A Descriptive Model of the Offense Process for Female Sexual Offenders

Abstract

Although considerable efforts have been made to develop and validate etiological models of male sexual offending, no theory is available to guide research or practice with female sexual offenders (FSOs). In this study, the authors developed a descriptive, offense process model of female sexual offending. Systematic qualitative analyses (i.e., grounded theory) of 22 FSOs' offense interviews were used to develop a temporal model documenting the contributory roles of cognitive, behavioral, affective, and contextual factors in female sexual abuse. The model highlights notable similarities and divergences between male and female sexual offenders' vulnerability factors and offense styles. In particular, the model incorporates male co-offender and group co-offender influences and describes how these interact with vulnerability factors to generate female sexual offending. The gender-specific research and clinical implications of the model are discussed.

The Assessment of Female Sexual Offenders

“…On the basis of available evidence, denial or minimization of the offending behaviour, distorted cognitions about the sexual offending and sexual abuse in general, problematic relationship and intimacy deficits, and the use of sex to fulfil intimacy needs have all been found in women (Gannon et al, 2008;Nathan & Ward, 2002;Saradjian & Hanks, 1996; see our later discussion of treatment needs). Sexual gratification, a desire for intimacy (with either a victim or a co-defendant), or instrumental goals such as revenge or humiliation are also associated with female sexual offending (Gannon et al, 2008;Saradjian & Hanks, 1996).…”

“…Sexual gratification, a desire for intimacy (with either a victim or a co-defendant), or instrumental goals such as revenge or humiliation are also associated with female sexual offending (Gannon et al, 2008;Saradjian & Hanks, 1996). An examination of these issues will inform on the woman's personal circumstances and elements that have likely contributed to the offending behaviour, including whether a co-offender played a role (Cortoni, 2010).…”

“…The accumulating evidence indicates that female sexual offenders represent a diverse group of individuals with differing motivational and offending patterns, as well as differing recidivism rates (e.g., Gannon, Rose, & Ward, 2008;Gannon, Waugh, Taylor, Blanchette, O'Connor, Blake, & Ó Ciardha, 2013;Mathews, Matthews, & Speltz, 1989;Sandler & Freeman, 2007;Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). For example, in Vandiver and Kercher's (2004) category of homosexual criminals, none of the women had a conviction for a contact sexual offense.…”

“…Further, given their very low base rates of sexual recidivism, it is currently impossible to determine what might be the relationship between these characteristics and a woman's likelihood that she will commit a new sexual offense. For example, while a woman may present with cognitions that support sex with 8 her victim, there is no evidence to date to suggest that these cognitions augment her risk to commit a sexual offense against a new victim.On the basis of available evidence, denial or minimization of the offending behaviour, distorted cognitions about the sexual offending and sexual abuse in general, problematic relationship and intimacy deficits, and the use of sex to fulfil intimacy needs have all been found in women (Gannon et al, 2008;Nathan & Ward, 2002;Saradjian & Hanks, 1996; see our later discussion of treatment needs). Sexual gratification, a desire for intimacy (with either a victim or a co-defendant), or instrumental goals such as revenge or humiliation are also associated with female sexual offending (Gannon et al, 2008;Saradjian & Hanks, 1996).…”

Deconstructing Victim and offender Identites in Discourses on Child Sexual Abuse: Hierarchies, Blame and the Good/Evil Dialectic

“…Despite a growing academic interest in young sexual abusers (Erooga and Masson, 2006;Hackett et al, 2013) and female sexual offenders (Gannon et al, 2008;Ashfield et al, 2010) social, policy and broad professional awareness lags someway behind. There are, for example, fewer specialised treatment programmes for young or female abusers, despite the fact that women and children account for a growing proportion of those who offend against children.…”