Japanese Sexual Offenders: A Descriptive Study

Abstract

Young adult male offenders in Japanese correctional institutions were questioned confidentially about their history of sexual abuse. The self-reported information showed that when the sexual abuse went undetected, the relationships between abuser and victim were closer, and more victims were reported to be under the influence of substances. At the same time, the nature of the sexual abuse was even more serious among self-reported-only (undetected) offenders in terms of direct sexual acts. In terms of unhealthy sexual preference and childhood sexual victimization, sexual abusers reported higher level of problems comparing to nonsexual abusers. Self-reported-only sexual abusers identified even more problems than officially identified sexual offenders. The results suggest that when we focus only on the characteristics shown by officially identified sexual offenders, we may overlook important risk and need factors that should be addressed in psychotherapy for preventing future reoffending.

Differences in Sexual Interest in Children Between Men Who Commit Undetected Versus Detected Sexual Offenses

“…These findings add to the literature on denial in sexual offending, as previous studies have primarily focused on categorizing different types of denial, examining the function of denial, and exploring the relationship between denial, recidivism, and treatability (e.g., Schneider & Wright, 2004; Yates, 2009). Given that most group differences observed in this study seemed more dependent on the degree of denial, our findings challenge those that suggest undetected men are particularly prolific in their offending (Asahina, 2010; Lisak & Miller, 2002).…”

“…We would hypothesize that undetected men would be less antisocial than those who are detected, as prosocial characteristics might enable them to evade detection and/or encourage them to disclose their offending during the assessment. Nonetheless, a previous study suggests that undetected men may have a more significant criminal history for non-sexual offenses (Asahina, 2010), which may suggest that they would have a greater degree of antisociality. It would also be worthwhile to compare men who are undetected and detected on other dynamic risk factors, such as sexual preoccupation and intimacy deficits (e.g., Mann et al, 2010), while accounting for the degree of denial in the detected group.…”

“…The generalizability of findings from detected to undetected men who have sexually offended has been the focus of a few studies (e.g., Kuhle et al, 2017; Neutze et al, 2011, 2012). Overall, those who were undetected were younger, had a greater number of victims, and committed more non-sexual offenses than those who were detected (Asahina, 2010; Lisak & Miller, 2002). Neutze and colleagues (2012) compared men who were undetected and detected for sexual offending, all of whom identified as having a sexual interest in children and self-referred for confidential assessment.…”

“…Victimization data from Canada and the United States suggest that over 80% of sexual offenses are not reported to police (Department of Justice, 2017; Perreault & Brennan, 2009). Data from men who admit to committing sexual offenses also suggest that many offenses are undetected by the criminal justice system (e.g., Abel et al, 1987; Asahina, 2010; Lisak & Miller, 2002). Despite research suggesting that many men who commit sexual offenses remain undetected, most research on sexual offending has been conducted on samples of detected individuals recruited in forensic clinics, correctional institutions, or while on probation or parole supervision.…”