HA " '1
‘ -.1t
L If“. .

'72:? yvg'nV.
a", 33. ‘, "I

3' ' .'.'
. . a “q.
"‘|3‘,3_’:,£\“A_

' 3
ml. < I n.
3 4
a I

‘
by. ‘ ‘.
v' :F ., '2
r393»-

~l \L.
4 .,

.
' 3- 3 H
"0‘ ‘3‘ “v
._ _ ‘
133.,

If. ‘n‘

‘.

’ «23..

'¢.fi‘.<.‘. ‘
....

n
..,,

vhf-Sic}:
W . V
‘ 135;

g‘

Pin

-,
. 'U.‘

» Y"?!
V

ifdv,

”'05: 4‘—
,1

‘8 .,.;:3.§p.‘ .3 .3

1 3235;“ 13;; 3.

’ "2:" ,3 331533 4-: 3 .
"u. u [I‘vpl

, .
133,4".5
‘ .

2'3
Dd ‘L‘d "35.1

' 0 ‘
.5: "1i .

.'\
“-4

v v.
32$ 1";

V7,

1.!

’ I

O . "‘1'
1 ..~ 3, ,,_
2%"332933- m
3.5!? ,3 v
'2

5:25
. r

| ;

2 m. .

+5.21.“ j
,y.

' a v
.

. .
“LI;
[7,:

J r!
O‘l

_"

a
I
1"

a.

Eu
:zv‘i'
~ I

0

3 I
r

I

J. a
. ‘ s“
1“; a

' J. “.15 454 ‘3-

o . fl"

"5 , ; ' I >
, I.“ ~ _

63:31

'3»

W ‘
3-: :. '3“
v ' O

$652531

.‘
‘

.‘JA
3- ,zo‘.‘
{-t' 4' ,

. v 5‘

11

‘1

«WWW
’" 1‘

II
. 35:3
‘ WI.

 

:3‘5‘
:33:

.31.;

THESIS
l

33313331 Willi; Willi!

01707 4166

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A PROFILE OF ELDERLY SEX OFFENDERS
INCARCERATED IN MICHIGAN PRISONS
IN 1993

presented by

HEATHER LYNN ESPIE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. , Criminal Justice
degree in

 

 

dwuzl M4»

H

 

Major 9 rofessor

warns

Date

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
r Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use WHO/Mam.“

 

 

 

A PROFILE OF ELDERLY SEX OFFENDERS INCARCERATED
IN MICHIGAN PRISONS IN 1993

By

Heather Lynn Espie

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Criminal Justice

1 998

ABSTRACT

A PROFILE OF ELDERLY SEX OFFENDERS INCARCERATED
IN MICHIGAN PRISONS IN 1993

By

Heather Lynn Espie

The Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) performed a study of all
elderly offenders in Michigan prisons. Of this population, a notable minority were
convicted of sex offenses, compared with a much smaller percentage convicted of
sex offenses within the general prison population. This thesis is a descriptive profile
of all elderly offenders in the M0005 study who were convicted of sex offenses and
includes an analysis of such information as gender and age of victim(s), relationship
of offender to victim(s), and whether or not the sexual offending is ongoing with a
particular victim(s) and/or over time with multiple victims.

The results of this thesis show that the vast majority of sex offenders
in this study chose victims whom they knew and who were under age seventeen,

and that over half of these sex offenders were committing incest.

Copyright by
HEATHER LYNN ESPIE
1998

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated in honor of my heroes and heroines, without whose love
and support over the years it would not have been possible:

To my mother, Carol J. Espie,
for years and years of encouragement, insisting on the best, and remarkable
‘ financial coordination,
for teaching meto write like an English teacher,
for being my editor here and in life,
and for being not only a fabulous mother but a constant friend
To my father, JD N. Espie,
who once watched with only the slightest disappointment as I showed him that
I’d figured out how to ride my bike without training wheels while he was at work,
and never stopped looking at me without that same trace of amazement,
even when I couldn’t see it myself
To my brother, Rick Espie, who called me “Win” and followed in my footsteps for
a few short years,
then found his own way with marvelous character and simplicity
To Cyndi Toth, whose friendship, determination, boundless achievement, and
incessant energy are an inspiration to me
To Joy Norton, whose courage and tolerance bring such
confidence and joy to those around her
To Patricia and Jim Clark (it's your turn now!) for providing years of friendship,
music, sophistication, and relaxation
To Tony Patillo and Nelson Nieves, my colleagues and true friends, for guiding
and commiserating with me over the years
To Peggy Williams, my special confidante,
for her special brand of encouragement
and, especially, to everyone’s children.

th

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to acknowledge William Lovett, without whose support,
both personally and as a representative of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, this work would not have been possible.

Also instrumental to the completion of this thesis was Susan Trojanowicz,
whose organization, guidance, dedication, and persistence are an example of
the true meaning of Michigan State University’s belief in its students.

Finally, of course, the writer salutes all the fine professors who have
provided assistance over the years, but especially Dr. Ken Christian, Dr. Charles

Carley, Dr. Vince Hoffman, Dr. Jay Siegel, and Dr. Cyrus Stewart.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................... viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ..................................................... 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 5
Sex Offenders .............................................................. 5
Child Molesters and Pedophiles ............................................ 6
ElderlyOffenders ..................... 18
Purpose ....................................................................... 20
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 21
DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 24
General Data Analysis ..................................................... 24
Offender Characteristics ............................................ 25
Sentencing .............................................................. 26
Prison Term .............................................................. 28
Number of Victims ..................................................... 29
Victim Characteristics ............................................ 31
Relationship between Offender and Victim ................. 35
History of Sexual Offending ................................... 37
Survey Data .............................................................. 38
Offender Childhood ............................................ 38
Offender Marriage and Family ................................... 40
Offense Characteristics ............................................ 42
Offender Health ..................................................... 46
Summary ....................................................................... 48
CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 52
Sex Offender Treatment ..................................................... 52
Data-Specific Conclusions ..................................................... 55
APPENDIX A - A Questionnaire for Ascertaining Differences
among Sexual Offenders ..................................................... 60
APPENDIX B - Letter from W. Lovett ............................................ 66
REFERENCES .................................................................. 69
General References ......................................................... 71

vi

 

TaI

Tat

Tat

 

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.

Table 20.

LIST OF TABLES

Offender Race ............................................................ 25
Offender Age .............................................................. 25
Minimum Sentence ...................................................... 26
Sentence by Race ....................................................... 27
Prison Term ............................................................... 28
Number of Victims per Offender ..................................... 31
Victim Gender ............................................................. 31
Number of Victims (per Offender) by Victim Gender ............ 32
Victim Age .................................................................. 35
Relationship between Offender & Victim ........................... 36
History of Sexual Offending ........................................... 38
Offender Education ...................................................... 39
Offender Experience Poverty ......................................... 39
Offender Experience Abuse .......................................... 4O
Offender Marriage ....................................................... 41
Marital Status ............................................................. 41
Extent of Sexual Activity ............................................... 43
Location of Offense ..................................................... 45
How Offender was Convicted ........................................ 45
Offender Health ..................................................... 47

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Sentence by Race ..................................................... 27
Figure 2. Number of Victims (per Offender) by Victim Gender ......... 33
Figure 3. Extent of Sexual Activity ............................................. 43

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MDOC .............................. Michigan Department of Corrections

Ch

me

Drc

 

INTRODUCTION

In 1992, budget cuts were forcing correctional facilities in the state of
Michigan to provide psychological treatment for fewer sexual offenders. A
Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) press release was printed in the
Lansing State Journal on December 15, 1992. In this press release, it was
stated that the premise is to target those sex offenders most likely to recidivate -
M most amenable to treatment - for institutional sex offender therapy.
Offenders who are not amenable to treatment " should be kept in prison as
long as legally possible, instead of being given therapy.“

Treating only sex offenders most amenable to treatment is a logical and
perhaps admirable idea; however, it raises the inevitable question of whether we
are currently able to select those most amenable to treatment from those who
are not. As stated further in the press release:

Not all sex offenders are the same. They vary greatly in terms of type,

causation, degree of compulsiveness, numbers and types of victims,

danger or risk to the public, amenability or responsiveness to
treatment and rate of recidivism upon return to the community.
As a result, the MDOC is currently evaluating its sex offender treatment
programs, and the means of implementing those programs, due to environmental
constraints placed on the MDOC by the state’s budget cuts. Although this
change is being forced on the MDOC, properly managing the choices and

means for any reforms has the potential of creating more effective treatment

programs, or, failing that, of allowing the MDOC to support elimination of some

 

 

0n)

sex offender treatment programming in an effort to allocate funds where they
may be more productive.

For instance, the MDOC currently administers its sex offender treatment
programs in group sessions. Each group consists of all types of sex offenders,
from violent rapists to child molesters. One issue at hand is whether effective
treatment can occur in an environment that consists of this mixture of sex
offenders. It has long been rumored that the general prison population views
child molesters as the lowest of the low, and it is not difficult to imagine that a
child molester, who perhaps views his offense as a passive and even victimless
crime, would find a rapist repulsive. lf group treatment programs are intended to
foster openness, then certainly an initial and even overwhelming atmosphere of
hostility cannot be of benefit to that program.

Additionally, there is a significant difference in the message society gives
these different types of sex offenders: the child molester is condemned mainly
for choosing an inappropriate sexual partner regardless of consent, while the
rapist is condemned specifically for acting without the consent of an otherwise
appropriate sexual partner. It is not unreasonable to assume that these very

different messages may be unclear in today's mixed treatment setting.

Statement of the Problem

The MDOC conducted a study, published in April 1992, entitled: "A Report

on Michigan's Elderly Prison Population.” This study of 469 prisoners over age

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

pc
wi‘-
13
59
witl

Fin

 

 

[sic

add

 

60, who then accounted for 1.5% of the Michigan prison population, indicated
that Michigan's elderly inmate population had risen 47.5% between 1988 and
1991. Based on current sentencing patterns, growth of this population is
expected to continue, reaching 650 individuals by the year 2000 (p. 12). If not
for humanitarian concerns, then for the rising cost of medical and health-care
costs alone, it is imperative that this population be better understood and
managed.

The results of this study indicate that 42% (186) of the 453 males were
incarcerated for sexual offenses (p. 3). (None of the females within the elderly
population were sentenced for sexual offenses.) This contrasts conspicuously
with the proportion of sex offenders in the general prison population, where only
13% are incarcerated for sexual offenses. Furthermore, this study indicated that
59% (278) of the 469 elderly inmates were serving their first prison sentences,
with 51% (141) of these “first timers” imprisoned for sexual offenses (p. 8).
Finally, this study noted that a “large proportion of these sexual offenders was
[sic] convicted of various types of child molestation” (p. 8).

This leads to some specific questions, which this paper will attempt to
address:

1. Who are these elderly sex offenders?
2. What do they have in common that might be used to
separate them into treatment groups? For instance, how many of

these elderly sex offenders are child molesters?

3. Is sex offending within the population identified in the
Department of Corrections' study an ongoing activity or proclivity
which has never been discovered, sentenced, or reported?

4. Are these offenders only recently becoming involved with
illegal sexual activity, and if so, why? For example, if these
offenders consist predominantly of child molesters, do they see
children as substitutes for appropriate adult sexual partners, and
why? Are there factors related to age, such as loss of an
appropriate adult sexual partner (to death, divorce, or illness) or
prescription medications, which contributed to these individuals
becoming sex offenders or which caused them to desire

inappropriate sexual contact or to act compulsively or violently?

 

 

 

 

lrn

 

M

I?

ef
re
ta
de

th

ofi
be
the
SUI
ans
tree

LITERATURE REVIEW
Sex Offenders

If it is true that sex offenders are not all the same, and it is also true that
amenability to treatment is a dividing characteristic, then establishing valid and
reliable criteria for separating sexual offenders into subgroups is necessary.
McCall, Christopher, and Jurczak (1976) title an article, “Special Problem
Patients — Psychotic, Geriatric, Retarded, Sex Offender,” and, in doing so,
effectively point out that differences create problems in a. treatment setting. Their
recommendation is to single out these problem inmates, although they do not
take this so far as to separate types of sex offenders. Specifically, “If we try to
define very clearly where we are and what we’re going to do, then I don’t think
the tiger is going to be as bad as if we tried to ‘treat’ everybody” (p.188).

Current research and literature supports this idea of classifying sexual
offenders into subgroups for treatment and also, of course, in order to achieve a
better understanding of these sexual offenders and their motivations. However,
the literature provides many conflicting and confusing theories for identifying
such subgroups of sex offenders. Furthermore, it for the most part neglects to
answer the more significant question of any particular subgroup’s amenability to
treatment; this question has been largely ignored, or has produced

inconclusive results in various studies. Yet, one thing is clear in previous

 

 

In__22

SE

be

research: child molesters are very different and distinct from other sex
offenders.

(Previous research also clearly states that child molesters — and sex
offenders in general - are almost always male. The reasons for this are not
relevant to this thesis and so are not discussed here. Please note that, unless

stated otherwise, this paper focuses on male sexual offenders only.)

Child Molesters and Pedophiles

A foundation may be established with West (1983), who finds that studies
of sexual offenders indicate the existence of subgroups with very different
characteristics: assaultive sex offenders are young and aggressive, while child
molesters are older and mostly non-violent (p. 183). In later research (1987, pp.
43-67), West further notes that surveys of known child molesters rarely try to
differentiate between those whose primary sexual interest is in children from
those who choose children only as substitutes for inaccessible adult sexual
partners. With this, West makes an important distinction between child
«molesters, who commit sexual offenses against children but may prefer adult
sexual partners, and pedophiles, who prefer children over adults sexually. West
believes that there are several variations of child molester.

(1) offenders whose attraction to children is in addition to sexual feelings

toward adults (child molesters),

 

 

 

 

 

fr

II

ac

0t

”It

9X3

(2) offenders aroused only by children (pedophiles, spelled “paedophiles”
by European researchers),
(3) homosexual pedophiles (called “pederasts” by West), and
(4) offenders who engage in sexual contact with their own children
(incestuous child molesters).

Both West’s own work and previous research indicate most child molesters fall
into the first category: the “ vast majority [of child molesters] had apparently
resorted to children, not for preference, but because they were for some reason
frustrated in their attempt to find an older sex partner" (p. 46). West also states
that the majority of child molesters prefer females, pederasts are in the minority,
and even fewer have sexual contact with children of both genders. Additionally,
“ the sexual involvement of gins more often took place in the home, when they
were very young, with relatives or with members of their immediate family
circle,” while “ boys’ sexual contacts with men more often occur with strangers
and at an age when they go out and about unsupervised” (p. 47). Finally,
“HomosexualIy-oriented offenders against boys are usually true paedophiles,
interested only in the young. Men who have enjoyed sexual contacts with other
adult males are rare among offenders against boys” (pp. 66-67). West’s last
observation here is notable in that it is in contradiction to the myth believed by
much of the public that most child molesters are adult homosexuals.

Recognizing what type of child molester a particular offender is aids in
identifying motivations, which might then indicate treatment avenues. For

example, West notes that a pedophile who actually prefers girls may have

7

 

'T'

 

:1:

III

contact with boys out of accessibility, or due to a boy typically being more
adventurous and thus willing to experiment sexually. West also says that some
pedophiles never outgrew their childhood interest in other children, while others
regressed to pedophilia when their adult sexual relationships did not produce
happiness. West’s review shows that unmarried men and pederasts are more
likely to recidivate than married or heterosexual child molesters, as are offenders
who have never had adult sexual partners. Offenders who engage in incestuous
activity are different from other child molesters in that they tend to exhibit intense
commitment to their families, but, simultaneously and perhaps as a result,
experience isolation and social alienation from those outside their own families.
West also discusses child molesters' proclivity toward violence in detail,
stating that incestuous offenders who sexually abuse both their male and female
children tend to be more violent and to participate in similar activity with
unrelated children. Pedophiles who abuse pre-pubertal girls usually limit
themselves to looking and fondling, while sexual intercourse occurs typically with
older females; this correlates with an increase in force and injury to older female
victims. Where serious violence or injury does occur as a result of a sexual
offense against a child, the victim is more likely female than male. As reasoning
for this, West cites a 1965 study by Gebhard et al. which indicated that the most
common activity involving male victims was masturbating the boy, and that
seventy percent of the male victims were either passive or encouraging. West
also mentions a 1983 study by Baurmann which concluded that boys are less

likely than girls to be traumatized by sexual contacts with adults. In fact,

8

 

ter

de

fee
CPI;
Wari
r835
tiny
(3143

”On

98ne

 

pedophiles “ are seeking, however inappropriately, an affectionate response
and a mutually pleasurable experience. Paedophiles often develop great
sensitivity to children’s reactions” (p. 58). While West notes that a minority of
pedophiles who force themselves on children exists, the disparity in strength
between adults and children as a probable cause for injury in situations where
any struggle occurs is also mentioned. Sadistic violence, defined by West as
“ the gratuitous infliction of pain to satisfy perverted lust” (p. 59), and murder
are extremely rare in offenses against children, though much of the public
believes otherwise due to the publicity such cases receive.

In terms of characteristics, West states, “Most paedophiles are gentle and
tentative in their interactions with children, persuasive and seductive rather than
coercive” (p.50), but also sunnises that pedophiles who manage to escape
detection may be much more socially adept and confident than their convicted
counterparts. Pedophiles are also described as shy, timid, unassertive, having
feelings of low self-esteem, insecurity, and societal alienation, which is in
opposition with the characteristics of assaultive sex offenders. Additionally, West
warns that studies of convicted child molesters must be treated with some
reserve because “ cases that become known to public officials represent a
tiny minority which is probably distorted with the worst examples of their kind”
(p.45). These cases could include those where coercion or violence were more
prominent. West also notes that convicted child molesters tend to be
“ relatively poorly educated and verbally unskilled, but little different from the

general population on non-verbal tests of intelligence” (p.51 ).

9

 

0L

tht

 

an
or

Dre
off
On.
be
the
De
no
Oh
0n
of

18‘

Other theories utilize a system of categorizing child molesters. Summit
and Kryso (1978) recommend a very specific spectrum to explain incestuous
sexual activity between a parent and child; this spectrum includes ten different
types of incestuous child molester. Shock (1988) uses a means of typing child
molesters based on their relationships (relative, stranger, or acquaintance) to
their victims.

Maletzky (1991, pp. 1-23) studied and treated (almost entirely on an
outpatient basis) a group of over 5,000 sex offenders between 1971 and 1990.
A full quarter of Maletzky’s sample consists ofoffenders aged 50 and over,
though the average age is 34.7 years. Maletzky indicates most sex offenders
are married and employed, and notes, “Only a minority had never been married
or had never lived with a female” (p. 13). One third of the men had been
previously charged, with 76% of this group being previously charged with sex
offenses. However, although the majority (65%) of this sample had no previous
criminal record, “ they had typically committed a number of offenses before
being charged” (p. 21). Maletzky’s data indicates that heterosexual pedophilia is
the most common sex offense; in fact, 74.4% of this sample were convicted for
pedophilia, with 57.3% convicted for heterosexual pedophilia (it is important to
note that in these particular statistics, Maletzky does not differentiate between
child molesters and pedophiles). Maletzky also indicates, “ an offender with
one type of sexual deviance (paraphilia) may possess several others. Mixtures
of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia have been commonly reported” (p.

18). Furthermore, Maletzky notes that a paraphilia may frequently occur in

10

conjunction with “ age-appropriate heterosexual attractions and practices” (p.
18). Maletzky’s results indicate that homosexual pedophiles display the longest
duration of deviant behavior (12.7 years) and have a “significantly greater
number of victims” (3.6 victims), while heterosexual pedophiles have shorter
duration of behavior (7.5 years) and fewer victims (pp. 21-22). It is not clear from
Maletzky’s analysis, but seems reasonable to assume, that the heterosexual
pedophiles’ contact with each of their 1.4 victims lasted longer than the
homosexual pedophiles’ contact with each of their victims. Maletzky concludes
that “ many offenders, especially those coming to an outpatient clinic, will
have molested because the situation presented itself’ (p. 23), rather than
because they seek children to fulfill a sexual desire or preference (which
Maletzky calls “predatory behavior”). Finally, Maletzky deems four
characteristics useful in classifying pedophilic offenders based on situational
versus predatory behavior".

(1) whether there were single or multiple victims,

(2) whether the offender was a stranger or known to the victim,

(3) whether the molestation generally occurred in either the victim’s or

offender’s home (versus elsewhere in the community), and
(4) whether the offender “ enjoyed heterosexual, adult, consenting
relationships” (p. 23).

Using this model, Maletzky concludes predatory behavior occurs more often in

homosexual pedophiles.

11

 

 

 

ar

 

 

 

ha
ch
ch
the
chi

abl

cor
Cor
rec,
6m;
mos
Offe

Dem

While West concludes child molesters are rarely violent, Marshall and
Christie (1981) find them to be physically violent individuals who confuse sex and
aggression. Baxter, Marshall, Barbaree, Davidson, and Malcolm (1984) perceive
pedophiles to be older, more poorly educated, and more likely to be unmarried
than other types of sexual offenders. On the other hand, Cavanaugh’s work
(1986) indicates that pedophiles aged 20 or older are more likely to be married.
Virkkunen (1976) compares antisocial (or psychopathic) pedophilic offenders
with non-antisocial (or "ordinary") pedophilic offenders and finds that the non-
antisocial offenders are immature, have low intelligence, and are less able to
have relations with adults than the antisocial offenders. Delin (1978) asserts that
child molesters are psychopaths with learned behavior problems deriving from
childhood abuse, lack of familial love, and sibling rivalry; Garcia (1987) believes
the typical child molester is a non-psychotic man having a childhood
characterized by poverty, alcoholism, a repressive mother, and a physically
abusive father.

Fisher (1994, pp. 1-24) believes that an “ unusually high number of
convicted child abusers were themselves abused sexually as children,
compared to the number in the non-sex offending population” (p. 7). Fisher
records the mean age of sex offenders at 31.5 years, and finds most are
employed and have a sexual relationship with an adult partner. Fisher notes that
most offenders have few victims over few occasions, and that non-incestuous
offenders with male victims (classified by other researchers as “homosexual

pedophiles”) are responsible for the largest number of victims, but have more

12

 

 

 

ch

Ye

limited sexual contact with each victim. Similarly, Fisher’s research agrees that
incestuous offenders with female victims have fewer victims but much longer
periods of sexual activity with each victim. Fisher, too, finds that offenders are
likely to show signs of multiple paraphilias, with 23.3% having both incestuous
and non-incestuous victims, and with 20% victimizing children of both genders.
Perhaps Fisher’s most important observation is:

Whilst the multi-factorial models may be criticised on a number of issues,

and do not provide a full explanation as to why all sex offenders offend,

they are certainly more comprehensive and adequate than single-factor
theories. It is likely that as more becomes known about sex offenders, it
will be possible to develop more accurate models for different types of

offenders. (p. 24)

Groth, Hobson, and Gary (1982) do not find any social or demographic
characteristics which differentiate the child molester from the general population.
Yet, previously (1979, pp. 141-150), Groth had other thoughts on the matter".

The impression that emerges is that, contrary to popular opinion, the child

molester is a relatively young, heterosexual man who is neither insane,

nor retarded, nor sexually frustrated. He seeks to control the child more
than to injure him/her and most of the time poses more of a psychological
than a physical risk to the victim. His behavior is highly repetitive, often to
the point of a compulsion, rather than being the result of a temporary
lapse of judgment while in a state of intoxication. His crime is a symptom,
and imprisonment alone is insufficent [sic] to remedy the underlying

causes for his problem behavior. (p. 151)

Also in earlier research, Groth found that the majority of child molesters are
under the age of 35, knew their victims, are of equal intelligence with the general
population, are not dependent on drugs or alcohol (and did not use alcohol or

drugs at the time of the offense), are as likely as not to be married, are also

involved in sexual relationships with adults at the time of the offense, are non-

13

 

 

ti

psychotic, and are non-violent with little to no expectation that violence will
increase over time. Groth, like West, noted that the majority of offenders chose
female victims and found " the heterosexual adult constitutes more of a threat
of sexual victimization to the underage child than does the homosexual adult” (p.
148). In fact, Groth stated, “ [49% of] offenders responded exclusively to
children — boys, girls, or both -— and showed no interest in adults or age-mates for
sexual gratification. These men were pedophiles in the true sense of the word”
(p. 148). Groth also noted that child molesters usually act alone, with 95% of
these offenders having no codefendants, and appear to choose victims based on
age: 14% chose children aged 5 or younger, 46% chose children aged 5 to 11,
and 33% chose children aged 12 to 15.

Conte (1991, pp. 11-33) states, “Victim data generally support the notion
that sexual abuse of children often involves assault by more than one offender”
and, in agreement with other researchers, “Offender data suggest that sexual
offenders targeting children tend to abuse more than one child” (p. 18). As a
result of the fact that sexual abuse is under-reported, " it is simply not clear
how many adults are in fact sexually abusing children at any one time - although
it is clear that a large number of children are sexually abused” (p. 18). Conte
confinues:

Fundamentally, in terms of understanding the nature of sexual deviant

sexual interest it is not clear what level of specificity is necessary. For

example, it is [sic] important to know that a child molester preferring five
year olds is more likely to favor anal intercourse over vaginal? It is

currently not clear if this choice is significant in understanding the nature
of the deviancy (p. 19)

14

 

Conte notes that incestuous sexual abuse cases are more likely to include

intercourse than non-incestuous sexual abuse cases, and describes . a
longstanding belief that incest offenders represent a distinct and different clinical
problem from non-incestuous offenders (i.e. pedophiles)” (p. 25). Conte warns
that this leads to the idea that incestuous offenders will not offend outside their
families, a belief that suggests incestuous offenders are not dangerous to
children in general and thus can be treated safely while remaining in the
community, “ although, perhaps, not in the same house" (p. 26). Conte also
points out that nearly half of incestuous offenders also victimize unrelated
children. In discussing typologies, Conte states regarding a two-faceted
(“regressed” versus “fixated” child molesters) model proposed by Groth:

While this topology may have been popular in the late 19703 and early

19803 it appears to have lost much of its clinical value and a number of

problems exist. To date no empirical evidence exists for the accuracy

of the typology to classify adult sexual offenders. It appears that the

largest group of offenders is a mixed group combining certain of the

characteristics of both fixated and regressed types. (p. 28)
Instead, Conte suggests offenders be assessed within six dimensions thought to
be consistent in cases of sexual abuse of children:

(1) denial,

(2) arousal,

(3) fantasies,

(4) rationalizations,

(5) deficits in social skills, and

(6) other mental health problems, including drug abuse and depression.

15

Gilgun (1994) takes the multiple-factor models a bit further, using a
continuum to categorize offenders. This allows a solution for the problem,
already noted in previous research, of offenders falling within more than one
paraphilic category. Gilgun may be the first to so clearly state, “Child-sexual-
abuse perpetrators are heterogeneous” (p. 468). Gilgun summarizes several
typologies used by other researchers, some of which have been discussed here,
and then states:

These typologies show great variety among types of offenders as well as

among classification schemes. For the most part, however, the language

used in these typologies is abstract and provides little insight into how

perpetrators view their own behavior with children. (p.469)

Gilgun’s study was comprised of interviews with 20 male and 3 female child
molesters, whose ages ranged from 21 to 56. Gilgun indicates most were
married, and most“ abused both boys and girls within and outside their family,
but in most cases perpetrators were parents of or parental figures to their
victims” (p. 470). Gilgun’s continuum consists of seven descriptive
classifications, with “avengers” feeling the least sense of closeness with their
victims and “soulmates” experiencing the greatest sense of closeness. The
continuum proceeds as follows:

(1) avengers, whose goal is to inflict either physical or emotional pain on

either the victim and/or someone close to the victim;

(2) takers, whose goal is to get what they want without regard for their

victims;

16

 

 

 

 

Gil
vic

vici

Cha.
to t}
Obv
nee

Sub]

(3) controllers, who bargain with their victims to achieve their own sexual
goals;

(4) conquerors, who use seduction and manipulation to court their victims;

(5) playmates, who perceive children as their peers and see sex as “only
one of the ‘fun’ things they did with their victims” (p. 475);

(6) lovers, who appear to be in love with their victims, whom they see as
equal partners; and

(7) soulmates, who identify so closely with their child victims that they “
confuse themselves with children [and] are drawn to and see

themselves in their child victims” (p. 476).

Gilgun, who found that offenders experienced different roles with different

victims, and even sometimes within the same relationship with any particular

victim, encourages the importance of deductive rather than inductive reasoning

in concluding:

Practitioners should enter case situations with a variety of hypotheses
and, in the flow of assessment and intervention, test these hypotheses for
their fit. Theoretical frameworks should never be imposed on clients;
rather, practitioners need to listen to clients and, as appropriate, probe to
draw clients out. (p. 478)

Perhaps by separating sexual offenders into appropriate categories,

characteristics of those groups (which might then be used to indicate amenability

to treatment and likelihood of recidivism) can be more accurately established.

Obviously, then, a method of dividing sexual offenders into smaller groups is

needed. As Overholser and Beck (1989) state, ”Such specific delineation of

subjects seems necessary for the further advancement of studies on sexual

17

 

 

 

dex

 

COT
mo
con

Oifi

moi

 

hon
chilc
viev

r885

Sper
sum
Gmb
the '
Sex '
eaflm

Ofiehi

deviations” (p. 170). Unfortunately, as seen in this review, previous research
contains great disagreement regarding any optimum method of classifying child
molesters. Freund, Heasman, and Roper (1982), in fact, made such
contradictions the subject of their article, ”Results of the Main Studies in Sexual
Offenses Against Children and Pubescents (A Review)”!

What is clear is that significant differences do exist among child
molesters, but that these differences do not necessarily exclude child molesters
from any particular category (such as incestuous versus non-incestuous and
homosexual versus heterosexual pedophilic offenders). It seems research on
child molesters, though fairly extensive, is still in very preliminary stages, but that
viewing further research with deductive reasoning and an open mind is the most

reasonable path to follow.

Elderly Offenders

Much less research is available regarding elderly offenders, and, more
specifically, regarding elderly sexual offenders. Gewerth (1988, pp. 14-25)
summarizes some of the previous work done in this area: “ fraud,
embezzlement, and larceny-theft seem to be the most frequent crimes for which
the elderly are arrested, although some authors have found that assaults and
sex offenses are relatively common as well” (p. 23). Gewerth also notes that
eariier studies indicate a high proportion of elderly offenders were first-time

offenders. Further, Gewerth states:

18

According to many authors, criminal behavior in old people is often a
symptom of some type of organic brain disease associated with the aging
process, such as cerebral arteriosclerosis or senile dementia. The
pathological changes produced by these disorders are believed to weaken
an individual’s inhibitions or cause delusions that lead to episodes of
violence or deviant sexual activity" (p.23).
Other characteristics of elderly offenders may include depression, alcoholism,
and paranoid schizophrenia or other personality disorders. Finally, Gewerth
indicates that many have tried to explain elderly sex offenders’ activity by
suggesting these offenders suffer from weakened inhibitions; high sex drives; a
desire or need to prove machismo or youth; and/or feelings of rejection,
impotence, or homeliness. It is also of note that Gewerth’s literature review is
based primarily on work dated in the 1940's, 1950’s, and 1960’s.
Hacker (1984, pp. 67-73) has some very different conclusions:
By far the most common reason for arrest among the elderly is
drunkenness; more serious crimes such as sexual and violent offenses
are rare. Nevertheless, these crimes have received disproportionate
attention from writers on crime in the aged and, indeed, have sometimes
been regarded as typical of this age group. (p. 67)
Hacker continues:
It is widely believed, for example, that sexual offenses involving child
victims are the most common crime in old age. Most of these are said to
be committed by first-time offenders, who are often described as being of
“blameless character.’ Many authors have held that such offenders are
suffering from dementia (p. 67)
Hacker also notes other theories which have been suggested as reasons for
elderly sex offenders’ actions; these include prostate changes, regression

caused by emotional issues, alcohol abuse, and seduction by the child victim.

Furthermore, Hacker advises that prior research on elderiy sex offenders is

19

contradictory regarding their marital status and adult sexual relationships.

Hacker studied the records of 70 elderly transgressors and found 43 of
them were sex offenders. An analysis of the records of these 43 offenders
indicates the majority do not suffer from dementia or other organic brain
syndromes, are likely to be or have been married (but are also likely to rate their
marital relationships as less than average), have minimal social contact, and
were not using alcohol or drugs at the time of the offense. Hacker’s study also
indicates these elderly sex offenders generally know their victims, with whom
they engage in non-aggressive sexual activity without the use of threat or force,
either in the victims’ homes or in their own homes. Their victims are usually
children. After noting that almost half of the offenders had previous criminal
records and that almost 25% had committed previous sexual offenses, Hacker
concludes, " these men have had sexual problems throughout their lives” (p.

71).

This thesis, then, will be a descriptive profile of elderiy sex offenders
already incarcerated within the MDOC in 1993. It is intended that this research
will add to the body of work on both elderly sex offenders and child molesters,

and perhaps also on pedophiles.

20

METHODOLOGY

In its previous study, “A Report on Michigan’s Elderly Prison Population,”
the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) defined its elderly prisoners as
those aged 60 and over. For consistency, this study maintains that definition.
However, the writer has chosen to concentrate on sex offenders who came into
the system as elderly offenders, and so has eliminated those in the original study
who were committed to prison before turning 55 (those who became elderly
while incarcerated). Elderly sex offenders in the Department's original report
numbered 186, and included only those elderly offenders sentenced for sex
offenses and incarcerated in Michigan as of December 1991. After subtracting
the 13 ”younger” sex offenders from the original 186, this writer had 173 elderiy
sex offenders who came into the Michigan Department of Corrections after age
55.

The study undertaken by the writer involved profiling a 25% sample of all
173 individuals who make up the population in question - elderly sex offenders
committed at age 55 or older to the Michigan Department of Corrections. As a
descriptive study of this population, both the writer and the reader must keep in
mind that results can be generalized only to this population. However, the
management implications for future research, and especially for reforms of sex
offender treatment programs for this population alone, are undeniable.

The 25% sample - totaling 44 inmates - was selected to ensure a

sample that included both inmates who had been previously incarcerated within

21

the Michigan Department of Corrections and inmates who only recently came
into the system, as well as a representative portion (over time) of inmates who
came into the system on their first prison sentences.

Data collection involved manually reading through each of the 44 inmate
files in the sample in order to answer a questionnaire (Appendix A), which was
developed by the writer based on the literature and under the direction of MDOC
employees W. Lovett, D. Kosinski, T. Murphy, J. Rushbrook, and G. Stockman.

Obviously, as this instrument was created expressly for purposes of this
study, it was not tested for reliability and validity. The fact, however, that only
one person (the writer) examined each inmate file and filled out the
questionnaires provides a certain degree of reliability. Further, because the
questionnaire is based on previous research, it thereby acquires some validation.
The questionnaire was developed to provide a measure of consistency and
assist the writer in collecting data for the same variables, when available in the
inmate’s file, for each of the 44 inmates.

It is important to note that the writer did not expect to find answers in
every inmate file for every question on the questionnaire, or even for a majority
of questions on the questionnaire. A good deal of this information was
unavailable in most or even all of the files. However, the questions were
included for two reasons. First, their inclusion encouraged the writer to view
each file with an open mind and an eye toward individual but pertinent or notable
data. Second, a slightly unrelated but not unimportant purpose of this study was

to identify what information is lacking in inmate files, which, if included, could

22

assist in determining proper and accurate classification of sexual offenders and
indicate the most viable means of treatment for them. The implications of this
second purpose will, for the most part, be left to the Department of Corrections to
analyze and amend.

The writer also briefly scanned most of the remaining files in the
target population (some files were in use or missing within the Department of
Corrections and were thus unavailable to the writer) to determine the gender of
the victim, the age of the victim, and the relationship of the victim to the offender.
This provided a broad range of demographic characteristics with which to
evaluate the sample’s representativeness, as well as with which to draw
preliminary conclusions.

Again, as a descriptive study of elderly sex offenders within the
Michigan prison system, the results of this research cannot be generalized to
other inmate populations such as younger sex offenders, elderly offenders as a
whole, or elderly sex offenders in other state prison systems. These questions
and their answers are left to further research. This study will, however, aid the
MDOC in evaluating appropriate custody and treatment methodologies for
elderly sex offenders within its jurisdiction. This focus on the geriatric sex
offender population is thus intended to provide practical and immediate uses for
the MDOC; it is with their needs in mind that this research is being undertaken.
Please refer to Appendix B, a letter from W. Lovett summarizing the MDOC’s

assessment of the purposes of this research.

23

 

DATA ANALYSIS

General Data Analysis

Certain data was collected for the entire study group of 173 offenders,
including race, age at incarceration, minimum sentence length, and prison term.
Whenever the information was available, data was also collected for the entire
group regarding the number of an offender's victim(s), the gender of his victim(s),
the age of his victim(s), the offender’s relationship to his victim(s), and whether
or not the sexual offending was ongoing (with the victim[s] and/or over time).
This information was available as long as (1) the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) file was available, and (2) the information had been
recorded in the file. Files were available to the writer as long as they were not in
use by an MDOC member or filed incorrectly within the MDOC.

It is important to note that all of the offenders profiled in this study are
male. This is a direct result of the fact that none of the sex offenders within the
MDOC's original study on its elderly offenders, entitled ”A Report on Michigan’s
Elderty Prison Population,” are female. Without extensive research on elderly
sex offenders in other states, it is impossible to conclude that no elderly sex
offenders are female; however, this study supports previous research indicating

that female sexual offenders of any age are rare.

24

Offender Characteristics

As shown in Table 1, the offenders in the study group are predominantly
white (154, or 89%). Other races include black (12, or 7%), Hispanic (six, or

3%), and East Indian (one, or 1%).

Table 1. Offender Race

Race # of Offenders
154
Black 12

6
Indian 1
otal 1

 

Offender age refers to the age at which an offender came into the MDOC
system. The offenders in the study group ranged in age from 55 to 82, with the
majority coming into the system in their sixties (96, or 56%). As shown in Table
2, other ages of incarceration included 56 (32%) in their fifties, 18 (10%) in their

seventies, and three (2%) in their eighties.

Table 2. Offender Age

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Age #of Offenders % I
50’s 56 32%|
60’s 96 56%|
70's 18 10%|
80's 3 2%|
Total 173 100%|

 

 

 

 

25

Sentencing

Minimum sentences ranged from one year to life, with the majority of
offenders sentenced to ten years or less (145, or 83.8%). Only 28 offenders
(16.2%) were sentenced to more than ten years, with six each sentenced to forty

years or life. More detail is available in Table 3.

Table 3. Minimum Sentence

in Years # of Offenders %
or less 4 27
to 6
to 10

11 to 20

 

1 to 40
FE
otal

Racial bias in sentencing has always been of interest to researchers. This
study is rather small and the racial mix of this study population diverges greatly
with that of study populations in previous research (whether related to sex
offenders or not). Additionally, the number of offenders of races other than white
in this study is small enough that generalizations and conclusions are difficult
and perhaps even hazardous to make; however, as depicted in both Table 4 and
Figure 1, there are several points of interest. All offenders in this study who were

sentenced to life were white. Approximately 85% of the 154 white offenders in

26

 

this study, compared with 75% of the 12 black offenders, were sentenced to ten
years or less. On the other hand, 50% of the blacks, versus 26% of the whites,
received sentences of three years or less. Meanwhile, 17% of the black

offenders, versus only 3% of the whites, received sentences of between 21 and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 years.
Table 4. Sentence by Race 1!!
Sentence in Years White Black Hispanic Indian
3 or less 40 6 1 0|
4 to 6 45 2 * 2 0]
7 to 10 44 1 3 1I ,,
11 to 20 15 1 0 0] '
21 to 40 4 2 0 0]
LIFE 6 0 0 fl
Subtotals 154 12 6 1|
2;... .jggpj6j;fi,, f: __ ' " .II
i
E t I .Black 3
5111020 1: 1‘3 ~ I] l
i 11 A 1 E oHIspanic I
.3 7to10 E . __ 1a ’ l . E [.lndian !
.3 .f m
1‘ 1
,L - . . . .
0% 20% £07... Pmneggs‘ 80% 100%

Figure 1. Sentence by Race

27

Prison Term

The MDOC classifies prison terms using letters, i.e., an A term is an
offender's first prison term within the MDOC, a B term is the offender’s second
prison term within the MDOC, and so on. If an offender previously served any
number of prison terms in another state, but is serving his first prison term in
Michigan, his classification would still be A. Prison terms for the study group
range from A to J (J represents the offender’s tenth prison term within the
MDOC). As depicted in Table 5, the majority of offenders in the study were in
their first prison term (131, or 76%), while 25 (14%) of the group were serving
their second prison term. Only one offender (1%) in the group was serving his H
prison term; likewise, one was serving his J prison term. The remaining 15

offenders (8%) were serving C, D, or E prison terms.

Table 5. Prison Term

Term #of Offenders %
131

14

 

28

 

Even so, during the review of the files, only fourteen offenders were noted
as having a criminal record that included sexual offending (though this had no
correlation to whether or not the offenders had a history of sexual offending, as
will be addressed shortly). In fact, of these, eight were serving their first term
with the MDOC, meaning that their previous record occurred in another state,
and/or that previous charges were not punished with prison sentences. The
criminal records of these fourteen individuals ineluded crimes ranging from

exhibitionism and gross indecency to statutory rape, rape, sodomy, and Incest.

Number of Victims

Because the exact number of victims noted in the file was frequently
difficult to determine in the instant case (that for which the offender was
incarcerated), and because an offender having multiple victims over time shows
a historical pattern of sex offending, the number of victims was recorded as
accurately as possible by the writer as the number of victims attributed to an
offender over his lifetime. This figure is tentative as well; however, it is more
accurate than attempting to break down the number of victims in the instant case
for several reasons. First, offenders were often sentenced for only a portion of
the victims involved in the immediate case, due to factors such as victims who
did not wish to press charges, plea bargains, and/or the inability of prosecutors
and investigators to identify or locate other victims, even when they had solid

evidence alluding to the existence of multiple victims. Secondly, much of the

29

 

information available in the MDOC files is based on subjective statements made
by individuals, including investigators, prosecutors, psychologists, and offenders.
For instance, a psychologist might note that an offender self-reported an earlier
incarceration in another state for a sex offense, but these records were
unavailable to either the psychologist or the writer to evaluate the number of
victims involved. Additionally, it is not unusual for the MDOC file to contain
conflicting data regarding the number of victims, both in the instant case and
historically; however, it could usually be determined that the number of victims
ranged between one or “at least one” (in which case the number of victims was
recorded as one) and “at least fifty" (in which case the number of victims was
recorded as fifty).

Based on this analysis, the number of victims per offender ranged from
one to fifty. As shown in Table 6, nearly half of the offenders in the study (79, or
45.7%) had one victim, while another 37 (21.4%) of the offenders had two
victims. The number of victims was completely unclear in 13 (7.5%) of the
MDOC files, while the number of victims could not be specified further than either

“several” or “many” in ten files (five files, or 2.9%, for each category).

30

Table 6. Number of Victims per Offender

# of Victims # of Offenders %
45.
37 21.4

1 1 6.4

Several

Unknown
Total

Victim Characteristics

As shown in Table 7, female victims (118, or 68%) far outnumbered male

victims (24, or 14%), while only 18 offenders (10%) victimized both genders.

This coincides strongly with previous research.

Table 7. Victim Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| Victim Gender # of Offenders %

IFemale 1 18 68%
[Male 24 14%
Both male & female 18 10%
IUnknown 13 8%
[Total 173 100%

 

 

 

 

31

 

 

Furthermore, as both Table 8 and Figure 2 show, a greater number of
victims per offender correlates to a greater likelihood that the victims are male,

which is also in agreement with previous research.

Table 8. Number of Victims (per Offender) by Victim Gender

# of Victims Both Genders Male Female
13
4

13
50
Several

 

Subtotals

32

 

 

3...... -1‘ 4 1

”my I sesame. mammal. ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
g 1
s 6 —1- 2 I
‘5 4
* 5 —2——1 1 1
7 ,
.3001 _:I
Y I‘Mflg D
I i
’5 ohmic:
i i _ __l
1imfa- 66 1
0% 20% 40% 60% ' 00% 100%

Gender of Vlctlm

Figure 2. Number of Victims (per Offender) by Victim Gender

During this writer’s review of the MDOC files, one thing in particular was
overwhelmingly evident: when such information was noted in the file, an
offender was more likely than not to have had a history of sex offending, whether
with the instant victim or with other victims over time. This history will be
discussed in more detail shortly; however, its relevancy to this section cannot be
overlooked. As stated previously, almost half of the offenders in this study had
at least one victim, which means that more than half of the group had more than
one victim (and this does not'include the thirteen offenders for whom the number

of victims could not- be discerned).

33

Related to both the history of sex offending and the number of victims per
offender is the fact that many of the offenders’ victims were of varied ages and/or
that the victims were assaulted over a period of several years. The writer
categorized the age of the victims in this study based on typical physical
characteristics. Thus, a “child” is defined as aged 3 to 10 years, and a victim
going through “puberty" is defined as aged 11 to 17 years. These categories
made up 40.5% (70) and 24.9% (43) of the victim population, respectively.
Additionally, a good number (34, or 19.7%) of offenders’ victims ranged from age
3 to 17 years, and this category is defined as “child/puberty." From this, it is
evident that the sex offenders in this study predominantly committed offenses
against children.

Only seven of the offenders’ victims were adults, aged 18 to 91. Of these
seven adults, one was 18, and one was 19. The writer chose to classify these
two victims as adults because their physical attributes would most likely be those
of an adult. In three of the MDOC files, the age of the victim was unspecified;
one listed the age as “young,” another as “under 13,” and the last as “under 15.”
Additionally, in sixteen of the MDOC files, the victim’s age was not noted. All

data related to victim age is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Victim Age

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victim fie # of Offenders %
Child under 10 yrs 70 40.5%
Child/Puberty (3-17 yrs) 34 19.7%
Puberty (11-17 yrs) 43 24.9%
Adult (18-91 yrs) 7 4.0%
Young 1 .6%
Under 13 yrs 1 .6%
Under 15 yrs 1 .6%
Unknown 16 9.2%

Total 173 100.1
%

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship between Offender and Victim

For purposes of data analysis, the writer categorized offenders’
relationships with their victims based on the closeness that one could reasonably
expect between a particular offender and victim. For instance, in several cases,
the offender is such a close friend of the victim’s family that, while actually
unrelated to the victim by blood, he is known to the victim by a name that
indicates closeness, such as “Grandpa" or “Uncle Charlie.” In other cases, the
offender is connected to the victim through marriage, adoption, or other
circumstances in which the offender would be viewed as in a close position of
trust to someone who does not know the family first-hand (such as the writer).

Thus, in the following analysis, “family" includes offenders who are related to the

35

victims as fathers, grandfathers, uncles, foster fathers, step-fathers, step-
grandfathers, and live-in boyfriends of the mother of the victims. “Friends of the
family” includes individuals who may have a position of trust with the family of the
victim, but who are likely less well known to the family of the victim than those
considered “family”; these include offenders who are neighbors, coworkers,
landlords, boarders, and boyfriends who do not live in the same household as
the victim.

In fifteen MDOC files, the relationship between the offender and victim
could not be determined. Also of note are four offenders known to their victims
by virtue of being a doctor, a priest, a Boy Scout master, and a bus-driver. All

data related to relationship between victim and offender is included in Table 10.

Table 10. Relationship between Offender 8. Victim

# of Offenders %
uaintance 1 8.

Fami 48.
Friend of
2.
Scout Master
Driver
Doctor adult victim
Priest
Unknown
otal

 

36

 

Of the offenders in this study, all but approximately 13% of those whose
relationship to the victim could be identified were known fairly well by the victim
and the family of the victim. In fact, fully 87% (134 offenders) were in positions
of trust as family members, friends of the family, and/or babysitters, when they
assaulted their victims. This data, again, agrees strongly with previous research,
especially that relative to child molesters. Additionally, and more importantly,
these results are in direct conflict with the popular myth that the typical child
molester is a homosexual stranger who encounters children in public places,
such as parks and video arcades. Even the priest and Boy Scout master, which
are also typified in myth and media as being likely candidates for sex offending
against children, make up such a small portion of this population as to be

negligible.

History of Sexual Offending

As touched upon earlier, while the MDOC files of only 76 of the offenders
in the study indicated whether or not there was a history of sex offending, the
results of this question for those 76 are striking. Table 11 summarizes all data
collected regarding offenders’ history of sexual offending. Of the 76 offenders
for whom data was available, 62% (47 of 76) had a history of sexual offending
against the instant victim, 13% (10 offenders) had a history with other victims
over time, and 18% (14 offenders) had both a history with the instant victim and

with multiple victims over time.

37

Table 11. History of Sexual Offending

H # of Offenders %
s 4
Both over time & with 1

time 1
No
Unknown
otal

 

Sun—NM

A great deal of data was collected using the survey instrument created by
the writer (Appendix A). Data was collected for 44 offenders, and is thus a

sample of just over 25% of the study population of 173 elderly sex offenders.

Offender Childhood

Table 12 depicts the educational level of the 44 offenders. Most of the
offenders (26, or 59.1%) had not graduated from high school, with 11 offenders
(25.0%) having less than an eighth grade education. Of the other 40.8% who
graduated from high school, half went on to achieve some level of college

education.

38

 

Table 12. Offender Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Schooling # of Offenders %
Less than High School 3 6.8%
Grades 7-8 8 18.2%
Grades 9-12 15 34.1%
HS giad/GED 8 18.2%
Some College 6 13.6%
BA. 2 4.5%
Some Grad School 2 4.5%
Total 44 99.9%

 

 

 

 

 

lnforrnation regarding whether the offender had ever experienced poverty
during his lifetime was recorded in nineteen of the 44 MDOC files. Table 13
shows that 13 offenders had experienced poverty during their lifetimes, with
effects that included having to leave school at an early age in order to help
support their families. In fact, of the 11 offenders who did not complete high
school for whom this information was recorded in the MDOC file, eight (31%) had

experienced poverty during their lifetimes.

Table 13. Offender Experience Poverty

# of Offenders %
es 13 29.

No 13.
Unknown 25 56
otal 99

 

As shown in Table 14, nine of the 44 offenders (20.5%) had been sexually

abused as children - four by strangers, two by teachers, two by relatives (one

39

was abused by his father, while the other was abused by several female relatives
including his mother and sisters), and one by a neighbor. With the exception of
the offender who was sexually abused by female relatives, who had a 26-year
sexual relationship with his mother, all sexual abuse occurred before the age of
14.

Physical abuse was present in four cases (9.1%), all administered by the

father-figure in the home, and all occurring before the age of 13.

Table 14. Offender Experience Abuse

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experience Abuse # of Offenders %
Sexual 9 20.5%
Physical 4 9.1%
No 8 18.2%
Unknown 23 52.3%
Total 44 100.1%

 

 

 

 

 

Offender Marriage and Family

All but one of the 44 offenders in this study had been manied at least
once, and all but four had children. Eighteen offenders (41%) had been married
once, 16 (36%) twice, six (14%) three times, two (5%) four times, and one (2%)
had been married five times (see Table 15). As shown in Table 16, four (9%)

were widowers at the time of the instant offense, 13 (30%) were divorced, and

40

another four (9%) were still married but separated or divorcing. The remaining

22 offenders (50%) were married at the time of the instant offense.

Table 15. Offender Marriage

# of Offenders %
1

18 41
16

6 14

1

 

Table 16. Marital Status

Marital Status #of Offenders %
Married

Divorced 1

 

lnforrnation regarding whether the offender also had appropriate adult
sexual partners and release at the time of his offense was not available for the
majority of offenders; however, in the 15 files where this information was

provided, the offender’s activity with adult sexual partners had ceased.

41

Offense Characteristics

In both Table 17 and Figure 3, the extent of the sexual activity which
occurred in the instant offense is depicted. Extent of sexual activity was
evaluated using five levels: touching over clothing, touching under clothing,
penile penetration (including sodomy), other penetration (including digital
penetration or penetration using a sexual aid), and other. This last category,
which turned out to be the largest (31 offenders participated in “other" activity),
predominantly included performing oral sex on the victim and/or forcing the
victim to perform oral sex; other activities that make up this category and were
noted in the MDOC files include viewing pomography with the victim, requiring
the victim to perform sexual acts with someone other than the offender, and
requiring the victim to dress in lingerie. Each offender could potentially be
included in all five categories; thus, each category is independent of the others.
Figure 3‘s portrayal, as a continuum, is interesting because it highlights the
potential that an offender would escalate his sexual activity with the victim. For
instance, once an offender reached the point of penile penetration of the victim, it
was more likely he would continue on to other penetration or other activities such
as oral sex or viewing pornography with the victim. However, one must not
conclude that all offenders who had. sexual intercourse with their victims also
continued on to other activities, nor that all offenders who acted out other

activities with their victims necessarily had sexual intercourse with them.

42

 

Table 17. Extent of Sexual Activity

3 of Offenders

 

Touching over Touching Penile Other Other
clothing under clothing Penetration Penetration

Extent

Figure 3. Extent of Sexual Activity
Drugs, specifically marijuana, were used by only two of the offenders, and
were used during the instant offense in both cases. In fact, in one of these

cases, both the offender and the victim were high on marijuana (the victim was

also reportedly high on angel dust). and this offender often traded drugs for sex

43

with the victim, his 13-year-old granddaughter. In both of these cases, alcohol
was also used by the offender and/or the victim during the instant offense.

Alcohol was cited in 12 of the 44 cases (27%) as a factor in the offense.
In the remaining 32 cases, alcohol was not a factor. However, while the use of
alcohol during the instant offense was addressed in all 44 files, offenders’
alcoholism was not evaluated by the writer because this question was not
consistently addressed. In fact, where it was addressed, it was often a
subjective statement made by an investigator or psychologist, rather than a
definitive diagnosis.

Violence during the commission of the offense was rare, occurring in only
two of the 44 cases (5%), and consisting of the offender’s choking or gagging his
victims. Threats were also rare, occurring in 13 cases (30%), and ranged from
threats to withdraw attention, affection, or privileges if the victim did not comply
with the offender’s wishes, to threats of discipline, jail, violence, and even death
to the victim or family of the victim. In one of these cases, a 13-year-old male
victim stated that the offender had threatened him with a knife, but the
investigators believed the boy said this as a means of saving face because he
spoke with them in fiont of his father.

Table 18 indicates where the instant offense(s) occurred most often. In
ten cases (23%), the victim and offender shared a home where the offending
took place. When they did not share a home, the most likely place for the
offending to occur was in the offender’s home (19 cases, or 43%), with either the

victim’s or offender’s home (three instances, or 7%) or simply the victim’s home

44

 

(five cases, or 11%) following. In other words, keeping in mind that these
offenders are mostly family and friends to the victims, in 84% of cases, the
offending occurred in a location in which the offender felt at ease, and in a

location in which a reasonable person would expect the victim to feel similarly at

ease.

Table 18. Location of Offense

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location of offense # of Offenders %
Offender’s home 19 ' 43%
Offender’s home is Victim’s home 10 23%
Victim’s home 5 1 1%
Either home 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 3 7%
Total 44 100%

 

 

 

As depicted in Table 19, in three cases (7%) , the MDOC file was unclear
regarding how the offender was convicted; however, in 24 cases (54%), the
offender was convicted by plea bargain or pled nolo contendere. The remaining

17 cases (39%) were adjudicated by either a judge or jury.

Table 19. How Offender was Convicted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Convicted by # of Offenders % I
Bench 4 9%I
Jury 13 30%|
Nolo Contendere 6 14%
Plea 18 40%
Unknown 3 7%
Total 44 100%

 

 

 

 

45

Offender Health

The physical and mental health of the offenders was not documented in
any great detail in any of the MDOC files, perhaps because of the doctor-patient
privilege such records have. In three of the files, no health information
whatsoever was available. In four cases, the offenders were listed as being in
good health and taking no prescription or other medications. However, in 37
cases (84%), significant health problems were cited, almost all of which are a
function of age. Typical maladies included heart problems (13 offenders, or
30%), arthritis (ten offenders, or 23%), back injuries (six offenders, or 14%), high
blood pressure (six offenders), gradual loss of hearing (five offenders, or 11%),
colon problems (four offenders, or 9%), emphysema or other trouble breathing
(four offenders), and failing eyesight (three offenders, or 7%). Nearly all of the
offenders had multiple health problems, as shown in Table 20. One offender
(2%) had severe brain damage caused by encephalitis which had resulted from
inhaling industrial gas; this was the only case in which there was any suggestion

that a medical problem might be responsible for the offender’s criminal activity.

46

Table 20. Offender Health

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ailment # of Offenders %
Heart problems 13 30%
Arthritis 10 23%
Back problems 6 14%
High blood pressure 6 14%
Hearing loss 5 11%
Colon problems 4 9%
Emphysema 4 9%
Falling eyesight 3 7%
Brain damage 1 2%

 

 

 

 

 

Medications being taken by the offenders were rarely noted in the file;
when this information was noted, the most likely medications were for lowering
blood pressure, heart medications, and over-the-counter pain relievers.

Depression, which was sometimes noted by psychologists in the MDOC
files, was noted as a severe health issue in two cases and, in one of these
cases, there had been a recent suicide attempt by the offender. In four cases,
the offender had previously served time in a mental institution, three because of
prior sexual offending (the reason for institutionalization of the fourth offender
was unspecified). Seven other offenders reported past mental health treatment

with either a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Reasons for prior mental health

47

 

Ii

treatment were generally stress-related due to divorce, illness, or job stress;
however, one offender was involved due to prior, unspecified, “police contact.”
Another offender, who was from West Virginia, stated he had been diagnosed
with “Appalachian Syndrome” (defined in the file as the tendency to desire and
act out sexual encounters with family members), which he believed explained his
sexual offending against children; this is the same individual mentioned earlier
who had a 26-year sexual relationship with his mother as well as numerous

sexual contacts with other female relatives, both as a victim and as an offender.

 

SAM

In summary, the writer will review and answer the questions asked in the
Introduction.

1. Who are these elderly sex offenders? The elderly sex
offenders in this study are male, predominantly white and serving
their first prison term with the MDOC, beginning at some point in
their sixties.

2. What do they have In common that might be used to
separate them into treatment groups? For instance, how many
of these elderly sex offenders are child molesters? With the
exception of seven of the 173 offenders, these elderly sex offenders

have assaulted children. Of those, 54% have committed incest.

48

3. Is sex offending within the population identified in the
Department of Corrections’ study an ongoing activity or
proclivity which has never been discovered, sentenced, or
reported? Due to the lack of information in MDOC files, and/or to
the lack of accuracy combined with a presence of contradictory
information, the writer cannot answer this question fully. However, it
is clear that 18% of the 173 offenders in this study had ongoing
sexual activity with multiple victims over time, and that another 13%
had a definite history of sexual offending with other victims over
time. Additionally, 62% had repeated sexual contact with the
victims in their instant cases.

4. Are these offenders only recently becoming involved with
Illegal sexual activity, and If so, why? For example, if these
offenders consist predominantly of child molesters, do they
see children as substitutes for appropriate adult sexual
partners, and why? Unfortunately, the writer is also unable to
effectively answer this question. This is an area of discussion that
is consistently lacking in the MDOC files, and one which would
enhance the value of the file information immeasurably. Are there
factors related to age, such as loss of an appropriate adult
sexual partner (to death, divorce, or illness) or prescription
medications, which contributed to these individuals becoming

sex offenders or which caused them to desire inappropriate

49

 

III'I

sexual contact or to act compulsively or violently? On this
issue, too, the writer is unable to answer with any confidence.
Although there are indications in certain files that loss of an
appropriate sexual partner might be the cause of the sexual
offending, this was not discussed in a consistent fashion within the
MDOC files. It was often impossible to evaluate whether or not a
particular offender was having appropriate adult sexual relations at
the time of the instant offense, simply because the question was
never asked. Additionally, the few times it was mentioned that a
child victim might be a substitute for an appropriate sexual partner,
this was written by a psychologist who did not discuss this idea with
the offender. As far as the possibility that prescription medications
might be causing the offenders to act out in a sexually deviant
manner, no definitive conclusion can be made. Mainly, the health
problems and related medications noted in the MDOC files are not
recorded with medical accuracy and appear to be a function of age.
Furthermore, since the sexual offending of a majority of these
individuals has a significant historical pattern, it does not appear
that there is any correlation between the offending and the
offenders’ health or medications. On the other hand, because the
health problems and related medications noted in the MDOC files
are medically recognized as producing such side effects as loss of

sexual desire and/or the inability to perform sexually, there is also

50

 

the possibility that some of these individuals turned to less
appropriate sexual partners when they could not meet the needs of

their adult partners or themselves in a socially acceptable fashion.
Thus, it is still unknown why these elderly offenders are coming into the
MDOC system so late in life, and usually for their first prison sentence. Perhaps
these offenders were simply victimizing children for so long that they were finally
discovered. Perhaps these offenders previously victimized other relatives, such
as their own daughters, and now that they are victimizing their grandchildren,
their daughters (the mothers of the grandchildren) are more perceptive of the
situation and reporting the activity to protect their own children. Perhaps, with
the rash of reporting and media events involving such cases in recent years,
victims, or their parents, are more willing to come forward. Unfortunately, these

questions must be left to future research.

51

 

CONCLUSIONS

Sex Offender Treatment

According to the research in this thesis, all sex offenders are not alike.
Therefore, separating sex offenders into categories for treatment purposes is the
next step. Current recidivism rates indicate that the positive effects of sex
offender treatment are questionable. Both the likelihood that recidivism rates
could be affected by a change in the way treatment is administered, and the
variables that affect treatment efficacy, will remain questions for further research.

Essentially, the problem is defining whether or not sex offender treatment
works at all, at least partly, if not wholly, because of trying to accomplish too
much at once. Previous research has worked to answer the question of whether
a treatment program is effective, rather than to answer the question of whether
the sex offender is treatable. Treatment of sex offenders is an admirable goal,
but it is not a practical goal if it is not effective, and effectiveness may well be
based more on the offender than on the treatment program. Therefore, future
research must concentrate on defining whether some types of sex offenders are
more amenable to treatment than others, which equates to finding a means of
defining sex offenders into types.

One answer is to find a means of categorizing sex offenders into smaller,
more defined treatment groups in order to establish whether or not anything

works, and whether what works may be effective only for specific types of sex

52

 

I:

offenders. The variables must be limited as much as possible to accomplish this;
however, as seen in previous research, agreeing on characteristics that can be
used to separate sex offenders into similar groups is not an easy task. A
reasonable solution is to group sex offenders on the basis of who their victims
are, making both the question and, thereby, the analysis simpler and clearer.
This solution allows examination of treatment programs and their effectiveness at
a more specific level. (From there, the reliability of the answers can be further
enhanced through further research on an even more specific level, such as
grouping child molesters by choice of victim's gender.) Only then can viable
decisions regarding amenability to treatment be made based on a solid
foundation of research. Without such a foundation it is not possible to treat only
those sex offenders amenable to treatment because those who might be defined
as amenable are unknown. In fact, without this foundation it is impossible to
ensure that any sex offenders are amenable to treatment.

Management implications for the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) include consideration of sex offender treatment programs utilizing at
least two group settings: one designed specifically for child molesters (and
perhaps, within this grouping, treatment programs designed for non-incestuous
versus incestuous child molesters), and another designed for rapists and other
violent sex offenders. It is reasonable to expect that the relationship of an
offender to his victim might impact his progress in treatment, and this impact
should be considered during the design of that treatment program. Furthermore,

it is essential that a child molester understand that society not only disapproves

53

 

specifically of sexual contact with children, but also of any incestuous
relationship with the victim.

To effectively attempt to rehabilitate a sex offender, the problem’s source
must be addressed. The issues that affect various classifications of sex
offenders are exactly what make them different, and thus what require novel
approaches to treatment if it is to be effective. For instance, in cases involving
incest, which undoubtedly affects the entire family, not just the victim and the
offender, perhaps a more individual treatment program, one which includes the
adult members of the family and the victim, is warranted. Rehabilitation is to
restore an offender to useful life through education and therapy. Since incest is
a symptom of problems within the family as a whole, the answer is to address
the problems that caused the offense to occur and thus prevent it from recurring.

The most difficult part of this process, other than budgetary concerns and
the process of change, is determining selective characteristics which identify
successful program participants, those sex offenders who are amenable to
treatment. The process must begin with dividing sex offenders into treatment
groups by nature of their relationships with their victims because this is the most
obvious difference between offenders, as well as the most distinct problem in
treatment. Only by fine-tuning the variables, defining parameters, can the
characteristic(s) of amenability be identified; unfortunately, much research is
needed before changes such as these are proven effective.

Of course, any changes to current treatment programming would have to

balance cost-effectiveness and feasibility against program effectiveness.

54

 

However, due to the lack of conclusive information, combined with the
inconsistency and confusion present in literature and research in the field, only
trying new ideas and further, more focused, research will answer the question of
how to most effectively treat sex offenders - assuming they can be effectively

treated at all.

Data-Specific Conclusions

A few of the relevant findings of this thesis are:

. Only seven of the 173 offenders (4%) chose victims who were aged 18
or older.

. Of the 166 offenders whose victims were children, only three were
complete strangers to their victims.

0 Of the 173 offenders, 54% were committing incest.

A few paragraphs from previous literature illustrate these findings clearly.

West (1 987) writes:

The claim that a tendency to sexual abuse of children in the home runs in
families from one generation to the next deserves more careful
consideration. Goodwin et al. (1981) showed that a history of having
been sexually abused in their own childhood was very much commoner
among mothers of physically or sexually abused children than among a
sample of women from the community. In a later study (Goodwin et al.,
1983) cases of grandfather-granddaughter incest were reviewed, showing
that women who had had early sexual contact with their father still failed
to prevent him from molesting their own daughter [sic]. (p.72)

55

 

Conte (1991) notes previous research that indicates the prevalence of
sexual abuse may range anywhere from 6% to 62% for females and from 3% to
31% for males, and concludes:

Even if one takes only the lowest estimates, it is clear that sexual abuse of

children is a common experience of childhood and affects a large number

of children. Indeed the numbers appear so large that they serve to create

a sense of disbelief about the problem, making it easier for someone to

turn away from the problem as impossibly large. (p. 17)

Conte (1991, pp. 11-33) continues, “Victim data generally support the
notion that sexual abuse of children often involves assault by more than one
offender” and, in agreement with what has been learned, “Offender data suggest
that sexual offenders targeting children tend to abuse more than one child” (p.
18). As a result of the fact that sexual abuse is under-reported, “ it is simply
not clear how many adults are in fact sexually abusing children at any one time -
although it is clear that a large number of children are sexually abused" (p. 18).
As Gilgun clearly states, “Researchers widely acknowledge that random samples
are not possible in child sexual abuse research because most sexual abuse is
not detected and most perpetrators, therefore, are not known” (p. 470). And if
Hacker’s work (1984) is indicative of any trend and only one percent of elderiy
sex offenders are sent to prison (p. 71), the numbers of elderly sex offenders in
Michigan alone must be astronomical. -

Certainly this thesis does not have all the answers, but it strongly directs
attention to areas meriting further research and analysis. The “common sense”

conclusions for those who are not researchers are obvious. The implications for

families alone are undeniable. Children are being victimized by people they

56

 

know, by people their families know. Society must recognize the truths of child
molestation, rather than believing the myths. Parents must be careful to whom
they entrust their children, and recognize that someone who once molested a
child is likely to do so again.

Previous research indicates, and the fact is supported in this thesis as
well, that child molestation is an ongoing proclivity, one that is often realized by
others prior to an offender's being incarcerated. The trauma of a child victimized
by a molester is perhaps only slightly more severe than that experienced by a
parent who realizes too late that the abuse could have been prevented. Also of
concern are the offender’s feelings of remorse, assuming these feelings exist,
whether over his actions or simply over the distrust he will now experience from
the victim and victim’s family.

While this thesis indicates that slightly less than half of the offenders were
abused either sexually or physically as children, there is little question that an
abused child carries the effects of that trauma into adulthood. For those
offenders who were abused, it is a distinct possibility that their sexual offending
as adults stemmed from their own abuse, perhaps because they were brought
up believing that this type of contact was normal and appropriate, or even
because they learned to believe it was appropriate as a means to their own
emotional survival and recovery. Some abused children do manage to recover
from the abuse with little outward symptomology, but others experience
continued psychological and emotional problems, criminal propensities, and/or

difficulty establishing appropriate familial and/or social relationships as adults.

57

 

L:

Acknowledging an individual’s proclivity toward child molestation provides a
resource that may counteract that individual’s ability to act on that proclivity,
prevent future victims, and preclude the necessity of imprisonment as a solution,
thus maintaining the family structure.

Abuse has been a vicious cycle, one which seems almost impossible to
curb. However, the tool to stop this cycle does exist. That tool is knowledge.
For families of victims, for victims, and for those who would be offenders, this

tool must not be ignored.

58

 

APPENDIX A

59

 

APPENDIX A

A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASCERTAINING DIFFERENCES AMONG SEXUAL
OFFENDERS

Note: If no mention is made in the file to a particular question, the answer will be
coded as such. If the file indicates an answer is unknown the answer will be
similarly coded as unknown.

 

SECTION I: GENERAL OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS: 1."

Gender
Race
Birthdate
Level of schooling achieved
Religion (specify)
a. Religiousness: Practicing/Church-going at time of offense? L...
Income level
a. Source of income
7. Occupation
a. Employed at time of instant offense?
8. Where was offender living at time of offense (specify rural, urban, etc.).
9. Sentence length (1-5 years, etc.)
10. Has offender experienced poverty during his lifetime? When?

91:59.”?

 

9’

_S_§§TION II: OFFENDER'S FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS/CHILDHOOD

UPBRINGING
1. Describe parental influences in home (e.g. natural mother until age 3,
natural father died; natural mother & step-father age 3-10;
stable/unstable).
2. Is relationship with parents described as satisfactory? If not, how is it

described (e.g. abuse, alcoholism, drug use, nature of discipline, manner
in which affection was shown)?

3. Is childhood/upbringing described as positive? If not, how is it described?
Include evaluation of sibling relationships if available.

4. How many brothers? Sisters?
a. Birthdates and genders of siblings
b. Offender’s birth ranking (e.g. oldest)
c. Any siblings involved in crime? Describe.

60

@QPP’N.‘

Was offender abused as a child?

3. Was abuse sexual, physical, or other (describe)?

b. Who inflicted the abuse and what was/were their age(s)?
c. What age was the offender?

d. What was the frequency of abuse?

ECTION Ill: OFFENDER’S RELATIONSHIPS AS AN ADULT

Marital status at time of instant offense

a. How many marriages (including most recent)?

b. Length of marriages (specify dates if available)

c. Describe nature of dissolution of marriages.

d. If divorced or widowed, what is proximity with instant offense?
How many children?

a. Ages and genders (specify maternal parent if possible)

Did regular and normal sexual activity occur with spouse (or other adult
partner):

a. from offender's point of view?

b. from partner’s point of view?

c. Was such contact still occurring at time of offense?

How does offender classify marital relationship in general?
SECTION IV: DESCRIPTION OF INSTANT OFFENSE

Was alcohol involved (describe)?

Were drugs involved (describe/specify drugs)?

Where did it occur (e.g. offender’s home, victim’s home)?

How was offender convicted (plea, jury, etc)?

How was offender caught/nature of report?

Describe extent of sexual contact (note alleged vs. convicted):

a. touching over clothing (specify whether offender unclothed)

b. touching beneath/without clothing (specify whether victim and/or
offender unclothed)

penile penetration

other penetration (describe)

. other (describe)

ave there been multiple instances with this victim?

How many?

How frequent?

Date of first occurrence?

Date of instant offense?

did activity escalate over time?

Describe circumstances which led to the activity (first occurrence).

c1099 .o'rvzmes

61

 

8. Are there multiple victims involved in instant offense?

a. How many?
b. Describe pertinent information for each victim (see #7, above).
9. Was force or threat of force involved?
a. Did activity ever involve violence/possibility of physical harm to
victim?
b. Did force or violence escalate over time?

10. Describe planned vs. situational aspects of instant offense (e.g. offense
occurred while offender was baby-sitting).

11. Does offender admit to offense?

12. Describe offender’s reasoning/rationalization/excuses.

13. Does offender say victim instigated or encouraged him?

14. Does offender feel his sexual relationship with the victim was affectionate,
intimate, and/or loving?

15. Does offender feel his actions were appropriate?

16. Does offender show guilt, shame, or remorse?

17. Any codefendants? Describe their involvement.

18. If activity with victims ended other than because of conviction, what is
reason for end of activity?

 

SECTION V: VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS

Gender

Age at first occurrence

Age at time of instant offense

Frequency of occurrence

Have there been multiple victims over time?

a. girls only

b. boys only

c. both boys and girls

d. Are the victims’ ages varied, or within a particular range?
6. Victim’s relationship to offender (specify for each victim, both instant
offense and prior offenses)

a immediate family (e.g. father, grandfather, step-father)

b. extended family (uncle, cousin, etc.)

c

d

5":59’5’."

know victim well but not family member (teacher, etc.)
know victim only casually/acquaintances

e. stranger
7. If offender has/had multiple victims, describe nature of victims’
relationships to each other
a. siblings
b. parent/child (gender of parent?)
c. friends
(I. strangers
8. Does offender describe victim as a willing partner?

62

 

9.

Does victim indicate willingness/consent?

__ECTION VI: CIANICAL 81 MEDICAL OBSERVATIONS (INCIAIQING SyEfiXUAjL

EXPERIENCES & PREFERENCES OF OFFENDER)

 

Note: Unless otherwise specified, assume question refers to offender at time of
instant offense or intake into prison system.

1.

SPQNQPIPSPN

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.

Describe sexual experience (e.g. heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual,
with adults, with children).

Age of first realization of desire for sex with children?

Are children substitutes for inaccessible adult sexual partners?

Age at first sexual activity?

Describe nature of first sexual activity.

Age at first pedophilic activity?

Describe nature of first pedophilic activity.

Any history of sexual dysfunction? Describe.

Using MMPI evaluation and any other pertinent information in the file,
describe the offender (e.g. introverted, shy, unassertive, insecure, etc.).
Describe the offender's feelings in regard to his contact with others
(lonely, isolated, introverted, etc.).

Did the offender appear socially to be conforming with the values and
mores of society?

a. How did he maintain this while engaging in his deviant sexual
activity?

Has the offender ever had sex offender treatment?

a. Was it sought voluntarily (not as a condition of prison)?

b. Describe length and type of treatment.
Is the offender a diagnosed alcoholic?

a. Has he had treatment?

b. Describe length and type of treatment.
Is offender drug user/addict?

3. Has he had treatment?

b. Describe length and type of treatment.
Has the offender ever been institutionalized?
3. Why?

Describe nature of any recent trauma (recent to offense).

Describe offender’s general health at time of incarceration.

What prescription medications was offender taking at time of offense?
a. How long had offender been taking this medication?

b. Describe any side effects experienced.

63

 

SECTION VII: PRIOR OFFENSES

1. Juvenile history
a. Number of arrests
b. Number of convictions
0. Note nature and dates of offenses, sentences received, and type of
discharge.

APPENDIX B

65

 

APPENDIX B

State of Michigan

 

John Engler. Governor

Department of Corrections
Grendview Plaza
P. 0. Box 30003
Iamthmfinmflflfl
Kenneth L. McGInnie. Director

January 20, 1993

Ms. Heather Espie
3313 W. Mt. Hope, Apt. 36
Lansing, MI 48911

Dear Heather:

This letter is a follow up to the meeting we had this morning
regarding data elements to seek in reviewing records of elderly
prisoners who have been convicted of sex offenses. In that
meeting, I believe that Dr. John Rushbrook, Chief Psychologist in
the Bureau of Health Care Services and Mr. Gary Stockman.
Community Resource Manager in Field Services Administration
provided a number of excellent suggestions. At the same time,
they reinforced our assessment of the need and the absence of
existing profile information on elderly sex offenders.

What the Department of Corrections needs is in depth profile
information on these prisoners to assist in determining what, if
any, unique characteristics there may be to distinguished them
from the other elderly prisoners. As you know, within this older
prisoner population, at the time of the Department's study in
December 1991, 42% (186) of the 453 male elderly prisoners were
convicted of sex offenses, compared to 13% of the general prison
population.

Without reviewing each case record, we do not have knowledge of
significant information including the nature of the sexual
offenses. Were the offenses forcible rape with adult victims? Or
were the victims more likely to be children? If it is the latter,
are the children victims of incest or unrelated to the
perpetrators, and in either case, how many victims over how many
years have there been? In addition, what has been the nature of
any treatment sought? These and several other questions are
important to the Department as it examines, among other things,
its treatment methodology, placement alternatives, and risk to
the public at the time that parole is considered.

66

 

 

I believe our meeting this morning confirmed our thoughts that a
descriptive study of these elderly prisoners convicted of sex
offenses would be of enormous assistance in better understanding
this population to provide appropriate custody and necessary
treatment. In addition, it could be a keystone in studying this
offender population that is thought to provide life long trauma
to the young victims.

Now, from your perspective, Heather, what are your objectives and
expectations as developed from your literature search and other
studying of the subject? What questions do you seek answered?
In the context of our meeting and discussion today, I suggest
that you develop your proposal(s) to the ‘University' and the
Department.

Please telephone me if I may be of further assistance as you
prepare your proposal.

Sincerely,

William w. Lovett
Policy Analyst

67

 

REFERENCES

 

68

 

REFERENCES

Baxter, D. J., Marshall, W. L., Barbaree, H. E., Davidson, P. R., & Malcolm, P. B.
(1984). Deviant sexual behavior: Differentiating sex offenders by criminal

and personal history, psychometric measures, and sexual response.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 477-501.

Cavanaugh, J. (1986). Some aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of
pedophilia. In T. M. Frost & M. J. Seng (Eds), Sexual exploitation of the

child (pp. 40-49).

Conte, J. R. (1991). The nature of sexual offenses against children. In C. R.
Hollin & K. Howells (Eds), Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their

victims. (pp. 11-34). New York: John Wiley 8. Sons.

 

Delin, B. (1978). Sex offender. Boston: Beacon.

Fisher, D. (1994). Adult sex offenders. In T. Morrison, M. Erooga, & R. C.
Beckett (Eds), Sexual offending against children: Assessment and

tpeatment of mafiabpsers (pp. 1-24). New York: Routledge.

Freund, K., Heasman, G. A., Roper, V. (1982). Results of the main studies on
sexual offenses against children and pubescents (a review). Canadian

Journal of Criminology, a, 387-397.

Garcia, J. (1987). Pedophilia: A mirror of our culture. Corrective and Social
Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, §§,
137-144.

Gewerth, K. E. (1988). Elderly offenders: A review of previous research. In B.
McCarthy 8. R. Langworthy (Eds), Older offenders: Perspectives in
criminology and criminal iustice (pp. 14-31). New York: Praeger.

Gilgun, J. (1994). Avengers, conquerors, playmates, and lovers: A continuum
of roles played by perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Families in Sociey,

E, 467-480.
Groth, A. N. (1979). Men who rape: The psycholpgy of the offender. New York:
Plenum.

69

 

 

Groth, A. N., Hobson, W. F., & Gary, T. S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical
observations. In D. C. Haden (Ed.), Out of harm's way: Readings on child
sexual abuse, its prevention, and treatment (pp. 140-154). Phoenix, AZ:
Oryx.

Hacker, S. J. (1984). Psychiatric aspects of crime in old age. In E. S. Newman,
D. J. Newman, M. L. Gewirtz, 8. Associates (Eds), Elderlv Criminals (pp.
67-73). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn 8. Hain, Publishers, Inc.

Maletzky, B. M. (1991). Treating the sexual offender. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.

Marshall, W. L., 8. Christie, M. M. (1981). Pedophilia and aggression. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 8, 145-158.

McCall, J., Christopher, W., 8. Jurczak, D. (1977). Special problem patients:
Psychotic geriatric, retarded, sex offender. Ment_al health for the

convicted offender patient and prisoner (pp. 173-194). Raleigh, NC: North
Carolina Department of Correction.

Michigan Department of Corrections. (1992, April). A @ort pn Michigan's elderly
prison pppulatipn. (Available from Michigan Department of Corrections,
Grandview Plaza Bldg., P. O. Box 30003, Lansing, MI 48909).

Overholser, J. C., 8. Beck, S. J. (1989). The classification of rapists and child
molesters. Journal of ender Counselin Services Rehabilitation,
31, 169-179.

Shook, L. L. (1988). Investigation of pedophilia. In M. J. Palmiotto (Ed.), Critical
issues in criminal investigation (2nd Ed., pp. 197-214).

Summit, R., 8. Kryso, J. (1978). Sexual abuse of children: A clinical spectrum.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42, 237-251.

Virkkunen, M. (1976). Pedophilic offender with antisocial character. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 53, 401-405.

West, D. J. (1987). Sexual crimes and confrontations: A study of victims and
offenders. Aldershot, England: Gower.

West, D. J. (1983). Sex offenses and offending. In M. Tonry 8. N. Morris (Eds),
Crime and iustice: An annual review of research (Vol. 5, pp. 183-233). Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago.

70

 

 

General References

Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Berlin, FS (1989). Special considerations in the psychiatric evaluation of sexual
offenders against minors. In R. Rosner & H. I. Schwartz (Eds), Juvenile
psychiatm and the law (pp. 119 -132). New York: Plenum.

 

Berlin, F.S. (1986). Pedophilia: Diagnostic concepts, treatment, and ethical
considerations. In D. C. Haden (Ed.), Out of hands way: Readings on

child sexual abuse, its prevention, and treatment (pp. 155-171). Phoenix,
AZ: Oryx.

Dix, G. E. (1976). Differential processing of abnormal sex offenders: Utilization
of Califomia’s mentally disordered sex offender program. Journal of

Criminal Law 8. Criminology, QZ, 233-243.

Finkelhor, D. (1986). Abusers: Special topics. In D. Finkelhor (Ed.), _A_
sourcebook on child sexual abuse (pp. 89-142). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Groth, A. N., Burgess, A. W., Bimbaum, H. J., 8. Gary, T. S. (1978). Study of the
child molester Myths and realities. LAE Journal of the American
Criminal Justice Association, 41, 17-22.

Hunter, H. (1991). Man/child: An insight into child sexual abuse bya convicted
molester. with a comprehensive resource guide. Jefferson, NC:

McFarland 8. Company, Inc.

Langevin, R., 8. Lang, R. A. (1985). Psychological treatment of pedophiles.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, _3_, 403-419.

MacDonald, J. M. (1981). Sexual deviance: The adult offender. In P. B. Mrazek

8. C. H. Kempe (Eds), Sexually abused children and their families (pp. 89-
95). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Marshall, W. L. , 8. Barbaree, H. E. (1989). Sexual violence. In K. Howells 8. C.
R. Hollin (Eds), Clinical approaches to violence (pp. 205-246). West
Sussex, England: John Wiley 8. Sons

Shichor, D. (1988). Exploratory study of elderly probationers. lntemational
Jo_umal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Q, 163-174.

71

 

nICHIan smTE UNIV. LIBRARIES
llillWill“HillWWIIVINmmWillMIHHIINIWI
31293017074166