臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：不同類型性罪犯之發展歷程及作案手法研究
作者：范兆興
作者(外文)：FAN CHAO-HSING
校院名稱：中央警察大學
系所名稱：犯罪防治研究所
指導教授：沈勝昂、 廖有祿
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2013
主題關鍵詞：性侵害；作案手法；發展歷程；偏差的性興趣；性攻擊；性罪犯類型；sexual assault；modus operandi；developmental process；deviant sexual interest；sexual aggression；sex offender types
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:30
本研究針對2006年至2010年曾接受過臺北監獄、臺中監獄與高雄監獄，及行政院衛生署嘉南療養院之社區強制治療個案(總計1043人)，針對其強制診療「妨害性自主罪收容人評估報告書」，萃取461名典型個案（兒童性罪犯92位、成人性罪犯190位、亂倫犯30位、猥褻犯131位、輪暴犯18位）。再從個案之成長背景階段、犯罪前階段、實施犯罪階段、犯罪後階段之危險因子，與再犯危險因子關聯性進行分析。
其次，質性研究樣本選取先以行政院衛生署嘉南療養院與臺中監獄已經完成心理衡鑑個案為主，其中成人性罪犯7名、兒童性罪犯5名、亂倫犯6名、猥褻犯5名、輪暴犯5名共計28名個案。研究者請個案主治醫師利用門診(約診)時間，由研究者進行整個訪談，並以筆記快速記錄個案重要關鍵生命事件、作案手法特徵及發展歷程。並與個案之性侵害精神鑑定報告書，所記載個案生命發展史、學校史、職業史、原生家庭互動狀況、犯罪前科記錄、物質濫用史、兵役史、精神疾病史、心性發展史、心理衡鑑及精神科診斷結論等評估資料，兩者相互印證以求正確。預期本研究達成目標如後：
一、 鑑別不同類型性罪犯之作案手法特徵差異。
二、 分析不同類型性罪犯在成長背景環境階段、犯罪前階段、實施犯罪階段、犯罪後階段之發展歷程危險因子與再犯危險因子差異。
三、 本研究結果希望能提供司法與警政機關對於性侵害犯罪偵查、矯正處遇具體可行策略。
本研究經ANOVA或χ2檢定不同類型性罪犯達統計顯著水準的危險因子，如後：
（一） 兒童性罪犯：國中階段與老師關係非常差比率最高、個案接受治療意願比率最低、被專業醫師評估最低治癒率。
（二） 成人性罪犯：個案入監兩年前，常與妻子因溝通問題發生衝突比率最高、被專業醫師評估最高治癒率。
（三） 亂倫犯：犯罪前三個月，曾遭遇性生活挫折與家庭挫折事件比率最高、個案第一次性經驗來源為性犯罪比率最高、作案時有特殊性癖好比率最高。
（四） 猥褻犯：個案童年時期，遭受性侵害負面經驗比率最高、入監兩年前經常與妻子因子女教育理念問題發生衝突比率最高。
（五） 輪暴犯：個案與母親關係非常差比率最高、個案犯罪前七天曾看完色情影片比率最高、主動表示願意接受治療比率最高。
就此，歸納量化研究發現：「成人性罪犯」與「兒童性罪犯」兩者都有不同認知扭曲、情緒困擾、犯案動機的問題。本研究進一步發現「兒童性罪犯」一再有明顯的焦慮、憂鬱、依附關係缺乏、人際技巧等等問題，相對於成人性罪犯的外在化行為(externalizing behavior)問題，「兒童性罪犯」表現出更明顯的心理病理問題。至於，輪暴犯、猥褻犯可能較接近「成人性罪犯」，但是輪暴者年紀都較年輕，因此需要注意此階段(指少年到青年)發展的特殊問題，而猥褻犯則在有較多的社會、心理問題。最後，亂倫犯則較接近「兒童性侵害」，但是亂倫則多較為年長、已婚後才發生，因此需要注意婚姻、家庭的特殊問題
其次，質性研究發現：從訪談28名個案之犯罪動機、作案手法及發展歷程重新分類，依序為(一)犯罪習性型、(二)暴力控制型、(三)親密需求型、(四)物質濫用型及（五）對女性錯誤認知型等五種類型，如後：
（一） 犯罪習性型：共同特徵為偏差性知識來源為色情影片、色情刊物，自我控制不足或會利用權勢威脅被害人就範，且犯案後多會合理化行為；具明顯認知扭曲想法，對被害人同理心不足。
（二） 暴力控制型：共同特徵為情緒控制不佳並以恐嚇或威脅被害人、加以性侵害、取走被害人財物、以及犯案後合理化或淡化行為等，且具有固定犯案模式化之傾向。
（三） 親密需求型：共同特徵為與異性相處有明顯困擾、相處技巧差，而大部分性知識來自於色情片，缺乏正確兩性平權觀念。
（四） 物質濫用型：共同特徵為濫用強力膠、安非他命，導致認知功能下降至輕度到邊緣性智力狀態，多處於有被害妄想狀態。
（五） 對女性錯誤認知型：共同特徵為兩性方面之知識多源於同儕、情色書刊及色情網路資訊，可能導致其缺乏正確之兩性互動觀念、良好技巧。
第三，探討「性侵害犯罪類型」可縮小偵查範圍與提昇犯罪效能，研究者分析五種類型性罪犯之作案手法及發展歷程，提出實務常見偵查與鑑識策略如後：
（一） 先清查轄區列管具有性侵害前科犯之治安顧慮人口。
（二） 調閱案發地點附近周邊路口監視器或民眾自行裝設監視器，過濾可疑人物影像，建立基礎偵查資料庫。
（三） 請求社會局派社工或專業心理諮商人員共同協助偵查，由於被害人心智年齡較低或恐懼情緒、恐怕無法清楚表達案發當時情境、犯嫌如何進行性侵犯行、可能案發地點等重要犯罪情節；因此，藉助專業社工(諮商)人員，讓初步偵查訪談能夠更加順利進行。
（四） 避免被害人錯誤指認，因此第一時間必須確認被害人先到醫療院所進行性侵害證物專業採證。
（五） 建置區域性「性侵害犯罪之鑑識情報知識庫」，針對轄內性侵害前科犯之作案手法等行為跡證、現場勘察報告資料、相關物證鑑識報告，進行系統化歸納分析。
（六） 從許多陌生人間性侵害案件之偵破，鑑識科學(譬如DNA)扮演舉足輕重角色；如此，警政署於2013年8月6日通過組織再造將防治組提升為一級幕僚單位；各縣市警察局之分局亦同時成立防治組，專責婦幼安全之勤務與業務兩大工作，研究者建議將將偵查隊之鑑識人員培訓為家防官，可協助調查、鑑識及建置性侵害加害人的資料庫；又業務部份由防治組之內勤員警辦理定期查訪性加害人監控業務，同時協助性侵被害個案能夠獲得社會局之社工人員協助，建構綿密婦幼安全防護網絡。
最後，本研究由於部分樣本數過少(譬如亂倫犯30位、輪暴犯18位)，導致統計分析部分因子未能達顯著水準，甚至有過度推論的風險。據此，建議日後可以從增加研究樣本數、縮小比較研究樣本數單獨進行統計分析，相信更能突顯不同類型性罪犯在「發展歷程」、「作案手法」的差異。
關鍵字：性侵害、作案手法、發展歷程、偏差的性興趣、性攻擊、性罪犯類型
Abstract
The aim of the current study is using a mixed-methods framework and following Clarke and Cornish’s decision-making model, I organized offenders’ narratives collected during semi-structured interviews into three major phases: (a) offense planning; (b) offense strategies(i.e., use of weapons, vehicles); and (c) post offense strategies(i.e., forensically aware, protect identify).
The current study uses a mixed-methods framework. Data were analyzed in two phases, one quantitative and the other qualitative.
Phase1. This study uses data from a large research project on different types of sex offenders in which psychological and criminological data were collected and examined. All sex offenders incarcerated in the province of Taiwan between 2006 and 2010 were identified and contacted. Information about offenders was gathered using the Computerized Questionnaire for Sexual Aggressors (CQSA) by a criminologist and a clinical psychologist following a semi-structured interview. The CQSA includes information on different aspects of the offender’s life and criminal activities such as correctional information, offense planning, offense strategies, and post-offense factors, attitudes regarding the offense, apprehension, victimology, developmental factors, police records, the victim statements, and forensic diagnostics.
Based on the rational perspective, this study compare the decision making involved in the crime commission process of rapists (n=190), child molesters (n=92), incestuous offenders (n=30), obscene offenders (n=131), and gang rapists (n=18).
Phase2. Following Clarke and Cornish (1985) decision-making model, qualitative responses from various sex offenders were organized into three major areas. In the pre-offense phase, offense planning (i.e., How did you estimate the risks of being apprehended?); in the criminal event phase, offense strategies (i.e., Why did you use this level of force with the victim?); finally, in the post-offense phase, aftermath (i.e., what made you leave the crime scene at this particular moment?).The responses were content analyzed and organized into coherent categories of decision-making rationales.
This study identified offense process scripts in sample of 28 sexual offenders, includes 7 rapists, 5 child molesters, 6 incestuous offenders, 5 obscene offenders, and 5 gang rapists. Interviews were conducted in a private office, isolated from police staff and other inmates. They lasted from 2 to 3 hrs, depending on the number of crimes committed and the participants’ verbosity. Because of the sensitive nature of the conversation, permission was not requested to tape-record the interviews, although extensive verbatim notes were taken.
Results: We sought to identify which developmental factors may help explain why individual become repeated sexual offenders. There was evidence of a range of general developmental risk factors present in the lives of the participants. These key developmental risk variables include childhood experiences of abuse and neglect (sexual, physical and emotional), childhood emotional /behavioral difficulties, insecure attachments to primary caregivers, the use of intoxicants, experienced school failure, and inappropriate sexual behaviors.
Although some meaningful differences were detected between child molesters and rapists, differences between groups on the variables examined were more substantial when versatile and specialist offenders were compared. A distinct group of specialist child molesters emerged. It was agued that the general theory of crime is useful in explaining the rapists who constituted the majority of the sample. It was also proposed that a second, more sexually specific explanation may be necessary to account for the offending behaviors of a much smaller group of specialist child molesters
Conclusion: We suggest that the presence of general risk factors may lead to a variety of negative behavioral outcomes, including the perpetration of child sexual offending. Family factors were strongly related to the perpetration of child sex offending and may be valuable intervention points for interrupting the development of child sex offending. Other potential points for intervention may focus on the development of appropriate social and emotional skills that contribute to sexual offending. Future works must continue to examine distinctions between both types of sex offenders, and between sex offenders and non-offenders to build effective and efficient prevention strategies. Such work will require both researchers and ?providers to collect data on family and childhood variables that are present prior to initiation of sexual offending in order to inform primary prevention strategies.
My results have shown that a larger proportion of child molesters reported problems of substance abuse, perceived rejection, and conjugal difficulties compared to rapists. This result is consistent with Beauregard’s (2012) explanation of child molesters in which it is stated that, in many cases, the use of lethal violence may be because of poor social and interpersonal skills of the offenders. Because of this difficulty of interacting with others, especially with adults, those offenders may target children possibly because they are weak and vulnerable.
The findings may have some implications for the criminal investigation. First, criminal investigators must understand the rationale of this “seemingly irrational” behavior to better infer the type of criminal and to establish proactive strategies that might prevent another sexual assault. Understanding why an offender acted a certain way during a crime may help investigators identify the type of individual responsible for this crime, especially in cases where the offenders were unknown. Second, our results may prove helpful in case linkage analysis. Not only does case linkage benefit from identifying which actions remain consistent from crime to crime, but understanding why sex offenders are choosing specific actions in certain circumstances may help to refine this type of analysis(Beaurgard, et al., 2012).
Limitations and future research: Combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies has proven to be a fruitful strategy to gain a deeper understanding of the decision making of these sex offenders. The finding in this study is limited in two ways. First, we have no way of knowing if our sample is representative. The actual number of sexual offenders remains unknown and we had access only to incarcerated individuals. Also, and more important, is the small sample size of this study. Small samples have been found to render statistical significance harder to reach. The number of nearly significant (p-value between .05and .10) results obtained when comparing the five offender profiles on criminal event variables hints to the possible reduction of power that result from the small size.
Second, this study is based on a relatively small sample of convicted offenders incarcerated in a Taiwan penitentiary. The findings, therefore, may not apply to non-Taiwan sex offenders as well as those who have not been caught by the police and convicted for their crime.
Future studies should be undertaken to replicate our findings. Because of the small size of most studies on sexual offense, a collaborative effort across different research centers and across countries should be considered. Data collection could permit us to increase the number of participants and thus allow for more sophisticated statistical analyses to be carried out.
Key words：sexual assault、modus operandi、developmental process、deviant sexual interest、sexual aggression、sex offender types
一、中文部分
王文科、王智弘(2012)。教育研究法。台北：五南圖書公司。new window
王郁文、修慧蘭(2008)。性罪犯否認行為之研究。中華輔導與諮商學報，23期，177-211。
王家駿（2003）。交互詰問對精神專科醫師醫療業務影響之探討。國立陽明大學醫務管理研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
朱朝亮(2003)。暗示訊問之運用及危險。內政部警政署，日新第2期，28-35。
吳其炘、廖士程、李宇宙(2005)。衝動的精神病理。台灣精神醫學，19 卷，第1 期，19-31。new window
李鴻懋(2007)。亂倫行為加害成因及歷程之研究。中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。
沈勝昂（2008）。性侵害犯罪加害人動態再犯危險評估量表之建立：動態危險因子之探測。法務部委託研究報告。new window
沈勝昂（2009）。性侵害犯罪加害人社區處遇-理論政策與實務。中央警察大學出版專書。
沈勝昂、范兆興、施宇峰、謝賢融（2010a）。從發展歷程觀點比較成人性罪犯與兒童性罪犯差異。2010犯罪問題與對策研討會。2010年11月30日，嘉義：國立中正大學。new window
沈勝昂、范兆興、施宇峰、謝賢融（2010b）。亂倫、戀童及輪暴等不同類型性侵害犯之發展歷程分析。社會福利安全網論壇—2010社會安全及犯罪防治研討會。2010年10月22日，桃園：中央警察大學。
周石棋、賴擁連（2004）。犯罪學新方向－發展性理論，桃園，中央警察大學犯罪防治學報 5：137-168。new window
周煌智、文榮光等主編著（2006）。性侵害犯罪防治學-理論與臨床實務運用。五南出版社。
林故廷(2010)。性罪犯預防性測謊與臺灣現況。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，6(1)，87-104。
林烘煜、陳若璋（2006）。預防再犯團體模式對性罪犯之療效評估與影響。教育與心理研究，29（2），369-398。new window
林烘煜、陳若璋、劉志如 (2007）。比較成人性罪犯與兒童性罪犯接受團體治療之療效評估。中華輔導學報(22)，1-31。
林烘煜、陳若璋、劉志如（2007）。以多元評估方式對兩類成癮犯的生心理特質描繪。中華心理學刊，49（1），87-103。new window
林龍輝（2008）。性侵害犯罪加害人強制治療鑑定政策與執行評估之研究。國立中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所博士論文（未出版）。new window
林燦璋、廖有祿、陳瑞基(2011)。連續住宅竊盜犯的作案手法與空間行為模式之實證剖析。中央警察大學警學叢刊，41(5)，99-137。new window
林燦璋、廖有祿、陳瑞基、陳蕾伊(2006)。犯罪地緣剖繪-連續性侵害犯的空間行為模式分析。中央警察大學警政論叢，6期，163-190。new window
林燦璋、廖有祿、趙尚臻(2006)。陌生人間連續性侵害犯的作案手法剖析-行為取向研究。中央警察大學學報，43期，191-218。new window
法務部99年度性侵害犯罪概況調查報告。
邱皓政（2006）。量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。臺北市：五南圖書出版。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2008）。SPSS與統計應用分析。臺北市：五南圖書出版。
胡幼慧主編（2001）。質性研究—理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，台北：巨流圖書公司。
范庭瑋、李俊宏、盧怡婷、唐心北(2009)。從心理社會層面探討影響青少年性犯罪成因之研究-以台灣司法精神鑑定的案例，亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，5(1)，91-108。new window
孫繼光、陳巧雲、洪蘭(2008)。運用認知神經科學的方法探討性侵害犯處理煽情情緒時的神經機制。法務部編印刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集(11)。
徐宗國（1997）。質性研究概論，台北：巨流圖書公司。
張麗卿（2004）。精神鑑定的問題與挑戰。東海大學法學研究，第20期，153-186。new window
莊耀嘉（2009）。衝動性、管控功能、特質與家庭因子在兒童至少年階段犯行發展的角色：自我控制論的檢驗。犯罪與刑事司法研究，12，101-144。new window
許春金、陳玉書(2003)。性侵害犯罪被害情境與要素分析。中央警察大學警政論叢，3期，101-128。new window
許春金、陳玉書、賴擁連(2012)。形塑青少年中止犯與持續犯原因之縱貫性研究：整合型控制理論觀點。中央警察大學犯罪防治學報，15期，35-65。new window
陳玉書、李明謹、黃家珍、連鴻榮(2010)。成年再犯影響因素之追蹤研究。執法新知論衡，6期，81-114。new window
陳若璋(2007)。性罪犯團體治療十年研究之回顧暨展望。中華團體心理治療，13（2），3-27。new window
陳若璋、施志鴻、林正修（2003）。性加害人犯案動機、歷程及路徑分析。中華心理衛生學刊，16（2），47-86。new window
陳若璋、施志鴻、劉志如（2002）。五位台灣亂倫父親發展歷程之分析。中華輔導學報，11，1-36。
陳曉進(2007)。發展歷程理論：個體犯罪行為的持續和變遷。犯罪與刑事司法研究，9，85-110。
曾幼涵、許文耀、黃守廉(2009)。探討成熟斷層對於青少年違犯行為之影響。中華心理衛生學刊，22（3），213-240。new window
湯元浩、蔡佩潔、陳明俊、王家駿(2007)。接受強制診療之性罪犯否認型態。臺灣精神醫學，21(1)，17-25。
黃軍義（2000）。強姦行為之心理歷程的動態分析。國立臺灣大學心理學研究所博士論文（未出版）。new window
黃健（2009）。性與暴力犯罪者之敵意與性錯覺關連反應。中華心理衛生學刊，3期，241-268。new window
黃健、吳英璋（2012）。性侵害與暴力攻擊行為之促發與抑制途徑分析。中華心理衛生學刊，2期，267-297。new window
黃健、溫瑞祥、黃水順、鄭安雄（2005）。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，1(1)，137-162。
黃富源、蔡俊章、范兆興（2007）。擄人勒贖犯罪之犯罪心理、手法及偵查策略研究。台北：法務部，法醫研究所委託研究案報告書。new window
廖有祿(2006)。犯罪剖繪-理論與實務。中央警察大學出版專書。
臺灣臺北地方法院檢察署100年度偵字第3122號許榮洲起訴書。
趙千慧（2006）。亂倫父親認知內容與男性氣慨之研究。中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。
潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究理論與應用，台北：心理出版社。
蔡俊章、羅時強、曾春僑(2009)。測謊鑑定於性侵害案證據採用之研究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，5(2)，181-194。new window
蔡景宏、龍佛衛、曾冬勝(2006)。測謊於性侵害受刑犯否認態度之應用。臺灣精神醫學，20(4)，264-271。new window
鄧煌發（2007）。犯罪分析與犯罪學理論-環境犯罪學理論之應用與評析。中央警察大學警學叢刊，38（1），1-20。new window
賴秀雯(2011)。連續成人性罪犯和財產犯於不同情緒刺激下的情緒與決策表現之比較。私立輔仁大學臨床心理研究所碩士論文。
謝文彥、李鴻懋（2008）。父女亂倫加害行為之研究。中央警察大學2008年犯罪防治學術研討會論文集，187-215。new window
鄭瑞隆、卓雅苹（2012）。犯罪學研究倫理的現況與未來：以中華民國犯罪學會研究倫理規範建置為例。中正大學2012年犯罪問題與對策研討會論文集。
鍾明勳、陳若璋、陳筱萍、沈勝昂、林正修、唐北心等（2004）。本土性罪犯罪加害之團體之氣氛變化與療效。中華團體心理治療學刊10(3)，10-23。
簡至鴻（2009）。刑事責任能力判斷之本質－刑法解釋學與精神醫學之交錯。國立臺北大學法律研究所碩士論文。















二、外文部分
Beauregard, E. ＆ Leclerc,B.(2007a).An application of the rational choice approach to the offending process of sex offenders: A closer look at the decision-marking. Sexual abuse: A journal of research and treatment,19,115-133
Beauregard, E.＆ Proulx, J.(2008).Sexual Murders of Children: Developmental , Precrime , Crime, and Postcrime Factors . International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,52,253-269
Beauregard, E., &; Deslauriers-Varin, N. (2013).Investigating offending consistency of geographic and environmental factors among serial sex offenders: a comparison of multiple analytical strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior,40,156-179.
Beauregard, E., Leclerc, B., &; Lussier, P. (2012).Decision making in the crime commission process: comparing rapists, child molersters, and victim-crossover sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior,39,1275-1295.
Beauregard, E., Proulx, J., &; Rossmo, K. (2005).Spatial patterns of sex offenders: theoretical, empirical, and practical issuses. Aggression and Violent Behavior 10,579-603.
Beauregard, E., Proulx, J., Rossmo, K., Leclerc, B., &; Allaire, J. (2007b).Script analysis of hunting process of serial offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior,34,1069-1084.
Beech, A.R. &; Ward, T. (2006).An integrated theory of sex offending. Aggression and violent Behavior, 11, 44-63.
Beech, A.R., Fisher, D., &; Ward, T. (2005).Sexual murders’ implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1366-1389.
Canter, D. (2004). Offender profile and investigative psychology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 1-15.
Clarke, R. V. &; Cornish, D. B. (1985). Modeling offenders’ decisions: A framework for policy and research. In M. Tonry &; N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 16.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Crabbé, A.(2008). Profiling homicide offenders: A review of assumptions and theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior,13 (2008) 88–106.
Craissati, J., &; Beech, A. (2006). The role of key developmental variables in indentifying sex offenders likely to fail in the community: An enhanced risk prediction model. Child Abuse &; Neglect, 30, 327-339.
Dennison, S., &; Leclerc, B. (2011). Developmental Factors in Adolescent Child Sexual Offenders: Nonrepeat and Repeat Sexual Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1089-1102.
Deslauriers-Varin,N &; Beauregard,E. (2010). Victims’ routine activites and sex offenders’ target selection scripts: a latent class analysis. Sexual abuse: A journal of research and treatment, 22(3), 315-342.
Groth, A. N. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York: Plenum Press.
Groth, N., Burgess, A.&; Holmstrom, L. (1977). Rape: Power, anger, and sexuality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 1239-124.
Hanson, R. K. &; Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
Hanson, R. K. &; Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
Hanson, R. K. &; Harris, A. J. R. (2000a). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6-35.
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(6), 1154-1163.
Hanson, R.K. &; Harris, A.J. (2000).Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justise and Behavior,27(1),6-35.
Harris, A. &; Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question. (User Report 2004-03). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Hartley, C.C. (1998). How incest offenders overcome internal inhibitions through the use of cognitions and cognitive distortions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13,25-39.
Hartley, C.C. (2001). Incest offenders’ perceptions of their motives to sexually offend within their past and current life context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16,459-475.
Hazelwood, R. R. &; Burgess, A. W. (Eds.). (2001). Practical aspects of rape investigation: A multidisciplinary approach (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Holmes, R. M. &; Holmes, S. T. (1998). Serial murder (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holmes, R. M. &; Holmes, S. T. (2002). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Janka,C., &; Gallasch-Nemitz, F. (2012).The significance of offending behavior for predicting sexual recidivism among sex offenders of various age groups. International Joural of Law and Psychiatry,35,159-164.
Kocsis, R. N. (2004). Psychological profiling of serial arson offenses: An assessment of skills and accuracy.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(3), 341-361.
Kocsis, R. N. (2007), Criminal profiling: International theory, research and practice . Totowa, NJ:Humana Press.
Laub, J. &; Sampson, R. (1988). Unraveling Families and Delinquency: A Reanalysis of the Gluecks’ Data. Criminology 26:355-380.
Leclerc, B., Beauregard, E. &; Proulx, J. (2008).Modus Operandi and Situational Aspects in Adolescent Sexual Offenses Against Children. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,52(1),46-61.
Lung, F.W. (2004).Psychosocial characteristics of criminal committing incest and other sex offenses: a survey in Taiwan prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,48(5),554-560.
Meloy, J.R. (2000). The nature and dynamics of sexual homicide: an integrative review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 1–22.
Mitchell,I., &; Beech, A.R. (2011). Towards a neurobiological model of offendeing. Clinical Psychology Review, accepted manuscript.
Moffitt,T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100: 674-701.
Pennington,B. F. (2002). The development of psychopathology: Nature and nurture. New Your: Guilford Press.
Piquero,A.R., Farrington,O.P., Nagin,D.S. &; Moffit,T.E. (2010). Trajectories of Offending and Their Relation to Life Failure in Late Middle Age: Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2010 47: 151-173
Price,S.A.&; Hanson,R.K. (2007). A modified Stroop task with sexual offenders: Replication of a study. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13(3), 203-216
Proulx, J., Ouimet, M. &; Lachaine, N. (1995). Criminology in action and pedophilia. Revue Internationale de Criminologie et de Police Technique, 243-248 ,10.
Robertiello, G. &; Terry, K.J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders？A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 508-518
Seto, M., &; Lalumiere, M. (2010). What Is So Special About Male Adolescent Sexual Offending ? A Review and Test of Explanations through Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4),526-575.
Turvey, B. (1999). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Ward, T. &; Casey, A. (2010). Extending the mind into the world: A new theory of cognitive distortions in sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 49-58
Ward, T. &; Hudson, S.M. (2000). Sexual offenders implicit planning: a conceptual model. Sexual abuse: A journal of research and treatment, 12, 189–202.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1122（臺灣：1082，外國：40） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1614293 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67425892
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上