Il ruolo del diniego nella violenza sessuale: la valutazione dei bisogni criminogenici e dei bisogni di rispondenza

Titolo Rivista: GRUPPI
Autori/Curatori: Georgia Zara
Anno di pubblicazione: 2016 Fascicolo: 1 Lingua: English
Numero pagine: 18 P. 123-140 Dimensione file: 240 KB
DOI: 10.3280/GRU2016-001010
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit.
Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Tutti gli aggressori sessuali negano il reato che hanno commesso, oppure minimizzano la gravità o le conseguenze sulle vittime, oppure raramente sono pronti ad assumersi la responsabilità per quanto accaduto. Nonostante questo, il ruolo del diniego sul recidivismo criminale sessuale è controverso. I risultati della ricerca scientifica sono infatti concordi nel ritenere il diniego un bisogno di rispondenza, che incide sulla compliance al trattamento e che impatta sulla funzionalità relazionale e sociale della persona, ma che non acutizza il rischio di recidivisimo criminale. Se il diniego non è un fattore che direttamente influenza il rischio di ricaduta criminale, la convinzione giuridico-sociale, secondo cui l’assenza di diniego favo-risce un processo di assunzione di responsabilità, non è più sostenibile né sul piano scientifico né tantomeno su quello psico-criminologico e clinico. Questi avanzamenti empirici richiedono un cambiamento di prospettiva rispetto al diniego iniziando a considerarlo un target del trattamento e non un elemento da eliminare prima di iniziare il trattamento. Probabilmente il sistema sociale potrebbe beneficiare maggiormente di una politica di intervento che conduca gli autori di reati sessuali a desistere, nonostante il processo di ammissione del reato e di assunzione di responsabilità seguirà il cambiamento comportamentale piuttosto che anticiparlo.

  1. Andrews D.A. & Bonta J. (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
  2. Arkowitz H., Miller W.R. & Rollnick S. (2015) (Eds.). Motivational Interviewing in the Treatment of Psychological Problems. New York: The Guilford Press.
  3. ATSA Professional Issues Committee. (2001). Practice Standards and Guidelines for Members of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Beaver-ton, OR: ATSA.
  4. Blagden N.J., Winder B., Gregson M. & Thorne K. (2011). Working with Denial in Convicted Sexual Offenders: A Qualitative Analysis of Treatment Professionals’ Views and Experiences and their Implications for Practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 332-356. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X1143230
  5. Blokland A. & Lussier P. (2016). Sex Offenders. A Criminal Career Approach. Chichester, UK: Wliey-Blackwell.
  6. Burrowes B. & Needs A. (2009). Time to Contemplate Change? A Framework for Assessing Readiness to Change with Offenders. Aggression and Violent Behav-ior, 14, 39-49.
  7. Craig L.A., Browne K.D. & Stringer I. (2003). Risk Scales and Factors Predictive of Sexual Offence Recidivism. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4, 45-68. DOI: 10.1177/152483800223894
  8. Craig L.A., Browne K.D., Stringer I. & Beech A. (2005). Sexual Recidivism: A Review of Dynamic and Actuarial Predictors. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 65-84. DOI: 10.1080/1355260041000166773
  9. Craissati J. (2015). Should we Worry about Sex Offenders who Deny their Offences? Probation Journal, 62, 395-405. DOI: 10.1177/0264550515600543
  10. Conte J.R. (1985). Clinical Dimensions of Adult Sexual Abuse of Children. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 3, 341-354.
  11. Delucchi F. (2002). Difese e abuso di sostanze. In: Lingiardi V. e Madeddu F. (Eds). I meccanismi di difesa. Teoria, valutazione, clinica. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
  12. Dostoevskij F. (1866/1987). Delitto e castigo. Vol. II, trad. it. di Polledro A. Tori-no: Orpheus Libri Giulio Einaudi.
  13. Eliot T.S. (1936/1962). T.S. Eliot: The Complete Poems and Plays, 1909-1950. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
  14. Freud S. (1925). La negazione. In: OSF, 10. Torino: Boringhieri.
  15. Freud S. (1961). Negation. In: Strachey J. (Ed.). The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud: Vol. 19. London: Hogarth Press (original work published 1925).
  16. Gee D.G., Devilly G.J. & Ward T. (2004). The Content of Sexual Fantasies for Sexual Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 315-331. DOI: 10.1177/10790632040160040
  17. Hanson R.K. & Bussière M.T. (1998). Predicting Relapse: A Meta-analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.34
  18. Hanson R.K. & Harris A.J.R. (1998). Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism. (User Report 1998-01). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
  19. Hanson R.K. & Harris A.J.R. (2013). Criminogenic Needs of Sexual Offenders on Community Supervision. In: Craig R.L.A., Dixon L. & Gannon T.A. (Eds.). What Works in Offender Rehabilitation. An Evidence-Based Approach to Assessment and Treatment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  20. Hanson R.K. & Morton-Bourgon K.E. (2005). The Characteristics of Persistent Sexual Offenders: A Meta-analysis of Recidivism Studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.115
  21. Hanson R.K. & Morton-Bourgon K.E. (2009). The Accuracy of Recidivism Risk Assessments for Sexual Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of 118 Prediction Studies. Psychological Assessment, 21, 1-21.
  22. Hanson R.K. & Yates P.M. (2013). Psychological Treatment of Sex Offenders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15, 1-8.
  23. Harkins L., Beech A.R. & Goodwill A.M. (2010). Examining the Influence of Denial, Motivation, and Risk on Sexual Recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 78-94. DOI: 10.1177/107906320935810
  24. Harkins L., Howard P., Barnett G., Wakeling H. & Miles C. (2015). Relationships between Denial, Risk, and Recidivism in Sexual Offenders. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 157-166.
  25. Jung S. & Daniels M. (2012). Conceptualizing Sex Offender Denial from a Multifaceted Framework: Investigating the Psychometric Qualities of a new Instrument. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 33, 2-17.
  26. Jung S. & Nunes K.L. (2012). Denial and its Relationship with Treatment Perceptions among Sex Offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 23, 485-496. DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2012.697567
  27. Knight R.A. & Thornton D. (2007). Evaluating and Improving Risk Assessment Schemes for Sexual Recidivism: A Longterm Follow-up of Convicted Sexual Offenders (Document No. 217618). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  28. Langton C.M., Barbaree H.E., Harkins L., Arenovich T., Mcnamee J., Peacock E.J., Dalton A., Hansen K.T., Luong D. & Marcon H. (2008). Denial and Minimization among Sexual Offenders: Posttreatment Presentation and Association with Sexual Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 69-98. DOI: 10.1177/009385480730928
  29. Levenson J.S. (2011). “But I Didn’t Do It!”: Ethical Treatment of Sex Offenders in Denial. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 346-364. DOI: 10.1177/1079063210382048
  30. Looman J., Dickie I. & Abrace, J. (2005). Responsivity Issues in the Treatment of Sexual Offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 330-353. DOI: 10.1177/152483800528085
  31. Lord A. & Willmot P. (2004). The Process of Overcoming Denial in Sexual Offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 10, 51-61. DOI: 10.1080/1355260041000167093
  32. Lösel F. & Schmucker M. (2005). The Effectiveness of Treatment for Sexual Offenders: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminolo-gy, 1, 117-146.
  33. Lund C.A. (2000). Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: Did Meta-analysis Clarify the Role and Relevance of Denial? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 273-285. DOI: 10.1177/10790632000120040
  34. Mann R.E., Hanson R.K. & Thornton D. (2010). Assessing Risk for Sexual Recidivism: some Proposals on the Nature of Psychologically Meaningful Risk Fac-tors. Sexual Abuse: A journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 191-217. DOI: 10.1177/107906321036603
  35. Marshall W.L., Marshall L.E., Serran G.A. & O’Brien M.D. (2013). What Works in Reducing Sexual Offending. In: Craig L.A., Dixon L. & Gannon T.A. (Eds.). What Works in Offender Rehabilitation. An Evidencebased Approach to Assessment and Treatment. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  36. Maruna S. & Mann R.E. (2006). A Fundamental Attribution Error? Rethinking Cognitive Distortions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 155-177. DOI: 10.1348/135532506X11460
  37. Miller W.R. & Rollnick S. (2013). Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  38. Piquero A.R., Farrington D.P. & Blumstein A. (2007). Key Issues in Criminal Career Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Pollock N.L. & Hashmall J.M. (1991). The Excuses of Child Molesters. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 53-59.
  40. Prentky R.A., Barbaree H.E. & Janus E.S. (2015). Sexual Predators: Society, Risk, and the Law. New York: Routledge.
  41. Schneider S.L. & Wright R.C. (2001). The FoSOD: A Measurement Tool for Reconceptualizing the Role of Denial in Child Molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 545-564. DOI: 10.1177/08862600101600600
  42. Schneider S.L. & Wright R.C. (2004). Understanding Denial in Sexual Offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 3-20. DOI: 10.1177/1524838003259320
  43. Seto M.C. & Lalumière M.L. (2001). A Brief Screening Scale to Identify Pedophilic Interests among Child Molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 15-25. DOI: 10.1177/10790632010130010
  44. Shakespeare W. (1608 in quarto). King Lear. In: Craig W.J. (1894) (Ed.). The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Vanhoeck K. & van Daele E. (2011). Denial of Sexual Crimes: A Therapeutic Exploration. In: Boer D.P., Eher R., Craig L.A., Miner M.H. & Pfäfflin F. (Eds.). International Perspectives on the Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offend-ers: Theory, Practice and Research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  46. Ward T. & Beech A. (2006). An Integrated Theory of Sexual Offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 44-63.
  47. Ward T. & Hudson S.M. (2000). Sexual Offenders’ Implicit Planning: A Conceptual Model. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 189-202. DOI: 10.1023/A:100953410915
  48. Ware J. & Harkins L. (2015). Addressing Denial. In: Wilcox D.T., Garrett T., and Harkins L. (Eds.). Sex Offender Treatment: A Case Study Approach to Issues and Interventions. London: Wiley.
  49. Ware J. & Mann R.E. (2012). How Should “Acceptance of Responsibility” be Addressed in Sexual Offending Treatment Programs? Aggression and Violent Be-havior, 17, 279-288.
  50. Ware J., Marshall W.L. & Marshall L.E. (2015). Categorical Denial in Convicted Sex Offenders: The Concept, its Meaning, and its Implication for Risk and Treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 215-226.
  51. Wheeler S. & Lord L. (1999) Denial: A Conceptual Analysis. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, XIII, 6: 311-320. DOI: 10.1016/S0883-9417(99)80063-
  52. Wilson R.J. (1999). Emotional Congruence in Sexual Offenders against Chil-dren. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 33-47. DOI: 10.1177/10790632990110010
  53. Wilson D. & Jones T. (2008). “In My Own World”: A Case Study of a Paedophile’s Thinking and Doing and his Use of the Internet. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47,107-120.
  54. Wright R.C. & Schneider S.L. (2004). Mapping Child Molester Treatment Progress with the FoSOD: Denial, Explanations, and Accountability. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 85-105. DOI: 10.1177/10790632040160020
  55. Yates P.M. (2009). Is Sexual Offender Denial Related to Sex Offence Risk and Recidivism? A Review and Treatment Implications. Psychology Crime and Law Special Issue: Cognition and Emotion, 15, 183-199. DOI: 10.1080/1068316080219090
  56. Zara G. (2005). Le carriere criminali. Milano: Giuffrè.
  57. Zara G. (2016a). La psico-criminologia: questioni deontologiche e questioni di me-todo. In: Zara G., Presutti M. & Calvi E. (Eds.). Lo psicologo, tra l’essere e il fare. Deontologia psicologica in ambito psico-criminologico, forense e della ricerca. Italia: PubliEdit.
  58. Zara G. (2016b). Valutare il rischio in ambito criminologico. Procedure e strumenti per l’assessment psicologico. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  59. Zara G. (2017, forthcoming). Valutare il diniego nei sex offenders con il CID-SO© (Comprehensive Inventory of Denial – Sex Offender Version). Milano: Raffael-lo Cortina. Accepted for publication.
  60. Zara G. & Farrington D.P. (2016). Criminal Recidivism: Explanation, Prediction and Prevention. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Georgia Zara, Il ruolo del diniego nella violenza sessuale: la valutazione dei bisogni criminogenici e dei bisogni di rispondenza in "GRUPPI" 1/2016, pp 123-140, DOI: 10.3280/GRU2016-001010