The Victim–Offender Relationship and Police Charging Decisions for Juvenile Delinquents

• Author: Heather Rollwagen,Joanna C. Jacob
• Published date: 01 October 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204017710315
• Date: 01 October 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Victim–Offender

Relationship and Police

Charging Decisions for Juvenile

Delinquents: How Does Social

Distance Moderate the Impact

of Legal and Extralegal Factors?

Heather Rollwagen

1

and Joanna C. Jacob

2

Abstract

While research has established how victim–offender relationship (social distance) relates to police

decision-making, comparatively little research has examined this relationship among juvenile

delinquents. This article examines how the social relationship between victim and offender has a

main and moderating relationship with police charging decisions among juvenile delinquents

in Canada. Incidents recorded using the Uniform Crime Reporting Incident-Based Survey

(N¼130,090) are modeled using logistic regression to predict the odds of police laying a charge.

Independent variables include nature of the victim–offender relationship as well as demographic,

geographic, and offense-specific variables. Main effects models show that incidents involving current

intimate partners are most likely to result in arrest, followed by incidents involving strangers.

Importantly, stratified models suggest that social distance conditions how other legal and extralegal

factors relate to police arrest decisions. Similar to the adult offending population, victim–offender

relationship shapes the way criminal incidents are officially addressed in complex ways.

Keywords

victim–offender relationship, police decision-making, juvenile delinquency, social distance

In responding to an interpersonal conflict, police officers may react in any number of ways, includ-

ing mediating the conflict, separating the parties involved, or making an arrest (Smith, 1987). The

decision made by police officers has important implications for the offender(s), the victim(s), their

families, and the criminal justice system (McAra & McVie, 2007). The decision to make an arrest is

often based on various offense-specific criteria, such as the severity of the offense and the presence

1

Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2

Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Heather Rollwagen, Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3.

Email: hrollwagen@ryerson.ca

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2018, Vol. 16(4) 378-394

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1541204017710315

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

of a weapon (Visher, 1983; Worden, 1989). At the same time, research indicates that extralegal

factors, such as the gender of the victim and offender as well as the age of the victim and the location

of the incident, are related to police decision-making (Black, 1976; Finn & Stalans, 1997; Lally &

DeMaris, 2012; Lundman, 1996; Morash, 1984; Novak, Frank, Smith, & Engel, 2002; Smith &

Visher, 1981; Spohn & Spear, 1996; Waaland & Keeley, 1985). These factors work together in

complex ways to shape the response of police.

Central among these extralegal factors is the nature of the relationship between the victim and the

offender, referred to hereinafter as social distance (Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Gartner & Macmillan,

1995; Lally & DeMaris, 2012; Miethe, 1987). Generally, research suggests that social distance is

inversely related to arrest; that is, police are less likely to make an arrest in instances where the

victim and offender are known to one another, compared to instances in which the victi m and

offender are strangers (Black, 1976; Lally & DeMaris, 2012; Miethe, 1987). This pattern has been

considered particularly troubling by advocates working to support victims of intimate partner

violence, as crimes involving intimate partners are less likely to result in an arrest of the perpetrator.

The body of research illustrating the importance of social distance, as well as successful litigation in

which police departments were held accountable for their failure to intervene in cases of domestic

violence, has resulted in an increasing prevalence of mandatory arrest policies for suspected cases of

domestic violence (Eitle, 2005; Finn, Blackwell, Stalans, Studdard, & Dugan, 2004; Mills, 1998).

Overall, social distance is considered a salient factor in framing the context within which police

make arrest decisions.

To date, the researchexamining the impact of social distanceon police decision-makinghas largely

been investigated, as it relates to the adult offending population, with comparatively little consider-

ation of how socialdistance impacts decision-making for crimes involving juvenile delinquents (those

aged 12–17 years). However, the way in which social distance plays into the context in which police

make decisionsmay be different for young people than it is foradults. There are three reasons for this.

First, the nature of social relationships is qualitatively different in youth populations than in adult

populations. For example, intimate partner relationships among teenagers are less likely than adult

relationshipsto involve shared domestic responsibilities (includingchildren) and financial interdepen-

dence. Youth are also more likely than adult populations to beregularly involved with and financially

dependent upontheir parents and are also morelikely to have higher levels of contactwith peer groups

and casual acquaintances in a leisure setting (Larson & Seepersad, 2003). Thus, the way in which

individuals experience relationships is different among young people compared to adults.

Second, police may respond differently to youth suspects than adult ones: Research suggests that

police respond to youth crime in a more aggressive manner (Brown, Novak, & Frank, 2009). At the

same time, police have a more complicated role when addressing crime committed by a young

person; in addition to upholding the law, they may operate in a social assistance capacity and find

ways to support a young offender (Bazemore & Senjo, 1997). The dynamic between a young

offender and a police officer is thus a unique one and must be considered further (Brown et al.,

2009; Liederbach, 2007; Walker & Katz, 2008).

Third, juvenile delinquents are often subject to a different set of procedures with respect to

criminal justice processing. In Canada, as in the United States, the juvenile justice system is

characterized in part by an underlying assumption of the diminished culpability of juvenile

offenders; as a result, there are more options to divert juvenile delinquents away from a formal

charge and into alternative programs (Barnhorst, 2004; Caudill, Morris, El Sayed, Yun, & DeLisi,

2013). The concept of “police discretion” takes on a different meaning when viewed in light of

these different options to address crimes committed by youth. In short, while previous research has

established the importance of the victim–offender relationship as it relates to police decision-

making, this relationship has not been considered as it relates to juvenile delinquents. This analysis

addresses this gap in the literature.

Rollwagen and Jacob 379