Criminal Careers of Juvenile Sex and Nonsex Offenders

• Author: Raymond Corrado,Evan McCuish,Patrick Lussier
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204014567541
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Date: 01 July 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Criminal Careers of Juvenile

Sex and Nonsex Offenders:

Evidence From a Prospective

Longitudinal Study

Evan McCuish

1

, Patrick Lussier

2,3

, and Raymond Corrado

4,5

Abstract

Developmental criminologists have criticized typologies of juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) for

assuming that JSOs involved in nonsexual offending are a homogenous group. However, this criti-

cism has remained largely conceptual. To help empirically address the validity of this criticism,

offending trajectories from age 12 to 23 were measured for a sample of male JSOs (n¼52) and

juvenile nonsex offenders (JNSOs; n¼231) interviewed as part of the Incarcerated Serious and

Violent Young Offender study. Within this predominantly Caucasian sample, whether offender

status (JSO/JNSO) or risk factors were better indicators of trajectory group membership was

examined. Four unique offending trajectories emerged, namely, a low-rate offending trajectory, a

bell-shaped offending trajectory, a slow-rising chronic trajectory, and a high-rate chronic trajectory.

The relatively equal distribution of JSOs in each trajectory indicated that the criminal behavior com-

mitted by this group was not expressed by just one pattern. Further, the prevalence of JSOs in each

trajectory mirrored the prevalence of JNSOs in the same trajectory, suggesting that having a sex

offense in adolescence was not informative of general offending patterns. Individual and familial-

level risk/needs factors were better indicators of trajectory membership. Implications for existing

typologies of JSOs are discussed.

Keywords

criminal careers, criminal trajectories, developmental criminology, juvenile delinquency, juvenile sex

offenders, longitudinal data, trajectories

1

School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada

2

Faculty of Social Sciences, Laval University, Quebec, Canada

3

Centre Jeunesse de Que

´bec—Institut Universitaire (CJQ-IU), Quebec, Canada

4

School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, British Colombia, Canada

5

Faculty of Law, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Corresponding Author:

Evan McCuish, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

V5A 1S6.

Email: evan_mccuish@sfu.ca

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2016, Vol. 14(3) 199-224

ªThe Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204014567541

yvj.sagepub.com

Introduction

For juvenile sex offenders (JSOs), nonsexual recidivism is far more typical than sexual recidivism

(Zimring, Piquero, & Jennings, 2007), the latter being quite rare (Caldwell, 2002, 2010; McCann &

Lussier, 2008). However, empirical research has been more focused on JSO sexual reoffending than

JSO nonsexual offending, meaning that the development and course of the types of offenses that

JSOs most commonly perpetrate are also poorly understood. The almost exclusive focus on JSOs’

sex offending has contributed to their portrayal as sex offender ‘‘specialists’’ at risk of sexual reci-

divism. More recent research using longitudinal data shows instead that the sex offending of JSOs is

more typically limited, transitory, and circumspect to the period of adolescence, or said differently,

adolescence limited (Lussier, van den Berg, Bijleveld, & Hendriks, 2012). Explanations of JSO non-

sexual offending are predominantly based on nondevelopmental typological models that separate

JSOs with and without a history of prior nonsexual offending (e.g., Becker, 1998; Butler & Seto,

2002; Pullman, Leroux, Motayne, & Seto, 2014). On one hand, criminal career researchers have crit-

icized such models for failing to account for within-individual change in JSO behavior (e.g., Lussier

& Cale, 2013). Additionally, developmental criminologists have criticized these models for assum-

ing that JSOs involved in nonsexual offending are a homogenous group (e.g., Dennison & Leclerc,

2011; McCuish, Lussier, & Corrado, 2014; Smallbone, 2006). On the other hand, developmental and

criminal career researchers have given little empirical attention to the nonsexual offending of JSOs,

although initial research in this area indicated substantial heterogeneity in the nonsexual criminal

careers of JSOs (Lussier et al., 2012).

Currently, it is not clear whether the heterogeneity of JSO offending trajectories is similar to tra-

jectories found among juvenile nonsex offenders (JNSOs). Addressing this question has important

implications for whether similar treatment modalities for both groups are warranted (Ronis & Bor-

duin, 2013). In the current study, offending trajectories were mapped retrospectively and prospec-

tively from age 12 to 23 for a sample of incarcerated adolescent male JSOs and JNSOs.

Emphasis in this study was not on whether JSOs and JNSOs were characterized by different risk

factors, but instead on whether JSOs were characterized by general offending trajectory patterns that

differed from those of JNSOs. Additionally, criminogenic risk factors from several different

domains were measured to examine whether these factors increased the likelihood of membership

in a particular trajectory. Trajectory research in general has given little attention to risk factors that

potentially explain why a specific course of offending develops (see Piquero, 2008 for a review). For

example, do chronic offenders simply have more risk factors, or are these offenders characterized by

particular types of risk factors? Developmental criminology-based and criminal career-based criti-

cisms of JSO antisocial and criminal behavior typologies are reviewed first to demonstrate the need

to more precisely measure JSO nonsexual offending. Following this, the manner in which the crim-

inal career paradigm can be utilized to help study heterogeneity in the offending patterns of JSOs and

JNSOs is discussed.

Typological Explanations of JSOs using Antisocial and Criminal Behavior

Typologies of JSOs are used to account for within-group differences that are informative of different

treatment needs (Lussier, Mathesius, & McCuish, in press). Most typological models of JSOs do not

make reference to juvenile delinquency, that is, the presence, nature, and extent of nonsexual offend-

ing in the youth’s background. These models instead focus on psychological functioning and the

nature of the sex crimes committed. Distinguishing JSOs on the basis of their antisocial behavior

patterns carries important policy and treatment implications (McCuish et al., 2014). However, initial

typologies of JSO antisocial behavior assume that two categories of offenders, those with and with-

out a history of nonsexual antisocial behavior (sex-plus and sex-only offenders, respectively),

200 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(3)