Low recidivism rates of child sex offenders in a Finnish 7-year follow-up

Abstract

This study examines the recidivism rates of Finnish child sex offenders convicted in 2010 (n = 361) over a follow-up period of seven years. The results indicate that while reoffending for other types of offences was common (34%), offenders had very low sexual crime recidivism rates (1%). In terms of more persistent criminal careers, less than a quarter of the offenders had both a previous criminal history and at least one subsequent offence during the follow-up period. Offenders with child sexual abuse material-related crimes reoffended more rarely than did others. Study limitations and implications for policymaking, media and rehabilitation are discussed.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=scri21
Nordic Journal of Criminology
ISSN: 2578-983X (Print) 2578-9821 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/scri21
Low recidivism rates of child sex offenders in a
Finnish 7-year follow-up
Taina Laajasalo, Noora Ellonen, Julia Korkman, Tom Pakkanen & Olli-Pekka
Aaltonen
To cite this article: Taina Laajasalo, Noora Ellonen, Julia Korkman, Tom Pakkanen & Olli-Pekka
Aaltonen (2020): Low recidivism rates of child sex offenders in a Finnish 7-year follow-up, Nordic
Journal of Criminology, DOI: 10.1080/2578983X.2020.1730069
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2020.1730069
Published online: 19 Feb 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Low recidivism rates of child sex offenders in a Finnish 7-year
follow-up
Taina Laajasalo
a,b
, Noora Ellonen
c,d
, Julia Korkman
b,e
, Tom Pakkanen
b,e
and
Olli-Pekka Aaltonen
c
a
Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland;
b
Forensic Psychology Center for Children and Adolescents, Helsinki, Finland;
c
Institute of Criminology and
Legal Policy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland;
d
Faculty of Social Science, Tampere University,
Tampere, Finland;
e
Department of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
ABSTRACT
This study examines the recidivism rates of Finnish child sex offen-
ders convicted in 2010 (n= 361) over a follow-up period of seven
years. The results indicate that while reoffending for other types of
offences was common (34%), offenders had very low sexual crime
recidivism rates (1%). In terms of more persistent criminal careers,
less than a quarter of the offenders had both a previous criminal
history and at least one subsequent offence during the follow-up
period. Offenders with child sexual abuse material-related crimes
reoffended more rarely than did others. Study limitations and impli-
cations for policymaking, media and rehabilitation are discussed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 October 2019
Accepted 12 February 2020
KEYWORDS
Child sexual abuse;
recidivism; reoffending;
reconviction
Introduction
The idea that perpetrators of child sexual abuse are at an especially high risk of recidivism
is commonly fed by media reports and is accepted both in public and clinical discourse.
However, this notion is not supported by the scientific literature. This gap between the
research and public perceptions has been discussed since the 1950s (Tappan, 1955).
A seminal meta-analysis by Schmucker and Lösel (2015) featuring an international sample
of over 10,000 sexual offenders found recidivism rates of 10% in treated offenders and
14% in untreated offenders. However, this large meta-study included studies with mixed
groups of rapists, child molesters and other types of offender, thus failing to take into
consideration the fact that recidivism rates may vary depending on whether the victim of
the sexual crime is a minor or an adult.
According to a second meta-analysis, sex offence recidivism risk factors comprise two
major dimensions (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005), the first being atypical sexuality,
consisting of paraphilias such as paedophilia, hebephilia, sexual sadism and hypersexu-
ality, and the second being related to antisocial features, including antisocial personality
traits and a lifestyle characterized by, for example, impulsivity and substance abuse.
Indications exist that predisposing factors for both sexual offending in general and
recidivism specifically may differ somewhat depending on the type of index offence.
CONTACT Taina Laajasalo taina.laajasalo@helsinki.fiDepartment of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of
Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O.Box 63, Helsinki 00014, Finland
NORDIC JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2020.1730069
© 2020 The Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology

For example, offenders whose victims are adults are more likely to have an antisocial
orientation than are child sex offenders (Firestone et al., 1998). Furthermore, maladaptive
cognitive schemas that are known to play a role in the initiation of sexual crimes, as well as
in reoffending, seem to differ between the subtypes of sex offender (Sigre-Leirós,
Carvalho, & Nobre, 2015). Thus, it is somewhat surprising that discussions and analyses
of reoffending rates rarely distinguish between child sexual abuse offenders and those
who offend against adults.
In order to understand child sex offence recidivism better, it is important to realize that
offenders committing sexual crimes against children are a heterogeneous group.
Estimates suggest that about half of such offenders show disorders of sexual preference,
namely, paedophilia or hebephilia, which might be exclusive (sexually attracted only to
children) or non-exclusive (sexually attracted to both adults and children). For others,
offences are related to antisocial tendencies, in some cases as severe as psychopathy,
which by definition is accompanied by a callous disregard for others. In terms of recidi-
vism, the co-occurrence of atypical sexual preferences and psychopathy is the most toxic
combination (Seto, 2018). In addition, some offend sexually against children for other
reasons, including intellectual disability. The recidivism risk varies depending on the type
of victim: the recidivism rates of intrafamilial child molesters are generally lower than
those of extrafamilial child molesters are (Hanson, 2002).
Recidivism rates should also be considered within the national socio-legal context. It is
worth noting that in an international comparison, sentences for child sexual abuse in
Finland and other Nordic countries can be regarded as short. For example, the sentence in
Finland for aggravated child sexual abuse is 1–10 years, but the mean length is less than
5 years. Sentences under two years are typically given as conditional imprisonment, and
first-timers typically serve half of their sentence (Hinkkanen, 2009). There are no sex
offender registries. In the public debate, Finnish criminal policies are sometimes criticized
for being too mild but contrary to popular belief, according to a new study, citizens’sense
of justice seems to align quite well with the punishment policies applied by the autho-
rities, and Finnish people find preventive measures, not imprisonment, to be the most
important approach to diminishing criminality (Kääriäinen, 2018).
In a meta-analysis consisting of more than 4000 offenders with an average follow-up
period of four to five years (Hanson & Bussière, 1998), the recidivism rates for sexual
offences and non-sexual violent offences, as well as the reconviction rates for any type of
offence, were significantly higher for rapists than for child molesters. However, not all
studies have found significant differences. In a study of 419 released sexual offenders
followed over an average of seven years, 13% reoffended sexually, while 16% of those
initially convicted of child sexual offences relapsed into child sexual abuse (Looman &
Abracen, 2010). Furthermore, Harris and Hanson (2004) found similar recidivism estimates
for rapists (14%, 21% and 24% after 5, 10 and 15 years) and child molesters (13%, 18% and
23%, respectively).
The reported rates for child sexual abuse reoffences vary between countries. The
variance may reflect not only methodological differences, such as different data sources
and definitions of recidivism, but also the earlier mentioned differences in legislation,
culture and social circumstances (Nilsson et al., 2014). Thus, data from diverse samples are
warranted. In a Swedish study of child sexual abuse offenders with a 10- to 15-year follow-
up (Nilsson et al., 2014), a 10% relapse rate into sexual offences in a population-based
2T. LAAJASALO ET AL.

cohort was found (n= 193). For a clinic-referred group (n= 166), the relapse rate was 14%.
In two separate studies of convicted Finnish sex offenders, by Hinkkanen (2009) and
Laaksonen and Tyni (2015), with mean follow-up periods of 9 years and 7.5 years,
respectively, the rate of reconvictions for sexual crimes was low, around 6%. In neither
of these studies was recidivism risk associated with child sexual abuse.
In terms of treatment goals and rehabilitation, it is of interest to examine the type of
offences that sex offenders commit once they relapse, as well as the differences between
the index crime and recidivism rates. Previous studies have established a tendency to
relapse into violent rather than sexual crimes (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Schmucker &
Lösel, 2015). Likewise, in a meta-analysis of 63 datasets (n= 11,219 adolescent sex
offenders, mean follow-up period of 59.4 months), a mean sex offence recidivism rate
of only 7% was found, whereas the recidivism rate for general criminality was 43%
(Caldwell et al., 2010). Furthermore, recidivism rates may vary between types of child
sexual offender. For example, while longitudinal studies on the recidivism of offenders
whose crimes are limited to making, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse material
are still scarce, existing studies suggest that individuals charged with online offences
seldom engage in future contact offences (Hirschtritt, Tucker, & Binder, 2019).
The aim of this study was to assess the recidivism rates of Finnish child sexual abuse
offenders. We describe the type of reoffences (sexual vs. other), as well the relationship
between the index crime (child sexual abuse crimes vs. child sexual abuse material-related
crimes) and reoffending. The follow-up period was seven years. For those sanctioned with
imprisonment (n= 67), the follow-up period was on average 25 months shorter because
of the imprisonment.
1
Sample and procedure
The analysis is based on longitudinal register data of convictions for sexual offences
against children in 2010. The data are from a database maintained by the Institute of
Criminology and Legal Policy, which includes convictions and fines given for all crimes
in Finland in 2005–2017. For the analysis, convictions for sexual offences against
children in 2010 were selected to ensure a long enough follow-up time, that a period
was selected in which there had not been any substantial legislative changes influen-
cing the recording of offences (2010–2017) and to collect information about the criminal
history of the offenders (2005–2010).
The cases were collected from the database on the basis of the title of the offence. All
14 offence titles indicating that the crime was conducted against children were included.
In cases where the perpetrator was convicted of several sexual offences, the most serious
child-related sexual offence—according to length of maximum sentence—was included,
and all other offences were excluded. A particular incident is thus included only once, and
perpetrators are the unit of observation in the data.
Children can also be victims of other sexual offences, such as rape. These had to be
excluded because the database includes information only about the crime and perpe-
trator, not about the age of the victim. However, if a child falls victim to rape, the charges
should also, according to Finnish law, include child sexual abuse. Therefore, it is very
unlikely that any cases have been excluded from the data on this basis. The final dataset
includes 361 convicted offenders.
NORDIC JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 3

Variables
Sexual offence
Six offence types were found: sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child,
aggravated distribution of a sexually offensive picture depicting a child, possession of
a sexually offensive picture depicting a child, purchase of sexual services from a young
person and incest. The last two crime types included only two cases each, and were
combined into the category ‘other’. For some of the analysis, sexual offences were
dichotomized into contact offences, including sexual abuse and aggravated sexual
abuse, and material-related offences, including possession and distribution of child sexual
abuse material. In this dichotomization, the category ‘others’(n= 4) was excluded.
Criminal history
Two dichotomous variables were used: whether the offender had convictions for
child-related sexual offences or for other crimes during the five-year period prior to
the 2010 conviction. The data also included the age and gender of the offender, but
gender could not be used in the analysis because the data included only four
females.
Sanction
Four separate dichotomous variables for sanctions were used: imprisonment, conditional
imprisonment, fine and community service.
Recidivism
Two separate variables (also dichotomous) were formed: new convictions for any type of
sexual offence and convictions for other crimes. Reconvictions were included from the
2010 conviction until the end of 2017.
Analytical strategy
The analysis was limited to a descriptive analysis, including, for example, frequencies
and contingency tables, due to the low number of cases. Statistical inference was
not used because there was no probability sample used. The data included all cases
from 2010.
Results
The most common type of index offence was child sexual abuse, and the most common
sanction was conditional imprisonment. Altogether, 61 offenders (17%) were convicted of
child sexual abuse material-related crimes (possession, distribution).
The majority of the offenders (95%) had no prior sexual offence convictions for the five
years before the conviction in 2010. Half (50%) of the convicted had prior convictions for
other crimes and 13% had more than 10 convictions.
Only four offenders (1%) were reconvicted of a sexual crime after the 2010 conviction.
For other types of offence, the recidivism rate was considerably higher (34%). For
a complete listing of all the variables and their frequencies, see Table 1.
4T. LAAJASALO ET AL.

Because the data only included the date when the sentence ended and not the actual
release date, exact survival times cannot be reported. Survival times between the end of
the sentence of the index crime and a new sexual offence were 63, 253, 802 and 1661 days
for the four offenders who reoffended in this regard. For other reoffenders, survival times
varied between 3 and 2434 days.
Of those who had been convicted of contact crimes (sexual abuse, aggravated
sexual abuse), 55% had prior convictions. After the 2010 conviction, 39% had
acquired a reconviction for a non-sexual crime and four offenders (1%) for a sexual
crime. Of those who had been convicted of offences related to child sexual abuse
material (possession and distribution), 26% had prior convictions and 8% reoffended.
All the reoffences were non-sexual offences. In both groups, about 5% had prior
convictions for sexual offences (for all sexual crimes, including offences with adult
victims).
A large variation in the number of convictions (range 3–197) was observed. When
criminal history and recidivism variables were combined to describe the criminal
trajectories of the offenders, 28.4% of those convicted of contact offences and 4.9%
of those convicted of distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material had
at least three convictions for the period 2005–2017, of which at least one was
asexualoffence (the index offence) against children. For a summary of the criminal
history and recidivism by type of child sexual abuse offences, see Table 2.
Table 1. Variables and their frequencies, pertaining to the index offence, sentence, offender
and reoffending.
N%
Sexual offence Sexual abuse of a child 258 71.5
Aggravated sexual abuse of a child 38 10.5
Possession of CSA material 50 13.9
Distribution of CSA material 11 3.0
Other 4 1.1
Sanction
Imprisonment 67 18.6
Conditional imprisonment 241 66.8
Fine 69 19.1
Community service 9 2.5
Offender age
Under 21 56 15.5
22–35 142 39.3
36–49 91 25.2
50–65 59 16.3
Over 65 13 3.6
Previous sexual offences
None 343 95.0
One previous conviction 10 2.8
Several previous convictions 8 2.2
Previous other offences
None 180 49.9
10 or fewer previous convictions 135 37.4
Over 10 previous convictions 46 12.7
Recidivism
Convictions for sexual offences 2010–2017 4 1.1
Convictions for other offences 2010–2017 121 33.5
Other = purchase of sexual services from a young person and sexual contact between close relatives CSA = child
sexual abuse
NORDIC JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 5

Discussion
Our findings replicate earlier, fairly robust findings on child sexual abuse recidivism:
compared to other criminals, child sex offenders are reconvicted relatively seldom (e.g.
Seto, 2018), and although longer follow-up times increase the recidivism rates slightly, the
overall percentages remain relatively low. In the current sample, perpetrators of child
sexual abuse rarely reoffended with new child sexual abuse offences. As with recidivism
more generally, a minority of the offenders committed the majority of the offences,
showing evidence of a persistent criminal trajectory: 87 (24%) had a criminal history
and reconviction (for any type of offence). To sum up, the stereotypical image of the
prolific child sexual abuse repeat offender remains a myth without empirical support, or at
least much more rare than the media-fed availability bias (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, &
Baker, 2007) would have readers believe.
The sentences in Finland are short enough for a seven-year follow-up to allow for
opportunities to reoffend. However, only one-fifth of the offenders in this study were
imprisoned during the follow-up. Furthermore, extending the follow-up period would
likely have had only a small effect: the likelihood of recidivism declines the longer an
individual remains sexual offence-free in the community, and after 10 to 15 years, most
individuals with a history of sexual offences are no more likely to commit a new sexual
offence than are individuals with a criminal history that did not include sexual offences
(Hanson, Harris, Letourneau, Helmus, & Thornton, 2018).
When considering the reasons behind the low recidivism rates observed in this study, it
bears mentioning that recent years have brought about changes in the rehabilitation
programmes offered to child sexual abuse offenders in Finland. For example, since
2012–2014, a proportion of low-risk child sexual abuse offenders, including those
whose punishment is a fine or unconditional imprisonment, are offered a new voluntary
rehabilitation programme tailored for sex offenders. On-going studies are assessing the
outreach of the programme and whether the imposed changes have had an effect on
recidivism rates. With regard to the content of rehabilitation, our results highlight the
need to focus on general, non-sexual criminogenic factors. Also of note is that the very
low base rate of sexual reoffending poses a significant challenge for risk assessment,
making it extremely challenging to identify potential reoffenders and increasing the risk
of false positive predictions significantly (Berk, 2008).
Table 2. Criminal history and recidivism by type of CSA offence (contact- or material-related offences).
Contact offences CSA material offences
N% N %
Criminal history
Previous sexual offences 15 5.1 3 4.9
Previous other offences 164 55.4 16 26.2
Recidivism
Convictions for sexual offences 2010–2017 4 1.4 0 0.0
Convictions for other offences 2010–2017 115 38.9 5 8.2
Criminal career
Criminal history and recidivism 84 28.4 3 4.9
Contact offences = sexual abuse, aggravated sexual abuse
CSA material offences = possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material
6T. LAAJASALO ET AL.

Sexual crimes in general largely go under-reported and child sexual abuse is no
exception. According to a recent Finnish victim survey, only one-quarter of child sexual
abuse victims had disclosed to adults (Lahtinen, Laitila, Korkman, & Ellonen, 2018).
However, while the actual prevalence of child sexual abuse has gone down (Lahtinen
et al., 2018), the number of suspected child sexual abuse reports made to the police has
been increasing in recent years in Finland (Fagerlund, Peltola, Kääräinen, Ellonen, &
Sariola, 2014). In light of child victim survey data, it seems that the most severe cases
have diminished but are more often reported, while cases that the young do not
themselves consider a crime (typically cases with small age differences) have increased
but may go unreported.
The recidivism rates observed in this study are lower than those of previous national
estimates, which is likely at least in part to be the result of differences in sampling. For
example, Laaksonen and Tyni (2015) investigated recidivism only among sex offenders who
had been incarcerated for their crime whereas, in our sample, conditional imprisonment was
the most common sanction. Hinkkanen (2009) obtained a reoffending percentage of less
than 5% among child sex offenders (the exact percentage was not reported). This is a higher
percentage than ours is, but it is noteworthy that none of the offenders in his sample
convicted of aggravated child sexual abuse (n= 120) were convicted again for sexual
offences, re-emphasizing the rareness of reconvictions among child sexual abuse offenders.
Depending on the national legislation, cases in which older adolescents (above the
age of 15) engage in sexual relationships with early or mid-adolescent peers (13–15 years)
may lead to convictions (Hinkkanen, 2009). The legal age of consent varies for the Nordic
countries (e.g. 15 years in Sweden, 16 years in Finland and Norway), implying that sexual
interactions including adolescents of 15 years may be regarded as child sexual abuse in
Finland but not in Sweden. Interestingly, Hinkkanen (2009) showed that for 14% of the
child sex crime convictions in Finland, the perpetrator was the victim’s partner, the age of
the victim was most commonly 14 or 15 years and the age difference between the parties
was typically between 4 and 10 years. Where the age difference was greater than 10 years,
punishments tended to be more severe and the victims younger (Hinkkanen, 2009). It can
be hypothesized that in cases involving adolescents, reconvictions will be rarer than in
other cases because the perpetrators were acting within relationships and the age
difference does not indicate an age-related paraphilia. Analyses of sexual experiences,
as reported in child victim surveys of 12- and 15-year-olds (Fagerlund et al., 2014), also
indicate that 14- to 15-year-old girls comprise the majority of youngsters reporting sexual
experiences with persons at least 5 years older. The majority of these experiences are
reported to be consensual and take place within relationships. It is worth noting that 30%
of Finnish females and around 25% of Finnish males report having had their first inter-
course before the age of 16, that is, before reaching the legal age of consent (Kontula,
2015). All cases in which the other party is 15 years or older (the age of criminal
responsibility) could be regarded as constituting child sexual abuse from a legal perspec-
tive. Future studies exploring child sex offences should differentiate between sexual
interactions among adolescents and cases with greater age differences.
Our study has limitations and caution needs to be exercised when interpreting the
results. This was a descriptive study with a small sample and used only conviction data.
Thus, it has limited generalization. The study sheds light only on detected and convicted
offenders. A number of interesting variables, such as victim’s age, could not be obtained.
NORDIC JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 7

As a final note, as pointed out by Seto (2018), the popular but misleading view that
child sexual abuse offenders are highly likely to reoffend may be used as a means of
justifying harsher sanctions. Discussing punitive policies related to sexual and other
offences is beyond the scope of this study. However, the current results suggest, in line
with earlier international studies, that in Finland, too, harsher sanctions against child sex
offenders should not be motivated by the argument that they would reduce recidivism.
Note
1. The data include the length of the sanction but not the exact release date. Twenty-five
months is the average length of the unconditional imprisonment sentences given to the
offenders in the data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Berk, R. A. (2008). Forecasting methods in crime and justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
4, 219–238.
Caldwell, M. F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex offender
recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,54, 197–212.
Fagerlund, M., Peltola, M., Kääräinen, J., Ellonen, N., & Sariola, H. (2014). Lasten ja nuorten
väkivaltakokemukset [Experiences of violence among children and adolescents]. In Reports of
police college of Finland (pp. 110). Tampere: Juvenes Print.
Firestone, P., Bradford, J. M., Greenberg, D. M., & Serran, G. A. (2000). Therelationship of deviant
sexual arousal and psychopathy in incest offenders, extrafamilial child molesters, and rapists.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatryand the Law, 28(3), 303–308.
Hanson, K. (2002). Recividism and age: follow-up data from 4,673 sexual offenders. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence,17, 1046–1062.
Hanson, K. L., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender
recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,8, 190–197.
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Letourneau, E., Helmus, L. M., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk
based on time offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual
offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,24(1), 48–63.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A
meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,73, 1154–1163.
Harris, A., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question. Ottawa ON: Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Hinkkanen, V. (2009). Lapsen seksuaalinen hyväksikäyttö. [Child sexual abuse] Child sexual abuse)
OPTL: n tutkimustiedonantoja 92. Helsinki: Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos.
Hirschtritt, M., Tucker, D., & Binder, R. L. (2019). Risk assessment of online child sexual exploitation
offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,47(2), 155–164.
Kääriäinen, J. (2018). Attitudes and public punishment preferences: finnish results of scandinavian
sense of justice research. Journal Of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention,19,
152–169.
Kontula, O. (2015). Sex life challenges: The Finnish case. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclo-
pedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 21, 2nd ed., pp. 665–671). Oxford: Elsevier.
Laaksonen, T., & Tyni, S. I. (2015). Kognitiivis-behavioraalisen STOP-kuntoutusohjelman vaikuttavuu-
desta suomalaisilla seksuaalirikosvangeilla. Sosiaalilääketieteellinen aikakauslehti,52,4.
8T. LAAJASALO ET AL.

Lahtinen, H.-L., Laitila, A., Korkman, J., & Ellonen, N. (2018). Children’s disclosures of sexual abuse in
a population-based sample. Child Abuse & Neglect,76,84–94.
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and
community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,7(1), 1–25.
Looman, J., & Abracen, J. (2010). Comparison of measures of risk for recidivism in sexual offenders.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence,25, 791–807.
Nilsson, T., Carlstedt, A., Baudin, C., Jakobsson, C., Forsman, A., & Anckarsäter, H. (2014). Intra- and
extra-familial child sexual abusers and recidivism in Sweden: A 10- to 15-year follow-up study.
Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology,25, 341–361.
Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An
international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
11(4), 597–630.
Seto, M. C. (2018). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and inter-
vention (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sigre-Leirós, V., Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2015). Cognitive schemas and sexual offending: Differences
between rapists, pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters, and nonsexual offenders. Child
Abuse and Neglect,40,80–92.
Tappan, P. W. (1955). Some myths about the sex offender. Federal Probation,19,7–12.
NORDIC JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 9