No differences were found in moral-reasoning ability between seven sexual offenders and nine nonsexual offenders. All were arrested in their moral development and reasoning. Although responses to all questions were dominated by preconventional reasoning (inadequate for socially normative behavior), questions related to property offending showed the most consistent use of the lowest level of moral reasoning. In contrast, there was a stronger presence of conventional moral reasoning for the assault questions, including sexual assault. Responses within the sexual offending context were dominated by preconventional reasoning among the sexual offenders; and for the nonsexual offenders preconventional moral reasoning was dominant for the nonsexual offending contexts. The development of interventions in order to enhance the moral-reasoning abilities of offenders appears warranted, even though the link between moral-reasoning ability and moral behavior has not yet been empirically demonstrated. Study participants were 16 incarcerated male offenders in a maximum-security adolescent detention facility in New South Wales, Australia. They were asked about the importance of obeying the law and whether there was a difference between stealing from a shop and stealing from a person, stealing from an old person and stealing from a young person, stealing from a poor person and stealing from a rich person, assaulting a man and assaulting a woman, and assault and sexual assault. Interviews were conducted between August 2003 and January 2004. 1 table and 21 references