Psychiatry pp 425-434 | Cite as

Violent and Non-Violent Sex Offenders

  • Donald J. West

Abstract

Although this session is devoted to homicidal violence, and I am asked to speak about murderous sex offenders, I want first to emphasize that many sex offenders are non-violent and only very few are ever homicidal. In England, a survey of the Home Office Research Unit (Walmsley and White, 1979), based on an analysis of the offences of all persons convicted for indictable sex offences in a given year, came to the remarkable conclusion that 43 per cent of all the offenders had been involved with victims (or participants) who appeared to have been fully consenting to what took place. They were careful to exclude all victims under ten years of age, whose willingness or otherwise was difficult to establish, and all victims who appeared to have cooperated out of fear or mere obedience, but even so consensual activities comprised a substantial proportion of the offences dealt with by the courts. The explanation is that sex offences include, in addition to assaults in the true sense of the word, a high proportion of mere indecencies, that is sexual activities involving young persons under the legal age of consent, or sexual acts in public places, mostly homosexual behaviour in men’s lavatories.

Keywords

Assure Candy Nipple Hate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., Blanchard, E. G., and Djenderedjian, A., 1978, Differentiating sexual aggressiveness with penile measures, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 5: 315.Google Scholar
  2. Brownmiller, S., 1975, “Against Our Will,” Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Gebhard, P. H., Gagnon, J. H., Pomeroy, W. B., and Christenson, C. V., 1965, “Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types,” Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Gosselin, C., and Wilson, G., 1980, “Sexual Variations,” Faber, London.Google Scholar
  5. Leppmann, F., 1941, Essential differences between sex offenders, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 32: 366.Google Scholar
  6. Lucas, N., 1974, “The Sex Killers,” W. H. Allen, London.Google Scholar
  7. Malamuth, N. M., 1981, Rape proclivity, Journal of Social Issues, 37: 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nettler, G., 1982, “Killing One Another,” Anderson, Cincinatti.Google Scholar
  9. Olsen, J., 1974, “The Man with the Candy,” Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Rule, A., 1980, “The Stranger Beside Me,” W. W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Walmsley, R., and White, K.. 1979, “Sexual Offences, Consent and Sentencing,” H.M.S.O., London, Home Office Research Study 54.Google Scholar
  12. West, D. J., Roy. C., and Nichols, F., 1978, “Understanding Sexual Attacks,” Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
  13. Williams, E., 1967, “Beyond Belief: A Chronicle of Murder and its Detection,” Hamish Hamilton, London.Google Scholar
  14. Wright, R., and West, D. J., 1981, Rape - a comparison of ground offences and lone offences, Medicine Science and the Law, 21–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald J. West
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations