An Application of the Rational Choice Approach to the Offending Process of Sex Offenders: A Closer Look at the Decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the study of both offense processes and implicit theories provides in-depth knowledge about the decision-making of sex offenders, these studies focus solely on the internal psychological processes of the offender leading to the commission of a sexual assault. These studies neglect to look specifically at the offender's decision-making during the offense in interaction with the immediate situations encountered at the offense scene, such as the choices of behavior while interacting with the victim in a specific context. Based on a rational choice approach, this study investigates the decision-making involved in the offending process of 69 serial sexual offenders who have committed their crimes against stranger victims. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with offenders in order to identify the rationale behind their actions during the pre-crime phase (premeditation of the crime, estimation of risk of apprehension by the offender, and forensic awareness of the offender), crime phase (use of a weapon, use of restraints, use of a vehicle, and level of force used), and the post-crime phase (event leading to the end of crime and victim release site location choice). Results show that sex offenders, even if traditionally described as "irrational" and impulsive individuals, are capable, up to a certain point, of an analysis of the costs/benefits related to their actions. Moreover, results emphasize the important role of situational factors, such as victim resistance, on the decision-making process of sex offenders. Implications of the results are briefly discussed in regard of clinical practice and crime prevention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".