Acknowledging the Stigmatized: Sex Offenders and Their Outlooks versus Women in Relationships with Incarcerated Men and Their Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offenders are a stigmatized group of individuals, making it difficult for society to proffer second chances so willingly. Furthermore, many women in relationships with offenders suffer the stigma that offenders themselves experience. This study offers a theoretical contribution that focuses mostly on sex offenders in an attempt to help reshape their perceptions and bring clarity to an existing theoretical framework. Sex offenders’ outlooks were examined and placed into a three schema approach (instrumental, political, and cultural schemas), implemented from a previous study, based on their overall mentality and how they have rationalized their offenses. Similarly, women’s perceptions of the criminal justice system, based on society’s views toward their relationship with an offender, were categorized into the three schemas to contrast the varying types of stigma. In this study, about 40 letters from sex offenders, as well as select stories from a book containing sex offender accounts, were coded and analyzed under this framework using Atlas-ti. Additionally, twelve interviews were carried out with women in relationships with incarcerated men. Results suggest that while many sex offenders desire change, they do not take full responsibility for their actions, meaning that these particular offenders’ outlooks do not fit neatly into one schema. A fourth schema, christened the “chimerical schema”, is proposed to further explain offenders’ outlooks. Mostof the women’s perceptions, however, easily fit into one of the three schemas, rendering the fourth schema unnecessary. This study will add to an existing theoretical framework, making it more applicable to other marginalized groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".