AI Article Synopsis
- Persons convicted of sexual offenses often have distorted beliefs that downplay the severity of their actions, but little is known about these rationalizations, especially among those who were sexually abused as children.
- The study aimed to qualitatively examine the rationalizations of 80 PCSOs (40 with childhood sexual abuse and 40 without), analyzing how these rationalizations may differ based on their experiences.
- The findings can lead to improved treatment strategies that address the unique motivations and backgrounds of PCSOs, ultimately aiding in rehabilitation and community safety efforts.
Article Abstract
Persons convicted of sexual offenses (PCSOs) hold distorted attitudes and beliefs, or rationalizations that minimize the severity of their offending. Despite this, knowledge of rationalizations held by PCSOs remains limited, especially for offenders who report being sexually abused as children. The purpose of the study was to qualitatively assess post-conviction rationalizations of PCSOs who reported childhood sexual abuse ( = 40) and those who reported no sexual abuse ( = 40) focusing on account variations-a framework proposed by Scott & Lyman. Offenders were interviewed and assessed for risk and community notification purposes in 2014 in a southern state. The manner in which PCSOs use rationalizations to avert responsibility for their offenses provides insight into their motivations for offending, and therefore, can inform treatment initiatives for PCSOs with and without histories of sexual victimization. Results can help inform differentiated treatment for those with histories of sexual abuse and those without.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221102789 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!