Sexual violence is a serious problem that affects those victimized, their families, and the community around them. Much sex offense legislation appears designed to respond to the collective fear that sexual violence engenders, with legislative efforts (intentionally or unintentionally) tending to target low-base-rate “stranger danger” types of offenses. This article reviews prevailing forms of sex offense legislation, providing a summary of recent case law and an examination of empirical findings that bear upon the functioning and impact of common legislative responses to these “stranger danger” fears, including sexually violent predator laws, registration and community notification statutes, residence restrictions, and electronic monitoring. Although it is difficult to conduct well-controlled studies that test whether sex offense legislation works, extant research provides, at most, limited support for the value of much current legislation. This article concludes by suggesting areas of research need and outlining how empirical data may help to shape sex offense legislation so as to most successfully reduce sexual violence.

No abstract

Despite wide reports of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, empirical data on Catholic Church sexual abuse have not been readily available. The present study examines factors associated with sex-offender risk assessment along three criteria (repeat offending, victim gender, and victim relationship) on a sample of sexual abusers in the Catholic Church. Data from 4,392 priests with documented allegations of child sexual abuse were used. Logistic regression analysis resulted in significant predictive models for all comparisons. Factors consistently found to be significant predictors across comparisons included victim age, cleric age, all male victims, and history of victimization. Results suggest that risk predictors for Catholic Church sexual abusers are similar to those used in the general sex-offender population.

We examined statewide data of persons evaluated for sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment and compared risk-relevant data of three groups: those committed as SVPs (n = 374), those not recommended for commitment (n = 2,707), and those nearly committed (recommended for commitment but ultimately not committed; n = 117). Consistent with legal language for SVP commitment, binary and multinomial regression analyses revealed that risk scores predicted SVP commitment recommendations in addition to some historical factors (e.g., psychiatric history, never being married, prior sex offenses). For those recommended for commitment, prior sexual offenses predicted ultimate commitment. Those nearly committed had significantly higher sexual recidivism rates than did others who were not committed; however, these recidivism rates were still low (11.5%). Findings suggest that evaluators’ SVP decisions incorporate risk data and follow empirically supported trends; however, the observed recidivism rates of a subset of people that SVP commitment appears to target suggests that the potential for reducing sexual recidivism effectively and efficiently through commitment appears to be quite limited.

As the field of psychology and law begins to embrace more transparent and accessible science, many questions arise about what open science actually is and how to do it. In this chapter, we contextualize this reform by examining fundamental concerns about psychological research—irreproducibility and replication failures, false-positive errors, and questionable research practices—that threaten its validity and credibility. Next, we turn to psychology’s response by reviewing the concept of open science and explaining how to implement specific practices—preregistration, registered reports, open materials/data/code, and open access publishing—designed to make research more transparent and accessible. We conclude by weighing the implications of open science for the field of psychology and law, specifically with respect to how we conduct and evaluate research, as well as how we train the next generation of psychological scientists and share scientific findings in applied settings.

We examined the effects of victim and perpetrator alcohol intoxication on perceptions of campus sexual assault. Participants ( N = 276) read a campus assault vignette; both perpetrator and victim intoxication levels were manipulated. Participants reported attitudes toward both parties and perceptions of responsibility, blame, and criminal and civil liability. Contrary to some past research, participants blamed victims less—and more strongly considered the incident rape or sexual assault—when victims were highly intoxicated. Perceptions were most punitive toward sober perpetrators with highly intoxicated victims. Results suggest possible shifts in perceptions of consent, further discussed in the context of historical and population factors.

No abstract

No abstract