Male perpetrators of child sexual abuse: a comparison between individuals serving custodial and non-custodial sentences

https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231226184 Crime & Delinquency 1 –22 © The Author(s) 2024 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/00111287231226184 journals.sagepub.com/home/cad Article Male Perpetrators of Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparison Between Individuals Serving Custodial and NonCustodial Sentences Marta Sousa1, Olga Cunha2, Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves1, and Andreia de Castro Rodrigues3 Abstract The literature considers individuals who sexually offended children (ISOCs) as a heterogeneous group. In Portugal, ISOCs may be subject to two types of sentences: custodial and non-custodial measures. In the present study, we performed a comparative analysis between 66 male individuals sentenced to prison and 47 male individuals sentenced to community measures for sexual crimes against children, using a set of sociodemographic, penal, and psychological measures. The results showed that the incarcerated ISOCs’ had more static risk factors for sexual and nonsexual recidivism. Only two variables increased the probability of belonging to the incarceration group: having other convictions beyond child sexual abuse and having committed serious sexual offenses. Based on these results, implications for ISOCs’ treatment and sentencing are discussed. 1Psychology Research Center (CIPSI), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal 2HEI-Lab: Digital Human – Environment Interaction Labs, Lusófona University, Portugal 3William James Center for Research & ISPA, Lisbon, Portugal Corresponding Author: Marta Sousa, Psychology Research Center (CIPSI), School of Psychology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, Braga 4710-057, Portugal. Email: [email protected] 1226184CADXXX10.1177/00111287231226184Crime & DelinquencySousa et al. research-article2024 2 Crime & Delinquency 00(0) Keywords individuals who sexually offended children, perpetrators in prison, perpetrators in the community, treatment Child sexual abuse is a complex phenomenon that could have devastating long-term, negative outcomes on survivors (Gauthier-Duchesne et al., 2022; Hailes et al., 2019; Kays Ebrahim et al., 2022). Additionally, child sexual offending gives rise to fear in the community, which in part could be influenced by misconceptions about individuals who sexually offended children (ISOCs; King, 2019). A common misconception is the belief that all ISOCs have a high probability of recidivating and that psychological treatment is ineffective (Church et al., 2011; Takahashi, 2023). On this point, the evaluation of treatment effectiveness is challenging due to various factors, including the diversity among individuals who have committed sex crimes and shortcomings in the study design for assigning suitable treatment and control groups (Losel & Schmucker, 2017). So, the literature has presented disparate results: reviews have shown that the treatment is effective, but the effects don’t seem as positive if considering only studies with rigorous designs (e.g., randomized control trials; cf. Walton & Chou, 2015). However, recent research suggests that psychologically specific treatment for sexual offending has some effect in reducing recidivism (Gannon et al., 2019; Holper et al., 2023; Tyler et al., 2021). Despite this recent evidence, the persistence of these misconceptions has profound consequences, particularly concerning judicial, social, political, and clinical decision-making (Harper et al., 2017), leading to the adoption of more punitive measures for ISOCs (Socia et al., 2021). Punitive measures are more focused on controlling and monitoring ISOCs rather than on rehabilitation (Church et al., 2011), even though literature shows a poor relationship between these measures and a decrease in sexual recidivism (Bouffard & Askew, 2019; Grossi, 2017; Lussier et al., 2024). In contrast, rehabilitative measures such as psychological intervention with child sexual abuse perpetrators have been shown positive effects on the risk reduction of recidivism (e.g., Gannon et al., 2019). Thus, more rehabilitative measures need to be developed and focused on psychological intervention, which implies the implementation of penalties more adjusted to the perpetrator’s needs and characteristics. To better guide appropriate supervision and the treatment planning of ISOCs, advances in our knowledge about the factors associated with sexual recidivism are of extreme importance (Arbanas et al., 2022; Eher et al., 2019; Sousa et al. 3 Seto, 2019). Studies noted that risk factors can be assigned to some dimensions: atypical sexuality, antisociality, and interpersonal deficits (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Smid & Wever, 2019). Atypical sexuality concerns the existence of paraphilias (Seto, 2019), being pedophilic disorder the most frequent among ISOCs (Arbanas et al., 2022). Pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children (American Psychiatric Association, 2015), and although the relationship between pedophilic disorder and child sexual offending is not one-to-one (Seto, 2019)—that is, not all ISOCs have a pedophilic disorder, nor all individuals with a pedophilic disorder committed sexual crimes—it is an important risk factor for committing a sexual crime against children (Jordan et al., 2011; Schippers et al., 2023). Antisociality includes antisocial personality traits, offense-supportive beliefs, lifestyle instability, and a lack of prosocial, structured activities (e.g., being unemployed; Seto, 2019). Individuals with a higher offense-supportive belief concerning oneself, others, the world, and sexuality are at higher risk of recidivism (Szumski et al., 2018). Moreover, studies stated that ISOCs are unable to recognize that their victims are distressed, which under the influence of a substance could lead to deviant behaviors (Coetzee, 2020). Lastly, interpersonal deficits were composed of problems in social skills and difficulties in maintaining stable and positive relationships (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). The literature has shown that ISOCs report feelings of loneliness and social isolation, perceiving their social networks as deficient in some way and more fearful of intimacy than individuals who sexually offended adults (Wielinga et al., 2021). As a result of such deficits, perpetrators attempt to meet the need for intimacy in deviant ways (Moulden et al., 2020). Furthermore, although a few studies have studied the relationship between mental health and child offending, several noted a high prevalence of mental health issues/problems in ISOCs (Arbanas et al., 2022; Eher et al., 2019), showing increased social anxiety (Kanters et al., 2016; Nunes et al., 2012). Given that individuals experiencing a mental disorder often exhibit heightened levels of emotion dysregulation, impulsivity, and increased social isolation—factors closely linked to recidivism—it is crucial to address these aspects in both assessments and treatment approaches (e.g., Biedermann et al., 2023). The type of sentence applied to ISOCs in Portugal is either prison custody or alternative measures to prison, such as community service or fines. The prison sentence may be suspended and changed to a measure in the community, considering the personality characteristics of the perpetrator, the conditions of the perpetrator’s life, the conduct before and after the crime, and its 4 Crime & Delinquency 00(0) circumstances (Portuguese Penal Code, 2023). However, sentences cannot be suspended if the prison sentence applied exceeds 5 years. According to the Justice Statistics, 280 convictions for child sexual abuse were reported during 2021, of which 63% were suspended prison sentences, 31% were prison sentences, and 6% were other sentences (e.g., community service; General Directorate of Justice Policy, 2023). In cases of suspended sentences, perpetrators cannot commit any criminal act during the probation period. One or more conduct rules, such as restriction orders (e.g., not exercising a profession that involves contact with children), and mandatory treatment might be added to this general imposition. In addition, the public prosecutor (with judicial agreement) can impose a provisional suspension of the penal process for a specific time, during which the same injunctions and conduct rules are applied (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2018). From a legal perspective, a judge’s decision in terms of type and length of sentence is frequently influenced by the severity of the criminal act, previous convictions, characteristics of the victim and extralegal factors (e.g., characteristics and beliefs of the judge, emotional manifestations by the victims; Amirault & Beauregard, 2014; Castro Rodrigues et al., 2017, 2023; HilinskiRosick et al., 2014; Pereira et al., 2022). As such, more serious offenses, more extensive criminal backgrounds, and more use of violence during the commission of the offense predicted the incarceration of perpetrators of sex crimes (Amirault & Beauregard, 2014; Hilinski-Rosick et al., 2014). However, in addition to legal reasons, it is important to include psychological criteria (e.g., deviant sexual interest, cognitive distortions about victims of sexual abuse; among others) when evaluating the appropriateness of a prison sentence or an alternative measure (Brankley et al., 2021; Cunha & Gonçalves, 2018). Those characteristics are central to assessing the risk of recidivism and the conditions of the use of imprisonment as a “last resort” solution (Castro Rodrigues et al., 2019). Prison is a source of insecurity for ISOCs. They are subject to different types of threats from other inmates and staff, which influences their ability and willingness to attend intervention programs, undermining the rehabilitative component of the sentence (van den Berg et al., 2018; Wuyts et al., 2023). It is imperative to understand who the perpetrators sentenced to a prison sentence are to understand whether these decisions are based on what is provided by law, the negative effects of imprisonment, and the rehabilitative aim of sentences. In addition, this knowledge will help in the development of specific programs taking into account the context in which they are inserted. The current study aims to identify the characteristics of ISOCs sentenced to prison and alternative measures and acknowledge the predictors of each type. Sousa et al. 5 Method Participants Data collection took place in six Portuguese prisons, four probation agencies, and one service for therapeutic intervention for non-custodial sanctions. The participants of the study are 113 ISOCs: 66 (58.4%) in prisons, and 47 (41.6%) in the community, selected according to a non-random convenience sampling process. Inclusion criteria were (a) being male; (b) being older than 16 years old at the time of the offense; (c) having perpetrated sexual violence against children, and (d) having sufficient reading and writing skills to answer the instruments. The participant’s age averaged 37.21 years (SD = 14.03). At the moment of the offense, nearly half of the participants were married (n = 62; 56.4%) and employed (n = 58, 52.7%). Concerning education level, the percentages of perpetrators with the fourth, sixth, and ninth grade are very similar (29.1%, 26.4%, and 21.8%, respectively). More than one-third of the participants had previous convictions for crimes other than child sexual crimes (n = 40; 36.4%), with only a residual number of individuals with previous convictions for child sexual crimes (n = 5; 4.5%). At present, 24.5% (n = 27) are convicted of crimes other than sexual crime, specifically threats (n = 2), coercion (n = 10), physical integrity offense (n = 2), theft (n = 6), ill-treatment (n = 2), domestic violence (n = 4), possession of a prohibited weapon (n = 2), driving without a legal license (n = 5). disobedience (n = 1), drug trafficking (n = 2), fraud (n = 1), and murder (n = 1). More than half of the participants were serving a prison sentence (n = 73, 64.6%), 35 (31%) were serving a suspended prison sentence, and 5 (4.4%) had provisional suspension of the penal process. Procedure We requested and were granted authorization to conduct the current study from the General Direction of Reintegration and Prison Services, Ministry of Justice. After that, different institutions and services concerning the custody of ISOCs were contacted to start collecting data, assisting in the identification of men who fulfilled the previously mentioned inclusion criteria. Each possible participant was then contacted, and all procedures were explained. The men who agree with the voluntary, anonymity, and confidential nature of the study, the nonexistence of financial or any other form of compensation for participating, nor any form of damage derived from the participants signed the informed consent. All the participants completed the measurements, and 6 Crime & Delinquency 00(0) then the perpetrator’s institutional files were consulted, and relevant information about sociodemographic and penal variables was collected. Data was collected during 2021 and 2022. All ethical procedures established by the University of Minho Ethics Commission and Portuguese legislation were followed. Instruments Brief Symptoms Inventory (BSI). The BSI (Derogatis, 1993; Portuguese version: Canavarro, 2007) is a 53-item self-report instrument that measures psychopathological symptoms in general and psychological distress, on a five-point scale (0 = not at all to 4 = extremely). The inventory was composed of nine dimensions—somatization, obsession-compulsion, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism—and three global indexes of distress: the global severity index (GSI), the positive symptom distress index (PSI), and the positive symptom total (PST). The BSI revealed good psychometric properties in the original study with Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .71 and .85 for the nine scales. In this study, the internal consistency revealed accepted to good values, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .69 (anxiety and phobic anxiety) to .80 (depression). Only the psychoticism dimension did not show an acceptable value (.52). Sexual Violence Risk (SVR-20). The SVR-20 is a structured professional judgment assessment instrument intended for use with individuals who committed sexual offenses (Boer et al., 1997; Portuguese version: Gonçalves & Vieira, 2004). The instrument contains 20 items that are risk factors for recidivism in sexual crimes. Professionals use clinical judgment and file information to rate each of the 20 items as either “not present,” “possibly or partially present,” or “present.” This scoring method is recommended by the authors of the instrument (Boer et al., 1997), but for research purposes, it is permitted to fill out the SVR-20 assigning a numerical value (0, 1, 2) to each item (Ramírez et al., 2009). In this way, a global score for each respondent is provided, making it possible to carry out the statistical analyses. The instrument contains three sections: psychosocial adjustment with eleven items, sex offenses with seven items, and future plans with two items. The psychosocial adjustment refers to the individual’s psychosexual functioning (e.g., the possible presence of sexual deviance), the person’s psychological functioning (e.g., psychopathy and substance abuse), the risk factors which indicate if there has been a failure to adopt two important social roles (e.g., problems of forming or maintaining intimate or stable partner relationships), and items for Sousa et al. 7 the individual’s predisposition for antisocial behavior in general (e.g., antecedents of non-sexual violent behaviors). The sexual offenses include items related to previous sexual violence (e.g., frequency and typologies of sexual offenses) and risk factors linked to psychological aspects of sexual violence (e.g., extreme minimization or denial). Lastly, future plans dimension includes items to assess the perpetrator’s life plans (e.g., unrealistic future plans). In this study, two independent professionals with training in the use of SVR-20 coded the instrument based on procedural information and an interview was conducted for the purpose with each participant. Discrepancies between the researchers were discussed and resolved by consensus. Revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI-2). The SSPI-2 (Seto et al., 2017; Portuguese version: [Gouveia et al., 2023]) is a screening instrument to assess pedophilic sexual interest among contact or noncontact individuals who sexually offended child victims. The SSPI-2 was composed of five items: any boy victim younger than 15 years, more than one child victim younger than 15 years, any child victim below age 12 years, any extrafamilial child victim younger than 15 years, and whether the person admitted to or was charged with a child pornography offense. Each of these items is scored as present or absent, with the total possible score ranging from 0 to 5. The higher the score, the more likely someone will show greater sexual arousal to children than to adults, with a score of 4 or 5 suggesting pedophilic sexual interests (the person is more likely than not to show greater sexual arousal to children). SSPI-2 is highly correlated with measures of pedophilic interest based on the phallometric assessment index. Furthermore, convergent validity results showed that the SSPI-2 is predictive of sexual recidivism (AUC ranged from 0.59 to 0.62). Victim Empathy Distortion Scale (VES). The VES is a 28-item questionnaire (Beckett & Fisher, 1994; Portuguese version: [Sousa et al., 2024]) to assess the individual’s understanding of the impact of offending, on victims of sexual abuse. The Portuguese version of the scale has two factors. Factor one comprises 18 items and assesses positive misattributions of pleasure in sexual abuse, and factor 2 assesses negative attributions of child sexual abuse comprising 10 items. The items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). VES revealed good psychometric properties [Sousa et al., 2024]. In the current study, the internal consistency revealed good values, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .86 (negative attributions) to .92 (positive misattributions). Sociodemographic and Judicial-Legal Questionnaire. A questionnaire was developed to gather information on demographic (i.e., age and marital status at the 8 Crime & Delinquency 00(0) moment of the offense, educational level, and occupational status) and juridical-legal variables (i.e., previous convictions; previous convictions for sexual crimes; type of convictions at the moment; sentence length; and participation in specific or non-specific intervention programs). The information was collected from the individuals and their files. Data analysis Descriptive statistics (measures of central and dispersion tendency) were performed so that data related to the participants’ juridical, sociodemographic, and psychological characteristics could be described. All the analyses were conducted using the SPSS Version 28. Parametric and nonparametric tests were performed, and when the two tests produced similar conclusions, the results from parametric tests were reported (Fife-Schaw, 2000). To identify the variables that best predict imprisonment, a logistic regression analysis was performed. Results Sociodemographic Variables. Overall, the rates of married and single men were the highest among our sample—only a small portion of the sample reported being divorced or separated when the facts occurred. Both in prison and in the community, half of the participants of our sample are employed at the time of the offense. In relation to the level of education, among the imprisoned group, the rates of individuals with elementary school (33.3%) and sixth grade (30.3%) were similar, with only a small proportion of the sample (3%) having a university degree. Besides, the ninth grade (27.7%) and sixth grade (23.4%) are the options with more prevalence among individuals in the community. However, no significant associations were identified among marital status (χ2(2) = 1.442, p = .486), educational level (χ2(4) = 4.279, p = .370), and professional situation when the facts occurred (χ2(3) = 4.597, p = .204; see Table 1). In relation to the age of the participants at the moment of the incident, there were no significant differences between the two groups (t (83,504) = 1.04, p = .302; see Table 1). Penal variables. In relation to the type of convictions, in the imprisoned group, more than half of the participants (n = 43; 65.2%) had only convictions for child sexual abuse, while in the community only a small proportion of participants having other convictions beyond sexual abuse convictions. A chi-square test revealed that the association between these variables was significant 9 Table 1. Differences Between the Groups on Sociodemographic and Penal Characteristics. ISOCs in prison (n = 66) ISOCs in community (n = 47) χ2pCramer’s V n (%) n (%) Marital status (when facts occurred) Single 21 (31.8) 20 (42.6) 1.442 .486 .113 Married/cohabiting 39 (59.1) 24 (51.1) Divorced/separated 6 (9.1) 3 (6.4) Educational level 4th grade 22 (33.3) 10 (21.3) 4.279 .370 .195 6th grade 20 (30.3) 11 (23.4) 9th grade 12 (18.2) 13 (27.7) 12th grade 10 (15.2) 10 (21.3) More than 12th grades 2 (3.0) 3 (6.4) Professional situation (when facts occurred) Employed 37 (56.1) 24 (51.1) 4.597 .204 .204 Unemployed 22 (33.3) 14 (29.8) Retired 5 (7.6) 3 (6.4) Student 1 (1.5) 5 (10.6) Previous convictions (yes) 29 (43.9) 11 (23.4) 5.062 .024 .212 Previous convictions for child sexual abuse (yes) 3 (4.5) 2 (4.3) .448 .503 .106 Only convictions for child sexual abuse (yes) 43 (65.2) 43 (91.5) 10.472 .001 .304 Participation in a specific intervention program for sex crimes(yes) 6 (9.1) 33 (70.2) 54.529 <.011 .695 Participation in other intervention programs (yes) 3 (4.5) 7 (14.9) .908 .341 .090 M (SD)M (SD)T p 95% CI Age (when facts occurred) 36.11 (12.77) 39.02 (15.76) 1.039 .302 [−2.665; 8.497] Sentence length (months) 94.42 (48.07) 53.47 (33.10) −5.316 <.001 [−56.227; −25.688] 16 Crime & Delinquency 00(0) Conclusion In sum, the current study revealed that incarcerated and nonincarcerated ISOCs present some differences as well as some similarities. Incarcerated ISOCs had more previous convictions, more convictions beyond child sexual abuse at the moment, more psychopathology symptoms, and more risk factors associated with sexual offenses and future plans than nonincarcerated ISOCs. Moreover, only two static factors predict imprisonment. These results raise the discussion about the need to consider dynamic risk factors to have sentences more adjusted to the needs of each perpetrator and their recidivism risk. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was conducted at the Psychology Research Center (PSI/01662), School of Psychology, University of Minho. Marta Sousa was funded by a Doctoral research grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, grant number 2020.06634.BD. ORCID iD Marta Sousa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3258-9932 References American Psychiatric Association. (2015). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., pp. 683–706). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi. books.9780890425596 Amirault, J., & Beauregard, E. (2014). The impact of aggravating and mitigating factors on the sentence severity of sex offenders: An exploration and comparison of differences between offending groups. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412462234 Arbanas, G., Marinovic, P., & Buzina, N. (2022). Psychiatric and forensic characteristics of sex offenders with child and with adult victims. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(12), 1195–1212. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20944673 Beckett, R. C., & Fisher, D. (1994, November). Assessing victim empathy: A new measure [Conference session]. 13th Annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Francisco. Sousa et al. 17 Bedaso, A., Ayalew, M., Mekonnen, N., & Duko, B. (2020). Global estimates of the prevalence of depression among prisoners: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Depression Research and Treatment, 2020, 3695209. https://doi. org/10.1155/2020/3695209 Biedermann, L., Eher, R., Rettenberger, M., Gaunersdorfer, K., & Turner, D. (2023). Are mental disorders associated with recidivism in men convicted of sexual offenses? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 148(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ acps.13547 Bismpas, L., Athanasiadis, L., Papathanasiou, N., Papadopoulos, D., Konsta, A., & Diakogiannis, I. (2020). Psychopathology, psychosocial factors and sexuality of incarcerated sexual offenders in Greek prison. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 74, 102031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2020.102031 Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the sexual violence risk—20. Simon Fraser University. Bouffard, J. A., & Askew, L. Q. N. (2019). Time-series analyses of the impact of sex offender registration and notification law implementation and subsequent modifications on rates of sexual offenses. Crime and Delinquency, 65(11), 1483–1512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717722010 Brankley, A. E., Babchishin, K. M., & Hanson, R. K. (2021). STABLE-2007 demonstrates predictive and incremental validity in assessing risk-relevant propensities for sexual offending: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse, 33(1), 34–62. https://doi. org/10.1177/1079063219871572 Canavarro, M. C. (2007). Inventário de Sintomas Psicopatológicos: Uma Revisão crítica dos estudos realizados em Portugal [Brief Symptom Inventory: A critical revision of the studies conducted in Portugal]. In L. Almeida, M. Simões, C. Machado, & M. Gonçalves (Eds.), Avaliação psicológica. Instrumentos validados para a população portuguesa [Psychological assessment: Validated instruments for the portuguese population] (Vol. III, pp. 305–331). Quarteto Editora. Castro Rodrigues, A., Cunha, O. S., de Oliveira, J. Q., Gonçalves, R. A., & SacauFontenla, A. (2023). Words matter: Judges’ value judgments in sentence pronouncements remarks. Crime, Law and Social Change, 80, 455–477. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10611-023-10097-8 Castro Rodrigues, A., Sacau, A., de Oliveira, J. Q., & Gonçalves, R. A. (2019). Prison sentences: Last resort or the default sanction? Psychology, Crime and Law, 25(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511788 Castro Rodrigues, A., Sacau, A., & Rua, F. (2017). O estudo do sentenciar: A importância da análise do processo de decisão penal. Revista brasileira de ciências criminais, 138, 89–123. Church, W. T., Sun, F., & Li, X. (2011). Attitudes toward the treatment of sex offenders: A SEM analysis. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 1(1), 82–95. https://doi. org/10.1080/1936928x.2011.541213 Cochran, J. C., Toman, E. L., Shields, R. T., & Mears, D. P. (2021). A uniquely punitive turn? Sex offenders and the persistence of punitive sanctioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 58(1), 74–118. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022427820941172 18 Crime & Delinquency 00(0) Coetzee, L. (2020). Victim empathy in young sex offenders in the emergent adulthood developmental phase. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 26(2), 251–262. https://doi. org/10.1080/13552600.2019.1618931 Cunha, O., & Gonçalves, R. A. (2018). Male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A comparison between incarcerated and community offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11), 3260–3277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17741070 Derogatis, L. R. (1993). The Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, scoring and procedures manual (3rd ed.). National Computer Systems. Eher, R., Rettenberger, M., & Turner, D. (2019). The prevalence of mental disorders in incarcerated contact sexual offenders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 139(6), 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13024 Fazel, S., Burghart, M., Fanshawe, T., Gil, S. D., Monahan, J., & Yu, R. (2022). The predictive performance of criminal risk assessment tools used at sentencing: Systematic review of validation studies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 81, 101902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101902 Fife-Schaw, C. (2000). Levels of measurement. In G. M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, & C. Fife-Schaw (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 147–157). Sage. Gabrysch, C., Fritsch, R., Priebe, S., & Mundt, A. P. (2019). Mental disorders and mental health symptoms during imprisonment: A three-year follow-up study. PLoS One, 14(3), e0213711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213711 Gannon, T. A., Olver, M. E., Mallion, J. S., & James, M. (2019). Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clinical Psychology Review, 73, 101752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101752 Gauthier-Duchesne, A., Hébert, M., & Blais, M. (2022). Child sexual abuse, selfesteem, and delinquent behaviors during adolescence: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15–16), NP12725–NP12744. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211001466 General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2023). Justice statistics—Sexual abuse of minors. https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/pt-pt/Paginas/Abuso_sexual_ menores.aspx Gonçalves, R., & Vieira, S. (2004). A avaliação do risco de violência sexual [The assessment of sexual violence risk].Psicologia: Teoria, Investigação e Prática, 2, 65–80. http://hdl.handle.net/1822/4233 Gouveia, C., Sousa, M., Cunha, O., Castro-Rodrigues, A., Seto. M., & Gonçalves, R.A. (2023). Validation of the Revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI-2) for Portugal. Manuscript submitted for publication Goodley, G., Pearson, D., & Morris, P. (2022). Predictors of recidivism following release from custody: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime and Law, 28(7), 703– 729. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1962866 Grossi, L. M. (2017). Sexual offenders, violent offenders, and community reentry: Challenges and treatment considerations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.04.005 Sousa et al. 19 Hailes, H. P., Yu, R., Danese, A., & Fazel, S. (2019). Long-term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: An umbrella review. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(10), 830–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30286-X Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022006X.73.6.1154 Harper, C. A., Hogue, T. E., & Bartels, R. M. (2017). Attitudes towards sexual offenders: What do we know, and why are they important? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.011 Hilinski-Rosick, C. M., Freiburger, T. L., & Verheek, A. (2014). The effects of legal and extralegal variables on the sentences of sex offenders. Victims & Offenders, 9(3), 334–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.845637 Hofer, P. J. (2007). United States v. Booker as a natural experiment: Using empirical research to inform the federal sentencing policy debate. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00446.x Holper, L., Mokros, A., & Habermeyer, E. (2023). Moderators of sexual recidivism as indicator of treatment effectiveness in persons with sexual offense histories: An updated meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.1177/10790632231159071 Hornsveld, R. H. J., Kraaimaat, F. W., Nunes, K. L., & Palmer, E. (2019). Dynamic risk factors of violent and sexually violent offenders. In R. H. J. Hornsveld, F. W. Kraaimaat, L. A. C. L. Gijs, & E. J. Palmer (Eds.), Assessment and obligatory treatment of violent and sexually violent offenders: Integrating research and practice (pp. 39–50). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-030-27840-3 Jordan, K., Fromberger, P., Stolpmann, G., & Müller, J. L. (2011). The role of testosterone in sexuality and paraphilia-a neurobiological approach. Part II: Testosterone and paraphilia. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(11), 3008–3029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02393.x Kanters, T., Hornsveld, R. H., Nunes, K. L., Zwets, A. J., Buck, N. M., Muris, P., & van Marle, H. J. (2016). Aggression and social anxiety are associated with sexual offending against children. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15(3), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2016.1193073 Kays Ebrahim, B., Fouche, A., & Walker-Williams, H. (2022). Losses associated with childhood sexual abuse in women survivors: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 23(5), 1695–1707. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211013137 King, L. L. (2019). Perceptions about sexual offenses: Misconceptions, punitiveness, and public sentiment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(2), 254–273. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0887403416660150 Laajasalo, T., Ellonen, N., Korkman, J., Pakkanen, T., & Aaltonen, O. P. (2020). Low recidivism rates of child sex offenders in a Finnish 7-year follow-up. Nordic Journal of Criminology, 21(1), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/25789 83X.2020.1730069 20 Crime & Delinquency 00(0) Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2017). Treatment of sexual offenders: Concepts and empirical evaluations. In T. Sanders (Ed.), The Oxford handbook on sex offences and sex offenders (pp. 392-414). Oxford University Press. Lussier, P., McCuish, E., Chouinard Thivierge, S., & Frechette, J. (2024). A metaanalysis of trends in general, sexual, and violent recidivism among youth with histories of sex offending. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 25(1), 54–72. https:// doi.org/10.1177/15248380221137653 Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2016). Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 489–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevclinpsy-021815-092945 Moulden, H. M., Firestone, P., & Marshall, W. L. (2020). Social competence in men who sexually offend against children: Testing an integrated model. JSM Sexual Medicine, 4, 1050. Nunes, K. L., McPhail, I. V., & Babchishin, K. M. (2012). Social anxiety and sexual offending against children: A cumulative meta-analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18(3), 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.549243 O’Hear, M. (2020). Actuarial risk assessment at sentencing: Potential consequences for mass incarceration and legitimacy. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2460 Pereira, B., Cunha, O., Cruz, A. R., Gonçalves, R. A., & de Castro-Rodrigues, A. (2022). Child sexual abuse: How is the victim represented in portuguese sentences. Victims & Offenders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15564886.2022.2053255 Portuguese Penal Code. (2023). Código de Processo Penal Português, 2003.https:// www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0055&nid=10 9&tabela=leis&pagina=1&ficha=1&so_miolo=&nversao= Ramírez, M., Illescas, S., García, M., Forero, C., & Pueyo, A. (2009). Assessing risk of recidivism in sex offenders. Psychology in Spain, 13(1), 55–61. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-74690-1 Schippers, E. E., Smid, W. J., Hoogsteder, L. M., Planting, C. H. M., & de Vogel, V. (2023). Pedophilia is associated with lower sexual interest in adults: Metaanalyses and a systematic review with men who had sexually offended against children. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 69, 101813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2022.101813 Seto, M. C. (2019). The motivation-facilitation model of sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 31(1), 3–24. https://doi. org/10.1177/1079063217720919 Seto, M. C., Stephens, S., Lalumière, M. L., & Cantor, J. M. (2017). The revised screening scale for pedophilic interests (SSPI–2): Development and criterionrelated validation. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(7), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215612444 Smid, W. J., & Wever, E. C. (2019). Mixed emotions: An incentive motivational model of sexual deviance. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 31(7), 731–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218775972 Sousa et al. 21 Socia, K. M., Rydberg, J., & Dum, C. P. (2021). Punitive attitudes toward individuals convicted of sex offenses: A Vignette study. Justice Quarterly, 38(6), 1262– 1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1683218 Sousa, M., Andrade, J., Castro-Rodrigues, A., & Gonçalves, R. A. (2023). The effectiveness of psychological treatment in adult male convicted for sexual offenses against children: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 24(3), 1867– 1881. 10.1177/15248380221082080 Sousa, M., Cunha, O., Gonçalves, R.A., de Castro Rodrigues, A. (2024). The Portuguese version of Victim Empathy Scale: Adaptation and psychometric properties. Manuscript submitted for publication Szumski, F., Bartels, R. M., Beech, A. R., & Fisher, D. (2018). Distorted cognition related to male sexual offending: The multi-mechanism theory of cognitive distortions (MMT-CD). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39, 139–151. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.001 Takahashi, M. (2023). Impact of base rate information on estimated risk of recidivism of sex offenders in Japan. Psychology, Crime and Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2206656 Tyler, N., Gannon, T. A., & Olver, M. E. (2021). Does treatment for sexual offending work? Current Psychiatry Reports, 23(8), 51 van den Berg, C., Beijersbergen, K., Nieuwbeerta, P., & Dirkzwager, A. (2018). Sex offenders in prison: Are they socially isolated? Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 30(7), 828–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217700884 van der Put, C. E., Assink, M., & Gubbels, J. (2020). Differences in risk factors for violent, nonviolent, and sexual offending. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 20(4), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2020 .1735248 Van Ginneken, E. F. J. C., de Keijser, J. W., Roberts, J. V., & Ryberg, J. (2019). The use of risk assessment in sentencing. In J. W. Keijser de, J. V. Roberts, & J. Ryberg (eds.), Risk and sentencing: Ethical and empirical perspectives (pp. 9–32).Hart Publishing. Viljoen, J. L., Vargen, L. M., Cochrane, D. M., Jonnson, M. R., Goossens, I., & Monjazeb, S. (2021). Do structured risk assessments predict violent, any, and sexual offending better than unstructured judgment? An umbrella review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/ law0000299 Walton, J. S., & Chou, S. (2015). The effectiveness of psychological treatment for reducing recidivism in child molesters: A systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(4), 401–417. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838014537905 Wielinga, F., Margeotes, K., & Olver, M. E. (2021). Clinical and risk relevance of intimacy and loneliness in a treated sample of men who have offended sexually. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 27(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2 019.1698778 Wuyts, E., Boeck, M., De Dilliën, T., Merckx, L., Uzieblo, K., Koster, K., & De Gray, A. L. (2023). Separate units for incarcerated people who committed sexual 22 Crime & Delinquency 00(0) offenses: Luxury or necessity? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1111436. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1111436 Zatkin, J., Sitney, M., & Kaufman, K. (2022). The relationship between policy, media, and perceptions of sexual offenders between 2007 and 2017: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 23(3), 953–968. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838020985568 Zgoba, K. M., & Mitchell, M. M. (2023). The effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-02109480-z Author Biographies Marta Sousa is a researcher at Psychology Research Center (CIPSI), School of Psychology, University of Minho (Braga, Portugal). She is a psychologist with a Master’s Degree in Applied Psychology and is currently doing her Ph.D. research in the area of intervention with perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Olga Cunha, PhD in Psychology of Justice from the University of Minho, having carried out research in the area of intervention with perpetrators of violence in intimate relationships. Forensic Psychologist at the Legal and Forensic Office of Ave at the Justice Psychology Unit of the Psychology Service of the University of Minho. Assistant Professor at the Lusófona University of Porto. Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves is Associate Professor with tenure at the School of Psychology in the University of Minho (Braga, Portugal), where in 1997 he took his Ph.D. in Forensic and Legal Psychology. He also works as a forensic psychologist expert at the Counselling Unit of Forensic Psychology of the University of Minho. Andreia de Castro Rodrigues is an Assistant Professor at ISPA – University Institute and a Researcher at William James Center for Research (Lisbon, Portugal). She developed her post-doc research and her Ph.D. in Psychology of Justice, respectively in the area of users’ perceptions and effectiveness of penal sanctions and sentencing.