Facing the Challenge of Sentencing Adolescents who Offend Sexually: Controversies in the assessment and treatment of juvenile sex offenders

Frank DiCataldo, Ph.D.Roger Williams University

Juvenile Sexual Offenders in DYS, Massachusetts 2004

Total Population 5% (160/3200)

Initial Referrals 22% Total Referrals 30%

Secure Treatment 50% Extension of Commitment 67% Community Placement 33%

Moral panic: media examplesInmate is freed in teen sex

caseOctober 27, 2007

ATLANTA - A young man sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl was freed yesterday by Georgia's highest court. Georgia's Supreme Court ordered the release after Genarlow Wilson, 21, had been imprisoned for more than two years. The court ruled, 4 to 3, that the sentence Wilson received was cruel and unusual punishment. He was 17 when the incident occurred. (AP)

Moral Panic: Media examplesBrookline High teens face charges of statutory rape

By Peter Schworm, Globe Staff  |  October 19, 2005

BROOKLINE -- Two Brookline High School athletes, accused of taking turns having intercourse with a 15-year-old female classmate, have been charged with statutory rape and suspended indefinitely, school officials said yesterday.

It was the third criminal case involving Brookline students and underage sex since February, and it prompted school officials to send letters home to parents and to hold an assembly yesterday to remind teenagers about the criminal ramifications of underage sexual activity.

The two students charged, both 17, will be kept out of school while criminal charges are pending.

Moral Panic: Media examplesBoy's suspension in harassment case outrages mother seeks new school

for son, 6

By Ralph Ranalli and Raja Mishra, Globe Staff  |  February 8, 2006

BROCKTON -- A 6-year-old boy suspended last week after school officials said he sexually harassed a girl in his class does not understand what he did wrong and should be moved to another elementary school to avoid becoming stigmatized by the incident, his mother said yesterday.

The Brockton school district gave the boy a three-day suspension on Jan. 30 after conducting an internal investigation -- which they forwarded to the Plymouth district attorney's office. Prosecutors, however, have not brought any charges, in part because state juvenile criminal laws do not apply to those under age 7, said prosecutors.

The suspension outraged the boy's mother, who said her son is far too young to know the meaning of sexual harassment.

''What is that supposed to mean? He's only 6 years old. I didn't raise my son like this," she said last night in an interview at her home.

Moral panic: national trends in residential placement of JSO’s

_________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Sex Offenders in Residential/Correctional Placement, 1997-2003. _________________________________________________________________ Year Total Public Private 1997 5582 3974 1608 1999 7455 5124 2324

2001 6779 4650 2128

2003 7452 4749 2608

Total 34% 20% 62%

Source: Sickmund, M., T. J. Sladley, and W. Kanf. 2005. Census for juveniles in residential placement databook. http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.or/ojstatbb/cjrp/div

Increase in residential placements occurred during decline in the arrest rate for sexual offenses among juveniles

Figure 1-1

Trend in arrest per 100,000 juveniles ages 10-17 in the US for Forcible Rape (1980-2003).

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

1978 1979 1980 19811982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 19881989 1990 1991 1992 1993 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Source: OJJDP, U.S. Department of Justice

Moral panic: A booming “sexually-at-risk youth” cottage industry

In 1982 there abut 20 treatment programs across the county

By 1993, there were over 800, an increase of 4000% in 10 years

By 2002, there were over 1,300 programs for adolescents and for children with sexual behavior problems

Average length of treatment in programs is 18 months, much longer than for other delinquent youth

In 2002, a estimated total of 21, 000 adolescents and about 5,000 children were in residential treatment programs for sexual offenders

About 75% of the programs for adolescents and 90% of the programs for children were operated by private agencies (vast majority of adult programs are publically-operated)

“Civil Death” for the Juvenile Sex Offender

“Invisible punishments” for the juvenile sex offender

Transfer to adult court Involuntary civil commitment Lengthy commitment to secure treatment

programs Registration and community notification

Expulsion from school Eviction from public housing Residential exclusion zones

Transfer or waiver of JSO’s to adult court

Juvenile crime wave in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s

46 states passed legislation enabling swifter, automatic movement of juveniles into adult court for prosecution

At least 25 states passed legislation that made it mandatory for juveniles accused of sex crime

This number climbs to 35 (67%) when you include states that specifically include sex offenses as among the eligible offenses for transfer without consideration of the offenders amenability to treatment, sophistication, and dangerousness

Little empirical research about the prevalence rates of juvenile sex offenders waived to criminal court or about their characteristics.

The Civil Commitment of JSO’s as Sexually Dangerous Persons

18 states, including Massachusetts, have legal provisions for the civil commitment of sex offenders

13 of them (about 67%) specifically state that a delinquency adjudication of a sexual offense constitutes a conviction or that the state’s juvenile justice system can be considered an agency of jurisdiction with the authority to notify the Attorney General or District Attorney that a juvenile scheduled for discharge is eligible for civil commitment as a SDP.

five states have statutory provisions that specifically state that juvenile records are not confidential and can be used to support a civil commitment as SDP

“Civil Death” for the Juvenile Sex Offender

On the varieties of “civil death” for the juvenile sex offender: a review of the states

A total of 32 states (61.5%) have enhanced penalties for juvenile sex offenders beyond registration and notification

Often include such requirements as mandatory risk assessment or treatment, DNA sample, school notification, and residency restriction

No empirical studies on the effectiveness of these laws for juvenile sex offenders

Research evidence about JSO’s

Juvenile sex offender is a legal category masquerading as a clinical one

Juvenile sex offenders bear little resemblance to adult sex offenders (particularly SDPs)

Juvenile sex offender are a heterogeneous mix of adolescents who are difficult to reliably distinguish from general delinquents

Are juvenile sex offenders adult sex offenders in the making?

In 1970s and 1980s, a series of often-cited research reports discovered that the sexual deviance of sexually dangerous adult offenders first emerged in adolescence and concluded:

When in fact:

JSO SDP

JSO

SDP

A significant portion of juvenile sex offenders have a history of nonsexual offending

Estimates of general nonsexual offending in juvenile sex offenders has ranged from low of 50% to high of 90%

Methodological problem – sampling and selection bias

Best solution – unselected samples or minimally tampered samples

Youth Report Survey (Weinrott, 1996) – 93% of the youth in a community sample who admitted having committed a sexual offense in the last year also reported having committed a nonsexual offense

Ronis and Borduin (2007) – 600 consecutively admitted youth in Missouri; found that 94% of peer/adult sex offenders and 89% of child offenders has engaged in one or more nonsexual offenses

Conclusion: Juvenile sex offenders are not delinquent specialists but are delinquent generalists

Sexual abuse as a causal variable

Problem of sexual abuse hypothesis

• Most sexual abuse victims do not go on to be sexual offenders

• Majority of juvenile sex offenders do not report a history of sexual abuse; range from 8-80% with most < 50%.

• Sexual abuse is prevalent in the history of juvenile delinquents generally

Conclusion – sexual abuse does not seem to be a particularly strong marker for sexually offending; and is neither a necessary or sufficient condition to be a juvenile sexual offender

Juvenile sex offenders as sexually deviant

Sexual deviance as a promising marker for juvenile sex offenders?

Most JSO’s do not exhibit fixed deviant sexual arousal (10-15%)

Sexual fluidity (Diamond, 2009): sexual deviance will resolve with maturation

Question as to whether reliable (consistency) and valid measure of deviant arousal in adolescents is even possible

Assessment instruments for juvenile sex offenders

Recent development of specialized risk assessment instruments for juvenile sex offenders:

Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (JSOAP)

Estimated Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR)

Juvenile Sex Offense Risk Assessment Tool (JSORAT)

Predictive validity for JSO sex offense risk instruments has been elusive

The low base-rate of sexual recidivism of JSO’s has functioned as a predictive barrier that may be statistically impossible to overcome (5-15%)

Problem of inflated false positive rate

Begs the question of the clinical need and utility of these instruments

The problem of low base-rates: A demonstration

Assume the following

15% of JSO’S will recidivate. 

80% of recidivists will score high on an assessment instrument. 

20% of non-recidivists will also score high

A JSO is tested and scores high on the assessment instrument.  What is the probability that he will be a recidivist?

The problem of low base-rates: A demonstration

Answer: 41.4%

Conversely: 58.6% would be wrongly assessed as a recidivist

The problem of low base-rates: A demonstration

Assume 1000 jso’s are tested and the recidivism rate is 15%

Group 1 – 150 recidivistsGroup 2 – 850 non-recidivists

80% of recidivists score high -120/150

20% of non-recidivists score high – 170/850

True positives =41.4 (120/290)False positives =58.6 (170/220)

120 30

170 680

predicted

yes no

observed

yes

no

290 720

150

850

The current state of sex offender treatment for adolescents

Manualized, dogmatic, rote, one-size-fits-all approach downwardly extended from the treatment of adult SDP’s

Hodge-podge of unsupported assumptions predominate:

All JSO’s must have sex offender- specific treatment

All JSO’s have a history of sexual victimization, and if you search deeply enough you will find it

JSO’s must admit that their sexual abuse was traumatic and damaging

Denial must be broken down with in-your-face confrontation

Must admit to the presence of deviant desires and are issued fantasy logs to record them

Treatment must be intensive, long-term within quasi-correctional institutions

Must make offense fit into a stock, prefabricated dynamic about the need for power or the objecitfication of victim

Must admit that their sexual deviancy is an incurable condition, like a chronic disease, that is life-long and they can never been around children again

They are dangerous predators who must wear their deviance like a Scarlett Letter

Not a single one of these assumptions has been empirically supported and continued promulgation of them may be harmful

Treatment as social control

“community first” approach: community is the client

Non-confidentiality of treatment

client as alien being:

“The sexually abusive youth thinks differently from other youth.” (Ryan and Lane, 1997): deceptive, cunning, devious, etc

“The adolescent sex offender’s motivation is to mislead the clinician so that the offender can appear to cooperate with treatment.” (Perry and Orchard, 1992).

He may present as cooperative, compliant, and agreeable: “a nice boy…That pleasant, seemingly remorseful young man is at risk of committing another sexual offense.” (Perry and Orchard, 1992)

“Victims, without therapeutic intervention, are often destined to a future of repeated victimization of themselves, the inability to protect others, or the development of similar abusive behaviors toward others.” (Becker, 1990, 111)

Newer promising approaches

Good-Lives Model (Ward 2002)

Holistic or Well-Being Approach (Longo, 2004)

Multisystemic Treatment (Henggeler) – two randomized controlled studies; only evidenced based practice for juvenile sex offenders, but used in less than 10% of programs

For copy of slides contact me at:fdicataldo@rwu.edu

The Perversion of Youth: Controversies in the assessment and treatment of juvenile sexual offenders (2009). NYU Press