Age effects on juvenile homicide perpetration

Abstract

Age Effects On Juvenile Homicide Perpetration 2 Abstract PurposeIn order to address a notable gap in the research literature, the present study examined agerelated differences in juvenile homicide perpetration. MethodologyData on 150 juvenile homicide offenders and their offences was derived from material available within the public domain, including media reports, case studies, court reports and previously published studies. Comparisons were then made between those aged 14 and under (N = 63) and those aged 14-17 (N = 87) across a range of offender, victim and offencerelated variables. FindingsThere were no significant differences between the child (U-14) and adolescent (14)(15)(16)(17) offender samples on any of the measured variables. The two groups had similar backgrounds, selected similar types of victims, had comparable breakdowns of different types of victimoffender relationship and had similar patterns of weapon use. Research Implications and LimitationsThe fact that the two groups did not differ significantly has notable implications in practical and applied domains. By identifying risk factors for juvenile homicide perpetration, findings open up a range of possibilities for identification, investigation and intervention. In addition, findings might inform the development of offender treatment and rehabilitation programmes.Key limitations relate to the quality and quantity of data employed. Ways of remedying these weaknesses in future research are addressed. Originality/ValueThis is the first study to directly compare child and adolescent perpetrators of homicide over a broad range of offender, victim and offence attributes.Age Effects On Juvenile Homicide Perpetration 3

Youth Who Kill in Turkey: A Study on Juvenile Homicide Offenders, Their Offenses, and Their Differences From Violent and Nonviolent Juvenile Delinquents

“…In addition, these studies indicated that JHOs previously experienced severe educational difficulties, cognitive and language deficits, learning disabilities (Heide, 2003), and they had low IQ levels (DeLisi et al, 2016). As a result, JHOs were more likely to be suspended (Farrington et al, 2012; Loeber & Farrington, 2011), held back (Farrington et al, 2012; Loeber et al, 2005), truant (Farrington et al, 2012; Hammond & Ioannou, 2015), and low in academic motivation and achievement (Ahonen et al, 2016; Gerard et al, 2014; Rodway et al, 2011b).…”

“…Second, several studies looking at clinical samples or case studies widely reported that alcohol and/or drug use/abuse was a common problem (Farrington et al, 2012; Heide, 1997, 2003; Moen, 2020; Rodway et al, 2011b; Vries & Liem, 2011) as well as high-risk and/or disruptive behavior, such as self-mutilation, violence, cruelty to people, and anger/aggression issues among the JHOs (Baglivio & Wolff, 2017; Farrington et al, 2012; Hammond & Ioannou, 2015; Heide, 1997, 2003; Myers, 2002). In addition, low self-esteem, inability to deal with strong feelings, boredom, poor judgment, prejudice and hatred, and interpersonal relationship problems were also common psychological problems identified among JHOs (Heide, 1997; Moen, 2020).…”

“…Third, previous studies on JHOs identified several risk factors/characteristics existing in the social environment, especially in the families of these offenders. The JHOs’ families were, first, dysfunctional and characterized by discipline problems (Moen, 2020; Rodway et al, 2011b), single-parent status, and economic difficulties (low socioeconomic status [SES]; Farrington et al, 2012; Hammond & Ioannou, 2015; Loeber & Farrington, 2011; Loeber et al, 2005; Vries & Liem, 2011). In addition, several types of abuse that were commonly existing in the families where JHOs were raised (Ahonen et al, 2016; Darby et al, 1998; Dolan & Smith, 2001; Heide, 1997; Lewis et al, 1985; Moen, 2020; Myers, 2002; Rodway et al, 2011b) were most commonly reported.…”

The changing face of homicide research: the shift in empirical focus and emerging research trends

“…In the present volume, a paper presented by Joakim Sturup and Shilan Caman seeks to harness the benefits of a mixed methods approach in examining cases of homicide followed by suicide. In addition, both the studies of Ioannou et al (2015) and Hammond and Ioannou (2015) utilise qualitative information and case study materials in order to alleviate problems associated with quantitative analyses and enable larger scale considerations of school shootings and juvenile-perpetrated homicide, respectively.…”

Juveniles arrested for murder: A latent class analysis of male offenders

“…They reported that compared to their older counterparts, younger JHOs aged 6–12 years were more likely to target a younger victim and commit a conflict‐oriented homicide. However, Hammond and Ioannou (2015) analyzed 150 cases worldwide using a variety of data sources in the public domain and found no significant differences between younger and older juvenile murderers.…”