Federal standards for community registration of juvenile sex offenders: An evaluation of risk prediction and future implications.

Abstract

The enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006 is an extension of current protective legislation aimed at establishing stricter sanctions for community-released sexual offenders. What largely separates the Adam Walsh Act from previous registration and notification laws is the crossing of traditional jurisdictional boundaries between adult and juvenile courts at the federal level. This article addresses several key concerns relating to the application of these federal standards to adolescent offenders. In addition to a review of the extant literature, we present findings from an exploratory evaluation that examines the ability of the Adam Walsh Act's classification system to predict future offending among a sample of 112 adjudicated juvenile sex offenders over a 2-year outcome period. Results indicate that offenders who met criteria for registration did not reoffend (sexually or nonsexually) at a significantly higher rate than those who did not meet registration criteria. Implications regarding appropriate risk assessment and management of youth sexual offenders are discussed.

Applying Developmental Criminology to Law: Reconsidering Juvenile Sex Offenses

“…Juvenile sex offenders are significantly more likely to be rearrested for nonsexual crimes (Caldwell, 2002), which suggests that sexual offending may be just one form of antisocial behavior (Jacob, Kennedy, & Meyer, 1997). Moreover, juvenile sex offenders respond to the same treatments as other nonsexual delinquents, again suggesting that there are important underlying similarities between these two groups (Batastini et al, 2011; also see Borduin, Schaeffer, & Heiblum, 2009).…”

“…Moreover, treatment for juvenile sexual offenders has been found to be effective and to lower the already low recidivism rate for juvenile offenders (Batastini, Hunt, Present-Koller, & DeMatteo, 2011). An evaluation of a specialized community-based treatment program, for example, found that assessment and treatment produced a 72% reduction in sexual recidivism on an average follow-up period of six years for adolescents completing at least 12 months of treatment (Worling & Curwen, 2000).…”

“…; low parental monitoring; low parental warmth); and school characteristics (e.g., low school involvement, high dropout and suspension rates) (Letourneau & Miner, 2005;Tolan, 2002). These and other commonly mentioned risk factors for juvenile offending are also referenced as risk factors for sexually delinquent youth, making it difficult to distinguish between the two groups in order to single out those at increased risk for sexual offending (see, e.g., Letourneau & Miner, 2005;Batastini et al, 2011;Ryan, et al, 2010). Of the few studies that have compared juvenile sex offenders to juvenile non-sex offenders, most suggest that there are similarities between the two groups in terms of both externalizing and internalizing behavior (Lewis, Shankok, & Pincus, 1979;Truscott, 1993;Valliant & Bergeron, 1997;Van Wijk, Loeber, Pardini, Bullens, & Doreleijers, 2005).…”

Juvenile Sex and Non-Sex Offenders: A Comparison of Recidivism and Risk

“…In the past, the inclusion of adolescent offenders was left to the discretion of states. However, SORNA mandates that adolescent offenders who are 14 years of age or older at the time of offense and who commit a specific type of crime (i.e., comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual assault against a person younger than age 12) are subject to registration for up to 25 years to life (see Batastini, Hunt, Present-Koller, & DeMatteo, 2011, for a comprehensive review of the legislation). This dramatic shift in the law mandating the registration of juvenile offenders neglects the extant research emphasizing the differences in cognitive, social, and neurological development of youth compared with adults (Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2009), and it conflicts with knowledge of the heterogeneity among juveniles who have sexually offended (Andrade, Vincent, & Saleh, 2006;Caldwell, 2007).…”

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policy Increases Juvenile Plea Bargains

“…Other researchers have demonstrated that federal standards for juvenile sex offender registration fail to distinguish between youth who will reoffend or not (Batastini, Hunt, Present-Koller, & DeMatteo, 2011;Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vittacco, 2008) as do state-specific methods in New Jersey, Texas, and Wisconsin (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Caldwell et al, 2008). The basis for these federal and state policy failures might lie, in part, with the low sexual recidivism rate of youth adjudicated for sex offenses (Caldwell, 2002;Vandiver, 2006).…”