Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Modus Operandi of Sex Offenders

  • Eric Beauregard
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_100

Overview

Traditionally, the research on sex offenders has focused on the etiology of these crimes in order to inform treatment modalities as well as risk prediction practices. Needless to say that the classification of the individuals committing sexual crimes has attracted a lot of attention, first from clinicians and then from academics. The first typologies have mainly focused on the offender and his characteristics. But subsequent typologies have started to take into account the specific characteristics of the offense as well. These behavioral features were easier to observe, thus facilitating the classification of offenders based on these features. However, when one carefully examines the behavior of sex offenders, several problems emerge with the existing typologies. To begin with, typologies of the offending process focus on the aggressor, ignoring the entire criminal event – that is, the offender, the victim, and the context (Meier et al. 2001). Second, these typologies...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Anderson AL, Meier RF (2004) Interactions and the criminal event perspective. J Contemp Crim Justice 20:416–440Google Scholar
  2. Balemba S, Beauregard E (2012) Reactions to resistance: the role of contextual factors in sex offending. Violence Vict 27:148–165Google Scholar
  3. Balemba S, Beauregard E, Mieczkowski T (2012) To resist or not to resist? The effect of context and crime characteristics on sex offenders’ reaction to victim resistance. Crime Delinq 58:588–611, OnlineFirstGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauregard E, Bouchard M (2010) Cleaning up your act: forensic awareness as a detection avoidance strategy. J Crim Justice 38:1160–1166Google Scholar
  5. Beauregard E, Busina I (2013) Journey “during” crime: Predicting criminal mobility patterns in rape. J Interpers Violence. OnlineFirst.Google Scholar
  6. Beauregard E, Field J (2008) Body disposal patterns of sexual murders: implications for offender profiling. J Police Crim Psychol 23:81–89Google Scholar
  7. Beauregard E, Leclerc B (2007) An application of the rational choice approach to the offending process of sex offenders: a closer look at the decision-making. Sex Abuse 19:115–133Google Scholar
  8. Beauregard E, Proulx J, Rossmo K, Leclerc B, Allaire J-F (2007) Script analysis of the hunting process of serial sex offenders. Crim Justice Behav 34:1069–1084Google Scholar
  9. Beauregard E, Rebocho MF, Rossmo K (2010) Target selection patterns in rape. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 7:137–152Google Scholar
  10. Beaver KM (2010) The promises and pitfalls of forensic evidence in unsolved crimes. Criminol Public Policy 9:405–410Google Scholar
  11. Block R (1981) Victim-offender dynamics in violent crime. J Crim Law Criminol 72(2):743–761Google Scholar
  12. Canter D, Gregory A (1994) Identifying the residential location of rapists. J Forensic Sci Soc 34:169–175Google Scholar
  13. Cornish DB (1993) Theories of action in criminology: learning theory and rational choice approaches. In: Clarke RV, Felson M (eds) Routine activity and rational choice. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 351–382Google Scholar
  14. Cornish DB, Clarke RV et al (1986) Introduction. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies A (1992) Rapists’ behaviour: a three aspect model as a basis for analysis and the identification of serial crime. Forensic Sci Int 55:173–194Google Scholar
  16. Davies A, Dale A (1995) Locating the stranger rapist, Special interest series: paper 3. Police Research Group, Home Office Police Department, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Durnal EW (2010) Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV). Forensic Sci Int 199:1–5Google Scholar
  18. Felson RB, Messner SF (1996) To kill or not to kill? Lethal outcomes in injurious attacks. Criminology 34:519–545Google Scholar
  19. Goffman E (1967) Interaction ritual. Pantheon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewitt A, Beauregard E, Davies G (2012) “Catch and release”: predicting encounter and victim release location choice in serial rape. Polic Int J Police Strateg Manag 35:835–856, OnlineFirstGoogle Scholar
  21. Horvath F, Meesig R (1996) The criminal investigation process and the role of forensic evidence: a review of empirical findings. J Forensic Sci 41:963–969Google Scholar
  22. Johnson E, Payne J (1986) The decision to commit a crime: an information processing analysis. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 170–185Google Scholar
  23. Lebeau JL (1987) The journey to rape: geographic distance and the rapist’s method of approaching the victim. J Police Sci Adm 15:129–136Google Scholar
  24. Leclerc B, Tremblay P (2007) Strategic behavior in adolescent sexual offenses against children: linking modus operandi to sexual behaviors. Sex Abuse 19:23–41Google Scholar
  25. Leclerc B, Wortley R, Smallbone S (2010) Investigating mobility patterns for repetitive sexual contact in adult child sex offending. J Crim Justice 38:648–656Google Scholar
  26. Luckenbill DF (1977) Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Soc Probl 25(2):176–186Google Scholar
  27. Meier RF, Kennedy LW, Sacco VF (2001) Crime and the criminal events perspective. In: Meier RF, Kennedy LW, Sacco VF (eds) The process and structure of crime: criminal events and crime analysis. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  28. Mieczkowski T, Beauregard E (2010) Lethal outcome in sexual assault events: a conjunctive analysis. Justice Q 27:332–361Google Scholar
  29. Miethe TD, Hart T, Regoeczi W (2008) The conjunctive analysis of case configurations: an exploratory method for discrete multivariate analysis of crime data. J Quant Criminol 24:227–241Google Scholar
  30. Podlas K (2006) The “CSI effect” and other forensic fictions. Loyola Los Angel Entertain Law Rev 27:87–125Google Scholar
  31. Rossmo DK (2000) Geographic profiling. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  32. Sacco VF, Kennedy LW (2002) The criminal event: perspectives in space and time, 2nd edn. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott HS, Beaman R (2004) Demographic and situational factors affecting injury, resistance, completion, and charges brought in sexual assault cases: what is best for arrest? Violence Vict 19(4):479–494Google Scholar
  34. Stevens DJ (2008) Forensic science, wrongful convictions, and American prosecutor discretion. Howard J 47:31–51Google Scholar
  35. Strom KJ, Hickman MJ (2010) Unanalyzed evidence in law-enforcement agencies: a national examination of forensic processing in police departments. Criminol Public Policy 9:381–404Google Scholar
  36. Sutherland EH (1947) Principles of criminology. J. B. Lippincott, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Tark J, Kleck G (2004) Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crime. Criminology 42:861–909Google Scholar
  38. Tedeschi JT, Felson RB (1994) Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458Google Scholar
  40. Ullman SE (2007) A 10-year update of “review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance”. Crim Justice Behav 34(3):411–429Google Scholar
  41. Ward T, Louden K, Hudson SM, Marshall WL (1995) A descriptive model of the offense chain for child molesters. J Interpers Violence 10(4):452–472Google Scholar
  42. Warren J, Reboussin R, Hazelwood RR, Cummings A, Gibbs N, Trumbetta S (1998) Crime scene and distance correlates of serial rape. J Quant Criminol 14:35–59Google Scholar
  43. Weaver GS, Wittekind JE, Huff-Corzine L, Corzine J, Petee TA, Jarvis JP (2004) Violent encounters: A criminal event analysis of lethal and nonlethal outcomes. J Contemp Crim Just 20(4):348–368Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CriminologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada