Juvenile sex crimes

Juveniles who commit sexual crimes refer to individuals adjudicated in a criminal court for a
sexual crime.[5] Sex crimes are defined as sexually abusive behavior committed by a person
under the age of 18 that is perpetrated “against the victim’s will, without consent, and in an
aggressive, exploitative, manipulative, or threatening manner”.[6] It is important to utilize
appropriate terminology for juvenile sex offenders. Harsh and inappropriate expressions
include terms such as “pedophile, child molester, predator, perpetrator, and mini-perp”[7]
These terms have often been associated with this group, regardless of the youth’s age,
diagnosis, cognitive abilities, or developmental stage.[7] Using appropriate expressions can
facilitate a more accurate depiction of juvenile sex offenders and may decrease the
subsequent aversive psychological affects from using such labels.[7]

Prevalence data

Examining prevalence data and the characteristics of juvenile sex offenders is a fundamental
component to obtain a precise understanding of this heterogeneous group. With mandatory
reporting laws in place, it became a necessity for providers to report any incidents of
disclosed sexual abuse. Longo and Prescott indicate that juveniles commit approximately 30-
60% of all child sexual abuse.[7] The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports
indicate that in 2008 youth under the age of 18 accounted for 16.7% of forcible rapes and
20.61% of other sexual offenses.[8] Center for Sex Offender Management indicates that
approximately one-fifth of all rapes and one-half of all sexual child molestation can be
accounted for by juveniles.[9]

Official record data

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention indicates that 15% of juvenile
arrests occurred for forcible rape in 2006, and 12% were clearance (resolved by an arrest).[10]
The total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for forcible rape was 3,610 with 2% being
female and 36% being under the age of 15 years old.[10] This trend has declined throughout
the years with forcible rape from 1997-2006 being -30% and from 2005-2006 being -10%.[10]
The OJJDP reports that the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape increased from the early
1980s through the 1990s and at that time it fell again.[10] The OJJDP also reported that the
total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for sex offenses (other than forcible rape) was 15,900
with 10% being female and 47% being under the age of 15.[10] There was again a decrease in
the trend throughout the years with sex offenses from 1997-2006 being -16% and from 2005-
2006 being -9%.[10]

Males who commit sexual crimes

Barbaree and Marshall indicate that juvenile males contribute to the majority of sex crimes,
with 2-4% of adolescent males having reported committing sexually assaultive behavior, and
20% of all rapes and 30-50% of all child molestation is perpetrated by adolescent males.[5] It
is clear that males are over-represented in this population . This is consistent with Ryan and
Lane’s research indicating that males account for 91-93% of the reported juvenile sex
offenses.[6] Righthand and Welch reported that females account for an estimated 2-11% of
incidents of sexual offending.[11] In addition, it reported by The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention that in the juvenile arrests during 2006, African American male
youth were disproportionately arrested (34%) for forcible rape.[10] Although while African
American male youth are being disproportionately arrested, the most common ethnic group
comprising juvenile sex offenders is Caucasian males.[6]

Rational choice
Classical criminology stresses that causes of crime lie within the individual offender, rather
than in their external environment. For classicists, offenders are motivated by rational self-
interest, and the importance of free will and personal responsibility is emphasised[2]. Rational
choice theory is the clearest example of this idea.

Social disorganization
Current positivist approaches generally focus on the culture. A type of criminological theory
attributing variation in crime and delinquency over time and among territories to the absence
or breakdown of communal institutions (e.g. family, school, church and social groups.) and
communal relationships that traditionally encouraged cooperative relationships among
people.

Strain
Strain theory is associated mainly with the work of Robert Merton. He felt that there are
institutionalized paths to success in society. Strain theory holds that crime is caused by the
difficulty those in poverty have in achieving socially valued goals by legitimate means.[2] As
those with, for instance, poor educational attainment have difficulty achieving wealth and
status by securing well paid employment, they are more likely to use criminal means to
obtain these goals.[12] Merton's suggests five adaptations to this dilemma:

1. Innovation: individuals who accept socially approved goals, but not necessarily the
socially approved means.
2. Retreatism: those who reject socially approved goals and the means for acquiring
them.
3. Ritualism: those who buy into a system of socially approved means, but lose sight of
the goals. Merton believed that drug users are in this category.
4. Conformity: those who conform to the system's means and goals.
5. Rebellion: people who negate socially approved goals and means by creating a new
system of acceptable goals and means.

A difficulty with strain theory is that it does not explore why children of low-income families
would have poor educational attainment in the first place. More importantly is the fact that
much youth crime does not have an economic motivation. Strain theory fails to explain
violent crime, the type of youth crime which causes most anxiety to the public.

Differential association
The theory of Differential association also deals with young people in a group context, and
looks at how peer pressure and the existence of gangs could lead them into crime. It suggests
young people are motivated to commit crimes by delinquent peers, and learn criminal skills
from them. The diminished influence of peers after men marry has also been cited as a factor
in desisting from offending. There is strong evidence that young people with criminal friends
are more likely to commit crimes themselves[citation needed]. However it may be the case that
offenders prefer to associate with one another, rather than delinquent peers causing someone
to start offending. Furthermore there is the question of how the delinquent peer group became
delinquent initially.

Labeling
Labeling theory states that once young people have been labeled as criminal they are more
likely to offend. (Eadie & Morley: 2003 p. 552) The idea is that once labelled as deviant a
young person may accept that role, and be more likely to associate with others who have been
similarly labelled. (Eadie & Morley: 2003 p. 552) Labelling theorists say that male children
from poor families are more likely to be labelled deviant, and that this may partially explain
why there are more lower-class young male offenders. (Walklate: 2003 p. 24)

Male phenomenon
Youth crime is disproportionately[13] committed by young men. Feminist theorists and others
have examined why this is the case. (Eadie & Morley: 2003 p. 553) One suggestion is that
ideas of masculinity may make young men more likely to offend. Being tough, powerful,
aggressive, daring and competitive may be a way young men attempt to express their
masculinity. (Brown: 1998 p. 109) Acting out these ideals may make young men more likely
to engage in antisocial and criminal behaviour. (Walklate: 2003 p. 83) Alternatively, rather
than young men acting as they do because of societal pressure to conform to masculine
ideals; young men may actually be naturally more aggressive, daring etc. As well as
biological or psychological factors, the way young men are treated by their parents may make
them more susceptible to offending. (Walklate: 2003 p. 35) According to a study led by
Florida State University criminologist Kevin M. Beaver, adolescent males who possess a
certain type of variation in a specific gene are more likely to flock to delinquent peers. The
study, which appears in the September 2008 issue of the Journal of Genetic Psychology, is
the first to establish a statistically significant association between an affinity for antisocial
peer groups and a particular variation (called the 10-repeat allele) of the dopamine transporter
gene (DAT1).[14]

Risk factors
Individual risk factors

Individual psychological or behavioural risk factors that may make offending more likely
include intelligence, impulsiveness or the inability to delay gratification, aggression,
empathy, and restlessness. (Farrington: 2002) Children with low intelligence are likely to do
worse in school. This may increase the chances of offending because low educational
attainment, a low attachment to school, and low educational aspirations are all risk factors for
offending in themselves. (Walklate: 2003 p. 2) Children who perform poorly at school are
also more likely to truant, which is also linked to offending. (Farrington: 2002 p. 682) If
strain theory or subcultural theory are valid poor educational attainment could lead to crime
as children were unable to attain wealth and status legally. However it must be born in mind
that defining and measuring intelligence is troublesome. Young males are especially likely to
be impulsive which could mean they disregard the long-term consequences of their actions,
have a lack of self-control, and are unable to postpone immediate gratification. This may
explain why they disproportionately offend. (Farrington: 2002 p. 682) (Walklate: 2003 p. 36)
Impulsiveness is seen by some as the key aspect of a child's personality that predicts
offending. (Farrington: 2002 p. 682) However is not clear whether these aspects of
personality are a result of “deficits in the executive functions of the brain”, (Farrington: 2002
p. 667) or a result of parental influences or other social factors. (Graham & Bowling: 1995
p. 32)

Mental disorders

Conduct disorder usually develops during childhood and manifests itself during an
adolescence life. (Holmes et al.:2001 p. 183) Some juvenile behavior is attributed to the
diagnosable disorder known as conduct disorder. In accordance to the DSM-IV-TR Codes
312.xx (where xx varies upon the specifice subtype exhibited) adolescence who exhibit
conduct disorder also show a lack of empathy and disregard for societal norms. The DSM is
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American
Psychiatric Association [15] and most often referred to by Psychiatrists for diagnosing mental
disorders. Juvenile delinquents who have recurring encounters with the criminal justice
system are sometimes diagnosed with conduct disorders because they show a continuous
disregard for their own and others safety and property. Once the juvenile continues to exhibit
the same behavioral patterns and turns eighteen he is then at risk of being diagnosed with
antisocial personality disorder and much more prone to become a serious criminal offender.
(DeLisi: 2005 p. 39) One of the main components used in diagnosing an adult with antisocial
personality disorder consists of presenting documented history of conduct disorder before the
age of 15. These two personality disorders are analogous in their erratic and aggressive
behavior. This is why habitual juvenile offenders diagnosed with conduct disorder are likely
to exhibit signs of antisocial personality disorder as they mature. Once the juveniles reach
maturation their socially unacceptable behavior has grown into a life style and they develop
into career criminals. "Career criminals begin committing antisocial behavior before entering
grade school and are versatile in that they engage in an array of destructive behaviors, offend
at exceedingly high rates, and are less likely to quit committing crime as they age."[16]

Quantitave research was completed on 9,945 juvenile male offenders between the ages of 10
and 18 in the 1970s[where?]. The longitudinal birth cohort was used to examine a trend among a
small percentage of career criminals who accounted for the largest percentage of crime
activity.[17] The trend exhibited a new phenomenon amongst habitual offenders. For this study
habitual offenders were youth who experienced more than five police encounters.(Wolfgang
et al.: 1972) The phenomenon indicated that only 6% of the youth qualified under their
definition of a habitual offender and yet were responsible for 52% of the delinquency within
the entire study. (Wolfgang et al.: 1972) The same 6% of chronic offenders accounted for
71% of the murders and 69% of the aggravated assaults.(Wolfgang et al.: 1972). This
phenomenon was later researched among an adult population in 1977 and resulted in similar
findings. S.A. Mednick did a birth cohort of 30,000 males and found that 1% of the males
were responsible for more than half of the criminal activity.[18] The habitual crime behavior
found amongst juveniles is similar to that of adults. Habitual offenders "will make a 'career'
of bad choices and bad behavior and probably end up, sooner, or later, dead or in prison"
(DeLisi, 2005). These juvenile offenders are in need of treatment because they have a
negative disposition and high propensity to continue committing crime.(DeLisi, 2005)

Family environment

Family factors which may have an influence on offending include; the level of parental
supervision, the way parents discipline a child, parental conflict or separation, criminal
parents or siblings, parental abuse or neglect, and the quality of the parent-child relationship
(Graham & Bowling: 1995 p. 33) Children brought up by lone parents are more likely to start
offending than those who live with two natural parents, however once the attachment a child
feels towards their parent(s) and the level of parental supervision are taken into account,
children in single parent families are no more likely to offend than others. (Graham &
Bowling: 1995 p. 35) Conflict between a child's parents is also much more closely linked to
offending than being raised by a lone parent. (Walklate: 2003 p. 106) If a child has low
parental supervision they are much more likely to offend. (Graham & Bowling: 1995) Many
studies have found a strong correlation between a lack of supervision and offending, and it
appears to be the most important family influence on offending. (Farrington: 2002 p. 610)
(Graham & Bowling: 1995 p. 38) When parents commonly do not know where their children
are, what their activities are, or who their friends are, children are more likely to truant from
school and have delinquent friends, each of which are linked to offending. (Graham &
Bowling: 1995 p. 45,46) A lack of supervision is connected to poor relationships between
children and parents, as children who are often in conflict with their parents may be less
willing to discuss their activities with them. (Graham & Bowling: 1995 p. 37) Children with a
weak attachment to their parents are more likely to offend. (Graham & Bowling: 1995 p. 37)

Prevention

Delinquency Prevention is the broad term for all efforts aimed at preventing youth from
becoming involved in criminal, or other antisocial, activity. Increasingly, governments are
recognizing the importance of allocating resources for the prevention of delinquency.
Because it is often difficult for states to provide the fiscal resources necessary for good
prevention, organizations, communities, and governments are working more in collaboration
with each other to prevent juvenile delinquency.

With the development of delinquency in youth being influenced by numerous factors,

prevention efforts are comprehensive in scope. Prevention services include activities such as
substance abuse education and treatment, family counseling, youth mentoring, parenting
education, educational support, and youth sheltering.

Critique of risk factor research

The robustness and validity of much risk factor research has recently come under sustained
criticism for:

- Reductionism - e.g. over-simplfying complex experiences and circumstances by converting

them to simple quantities, relying on a psychosocial focus whilst neglecting potential socio-
structural and political influences;
- Determinism - e.g. characterising young people as passive victims of risk experiences with
no ability to construct, negotiate or resist risk;

- Imputation - e.g. assuming that risk factors and definitions of offending are homogenous
across countries and cultures, assuming that statistical correlations between risk factors and
offending actually represent causal relationships, assuming that risk factors apply to
individuals on the basis of aggregated data.

Two UK academics, Stephen Case and Kevin Haines, have been particularly forceful in their
critique of risk factor research within a number of academic papers and a comprehensive
polemic text entitled 'Understanding Youth Offending: Risk Factor Research, Policy and
Practice'.

Societal consequences
Once the juvenile offender reaches maturation he is likely to continue exhibiting maladaptive
behaviors and increases his risk of being cycled through the criminal justice system as an
adult offender. Due to the small population of habitual adult and juvenile offenders
attributing for the large percentage of violent crimes (i.e. murder and aggravated assault) the
criminal justice system should supervise the small population of career criminals in an effort
to prevent the spawning of serious violent offenders. If mental disorders such as conduct
disorder go undiagnosed and untreated the juvenile offender has the increased potential to
later develop antisocial personality disorder and continue his life as a career criminal. The
majority of violent offenders exhibit characteristics of antisocial personality disorder and
exhibit it no later than age 15.[19] Antisocial personality disorder is a common diagnosis for a
serial killer. Authors Alvarez and Bachman found that one similarity among serial killers was
their prior criminal convictions.[20] In this case conduct disorder can become a probable
constituent to serial murder if not diagnosed and treated before it fully develops in adulthood
as antisocial personality disorder. Both conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder
are categorized as personality disorders under the DSM-IV-TR and share extremely similar
definitions as explained above in 'Mental Disorders'. Some of the common characteristics
include consistent violation of societal norms, aggressive behavior towards people,and a
disassociation to the emotion of empathy. These traits are also common amongst serial killers
and if the maladaptive behaviors are not treated they have the potential to conceive a person
that fantasizes about killing several victims and then fulfills their impulsivity when they are
no longer capable of suppressing it.[21]