Characteristics of Two Types of Juvenile Rapists: Implications for Treatment and Prediction

Abstract

There have been notable contradictions in some studies ofjuvenile sex offenders that have raised questions regarding assumptions underlying the development of specialized treatment programs for sex offenders. Strasberg (1978) perceived sex offenders as representing only a small portion of reported violent adolescents, and in an earlier work Atcheson and Williams (1954) reported that juvenile sex offenders tend to cure themselves and show low rates of recidivism. In direct contrast, Lewis, Shankok, and Pincus (1979) found striking similarities in behavioral history, social background, and neuropsychiatrics of sexually assaultive and nonsexually assaultive adolescents, whom they studied in a secure unit for violent, adolescent offenders. Sexually assaultive and nonsexually assaultive groups had similar histories including frequent violent, nonsexual activity since early childhood, physical abuse by parents, and prevalence of extreme violence in their homes. No significant differences were noted between the two groups in frequency of depressive symptoms, hallucinations, paranoid symptoms, or thought disturbances, although the two groups did demonstrate similar types of neurological dysfunction. Lewis et al. (1979) hypothesized that sexual violence represented only one type of assaultive behavior along the continuum of crimes committed by these youths, and the researchers questioned whether specialized treatment programs for sexually assaultive offenders are justified.The results of the Lewis et al. (1979) study seem important in evaluating juveniles who exhibit extreme, violent behavior, but their findings may be questioned on the basis of the limitations of their sample (i.e., only extremely violent offenders were studied) and on the criteria used for classifying the

Protecting the Best Interests of Minors: A New Ethical Standard for Counselors

“…Decisions regarding imprisonment or placements in similar secure units are often based on the seriousness of the criminal behavior, chronicity of those behaviors, or both elements (Flanagra, 1979). Corder, Whiteside, Dyer, and Haizlip (1986) noted that juvenile rapists (12-15 years-of-age) function on a primitive psychobiological level of unsocialized impulsivity, apparently lacking "the capacity to respond to programs other than highly structured, behavioral modification programs" (p. 16). It would seem, therefore, that the decision for placement for such criminal offenses would be quite clear.…”