PSY 622 SNHU Wk 9 Sex Offender Conviction and Sexual Disorder Assessments Discussion Everything needed is attached https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c

PSY 622 SNHU Wk 9 Sex Offender Conviction and Sexual Disorder Assessments Discussion Everything needed is attached

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1131/index.do

Revisit for discussion the R. v. Mohan (1994) case with your classmates in the weekly discussion. Using the appropriate terminology, examine the background, participants, and historical significance of this case in relation to sex offender risk assessments used in today’s forensic practice. In your discussion, provide the psychometrics of two sex offender risk assessments that are preferred in your sex offender treatment program.

In response to your peers, comment on the strengths of the assessments discussed and make suggestions for potential alternatives.

Previous Discussion from last week:

Background, Participants and Historical Significance

The respondent, who was a practicing pediatrician, was charged with four counts of sexual assault. The assault was on four female patients at the time they visited his office for medical examination. The defense counsel planned to have a psychiatrist testify that the respondent did not hold the characteristics of doing the things that he was being accused of doing. The attorney objected, and the judge had a voir dire on the evidence (R. v. Mohan 1994). The psychiatrist at the stand stated that sexual psychopaths and pedophiles are examples of members of limited and unusual classes of people. The judge said that it would not even be character evidence as it surpasses the normal reputation. The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the judge had made his ruling, not on the admissibility but the evidence presented by Hill. The court resulted in their being the need for the judges and the jury to allow parties to enlighten them where matters go past their understanding. The case also made it clear that evidence that is logically relevant maybe if the probative worth is overborne.

Psychometrics of Two Preferred Malingering Assessment Tools

The two malingering tools that can be used in the case of R. v. Mohan (1994) are the MMPI-2 and SIRS. According to Walczyk et al. (2018), both the tools are similar but slightly different, even though SIRS is mostly used. SIRS in the most current measure that was first created in 1982 by Richard Rogers. MMPI-2 has components that are able to establish malingering. The SIRS contains eight scales that are applied to determine when a person is indolent (Walczyk et al. 2018). SIRS is the most accepted metric in measuring of malingering.

References

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9.

Walczyk, J. J., Sewell, N., & DiBenedetto, M. B. (2018). A review of approaches to detecting malingering in forensic contexts and promising cognitive load-inducing lie detection techniques. Frontiers in psychiatry, 9, 700. Response One:
Tiffany Newton posted Jun 2, 2020 6:20 PM
Subscribe
Hi class,
Detailing out the case of R. v. Mohan (1994) explains the respondent being charged
with four counts of sexual assault on four minor female patients. It was argued that the
respondent’s behavior did not fit the profile of what would be considered a pedophile nor a
sexual psychopath as thought to be the profile of the complaints. This testimony was ruled
inadmissible for many reasons and the respondent was found guilty by the jury and
appealed. The issue was in the determination of the circumstances in which expert evidence
is admissible to show that specific character traits of the accused do not fit the profile of the
perpetrator of the charges at hand. Expert evidence now must depend on 1) relevance, 2)
necessity in assisting the trier of fact, 3) the absence of any exclusionary rule, and 4) a
properly qualified expert. Another important detail that was noted in this case is that there is
no supported evidence to say that the profile of either a pedophile or a psychopath is
standardized enough to cover all profiles of offenders.
One assessment tool that would be useful in sex offender risk assessments is the Rapid
Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR) scale. This scale is designed to
assess different levels of sexual recidivism risk for convicted sexual offenders (Ackerman,
2010). It utilizes seven items: prior sex offenses, prior nonsex offenses, male victims,
stranger victims, never married, younger than 25 years old (Ackerman, 2010). However, out
of these seven, only four were found to statistically contribute to accurately predicting
recidivism (Ackerman, 2010).
Another useful assessment tool would be the Static-99; this tool was developed in
hopes to create an objective actuarial tool that can be used in not only determining the risk of
convicted sex offenders for committing sexual crimes, but also nonsexual crimes that are
considered violent (Ackerman, 2010). This tool was designed for and still meant only for
adult, male offenders who have committed a crim on an identifiable victim and has been
convicted for this (Ackerman, 2010). The Static-99 is based on static factors, some of which
are also present in the RRASOR: History of prior sexual offenses, prior sentencing dates,
convictions for nonsex offenses, index nonsexual violence, prior nonsexual violence, presence
of unrelated victims, presence of victims who were strangers to the offender, presence of mal e
victims, offender is under 25 years old, and offender is single (Ackerman, 2010).
Thank you,
Tiffany
References
Ackerman, M. (2010). Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment (A. S. Kaufman & N.
L. Kaufman, Eds.) (2nd ed.) John Wiley & Sons.
Response Two:
Carina Coleman posted Jun 2, 2020 10:18 AM
Subscribe
As we remember in the R. v. Mohan, 1994 case, a Pediatrician was charged with 4
accounts of sexual assault of his female patients (13 – 16 years). He had an Expert witness
(Psychiatrist) called to testify that his character traits did not fit his psychological profile, the
one an alleged perpetrator. ‘His counsel indicated that he intended to call a psychiatrist who
would testify that the perpetrator of the alleged offenses would be part of a limited and
unusual group of individuals and that respondent did not fall within that narrow class
because he did not possess the characteristics belonging to that group.’ (R.v. Mohan, 1994)
In detail the psychiatrist testified that the psychological profile of the perpetrator does
not fit all four offenses. The perpetrator of the first three complaints was likely a pedophile
and the last profile fits the one of a sexual psychopath. Today one would argue that the
offender was evolving, or gradually developing into a more complex nature of the sexual
assault. For example when fondling genitals turns into actual rape.
The historical significance of this case is that it changed Forensic Expert testimony.
The issue of that case, the way the admissible evidence was determined and the circumstances
in which expert evidence is admissible was deemed not suitable. The case was reopened.
Further on the issue involved an examination of the rules relating to expert and character
evidence. Simply to show that character traits of an accused person do not fit the
psychological profile of an alleged perpetrator of the offenses charged is not enough, but was
then. F
Four criteria where established that need to be met in order for expert evidence to be
admitted in court these are: (1) it must be relevant to the case, (2) it should assist the trier of
fact (judge or jury) in understanding complex issues, (3) it cannot violate the exclusionary
rule and (4) the expert must be qualified.
Until that point there was nothing in the records of other cases that supported a stable
definition or profile of a pedophile or psychopath. It simply had not been standardized to the
extent that it could be said that it matched the supposed profile of the offender depicted in the
charges; the source of the evidence that was not sufficiently reliable (R vs Mohan, 1994).
Today we work with very specific tools in Forensic Psychology in order to a determine
if there is a sexual offender and b what kind of sex offender we are dealing with. However,
with that being said this is not an easy thing to do (Robertiello and Terry, 2007). The sexually
assault for a number of reasons and it is merely possible to put them in much broader
categories such as rapist, child molesters, female sex offenders, juvenile sex offenders, and
cybersex offenders.
2 Psychometric instruments to determine these categories are:
In my own practice I would use the Static 99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999) and the
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool—Revised (Epperson, Kaul, Huot, Hesselton,
Alexander & Goldman, 1998). The prevention of sexual violence is of great concern to the
safety and protection of the public (Ackerman, 2010). The Static 99 was developed in order to
determining the risk of a convicted sex offenders for committing sexual crimes in the future.
On parole for example. It is mainly used in the context of prisons. It was developed only for
male offenders that where already convicted and should therefor only be used as such. It
included only station risk factors. These are ‘1.History of prior sexual offenses 2.Prior
sentencing dates 3.Convictions for non sex offenses 4.Index nonsexual violence 5.Prior
nonsexual violence 6.Presence of unrelated victims 7.Presence of victims who were strangers
to the offender 8.Presence of male victims 9.Offender is under 25 years old 10.Offender is
single’ (Ackerman, 2010) However these specific risk factors correlate highly with other tools
and assessments.
The second one, the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool—Revised (MnSOST-R)
is a tool which incorporates both, static and dynamic risk factors. It includes 16 items that
comprise the MnSOST-R and maximize the positive predictive power of the tool. Its
correlates achieve impressive hit rates with rapists and extrafamilial sex offenders, the
population for which the instrument was developed. It is currently used by the Minnesota
Department of Corrections as a screening tool for referral for commitment under the state’s Sexual
Psychopathic Personality and Sexually Dangerous Person law.
Reference:
Ackerman, M. J. (2010). Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment (2nd ed.).
Hoboken: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Endrass, J., Urbaniok, F., Rossegger, A., & Noll, T. (2006). Das Minnesota Sex Offender
Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R). Kriminalistik: unabhängige Zeitschrift für die
kriminalistische Wissenschaft und Praxis, 60(10), 637-640.
Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S. J., Hesselton, D., Alexander,
W., & Goldman, R. (1998). Minnesota sex offender screening
tool-Revised (MnSOST-R). St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department
of Corrections.
Robertiello, G., & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender
typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(5), 508–518.
Supreme Court of Canada. (2012, December 3). SCC Case Information – Search. Retrieved
from
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1131/index.do
Graduate Discussion Rubric
Overview
Your active participation in the discussions is essential to your overall success this term. Discussion questions will help you make meaningful connections
between the course content and the larger concepts of the course. These discussions give you a chance to express your own thoughts, ask questions, and gain
insight from your peers and instructor.
Directions
For each discussion, you must create one initial post and follow up with at least two response posts.
For your initial post, do the following:
 Write a post of 1 to 2 paragraphs.
 In Module One, complete your initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
 In Modules Two through Ten, complete your initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
 Consider content from other parts of the course where appropriate. Use proper citation methods for your discipline when referencing scholarly or
popular sources.
For your response posts, do the following:
 Reply to at least two classmates outside of your own initial post thread.
 In Module One, complete your two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
 In Modules Two through Ten, complete your two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
 Demonstrate more depth and thought than saying things like “I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in the discussion prompt.
Rubric
Critical Elements
Comprehension
Timeliness
Engagement
Exemplary
Develops an initial post with an
organized, clear point of view or
idea using rich and significant
detail (100%)
N/A
Provides relevant and
meaningful response posts with
clarifying explanation and detail
(100%)
Proficient
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea using
appropriate detail (90%)
Submits initial post on time
(100%)
Provides relevant response
posts with some explanation
and detail (90%)
Needs Improvement
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea but with
some gaps in organization and
detail (70%)
Submits initial post one day late
(70%)
Provides somewhat relevant
response posts with some
explanation and detail (70%)
Not Evident
Does not develop an initial post
with an organized point of view
or idea (0%)
Value
20
Submits initial post two or more
days late (0%)
Provides response posts that are
generic with little explanation or
detail (0%)
10
20
Critical Elements
Critical Thinking
Writing (Mechanics)
Exemplary
Draws insightful conclusions
that are thoroughly defended
with evidence and examples
(100%)
Initial post and responses are
easily understood, clear, and
concise using proper citation
methods where applicable with
no errors in citations (100%)
Proficient
Draws informed conclusions
that are justified with evidence
(90%)
Needs Improvement
Draws logical conclusions (70%)
Not Evident
Does not draw logical
conclusions (0%)
Value
30
Initial post and responses are
easily understood using proper
citation methods where
applicable with few errors in
citations (90%)
Initial post and responses are
understandable using proper
citation methods where
applicable with a number of
errors in citations (70%)
Initial post and responses are
not understandable and do not
use proper citation methods
where applicable (0%)
Total
20
100%
C e n t e r
f o r
S e x
O f f e n d e r
M a n a g e m e n t
A Project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Female Sex Offenders
March 2007
Introduction
The Extent of Sex
Offending by Females
Although the vast majority of attention on sex
crimes focuses on men as the offenders, an
increased awareness of females as sex
offenders has surfaced in recent years. Highly
publicized cases involving inappropriate and
illegal sexual contact between female high
school teachers and their male students are a
primary source of this growing attention.
These cases are not representative of the full
nature or scope of sexual abuse committed by
females, however, and they have the potential
to promote myths and misperceptions about
the broader issue of female-perpetrated sex
crimes.
Because sexual victimization is significantly
underreported overall, reliable information
about the incidence of sex crimes committed
by females is difficult to obtain. Nonetheless, a
variety of sources can collectively provide a
working estimate of the scope of the problem,
including arrest trends, census and caseload
data from criminal and juvenile justice
agencies, representation in sex offender
treatment programs, and victimization reports.
Arrest Data
National criminal justice statistics reveal that of
all adults and juveniles who come to the
attention of the authorities for sex crimes,
females account for less than 10% of these
cases (FBI, 2006). Specifically, arrests of
women represent only 1% of all adult arrests
for forcible rape and 6% of all adult arrests for
other sex offenses.
This policy and practice brief synthesizes the
research and other professional literature
about women and adolescent girls who commit
sex offenses. This review encompasses what
is known about the seemingly low incidence of
these crimes and their under-recognition,
common characteristics and typologies of
female sex offenders, and key considerations
relative to assessment, treatment, and
supervision strategies. It is intended for a wide
range of professionals, including criminal and
juvenile justice practitioners, court officials,
treatment providers, child welfare personnel,
victim advocates, and others who may be
involved in the broader management of this
special population.
Adult Arrests:
Sex Offenses by Perpetrator Gender
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
At present, the research and literature about
this unique segment of the sex offender
population remains in its infancy, and there is
no evidence-based guidance or other
consensus about the most effective
approaches to working with them. Experts do
agree, however, that understanding female sex
offenders remains a significant area of need
within the criminal and juvenile justice fields.
0%
Forcible rape
male
Other sex offense
female
(Adapted from Snyder & Sickmund, 2006)
Parallel data concerning adolescent sex
offenders indicate that females are responsible
for 3% of forcible rape cases and 5% of other
violent sex offenses – and 19% of non-violent
1
Established in June 1997, CSOM’s goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through improving the
management of adult and juvenile sex offenders who are in the community. A collaborative effort of the Office of Justice
Programs, the National Institute of Corrections, the State Justice Institute, and the American Probation and Parole
Association, CSOM is administered by the Center for Effective Public Policy.
sex offenses – handled by the juvenile courts
annually (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Representation in Sex Offender
Treatment Programs
It is of interest to note that while arrests of
adult women for sex offenses have decreased
in recent years, the number of adolescent girls
coming to the attention of the juvenile courts
for sex offenses has increased significantly
(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). More specifically,
between 1997 and 2002, juvenile cases
involving female-perpetrated forcible rapes,
other violent sex offenses, and non-violent sex
offenses rose by 6%, 62%, and 42%,
respectively.
Data from sex offender treatment programs
across the country indicate that roughly one
third of programs provide services to female
sex offenders; well over 300 programs served
adult women, and more than 250 provided
treatment to adolescent girls (McGrath,
Cumming, & Burchard, 2003). While nearly
3,800 adult women and 2,700 adolescent girls
were served by those programs, these figures
represent less than ten percent of the total
number of clients served across all sex
offender programs. Nonetheless, this was
nearly twice the proportion of female sex
offenders that had been served in programs
two years earlier.
Juvenile Court Cases:
Sex Offenses by Perpetrator Gender
100%
Victimization Reports
80%
60%
Information about the low proportion of sex
offenses committed by females is fairly
consistent, at least when relying on data about
female sex offenders known to the criminal
and juvenile justice systems. Yet when
various individuals are surveyed about their
sexual victimization experiences, the incidence
of female-perpetrated sex crimes is often
higher and much more variable. For example,
reviews of multiple sources of victimization
data reveal that up to 63% of female victims
and as many as 27% of male victims report
having been sexually victimized by a female
(see, e.g., Schwartz & Cellini, 1995). In
addition, although the National Criminal
Victimization Survey – which captures
information from victims who may or may not
have reported the incident to the authorities –
indicates that females represent up to 6% of
rapes or sexual assaults by an individual
acting alone, it also implicates female
offenders in up to 40% of sex crimes involving
multiple offenders (BJS, 2006).
40%
20%
0%
Forcible rape
Other violent sex
offense
male
Non-violent sex
offense
female
(Adapted from Snyder & Sickmund, 2006)
Census and Caseload Data from
Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Agencies
In contrast to the approximately 140,000 men
incarcerated in prisons nationwide for sex
crimes, only 1,500 women are estimated to be
imprisoned for these offenses (Harrison &
Beck, 2005). They represent only 1% of all
adults incarcerated for sex offenses, and 2% of
all females in prison. Similarly, adolescent
girls represent only 2% of the roughly 7,500
sex offenders placed in juvenile residential
facilities nationwide, and they account for only
1% of all girls in residential placements
(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Factors Affecting the
(Under) Recognition of
Female-Perpetrated Sex
Offenses
Within the community, women represent 23%
of adult probationers and 12% of parolees
(Glaze & Bonczar, 2006). Because sex
offenders represent only a fraction of all adults
under supervision, the number of adult female
sex offenders under probation or parole
supervision is extremely small.
Collectively, the available information suggests
that adult women and adolescent girls
represent the minority of sex offenders.
However, a lingering question remains as to
2
whether these data truly reflect a relative
under-occurrence or if female sex offending is
simply under-recognized, with external factors
contributing to what seems to be an underrepresentation of females as sex offenders. It
appears that both may be true.
Professional Biases
Beliefs and perceptions at the macro level can,
in turn, influence the perspectives and
responses at a more micro level. Indeed,
there is evidence that broader cultural biases
play a role in the willingness of various criminal
justice and treatment professionals to
acknowledge female sex offending (see, e.g.,
Becker et al., 2001; Denov, 2004). For
example, researchers found that training for
law enforcement officers tends to be geared
exclusively around men as sex offenders and
women as victims. In combination with the sex
role stereotypes that exist within society, this
impacts the responses of law enforcement to
female-perpetrated sex crimes (Denov, 2004).
Specifically, the research revealed that police
officers reacted with disbelief to allegations
involving women, minimized the seriousness of
the reports, viewed the female suspects as
less dangerous and harmful, and were prone
toward labeling the cases as “unfounded”
(Denov, 2004).
In other words, much like crime in general, for
which males comprise the vast majority of all
arrests (FBI, 2006), there is no reason to
believe that females would necessarily be
res…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment