08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

offender first met his stepdaughter (his victim) is largely irrelevant to the issue of residential proximity. Consequently, the findings regarding the offender residence–first contact distance will focus only on the direct-contact offenders and will be presented later in this study. VICTIM–OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP The findings regarding the victim–offender relationship for the 224 reoffenses indicate that 21% of the offenders victimized someone they did not know (see Table 1). This percentage is higher than that normally seen in sex offender populations because this is a sample of recidivists, who are more likely to victimize strangers. Consistent with research on sex offenders in general, the vast majority (79%) of offenders, however, victimized someone they knew. Acquaintance/other known was the most common victim–offender relationship (23%), followed closely by offenders who victimized the daughter or son of the woman with whom they had developed a romantic relationship (17%). This category includes men who molested their stepdaughters or stepsons. In 14% (n =32) of the cases, offenders victimized family members such as their own daughter, niece, or granddaughter. In Table 2, we examine whether the offender residence–offense location distance varied by the type of victim–offender relationship. When the offenders victimized a stranger, 28% (n =12) committed the offense in their own residence. When they committed the offense outside their residence, however, most did so more than 1 mile away from their home; fully 49% (n =21) of the stranger-on-stranger reoffenses took place more than 1 mile from the offender’s residence. In contrast, 23% (n =10) occurred within 1 mile of the offender’s residence. Of the 17 offenses that took place within 1 mile of the offender’s residence, 10 involved strangers, 5 involved neighbors, 1 involved a babysitter, and 1 involved a “consen- sual” romantic relationship. There were 124 cases (63%) that occurred within the offender’s residence, of which 90% (n =112) involved offenders who knew their victims. The percentage of cases occurring inside the offender’s residence was greater for those who victimized their significant other’s son or daughter (89%), a biological family member (81%), a child they were babysitting (77%), or an acquaintance (74%). In Table 3, we examine more closely the relationship between the offender’s residence, the victim’s residence, and the location where the offense occurred. There were five possible offender residence, victim residence, and offense location combinations, as follows: 1. The offense occurred at the residence where both the offender and victim lived. 2. The offense took place at the offender’s residence, which was different from that of the victim. 3. The offense took place at the victim’s residence, which was different from that of the offender. 4. The offender and victim shared a residence, but the offense occurred at a different location. 5. The offender residence, victim residence, and offense locations were all different from one another. The results from a chi-square significance test showed that the 45 offenses occurring in the residence shared by both the victim and the offender were significantly less likely to involve the use of physical force and alcohol or drugs. These offenses were more likely to involve offenders who victimized children and family members, however. The 76 offenses that took place at the residence where only the offender lived were significantly more likely to involve the use of alcohol or drugs and acquaintance victims. The 49 offenses that 492 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from