Sexual Assaults During Hostage Takings and Forcible Confinements: Implications for Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hostage takings and forcible confinements are rare phenomena within our Canadian institutions. However, when they occur they cause enormous psychological and/or physical harm. A review of the literature revealed that no previous research on hostage takings or forcible confinements in a prison setting has been published. This investigation reviewed 33 hostage-takings/forcible-confinements spanning 11 years. The incidents were classified as follows: 20 hostage takings (3 with sexual assault) and 13 forcible confinements (7 with sexual assault). Sexual assaults were always against women and 36.6% of the women were sexually assaulted. This is a violent group of offenders with a prior history of sexual and nonsexual violence as well as escapes. While a quarter of the perpetrators had a forcible confinement or hostage taking in their current conviction, half had a prior history of such incidents. Rapists were overwhelmingly implicated in incidents that resulted in a sexual assault. Most perpetrators were below the age of 30 and serving sentences of less than 10 years in medium- or maximum-security institutions. The perpetrators of these incidents are not necessarily different from the general population of offenders in terms of their dynamic needs. Although this research is primarily descriptive in nature, it offers a unique contribution to the field by providing the first comprehensive description of this group of perpetrators. These findings are discussed in terms of their relevance to policy, operational practices, and the development of screening instruments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".