Sexual Offenders - anyone any robust knowledge?

quote:Originally posted by Boop
On another forum someone is asserting that it's now accepted that sexual offenders progress - from flashing etc up to actual interference and that someone who flashes adult women will go on to attempt to sexually abuse children unless stopped.

This is bollocks, isn't it? Anyone got any evidence to back the above up, or to support my assertion that flashers are highly unlikely to be paedophiles?

id="quote">

Sounds like bollocks to me, but I don't have proof at my fingertips.

Can you put the onus on them to come up with a study supporting their "fact" ?

I'm not sure it is complete bollocks. I'm sure I've heard the idea that this sort of behaviour can give the offender "confidence" or the "taste" to go on to exhibit more "serious" forms of behaviour. I@m sure there'll be somebody here who works in the field of psychology who would be able to give you evidence. I used to work in Forensic Psychiatry but have lost touch with many of those contacts through the years.

(another one without the studies to hand and referring to training done waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day).

I thought the assertion should be made the other way round, iyswim. That serious sex offenders were likely to have started with smaller, less 'serious' offences and well, worked their way up. Does that make sense?

I would have said there are links as well.... not with all offenders but def with some - I would imagine more than not... hopefully some people with data will be around later.

I thought it was sort of the other way around, that it was accepted that someone who committed sexual offences was very likely to have come along the path of flashing, peeping etc - but not that there was a guarantee that the progression would happen. Also I don't think there is any link at all between abuse of adults and children - surely that is a case of sexual preference, abhorrent as that may sound?

Hello Boopster ?

My Mum works in family protection, and has done for 20 years, so through her I am pretty knowledgable but all off record as obviously shes speaking from direct experiance.

She has many many offenders on her books who have never gone any further than some of the minor yet deeply disturbing (IMO) behaviour you've mentioned. Usually offenders either:

Get bored of it, or their circumstances change so there is no longer a need for them to indulge in such behaviour-

carry on until caught, finally imprisoned and possibly still go back to it (all mior indescressions)

or progress to more serious crimes. This does happen, and it happens quite a lot. But as far as I am aware its not even a high majority, let alone everyone.

Its a hard thing to make concrete statements about, as firstly most people aren't caught or tracked so how can you know what they are up to? and secondly the research they do have is generally not in the public domain.
HTH x

Thanks - I can happily accept that those who've committed serious offences may have got away with lesser ones and that gave them confidence etc. I'm not comfortable with the assertion that anyone who flashes will automatically go on to the more serious crimes - I always thought it was only a very small minority.

Sounds like the question of "gateway" activity.

Do people who smoke dope end up on crack ?

Does the kid that shot a pigeon with his air gun turn into a psychopath ?

Do flashers graduate to rape / paediphilia ?

A few do, but most don't.

Google 'Escalation of offending' and there are various home office reports that come back - although most deal with non sexual offences.

quote:Originally posted by Boop
Thanks - I can happily accept that those who've committed serious offences may have got away with lesser ones and that gave them confidence etc. I'm not comfortable with the assertion that anyone who flashes will automatically go on to the more serious crimes - I always thought it was only a very small minority.

id="quote">

Appalling use of the word 'happily' - you know what I mean.

And, Hyacinth / Jess - you hadn't posted when I first replied - thanks. It seems like she's got a valid point, even if she's not making it in the most balanced way.