1 / 18

Adults' Guilt Judgments of Juvenile Sex Offenders

Adults' Guilt Judgments of Juvenile Sex Offenders. Natalie R. Troxel ACJRC March 25, 2010. Study Goal. Perceptions of juvenile offenders Juvenile offenders are different Largely exploratory Sparse literature. QuickTime™ and a. decompressor. are needed to see this picture.

monifa
Download Presentation

Adults' Guilt Judgments of Juvenile Sex Offenders

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Adults' Guilt Judgments of Juvenile Sex Offenders Natalie R. Troxel ACJRC March 25, 2010

  2. Study Goal • Perceptions of juvenile offenders • Juvenile offenders are different • Largely exploratory • Sparse literature

  3. QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture. What is a Sex Offense? • Differs by state • Differs by culture, era • Include child sexual abuse, child pornography, rape, and statutory rape • Must include intent • Offenders must register

  4. Who is a Sex Offender? • Anyone who commits a sex offense • All walks of life • Usually male

  5. Juvenile Sex Offense Rates 20% of sex offenses 15% of forcible rapes (OJJDP, 2009) Table courtesy of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Data from 2008.

  6. Characteristics 13-17 years old; male (CSOM, 2000) 80% have diagnosable mental health issue (CSOM, 2000) 20-80% have history of physical or sexual abuse (CSOM, 2000) Low repeat offense (Alexander, 1999; Schram, Milloy, & Rowe, 1991; Worling & Curwen, 2000) Non-violent (Miranda & Corcoran, 2000) Experimentation (NCSBY, 2003) Impulsive & immature (NCSBY, 2003) Photo courtesy of Walker, Walls, & Lancaster, PLC

  7. Previous Research • Extra-legal factors (Bushway & Piehl, 2001; Everett & Wojtkiewicz, 2002; Mustard, 2001) • Juror bias(Carlson & Russo, 2001; Finkel, 1995; Goodman-Delahunty, Greene, & Hsiao, 1998; Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983) • Child witness credibility (Bottoms & Goodman, 1994; Castelli, Goodman, & Ghetti, 2005; Goodman et al., 1987)

  8. Previous Research • Perceptions of violent juvenile offenders (Ghetti & Redlich, 2001) • Type of crime and outcome of crime influence sentencing decisions and perceptions of competency • Age of offenders influences competency and accountability • Age of offenders does not influence sentencing outcomes

  9. 3 (Age: 8, 13, 17) x 2 (Force: yes, no) Six vignettes Age and Force are within subjects Vignette is counterbalanced across subjects Read vignette  evaluate Design

  10. Sample Vignette Steve, 7, was at a slumber party for a friend’s birthday. The friend’s older brother, Mike, 8, was also there. They were the only ones there who were not interested in the movie that was playing, so they got up to go play video games in the friend’s bedroom. The friend’s mom walked into the room to check on them and found that Steve was performing oral sex on Mike. Mike had apparently told Steve that if he did not perform oral sex, Mike would beat him up.

  11. Hypotheses • Older perpetrators will be judged as more guilty than younger perpetrators (Bergeron & Mckelvie, 2004; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998) • Female participants (Castell et al., 2005; Quas, Bottoms, Haegerich, & Nysse-Carris, 2002)and participants with abuse histories (Bottoms, 1993; Waterman & Foss-Goodman, 1984) will be more likely to vote guilty • Perpetrators using force or coercion will be judged as more guilty than those not using force • Use of force will matter more for younger offenders than older offenders (i.e., Force x Age interaction)

  12. Consent Age, F(2, 217) = 21.04, p < .001 Force, F(1, 217) = 179.30, p < .001 Age x Force, F(2, 217) = 3.39, p < .05 1=Not at all consensual 6=Completely consensual

  13. Immorality Age, F(2, 220) = 73.80, p < .001 Force, F(1, 220) = 117.75, p < .001 Age x Force, F(2, 220) = 10.36, p < .01 1=Not at all immoral 6=Completely immoral

  14. Criminality Age, F(2, 220) = 146.59, p < .001 Force, F(2, 220) = 86.55, p < .001 Age x Force, F(2, 219) = 7.74, p = .001 1=Not at all criminal 6=Completely criminal

  15. Guilt Age, F(2, 217) = 162.34, p < .001 Force, F(1, 217) = 72.65, p < .001 Age x Force, F(2, 217) = 5.01, p < .05 0=Not guilty 1=Guilty

  16. Hypotheses supported Older perpetrators will be judged as more guilty than younger perpetrators Perpetrators using force or coercion will be judged as more guilty than those not using force Use of force will matter more for younger offenders than older offenders (i.e., Force x Age interaction) Hypotheses unsupported Female participants and participants with abuse histories will be more likely to vote guilty Discussion

  17. Next Steps… • More data analysis! • Use Childhood Trauma Questionnaire sexual abuse subscale • Community sample • Professional sample • Vary gender and victim’s age

  18. Thanks • Dr. Gail Goodman • Dr. Kristin Lagattuta • Dr. Joel Johnson • Dr. Donna Shestowsky • Research Assistants

More Related