Women Accused of Sex Offenses: A Gender-Based Comparison

Behavioral Sciences and the Law
Behav. Sci. Law 29: 728–740 (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.1007

Women Accused of Sex Offenses: A
Gender-Based Comparison
Sara G. West, M.D.†, Susan Hatters Friedman, M.D.*,† and
Ki Dan Kim‡

Sexual offenses committed by women are likely underestimated and under-reported.
This exploratory study compares and contrasts women accused of sexual offenses and
their male counterparts. Data were retrospectively compiled on all alleged female and
age-matched male sex offenders who were referred for psychiatric evaluation to a large
Midwestern city’s court psychiatric clinic over a six-year period. Data were abstracted
regarding their crimes, charges, demographics, social history, medical history, legal
history, violence history, substance use, sexual history, psychiatric history and their
victims. Like the men, women were most frequently referred for sexual predator clas-
siﬁcation evaluations. Ages ranged from 19 to 62 years, and the majority had children.
Most had prior arrests. One-third had a past history of psychiatric hospitalization, and
most were given a non-paraphilic psychiatric diagnosis. The majority of the women
reported past histories of sexual or physical victimization. While there were many sim-
ilarities between female and male sex offenders in this psychiatric sample, women more
frequently had victims of both genders. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Studies consistently demonstrate that less than 10% of sexual crimes are perpetrated
by women (FBI, 2006). There is concern, however, that the sex offenses committed
by women are under-reported, and thus underestimated. Societal views may account
for why female perpetrators are less likely to come to the attention of law enforce-
ment. Society has viewed an older woman seducing a teenage boy as a rite of passage
rather than a sexual offense with signiﬁcant and lasting consequences. Because
women are often the primary care providers of young children, they routinely have
more intimate contact with children during activities such as bathing and dressing.
Therefore, inappropriate contact may not be obvious to an observer. Finally, in gen-
eral, women are considered by society to be more loving, protective of children, and
less violent than men – seemingly incapable of sexually violating another.

TYPOLOGIES
Perhaps due to the misperception that women are not capable of committing sexual
offenses, there is a dearth of research on female perpetrators. In the last several years,

* Correspondence to: Susan Hatters Friedman, M.D., 24200 Chagrin Blvd., Beachwood Ohio 44122, U.S.A.
E-mail: susanhfmd@hotmail.com
†
Cuyahoga County Court Psychiatric Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
‡
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

This work was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, May
2011.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Women accused of sex offenses 729

however, a number of studies have emerged attempting to elucidate the characteristics
of these women and their crimes, and their potential to recidivate. Born of out this re-
search, a number of classification schemas have been proposed. The first well-known
typology was published by Matthews, Matthews, and Speltz (1989, 1991) and is based
on interviews with 16 incarcerated women. They described five categories of female
sexual offenders: the teacher-lover (the woman believes she is engaged in a consensual
romantic relationship in which she is educating her victim about sex); the predisposed
molester (the woman herself was abused as a child and often targets her own children);
the male-coerced type (the woman participates in sexual abuse initiated by her male
partner); the exploration-exploitation type (the woman is often young and offends in
the context of babysitting); and the psychologically disturbed type (the woman has a
major mental illness).
The second typology described in the literature (Vandiver & Kercher, 2004) was
based on an analysis of 471 women identified in the Texas Department of Public
Safety databases. They proposed six categories: heterosexual nurturers (31%, similar
to Matthews et al.’s teacher-lover category); non-criminal homosexual offenders
(24%, lack a criminal history and often have a male accomplice); female sexual preda-
tors (24%, often have prior offenses); young adult child exploiters (11%, target young
victims often related to the offender); homosexual criminals (5%, often have a criminal
history and may be driven by economic reasons, i.e. prostitution); and aggressive ho-
mosexual offenders (4%, motivated by a desire for female sexual contact). Sandler
and Freeman (2007) examined 334 registered female sex offenders in the state of
New York, with similar findings and categorizations.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDER

Vandiver (2006) described female sexual offenders as primarily Caucasian women who
often committed crimes in their 20s and 30s and had a personal history of victimization.
Although there was often a history of substance abuse, there was no clear association
with severe mental illness. In reference to the victims, Vandiver (2006) noted that they
were often minors and may have been relatives or acquaintances of the perpetrator but
that it was unclear which gender was more commonly targeted.
Lewis and Stanley (2000) described the role of mental illness when they analyzed 15
women charged with a sexual offense who were referred to a psychiatric facility in
South Carolina for forensic evaluation. They noted that seven of the 15 had mild men-
tal retardation or borderline intellectual function, five were depressed and three were
psychotic. The authors also noted that women did not frequently use drugs and alcohol
in the commission of the crimes. Regarding the disposition of these cases, 13 of the 15
women were found to be competent to stand trial, one was restored to competency and
another was not able to be restored to competency due to mental retardation. Finally,
one of the cohort was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).
Pflugradt and Allen (2010) examined the executive functioning of 35 incarcerated
female sex offenders, who they categorized using Sandler and Freeman’s typology.
They speculated that, “unlike some groups of male sex offenders, female sexual
offenses are not due to impulsivity/poor response inhibition, cognitive rigidity or atten-
tional validity. Rather, females sexual offending is planned, intentional and goal di-
rected” (p. 447). Additionally, Lawson (2008), describing 20 female sex offenders,

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 29: 728–740 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl

730 S. G. West et al.

concluded that they “idealized children, demonized men, distrusted other women and
expressed ambivalence about themselves” (p. 340). Their social situation was unstable,
and their interpersonal skills were limited. These women were “almost exclusively self-
referential,” reporting the crimes and their effects in terms of how they made the
women feel rather than focusing on their victim.
Women do not always commit sexual offenses alone. According to Vandiver (2006),
if they have a co-offender, it is often a man (72%) who is their significant other. This
relationship may be abusive; however, not all women with co-offenders are coerced into
participating in these crimes by their partners. Those who do offend with partners are
more likely to have more than one victim, to assault both males and females and to have
additional non-sexual offenses.

COMPARISON OF FEMALE AND MALE SEX OFFENDERS

Several studies compared women and men who sexually offend. One compared 75
men and 65 women who sexually assaulted children in their care (Allen, 1991). The
women were more likely to report histories of physical abuse and poor relationships
with their parents. Other studies have demonstrated that women are more likely to
have psychological problems but less likely to use drugs and alcohol in the commission
of the offenses (Faller, 1995; Johannson-Love & Fremouw, 2006). Oliver (2007)
noted that women were more likely to have a history of more severe sexual abuse, were
more likely to have attempted suicide and were more likely to have been diagnosed
with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than their male counterparts. Another
study indicated that, while women were more likely to have a history of sexual abuse
and suicide attempts than men, their demographic factors were similar (e.g., age, eth-
nicity, educational level) (Miccio-Fonseca, 2000). Yet another study (n = 315) noted
limited differences in male and female offenders. (Freeman & Sandler, 2008) In
sum, previous research (CSOM, 2007) suggests that female sex offenders may have
histories of childhood maltreatment, mental illness, personality disorders, substance
abuse, and relationship issues. Women tend to victimize children, know their victims,
have victims of the same gender, and are more likely to have a co-offender (CSOM,
2007).
Even the handling of the case may differ between male and females sex offenders.
Gender role stereotypes regarding sex offenders are common, especially as related to
teachers having sex with their students (West, Friedman, & Knoll, 2010). Hetherton
and Beardsall (1988) presented identical vignettes regarding sexual abuse perpetrated
by either a man or woman to social workers and police officers working in child protec-
tion. Both groups reported that investigation, prosecution and incarceration were less
justified when perpetrated by a woman.
Given that sexual offending stands in stark contrast with what society expects of
women, the lay person may assume that those who commit these crimes are mentally
ill. However, as described above, few studies have comprehensively examined the
characteristics of these offenders. Based on previous research, it was expected that
male and female sex offenders will have much in common. However, it was antici-
pated that women would have experienced higher rates of maltreatment in both child-
hood and adulthood, and lower rates of substance abuse. It was also anticipated that

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


there would be a more frequent presence of co-offenders, and a different population of
victims.

METHODS

In order to phenomenologically investigate the commonly occurring factors among
women who commit sex offenses, data were retrospectively compiled on alleged fe-
male and matched male sex offenders who were referred by the Common Pleas
Court to a large midwestern city’s court psychiatric clinic. Reports from the Court
Psychiatric Clinic of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (encompassing
the Cleveland, Ohio, metropolitan area) were reviewed, regarding defendants who
were alleged to have committed sex offenses and who were referred for forensic psy-
chiatric evaluations. Included were reports for all adult females who were referred to
the clinic for a forensic evaluation subsequent to any sexual offense over a six-year
period. The male comparison group was matched by age at the time and year of
the evaluation.
Data were abstracted for approximately 50 factors, encompassing 10 subgroups of
factors, regarding their demographics, forensic issues, legal and violence history, per-
sonal and family history, victimization history, medical history, substance use, sexual
history, psychiatric history, crimes and their victims (see Table 1). If the forensic
report did not mention the variable, the variable was coded as ‘unknown’. These
results were then analyzed for commonly occurring factors among women accused
of sex offenses, and compared with the counterpart males. Descriptive statistics were
utilized (means Æ standard deviations for continuous variables and percentages for
categorical variables). Because of the small sample size and the exploratory nature
of the study, statistical tests of significance were often not feasible. For variables on
which there were sufficient data, categorical distributions (including ‘unknown’ values)
were compared by using exact tests of marginal homogeneity in matched data. Wilcoxon
signed-rank tests were performed to test equality of matched pairs on continuous variables

Table 1. Factors coded in the study

• Demographic – age at time of crime, race, educational history, employment, marital status, parenthood status
• Forensic/legal – charges, reason for referral, outcome of evaluation, incarceration status, previous violent and
non-violent charges, incarceration history, gang affiliation, violence history as child and adult
• Personal and family history – primary caregiver, siblings, statements about childhood and disciplinary measures,
history of domestic violence perpetration, family psychiatric history
• Victimization history – history of emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, intimate partner victimization,
and rape
• Medical history – history of head trauma
• Substance use history – history of substance use, substance use around time of offense, history of treatment
• Sexual history – sexual orientation, age of first sexual experience, sexual partners, interest, utilization of materials/
services, sexual fantasies, sexual behaviors, participation in past offender treatment program, Abel Assessment for
Sexual Interest scores
• Psychiatric history – diagnoses, hospitalizations, past outpatient treatment, suicide attempts, psychiatric
medications, symptoms reported at time of offense
• Crime/victimology – number of victims and their age, description of crimes, grooming, threats, motivation,
discovery, denial of offense, presence of codefendants

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


with skewed distributions. Analyses were conducted in Stata SE 10 (Statacorp, College
Station TX, 2009).

RESULTS

Over six years in this major metropolitan area, 12 alleged female sex offenders were
evaluated in the Court Psychiatric Clinic, and 12 counterpart alleged male sex offen-
ders were selected by matching age and date at evaluation.

Demographic Data

The women’s mean (Æ SD) age at the time of the crime was 34.8 years (Æ 13.3; range,
19–62) and men were age-matched. The majority of the women had completed high
school (see Table 2), with a range from dropping out of high school through attending
graduate school. Half of the men had a high school diploma or equivalent, ranging from
dropping out of junior high school to holding an associate’s degree. When they were in
school, half of each of the women and men had been suspended, with three (25%)
women and six (50%) men having been expelled. One woman and four men (33%)
had been enrolled in special education classes. At the time of their offense, approxi-
mately half, five women (42%) and seven men (58%), were employed; two women
and two men were receiving disability income assistance.
Regarding their relationship status, a third of the women and men considered them-
selves single. One woman was married and another separated. One woman and five
men were divorced. The remainder of five women and three men were involved in
long-term relationships, with women’s relationships ranging from five to 24 years long.
Regarding parental status, the majority, eight women (67%) and seven men (58%),
were parents. The women had given birth to up to six children each, and the men
had sired up to three children. However, the minority, only two women and one
man, had child custody at the time.

Personal and Family History

The women’s primary caregiver during their own childhood was: their mother (6), both
biological parents (4), their father (1) and adoptive parents (1). In contrast, men were
raised by their mother (5), their mother and stepfather (3), adoptive parents (2), and an
aunt (1). Almost all (11 women and 11 men) had siblings, with defendants having a
wide range of placement within the birth order.
In describing their childhood, women’s responses ranged from “good memories” of
“loving caring compassionate mother” to “mediocre” to “terrible parents” and “rough
childhood”. Two women had been placed in foster homes and juvenile facilities related
to “unruly” charges. Men’s descriptions of their childhoods ranged from “rather pleas-
ant” to “shaky at best” to “It wasn’t too good at all.”
“Discipline” during their childhood ranged from women reporting restriction of pri-
vileges and grounding to “whoopings”, including with a whip, belt, or extension cord.
Men reported a range of punishments from lectures or spankings to violent discipline.
More than half of the perpetrators of each gender were physically disciplined during
childhood.

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


Table 2. Characteristics of offenders by gender

Female offenders Male offenders Concordant
(N = 12) (N = 12) P-value pairs

Education
Less than high school 3 25% 7 58% 0.38 5
High school or equivalent 5 42% 4 33%
Some college 4 33% 1 8%
Victimization history
Childhood physical abuse
Yes 6 50% 1 8% 0.19 5
No 5 42% 7 58%
Unknown 1 8% 4 33%
Childhood sexual abuse
Yes 4 33% 0 – 0.50 6
No 7 58% 9 75%
Unknown 1 8% 3 25%
Childhood emotional abuse
Yes 4 33% 2 17% 1.00 4
No 3 25% 4 33%
Unknown 5 42% 6 50%
Adult intimate partner violence
Yes 4 33% 0 – 0.06 6
No 2 17% 0 –
Unknown 6 50% 12 100%
Adult rape
Yes 2 17% 0 – 0.50 10
Unknown 10 83% 12 100%
Psychiatric history
Prior psychiatric hospitalization 4 33% 2 17% 0.63 8
Past psychiatric medications
Yes 5 42% 2 17% 0.63 6
No 6 50% 8 67%
Unknown 1 8% 2 17%
Prior suicide attempt
Yes 2 17% 1 8% 0.13 5
No 9 75% 6 50%
Unknown 1 8% 5 42%
Substance use history
Substance abuse/dependence 7 58% 11 92% 0.13 8
Substance treatment
Yes 5 42% 2 17% 0.25 8
No 7 58% 9 75%
Unknown 0 – 1 8%
Gender of victims
At least one female victim
Yes 5 42% 11 92% 0.03 5
No 7 58% 0 –
Unknown 0 – 1 8%
At least one male victim
Yes 7 58% 0 – 0.03 5
No 5 42% 11 92%

Regarding their family history, a quarter (three women and three men) reported a
family history of psychiatric disorder (including parents, siblings, and a nephew).
The majority (seven women and seven men) reported a family history of substance
use disorder.

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


Legal and Violence Perpetration History

Most of the defendants (nine women, 75%, and eight men, 67%) had a history of pre-
vious arrests (with a range of one to 10 prior arrests). Four women (33%) and seven
men (58%) had been arrested for prior violent acts. The minority (four and two, re-
spectively) had been previously incarcerated.
Two women and one man had a known current or past gang affiliation. Five women
(42%) and three men (25%) reported problems with fighting as a child. Contrary to
what might have been expected, two women (and no man) reported a history of perpe-
trating intimate partner violence.

Victimization History

A personal history of victimization was prominent among the women. (see Table 2).
Half of the women reported physical abuse, a third reported sexual abuse, and a third
reported emotional abuse. At least one-third of the women had been victims of intimate
partner violence and two women had been raped, despite missing data (see Table 2).
By contrast, less commonly, two men reported a history of emotional abuse and one
a history of physical abuse. Adulthood intimate partner victimization and rape victim-
ization were not reported in any of the men’s reports.

Medical History

One woman and three men reported a history of serious head trauma.

Substance Use History

Fewer female offenders had substance misuse histories, including seven women but al-
most all the men (11), although this difference was not statistically significant.
Women’s substance of abuse most frequently included marijuana (6) but covered a va-
riety of substances, including alcohol (5), cocaine (4), and opiates (1). All 11 of the
men who abused substances abused alcohol. In addition, most used another substance,
including marijuana (8), non-prescribed sedative-hypnotics (2), stimulants (1), PCP
(1) and opiates (1). Yet, women with substance use disorders more frequently had been
treated than men; five of seven (71%) women and two of 11 (18%) men had attended
substance abuse treatment programs.
Around the time of the crime, despite much missing data, it was known that one
woman used alcohol and another used cocaine. Two men used alcohol, one used opi-
ates, and two used non-prescribed sedative/hypnotics around the time of their
offense.

Sexual History

Five women and five men self-identified as heterosexual, while two women self-identified
as bisexual. The remaining subjects did not identify their sexual orientation. Of the 10
women who identified their age at first sexual experience, it ranged from 13 to

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


18 years old, with a mean of 16 years. Similarly, the men reported that their age at first
sexual experience ranged from 11 to 18, with a mean of 15 years.
Of the 10 women who reported the number of sexual partners they had, this ranged
from five to 35 partners, with a mean of 13 partners. Of the 10 men reporting the num-
ber of sexual partners, the range was between one and 30, with a mean of 10 sexual
partners.
With regard to the use of sexual materials, three women and seven men utilized por-
nographic magazines, five women and six men used pornographic videos, and one man
frequented pornographic websites. No women had engaged the services of a prostitute,
while two men had. Two women and two men went to adult bookstores; one woman
and five men attended strip clubs. None reported calling phone sex operators. A soli-
tary man admitted to sexual fantasies involving children/adolescents and none admitted
sexual fantasies involving coercion of others. Despite routine screening questions, no
defendant reported engaging in exhibitionism, voyeurism, frotteurism, obscene phone
calls, urophilia, coprophilia, sadomasochism, stalking, bestiality, cross-dressing or
fetishism.
One woman and no men were known to have participated in a sex offender treat-
ment program in the past.

Psychiatric History

Four women (33%) and two men (17%) reported previous psychiatric hospitaliza-
tions (see Table 2). Two women and one man reported that they had made a suicide
attempt in the past. Five women and two men reported that they had been treated
with psychotropic medications. Near the time of the offense, only one man (and
no women) reported experiencing psychiatric symptoms; the man reported only
anxiety.
After their court clinic evaluation, the diagnoses proffered based on clinical inter-
views for the women included primarily mood or substance use disorders. These in-
cluded two women with severe mental illnesses (one with major depressive disorder
and one with schizoaffective disorder). Additionally, the following diagnoses were
given: adjustment disorder with depressed mood (2), depressive disorder not otherwise
specified (2), polysubstance dependence (2), alcohol abuse (2), cocaine dependence
(1), alcohol dependence (1), cannabis dependence (1), and cannabis abuse (1). Two
women were diagnosed with personality disorder in addition: one with antisocial per-
sonality disorder, and the other with personality disorder not otherwise specified
(NOS) with borderline and antisocial traits; and two women were given no psychiatric
diagnosis (on either Axis).
No severe mental illness was diagnosed in the men. However, the following Axis
I diagnoses were proffered for the men: depressive disorder NOS (2), dysthymic
disorder (1), adjustment disorder with depressed mood (1), PTSD (provisional)
(1), anxiety disorder NOS (1), alcohol dependence (1), cannabis dependence (2),
cannabis abuse (2), alcohol abuse (1), and pedophilia (2). Two men were diagnosed
with antisocial personality disorder. One was diagnosed with learning disorder and
possible borderline intellectual functioning while another was diagnosed with mild
mental retardation. Three men (25%) were not diagnosed with any mental
disorder.

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


Crime and Victim Characteristics

Women were most frequently charged with gross sexual imposition (6), followed by
rape (3) and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (3). Men were charged with rape
(5), gross sexual imposition (4) and unlawful sexual contact with a minor (3).
Significantly, all of the victims of the men were females which contrasted with
women perpetrating against victims of both genders. The majority of both the women
(9) and men (9) had only one victim. Two women had two victims and one had three
victims. Similarly, of the men, one had two victims and the other had an unknown plu-
ral number of victims.
Nine victims of women were children (as were seven victims of the men). The chil-
dren victimized by women ranged in age from six to 15 years and were both boys and
girls. Child victims included perpetrator’s child, stepchild, their child’s friend, babysit-
ting clients, a student and a young teenager whom the woman met online. The three
women who had adult victims included the following victim relationships: female fel-
low inmates, a female corrections officer, and a male mentally challenged fellow em-
ployee. Child victims of men ranged in age from eight to 15 years, with relationships
to the men including stepdaughter, foster niece, girlfriend’s granddaughter, brother’s
stepdaughter, cousin, student, acquaintance, and strangers met online. The three
men who had adult victims offended against a girlfriend, prostitute, daughter, and dis-
tant cousin.
Two women had male co-defendants. None of the men referred had co-defendants.
One woman and three men used threats in their offending. Seven women and three
men denied their guilt in the crime during the evaluation.

Forensic Issues

Defendants were most commonly referred for their pre-sentence evaluation for sexual
predator classification (eight women and all 12 men). (In Ohio, a sexual predator was
statutorily defined, based on an offender who, guilty of a sex offense, is likely to commit
another sex offense.) In distinction, two women were referred for mitigation of penalty
evaluation, and two women were referred for evaluation of competency to stand trial
and sanity at the time of the act. The slight majority (seven women and six men) were
incarcerated in pretrial detention at the time of their psychiatric evaluation, while the
rest were living in the community on bail.
The most frequent outcome of the evaluation for the women was that the risk of re-
cidivism was unable to be determined. The two women referred for competency and
sanity were opined both competent and sane. One woman was opined eligible for a pro-
bation program for mentally ill offenders, due to psychotic disorder. Given that all men
were referred for sexual predator classification and women were referred for several dif-
ferent types of evaluation, Fisher’s exact test was used to compare characteristics of
women according to evaluation type. No significant differences were found.

DISCUSSION
In this exploratory study of those referred for forensic psychiatric evaluations, strong
similarities between female and male sexual offenders were evident. About half of the

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


women and men who offended were employed. A majority of both were parents, but
very few retained custody of their children. The majority of both men and women
had been arrested prior to their sexual offense charges. Regarding their sexual histories,
men and women had, on average, similar ages for their first sexual experiences and sim-
ilar numbers of sexual partners. The majority of both women and men had substance
abuse histories, although men had less frequently been involved in treatment. However,
the only reports of childhood sexual abuse and intimate partner victimization were from
women in the sample. The men’s victims were all females, but the women’s victims
were a combination of males and females. Only women (two of 12) had co-defendants.
In reference to the forensic referral question, all men were referred for sexual predator
classification; however, two of the women were referred for mitigation, and two others
were referred for a competency and sanity evaluation.
These findings were largely consistent with the published literature. As in our study,
prior research has indicated that female and male sexual offenders have similar demo-
graphics (Freeman & Sandler, 2008; Miccio-Fonseca, 2000) That most of the offen-
ders of both genders did not have child custody is indicative of prior problems. So
too were their histories of prior arrests. Clearly, both male and female perpetrators
had involvement with the legal system before.
Overall, the differences between the two sexes were anticipated based on existent lit-
erature. Allen (1991), Miccio-Fonseca (2000) and Oliver (2007) all noted that women
were more likely to have a personal history of abuse. In future studies, it may be instruc-
tional to study qualitatively the type of abuse experienced. Educational differences,
with women being more likely to be educated, should be further explored.
The majority of both men and women had substance use disorders in our sample.
Women were more likely to have been treated, however. While research has indicated
that female sex offenders have a history of substance misuse (CSOM, 2007; Vandiver,
2006), multiple authors have also noted that drugs and alcohol are not commonly in-
volved in the crime (Faller, 1995; Johannson-Love & Fremouw, 2006; Lewis & Stanley,
2000). This suggests that women had other reasons, besides disinhibition and impulsiv-
ity, fueling their behavior.
As anticipated in a psychiatric sample, there was a history of suicide attempts and
psychiatric treatment among some perpetrators of both genders. While multiple offen-
ders of each gender were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, interestingly only two
women in the entire sample were diagnosed with a severe mental illness, while others
fell into NOS and adjustment disorder categories. Again, this lack of severe mental ill-
ness or mental retardation in female sexual offenders is supported by the literature
(Pflugradt & Allen, 2010; Vandiver, 2006) and suggested other motives for the perpe-
tration of the crimes. This is congruent with what is expected, as committing crimes
such as these requires some degree of organization in order to avoid detection.
Male offenders victimized females, but interestingly, it was discovered that women
offended with both victims of both sexes. Support for this exists in the literature
(CSOM, 2007; Vandiver, 2006). Women tend to offend against those whom they have
regular contact with, rather than specifically seeking out their victims. In addition, there
may be other elements of the offense that drive the women, such as a desire to feel loved
by the victim or accepted by her co-offender (Matthews et al., 1989, 1991).
Likely related to society’s gender biases, women and men also appear to be treated
differently within the legal system (Hetherton & Beardsall, 1988; West, Friedman &
Knoll, 2010). In the current study, men were uniformly referred for sexual predator

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


classification, while four of the women were referred for evaluations that could poten-
tially serve to reduce or eliminate their legal consequences. This suggests that female
sexual offenders may not be punished as harshly as their male counterparts.

Recidivism Risk in Female Sex Offenders

Recidivism has only recently begun to be examined in female sexual offenders. Free-
man and Sandler (2008) compared the likelihood of recidivism between male
(n = 315) and female sex offenders (n = 6,315). They determined that men were signif-
icantly more likely to be rearrested for sexual and non-sexual crimes; to have extensive
criminal histories; to have been incarcerated prior to their sexual offense; and to have
had previous violations of their supervision. Sandler and Freeman also noted that fe-
male and male sex offenders had the opposite relationships between age and the likeli-
hood of reoffending; more specifically, the likelihood of recidivism increased with age
in women and decreased with age in men. In comparing the women who recidivated
(n = 32) and those who did not (n = 1434), the recidivists were more likely to have more
total convictions prior to their first sexual offense (Sandler & Freeman, 2009). Another
smaller study found no significant differences between those who reoffended (n = 16)
and those who did not (n = 41) (Bader, Welsh & Scalora, 2010).
In Ohio at the time of data collection, a sexual predator was defined as “an offender
convicted of a sexually oriented offense who is found by the court to be likely to commit
another sex offense in the future” (Ohio Rev Code 2950.01E). When classified as a sex-
ual predator, an offender must register for life, verify their address with the sheriff quar-
terly, and give community notification (Ohio Rev Code 2950.07B1). Most of the
women in our sample were opined to have unknown future risk of sex offending due
to a lack of empirically supported risk factors. Without further understanding of
women’s risk factors, courts will have similar difficulties determining the appropriate
legal designation, especially with the standard of proof set at “clear and convincing
evidence.”

Limitations

As with most of the literature regarding female sexual offenders, the cohort is small.
Since the population was selected based on referrals to a court psychiatric clinic, the
presence of mental illness may be elevated compared with other populations of female
sexual offenders. That each subject had a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation is a
strength of the study, which increased the volume and quality of data included. How-
ever objective evaluators sought to be, though, the information gathered was primarily
subjective regarding sexual orientation and history. Also because evaluations took place
within a legal context, some subjects may have exaggerated information they consid-
ered exculpatory and minimized information they considered inculpatory. Despite
these limitations, this work highlights some differences in the genders and the need
for more information regarding these women. Additionally, deeper understandings of
comparisons to their male counterparts will inform clinicians whether or not prevention
strategies and treatment options that are effective in male sexual offenders are applica-
ble to these women.

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


CONCLUSION

Despite society’s biases, women are capable of committing sexual offenses that have
similar devastating and lasting consequences to those brought about by their male
counterparts. Women and men who sexually offend have fairly similar characteristics
(employment, child custody, marital status, family history, legal history, sexual history,
psychiatric history, number of victims). A notable difference is that women had victims
of both genders. Differences may also exist in abuse history and substance abuse history
and treatment. There has been much more energy invested in studying male sexual
offenders, including prevention of their crimes and treatment of the offenders them-
selves. Further, larger-scale comparisons to male offenders are critical to determine if
what is known about the efforts that are useful for prevention, treatment, and recidi-
vism risk prediction can be effectively applied to women.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Suzanne Yang, M.D., Jennifer Gordon, Ph.D., George Schmedlen,
J.D., Ph.D., and Renee Sorrentino, M.D., for their contributions to this article.

REFERENCES

Allen, C.M. (1991). Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis. Brandon, VT:
The Safer Society Press.
Bader, S.M., Welsh, R., & Scalora, M.J. (2010). Recidivism among female child molesters. Violence and
Victims, 25(3), 349–362.
Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) (2007). Female Sex Offenders. Washington D.C.: US Depart-
ment of Justice.
Faller, K.C. (1995). A clinical sample of women who have sexually abused children. Journal of Child Sexual
Abuse, 4, 13–30.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Crime in the United States, 2005: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Freeman, N.J., Sandler, J.C. (2008). Female and male sex offenders: A comparison of recidivism patterns
and risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(10), 1394–1413.
Hetherton, J., & Beardsall, L. (1988). Decisions and attitudes concerning child sexual abuse: Does the gender
of the perpetrator make a difference to child protection professional. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 1265–1283.
Johannson-Love, J., & Fremouw, W. (2006). A critique of the female sexual perpetrator research. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 11, 12–26.
Lawson, L. (2008). Female sex offenders’ relationship experiences. Violence and Victims, 23(3), 331–343.
Lewis CF, Stanley CR. (2000). Women accused of sexual offenses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 73–81.
Matthews, R., Matthews, J., & Speltz, K. (1989). Female Sexual Offenders: An Exploratory Study. Orwell, VT:
The Safer Society Press.
Matthews, R., Matthews, J., & Speltz, K. (1991). Female Sexual Offenders: A Typology. In Patton M. Q.
(Ed.), Family Sexual Abuse: Frontline Research and Evaluation (pp. 199–219). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miccio-Fonseca, L.C. (2000). Adult and adolescent female sexual offenders: Experiences compared to other
female and male sex offenders. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11, 75–88.
Oliver, B.E. (2007). Preventing female-perpetrated sexual abuse. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(1), 19–32.
Pﬂugradt, D.M., & Allen, B.P. (2010). An exploratory analysis of executive functioning for female sex offen-
ders: A comparison of characteristics across offense typologies. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 134–149.
Sandler, J., & Freeman, N. (2007). Typology of female sex offenders: A test of Vandiver and Kercher. Sexual
Abuse: Journal of Research & Treatment, 19(2), 73–89.
Sandler, J.C., & Freeman, N.J. (2009). Female sex offender recidivism: A large-scale empirical analysis. Sex-
ual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(4), 455–473.
StataCorp. (2009). Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

DOI: 10.1002/bsl


Vandiver, D.M. (2006). Female sex offenders: a comparison of solo offenders and co-offenders. Violence and
Victims, 21(3), 339–54.
Vandiver, DM, Kercher G. (2004). Offender and victim characteristics of registered female sexual offenders
in Texas: a proposed typology of female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research & Treatment, 16,
121–37.
West SG, Friedman S. H., Knoll, J. L. 4. (2010). Lessons to Learn: Female Educators Who Sexually Abuse
Their Students. Psychiatric Times, 27(6).

DOI: 10.1002/bsl

Women Accused of Sex Offenses: A Gender-Based Comparison

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Women Accused of Sex Offenses: A Gender-Based Comparison

Similar a Women Accused of Sex Offenses: A Gender-Based Comparison (17)

Último

Último (8)

Women Accused of Sex Offenses: A Gender-Based Comparison