背景:对性犯罪的个人进行有效分类对于他们的评估很重要,治疗,和风险管理。受害者年龄经常被用作犯罪者之间的区别因素。
目的:本研究旨在分析接触性犯罪者与成年和未成年受害者的独特心理病理学和犯罪学特征。
方法:该研究涉及97名成年男性,他们在西班牙因至少一次针对成年人或未成年人的接触性犯罪而服刑。
方法:研究人员收集了有关罪犯的犯罪学变量的数据,受害者,以及监狱记录和采访中的作案手法。参与者在第二届会议中完成了Millon临床多轴清单III(MCMI-III),并对组间差异进行了分析。
结果:在反社会(r=-0.283,p=.005)和虐待狂(r=-0.209,p=.04)人格量表上,有未成年受害者的性犯罪者(SOMV)的得分明显低于有成年受害者的性犯罪者(SOAV)。以及酒精(r=-0.426,p<.001)和药物依赖性(r=-0.332,p=.001)综合征分量表。SOAV也更有可能使用暴力和/或恐吓,使用武器,冒犯女性受害者,冒犯一个亲密的伴侣,在公共场所犯罪,服其他正在进行的监禁,并报告酗酒和药物滥用史。SOMV年龄较大,更有可能冒犯家庭成员。
结论:这些结果表明,SOAV和SOMV之间存在关键差异,应在针对每个罪犯亚组的量身定制的预防计划中加以考虑。
BACKGROUND: Effective classification of individuals who commit sexual offences is important for their assessment, treatment, and risk management. Victim age has often been used as a distinguishing factor between perpetrators.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyse the distinctive psychopathological and criminological characteristics of contact sexual offenders with adult and minor victims.
METHODS: The study involved 97 adult males who were serving a prison sentence in Spain for at least one contact sexual offence against an adult or a minor.
METHODS: Researchers gathered data on criminological variables concerning the offender, victim, and modus operandi from prison records and interviews. Participants completed the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) in a second session, and between-group differences were analysed.
RESULTS: Sex offenders with minor victims (SOMV) had significantly lower scores than sex offenders with adult victims (SOAV) on the Antisocial (r = -0.283, p = .005) and Sadistic (r = -0.209, p = .04) personality subscales, and on the Alcohol (r = -0.426, p < .001) and Drug dependence (r = -0.332, p = .001) syndrome subscales. SOAV were also more likely to use violence and/or intimidation, use a weapon, offend against female victims, offend against an intimate partner, commit their offences in public places, serve other ongoing prison sentences, and report a history of alcohol and substance abuse. SOMV were older and more likely to offend against family members.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there are key differences between SOAV and SOMV that should be considered in tailored prevention programmes for each subgroup of offenders.