1
Juvenile Sex Crimes
Running Head: JUVENILE SEX CRIMES
Juvenile Sex Crimes: Theory, Rehabilitation, and 21st Century Reform
Holly Wood
CapellaUniversity
Juvenile Sex Crimes: Theory, Rehabilitation, and 21st Century Reform
Juvenile sex offenders are responsible for one-fifth of all sex crimes and one third of those against children under 12 (Caldwell, 2002). 2009 is at a critical point in the evolution of the juvenile justice system, when sex crimes are increasing and expanding to new forms on the Internet, compelling American society to dedicate a profound contemplation on legislation and resolutions. In a country that prides itself on free speech, there are more than two sides of the issue to work with, and it is through a respect of each contribution of information that diligent decisions can be made. Given the agreement on the establishment for a separate system for juvenile offenders, America must integrate acquired knowledge on human development, case law policy on the federal and the state level, and keen wisdom based on research for long term individual and societal amelioration. Accomplishing this with such complex crime as sexual offenses can provide ground markers for dealing with others.
Human development research has impacted the constituency of the juvenile justice system that leads two sides to a multifaceted federal understanding for processing juvenile sex offenses. Relevant to 21st-century political correctness, differing states have offered varying degrees of definitions on sexual crime (Caldwell, 2009, p.292). Although there are a multitude of differentiations on establishing individual state positions for processing juvenile sex crimes, decision makers do not understand the multi-faceted interpretation of the sex crimes committed by juveniles. Currently there are various case laws that interpret a sex crime depending on the offender’s age, victim’s age, and specific activity (Caldwell).States have varying interpretations of what they constitute as a sex crime, for instance, in Megan's Law, there are differing degrees on whatindividuals can be held for under the Constitution. For one, there is a different interpretation on what constitutes a sexual crime such as age, relativity, and degree of compliance (Caldwell, 2002). When it comes to juveniles, this must be considered in the human development phase (Scott & Grisso, 1997), in addition to specific laws such as Megan's Laws, which requires sex offender registration across the nation, with varying degrees related to juvenile perpetration.
There are at least two sides of the argument for Megan's Law as it pertains to juvenile offenders. For Instance, There are some entities such as The Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (2007, p.7) that feel it is in the best interest of public safety to be advised of an individual's tendency for sexual offenses. There are others, as voiced byCaldwell (2002), who feeljuvenile sympathy is important, and request juvenile justice congruency, which is a necessary point from human development considerations, but accounting for this dynamic integration for all must be based on research.
Currently more than half the states have complied with Megan's Law, and there are sources who feel that these laws should be more intricately considered, as differing states are given independent jurisdiction over specifics on how to deal with juvenile offenders.
It is argued that the information surfaced for trying to understand these complex offenses are based on instances of extreme circumstances such as Megan Kanka’s laws. As the federal jurisdiction has mandated the recording and publication of sexual offenses, states have manifested this differently. More than half of the states have required juveniles to report sexual offenses ( Caldwell, 2002).
Megan's Law has direct influence on juvenile justice. Differentiating who should actually be reported, the effects of being reported, and how society will be affected are serious concerns for today (Garfinkle, 2003). It is proposed that juveniles are in need of a greater differentiation from adult offenders based on the fact that juveniles have less documented cases of recidivism(Garfinkle). However, the author argues that Megan's Law was based on extreme emotion from extra-ordinary crimes, and that sexual abuse crimes against children are being classified in society as worse than crimes such as murder (Garfinkle). Many people will agree that sexual abuse crimes should not be considered in the extreme of murder, and with common knowledge that jail cell culture classifies pedophiles as the worst; there is an extreme confusion in overall societal perspective. Garfinkle is correct to surface this important point of view, but while that author argues against publication of sexual offender identities, supported by the trend of societal minimization of murderers in comparison, this author (Wood, 2009) believes that both types of felons should be equally reported. Garfinkle makes a legitimate point that society should hold kidnappers and murderers to the same public scrutiny that sexual offenders are naturalized to. It is important that those who are victimized from sexual crimes do not feel what they went through, was worse than being murdered. With the current psychology of holding sexual offenders at the worst of the worst, the victims of those crimes cannot help but wonder if it would have been better if they were murdered.
Upholding the current federal regulations for reporting public announcements of juvenile offenders that is currently practiced for juveniles amongst more than half of the 50 states, is easier said than done; these states constantly have to debate the scrutiny of long-term effects upon these juveniles, where research has unfortunately fallen short. Although there is no current validation for programs such as multi-systemic treatment (Borduin, Schaeffer, & Heiblum, 2009), there has been substantial treatment demonstrated. The biopsychosocial elements of human development (Levy, in 1984) must always be accounted for to offer confidence in one's decision. There is always a required individual discretion on whether or not a specific sexual crime constitutes regulations of Megan's Law (Caldwell, 2009), but as it particularly pertains to juvenile circumstances is a decision that cannot be concluded without diligent integration of information.
Although there are opposers of Megan's Law, the same standards cannot be held for juvenile offenders, one way or the other. It is true that juveniles are within the human development process, but there is little research to substantiate knowledge in recidivism. It is important that lawmakers as well as program implementers realize that sexual crimes are a key concern to the public and balance this understanding with information found in human development.
References
Borduin, C. M., Schaeffer, C. M., & Heiblum, N. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: Effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 26-37. doi:DOI: 10.1037/a0013035
Caldwell, M. F. (2002). What we do not know about juvenile sexual reoffense risk. Child Maltreatment, 7(4), 291-302. doi:10.1177/107755902237260
Levy, L. H. (1984). The metamorphosis of clinical psychology: Toward a new charter as human services psychology. American Psychologist, 39(5), 486-494. doi:10.1037/0003- 066X.39.5.486
Garfinkle, E. (2003). Coming of age in America: The misapplication of sex-offender registration and community-notification laws to juveniles.California Law Review, 91(1), 163. Retrieved from
Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(1), 137. Retrieved from N=67 5876&site=ehost-live&scope=site
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Retrieved July 25, 2009, from