Description: Pursuant to the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law, 730 ILCS 152/101,et seq., the Chicago Police Department maintains a list of sex offenders residing in the City of Chicago who are required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/2, et seq. To protect the privacy of the individuals, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. The data are extracted from the CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system developed by the Department. Although every effort is made to keep this list accurate and current, the city cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Offenders may have moved and failed to notify the Chicago Police Department as required by law. If any information presented in this web site is known to be outdated, please contact the Chicago Police Department at srwbmstr@chicagopolice.org, or mail to Sex Registration Unit, 3510 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60653. Disclaimer: This registry is based upon the legislature's decision to facilitate access to publicly available information about persons convicted of specific sexual offenses. The Chicago Police Department has not considered or assessed the specific risk of re-offense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included within the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within this registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and Illinois law. The main purpose of providing this data on the internet is to make the information more available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.

Anyone who uses information contained in the Sex Offender Database to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution. Data Owner: Chicago Police Department. Frequency: Data is updated daily. Related Applications: CLEARMAP (http://j.mp/lLluSa).

This dataset includes 5 transcripts from qualitative interviews with program architects at phase 1 of the study and 33 transcripts from qualitative interviews at phase 2 of the study. There are 11 interviews with patients (one in two parts) and a further 22 transcripts of interviews with professionals and carers.Adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programs (ASOTPs) have, as their name implies, been modified from mainstream treatment to meet the learning needs of offenders with intellectual disability (ID). They are designed to increase the offender's sexual knowledge, understanding of victim harm, ability to recognise feelings in themselves and others, to modify offence-justifying thinking and to support individuals to develop relapse prevention skills. In this project I will explore what works on ASOTPs, for whom, in what contexts, why and how. I seek to make sense of these programs in the contexts in which they take place, in order to illuminate what social factors may help or hinder treatment success. In particular, I will examine how effective links between these forensic healthcare interventions and the offender's living context and social care provision, for instance the nature and level of supervision they receive to manage risk, during and after treatment can enhance outcomes. I aim to translate this knowledge into policy and practice recommendations, in order to inform the future targeting of public resources on the most effective treatment, supported by social care packages that can enhance effectiveness. I will evaluate two ASOTPs, one in the UK and one in Switzerland. Both deliver group cognitive behavioural therapy, lasting about 18 months. The evaluation will entail three phases. First, a literature review will be followed by interviews with twelve international key academics and practitioners who designed ASOTPs. This will illuminate in what ways ASOTPs are intended to work. Second, I will explore case studies of men who have attended ASOTPs to explain the impact the program had on them, whether and how it worked and in what contexts. There will be three types of data collection. Four focus groups with altogether 24 participants will look at the user experiences of treatment. Eighty patient files will be reviewed to examine how well the treatment worked for each person. From this a sample of 20 participants, ten for whom the treatment worked and ten for whom it did not, will be followed up through interviews with offenders and practitioners, to find out in more detail why the program did (not) work. Third, the twelve key practitioners will be revisited. Ideas that were developed from phase 1 and 2 on what works, for whom and in what circumstances will be presented to them and they will offer expert commentary. They will examine the case studies from the UK and Switzerland and tease out how wider social contexts, such as public policy and social care practice, impact on treatment success by comparing the case studies to their local contexts. From this a set of recommendations will be derived on most useful policy and practice scenarios and successful social care packages that can enhance treatment success for a particular type of person. Sex offender treatment seeks to change harmful behaviours and has the potential to contribute towards the prevention of maltreatment towards vulnerable populations. It is therefore a social issues, which is in line with the ESRC strategic priority "influencing behaviour and informing interventions". Moreover, The ESRC review of strategic priorities 2013 identified "innovation in health and social care" as a focus for the next 24 months. This project can inform this by making suggestions on better collaborations between health and social care, an issue that has also been prioritised by UK central government. In addition, penal responses to people with ID are currently being reformed. This background and the current age of austerity make this project timely, as it can inform contemporary debates and the targeting of scarce public resources on treatment that works. Throughout the project I will network with policy makers, practitioners, disabled people's organisations and interested members of the public to maximise opportunities to impact on practice and policy development. Phase 1: Leading adapted sex offender treatment programmes in England, the USA and Canada were sampled. For each programme, the programme architects were identified. Those are the therapist practitioners who play a key role within their organization in the design, implementation, review and updating of their programmes. Interviews were semi‐structured and adopted the “teacher–learner method”, designed to investigate participants' ideas about how the programmes are intended to work (programme theories). Phase 2: The hospital where this research took place has medium, low secure and step-down services for people with learning disabilities. Treatment groups for men with learning disabilities who have sexually offended were running between 2006 and 2017, treating altogether 33 men to successful completion in 6 cohort groups. After reviewing the 33 patient files a sample of eleven men were selected by the researcher and therapy team for case study research. The aim was to explore a spread of cases at various points of their discharge journey. Interviews with the 11 patients were held in plain language. At the end of each interview men were asked to identify individuals whom the researcher would speak to further about each patient. As a result, a further 22 professionals were interviewed. Interviews with professionals asked further questions about patient’s progress in treatment, journey through the care pathways and the discharge process (if applicable), their risk management capabilities, legal issues and social care support. Each patient was discussed by two to five professionals. Eight professionals commented on more than one patient. At times, this happened within one interview others were done separately.

In online spaces, children are vulnerable to exploitation and sexual predators. Groomers contact minors in online chat rooms with the intent of sexual abuse. This study investigates how new deep learning models compare to traditional machine learning models in detecting grooming conversations and predatory authors. Furthermore, we detect the underlying tones used by predators and explore how these affect detection capabilities. Our goal is to better understand predator tactics and to advance automatic grooming detection in order to protect children in online spaces. The PAN12 chat logs, which contain grooming chat conversations, were used as the dataset for the research. These chat conversations were sorted into sentiments through the DistilBERT classifier based on the predator tone. SVMs and the LLaMA 3.2 1B large language model by Meta were then trained and fine-tuned on the different sentiments. The results measured through precision, recall and F1 score show that the large language model performs better in grooming detection than traditional machine learning. Moreover, performance differences between the positive and negative sentiment are captured and indicate that positive tone improves detection while negative toned grooming conversations have nuanced patterns that are harder to distinguish from non-grooming. This shows that groomers employ varying strategies to gain access to their victims. Lastly, with an F1 score of 0.99 and an F0.5 score of 0.99, the LLaMA 3.2 1B model outperforms both traditional machine learning, as well as previous versions of the large language model in grooming author detection.

The purpose of this study was to examine the crime of identity theft from the offenders' perspectives. The study employed a purposive sampling strategy. Researchers identified potential interview subjects by examining newspapers (using Lexis-Nexis), legal documents (using Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw), and United States Attorneys' Web sites for individuals charged with, indicted, and/or sentenced to prison for identity theft. Once this list was generated, researchers used the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Inmate Locator to determine if the individuals were currently housed in federal facilities. Researchers visited the facilities that housed the largest number of inmates on the list in each of the six regions in the United States as defined by the BOP (Western, North Central, South Central, North Eastern, Mid-Atlantic, and South Eastern) and solicited the inmates housed in these prisons. A total of 14 correctional facilities were visited and 65 individuals incarcerated for identity theft or identity theft related crimes were interviewed between March 2006 and February 2007. Researchers used semi-structured interviews to explore the offenders' decision-making processes. When possible, interviews were audio recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Part 1 (Quantitative Data) includes the demographic variables age, race, gender, number of children, highest level of education, and socioeconomic class while growing up. Other variables include prior arrests or convictions and offense type, prior drug use and if drug use contributed to identity theft, if employment facilitated identity theft, if they went to trial or plead to charges, and sentence length. Part 2 (Qualitative Data), includes demographic questions such as family situation while growing up, highest level of education, marital status, number of children, and employment status while committing identity theft crimes. Subjects were asked about prior criminal activity and drug use. Questions specific to identity theft include the age at which the person became involved in identity theft, how many identities he or she had stolen, if they had worked with other people to steal identities, why they had become involved in identity theft, the skills necessary to steal identities, and the perceived risks involved in identity theft.

Description: Pursuant to the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law, 730 ILCS 152/101,et seq., the Chicago Police Department maintains a list of sex offenders residing in the City of Chicago who are required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/2, et seq. To protect the privacy of the individuals, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. The data are extracted from the CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system developed by the Department. Although every effort is made to keep this list accurate and current, the city cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Offenders may have moved and failed to notify the Chicago Police Department as required by law. If any information presented in this web site is known to be outdated, please contact the Chicago Police Department at srwbmstr@chicagopolice.org, or mail to Sex Registration Unit, 3510 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60653. Disclaimer: This registry is based upon the legislature's decision to facilitate access to publicly available information about persons convicted of specific sexual offenses. The Chicago Police Department has not considered or assessed the specific risk of re-offense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included within the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within this registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and Illinois law. The main purpose of providing this data on the internet is to make the information more available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.

Anyone who uses information contained in the Sex Offender Database to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution. Data Owner: Chicago Police Department. Frequency: Data is updated daily. Related Applications: CLEARMAP (http://j.mp/lLluSa).

The goal of the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study (CWHRS) was to develop a reliable and validated profile of risk factors directly related to lethal or life-threatening outcomes in intimate partner violence, for use in agencies and organizations working to help women in abusive relationships. Data were collected to draw comparisons between abused women in situations resulting in fatal outcomes and those without fatal outcomes, as well as a baseline comparison of abused women and non-abused women, taking into account the interaction of events, circumstances, and interventions occurring over the course of a year or two. The CWHRS used a quasi-experimental design to gather survey data on 705 women at the point of service for any kind of treatment (related to abuse or not) sought at one of four medical sites serving populations in areas with high rates of intimate partner homicide (Chicago Women's Health Center, Cook County Hospital, Erie Family Health Center, and Roseland Public Health Center). Over 2,600 women were randomly screened in these settings, following strict protocols for safety and privacy. One goal of the design was that the sample would not systematically exclude high-risk but understudied populations, such as expectant mothers, women without regular sources of health care, and abused women in situations where the abuse is unknown to helping agencies. To accomplish this, the study used sensitive contact and interview procedures, developed sensitive instruments, and worked closely with each sample site. The CWHRS attempted to interview all women who answered "yes -- within the past year" to any of the three screening questions, and about 30 percent of women who did not answer yes, provided that the women were over age 17 and had been in an intimate relationship in the past year. In total, 705 women were interviewed, 497 of whom reported that they had experienced physical violence or a violent threat at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year (the abused, or AW, group). The remaining 208 women formed the comparison group (the non-abused, or NAW, group). Data from the initial interview sections comprise Parts 1-8. For some women, the AW versus NAW interview status was not the same as their screening status. When a woman told the interviewer that she had experienced violence or a violent threat in the past year, she and the interviewer completed a daily calendar history, including details of important events and each violent incident that had occurred the previous year. The study attempted to conduct one or two follow-up interviews over the following year with the 497 women categorized as AW. The follow-up rate was 66 percent. Data from this part of the clinic/hospital sample are found in Parts 9-12. In addition to the clinic/hospital sample, the CWHRS collected data on each of the 87 intimate partner homicides occurring in Chicago over a two-year period that involved at least one woman age 18 or older. Using the same interview schedule as for the clinic/hospital sample, CWHRS interviewers conducted personal interviews with one to three "proxy respondents" per case, people who were knowledgeable and credible sources of information about the couple and their relationship, and information was compiled from official or public records, such as court records, witness statements, and newspaper accounts (Parts 13-15). In homicides in which a woman was the homicide offender, attempts were made to contact and interview her. This "lethal" sample, all such homicides that took place in 1995 or 1996, was developed from two sources, HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1995 (ICPSR 6399) and the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office. Part 1 includes demographic variables describing each respondent, such as age, race and ethnicity, level of education, employment status, screening status (AW or NAW), birthplace, and marital status. Variables in Part 2 include details about the woman's household, such as whether she was homeless, the number of people living in the household and details about each person, the number of her children or other children in the household, details of any of her children not living in her household, and any changes in the household structure over the past year. Variables in Part 3 deal with the woman's physical and mental health, including pregnancy, and with her social support network and material resources. Variables in Part 4 provide information on the number and type of firearms in the household, whether the woman had experienced power, control, stalking, or harassment at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, whether she had experienced specific types of violence or violent threats at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, and whether she had experienced symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to the incidents in the past month. Variables in Part 5 specify the partner or partners who were responsible for the incidents in the past year, record the type and length of the woman's relationship with each of these partners, and provide detailed information on the one partner she chose to talk about (called "Name"). Variables in Part 6 probe the woman's help-seeking and interventions in the past year. Variables in Part 7 include questions comprising the Campbell Danger Assessment (Campbell, 1993). Part 8 assembles variables pertaining to the chosen abusive partner (Name). Part 9, an event-level file, includes the type and the date of each event the woman discussed in a 12-month retrospective calendar history. Part 10, an incident-level file, includes variables describing each violent incident or threat of violence. There is a unique identifier linking each woman to her set of events or incidents. Part 11 is a person-level file in which the incidents in Part 10 have been aggregated into totals for each woman. Variables in Part 11 include, for example, the total number of incidents during the year, the number of days before the interview that the most recent incident had occurred, and the severity of the most severe incident in the past year. Part 12 is a person-level file that summarizes incident information from the follow-up interviews, including the number of abuse incidents from the initial interview to the last follow-up, the number of days between the initial interview and the last follow-up, and the maximum severity of any follow-up incident. Parts 1-12 contain a unique identifier variable that allows users to link each respondent across files. Parts 13-15 contain data from official records sources and information supplied by proxies for victims of intimate partner homicides in 1995 and 1996 in Chicago. Part 13 contains information about the homicide incidents from the "lethal sample," along with outcomes of the court cases (if any) from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Variables for Part 13 include the number of victims killed in the incident, the month and year of the incident, the gender, race, and age of both the victim and offender, who initiated the violence, the severity of any other violence immediately preceding the death, if leaving the relationship triggered the final incident, whether either partner was invading the other's home at the time of the incident, whether jealousy or infidelity was an issue in the final incident, whether there was drug or alcohol use noted by witnesses, the predominant motive of the homicide, location of the homicide, relationship of victim to offender, type of weapon used, whether the offender committed suicide after the homicide, whether any criminal charges were filed, and the type of disposition and length of sentence for that charge. Parts 14 and 15 contain data collected using the proxy interview questionnaire (or the interview of the woman offender, if applicable). The questionnaire used for Part 14 was identical to the one used in the clinic sample, except for some extra questions about the homicide incident. The data include only those 76 cases for which at least one interview was conducted. Most variables in Part 14 pertain to the victim or the offender, regardless of gender (unless otherwise labeled). For ease of analysis, Part 15 includes the same 76 cases as Part 14, but the variables are organized from the woman's point of view, regardless of whether she was the victim or offender in the homicide (for the same-sex cases, Part 15 is from the woman victim's point of view). Parts 14 and 15 can be linked by ID number. However, Part 14 includes five sets of variables that were asked only from the woman's perspective in the original questionnaire: household composition, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), social support network, personal income (as opposed to household income), and help-seeking and intervention. To avoid redundancy, these variables appear only in Part 14. Other variables in Part 14 cover information about the person(s) interviewed, the victim's and offender's age, sex, race/ethnicity, birthplace, employment status at time of death, and level of education, a scale of the victim's and offender's severity of physical abuse in the year prior to the death, the length of the relationship between victim and offender, the number of children belonging to each partner, whether either partner tried to leave and/or asked the other to stay away, the reasons why each partner tried to leave, the longest amount of time each partner stayed away, whether either or both partners returned to the relationship before the death, any known physical or emotional problems sustained by victim or offender, including the four-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) scale of depression, drug and alcohol use of the victim and offender, number and type of guns in the household of the victim and offender, Scales of Power and Control (Johnson, 1996) or Stalking and Harassment (Sheridan, 1992) by either intimate partner in the year prior to the death, a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)

Abstract:Parental experience alters survival-related phenotypes of offspring in both adaptive and non-adaptive ways, yielding rapid inter- and transgenerational fitness effects. Yet, fitness comprises survival and reproduction, and parental effects on mating decisions could alter the strength and direction of sexual selection, affecting long-term evolutionary trajectories. We used a full factorial design in which threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) mothers, fathers, both, or neither were exposed to a model predator at developmentally appropriate times to test for predator-induced maternal, paternal, and joint parental effects on daughters’ mating behavior. We tested the responsiveness, preferences, and mate choices of adult daughters in no-choice trials with wild-caught males who had varied sexual signals. Maternal and paternal predator exposure independently yielded daughters who preferred males who were intermediate in conspicuousness (with duller nuptial coloration and who courted less vigorously), relaxing the typical preference for the most conspicuous males. The combined effects of maternal and paternal predator exposure were not cumulative; when both parents were predator-exposed, single-parent effects on mate preferences were reversed. Thus, we cannot assume that maternal and paternal effects additively combine to produce "parental" effects. Further, joint parental predator exposure yielded daughters who were three times less likely to mate at all. Stress-induced intergenerational parental effects on reproductive decisions like those observed here may potentiate rapid transgenerational responses to novel and changing mating environments.