08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

occurred at the residence where only the victim lived were also significantly more likely to involve offenders who victimized acquaintances. These offenders, however, were signifi- cantly more likely to victimize adults and to use physical force during the assault. Finally, the 51 offenses in which the offender residence, victim residence, and offense location were different from one another were significantly more likely to involve offenders who not only used physical force but who also victimized adults and strangers. TYPE OF VICTIM CONTACT As noted above, determining the location where offenders first established contact with their victims was often difficult, particularly for offenders who had known their victims for some time. More important, however, the data show that residential proximity had only modest relevance in a majority of the 224 reoffenses. More specifically, 79 offenders (35%) directly established contact with the victim. For these direct-contact offenders, they met their victims by approaching them on the street, meeting them in a bar, or breaking into the victim’s home. For the remaining 65% (n =145), however, the offenders were biologically related to their victims (14%), or they gained access to their victims through a form of col- lateral contact such as a girlfriend, wife, coworker, friend, or acquaintance (51%). Thus, for the biological-contact and collateral-contact offenders, residential proximity was not nearly as important as social or relationship proximity. In Table 4, we examine the characteristics of the 224 offenders by the three types of victim contact. As indicated by the results from a chi-square significance test, the 79 direct-contact offenders had a significantly greater number of institutional disciplinary convictions in the past 12 months prior to release than did either the collateral- or biological- contact offenders. These offenders were also significantly more likely to be released to intensive supervision. In their sex reoffense, where they established direct contact with their victims, all of the direct-contact offenders victimized acquaintances and strangers. Indeed, it was almost evenly split between the two, although nearly one third assaulted a stranger adult female victim. Direct-contact offenders were significantly less likely to victimize those younger than the age of 13 (i.e., “child”) in either their previous or current offense. Instead, they were much more likely to victimize adults. In fact, adults were the victims in 54% (n =42) of their reoffenses, which is more than 4 times greater than for the other recidivists. Furthermore, these offenders were more likely to have a history of victimizing adult strangers. For example, in their previous sex offense, 35% (n =28) had victimized adults, whereas 34% (n =27) had victimized strangers. Direct-contact offenders were significantly more likely to commit the reoffense at a location that was different from both their residence and that of the victims. Perhaps as a consequence of their tendency to victimize adult strangers at a location where neither they nor their victims lived, direct-contact offenders were signifi- cantly more likely to use physical force. Compared to the other recidivists, the 113 collateral-contact offenders were significantly more likely to victimize acquaintances in both their prior and current sex crimes. These offenders, moreover, were much more likely than direct-contact offenders to victimize children in both their previous and current sex offenses. More specifically, 53% (n =60) of the acquaintance victims in their reoffenses were females younger than the age of 18. Given that 50% (n =56) offended against juvenile female acquaintances in their prior offense, these 494 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from