keogh, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000).

Some of these offenders have also been shown to have neurotic concerns and to be self-belittling, display a weak self-image, and to have dependent, schizoid, and avoidant traits (Carpenter, Peed, & Eastman, 1995; Katz, 1990; van Wijk, Blokland, Duits, Vermeiren, & Harkink, 2007). Such offenders, when stressed, appear to retreat into comforting deviant sexual fantasies, which become substitutes for negotiating peer-aged relationships (Cortoni & Marshall, 1998; Groth & Loredo, 1981; Ryan, Leversee, & Lane, 2010). In contrast, other studies have revealed juvenile sex offenders to have fewer neurotic problems, but more antisocial behaviour and conduct disorders, such as reduced capacity for remorse or empathy compared with non-sex offenders (Bengis, 1997; Krauth, 1997; Lindsey, Carlozzi, & Elli...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
• Dedication
• SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD
• FOREWORD
• INTRODUCTION
• PART I: THE FORENSIC FOCUS
• PART II: THE LENS
• PART III: MAGNIFYING THE LENS: RESEARCH FINDINGS
• PART IV: PRACTICE AND APPLICATION
• EPILOGUE
• REFERENCES
• INDEX