Juvenile Sex Offenders
Introduction
Who are adolescent sex offenders? In its basic and most simple form adolescent sex offenders could be defined as any juvenile male or female, approximately between the ages of 12 and 17 years of age who commit any sexual act with another person, unlawfully against that persons will, regardless of age limit. Research has suggested that adolescent sexual offenders are also embedded in multiple systems (family, peer, school) in which dysfunctional transactions are rather evident. There is also a general consensus that adolescent sexual offenders have difficulty maintaining close interpersonal relations and are isolated from their peers. Finally, a relatively high percentage of adolescent sexual offenders evidence behavioral …show more content…
and academic difficulties in school. Thus, as suggested by Saunders and Awad (1988), effective treatment of adolescent sexual offenders might need to consider several characteristics of the offender and of their social systems. (Borduin, 1990, p. 106).
Several researchers reported learning disorders, conduct disorders, or difficulties in school among this population of offenders. Psychiatric disorders have also been prevalent along with dysfunctional and/or one-parent households. Studies of adult sexual offenders indicate that about half of adult offenders report that their first sexual offence occurred as an adolescent, and often, offenses escalated in frequency and severity over time. These findings have led to increased efforts to identify and treat adolescents who sexually abuse and to the recognition of this group as a distinct population for study. (Veneziano, 2000, p. 364). It is imperative, therefore, to not only be aware of the characteristics of juvenile sex offenders, but also to discern between those who continue offending and those who cease offending. This research literature indicates that adolescent sexual offenders are a heterogeneous population with diverse characteristics and treatment needs. (Vandiver, 2006, p. 674).
Society’s growing awareness of the consequences of sexual victimization, however, has led to increased attention to juvenile sexual offenses, in particular. Of the national juvenile arrests in 2000, 4,500 were for forcible rape and 17,400 were for other sexual offenses. Of all arrests for sexual crimes in the year 2000, juvenile arrests comprised 16% of forcible rape cases and 19% of other sexual offenses cases. (Reitzel, 2006, p. 402). Consistent with an overall increase in violent crime committed by juveniles during the past decade, there has been a steady rise in the number of juveniles arrested for sexual offenses. It is currently believed that juveniles, particularly adolescent males, are responsible for 30% to 60% of the cases of child sexual abuse, and 20% to 30% of the rapes, that are committed in this country each year. (Figueredo, 1999, p. 49). One of the more alarming aspects of juvenile sex offenders is the age of their victims. Most victims are younger than 12 years old at the time of the offense. (Vandiver, 2006, p. 674). Despite the serious problems presented by adolescent sexual offenders, relatively little is known regarding the efficacy of extant treatment approaches. In fact, Davis and Leitenberg (1987) concluded that “controlled comparisons between treatment and no treatment and between one form of treatment and another form of treatment do not exist.” (Borduin, 1990, p. 105). In 1982, there were only 20 identified adolescent sex offender treatment programs in the United States. By 2002, this number had increased to 1,347 programs for children and adolescents. With the expansion of services and concerns for public safety came a number of evaluation studies to determine the effectiveness of treatment on various outcomes, particularly recidivism, juvenile sexual re-offending following treatment during prior incarceration. Current literature indicates that recidivism rates for sexual offending generally range from 2% to 14% and nonsexual recidivism rates from 8% to 54%. (Keller, 2005, p. 314). Statistical information regarding multisystemic (MST) vs. individual (IT) therapy is also encouraging from recidivism data. Based on the research the MST group had recidivism rates of 12.5% for sexual offenses and 25% for nonsexual offenses. In contrast, the recidivism rates of the IT adolescents were 75% for sexual offenses and 50% for nonsexual offenses. The frequency of re-arrest for sexual offenses was greater for IT adolescents than for MST adolescents. The frequency of re-arrest for nonsexual crimes was also greater for the IT adolescents that the MST adolescents. (Borduin, 1990, p. 110).
As increasing numbers of juvenile sexual offenders were adjudicated, the number of juvenile sex offender treatment programs was rising as well.
The first juvenile sex offender treatment program was developed the 1975, with most structured programs not emerging until the 1980s. By the late 1980s, the National Task Force on Juvenile Sexual Offending (1988) urged mandatory treatment policies for juvenile sex offenders in an effort to prevent recidivism. By 1992, a North American survey identified over 750 outpatient and residential juvenile sexual offender treatment programs. (Reitzel, 2006, p. 402). Until the 1980s, adolescent sexual offenders received little attention in the research literature. Their behavior was often explained as normal experimentation or developmental curiosity, and the focus of investigation of deviant sexual behavior was on adult sexual offenders. However, crime reports and surveys have indicated that adolescents are responsible for about 20% of rapes and 30% to 50% of cases of child sexual abuse. (Veneziano, 2000, p. 363). Few studies have focused specifically on recidivism rates of these young offenders, and even fewer studies focused on re-arrests during more than one developmental stage of life. Also, much of this research has been limited to relatively small sample sizes, with most studies relying on samples of fewer than 150. (Vandiver, 2006, p. 675). The research on juvenile sexual offender recidivism vary widely in terms of sample size, statistical methodology, length of follow-up, type and intensity of treatment, as well as how recidivism is defined. Recidivism has been defined by various methods including self-reports, criminal charges, convictions and adult incarceration. The lack of consistency among studies makes it difficult to generalize the results of a particular study to the general population of juvenile sex offenders. Within these limitations, an overall picture still consistently emerges that supports the
efficacy of the treatment interventions for juvenile sex offenders. (Keller, 2005, p. 316). Much of the prior literature regarding sexual abuse has focused on adult males who have abused children, which has led to well-developed and well-tested typologies that have been useful in the identification and treatment of male sex offenders. It has been questioned whether such research findings apply to female sex offenders. Research and typologies developed specifically for adult female sex offenders do exist; however the research is limited. A great deal of information is known about adult male sex offenders, and recently, information has appeared in the literature regarding female sex offenders. The literature regarding juvenile male sex offenders is developing, and the literature regarding juvenile female sex offenders is slowing emerging. (Vandiver, 2006, p. 149). Presently, there is not an empirically validated typology of juvenile sexual offenders or a means by which to profile objectively the risk that individual offenders represent for engaging in further sexual or nonsexual delinquency. There does not currently exist an objective method of assessing the likelihood of program failure due to poor motivation and/or familial noncompliance. The judicial system is dependent on the subjective clinical assessment of amenability to treatment and appropriateness of community-based care. (Figueredo, 1999, p. 51). There has been considerable political momentum in the United States in recent years to develop a stronger criminal justice system response to youth-perpetrated violence. As a result, the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults has been lowered in many states, mandatory sentencing guidelines have been developed, and increased local, state, and federal funding has been provided for the development of new correctional programming for youths. Efforts to manage effectively the problem of juvenile sexual offending have led to debate over the relative value of treatment versus criminal justice sanctions in deterring this behavior. Of major concern is how to determine the most appropriate disposition for any given juvenile sexual offender who enters the criminal justice system: Should this youth be incarcerated or placed in diversionary programming? Decision-making is made relatively complex by virtue of the heterogeneity of the juvenile offender population. (Figueredo, 1999, p. 50).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the reviewed literature and research to determine the most effective treatment for adolescent sex offenders. Although some programs are relatively new, juvenile sex offenders are less likely to rescind back to delinquent behavior if they are successful in multisystemic treatment programs.
Who are adolescent sex offenders? In its basic and most simple form adolescent sex offenders could be defined as any juvenile male or female, approximately between the ages of 12 and 17 years of age who commit any sexual act with another person, unlawfully against that persons will, regardless of age limit. Research has suggested that adolescent sexual offenders are also embedded in multiple systems (family, peer, school) in which dysfunctional transactions are rather evident. There is also a general consensus that adolescent sexual offenders have difficulty maintaining close interpersonal relations and are isolated from their peers. Finally, a relatively high percentage of adolescent sexual offenders evidence behavioral …show more content…
and academic difficulties in school. Thus, as suggested by Saunders and Awad (1988), effective treatment of adolescent sexual offenders might need to consider several characteristics of the offender and of their social systems. (Borduin, 1990, p. 106).
Several researchers reported learning disorders, conduct disorders, or difficulties in school among this population of offenders. Psychiatric disorders have also been prevalent along with dysfunctional and/or one-parent households. Studies of adult sexual offenders indicate that about half of adult offenders report that their first sexual offence occurred as an adolescent, and often, offenses escalated in frequency and severity over time. These findings have led to increased efforts to identify and treat adolescents who sexually abuse and to the recognition of this group as a distinct population for study. (Veneziano, 2000, p. 364). It is imperative, therefore, to not only be aware of the characteristics of juvenile sex offenders, but also to discern between those who continue offending and those who cease offending. This research literature indicates that adolescent sexual offenders are a heterogeneous population with diverse characteristics and treatment needs. (Vandiver, 2006, p. 674).
Society’s growing awareness of the consequences of sexual victimization, however, has led to increased attention to juvenile sexual offenses, in particular. Of the national juvenile arrests in 2000, 4,500 were for forcible rape and 17,400 were for other sexual offenses. Of all arrests for sexual crimes in the year 2000, juvenile arrests comprised 16% of forcible rape cases and 19% of other sexual offenses cases. (Reitzel, 2006, p. 402). Consistent with an overall increase in violent crime committed by juveniles during the past decade, there has been a steady rise in the number of juveniles arrested for sexual offenses. It is currently believed that juveniles, particularly adolescent males, are responsible for 30% to 60% of the cases of child sexual abuse, and 20% to 30% of the rapes, that are committed in this country each year. (Figueredo, 1999, p. 49). One of the more alarming aspects of juvenile sex offenders is the age of their victims. Most victims are younger than 12 years old at the time of the offense. (Vandiver, 2006, p. 674). Despite the serious problems presented by adolescent sexual offenders, relatively little is known regarding the efficacy of extant treatment approaches. In fact, Davis and Leitenberg (1987) concluded that “controlled comparisons between treatment and no treatment and between one form of treatment and another form of treatment do not exist.” (Borduin, 1990, p. 105). In 1982, there were only 20 identified adolescent sex offender treatment programs in the United States. By 2002, this number had increased to 1,347 programs for children and adolescents. With the expansion of services and concerns for public safety came a number of evaluation studies to determine the effectiveness of treatment on various outcomes, particularly recidivism, juvenile sexual re-offending following treatment during prior incarceration. Current literature indicates that recidivism rates for sexual offending generally range from 2% to 14% and nonsexual recidivism rates from 8% to 54%. (Keller, 2005, p. 314). Statistical information regarding multisystemic (MST) vs. individual (IT) therapy is also encouraging from recidivism data. Based on the research the MST group had recidivism rates of 12.5% for sexual offenses and 25% for nonsexual offenses. In contrast, the recidivism rates of the IT adolescents were 75% for sexual offenses and 50% for nonsexual offenses. The frequency of re-arrest for sexual offenses was greater for IT adolescents than for MST adolescents. The frequency of re-arrest for nonsexual crimes was also greater for the IT adolescents that the MST adolescents. (Borduin, 1990, p. 110).
As increasing numbers of juvenile sexual offenders were adjudicated, the number of juvenile sex offender treatment programs was rising as well.
The first juvenile sex offender treatment program was developed the 1975, with most structured programs not emerging until the 1980s. By the late 1980s, the National Task Force on Juvenile Sexual Offending (1988) urged mandatory treatment policies for juvenile sex offenders in an effort to prevent recidivism. By 1992, a North American survey identified over 750 outpatient and residential juvenile sexual offender treatment programs. (Reitzel, 2006, p. 402). Until the 1980s, adolescent sexual offenders received little attention in the research literature. Their behavior was often explained as normal experimentation or developmental curiosity, and the focus of investigation of deviant sexual behavior was on adult sexual offenders. However, crime reports and surveys have indicated that adolescents are responsible for about 20% of rapes and 30% to 50% of cases of child sexual abuse. (Veneziano, 2000, p. 363). Few studies have focused specifically on recidivism rates of these young offenders, and even fewer studies focused on re-arrests during more than one developmental stage of life. Also, much of this research has been limited to relatively small sample sizes, with most studies relying on samples of fewer than 150. (Vandiver, 2006, p. 675). The research on juvenile sexual offender recidivism vary widely in terms of sample size, statistical methodology, length of follow-up, type and intensity of treatment, as well as how recidivism is defined. Recidivism has been defined by various methods including self-reports, criminal charges, convictions and adult incarceration. The lack of consistency among studies makes it difficult to generalize the results of a particular study to the general population of juvenile sex offenders. Within these limitations, an overall picture still consistently emerges that supports the
efficacy of the treatment interventions for juvenile sex offenders. (Keller, 2005, p. 316). Much of the prior literature regarding sexual abuse has focused on adult males who have abused children, which has led to well-developed and well-tested typologies that have been useful in the identification and treatment of male sex offenders. It has been questioned whether such research findings apply to female sex offenders. Research and typologies developed specifically for adult female sex offenders do exist; however the research is limited. A great deal of information is known about adult male sex offenders, and recently, information has appeared in the literature regarding female sex offenders. The literature regarding juvenile male sex offenders is developing, and the literature regarding juvenile female sex offenders is slowing emerging. (Vandiver, 2006, p. 149). Presently, there is not an empirically validated typology of juvenile sexual offenders or a means by which to profile objectively the risk that individual offenders represent for engaging in further sexual or nonsexual delinquency. There does not currently exist an objective method of assessing the likelihood of program failure due to poor motivation and/or familial noncompliance. The judicial system is dependent on the subjective clinical assessment of amenability to treatment and appropriateness of community-based care. (Figueredo, 1999, p. 51). There has been considerable political momentum in the United States in recent years to develop a stronger criminal justice system response to youth-perpetrated violence. As a result, the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults has been lowered in many states, mandatory sentencing guidelines have been developed, and increased local, state, and federal funding has been provided for the development of new correctional programming for youths. Efforts to manage effectively the problem of juvenile sexual offending have led to debate over the relative value of treatment versus criminal justice sanctions in deterring this behavior. Of major concern is how to determine the most appropriate disposition for any given juvenile sexual offender who enters the criminal justice system: Should this youth be incarcerated or placed in diversionary programming? Decision-making is made relatively complex by virtue of the heterogeneity of the juvenile offender population. (Figueredo, 1999, p. 50).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the reviewed literature and research to determine the most effective treatment for adolescent sex offenders. Although some programs are relatively new, juvenile sex offenders are less likely to rescind back to delinquent behavior if they are successful in multisystemic treatment programs.