Moral judgment of young sex offenders with and without intellectual disabilities

Uncovering the moral heuristics of altruism: A philosophical scale

Extant research suggests that individuals employ traditional moral heuristics to support their observed altruistic behavior; yet findings have largely been limited to inductive extrapolation and rely on relatively few traditional frames in so doing, namely, deontology in organizational behavior and virtue theory in law and economics. Given that these and competing moral frames such as utilitarianism can manifest as identical behavior, we develop a moral framing instrument-the Philosophical Moral-Framing Measure (PMFM)-to expand and distinguish traditional frames associated and disassociated with observed altruistic behavior. The validation of our instrument based on 1015 subjects in 3 separate real stakes scenarios indicates that heuristic forms of deontology, virtue-theory, and utilitarianism are strongly related to such behavior, and that egoism is an inhibitor. It also suggests that deontic and virtue-theoretical frames may be commonly perceived as intertwined and opens the door for new research on self-abnegation, namely, a perceived moral obligation toward suffering and self-denial. These findings hold the potential to inform ongoing conversations regarding organizational citizenship and moral crowding out, namely, how financial incentives can undermine altruistic behavior.

Men with intellectual disabilities with a history of sexual offending: empathy for victims of sexual and non-sexual crimes

BACKGROUND

The objectives were (a) to compare the general empathy abilities of men with intellectual disabilities (IDs) who had a history of sexual offending to men with IDs who had no known history of illegal behaviour; and (b) to determine whether men with IDs who had a history of sexual offending had different levels of specific victim empathy towards their own victim, in comparison with an unknown victim of sexual crime, and a victim of non-sexual crime, and make comparisons with non-offenders.

METHODS

Men with mild IDs (n=35) were asked to complete a measure of general empathy and a measure of specific victim empathy. All participants completed the victim empathy measure in relation to a hypothetical victim of a sexual offence, and a non-sexual crime, while additionally, men with a history of sexual offending were asked to complete this measure in relation to their own most recent victim.

RESULTS

Men with a history of sexual offending had significantly lower general empathy, and specific victim empathy towards an unknown sexual offence victim, than men with no known history of illegal behaviour. Men with a history of sexual offending had significantly lower victim empathy for their own victim than for an unknown sexual offence victim. Victim empathy towards an unknown victim of a non-sexual crime did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that it is important include interventions within treatment programmes that attempt to improve empathy and perspective-taking.

Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disabilities in the importance of static and dynamic risk factors for recidivism

BACKGROUND

Juvenile offenders with intellectual disability (ID) have been largely ignored in the literature of risk assessment, while they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ID is a risk factor for juvenile delinquency and recidivism. The aim of this study was to examine whether there are differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors for recidivism. Both the impact of static and dynamic risk factors were examined. Static risk factors were examined in the criminal history domain and dynamic risk factors were examined in the domains of family, school, use of free time, friends, alcohol/drugs, attitude, aggression and skills. This knowledge is important for both assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders with ID.

METHOD

The sample consisted of adolescents who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. The group of ID juvenile offenders (n = 102) consisted of juvenile offenders with a formal diagnosis of ID, which means a full scale IQ of less than 70, coupled with significant deficits in adaptive behaviour, with childhood onset. The juveniles of this group are special education students or they have a formal diagnosis of a special education need. The group without ID (n = 526), was a random sample of all juvenile offenders without a formal diagnosis of ID.

RESULTS

No differences were found between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors on recidivism in most domains. However, in the skills domain, the relations between all risk factors and recidivism were significantly stronger in adolescents without ID than in adolescents with ID. Although not or only borderline statistically significant, these risk factors were all negatively related to recidivism in adolescents with ID, whereas these risk factors were significantly and positively related to recidivism in adolescents without ID.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors for recidivism, suggesting that the same assessment methods can be used for juvenile offenders with and without ID. There were, however, differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the skills domain. What these differences mean for the treatment of juvenile offenders is yet to be determined. For now it is important to be aware of potential negative (side) effects on recidivism when skills training is offered to juvenile offenders with ID.

Comparison of intellectually disabled offenders with a combined history of sexual offenses and other offenses versus intellectually disabled offenders without a history of sexual offenses on dynamic client and environmental factors

Sexually offensive behavior is prevalent among individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) and many sex offenders also commit other offenses such as vandalism or assault. We examined the differences between sex offenders with ID and a history of combined sex and other types of offenses (mixed sex offenders) versus offenders with no history of sexual offenses (non-sex offenders). Dynamic client and environmental factors were measured using the Adult Behaviour Checklist (ABCL) and the Risk Inventarization Scale on Sexually Offensive Behavior of Clients with intellectual disabilities (RISC-V). Item, subscale, and total scores were then compared for the two groups. Most of the comparisons did not reveal significant differences between the two groups. The findings call for a general theory of offending behavior to explain the absence of differences between the mixed sex offenders and non-sex offenders with ID.