Juvenile Homicide Offenders Look Back 35 Years Later: Reasons They Were Involved in Murder

Abstract

Murders committed by juveniles have been a serious concern in the United States for more than 50 years. Decisions by the United States Supreme Court during the 21st century have reduced the likelihood that juvenile homicide offenders will be sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). As a result of these decisions, hundreds of prisoners who were sentenced as juveniles for murder to LWOP under mandatory sentencing statutes or its equivalent are now eligible for the reconsideration of their sentences. In light of these changes in sentencing policies and practices, follow-up research on juveniles convicted of murder is essential. This research is part of a 35-year follow-up study of 59 boys who were convicted of murder and sentenced to adult prisons in a southeastern state, and initially interviewed in the early 1980s. Twenty of these men agreed to participate in clinical interviews during which they reflected upon the reasons (i.e., motives, circumstances) for which they got involved in criminal behavior as juveniles. These reasons, which broadly tap tenets of psychological and sociological theories, were analyzed in terms of predominance. Thereafter, the attention focuses on looking at the relationship of these 20 reasons to recidivism among the 18 juvenile homicide offenders (JHOs) who have been released from prison. JHOs who lived in neighborhoods where crime was routine and who engaged in crime because the opportunity presented itself were approximately 20 and 22.50 times more likely to be arrested post release and returned to prison, respectfully. The implications of these findings, the limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Juvenile homicide offenders: Why they were involved in serious crime

“…Eleven (61%) of the adult JHOs were failures by these criteria. The seven men who were characterized as successes were at risk longer than the JHO failures (see Heide, 2020).…”

“…After this open‐ended question, the adult JHOs were asked 20 follow‐up questions designed to tap broad tenets of specific psychological and sociological theories (see Heide, 2020 for a brief description of the variables used as measures for the concepts associated with specific theories; the theories were not formally tested). Subjects were asked to rate each of 20 concepts as “not a factor” in their criminal involvement, “somewhat of a factor,” or “a big factor.” The top four reasons rated by the men as big factors in their criminal involvement were friends, being high on alcohol or drugs, the crime “just happened,” and crime was routine in their neighborhood.…”

“…She found that these two variables were indeed significantly related. Juveniles who grew up in a neighborhood where crime was routine were 20 times more likely to go back to the old neighborhood than those who did not live in this type of environment as juveniles (Heide, 2020).…”

Incorrigibility and the Juvenile Homicide Offender: An Ecologically Valid Integrative Review

“…Thus, even well designed and tailored correctional interventions thus far have proven ineffective in restraining the incorrigible antisocial conduct of the most serious violent offenders. Finally, the prison experience itself confers additional risks for continued antisocial conduct as a function of the youth's proximity to older, more recalcitrant adult offenders, various pressures to join security threat groups that increase likelihood of institutional misconduct, and inadequate educational, vocational, and treatment opportunities (see, Forst et al, 1989;Haerle, 2019;Hagan, 1997;Heide, 2019Heide, , 2020.…”

Juvenile Homicide in the United States: Sizing Up the Problem and Moving Forward

“…Ten recidivism studies of juvenile homicide offenders incarcerated in the United States with sample sizes of 18 or more have been published since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Roper (Caudill & Trulson, 2016; DiCataldo et al, 2017; Heide, 2019, 2020; Khachatryan, Heide, Hummel, Ingraham et al, 2016; Khachatryan, Heide, Rad et al, 2016; Khachatryan et al, 2018; Trulson & Caudill, 2017; Trulson et al, 2012, 2016). Several findings emerged from these studies that have important policy implications for judges, corrections officials, and parole boards in determining sentence length, institutional programing, and release.…”