Contextualizing Motivation and Risk in Intellectually/Developmentally Disabled Individuals Who Offend Sexually
Intellectually and/or developmentally disabled individuals who offend sexually represent a distinct subsection of sexual offenders. This subpopulation often differs from the “typical” sexual offender and constitutes an even smaller group among those who engage in criminal conduct.
When an individual who has offended sexually presents for a forensic psychological evaluation, I am often tasked with providing a diagnosis (if warranted) and offering an opinion concerning their risk of committing another sexual offense. In forming this opinion, I examine both static and dynamic risk factors. Static risk factors are generally rooted in an individual’s history and are typically unchangeable—think of car insurance rates increasing due to prior accidents. Dynamic risk factors, on the other hand, are usually changeable and can either elevate or mitigate an individual’s risk—like how your postal zip code or the number of miles driven each year might influence insurance rates.
A thorough understanding of an individual’s static and dynamic risk factors allows for a more accurate risk assessment. These risk factors are empirically derived, meaning they are supported by research that demonstrates their relevance to future reoffending. It is not uncommon for attorneys and judges to focus on the emotionally jarring aspects of an offense. However, such factors may have little to no empirical value when assessing an individual’s risk.
For example, I have had numerous conversations with prosecutors regarding the age of the victim—especially when the victim is very young. My responses often go something like this: Yes, this is a heinous crime. Yes, someone very young was victimized. The victim was deeply impacted, as were their family and the community. Someone must be held accountable. However, the fact that the victim was young does not necessarily mean the offender poses a higher risk than others. Victim age is not an empirically derived risk factor and is not incorporated into any widely accepted risk assessment tools used to evaluate individuals who sexually offend.
The point here is that we must focus on what is clinically and empirically relevant, and the same approach should apply when evaluating individuals with developmental and/or intellectual disabilities.
Many of the risk assessment instruments used for individuals who sexually offend are also applied to those with developmental and/or intellectual disabilities. Two of the more common instruments are the STATIC-99R and the STABLE-2007. These are valuable tools for assessing static and dynamic risk factors. However, when evaluating individuals with developmental or intellectual disabilities, these instruments often fail to capture the full contextual nuances of a case. It is important to also consider the individual’s motivation, and to assess their level of emotional and social functioning or maturity.
This is not intended to diminish the offender’s responsibility or minimize the impact of the offense. Rather, a thorough conceptualization of the offending behavior and its underlying motivation can help differentiate an individual from the “typical” offender, inform appropriate treatment modalities and goals, align resources with treatment needs, and ultimately contribute to public safety.
Sometimes—but not always—people with developmental and/or intellectual disabilities struggle with socialization. This can affect their ability to form meaningful relationships, whether platonic, intimate, or sexual. Having a disability does not negate the desire for such relationships, but it may hinder the ability to pursue them effectively or in a socially acceptable (or legal) manner.
The term counterfeit deviance appears in the literature. Though the term has been debated, its underlying concept remains valid. It refers to behaviors that, on the surface, mimic sexually deviant conduct but are, in fact, driven by different motivations. Often, these behaviors stem from a desire for social connection and intimacy. Individuals may have difficulty forming or maintaining appropriate peer relationships, leading them to seek connections through social media, which can feel like the most accessible and least intimidating option. It is not uncommon for me to encounter such cases when someone is charged with attempting to meet a minor online, or in child pornography cases.
Other contextual factors should also be considered when assessing these individuals, including but not limited to: limited sexual knowledge, poor social or heterosocial skills, few opportunities to establish relationships, and sexual naivete.
Predatory intent or pedophilia is typically not the underlying issue in these cases, though such conditions cannot be entirely ruled out. The behaviors of individuals with developmental and/or intellectual disabilities often stem from a place very different than those of the “typical” sexual offender. A deep understanding of these contextual nuances is critical for accurately communicating risk and treatment needs.
The opinions expressed here are general in nature and do not represent a guaranteed outcome in any specific case. To discuss your particular situation, please contact Dr. Chan.
