=============

Dolan et al.: Personality and Neuropsychological Function in Violent, Sexual and

Arson Offenders, Moo. Sci. Law (2002) Vol. 42, No.1
27 violent offenders, 20 sex offenders and 13 arson offenders detained in
maximum security hospitals completed dimensional assessments of personality
function and were assessed on a battery of frontal and temporal neuropsychological
tests. All patients completed a variety of self-report measures of cognitive, affective
and behavioural dispositions relevant to offender populations. Trait impulsivity was
further assessed and composite impulsivity scores were derived. Assessments of
emotional state were administered prior to neuropsychological testing.
===========================
Scott, Monte L.; Cole, James K.; McKay, Stephen E.; Golden, Charles J.; and Liggett, Kenneth R., "Neuropsychological
Performance of Sexual Assaulters and Pedophiles" (1984). Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology. 800.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/800
Method
Subjects
The subjects were 36 male patients in a secure ward of a state psychiatric facility. All
subjects had been arrested for sexual assault and had been ordered to undergo evaluation, as
required by Nebraska law, for possible designation as "mentally disordered sex offender."
Nebraska statutes define a mentally disordered sex offender as "any person who has a mental
disorder and who, because of the mental disorder, has been determined to be disposed to
repeated commission of sexual offenses which are likely to cause substantial injury to the
health of others."
Persons were excluded from the study if there was evidence of neurological impairment, such
as a history of seizures, mental retardation, or head trauma. Subjects were included in the
study only if they had committed a sexual offense which was assaultive in nature. Persons
were included if they had forcibly assaulted a postpubescent adult, or if they had engaged in
sexual relations with a prepubescent child. Persons who committed such crimes as bestiality
or exhibitionism were not included in the study.
Procedure
All persons meeting the criteria for the study were interviewed upon admission and complete
medical, social, legal, and familial histories were obtained. The appropriate police and court
records were examined for each subject to assess the circumstances of the offense. The Luria-
Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery was administered to each subject. The Luria-Nebraska
Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) is a standardized version of the neuropsychological
techniques of the Russian psychologist, the late A. R. Luria [15]. The performance of the
sexual assaulters on the LNNB was compared to a group of normal control subjects (N = 31)
consisting of nonhospitalized volunteers and hospitalized persons without histories of
psychiatric and neurological disorders. There were no significant differences in age (mean =
29.2; standard deviation [SD] = 8.6) or education (mean : 11.3; SD --- 2.6) between the
groups.
==============
Jeffrey Abracen , Ronan O'carroll & Nazar Ladha (1991) Neuropsychological dysfunction in sex
offenders?, The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 2:2, 167-177, DOI: 10.1080/09585189108407646
METHOD
Subjects
SO – 12
Prison Controls – 12
Normals-13
 Three groups of subjects were selected for study. The first group consisted of men convicted
of sexual assault against children (the SA group). These men were recruited from the local
penitentiary. All SA subjects were informed that confirmation had been obtained from the
Attorney General that information and data gathered in the project were confidential and
could not be used against them in a court of law, and subjects were invited to inspect the
relevant letter. The second group of prison control subjects consisted of inmates of the
penitentiary who were convicted of non-sex non-violent crimes (mainly property crimes) (the
PC group). The third group consisted of non-professional prison and hospital employees and
were used to represent a normal control (the NC group).
All SA subjects were assessed using a structured interview based on the DSM-111-R criteria
for paraphiliac behaviour, and a full sexual history was taken. Twelve child molesters were
eventually recruited; seven of these individuals had been sexually involved with only male
children, five with only female children. (Perhaps surprisingly, none of the SA group fulfilled
DSM-111-R criteria for paedophilia or any other paraphilia; but see the discussion section
below).
Exclusionary criteria included previous psychiatric contact and history of head injury,
tumour, or stroke. Each subject had to score above the recommended cut-off score of 23 on
the Mini-Mental State Examination, as described by Dick etal. (1984). This measure was
administered in order to ensure that subjects in each group were oriented for time, place and
person prior to neuropsychological evaluation.
None of the SA group had ever been convicted of a non-sex or non-violent crime, and none
of the PC group (n = 12) had ever been convicted of a sexual or a violent crime. None of the
NC group (n = 13) had ever been convicted of any crime, or had any previous psychiatric
contact.
===========
Chapter XVI section 375 to 377 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 deals with sex related
offences.
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3447-sexual-offences-under-the-
ipc-section-375-377.html
=======
Sex offenders can be classified based on various factors, including the number of
victims involved. Here are common classifications based on the number of victims:

1. Single Victim Offenders:

These offenders have committed sexual offenses against a single victim. The
offense may be a one-time incident or involve repeated offenses against the same
victim.

2. Multiple Victims Offenders:

These offenders have committed sexual offenses against more than one victim. The
offenses may involve different victims at different times or multiple victims during a
single incident.

3. Serial Offenders:
Serial sex offenders commit sexual offenses against multiple victims over an
extended period, often exhibiting a pattern of behavior with distinct characteristics.
They may have a compulsion to commit offenses and typically plan their actions in
advance.
4. Mass Offenders:
Mass sex offenders commit sexual offenses against multiple victims in a single
incident or within a short time frame, such as in cases of mass sexual assault or gang
rape.

5. Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders:

These offenders exploit children for sexual purposes, which may involve multiple
victims. This category includes offenders who engage in activities such as child
pornography production, online grooming, or child sex trafficking.

References for classifications of sex offenders can be found in various academic

sources, including:

- Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The

development and corroboration of taxonomic models. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws,
& H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and
Treatment of the Offender (pp. 23-52). Springer.
- Prentky, R. A., & Knight, R. A. (1991). Identifying critical dimensions for
discriminating among rapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5),
643–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.59.5.643
- Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of
sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
66(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.66.2.348

These references provide insights into the classification of sex offenders based on
various factors, including the number of victims involved in their offenses.
=============
Knox-Jones, Pamela. "Neuropsychological Functioning Among Violent and Nonviolent Sex Offenders"
(1994). Doctor of Psychology (PsyD), Dissertation, Psychology, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/
eenh-1c21 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/207
Subjects:
Four groups of adult male offenders were identified: violent sex offenders (group 1),
nonviolent sex offenders (group 2), nonviolent non-sex offenders (group 3), and
violent non-sex offenders (group 4). Violent sex offenses are defined in accordance
with the Severity of Offense Code (DOP 823), Virginia Department of Corrections
(DOC), as sexual assault, rape, sexual assault sodomy, sexual assault carnal abuse,
and sexual assault-attempted (with intent).
Nonviolent sex offenses are categorized as statutory rape, sexual battery, sex offense
against minor-fondling, indecent exposure, bestiality, peeping Tom, and indecent
liberties (with intent to act). Nonviolent non-sex offenses include all other felonies.
Violent non-sex offenses are murder, conspiracy to commit murder, homicide,
conspiracy to commit homicide, kidnap, abduction, arson-endangered life, robbery
weapon, attempted robbery-weapon, malicious wounding, and unlawful wounding.
A review of DOC records ensured that all participants had at least a sixth grade
reading level.
Offenders with a history of seizure disorder, brain tumor, hospitalization for head
injury, or inpatient treatment for substance abuse were excluded from the study, as
were subjects taking psychoactive medication. Additionally, nonviolent offenders
with a prior conviction for a violent offense were not eligible for participation, nor
were non sex offenders with a previous conviction for a sex offense.
An effort was made to obtain a racial distribution within each group of
approximately 60% black and 40% white, in order to be representative of the
distribution within the
state's correctional facilities. This proved impossible, as the distribution of
nonviolent sex offenders within the prison system at the time of subject selection
was 17% black
and 74% white. Consequently, group 2 was 17% black and 83% white. The
experimental group was comprised of 93 convicted felons, 25 from groups 1, 3, and 4
and 18 from group 2. The subjects ranged from 21 to 53 years of age at the time of
data collection, and were incarcerated within Department of Corrections facilities.
=================
Assessing Neuropsychological Impairment Among Sex Offenders and Paraphilics, Ron Langevin PhD &
Suzanne Curnoe BA CCW (2008) Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8:2, 150-173, DOI:
10.1080/15228930801963960
METHOD
Participants
From a forensic database of men assessed between 1966 and 2006 at a university hospital and/or
private clinic in a large urban community, a sample of 1,293 men was examined, which included
1,180 sex offenders and paraphilics, 74 violent non–sex offenders (VNS), and 39 non-violent non–sex
offenders (NVNS) from the same clinics (these latter two groups collectively referred to hereafter as
the non–sex offender controls). All of the men were selected from the database on the basis of having
been administered the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery in whole or part (Reitan &
Wolfson, 1993). Group classification was based on lifetime criminal history derived from clinical
interview and questionnaires, all available hospital records including readmissions up to 33 years
later, and provincial and Royal Canadian Mounted Police criminal records, as available, up to 1999.
All controls were selected on the basis of having no deviant sexual history or charges for sex crimes.
There were 11 men
charged with homicide in the VNS group, and all cases had committed serious assaults. The NVNS
group was also seen for psychological assessment and served to control for psychiatric and criminal
status across the groups. The controls were seen across the same time periods as the SOP group. The
sex offenders were assigned to groups according to the following criteria: (1) whether they offended
against males or females or both, (2) whether they offended against adults or children younger than 16
years of age or both, (3) whether the victims of the crimes were intrafamilial or extra-familial, and (4)
whether the offenders showed exclusive or multiple courtship disorders (combinations of voyeurism,
exhibitionism, frottage, rape, sexual assault, and obscene phone calls; see Freund, Scher, & Hucker,
1983). The sample, in alphabetical order, included 19 androphilic men who were charged with sexual
offenses involving consenting adult males, albeit, in public places (e.g., typically public washrooms)
and therefore were crimes; 31 exclusive genital exhibitionists; 473 incest offenders (59 against males,
384 against females, and 30 against both males and females, all younger than 16 years of age); 24
mixed
courtship disorders (small groups or combinations of voyeurism, exhibitionism, toucheurism, and/or
obscene phone calls); 30 offenders who sexually assaulted both adults and children; 376 pedophilic
extra-familial offenders (151 against boys, 173 against girls, and 52 against both boys and girls, all
younger than 16 years of age); 35 men charged with possession of child pornography (but did not
have hands-on sexual contact with children); 177 sexual aggressives (who had sexually assaulted or
raped adult females, all victims 16 years of age or older); and 15 mixed transvestite and transgender
cases. The exhibitionists were considered separately from other courtship disordered groups because
they did not show a history of multiple disorders, common in courtship disorders (cf. Freund et al.,
1983; Langevin & Paitich, 2002). The androphilic cases were included because they faced criminal
charges and appeared for forensic assessments, in spite of living in a country that legalized consenting
homosexual relations in private in 1969 and now permits gay marriages.
The transvestites and transgender cases were also included as they also commit sexual crimes that
may be violent or may be disguised as common assaults or property offenses (Schlesinger & Revitch,
1999). This classification provides a relatively unique grouping of cases, as only 136 cases (11.5%)
crossed age and gender lines and/or engaged in multiple deviant activities with victims. To simplify
the examination of cases, they were divided in three ways: (1) sex offenders and paraphilics versus
non–sex offender controls (SOP vs. C); (2) sex offenders against adults (n = 251) versus against
children (n = 849), excluding the control group, child pornography users, transvestites/transgender
cases, and offenders of both adults and children; and (3) sex offenders of males (n = 229), or females
(789), or both males and females (82), regardless of victim age (excluding the control group, child
pornography users, transvestites/transgender cases, and offenders of both adults and children).

=========
A neuropsychological study of older adult first-time sex offenders
Marcelo Rodrigueza, Philip Boyceb and John Hodgesb
NEUROCASE, 2017 VOL. 23, NO. 2, 154–161
https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2017.1334802
objective of this study was to compare the neuropsychological function of older adult first time sex
offenders (FTSO), who had not previously been charged with a sexual offence prior to the age of 50,
to historical long-term sex offenders (HSO) and non-sex offenders (NSO). A battery of
neuropsychological measures was administered to 100 participants comprising 32 FTSOs, 36 HSOs,
and 32 NSOs.
In this study, the definition for “sex offence” included acts that were of a sexual nature that was
unwanted and consent was not or could not be provided, such is the case with minors or disabled
individuals. Child exploitation material offences were included in this study.
======
A Neuropsychological Assessment of Adult Sex Offenders
Megan Deutsher, Doctor of Philosophy, 2004 (available in MyPhD-for PhD-
neuropsy and SO)
Definition of participant groups
Many problems associated with sex offender research were highlighted in the
previous chapters, particularly with reference to the definition of the sex offender
group and the use of inadequate control groups. It was identified that the current
diagnosis of pedophilia contained in the DSM-IV TR (APA, 2000) was problematic
and not readily used by researchers or clinicians in the area (Marshall, 1997). It
was further reported that, although there is no consensus as to the definition of
child sex offender, many professionals often use the conventional research
definition of child molester.
This construct is generally defined as any individual who has committed a sexual
offence against a child, (Marshall, 1997; OIDonohue et al., 2000), whereby the
governing laws and legal age of consent define the terms "sexual offence" and
"child". Further to this, a child molester is considered as such irrespective of
whether the behaviour is persistent (Marshall).
However, the offender must be at least 16 years old and five years older than the
victim (Barbaree & Seto, 1997). Given this, the research contained in this
dissertation focuses on men convicted for sexual offences against children.
Therefore, the term pedophilia will not be used in this study, This group will be
referred to as the sex offenders.
In Australia, the recruitment of sex offenders is limited to the criminal justice
system, either through the prison system or the community treatment programs.
One criticism of the use of incarcerated sex offenders is that their characteristics
may be reflective of the effects of imprisonment (Araji & Finkelhor, 1985). While
this may be a consideration in research evaluating state variables such as
cognitions, emotions and personality, it is unlikely to effect stable trait factors
such as brain function. Nevertheless, the inclusion of an incarcerated non-sex
offending
group of individuals will help control for any potential effects of incarceration on
the sex offenders.
===============
Comparing sexual offender treatment efficacy: Mainstream sexual offenders and
sexual offenders with special needs
JENNY A. KEELING, JOHN L. ROSE & ANTHONY R. BEECH
University of Birmingham, UK
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, June 2007; 32(2): 117–124

Participants
There were 22 participants in the study, 11 of whom were sexual offenders with
special needs and 11 mainstream sexual offenders. In order to control for the effects
of possible confounding variables, the offenders with special needs were matched
with mainstream offenders on four variables: (i) risk category (high or moderate
Static-99 score); (ii) sex of victim (male, female or both); (iii) offender type (child
molester, rapist or both); and (iv) age of participant (under 25; 25–35; 36–45; 46–60).
The sample of matched mainstream participants was selected from a pool of
approximately 120 offenders who had completed treatment. Where there was more
than one mainstream offender who matched a participant with special needs on all
four variables, the mainstream offender closest in age was selected.
Group with special needs.
Age of the participants with special needs ranged from 25–46 years, with a mean age
of 37.82 (SD56.85). All were Australian, including four of Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander background (36%). At the time of offending, 46% (n55) were single, with
36% (n54) divorced or separated and 18% married (n52). On the Static-99, 8
participants (73%) were classified as high risk and 3 (27%) as moderate risk. Offence
demographics are outlined in Table 1. IQ of the participants with special needs
ranged from 63–83 (M571.0, SD56.0) as measured by the WAIS-III (Wechsler, 1997),
with 91% (n510) having left school before the age of 15. The group included six
participants with borderline intellectual functioning and four with mild intellectual
functioning; one individual was identified as having low average functioning but
was deemed suitable for the program due to illiteracy. There were three people in
the group with acquired brain injury (one in the mild intellectual functioning
category and two with borderline intellectual functioning).
Mainstream group.
Age of the mainstream participants ranged from 23– 67 years, with a mean age of
45.73 (SD513.73). Ten of the participants were Australian, including one of
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background; the other participant was from a
non- English-speaking background (but was fluent in English). At the time of
offending, none of the offenders was married, 54.5% (n56) were divorced or
separated, and 45.5% (n55) were single. On the Static-99, 8 participants (73%) were
classified as high risk and 3 participants (27%) as moderate risk. Again, offence
demographics are detailed in Table 1. No data were available regarding intellectual
functioning of the mainstream group, although a requirement of the program was an
ability to read and write, as well to cope with the demands of the program. Thus it is
likely that this group had significantly higher levels of intellectual functioning than
the group with special needs.

============

Mental health assessment of rape offenders

Jaydip Sarkar Department of General and Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Mental
Health, 10 Buangkok View, Singapore
Sarkar J. Mental health assessment of rape offenders. Indian J Psychiatry 2013;55:
235-43.
DEFINING RAPE
In law, rape is defined as vaginal or anal penetration in the absence of lawful
consent. However, the source of penetration (e.g., penis, finger, or objects), object of
penetration (e.g., vagina, anal, or oral), gender of perpetrator, and victim and
definition of consent varies greatly across jurisdictions. Rape is considered to have
occurred when her consent has been obtained by (i) putting her (or any person in
whom she is interested, e.g., children, close relatives) in fear of death or of hurt, (ii)
the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or
unwholesome substance (so-called ‘‘date-rape’’), or (iii) when the age of the victim is
below 16 years. Moreover, Indian law (section 375 of Indian Penal Code) specifically
states that if a woman consents to sex, that consent is invalid and rape is still
considered to have taken place if the woman is suffering from “unsoundness of
mind or intoxication” so that she is unable to understand the nature and consequence
of that to which she gives consent.
There are several types of rape that exist in law
a. Penetrative rape: The vagina is penetrated by penis, finger, or other objects
b. Statutory rape: The penis is touched on vagina but no penetration takes place. This
type of rape does not exist in Indian statutes yet
c. Marital rape: When rape occurs within a marriage. This is not yet recognized in
Indian law
d. Date rape: When rape occurs during an exploratory platonic romantic meeting
between a man and a woman, where often an intoxicating agent is mixed in the food
or drink of the victim
e. Gang rape: When more than one person rapes the victim
f. Male rape: When man on man rape takes place.
============
Sex offenders are not reconvicted at the rate that many people think they are.
Parole boards over-predict re-offending for these prisoners. The notion that
certain groups of sex offenders are driven to commit additional sex offences on
release is challenged by this study.
Criminological Highlights Item 4 Volume 5, Number 1 July 2002
This study followed 174 male prisoners who had been convicted of a serious sex
offence in the U.K. for at least 2 years after release and, in the case of 94 of them, for
6 years. These offenders were subsequently divided into groups (e.g., adult vs. child
victim, male or female child victims, stranger or known victim, single vs. multiple
victims, whether the offence against a child had taken place within the family unit).
60% of these offenders had at least one child victim, approximately one quarter of
whom were male. Parole board hearings were also monitored which allowed the
researchers to determine whether an offender had been described as posing a ‘high
risk’.
Reference: Hood, Roger, Stephen Shute, Martina Feilzer, and Aidan Wilcox (2002).
Sex Offenders Emerging from Long-Term Imprisonment. British Journal of
Criminology, 42, 371-394.
=============

Types of rapist
There have been many theories set forth by researchers regarding the various types
of rapists.
Barbaree typology
According to Howard Barbaree, a psychologist at Queen's University in Kingston,
Ontario, most rapes are impulsive and opportunistic, and committed by people who
may commit other impulsive acts, including impulsive crimes. These rapists tend to
show no anger except in response to their victim's resistance, and use little
unnecessary force.
Then there are rapists who are preoccupied with a fixed sexual fantasy, which they
try to act out in the rape, such as a fantasy in which they force a victim to have sex,
and they then fall in love with them.
These are the least aggressive of rapists, and are the most likely to flee if the victim
puts up a strong resistance. Then there are vindictive rapists whose assaults are
physically harmful and whose intent is clearly to degrade and humiliate the victim.
Then there are rapists whose compelling motive is anger at the world at large; these
are likely to inflict the most physical damage on their victims. These rapists tend to
have a long history of violent crime of all sorts. Then there are sexual sadists, who
enjoy the victim's fear.[1]

Groth typology
Nicholas Groth has described three types of rape based on the goal of the rapist.[2]

Power rapist
For these rapists, rape becomes a way to compensate for their underlying feelings of
inadequacy and feeds their issues of mastery, control, strength, authority and
capability. The intent of the power rapist is to assert their competency. The power
rapist relies upon verbal threats, intimidation with a weapon, and uses only the
amount of force necessary to subdue the victim.
The power rapist tends to have fantasies about rape and sexual conquests. They may
believe that even though the victim initially resists them, that once they overpower
their victim, the victim will eventually enjoy the rape. The rapist needs to believe
that the victim enjoyed what was done to them, and they may even ask the victim to
meet them for a date later.
Because this is only a fantasy, the rapist does not feel reassured for long by either
their own performance or the victim's response. The rapist feels that they must find
another victim, convinced that this victim will be "the right one."
Hence, their offenses may become repetitive and compulsive. They may commit a
series of rapes over a short period of time. This is the most common type of serial
rapist of strangers in the United States.[3]

Anger rapist
The aim of this rapist is to humiliate, debase, and hurt their victim; they express their
contempt for their victim through physical violence and profane language. For these
rapists, sex is a weapon to defile and degrade the victim, rape constitutes the
ultimate expression of their anger. This rapist considers rape the ultimate offense
they can commit against the victim. Anger rape is characterized by physical
brutality, much more physical force is used during the assault than would be
necessary if the intent were simply to overpower the victim and achieve penetration.
This type of offender attacks their victim by grabbing, striking and knocking the
victim to the ground, beating them, tearing their clothes, and raping them.
The experience for the offender is one that is of conscious anger and rage.[2] For
these rapists, there is a sexual association with various concepts, so that aggression
and the infliction of pain is eroticized. For this rapist, sexual excitement is associated
with the causing of suffering upon their victim. The offender finds the intentional
maltreatment of their victim intensely gratifying and takes pleasure in the victim's
torment, anguish, distress, helplessness, and suffering;[4] the offender finds the
victim's struggling an erotic experience.

Sadistic rapist
Sadistic rape usually involves extensive, prolonged torture and restraint. Sometimes,
it can take on ritualistic or other bizarre qualities. The rapist may use some type of
instrument or a foreign object to penetrate their victim. Sexual areas of the victim's
body become a specific focus of injury or abuse. The sadistic rapist's assaults are
calculated. They will often wear a disguise or will blindfold their victims.[4]
Prostitutes or other individuals whom they perceive to be "promiscuous" are often
the sadistic rapist's targets. The victims of a sadistic rapist may not survive the
attack. For some offenders, the ultimate satisfaction is gained from murdering the
victim.[2]
Reference:
1. Goleman, Daniel (December 10, 1991). "New Studies Map the Mind of the
Rapist" (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/10/science/new-studies-map-
the-mind-of-the-rapist.html). The New York Times. New York City: New York
Times Company.
2. "Center for Sex Offender Management Lecture Content & Teaching Notes
Supervision of Sex Offenders in the Community: An Overview"
(http://www.csom.org/train/supervision/short/01_02_03.html). Center for
Sex Offender Management. Retrieved 2008-05-26.
3. Types of Rapists (http://www.hopeforhealing.org/types.html) from
HopeforHealing.org
4. Groth, Nicholas (1979). Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender
(https://archive.org/details/menwhorape00anic_85x/page/44). New York
City: Plenum Press. pp. 44–45
(https://archive.org/details/menwhorape00anic_85x/page/44). ISBN 0-306-
40268-8.
 5. Barton-Bellessa, Shannon M. (2011). Community-Based Corrections: A
Text/Reader. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. p. 548. ISBN 978-
1412987462.

============

Cross-reference
Sarkar J, Dutt AB. Forensic psychiatry in India: Time to wake up. J Forensic Psychiatr
Psychol 2006;17:121-30.
Gordon H, Grubin D. Psychiatric aspects of the assessment and treatment of sex
offenders. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2004;10:73-80.
Langstrom N, Sjostedt G, Grann M. Psychiatric disorders and recidividsm in sexual
offenders. Sex Abuse 2004;16:139-50.
Grubin D, Gunn J. The Imprisoned Rapist and Rape. London: Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office; 1991.
Smith AD, Taylor PJ. Serious sex offending against women by men with
schizophrenia. Relationship of illness and psychtic symptoms to offending. Br J
Psychiatry 1999;174:233-7.
Drake CR, Pathe M. Understanding sexual offending in schizophrenia. Crim Behav
Ment Health 2004;14:108-20.
Craissati J. Sexual violence against women: A psychological approach to the
assessment and management of rapists in the community. Probat J
2005;52:401-22.
Alder C. The convicted rapist: A sexual or violent offender? Crim Justice Behav
1984;11:157-77.
Dhawan S, Marshall W. Sexual abuse histories of sexual offenders. Sex Abuse
1996;8:7-15.
Smallbone S, Dadds R. Childhood attachment and adult attachment in incarcerated
adult male sex offenders. J Interpersonal Violence 1998;13:555-73.
Stirpe T, Abracen J, Stermac L, Wilson R. Sexual offenders’ state-of-mind regarding
hildhood attachment: A controlled investigation. Sex Abuse 2006;18:289-302.
Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of taxonomic
models. In: Marshall W, Laws D, Barbaree H, Knight R, Prentky
editors. Handbook of Sexual Assaults: Issues, Theories and Treatment of the
Offender. NY: Plenum; 1990. p. 23-52.
32. Knight RA. Typologies for rapists: The generation of a new structural model. In:
Schlank A, editor. The Sexual Predator. vol. 4. New York: Civic Research Institute;
2009. p. 1-28.