My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
08-22-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2016 3:59:52 PM
Creation date
12/16/2016 3:53:42 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
Text box
ID:
1
Creator:
Created:
12/16/2016 3:59 PM
Modified:
12/16/2016 3:59 PM
Text:
http://cjb.sagepub.com
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
271
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 491 <br />information was available,61% (n =121) took place inside the offender’s residence. For the <br />remaining 39% (n =76) who committed the offense outside of their residence, there was <br />an inverse relationship between the offender residence–offense location distance and the <br />number of offenses. That is, as the distance between the offender’s residence and the <br />offense location increased, the number of offenses decreased. For example, 19% (n =38) <br />of the offenses took place within 5 miles of the offender’s residence, 7% (n =14) within 6 <br />to 10 miles,6% (n =12) within 11 to 20 miles, 4% (n =8) within 21 to 50 miles, and 2% <br />(n =4) beyond 50 miles. However, relatively few of the offenses (9%) took place within <br />1 mile of the offender’s residence. <br />Compared to the offender residence–offense location distance, estimating the distance <br />between the offender’s residence and the first contact location was more difficult for sev- <br />eral reasons. First, the address information regarding the specific location where offenders <br />first established contact with their victims was frequently unavailable in the criminal com- <br />plaint. Second, for some cases, geographic distance was irrelevant in that several offenders <br />first established contact over the telephone (one even while incarcerated for the prior sex <br />offense) or the Internet (i.e., dating personals). Finally, and perhaps most important, the <br />majority of the offenders knew their victims at the time of the offense, often for some <br />time before the crime took place. For example, determining the specific location where an <br />TABLE 1: Location, Distance, and Victim–Offender Relationship of Sex Reoffenses <br />Number % <br />Location of offense <br />Offender’s residence 76 33.9 <br />Victim’s residence 49 21.9 <br />Shared residence 45 20.1 <br />Residence of acquaintance/family member 15 6.7 <br />Other residence (e.g., hotel room) 6 2.7 <br />Exterior public location 28 12.5 <br />Interior public location 6 2.2 <br />Total 224 100.0 <br />Distance between offender’s residence and offense location <br />Same offender residence/offense location 76 38.6 <br />Same victim–offender residence/offense location 45 22.8 <br />Less than 1 mile 18 9.1 <br />1–5 miles 20 10.2 <br />6–10 miles 14 7.1 <br />11–20 miles 12 6.1 <br />21–50 miles 8 4.1 <br />More than 50 miles 4 2.0 <br />Total 197 100.0 <br />Victim–offender Relationship <br />Stranger 48 21.4 <br />Acquaintance/other known 51 22.8 <br />Babysitter 13 5.8 <br />Neighbor 8 3.6 <br />“Romantic/dating” 13 5.8 <br />Friend of family 20 8.9 <br />Significant other’s son or daughter 39 17.4 <br />Family/biological 32 14.3 <br />Total 224 100.0 <br /> at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.