Risk Assessment and Post-Release Recidivism in a Sample of Juvenile Homicide Offenders

• Date: 01 June 2022
• Author: James T. Hubbell,Norair Khachatryan,Kathleen M. Heide
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211049203
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049203

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2022, Vol. 66(8) 931 –953

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211049203

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Risk Assessment and Post-

Release Recidivism in a

Sample of Juvenile Homicide

Offenders

James T. Hubbell1, Kathleen M. Heide2,

and Norair Khachatryan2

Abstract

Given recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings regarding the constitutionality of

juveniles who received mandated life sentences, questions have arisen in the field

of criminology regarding how these offenders will adjust if someday released. Risk

scores were calculated for 59 male juvenile homicide offenders (JHOs) based upon

the eight domains in the Youth Level of Supervision/Case Management Inventory

(YLS/CMI) and used to examine recidivism among the 48 JHOs who were released.

Sample subjects were charged as adults for murder and attempted murder in the

1980s, convicted, and sentenced to adult prison. Chi-square analyses were used to

assess the relationship between risk score category and two measures of recidivism,

which were general arrests and violent offenses. Results indicated risk scores failed to

predict both general and violent recidivism. Implications of the findings and directions

for future research are discussed.

Keywords

homicide offenders, juvenile murderers, follow-up study, risk assessment, YLS/CMI,

recidivism, re-arrest

Juvenile homicide offenders present a wide set of ethical dilemmas and other practical

issues within the justice system due to their age and the severity of their crimes. Of par-

ticular interest is whether their status as juveniles makes them more amenable to

1University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

2University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kathleen M. Heide, Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue,

SOC107, Tampa, FL 33620-9951, USA.

Email: kheide@usf.edu

1049203IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211049203International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyHubbell et al.

research-article2021

932 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 66(8)

rehabilitation and second chances or if homicide represents one of many crimes that they

will commit throughout their life course. This issue raises the ethical problem of how

these offenders should be handled judicially: Should these individuals be treated with

more leniency due to their young age or should they be incapacitated to protect their com-

munities from repeated serious offenses? To resolve this dilemma, research must be con-

ducted to determine the best course of action for this unique set of juveniles, taking into

account the issues of community protection and fair treatment of youthful offenders.

In the last 30 years, the United States Supreme Court has shown a serious effort to

understand juvenile offending and treat it appropriately, focusing more on rehabilitation

as opposed to retribution and incapacitation. A series of Supreme Court cases began this

paradigm shift, starting with cases of Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988) and Stanford v.

Kentucky (1989), which collectively made it unconstitutional to execute juveniles under

the age of 16. The Court went further in the case of Roper v. Simmons (2005), where it

ruled that execution of minors under the age of 18 was unconstitutional.

Subsequently, in Graham v. Florida (2010), the Court held that the sentencing of

juveniles to life without parole (LWOP) for crimes other than murder constituted a

violation of the eighth amendment. This philosophy later culminated in the Miller v.

Alabama (2012) case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentencing of

LWOP for juveniles convicted of murder was unconstitutional because it did not allow

for consideration of mitigating factors. Four years later, the Court’s decision in Miller

was applied retroactively to juveniles previously sentenced to LWOP (Montgomery v.

Louisiana, 2016). That same year, the Supreme Court reiterated its position that LWOP

was reserved “for the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect perma-

nent incorrigibility” (Tatum v. Arizona, 2016).

As a result of these decisions, trial courts have been gradually becoming more

focused on the differences between juvenile and adult offenders. It is undisputable that

JHOs who are currently incarcerated are more likely to be released into society, and

juveniles who will be convicted of murder in the future are likely to serve shorter sen-

tences than in the past. Consequently, it is more important than ever to assess these

offenders’ risk for recidivism in consideration of public safety.

Several prior studies with samples of 20 or more have examined recidivism rates in

samples of JHOs. Most recidivism studies on JHOs have adopted follow-up periods of

1 to 16 years and have found that between 50% and 60% of their respective samples

had recidivated (e.g., Caudill & Trulson, 2016; Hagan, 1997; Heide et al., 2001;

Trulson & Caudill, 2017; Trulson et al., 2016; Vries & Liem, 2011). One study

employed a 30-year follow up period and found a much higher rate of recidivism; 88%

of the JHOs in that sample had recidivated, and more than 60% had committed a new

violent offense (Khachatryan et al., 2016). Only one study found a recidivism rate

lower than 50% (DiCataldo et al., 2017). The researchers suggested that the lower re-

arrest rate in their study (i.e., 32%), compared to others, might have been due to the

age of release of the JHOs, which was noticeably higher than in other studies of JHOs

(DiCataldo et al., 2017).

In light of these high recidivism rates, especially with respect to violent recidivism,

research is needed to anticipate and minimize the likelihood of reoffending. In order for