Exploring Differences in Criminogenic Risk Factors and Criminal Behavior Between Young Adult Violent Offenders With and Without Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| Author | Matty A. S. de Wit,Thijs J. L. Fassaert,Arne Popma,Ruudje Kea,Menno W. Segeren |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X16674009 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2016
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Exploring Differences in
Comparative Criminology
2018, Vol. 62(4) 978 –999
Criminogenic Risk Factors
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
and Criminal Behavior
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16674009
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16674009
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
Between Young Adult Violent
Offenders With and Without
Mild to Borderline Intellectual
Disability
Menno W. Segeren1, Thijs J. L. Fassaert1, Ruudje Kea2,
Matty A. S. de Wit1, and Arne Popma3
Abstract
The relation between mild to borderline intellectual disability (MBID) and violent
offense behavior was studied among a group of former juvenile delinquents currently
in a diversion program for persistent young adult violent offenders from Amsterdam
(N = 146). Offenders were considered MBID if they had received juvenile probation
from the local youth care agency specialized in intellectual disability (21%). A file
study was used to estimate prevalence rates of criminogenic risk factors. Police data
were used to depict recent criminal behavior. Nearly all offenders grew up in large
and unstable multi-problem households and had psychosocial problems. More MBID
offenders displayed externalizing behavior before the age of 12, were susceptible to
peer pressure, and had low social-relational skills. MBID offenders committed more
violent property crimes than offenders without MBID. Youth care interventions for
MBID offenders should focus on the acquisition of social-relational skills and on the
pedagogical skills of parents.
1Public Health Service Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2William Schrikker Groep, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Menno W. Segeren, Department of Epidemiology, Health Promotion and Care Innovation, Public Health
Service Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 100, Amsterdam 1018 WT, The Netherlands.
Email: msegeren@ggd.amsterdam.nl
Segeren et al.
979
Keywords
borderline intellectual functioning, mild intellectual disability, violent crime, young
adulthood, persistence
Introduction
Over recent years, evidence has been built up that juveniles with a (mild to borderline)
intellectual disability (MBID) are overrepresented in the criminal justice system (e.g.,
Frize, Kenny, & Lennings, 2008; Kroll et al., 2002; Van der Put, Asscher, Stams, &
Moonen, 2014). Although prevalence estimates of intellectual disability (ID) among
juvenile criminal offenders are sparse, the available literature suggests that this over-
representation accounts for the Dutch situation as well (e.g., Kaal, 2010; Teeuwen,
2012; Van Marle, 2004). The (composite) MBID definition is applied to groups with
MBID. The definition comprises those having a mild ID (MID; 55 with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF; 70 lems in adaptive functioning). Both levels of intellectual functioning are considered a
disability only when they originate before the age of 18 (Schalock et al., 2010; Van
Nieuwenhuijzen, Vriens, Scheepmaker, Smit, & Porton, 2011).
Juvenile offenders in general have received much attention from disciplines such as
criminology, forensic psychiatry, and orthopedagogy. Juvenile offenders with ID how-
ever, have not sufficiently been considered a subgroup that merits scrutiny regarding
the prevention of criminal behavior and recidivism, especially concerning violent
crime. Also, compared with juveniles and adults, criminological research on young
adults is still in its infancy (Blokland, Palmen, & Van San, 2012).
Overview of the Literature
With respect to population studies, literature reviews strongly indicate a relation
between ID and delinquency (e.g., Farrington, 1995; Loeber, 1990; Loeber &
Farrington, 1998; Moffit, Gabrielli, Mednick, & Schulsinger, 1981; Murray &
Farrington, 2010), even while controlling for socioeconomic status (Taylor & Lindsay,
2010). Fairly recently, a study that set out to overcome common methodological limi-
tations in empirical criminological research provided strong evidence for the associa-
tion between IQ and delinquency (Beaver et al., 2013). There is no evidence for a
causal relationship however. Although the possibility exists that ID in itself contrib-
utes to the development of delinquent behavior, a clear view on the exact relation
between ID and criminal behavior is often polluted by the phenomenon that offenders
with ID are more prone to be caught and arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced than
offenders without ID (Boertjes & Lever, 2007). Some explanations for this phenome-
non have been documented. Offenders with ID are found to be less able to manage
anger and frustrations (Boertjes & Lever, 2007; Novaco & Taylor, 2004), to adopt a
disrespectful or belligerent attitude toward police officers more often (Yun & Lee,
2013), and to be more prone to make false confessions while in police custody (Clare
& Gudjonsson, 1993) than offenders without ID.
980
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(4)
Research evidence points toward an inverse relation between IQ and offending
rates (e.g., Goodman, Simonoff, & Stevenson, 1995; Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977;
West & Farrington, 1973). This relation is not apparent for those with an IQ (e.g., McCord, McCord, & Zola, 1959; Taylor & Lindsay, 2010). Also, compared
with offenders without ID, offenders with ID are more prone to commit property
crimes and less prone to commit violent crimes (Van Marle, 2004), to engage in
delinquent behavior at a younger age, to be more criminally active, and more likely
to commit sexual offenses and arson (Barron, Hassiotis, & Banes, 2004).
Asscher, Van der Put, and Stams (2012) found no differences in the number of
committed offenses between juvenile offenders with and without ID. They did find,
however, that more juvenile offenders with ID had committed a crime against a
person and had problems concerning general attitude, aggression, and social-rela-
tional skills. Compared with offenders without ID, substance use problems were
less common.
Koolhof, Loeber, Wei, Pardini, and d’Escury (2007) found that different prevalence
rates of criminogenic risk factors could largely be attributed to environmental charac-
teristics that were more frequently problematic among juvenile offenders with ID
(e.g., number of delinquent/antisocial peers, diluted pro-social network, bad neighbor-
hood, detrimental housing) and less to personal characteristics. Also, accumulation of
risks was higher among offenders with ID.
Last, Kaal, Brand, and Van Nieuwenhuijzen (2012) studied juveniles with a PIJ
order (Placement in an Institution for Juveniles for mandatory treatment), the most
severe measure in the Dutch juvenile justice system (Stevens & Van Marle, 2003; Van
der Linden, Ten Siethoff, & Zeijlstra-Rijpstra, 2001). They found more similarities
than differences between three different IQ groups—a finding that was largely attrib-
uted to the fact that among PIJ juveniles in general, problems are so widespread that
IQ’s distinctive capacity is smaller than in other forensic groups (Kaal et al., 2012).
More important is that the differences they did find related strongly to social (rela-
tional) skills, with the lowest IQ group having the most (severe) problems (e.g., low
ego-strength, susceptibility to peer pressure, lack of problem awareness and insight).
In the present study, we elaborate on differences and similarities between offenders
with and without ID. To be specific, the forensic group under focus consists of a sam-
ple of young adult violent offenders from Amsterdam with a history of juvenile proba-
tion. From this group, the presence of criminogenic risk factors during childhood and
committed offenses during young adulthood are investigated. Our research questions
are as follows:
Research Question 1: Which differences in prevalence rates and severity of crimi-
nogenic risk factors, present during childhood, can be identified between young
adult violent offenders with and without MBID?
Research Question 2: What are the differences in type and number of committed
offenses during young adulthood between young adult violent offenders with and
without MBID?
Segeren et al.
981
Method
Sample
The study was centered on a cohort of former juvenile delinquents. This cohort con-
sisted of men, born between 1985 and 1994, with a known history of juvenile proba-
tion in Amsterdam. From this cohort, only young adults included in a local diversion
program for violent repeat offenders were drafted. This program started in 2011 and
maintained the inclusion criteria that one had to have been an arrested suspect at least
three times in the preceding 5 years (from 2007 to 2012) for a violent crime (attempts
included) of which at least one had to have been committed (or attempted) in the last
2 years. Also, one had to have been arraigned to the examining magistrate in the same
period. Offenders with only one or two of such violent crimes but with at least 33
additional arrests also met the program’s inclusion criteria. Examples of crimes con-
sidered by the program as violent are violent theft and burglary (residential home),
manslaughter/homicide, public/aggravated assault, street robbery, and armed inva-
sion/robbery.
MBID
Presence of MBID is notoriously difficult to...
To continue reading
Request your trial