Youth sex offenders in court

Abstract

Sexual offending by young people is increasingly viewed as a social problem that requires a strong response, but there is little research on the legal treatment of youthful sex offenders. On the one hand, these youths may be viewed as potential future sex offenders; on the other hand, because of their youth and immaturity they may be considered more reformable than adults and their behaviour more excusable. This paper builds on an archival study of 385 sexual offence cases, which were disposed in court and by conference and formal caution, in South Australia from 1995 to 2001. Drawing on the transcripts of 55 cases sentenced by judges (i.e., the most legally serious offences), we analyse sentencing discourses and outcomes using both the explicit and latent content of the sentencing remarks. Specifically, we explore the judges' orientations and aims when sentencing adolescent sex offenders, how judges reconcile the seriousness of offending and the youthfulness of offenders, and how they balance the competing interests of victims and offenders. Two major findings emerge. First, the cases fell in a three-way typology patterned by the victims' age, the context of the offence, and the offender's criminal history. Second, our study suggests that while youth court judges consider sexual offending against children as very serious and are concerned by future offending, they do not adopt a punitive approach, but rather a therapeutic and rehabilitative perspective at sentencing.

Judicial Censure and Moral Communication to Youth Sex Offenders

“…During the 6 ½ period, there were a total of 65 cases sentenced by judges; our analysis is of 55 cases for which sentencing remarks could be located. 7 Further detail on the study's context and methods is given elsewhere (Bouhours & Daly, 2007;Daly et al, 2007).…”

“…This study of judicial sentencing is part of a larger project, which analyzed all youth sex offense cases finalized by police formal caution, family conference, or in the Youth Court during a 6 ½ year period (1995 to 2001) in South Australia, and whose broad aim is to examine the appropriateness of restorative justice in cases of youth sexual and family violence (Daly, 2006;Daly et al, 2007;Daly & Curtis-Fawley, 2006). During the 6 ½ period, there were a total of 65 cases sentenced by judges; our analysis is of 55 cases for which sentencing remarks could be located.…”

“…Such practices accord with normative claims that youths should be viewed as less culpable and that sentencers of youth crime should engage in moral communication (Duff, 2002;Weijers, 2002Weijers, , 2004. In a companion piece (Bouhours & Daly, 2007), we examine the ways in which the judges characterized the sexual offenses and offenders, and how they justified their sentences. This paper examines the ways in which judges censure youth sex offending, including the normative messages they attempt to convey to the youths, and how, more generally, they interact and communicate with them.…”

Locating the Judge within Sentencing Research

“…This includes investigations of professional/occupational subcultures (Eisenstein et al 1988;Fielding 2011;Huck and Lee 2014;Hutton 2006;Ulmer 1997); the rules, policies, administrative and legal frameworks operating within courtrooms that constrain judges (Beyens and Scheirs 2010;Phoenix 2010); social interactions with other participants (Martyn and Levine 1998; Travers 2007); defendant-related factors (Bouhours and Daly 2007;Ulmer 1997); how other courtroom participants experience the judge in court (Jacobson et al 2015); how the judge experiences other participants (Rossmanith 2015); and the possible impact of public opinion, however identified or perceived (Mackenzie et al 2012;Roberts 2008 These studies contribute to a narrative about the complex social world of sentencing and its constituent parts. They specify the social role of the sentencing judge as a core (and human) actor, and map active engagement through social interactions that negotiate these conditions (Hutton 2006;see also Bourdieu 1987;Hawkins 2003).…”

Understanding the Experiences of Justice-Involved Youth at the Intersection of the Criminal Justice and Mental Health Systems

“…A possible individual-level explanation may be bias among court officials. There is some research to suggest individual perceptions of sexual offending informs how court officials make decisions (e.g., Bouhours & Daly, 2007;Nhan, Polzer, & Ferguson, 2010;Sample & Kadleck, 2008). Cutting across both individual-and system-level explanations is the potential role of stigma in explaining the differential effects of youth criminal justice system involvement observed in the current study.…”