Several policies have been implemented to manage the risk of sex offenders in the community. These policies, however, tend to target older repeat sex offenders. This is the first study to examine and describe the offending trajectories of adult sex offenders from early adolescence to adulthood. The current study is based on a quasipopulation of convicted adult sex offenders in the province of Quebec, Canada. The number of convictions was examined from the period of adolescence up to age 35 using a group-based modeling technique. The study uncovered four offending trajectories: (a) very low-rate group (56%); (b) late-bloomers (12%); (c) low-rate desistors (25%); and (d) highrate chronics (8%). These trajectories differed on several key criminal career dimensions such as age of onset, frequency, diversity, and specialization in different offence types. The study findings challenge the conception of sex offenders' risk as high, stable, and linear. The implications for the risk assessment and the risk prediction of recidivism are discussed.

The aggravating and mitigating circumstances that contribute to increased, or decreased, sentence severity for sex offenders have largely been unexplored. Although previous studies have evaluated offending groups who have targeted adult-only, or children-only victims, the current study compares the sentencing outcomes of both offending groups. Using a sample of 519 federally sentenced sex offenders in the province of Quebec the current study explores the extent to which the Canadian criminal justice system penalizes offender- and offense-based characteristics. The results indicate that offense-based characteristics increased sentence severity for offenders who victimized adults and offender-based characteristics influenced sentence severity for offenders who victimized children. Findings are discussed within the context of previous studies to empirically explore sex offender sentencing and compare differences that aggravating and mitigating circumstances have on sentence outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

The punishment of terrorist offenders remains a relatively unexplored topic. Research is especially needed in the United Kingdom in light of the continued criminalization of terrorismspecific offences and the July 2005 bombings. Using a sample of terrorist offenders convicted in the United Kingdom (n = 156), the current study examines the impact of legislative and incidentbased contextual factors on sentencing outcomes. The findings indicate that changing contextual environments significantly affect sentencing outcomes, and that the effects of being adjudicated at different time points have unique implications for offenders motivated by an Islamic extremist ideology. Further, evidence of a temporal effect is uncovered, and the potential of a lingering 9/11 effect is addressed.