Lecture 8 - Youth Offenders
Should youth receive less severe sanctions as compared to adults?
Inquiry about agreement with the statement that "a crime is a crime, whatever the age of the offender."
Question posed on how many disagree with the statement.
Disagreement may depend on the type of crime or other factors.
Discussion on whether youth should receive less severe sanctions compared to adults for the same crime.
Participants asked about their willingness to speak up—some may prefer to wait until the end of the lecture.
Noting that characters and behavior may depend on age; example given comparing an 8-year-old with a 17-year-old, emphasizing developmental differences.
Public Beliefs About Youth Crime
Inquiry about agreement with the statement "a crime is a crime, whatever the age of the offender."
Question posed on how many disagree with this statement.
Disagreement may depend on the type of crime or other factors.
Discussion on whether youth should receive less severe sanctions compared to adults for the same crime.
Participants asked about their willingness to speak up—some may prefer to wait until the end of the lecture.
Noting that characters and behavior may depend on age; example given comparing an 8-year-old with a 17-year-old, emphasizing developmental differences.
Graph
Discussion on the accuracy of perceptions about youth in the criminal justice system.
Youth crime is a controversial topic raising questions from the criminal justice system and the broader community.
Common assumption: anyone committing a criminal act will be charged and punished; however, this is not always the case.
Children under 12 are not charged with crimes, even violent acts like murder.
Professionals (social workers, police) intervene with the goal of providing treatment and preventing future offenses.
Criminal justice processing requires offenders to be at least 12 years old.
Before age 12, children's behavior is governed by the Child and Family Services Act.
At 12, children are assumed capable of controlling their behavior, and criminal acts will be handled differently under the criminal justice system.
Canada acknowledges developmental differences in youth aged 12-18 compared to adults.
An adult is defined as over 18 years old and is subject to the Criminal Justice Act, which outlines how younger offenders are processed in the system.
Historical Overview of Juvenile Justice in Canada (before-1908)
Prior to the 1900s, children and youth committing criminal acts were treated similarly to adult offenders in the Canadian justice system.
No provisions for age or developmental stage regarding charging, sentencing, or incarceration.
Youth were not exempt from the death penalty; similar treatment to adults.
In 1908, Canada enacted the Juvenile Delinquent Act, recognizing special circumstances of juvenile offenders.
The Act applied to individuals aged 7 to 16, with some jurisdictions extending to 18.
Juvenile offenders were called delinquents and categorized as committing acts of delinquency rather than criminal offenses.
Separate courts were established for juvenile delinquents; parental involvement in proceedings was encouraged.
Sanctions could include fines, probation, attendance in industrial schools, or foster care; severe cases could be transferred to adult court.
The original Act faced criticism for the informality of youth courts, sometimes denying rights to legal counsel and the right to appeal.
Open-ended sentences and broad definitions of delinquency led to ambiguity and potential unfairness.
Some delinquent acts were not illegal for adults, leading to specific charges for adolescents.
Informality resulted in potential abuse of the system, with parents or authorities able to influence charges.
Historical Overview of Juvenile Justice in Canada (1984)
In 1984, the Young Offenders Act replaced the previous juvenile justice legislation in Canada.
Offenders are recognized as cognitively different than adults, resulting in appropriate levels of accountability and sanctions based on developmental stages.
Minimum age for charging a criminal offense raised from 7 to 12; upper age limit set at 12-18.
Children under 12 are handled by Child and Family Services for behavior violations.
Youth Court can transfer cases to adult courts, but the youth must be at least 14 for this to happen.
The Act allows for case diversion, meaning youth can undergo educational or community service programs instead of prosecution.
Diversion is only available if the youth pleads guilty.
Other potential dispositions include:
Absolute discharge (guilty verdict with no further sanctions)
Fines and compensation for property damage
Restorative justice options such as restitution to victims
Prohibition orders regarding certain activities or items (e.g., weapons)
Community service, probation, or custody in residential facilities or secure retreats.
The Youth Offender Act has been amended multiple times, including Bill C-106 in 1986 and Bill C-37 in 1995.
Bill C-106 aimed to address pleadings to avoid transfers to adult courts; courts must consider family circumstances before transferring cases.
Bill C-37 mandated that 16-17 year olds charged with serious crimes (murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault) be tried in adult court unless otherwise applied for.
The rationale for these amendments was that juvenile offenders received relatively short sentences for serious crimes, yet the youth justice system also faced issues of overuse of incarceration.
Historical Overview of Juvenile Justice in Canada (2003)
In 2003, the Youth Criminal Justice Act replaced the Young Offenders Act in Canada.
The act aimed to reduce the high youth incarceration rate by keeping juvenile offenders out of court and custody.
Main objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act:
Prevent crime.
Provide meaningful consequences for criminal acts.
Encourage responsibility for behavior.
Improve rehabilitation and integration.
Key difference with the Youth Criminal Justice Act: once a juvenile is charged, they cannot be transferred to adult court.
If found guilty, a judge can impose an adult sentence if the defendant is at least 14 years old.
An adult sentence requires notification from the Crown seeking that sentence.
Sentencing must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense.
The act considers the victims of juvenile offenders, ensuring they are informed of court proceedings and have opportunities to participate.
Emphasis on restorative justice involving victims and their rights to access youth court records.
Add pink table on slide 9 to notes
Age-Crime Curve graph
Youth should potentially face less severe sanctions than adults for crimes committed.
Public perceptions include agreement and disagreement with the notion that "a crime is a crime, whatever the age of the offender."
The type of crime may influence disagreement on sanctions based on age.
Developmental differences are noted, especially in comparing younger children to teenagers.
In Canada, children under 12 are not charged with crimes; criminal justice processing begins at age 12.
Historical perspective: Children previously treated as adults in the justice system until the Juvenile Delinquent Act of 1908 acknowledged differences in youth offenders.
The Young Offenders Act (1984) recognized cognitive differences between youth and adults and raised the minimum age for criminal charges.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003) aimed to reduce youth incarceration and emphasized rehabilitation, integrating victims in the process.
How to Deal with Juvenile Offenders
The Youth Justice Act aims to keep juvenile offenders out of court and custody.
Police should consider community options before involving the courts when dealing with antisocial youth.
Community alternatives for dealing with juvenile offenders are known as extrajudicial measures and include:
Taking no further action.
Giving warnings or scaring the youth.
Issuing a registered police caution.
Referring the youth to community treatment facilities.
Expanded sentencing options under the act include:
Reprimands (warnings or lectures).
Fines, compensation, and restitution.
Community service or probation.
Custody options in community settings.
Attendance orders for specific programs such as anger management.
Judges can impose an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) order for youths with serious psychological issues linked to violent offenses (e.g., murder, manslaughter).
The goal of the IRCS is to rehabilitate high-risk youths rather than just punish them, aiming to reduce recidivism.
Custody and Reintegration
The Youth Criminal Justice Act aims to improve rehabilitation and integration of young offenders.
Young offenders are less likely to be detained pre-trial and are not meant to be held in custody before their trial.
Real custodial sentences are used as a last resort.
Custodial sentences can only be applied if the youth has committed violent offenses (e.g., murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, sexual assault) or has repeatedly failed to comply with probation or community-based sanctions.
Custody may also be considered for repeat offenders, or if they present a danger to the public or themselves.
Custodial sentences should be followed by periods of supervision and support during reintegration into the community.
The act recognizes developmental differences between youths (ages 12-18) and adults, aiming to keep them out of the system unless necessary.
Youth Crime Rate, 1998-2023
Recognizing developmental differences between youths and adults.
Looking into numbers and perceptions of youth crime.
Perception since 2001: youth crime, particularly violent crime, has been increasing.
Many believe leniency in sentencing contributes to this perception.
Data shows that the youth crime rate has been declining consistently.
Six specific years noted for increases: 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2022, and the last year.
Despite the rise in some years, youth crime is significantly lower than it was historically.
From 1998 to 2021, there has been about a 70% decrease in reported youth crime over the 25-year period.
Comparison of current perceptions of increasing crime versus actual historical data shows a marked decline in youth crime rates.
Youth Crime Rate by Offence Type 2000-2023
Between 2000 and 2014, a large decrease in youth crime was observed, driven primarily by decreases in property crime, particularly burglary and break-and-enter charges.
A significant number of youth charged with property crimes were diverted from the judicial process.
Instead of formal charges, youth received warnings, cautions, or were referred to community programs for extrajudicial sanctions.
This diversion led to a drastic drop in reported property crime charges.
From 2016 to 2017, similar trends were noted; however, a slight increase in youth offending was observed from 2022 to 2023.
During this period, there was a 10% increase in overall youth crime rates.
Property crimes increased by 13%.
Other categories saw a 20% increase in youth crime rates in 2022-2023.
Overall, increases were noted across most categories of youth crime , but comprehensive data is still being compiled.
Youth Crime Severity Index
Generally, youth crime rate remains low in terms of severity.
In 2023, the youth crime severity index increased by about 7%.
This marks the second consecutive year of increase, following a rise in 2022.
The severity index had been on a downward trajectory since the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act.
The increase in the severity index is largely attributed to non-violent crimes, with a 13% increase in non-violent offenses such as theft, fraud, and break-and-enter.
The youth violent crime index saw a 4% increase, influenced by other assaults, Level 2 sexual assaults, and firearm offenses.
Robberies and homicides were not major contributors to the increase.
Despite the increases, youth crime rates and severity index remain lower than pre-pandemic levels.
The changes may be influenced by social and economic contexts, including global events and social media trends that promote risky behavior.
Social media challenges, where individuals film themselves committing assaults, are said to contribute to the rise in youth offenses.
This trend is not limited to youth, as adults have also engaged in similar behaviors.
Fewer Youths are being accused and charged
Trends in youth crime and incarceration generally hold over time.
Data from 2016 and 2017 showed similar trends.
Youth have been charged at lower rates compared to adults.
Incarceration rates for youth have declined by 88% from 1997-98 to 2021-22.
The year 2003-2004 saw a significant decrease in reported youth incarceration by about 39%, coinciding with the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act aimed to divert youth from custody, proving effective in its first year.
Factors influencing youth behavior include developmental differences rather than primarily mental health issues.
Youth Incarceration Rate, 25 Year Trend
A life sentence for a 15-year-old means they will be released while still young, spending formative years in prison.
Incarceration can complicate reintegration due to lack of education and employment opportunities.
There are arguments about the minimal difference in maturity between 17 and 18-year-olds when facing adult charges.
The criminal justice system aims to prevent individuals from entering due to mental health issues, although some still do.
Issues related to mental health are significant but not the primary factor in youth incarceration.
Developmental differences play a crucial role in youth behavior and incarceration rates.
The decrease in youth incarceration is partly due to specific language in the Criminal Justice Act encouraging non-custodial options.
The act promotes diversion, restorative justice, and community-based programs over custody.
Guilty Youth Court Cases Sentenced to Custody, 1997 to 2022
The indicator monitors the percentage of youth in the UK receiving custodial versus non-custodial sentences for those found guilty.
The number of youth court cases receiving a custodial sentence has decreased by 98% since 1997.
In 1997, 29% of youth court cases received custodial sentences, which dropped to 9% by 2001.
A significant decline in the use of custodial sentences is noted, with the largest drop occurring in 2003.
Youth Arrest and Correctional Services Involvement by Age & Gender
Discussion of common sentences for youth, such as familial taste information and community service orders.
Graph showing age of youth arrested in Canada from 2012 to 2017 by gender.
Arrest rates are lower for females compared to males, similar to adult offenders.
The age of youth arrested tends to increase towards 17-18 years.
Arrest rates for young females peak around 16 years and then decline slightly.
Offending behavior tends to increase at ages 14-16 for both genders.
A steep decline in the proportions of young people committing offenses is observed after this age range.
Recent statistics indicate that the majority of offenders are in specific age ranges, fitting established patterns.
For continuing offenders, levels of offending generally decrease over time, even if they continue to offend.
Can girls be that mean?
The data suggests that young females are not typically committing serious or violent crime.
However, some young females are involved in serious violence.
June 2012 Incident in Ottawa:
3 out of 11 females aged 15 and 16 charged with running prostitution.
9 victims involved, including a 13-year-old who thought she was going to a sleepover.
The 13-year-old was forced to perform oral sex on an adult man.
She testified believing she was going to a slumber party, wearing fuzzy teddy bear pajamas.
Victim expressed feeling too young to have sex.
Charges against the accused included:
Human trafficking
Procurement
Sexual assault
Producing and possessing child pornography
Unlawful confinement
Uttering threats
The main accused, Kaylee, was only 15 at the time of the events, but was convicted as a youth when she turned 18.
Ringleader found guilty of 30 crimes (January 2014)
The ringleader was sentenced as an adult at age 15, while her two teenage associates, who pled guilty, received lesser sentences.
One associate was sentenced to three years.
They were found guilty of human trafficking involving other teenage girls, including a 13-year-old victim.
The ringleader's case raises questions about the appropriateness of her sentencing as an adult.
Opinions were sought on whether she should receive a reduced sentence due to her age and diagnosis of sociopathic narcissism.
The ringleader, now 18, received a sentence of 5.5 years in federal penitentiary after spending 3 years in a youth detention center.
The judge deemed her actions serious, resulting in an adult sentence despite her age.
The victim's mother supported the judge’s decision, confirming it was appropriate for the severity of the crimes.
The ringleader effectively served about 3.5 years in adult federal prison after time served in youth detention.
More recent case of “mean” girls
In late 2022, a group of girls aged 13-16 attacked and stabbed Kenneth Lee, a 59-year-old homeless man, in downtown Toronto.
This ongoing case began in 2020-2022 and is still progressing through the court system.
One 18-year-old girl charged was sentenced in September 2024 but will not serve further jail time.
The 13-year-old involved was the first to be sentenced, pleading guilty to manslaughter without serving time but receiving 15 months of probation.
She must also complete an intensive treatment program and is protected under the Criminal Justice Act, hence cannot be named.
A lawyer highlighted the difference in treatment between youth and adults in Canada, emphasizing developmental differences.
In February, one of the two girls on trial pled guilty to manslaughter after assessing the evidence, while another co-accused, aged 14, tried to plead guilty but was rejected for a higher charge.
Out of the eight accused, five pled guilty to manslaughter and one to assault with a weapon, while two others remain to finish their trials.
There are complexities regarding psychiatric assessments and court processes, especially for repeat offenders.
Appeals may occur related to treatment and sentence fairness during the trial.
The case raises discussions about juvenile justice and the handling of young offenders with varying charges and sentences.
‘Girl gang’ in vicious assault on woman, 19 Angus Howarth, The Scotsman, Mon 28 Aug 2006
Highlights that violent offending is commonly associated with males rather than females.
Female violent offending occurs, but at lower levels than males.
Cases discussed are interesting, though not necessarily viewed as fun.
Notable cases involve severe acts of violence.
Reference to swarming videos depicting group attacks on individuals.
Observations suggest potential connections to mass gatherings or dance movements.
Assessing Those Under Age 12
Violent behavior interventions are crucial for decreasing likelihood of violence in adulthood.
Important to consider issues when determining courses of action for youth with antisocial behavior.
Children under 12 often present behavioral problems identified at school (e.g., fighting, bullying).
Psychological assessments may be recommended by schools or parents.
Assessments evaluate the presence of internalizing (emotional) and externalizing (behavioral) problems.
Delays in obtaining psychological assessments can impact court proceedings and potential sanctions.
Internalizing problems include anxiety, depression, and OCD, while externalizing problems include delinquency, bullying, and destructive behavior.
Externalizing problems are harder to treat and can lead to serious antisocial acts, increasing contact with the criminal justice system.
Issues with externalizing disorders can impact daily functioning, social skills, and employment opportunities.
Disorders like Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct Disorder, and ADHD are common among youth engaging in antisocial behavior.
ADHD is characterized by persistent inattention and hyperactivity, requiring multiple symptom occurrences in various settings.
To qualify for ADHD diagnosis, six symptoms must occur for at least six months before age 12.
Externalizing Disorders (DSM-5-TR)
Impairment in academic, social, or occupational activities is necessary for ADHD diagnosis.
ADHD behaviors can harm or decrease functioning in life areas.
Some ADHD behaviors can appear typical in young children and may not lead to issues.
Behaviors linked with ADHD prior to age seven causing impairment indicate increased risk for continuation later on.
It’s important to pay attention to behaviors in children under 12, not in isolation.
There are additional factors that increase the risk of ongoing antisocial behavior.
Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder are also relevant conditions.
Externalizing Disorders (DSM-5)
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is characterized by:
Pattern of angry, irritable mood and argumentative/defiant behavior lasting at least six months.
At least four symptoms must be present from specified categories.
Behaviors need to occur when interacting with someone outside the family.
Common behaviors include quick temper, deliberately annoying others, vindictiveness, and low frustration tolerance.
Persistent defiance is key, not just isolated incidents.
Higher prevalence of ODD in offending populations compared to general community.
About 40% of children diagnosed with ODD go on to develop Conduct Disorder (CD).
Conduct Disorder (CD) is defined by:
Repetitive, persistent patterns of behavior violating the rights of others and basic social rules.
At least three out of 15 specified behaviors need to be present in the past 12 months.
Behaviors may include initiating physical fights, cruelty to animals, setting fires, and deceit for gain.
High levels of delinquency typically before the age of 13.
Conduct Disorder includes a specifier for limited prosocial emotions:
Lack of remorse or guilt,
Callous lack of empathy,
Shallow positive emotions,
Lack of concern about performance or success in school or jobs.
Early onset (before age 10) is linked to more persistent long-term effects compared to adolescent onset (after age 10).
30 to 50% of children with CD may later develop Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD).
ODD and CD are risk factors for continued antisocial behavior into adulthood.
Assessing the Adolescents
Court-ordered assessments for adolescents with antisocial behavior may occur without consent from the youth.
The court aims to determine the level of risk for reoffending.
There is a concern about linking a youth to high-risk offender status.
High-risk classification allows for harsher sanctions, including custody or incarceration, but custody is treated as a last resort.
Young offenders are assessed for resource utilization efficiency and effectiveness.
Assessments consider both static factors (e.g., age at arrest) and dynamic risk factors (e.g., antisocial peers and attitudes).
Clinical interviews are conducted to evaluate relevant risk factors for recidivism.
Risk factors for youth differ from adults due to the lack of historical behavior patterns.
Young offenders are influenced more by recent events and environments.
The textbook covers two key risk assessment tools, including HCR20, noted for efficiency and robustness in risk evaluation.
Only a small subset of officially recognized offenders are considered serious, which includes violent and chronic offenders, highlighting that a few individuals commit a majority of serious crimes.
Need to Identify the Chronic Offenders
Chronic offenders are identified as those committing the majority of crime.
Moffitt's 1993 study found 5% of boys responsible for 50% of crimes.
This 5% is referred to as persistent or chronic young offenders.
A 2000 study examined 987 males and females up to age 17.
Similar results showed 5% of males accounted for 51% of crimes in the study.
This consistent finding indicates a small percentage (5%) of chronic offenders is committing half of the crimes,
particularly among males.
Developmental Trajectories (Moffitt, 1993)
Early delinquency strongly predicts future criminal offending.
Subjects who offend early in childhood are likely to continue offending into adolescence and adulthood, leading to chronic offenders.
Two main predictors of the length and intensity of a criminal career emerge from literature:
Age of onset of criminal behavior
Chronic offending in adolescence
Research by Terry Moffitt proposes that the onset of antisocial behavior can indicate future antisocial behavior, distinguishing between temporary and persistent antisocial behavior.
Focus is on identifying risk and protective factors related to early onset antisocial behavior, which may lead to severe and persistent issues.
Two trajectories are noted:
Child-Onset Life Course Persistent (LCP), which leads to lifelong offending
Adolescent-Onset (with a potential for desistance in adulthood).
Child Limited category noted, where some children offend early but desist in adolescence and do not continue into adulthood.
Crime Pathways
Two trajectories of offending behavior are observed:
Life Course Persistent (LCP):
Starts early and continues throughout life.
Tends to commit a high number of crimes overall.
Adolescent Limited:
Peaks in adolescence but tapers off after that.
Child onset has a less frequent occurrence, affecting about 3 to 10% of the general population.
Child-onset, Life-Course Persistent Trajectory
Child offenders typically exhibit behavioral problems early in childhood.
Life Course Persistent (LCP) individuals show antisocial behavior that changes during different developmental stages.
Types of antisocial behavior differ across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.
Access to resources alters the nature of antisocial and criminal behaviors throughout development.
Underlying causes of LCP behavior include neurological deficits and exposure to environmental risks.
Poor parenting and parental antisocial behavior create a circular, reciprocal relationship with neurological effects.
Neurological deficits can lead to difficult temperaments in children, resulting in aggressive behaviors and tantrums.
Difficult behaviors may provoke negative responses from parents and peers, perpetuating a cycle of aggression.
Poor parenting prevents children from learning emotional regulation and appropriate behavior, further feeding into antisocial tendencies.
Life course persistent trajectory features histories of behavioral problems that influence safety and care in childhood.
Causal factors linked to early childhood experiences accumulate, leading to persistent antisocial behaviors into adulthood.
Comorbidity with other disorders is common in LCP individuals, with increases in ADHD, learning disabilities, and academic difficulties observed.
Adolescent-onset, Adolescent limited Trajectory
Most young children with behavioral difficulties do not continue to offend into adolescence.
Adolescent limited offenders begin their antisocial behavior in adolescence and desist as they reach young adulthood.
Behavioral problems often emerge during teenage years.
This group makes up a large percentage of all delinquents.
Antisocial behavior is influenced by the gap between biological maturation and social maturity.
Engaging in certain behaviors may be an attempt to gain adult privileges and autonomy from parents.
Common antisocial behaviors include stealing, vandalism, underage drinking, and driving without a license.
Such behaviors typically cease as individuals transition into adulthood and gain actual access to adult privileges.
A significant majority of offenders (about 70%) are considered adolescent limited offenders.
While some may continue engaging in antisocial acts into adulthood, most desist by their mid to late twenties.
Adolescent limited offenders generally exhibit less violent and aggressive behavior compared to life course persistent offenders, focusing instead on behaviors that symbolize privilege or control.
Biological: The Changing Brain
Public order offenses can be linked to the age-crime curve, suggesting lighter sanctions for adolescents compared to fully matured individuals.
Sensitive developmental periods include early childhood (first 3-5 years) and adolescence.
During adolescence, significant changes occur in the brain:
Proliferation of synapses prepares the brain for maturation.
Parts of the brain are not communicating efficiently, affecting decision-making processes.
Changes in the brain include:
Increase in gray matter (synapses and networks).
Myelination of white matter, enhancing efficient communication within the brain.
Adolescents experience brain changes that affect their thinking and decision-making abilities.
Because of ongoing brain development, the rationale for punishment or sanctions for adolescents should differ from those applied to adults.
Adolescents may have a different level of accountability due to immature brain function, suggesting that their sanctions should be proportionate to their developmental stage.
Imprisonment or harsh sanctions could negatively impact adolescents' brain development.
Alternative, developmentally appropriate forms of accountability could be more effective during this stage of maturation.
Roper vs. Simmons, 2005
The case examines the concept of responsibility based on developmental level.
In 1993, 17-year-old Christopher Simmons devised a plan to murder Shirley Cook, involving two younger friends.
The plan included burglary and murder by breaking and entering.
The trio kidnapped Cook from her home and drove her to a state park.
Evidence included Simmons' confession, a videotaped reenactment, and testimony from a friend.
The jury found him guilty, considering mitigating factors like his age and lack of criminal history.
The jury recommended a death sentence, which the court imposed.
Simmons appealed, citing ineffective counsel and his age, impulsiveness, and troubled background as mitigating factors.
The trial court rejected his motion, and all subsequent courts upheld the death sentence.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death penalty for mentally ill citizens.
A new petition was filed, leading to Missouri's Supreme Court concluding that the death penalty for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment rights.
Simmons' sentence was reduced to life in prison; this decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case highlighted neurological and behavioral research regarding young offenders and the death penalty.
Lionel Tate
In Florida, 1999, a 6-year-old named Tiffany was babysat by Lionel Tate's mother.
While the children played downstairs, Tate's mother called for quiet.
Tate came upstairs 45 minutes later, claiming he had been practicing wrestling moves with Tiffany.
He allegedly placed Tiffany in a headlock and caused her to hit her head on the table.
The prosecution argued that Tiffany died as a result of extensive injuries, totaling 35, similar to those from falling from a three-story building.
Tate, aged 8 at the time, had a history of disruptive behavior, including bullying, stealing, and lying, resulting in 15 school suspensions.
Tate's mother was a Florida Highway Patrol trooper.
The defense rejected a plea bargain for second-degree murder, which would have resulted in a three-year term in a youth facility, followed by ten years of probation.
Tate's mother preferred to go to trial, hoping for an acquittal.
What sentence did Lionel Tate receive?
In 2001, Lionel Tate was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole at age 13, the youngest American to receive such a sentence.
There is concern regarding the legal counsel's decision not to accept a plea bargain which could have provided a lighter sentence.
Tate had a history of bullying, stealing, and lying, raising questions about the likelihood of recidivism.
Discussion around how many children exhibit problematic behaviors yet do not go on to commit serious crimes.
The sentence has faced criticism as controversial due to Tate's circumstances and potential for treatment.
The prosecution was criticized for their actions and later supported a plea for leniency after the trial.
In 2004, Tate's conviction was overturned on grounds that his mental capacity was not evaluated before trial, permitting him to accept the plea bargain.
Tate was released to house arrest for one year with an additional ten years of probation.
In 2005, he violated parole and was sentenced to 30 years for a new offense and an additional 10 years for robbery.
Cognitive: Dodge’s Social-Information Processing Theory of Aggression
Concerns exist regarding due process in ensuring mental capacity is assessed before trial for offenders.
The importance of understanding the cognitive processes in juvenile offending is highlighted, focusing on social and emotional cue interpretation.
Juveniles start off by paying attention to social cues, interpreting them, considering responses, and then choosing a course of action.
Hostile perceptions can lead to hostile reactions; individuals may misinterpret intentions and retaliate, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This cycle of hostility reinforces aggressive behaviors and perpetuates conduct disorder.
Conduct disorder may lead to deficiencies in problem-solving skills and biases in interpreting social interactions.
Those with conduct disorder often exhibit limited attention to cues, resulting in misattribution of others' intentions and an increased likelihood of engaging in aggressive reactions.
Cognitive deficiencies related to conduct disorder can emerge early in childhood, contributing to violent behavior and the persistence of symptoms.
Types of Aggression
Dodge and colleagues distinguish between two forms of aggressive behavior: reactive aggression and proactive aggression.
Reactive aggression is an emotionally aggressive response to perceived threat or frustration.
Reactive aggressors develop hostile anticipation.
Proactive aggression is directed at achieving a goal and is considered instrumental.
Reactive aggressors tend to have cognitive deficiencies early in the cognitive process, focusing only on intent.
Proactive aggressors have difficulty generating alternative responses, showing more automatic reactions.
Reactive aggressors typically exhibit an earlier onset of problems, relating to a child onset trajectory compared to proactive aggressors.
Risk Factors
Risk factors predict an increased probability of later offending.
Risk factors can be modified and protected against later on.
Risk factors can be static (unchanging) or dynamic (changeable and responsive to intervention).
The presence of multiple criminological risk factors increases the likelihood of offending behavior.
Rarely is one risk factor sufficient to initiate or maintain offending behavior.
Various types of risk factors exist, but their presence does not guarantee that a youth will become an offender.
Familial Risk Factors
Risk factors are present in various domains: individual, family, school, peer, and community.
Family risk factors include:
Family stressors
Poor parenting skills
Family size
Home discord
Child treatment
Social parents
Studies, including one from the late 70s, show strong predictors for later violent convictions are:
Poor parental supervision
Parental conflict
Parental aggression
Larger families (four or more children) may lead to increased chances of one child engaging in delinquent behavior, suggesting statistical likelihood increases with family size.
Individual Risk Items
Individual risk factors include:
Dynamic factors such as negative attitudes
Risk assessment and safety perceptions
Impulsivity
Substance use
Genetic or biological factors also play a role.
Parental influence increases children's risk, particularly through:
Pregnant women's substance use affecting fetal development
Biological predispositions impacting future behavior.
Social, School, Contextual Risk Items
School social intimidation risks include:
Peer influence and attitudes increasing risk.
Neighborhood factors linked to increased risk, particularly in:
Disorganized neighborhoods.
Lack of social control networks.
Isolation of residents from each other.
Absence of community in certain neighborhoods.
Protective Factors
Resilience is crucial in overcoming adversity and can develop throughout one's lifespan.
Resilient children benefit from protective factors that help them navigate challenges.
Buffers allow resilient children to change their perspective when faced with difficulties.
Protective factors reduce exposure to risks and can break the negative cycle following risk exposure.
These factors support the development of self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Opportunities to overcome challenges contribute to a child's ability to persevere and adapt in the face of adversity.
Protective factors can exist at different levels.
Individual protective factors include:
Level of intelligence.
Commitment to education.
Focusing on school work reduces time for antisocial behaviors.
Other protective factors:
Confident self-perception.
Pro-social attitudes.
Gender (being female).
Receptiveness to peers' disapproval of antisocial behavior.
Family protective factors:
Stable, calm, and supportive family environments.
Positive relationships with adults.
Involvement in coaching and volunteering positions (e.g., Big Brothers Big Sisters).
Such relationships help guide youth positively.
Intervention levels (possible short answer)
Types of Intervention:
Universal intervention
Primary prevention: Aims to stop antisocial behavior before it occurs.
Secondary intervention: Focuses on reducing violence among at-risk individuals.
Tertiary intervention: Targets those who have already exhibited antisocial behavior.
Primary Prevention Details:
Implemented through group programs in schools or community initiatives.
Enhances protective factors to prevent violence and antisocial behavior.
Promotes positive psychology and strength-building to increase resiliency in youth.
Secondary Intervention Details:
Focuses on identifying and addressing existing risk factors in at-risk children.
Aims to prevent further involvement with the criminal justice system, particularly for those with behavioral issues or disorders.
Tertiary Intervention Details:
Identifies individuals previously involved in antisocial behavior and works to prevent recurrence.
Intervention strategies can occur at 3 levels: Universal (primary), Selective (secondary), and Indicated (tertiary)
Primary intervention strategies are implemented prior to any violence occurring with the goal of decreasing the likelihood that violence will occur later on (i.e., prevention). As well, these strategies are meant to enhance protective/strengths across all youth.
Secondary intervention strategies attempt to reduce the frequency of violence (i.e., intervention) for at-risk youth by focusing on providing intervention for existing risk factors.
Tertiary intervention strategies attempt to prevent violence from reoccurring (i.e., treatment) in those youth who are engaging in serious, chronic offending.
Universal Prevention Strategies
Goal is to identify children groups with numerous risk factors for future antisocial behavior.
Early intervention aims to reduce likelihood of juvenile offending before violence occurs.
Targets groups rather than individuals; interventions take place at family, school, and community levels.
Examples of primary intervention approaches:
Family-Oriented Strategies:
Effective in preventing juvenile offending by addressing family-related risk factors.
Divided into two types:
Parent-Focused Interventions: Help parents recognize warning signs for juvenile violence and manage behavioral problems.
Family-Supportive Interventions: Connect at-risk families to community support services (e.g., childcare, counselling).
Example: “The Incredible Years Parenting Program”: A 12-week training program focusing on:
Building emotional bonds between parents and children.
Setting behavioral expectations.
Monitoring behaviors and reinforcing positive actions.
Providing consequences for inappropriate behavior.
Enhancing communication skills through demonstration videos.
Parent-focused approaches have short-term success but high attrition rates (over 50% for high-risk families), questioning their effectiveness.
Parenting programs are not standalone; they are part of broader comprehensive programs that may include child or school components.
School is a key environment for primary prevention strategies.
School-based prevention programs include:
Preschool programs (e.g., Project Head Start) for low socio-economic children.
Provides services like nutrition, activities, tutoring, and medical services.
Positive short-term outcomes, questionable long-term effects on antisocial behaviour.
Social skills training for children showing early interpersonal and behavioural difficulties.
Involves structured programs teaching conflict resolution, social perceptions, anger management, and empathy.
Incorporates cognitive behavioural therapy focusing on thought processes and social interactions.
Short-term benefits with small long-term effects on antisocial behaviour.
Broad-based interventions aimed at altering the school environment.
Increases connections among students, assists school transitions, improves safety perception, engages community experiences.
Community-oriented approaches involve structured activities and community cohesion.
Example: SNAP Under 12 Outreach Project (1985) in Canada.
Components include:
SNAP Children’s Club teaching cognitive-behavioural techniques.
SNAP parenting group for effective child management.
One-on-one family counselling based on SNAP Parenting.
Individual befriending for children needing support.
Academic tutoring for underperforming children.
Evaluation in Toronto showed decreased externalizing behaviours and fewer criminal justice contacts for the ORP group compared to controls.
Multifaceted interventions combining cognitive behavioural skills and parent training showed positive effects for antisocial behaviours in children under 12.
Selective Prevention Strategies
Secondary intervention strategies target juveniles with police or criminal justice system contact or school behavioral issues.
Goal is to provide social and clinical services to prevent serious violence.
Similar approaches to primary intervention strategies, but focus on different targets (specific children).
Common secondary intervention strategies include:
Diversion programs that redirect youth from the juvenile justice system to community- or school-based treatments.
Alternative and vocational education programs as an option to mainstream schooling.
Family therapy and skills training programs involving the juvenile and their family.
Diversion and school-, family-, and community-based interventions have shown success in reducing antisocial behaviour in youth.
Indicated Prevention Strategies
Goal is to minimize existing risk factors and develop protective factors to reduce future offending likelihood.
Targeted at juveniles who have engaged in criminal acts and may have been processed through court proceedings.
Focuses more on treatment than prevention, addressing chronic and serious juvenile offenders.
Tertiary intervention strategies include:
Inpatient treatment (institutional, residential; retribution).
Community-based treatment (rehabilitation).
Retribution proponents believe juveniles should be held accountable, punished, and separated from society, often in institutional settings (e.g., juvenile detention centers).
Rehabilitation supporters argue that community-based treatment is more effective for reducing reoffending risk.
A meta-analysis found that shorter stays in institutional settings and greater community service involvement are more effective for violent juveniles.
Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is an intensive family- and community-based intervention for chronic and violent juvenile offenders aged 12 to 17.
The program examines and addresses various environmental systems impacting the youth, including families, peers, schools, neighborhoods, and the community.
Recognizes the critical role of each system in the youth's life for effective change and improved quality of life.
Targets tough offenders with a long history of arrests and has been implemented in parts of Canada and the U.S.
Initial assessments identify strengths and weaknesses of the adolescent, family, and peers.
Uses cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) at the adolescent level to modify attitudes, motivations, and perspective-taking skills.
Teaches effective parenting skills and enhances parental competencies at the family level, promoting attachment and communication.
Aims to decrease ties with antisocial peers and increase relationships with prosocial peers at the peer level.
Therapists manage a caseload of 4-6 families, available 24/7 during the 3-5 month treatment course, and participate in weekly meetings with other therapists and clinical supervisors to maintain treatment fidelity.
9 Principles of MST
Finding the fit: Assess the connection between youth's problems and environment; successes guide treatment.
Focusing on positives and strengths: Emphasize family strengths to build hope, identify protective factors, and boost caregivers’ confidence.
Increasing responsibility: Promote responsible behavior and reduce irresponsibility among family members.
Present-focused, action-oriented, and well-defined: Focus on current issues; clear, actionable goals to track progress and determine treatment success.
Targeting sequences: Address behavior patterns among family, friends, and community that sustain problems.
Developmentally appropriate: Tailor interventions to the youth's age and developmental needs; promote skills for adulthood.
Continuous effort: Require regular effort from families to ensure commitment and facilitate rapid problem resolution.
Evaluation and accountability: Continually assess effectiveness and hold team members accountable for outcomes, avoiding blame on families.
Generalization: Equip caregivers to address needs post-intervention; family members drive the change process collaboratively with therapists.
MST and Outcome (Borduin et al., 1995)
Borduin and colleagues compared Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) to individual therapy in a US study.
Examined re-arrest rates for juvenile offenders post-treatment over 5 years.
Found MST more effective at reducing re-arrest than individual therapy.
Canadian study by Leschied and Cunningham evaluated MST's effectiveness across four Ontario communities (1997-2001).
Locations: London, Mississauga, Simcoe County, Ottawa.
Sample size: approximately 200 families.
Areas targeted in MST treatment include:
Family communication
Parent management
Cognitive-behavioral issues
Overall, MST was not found to be more effective than typical Ontario services.
MST may have positively impacted unmeasured factors for youth and families.
US studies found MST more effective than incarceration, individual counseling, and probation.
Differences in program availability and quality between the US and Canada may account for varied results.
What Works for Juvenile Offenders? (Dowden & Andrews, 2003)
134 studies analyzed.
Significant variation in effectiveness of different treatment programs.
Programs targeting criminogenic needs are the most successful.
Achieved 20-40% reduction in recidivism rates.
Positive effect size indicates decreased recidivism.
What Doesn’t Work (Dowden & Andrews, 2003)
What doesn’t work – remember Positive effect size = decreased recidivism; negative = increased recidivism
What Doesn’t Work cont’d
Controlled studies show that boot camp and 'Scared Straight' interventions are ineffective and potentially harmful for delinquents (Lilienfeld et al., 2010).
'Scared Straight' programs involve at-risk youth visiting adult prisons to deter juvenile crime.
Activities include:
Tours of the facility.
Experiencing prison life for a day.
Aggressive presentations by inmates.
One-on-one counseling.
Research over decades has demonstrated these programs are ineffective and possibly harmful.
Boot camps, based on military training, emphasize discipline and physical conditioning, operating in the U.S. since 1985, with some instances in Canada.