Title: Chapter 3: Sex Offender Typologies | Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking
Headings: Chapter 3: Sex Offender Typologies
Chapter 3: Sex Offender Typologies
by Dominique A. Simons
Findings
Introduction
Summary of Research Findings
Traditional Typologies
Child Sexual Abusers
Differences Between Child Sexual Abusers and Rapists
Pedophilic and Nonpedophilic Distinction
Types of Child Sexual Abusers
Victim Characteristic Distinction
Rapists
Rapists and Violent Offenders
Types of Rapists
Female Sexual Offenders
Internet Offenders
Limitations of Traditional Typologies: Crossover Offending
Recent Advances in the Development of Sexual Offense Patterns
Developmental Histories of Sexual Offenders
Child Sexual Abusers
Rapists
Crossover Offenders
Female Sexual Offenders
Attachment
Etiological Theory
Self-Regulation Model
Specialist vs. Generalist Model
Summary
Notes
References

Content: 1992). Most of these typologies imply that victimization (i.e., who is a potential victim) is linked to the specific type of sexual offender (e.g., rapists sexually assault adults/peers, child sexual abusers sexually assault children). Traditional typologies have been developed to provide a comprehensive understanding of deviant sexual behaviors required for treatment intervention and effective supervision. However, classifying sexual offenders has been shown to be problematic. Sexual offenders exhibit heterogeneous characteristics, yet they present with similar clinical problems or criminogenic needs (e.g., emotional regulation deficits, social difficulties, offense supportive beliefs, empathy deficits and deviant arousal); the degree to which these clinical issues are evident varies among individual offenders (Gannon, Terriere & Leader, 2012; Ward & Gannon, 2006). Indeed, this heterogeneity challenges effective risk management and treatment of offenders (Martinez-Catena, Redondo, Frerich & Beech, 2016). Overall, traditional typologies have demonstrated considerable problems, as indicated by inadequate definitions and inconsistent research findings. In addition, most of the typologies have failed to address treatment issues and to predict recidivism (Camilleri & Quincy, 2008;