Researchers have examined a number of typologies of juvenile sex offenders, including victim age. Using data from psychological evaluations and the Multiphasic Sex Inventory‐II (MSI‐II; [Psychological assessment of sex offenders, 2010]), this study compared child offenders (i.e., victims were more than 4 years younger), peer offenders (i.e., victims were 4 years younger or less), and mixed offenders (i.e., both child and peer victims) on variables including victim, offender, and offense characteristics, and psychosexual development. Peer offenders had more severe sexual offenses, prior status/nonviolent charges, and issues with sexual functioning. Mixed offenders began offending at a younger age and were indiscriminate in gender and relationship of the victim. Mixed offenders were also more likely than child and peer offenders to have prior sex offender treatment, meaning they had previously failed treatment. As juvenile sex offenders are a heterogeneous group, these research findings suggest that child offenders, peer offenders, and mixed offenders’ treatment needs differ from each other.

Juvenile sex offenders account for approximately 50% of child sex abuse cases and 20% of sexual assault cases in the United States. Researchers, in an attempt to better understand the etiology of this behavior, have examined typologies of juvenile sex offenders, including victimage. Much of the research has compared juveniles who offended against children versus juveniles who have offended against peers/adults. Recent research has also compared these two groups with those juvenile sex offenders who offended against both children and peers (i.e., mixed offenders). Using data from psychological evaluations and the Multiphasic Sex Inventory-II (MSI-II; Nichols & Molinder, 2010), this study compared child offenders (i.e., victims were more than four years younger), peer offenders (i.e., victims were four years younger or less), and mixed offenders (i.e., both child and peer victims) on variables including victim, offender, and offense characteristics, trauma, and psychosexual development. Compared to child offenders, peer offenders had more severe sexual offenses, more prior status/nonviolent charges, and more issues with sexual functioning. Of these juvenile sex offenders who reported being sexually abused, child offenders were more likely to have been victimized by a relatives compared to peer offenders. Compared to child offenders and peer offenders, mixed offenders began offending at a younger age and were more indiscriminate, offending against both male and female victims, and relatives and non-relatives. Mixed offenders were also more likely than child and peer offenders to have prior sex offender treatment. Mixed offenders also scored higher on the Child Molestation Scale of the MSI-II compared to peer offenders. Implications for a victim-age based typology of juvenile sex offenders are discussed.

Defendants who attempt to represent themselves, or proceed pro se, make up less than 1% of felony cases. However, when the issue of competency to proceed pro se arises, it can present interesting questions and challenges not only for the defendant, but also for others involved with the trial process. In Indiana v. Edwards (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court permitted states to impose a higher standard of competency for defendants who wish to proceed to trial without an attorney than for defendants who stand trial with representation. States have responded by adopting a patchwork of different, and often vague, competency standards. The current paper describes states' differing responses to Edwards, courts' efforts to ensure the constitutionality of those standards, and extant research on the legal standards and guidelines that should apply to forensic evaluators. Drawing upon this body of law and commentary, this article distills principles to guide evaluations of defendants' pro se competency. To facilitate discussion, this article utilizes three case studies involving defendants with severe mental illness, antisocial personality disorder, and communication impediments unrelated to mental illness. The analysis of these case studies illustrates the application of guiding principles and demonstrates how to distinguish impairments relevant to pro se competence from those that may be legally irrelevant yet still present significant fairness or efficiency concerns.

No abstract

The relationship between psychopathy and violence has produced a wealth of research evidencing strong associations with violence across multiple samples. From that research came numerous strongly supported measures providing structured and validated ways of assessing violence risk and psychopathy, the foremost of which are the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised and its progeny. Meta‐analytic studies have found that high psychopathy scores are significantly predictive of institutional violence as well as general, violent, and sexual recidivism. This chapter provides a foundational understanding of the relationship between psychopathy and violence, including discussion of the investigations of psychopathy and violence in men and women; primary and secondary psychopathy and their relationship with instrumental violence; and conflicting views of how psychopathic traits are indicative of potential for violence and aggression in juveniles.