• This is a common topic of testimony by Dr. Dutton. In the past she has reported the Underwood study is the only research on this topic, and failed to acknowledge the much better better and newer study by LeClerc. Be sure to ask Dr. Dutton if she is familiar with LeClerc and why she has failed to mention it in many years of testimony.

Do Sexual Offenders Molest When Other Persons Are Present? A Preliminary Investigation
Rocky C. Underwood, Peter C. Patch, Gordon G. Cappellety, and Roger W. Wolfe
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1999

Abstract:
This study utilized a rough clinical survey to assess the prevalence of child molestation perpetrated in the presence of other non-collaborating persons. Survey data were gathered on 131 post-incarcerated adult sex offenders at two community treatment programs. Subjects were divided into two groups, child molesters (CMs) and nonmolesters (NCMs). Results indicated that 54.9% of the CMs had molested when another child was present, 23.9% had molested when another adult was present, and 14.2% had molested when both a child and an adult were present. Both groups implicated increased excitement, a sense of mastery, and compulsive sexual behavior as the reasons for this type of offense. Moreover, the data indicated that approximately 63% of the offenders who had not molested in the presence of other persons felt they may have progressed to that point had they not been arrested and placed in treatment. Limitations of the study are discussed.Two community-based treatment facilities specializing in the treatment of sexual offenders.

Total of 113 child molesters and 18 nonmolesters (“hands-off” – non child molesters)

131 (of 150) returned a completed questionnaire.

Questionnaire had 13 items.

“A search of the literature revealed little on the presence of other persons as a factor influencing offending behavior.” (p.243)

“Due to many subjects responding to numerically based questions with simple check marks, the data was reported predominantly for
positive endorsement of the questions.” (p.245)

“Finally, we would like to acknowledge the weaknesses of the questionnaire and the data derived from it. . . We acknowledge that the construction of the questionnaire is simplistic and thus, may have confounded the data. . . We encourage the reader to bear in mind that this was quickly created for clinical purposes only. We make no claim as to its validity at this juncture. Clearly, this questionnaire could benefit from revision.” (p.247)

The authors readily admit that their study is not valid and should only be considered for counseling purposes. It is not meant to be described as scientific research. It is noteworthy that in the 23 years since its publication, not a single follow up study has been done by these authors or anyone else on this topic. A review of APA’s psyINFO (an academic search tool) indicates that since the article was published, it has only been cited in 7 other journals. None of the four authors ever went on to revisit this topic in their subsequent research.

A Better and More Recent Study
Ironically, a more recent research study (2015) was published in the same professional journal. Leclerc, et al. state:
“. . . the mere presence of another person in vicinity of the crime location – even if that person is another child – may be enough to prevent an escalation of the severity of sexual acts performed by the offender.” (p.190)

“The concept of “capable guardian” refers to the presence of any person who has the capacity to interrupt crime commission either directly or indirectly. According to Felson (1995), a person can prevent crime simply by his/her presence, that is, by being visible and/or in close proximity to the offender.” (p.190)

“On the other hand, Beauregard and Leclerc (2007) found that most sexual offenders do estimate the risks of apprehension before committing an offense by taking into account factors such as the presence of others. In any event, it is possible that the presence of somebody nearby may in some cases be enough to deter sexual offenders from committing an offense, or more specifically, from performing severe sexual acts such as penetration.” (p.191)

“In child sexual abuse, depending on the circumstances, prevention may only be accomplished by the presence of other children, especially as this crime is likely to be com- mitted in a private home. It is clear that children may not act as capable guardians as they do not have the capacity to supervise or physically intervene. Nonetheless, children may act as potential guardians. Indeed, a child may, merely by their presence, to some extent dissuade the offender from having sexual contact with another child or at the least from involving the child in more intrusive and extensive sexual activities. This is because, from the offender’s perspective, performing intrusive sexual acts in the presence of other children may increase his risk of detection.” (p.192)

“We found that the presence of a potential guardian can reduce the severity of abuse even if that presence did not prevent the initiation of the abuse. Leaving aside victim and situational characteristics, the presence of a potential guardian appears to reduce the duration of sexual contact and the occurrence of penetration. Indeed, the presence of a potential guardian decreases the risk of sexual penetration by 86%.” (p.199)

“Another intriguing finding is that the occurrence of penetration was less likely when the abuse took place during the evening (6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.).” (p.200)

“In summary, assuming that sexual arousal (or other factors such as alcohol and drugs) does not completely impair decision making (e.g., Loewenstein, Nagin, & Paternoster, 1997), these offenders are unlikely to ignore the risks of apprehension. Rather, they would consider what they can do and not do sexually with a child at a particular time and place when a potential guardian is present.” (p.200)
Prevention Nearby: The Influence of the Presence of a Potential Guardian on the Severity of Child Sexual Abuse. Benoit Leclerc, et al., Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 2015, Vol. 27(20) 189-204.