Denial of Sexual Crimes

Sexual Offense Disclosure Assessment in Youth Referred to Community Treatment: A Latent Class Analysis

“…39.5%), youth who admitted to their sexually abusive behavior but showed no victim empathy or remorse (Unempathetic Admitters, 38.2%), or youth who admitted and showed considerable empathy and remorse (Empathetic Admitters, 22.3%). Documentation of these subgroups extends other evidence for variation in the types and patterns of denial in youth who engage in sexually abusive behavior (Vanhoeck & Daele, 2011). Indeed, denial, minimization, and lack of victim empathy are fairly common in the general population of persons who engaged in sexually abusive behavior (Levenson, 2011).…”

“…Indeed, males who have engaged in sexually abusive behavior have acknowledged the importance of targeting accepting responsibility, victim empathy, and relapse prevention (understanding motives, triggers) during group therapy (Levenson et al, 2009). Some have suggested that denial is a defense mechanism to help one cope with the thought of having engaged in sexually abusive behavior (Reicher, 2013) or the distressing emotions related to it (e.g., shame, guilt, threat to self-esteem, fear of consequences), so it may help to manage symptoms (Vanhoeck & Daele, 2011). Thus, denial may capture more subtle psychological influences than simply reflecting extreme distortions (“I didn’t do it.”), as well as the possibility that a juvenile may not have committed the sexually abusive behavior or may need more time to discuss it before disclosure.…”

Categorical denial in convicted sex offenders: The concept, its meaning, and its implication for risk and treatment

“…Categorical denial, in this sense, may be seen in most of these offenders as perhaps a fluctuating strategy to achieve some advantage rather than as an expression of their true belief. Accepting that categorical denial is a strategy employed in particular circumstances and contexts, it should be seen as situational and not dispositional or pathological (Friestad, 2011;Vanhoeck & van Daele, 2011;Ware & Mann, 2012). Again it is as well to keep in mind that some categorical deniers may be telling the truth.…”

“…Schneider and Wright (2004) have questioned how a program can be effective if it does not explicitly target acceptance of responsibility for the actual offense and empathy for the victim. Vanhoeck and van Daele (2011) worried that Marshall et al's program may inadvertently damage the credibility of the victim due to the offender not taking responsibility.…”