Facteurs de protection et facteurs de désistance chez les auteurs d’infraction à caractère sexuel : articulation et clarification

Cet article articule deux études sur les facteurs de protection et de désistance parmi les Auteurs d’Infraction à Caractère Sexuel (AICS). La première étude est une revue systématique de la littérature scientifique portant sur la validité prédictive de la Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors (SAPROF) pour cette population. Les résultats soutiennent une grande variabilité de la validité prédictive de la SAPROF. Ce constat fait écho aux limites inhérentes à l’état actuel des connaissances concernant les facteurs protecteurs. L’amélioration de la SAPROF ne peut alors être envisagée que conjointement à un éclaircissement concernant la nature, l’effet et la conceptualisation des facteurs protecteurs. La seconde étude examine les facteurs de désistance identifiés à travers les discours de six AICS libérés. Les principaux résultats indiquent une prédominance des facteurs positifs liés à la désistance, en particulier des relations interpersonnelles positives (externes) et les transformations cognitives, surtout les processus de réflexion liés aux infractions (internes). Les facteurs externes positifs sont marqués par un recouvrement conceptuel important avec les facteurs protecteurs, tandis que la majorité des facteurs négatifs correspondent à ce qui est communément reconnu comme des facteurs de risque. La complémentarité des résultats de ces études est discutée, jetant les bases de recherches futures nécessaires à la clarification conceptuelle et opérationnelle de ces facteurs.

Forensic literature has revealed a plethora of risk assessment tools, emphasizing the factors that can lead to a greater risk of recidivism among sexual offenders. Thus, the assessment and treatment of individuals who have offended have gradually evolved to the point where professionals no longer ask what doesn’t work (Nothing works) but what does work (What works) for them. From this perspective of positivist forensic psychology, the inclusion of so-called positive factors such as protective or desistance factors is an important issue. A strengths-based approach to risk assessment encourages a more balanced assessment by including factors that mediate, moderate, or even cancel out this risk, specifically protective factors. Despite a strong interest in them, there are many conceptual shortcomings that hinder their widespread use. The existence of these factors is still assumed. While the importance of their integration in assessment has been established, their lack of validity hinders it. Hence, the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors (SAPROF) has been developed to measure exclusively protective factors. The SAPROF assesses internal factors (e.g., intelligence, secure attachment, etc.), motivational factors (e.g., work, leisure activities, etc.), and external factors (e.g., social network, positive interpersonal relationships, etc.). An additional version for Individuals who have Committed Sexual Offenses (ICSO) has also been developed. The first study we present consists of a systematic review of the literature comprising six studies focusing on protective factors identified among ICSOs and the validity of their operational assessment using SAPROF. The principle results suggest a poor prediction using SAPROF. A section of narrative literature focuses on desistance. The desistance paradigm suggests that professionals would be better equipped to deal with individuals who have committed offenses if they were also allowed to guide them and listen to what they think is best for them, rather than insisting that our solutions are best. The principle of What works is therefore complemented by the Why it works and How it works when applied to approaches to rehabilitation by making the offenders an integral part of the process. As a universal and complex process, desistance involves changes in identity related to release from detention and avoiding the criminal pathway. Therefore, it is a highly individualised and subjective process, the definitional and operational modalities of which are still unclear. As with protective factors, narrative literature identifies external and internal factors that might influence the reintegration process. While some desistance factors seem to be common to protective factors such as employment, quality of relationships, or treatment, some non-operational factors are highlighted as narrative discourses or a knifing off concept. The second study investigates desistance factors identified through an analysis of the discourse of six male ICSOs on probation or conditional release based on iterative thematic content analysis. The main results highlight a predominance of positive factors relating to desistance, specifically positive interpersonal relationships (external) and cognitive transformations marked by reflective processes linked to offenses (internal). For negative factors hindering their desistance process, ICSOs emphasize internal factors such as access to illicit substances and financial difficulties. To conclude, despite increased attention, empirical and conceptual definitions are lacking, particularly regarding protective factors and related expressions. Less is known about how protective factors support desistance from committing sexual offenses. The results of these two complementary studies are discussed in light of the literature, laying the foundations for future research necessary to establish a conceptual and operational clarification of protective and desistance factors.