Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of the hierarchal regression retain the null hypothesis, suggesting that neither the personal history traits nor nature of the crime characteristics entered into the regression significantly predict whether or not the crime is the offender’s first offense. Curiously, although both General Strain Theory and the empirical research suggest that personal history and nature of the crime variables may significantly contribute to the significant prediction of recidivism, the data refute this hypothesis. Further research may re-test a similar design with other sexual offender sub-populations, a different theoretical paradigm, choose to incorporate a larger sample size, or choose different traits and characteristics to test. Amalgamated, these data may create a more comprehensive picture of whether or not certain crimes or social backgrounds may increase the likelihood that a sexual offender re-offends upon release. These data are critical to public safety and particularly to those negatively affected by sexually motivated crimes.

There were a number of limitations presented by the current study. Firstly, because it was a secondary analysis, the researcher had no control over the breadth and depth of the information provided on each offender and sexual offense case. It may have contributed significantly to the findings to have many more questions about the offender’s personal history and types of crimes they committed (i.e. cyber-bullying, internet stalking, online conspiracy to commit sex crimes etc.). Secondly, due to data missingness, the number of cases entered into the logistic regression was reduced to 105 cases. Further research may seek to expand the sample size to a wider population so as to increase the validity and reliability of results. Lastly, a major limitation of the data analysis was the time frame in which the study spans. Because the most current data offering a national representative study available was amassed 2000-2001, it is likely that it is out of date. Future research will provide a more contemporary analysis of the current onlinerelated sexual offenses committed against minors.

Nevertheless, the findings provide significant implications for social work at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels. Retaining the null hypothesis provides a rule-out of possible risk factors that can predict offender recidivism. Micro-level social workers working with offenders may therefore exert effort in other domains of the offender’s psycho-social spiritual health that may better prevent recidivism (i.e., offender self-perceptions, experience of ostracism, etc.). On the mezzo-level, the data rendered by this study provides imperative data for work with offenders at the organizational level. By understanding what does not contribute to recommission of these crimes, organizations can place their efforts, funds, and therapeutic initiatives into programs that dismantle other barriers to lawful living (i.e., dismantling legal re-entry barriers that cause further strain to the offender, offering support groups to offenders or others affected by sexual crimes). On a macro level, the present research resolves some ambiguity about online sexual recidivism. Refuting hypotheses about what does not contribute to recidivism opens up opportunity for future researchers to test alternative hypotheses. This body of empirical research may one day agree upon risk factors and protective factors that prevent future harm to children. This information is critical not only to social workers, but also to law enforcement, criminologists, educators, parents, and to many others across a host of domains. Ultimately, the present study seeks contributes meaningful and impactful results that can benefit not on the social work domain, but also society at-large.

Discussion and Conclusion

Table of Contents