The Predator’s Choice

Professionals who work with perpetrators of interpersonal violence, sexual offending, coercive control, exploitation, trafficking, stalking, or other predatory behaviors frequently encounter a complicated psychological and social phenomenon: the displacement of empathy from the victim toward the perpetrator.

When a perpetrator is arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, loses employment, experiences relationship disruption, or suffers reputational consequences, family members and even professionals may focus heavily on what the offender has “lost.”

Statements such as “He made a mistake,” “She would never do this again,” “He has suffered enough,” or “You don’t understand what this has done to our family” are common.

These responses are understandable from a human perspective. However, from a forensic and clinical perspective, they require careful examination.

The central principle is:

The term predator should be used carefully in professional settings. It is not, by itself, a psychiatric diagnosis. Forensic professionals should evaluate observable behavior, patterns, cognition, motivations, risk factors, and functional impairment rather than relying solely upon a label.

Predatory behavior may involve:

The critical forensic question is not simply what happened, but how the individual made decisions before, during, and after the behavior.

Clinical assessment frequently identifies contributing factors.

An offender may have experienced childhood trauma, attachment disruption, substance abuse, exposure to violence, dysfunctional family systems, cognitive distortions, emotional dysregulation, personality traits, or other psychosocial difficulties.

These factors may be clinically relevant.

But they should never automatically be transformed into excuses.

A trauma history may explain vulnerability.

It does not authorize victimization.

Substance use may impair judgment.

It does not automatically eliminate accountability.

Anger may influence behavior.

It does not give someone permission to harm another person.

Clinical formulation should therefore distinguish between:

These are not interchangeable concepts.

One of the most important forensic distinctions is the difference between an isolated error in judgment and a pattern of intentional or recurrent boundary violation.

A single poor decision and a systematic pattern of exploitation should not be conceptualized identically.

Professionals should examine:

The presence of planning, grooming, deception, repetition, escalation, concealment, or exploitation may substantially alter the clinical and forensic formulation.

An offender does not become responsible when the police arrive.

They do not become responsible when they are arrested.

They do not become responsible when they receive a sentence.

The arrest, prosecution, incarceration, loss of employment, or relationship consequences are responses to behavior that has already occurred.

This distinction is particularly important when families describe the offender as the primary victim of the criminal justice process.

A forensic professional should be able to hold two truths simultaneously:

AND

Empathy for an offender’s suffering should never require erasing the victim’s suffering.

Healthy clinical empathy is not the same as absolution.

A therapist can understand an offender’s developmental history while maintaining firm behavioral boundaries.

A treatment provider can acknowledge emotional pain while requiring accountability.

A family member can love an offender without defending the offense.

A court can recognize mitigating circumstances without denying victim impact.

The professional objective should be:

Predatory and abusive behavior is frequently maintained by distorted beliefs that reduce psychological discomfort and permit continued behavior.

Examples may include:

These statements should be clinically examined rather than accepted as explanations.

The goal of intervention is not simply to make the offender feel remorse.

The goal is to increase:

Forensic assessment must distinguish remorse from regret.

Regret may focus on consequences:

Remorse focuses on harm:

Meaningful accountability generally requires more than emotional distress about punishment.

A clinically significant change process should include acknowledgment of the behavior, recognition of victim impact, identification of distorted thinking, acceptance of responsibility, development of alternative behaviors, and evidence that those alternatives are being practiced consistently.

A common systemic failure occurs when the offender’s needs become so prominent that the victim effectively disappears from the professional narrative.

The offender’s depression becomes the focus.

The offender’s lost employment becomes the focus.

The offender’s family distress becomes the focus.

The offender’s incarceration becomes the focus.

Meanwhile, the victim’s experience becomes secondary.

A trauma-informed forensic approach reverses this imbalance.

The professional must ask:

Accountability should not be viewed solely as punishment.

In perpetrator treatment, accountability can be therapeutic because it interrupts externalization and forces the individual to confront the connection between:

Without that connection, treatment can become another mechanism for avoidance.

An offender who consistently says “They made me do it,” “I couldn’t control myself,” or “The system destroyed my life” may be demonstrating continued externalization rather than meaningful cognitive restructuring.

The clinical task is to move the individual toward:

Professionals must be cautious about allowing sympathy for an offender’s consequences to overshadow the responsibility that preceded them.

Predatory behavior is not made less serious because the offender subsequently suffers.

The loss of freedom does not erase the loss experienced by the victim.

The offender’s family distress does not erase victim trauma.

The offender’s childhood history does not rewrite the victim’s experience.

And the offender’s suffering does not transfer responsibility for the original conduct.

And most importantly:

⸻

When evaluating predatory or abusive behavior, professionals should continually distinguish:

Predators will express remorse and accountability and cry, but it is never for their behaviors or actions or harm to victims. It is because they got caught. They feel bad for themselves and no one else.

The ultimate forensic question is not simply:

It is:

That is the standard that places responsibility where it belongs—with the person who made the choice.