Juvenile Sexual Homicide Offenders: Thirty-Year Follow-Up Investigation.

552062

research-article2014

IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X14552062International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyKhachatryan et al.

Article

Juvenile Sexual Homicide Offenders: Thirty-Year Follow-Up Investigation

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 1–18 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0306624X14552062 ijo.sagepub.com

Norair Khachatryan1, Kathleen M. Heide2, Erich V. Hummel3, and Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan4

Abstract Sexual homicide by a juvenile offender occurs approximately 9 times per year in the United States. Little is known about the post-incarceration adjustment of these offenders. The current study was designed to follow up 30 years later on a sample of eight adolescent sexual homicide offenders who were convicted of murder and sentenced to adult prison. The results indicated that six out of eight offenders were released from prison, and their mean sentence length was 12 years and 2 months. Four offenders out of the six released were rearrested, but none of the arrests were for homicide, sexual or otherwise. The post-incarceration arrests were for violent, drug-related, and property crimes, as well as possession of a firearm. Three out of the four recidivists have been recommitted to prison. Implications concerning the comparability of results to past research, time served in prison, and types of postrelease offenses are discussed. Keywords recidivism, sexual murder, sex offenders, juvenile homicide offenders, gay male sexual murder Greater attention has been devoted to murders committed by juveniles that involve sexual elements or appear sexually motivated in recent decades. More than 30 books 1Graduate

Student University of South Florida, Tampa, USA of South Florida, Tampa, USA 3Lake Correctional Institution, Clermont, Florida, USA 4City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong 2University

Corresponding Author: Kathleen M. Heide, Full Professor, Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, Social Sciences Room 311, Tampa, FL 33620-8100, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on November 15, 2015

2

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

and journal articles have been published on adult and juvenile sexual killers since the late 1980s (Chan & Heide, 2009). The involvement of juveniles among homicide arrestees is indeed worthy of note. Chan, Heide, and Myers (2013) found that juveniles comprised approximately 12% of all arrests for sexual homicide between 1976 and 2004. Myers (2002) estimated that each year nine sexual homicides are committed by juveniles. Although the numbers appear small, juvenile sexual homicide is very alarming to the public due to the nature of sexual homicide, combined with the fact that the perpetrators are thought to be in the “innocent” phase of their lives (Myers, 2002) and under today’s laws might someday be released. Based on many years of investigating juvenile sexual homicide, Myers (2002) concluded that a combination of 10 factors was likely to distinguish juvenile sexual murderers from their non-murdering counterparts. These factors include, but are not limited to, diminished capacity to feel guilt, sadistic fantasy, psychopathic personality, history of child abuse, history of violence against others, and prior arrest history. Myers also reported that juveniles were more likely to commit sexual homicide alone; approximately 70% of the individuals in his sample of 16 juvenile sexual killers were lone offenders. Chan and Heide (2008) reported that the most likely victims for juvenile sexual killers were children or other juveniles. Their victim selection pattern was influenced in part by the racial background of the victims. Juvenile White sexual murderers predominantly killed within their own race (i.e., intra-racial); whereas juvenile Black sexual murderers killed both intra- and inter-racially, with the likelihood of inter-racial killing increasing as the age of the victim increased (Chan, Myers, & Heide, 2010). Chan, Heide, and Myers (2013) found that weapon selection for juvenile sexual killers differed by race: White offenders were more likely to use a knife or other edged weapons during their offenses, whereas Black offenders were more likely to use personal weapons (e.g., hands, feet).When looking at juvenile sexual homicide that involved same-sex killings, Myers and Chan (2012) found that 95% of cases in their 30-year period of examination involved male offender–male victim; cases of female offenders killing female victims were rare. Male juvenile sexual murderers who killed male victims were more likely to kill adult victims, to be friends or acquaintances of the victims, and to use contact weapons, edged weapons, or firearms. Notwithstanding the increased number of publications, however, the amount of knowledge about post-incarceration adjustment among juvenile sexual homicide offenders (hereinafter, JSHOs) is currently very limited. Some research discussed further below has found that JSHOs pose a serious risk to society upon release (Hill, Habermann, Klusmann, Berner, & Briken, 2008; Myers, Chan, Vo, & Lazarou, 2009), but no definitive conclusions can be made yet, especially with respect to long-term risk. Two U.S. Supreme Court cases during the last 10 years have increased the need for post-incarceration research on juvenile murderers in general, including juvenile sexual murderers. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court ruled that the execution of convicted murderers who perpetrated their crimes when they were below the age of 18 is unconstitutional. In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Court struck down mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles who committed murder. These recent rulings will likely result in a higher proportion of JSHOs being released from


Khachatryan et al.

3

incarceration in the near future. Accordingly, it is important to gain more knowledge of how JSHOs fare in society upon their release. Follow-up periods in prior research on incarcerated juvenile murderers, both sexual and non-sexual, have been fairly short. Using a follow-up period of approximately 30 years, the current study was designed to investigate post-release outcomes of JSHOs and to determine to what extent prison incarceration had a deterrent effect on recidivism among JSHOs through their mid- to late 40s. Information on the nature and frequency of post-release offending could be helpful in addressing sexual offender policy laws and in designing more effective intervention programs.

Review of the Literature Chan and Heide (2009) and Kerr, Beech, and Murphy (2013) have discussed in detail the motivations and common characteristics among both adult and juvenile sexual homicide perpetrators, as well as how the definition of this crime has evolved throughout the years. This literature review discusses prior follow-up studies on incarcerated juvenile homicide offenders (JHOs) in general and then focuses on recidivism studies of juvenile sex offenders who did not kill their victims and those who did.

Juvenile Homicide Offenders (JHOs) Three prior studies reported basic recidivism data for samples of JHOs who had been released from incarceration. Two of these studies involved JHOs who served time in juvenile correctional facilities (Hagan, 1997; Vries & Liem, 2011); and the remaining study involved a sample of JHOs who were incarcerated in adult prisons (Heide, Spencer, Thompson, & Solomon, 2001). Two of the studies were conducted in the United States (Hagan, 1997; Heide et al., 2001) and the third study was from the Netherlands (Vries & Liem, 2011). Interestingly, the follow-up periods and the results were quite similar across the three studies. As discussed below, follow-up period within each of these studies ranged from 1 or 5 years to 15 or 16 years. The percentages of JHOs who recidivated across the three studies, whether measured by rearrest or recommitment data, were approximately 60%. Hagan (1997) examined post-release data for a sample of 20 male offenders who had completed or attempted homicides as juveniles. The follow-up period ranged from 5 to 15 years. The researcher found that while none of the JHOs had committed new homicides, 60% (n = 12) of the sample recidivated after release from incarceration: seven committed violent crimes and the remaining five committed property offenses. There was no significant difference in post-release offending between the homicide offenders and a control group of non-homicide juvenile offenders. Heide and colleagues (2001) followed-up on a sample of 59 male JHOs who were convicted of murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter, and sent to adult prison. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 16 years. The results revealed that 43 of 59 offenders had been released from prison, and 60% of them (25 offenders) were recommitted to prison for serious parole violations or for new crimes. Eighty percent of the failures failed within the first 3 years after release.


4


Vries and Liem (2011) followed-up on a sample of 137 Dutch JHOs, which consisted of 116 males (85%) and 21 females (15%). The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 16 years. Fifty-nine percent of the sample were found to have reoffended; 3% of new offenses were either completed (2 offenses) or attempted (16 offenses) homicides.

Juvenile Sexual Offenders Studies have found that juvenile offenders, especially sexual offenders, have higher rates of non-sexual than sexual recidivism (e.g., Caldwell, 2007; Zimring, 2004). The topic of specialization/versatility of sexual offenders has increasingly garnered empirical attention (e.g., Harris, Smallbone, Dennison, & Knight, 2009; Jennings, Zgoba, Donner, Henderson, & Tewksbury, 2014). Although anecdotal evidence has suggested that sexual offenders were highly specialized, empirical support has found the opposite to be true. Recent empirical findings have demonstrated that sexual offenders, like non-sexual offenders, were largely versatile in their offending patterns and their sexually deviant acts were likely to be part of their overall tendency to act in an antisocial or criminal manner (see, for example, Lussier, Leblanc, & Proulx, 2005; Lussier, Proulx, & Leblanc, 2005). The lack of specialization trend noted with respect to sex offenders in general has also been found to apply specifically to juvenile sexual offenders. Limited evidence has demonstrated that juvenile sexual offenders tend to specialize in sexual offending. Indeed findings by Zimring, Piquero, and Jennings (2007) indicated that juvenile sexual offenders rarely committed another sexual offense while still in their adolescent years; they also found that the commission of a sexual offense during adolescence was not a strong predictor of later sexual offending in adulthood. Instead, the frequency of juvenile police contacts was a better predictor of adult sexual offending. These offending trends were supported in another study by Zimring, Jennings, Piquero, and Hays (2009), in which juvenile sexual offenders were found to have no pronounced tendency for sexual offending specialization as adults. Due to the fact that the studies by Zimring and his colleagues investigated community-based cohort samples, postincarceration recidivism was not addressed specifically.

Juvenile Sexual Homicide Offenders (JSHOs) Perusal of the sexual homicide literature revealed three follow-up studies of individuals who committed sexual homicide as juveniles. One of them was a case study of a single juvenile sexual murderer (Myers, Eggleston, & Smoak, 2003) and the other two involved larger samples of JSHOs (Hill et al., 2008; Myers et al., 2009). Myers et al. (2003) presented the case of a 13-year-old male JSHO who repeatedly stabbed his adult female neighbor to death. The crime was classified as a sexual homicide due to the presence of sexual fantasy toward the female victim prior to the homicide and the projection of the offender’s sexual fantasies onto the victim. The juvenile was sentenced to 15 years in a youthful offender program, and was released on probation after serving 9 years.


Khachatryan et al.

5

Follow-up data spanning 3 years indicated that the JSHO was struggling to readjust to society. He was arrested twice in a short period of time; once for being in possession of a firearm, and the second time for stalking a young woman with whom he was romantically involved. Both arrests constituted violations of probation. However, he had not recidivated during the last year for which follow-up information was available. The first follow-up study with a large sample of sexual homicide offenders was conducted by Hill and colleagues (2008) in Germany. Using psychiatric court reports, the researchers examined a sample of 166 male offenders who had committed a sexual homicide between 1945 and 1991. Eleven percent of the sample (19 offenders) were juveniles at the time of the homicide. Follow-up data were available for 90 released offenders, and it was collected through a search of German federal criminal records. The length of follow-up was approximately 10 years. Although not extensive, some recidivism data were provided with respect to juvenile sexual murderers. None of the JSHOs had committed another homicide (sexual or otherwise) after release from incarceration. (Only three of the released offenders committed a new attempted or completed homicide.) The authors noted that violent sexual recidivism rates were higher among offenders who committed their first sexual homicide when they were below the age of 21 and among those who were incarcerated for less than 15 years. Non-sexual violent recidivism rates were higher among offenders who committed their first sexual offense as juveniles. Myers and colleagues (2009) conducted the first sexual homicide follow-up study that focused exclusively on juvenile offenders. The sample consisted of 22 juveniles who had committed their first sexual homicidal act prior to age 18. Although the victims in 8 of these cases survived, these offenders were included in the sample as their intent was likely to kill the victim. Follow-up data were available for 11 individuals: Nine offenders who had been released after completing their sentences and 2 offenders who avoided arrest for the original sexual homicide and had remained in the community. The average sentence served by the 9 released JSHOs was 9.1 years, and their mean age upon release was 24 years old. Regarding the remaining 2 offenders, 1 was arrested in his mid-20s for multiple sexual homicides and it was revealed that his first murder occurred at the age of 16, and the last offender’s age was not reported. The follow-up period was 10 years, and the data were obtained through a search of Department of Corrections (DOC) databases and law enforcement records. The results revealed that five JSHOs (45%) had remained free from any additional convictions for an average of 9 years, whereas the remaining six (55%) recidivated within an average of 4.43 years. Of these six recidivists, three evolved into serial sexual murderers. On average, the serial sexual murderers survived 5.54 years before committing another sexual homicide (two killed 1 or more times before arrested, and the third one was caught while killing another victim). The other three recidivists had survived for an average of 3.6 years in the community prior to committing a new non-sexual offense; one was charged with selling drugs and resisting arrest with violence, and the other two violated parole conditions. The researchers reported that the recidivists exhibited significantly higher levels of psychopathy than the non-recidivists, and all the


6


recidivists who committed additional sexual homicides met the criteria for sexual sadism, compared with only one non-homicide recidivist. Despite the fact that these two sexual homicide recidivism studies have advanced knowledge with regard to the underresearched topic of sexual homicide recidivism, much remains unknown about the post-incarceration behavior of sexual homicide offenders, and particularly those who committed sexual homicide as juveniles. First, the study by Hill et al. (2008) included both juvenile and adult sexual murderers when reporting a combined 10-year recidivism rate. Although no JSHOs committed another sexual homicide upon release, details about their post-release reoffending were not reported. Second, Myers et al.’s (2009) study, which focused only on JSHOs, had a similarly relatively short follow-up (10 years) period. Although the sample examined in this study is not larger than in prior JSHO recidivism research, this research adds to the literature by employing a substantially longer follow-up period available and an expanded focus on all types of post-release offenses.

Method In the present descriptive study, we examined a small sample of non-serial male juvenile murderers who committed sexually oriented homicides at the beginning of the 1980s. The JSHOs in this follow-up study were part of a larger sample of 59 male juvenile killers imprisoned in the early 1980s in a Southeastern state (Heide, 1999). These offenders were charged with either first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or attempted murder. The sample was collected through a computer search performed by the DOC in the early 1980s, and the following inclusion criteria were used at that time: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Male (due to the their disproportionate representation among juvenile killers); Below the age of 18 at the time of the homicide incident; Processed through the adult criminal justice system; Sentenced as an adult and received by the DOC between January 1982 and January 1984; 5. Incarcerated in the DOC less than a year at the time they were identified by the computer search; and 6. Aged 19 or younger at the time of the initial interview. In-depth psychosocial interviews of the 59 offenders were conducted by one of the authors and extensive record data were collected about them, including their prior offense history, family background, school performance history, work history, involvement in drugs and alcohol, and the circumstances regarding the homicidal incident. The data were collected from a variety of sources, such as police reports, charging documents (indictments or information), sentencing orders, probation department reports, and DOC records. The decision to interview subjects 19 years or younger was made to ensure the subjects were still in the adolescent years at the time the youths were interviewed and had not become institutionalized.


Khachatryan et al.

7

Sexual Homicide Criteria for Present Study Using police reports, crime scene circumstances were reviewed for each of the 59 offenders in the original sample. To be classified as a sexual homicide, the crime had to contain one or more of the following elements (Ressler, Burgess, & Douglas, 1988): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Partial or complete removal of the victim’s attire, or lack of attire; Exposure of the sexual parts of the victim’s body; Sexual positioning of the body; Insertion of foreign objects into the victim’s body cavities; Evidence of sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, oral); and Evidence of substitute sexual activity, interest, or sadistic fantasy, such as mutilation of the victim’s genitals.

Using the aforementioned criteria, which had been employed in several prior studies (e.g., Beauregard & Proulx, 2002; Chan, Beauregard, & Myers, 2014; Hill et al., 2008), seven juveniles were determined to be sexual homicide offenders, representing four different cases. One of these cases involved four offenders, three of whom were juveniles; the remaining offender was 18 years of age. Although the 18-year-old was not a sample subject, the decision was made to include this offender in the current study because he was described as “the ringleader” by the other three juvenile codefendants. The four cases are represented in Tables 1 and 2 by the letters A, B, C, and D. Pseudonyms have been assigned to the JSHOs to protect their identity. As described below, all eight subjects in this study were convicted of murder in either the first or second degrees; no sample subjects were identified as committing attempted murder with sexual elements.

Case Reports Case A. Karl, a 14-year-old White youth, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and sexual battery, within hours after the body of a pre-teen White female was found near her school. The victim’s hands were tied together and her head was covered with a plastic bag. Her pants and underwear had been pulled down, and her shirt was pulled up to her breasts. It was indicated in the police report that the adolescent beat, strangled, and sexually defiled the young victim with a stick. Karl pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 99 years in prison. Case B. Thomas, a 16-year-old White youth, was charged with first-degree murder and sexual battery, after the discovery of the severely beaten body of a White female in her mid-20s; the victim was lying on the side of the road almost completely nude. The autopsy report revealed that she had been struck more than 40 times on her head and torso. Available evidence at the crime scene led to Thomas’s arrest 4 days after the body was discovered. He admitted to engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim shortly


8


Table 1. Prior Offenses and Index Homicide.

Case

Offender name (age)

A

Karl (14)

B

Thomas (16)

C C D

Gene (14) Bobby (14) Gus (16)

D

Donnell (17)

D

Andrew (17)

D

Jack (18)

Index homicide charges

Index homicide convictions

Number of JUV priors

Prior violent offenses?

Type of JUV violent offense

Age at first arrest

Murder 1, sexual battery Murder 1, sexual battery Murder 1 Murder 1 Murder 1, armed robbery Murder 1, armed robbery Murder 1, auto theft, armed robbery

Murder 2

0

No

NA

No prior arrests 16

Murder 1

1

No

NA

Murder 2 Murder 2 Murder 2, armed robbery Murder 2

12 3 2

Yes Yes No

Battery Assault, battery NA

8 12 16

4

No

NA

14

Murder 2, auto theft, armed robbery

14

Yes

Murder 1, armed robbery

Murder 2, armed robbery

10

Yes

Battery, aggravated battery, robbery Aggravated assault, attempted robbery

7

9

Note. age = at the time of homicide incident; JUV = juvenile; NA = not applicable; Murder 1 = first-degree murder; Murder 2 = second-degree murder.

before the homicide and hitting the victim with a tire jack after she allegedly tried to rob him. Although Thomas denied killing the woman, he was convicted of first-degree murder by jurors and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum before parole eligibility. Case C. Two 14-year-old White youths, Gene and Bobby, hustlers of adult men, were accused of fatally stabbing a White male in his late 20s who picked them up and brought them into his home. The boys admitted to tying up the victim at his request and engaging in anal and oral intercourse with him. During the sexual activity, the youths choked the victim to unconsciousness with a cord. Gene then proceeded to stab the victim more than a dozen times in the throat and back. Following the killing, the two boys stole the victim’s wallet and fled in his car. They were arrested 1 day later, and initially charged by police with first-degree murder, armed robbery, and auto theft. Both boys pled guilty to second-degree murder and received prison sentences. Gene was sentenced to 50 years; Bobby, to 20 years. Case D. The naked body of a Black male in his early 40s with fatal head injuries was found in the bathtub of his home. Meanwhile, in a different state, four Black youths were taken into police custody for suspicious behavior: Gus, age 16; Donnell, age 17; Andrew, age 17; and Jack, age 18. Subsequent investigation connected the four boys to the above-mentioned brutal murder. It was determined that two, possibly more, of the boys had engaged in consensual sexual relations with the victim in his home


9


Karl

Thomas

Gene

Bobby

Gus

Donnell

Andrew

Jack

A

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

No

Offenses while incarcerated?

40 years

22 years

22 years

17 years

20 years

Battery (jail), smuggling contraband (prison)

Sexual battery, agg. assault, assault/ battery (jail) Arson (jail)

Sexual battery (jail)

No

Escape (prison) Life with mandatory 25 years before parole eligibility 50 years Escape (prison)

99 years

Sentence

4 monthsa

11 years 3 months

19 years

5 years 6 months 8 years 5 monthsa 2 years 1 montha 1 year 3 monthsa

NA

NA

Time at risk

7 years 6 months

7 years 2 months 6 years 8 months 7 years 7 months

25 years

Never released (31 years) Never released (30 years)

Time served

0

6

5

No

2

4

0

0

NA

NA

3

12

2

No

NA

NA

Agg. assault (with deadly weapon, agg. battery NA

Agg. assault, assault/battery Robbery

NA

NA

NA

NA

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

NA

NA

No

Yes

No

No

NA

NA

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

NA

NA

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

NA

NA

Rearrested/ Violent Violent offenses Property Drug Poss. of no. of arrests offenses type+ offenses offenses firearm Recommitted?

Post-release offenses

Note. Poss. = possession; Recommitted = new prison commitment; Agg. = aggravated. N/A = not applicable.;aUntil first post-release arrest; + no sex offenses.

Offender name

Case

Table 2. Incarceration and Recidivism.

10


shortly before his death. Afterward, the victim was punched, choked to unconsciousness, struck 10 to 20 times with a hammer, which ultimately killed him, and dumped in the bathtub after it had been filled with hot water. The police reports noted that the victim was placed in the tub to make the crime look like an accident, but given the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim, that appeared to be an unlikely scenario. The boys fled the state in the victim’s car; they were arrested on the same day as the crime. The boys’ statements indicated that the motive for the killing was robbery; the victim was selected because he was a gay man and thought to be an easy mark. All four were charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery; Andrew was additionally charged with auto theft. Jack, the 18-year-old offender, was convicted of seconddegree murder and armed robbery at trial and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The other three boys pled guilty to second-degree murder. In addition, Gus and Andrew were convicted of armed robbery. Andrew was also convicted of auto theft. Gus was sentenced to 17 years in prison, and Donnell and Andrew were each sentenced to 22 years. The eight offenders’ prior delinquent histories and case processing and outcome information regarding the index homicides are presented in Table 1. Seven of the eight JSHOs had been arrested previously. The mean age of these seven offenders at first arrest was approximately 12 and they accumulated a mean of seven prior arrests. Half the offenders in the sample had been arrested for violent crimes prior to the index homicide. None of the offenders had been arrested for sexual crimes prior to their homicide arrest. Regarding the homicide offense, the sample consisted of two lone offenders who killed female victims and two groups of offenders who killed gay men. Half the sample was White and the other half was Black; the killings were all intra-racial. All eight JSHOs were charged with murder in the first degree, but only one juvenile (Thomas, Case B) was ultimately convicted of that charge; the rest were convicted of murder in the second degree. Three offenders were convicted of additional charges (e.g., armed robbery and auto theft). The decision was made to provide follow-up data on all offenders rather than to eliminate the two offenders who acted alone, given the small number of cases and the exploratory nature of this study.

Follow-Up Data The follow-up data consisted of DOC records from three time points: (a) Summer 1995, (b) Fall 1999 (DOC Internet database records), and (c) Fall 2013 (DOC Internet database records). In addition, arrest data were gathered for all released sample subjects through December 2012. The data from the 1990s were previously analyzed in a preliminary follow-up study of the entire sample of 59 offenders (Heide et al., 2001). The mean length of follow-up for these JSHOs since their arrest for murder through December 31, 2012, was 30 years and 3 months (ranged from 29 years and 8 months to 30 years and 6 months). The following post-homicide information was collected about the sample: (a) the amount of time they served in prison, (b) arrests while awaiting trial in jail and in


Khachatryan et al.

11

prison, and (c) when applicable, post-release recidivism. Arrests in five different categories were recorded: violent offenses, sexually oriented offenses (violent or otherwise), property offenses, drug offenses, and possessions of firearms. New commitments to prison were also recorded. Disciplinary actions were noted about the offenders never released from prison. The time served by offenders was calculated from their arrest date to their (first) prison release date, thereby recognizing that experiences in jail while awaiting trial can be important in shaping an offender’s behavior during prison confinement and after release. For violent crimes, the number of violent charges was recorded, rather than the number of arrests, to present a more accurate picture of the amount of postrelease violence committed by the JSHOs. The violent offenses are described below in greater detail than other types of offenses because these offenders had a known history of violent offending and violent recidivism is particularly disturbing to the public.

Results Table 2 displays data regarding dispositions, the time served by the JSHOs, and posthomicide arrests. Offenses that were committed during incarceration, either in jail or adult prison, as well as those that were committed after release from prison, are reported. Recall that with the exception of Thomas, who was convicted of first-degree murder, all offenders were convicted of second-degree murder. The results indicated that six of the eight offenders in the sample were released from prison during the 30-year follow-up period. All of these six offenders had killed gay men in two group incidents. The two offenders who were not released from prison were the ones who committed their murders alone, Karl and Thomas, who both killed White female victims in separate incidents. The mean sentence length given by the Court to the six released offenders was 28 years and 6 months; however, the mean time they actually served in confinement was approximately 12 years and 2 months. Regarding the entire JSHO sample, six offenders committed additional crimes while incarcerated. All four offenders in Case D were arrested for additional crimes in jail prior to their first prison sentence (homicide); the arrests were for sexual battery, aggravated assault, assault/battery, and arson. Three offenders were arrested for new crimes while they were incarcerated in prison. Two of these offenders attempted to escape from prison, and the remaining offender was caught smuggling marijuana into his institution. Of the six JSHOs who were released from prison, four recidivated. These offenders were arrested a total of 22 times. None of these arrests, however, was for homicide (sexual or otherwise) or other sexual offenses. Among the four recidivists, three, all co-defendants in Case D, were arrested multiple times for serious offenses. These three were arrested for post-incarceration violent crimes; the reported arrests were for aggravated assault and battery (including some that were committed with a deadly weapon), assault/battery, and robbery. (Some of these violent offenses occurred during subsequent prison commitments.) All three offenders were also rearrested for drug-related offenses, and two of the offenders were rearrested for property offenses and possession of a firearm.


12


Three of the six JSHOs who were released back into society after their homiciderelated incarceration, again all co-defendants in Case D, were recommitted to prison. Two of these three offenders were recommitted to prison multiple times; one of them was recommitted for violent offenses and possession of a firearm, and the second offender, an individual with 12 post-release arrests, was recommitted for drug offenses and possession of a firearm. The remaining recommitted JSHO was sent back to prison for violent and drug-related offenses. At the time this manuscript was prepared, only one of these three men (Andrew) was still in prison. The remaining recidivist, Bobby from Case C, in sharp contrast to the three codefendants in Case D, committed relatively minor offenses. He was arrested on two occasions: once for trespassing and resisting arrest without violence, and the second time, for driving under the influence of drugs. It is noteworthy that the two JSHOs who have never been released from prison have accumulated an extensive record of disciplinary reports (DRs), spanning almost the entire follow-up period. Notable DRs included fighting, theft, disorderly conduct, possession of contraband, drug use, unauthorized possession of a cell phone, lying to staff members, and disobeying orders. These two offenders have exhibited a consistent pattern of defiant and antisocial behavior in prison throughout their incarceration.

Discussion This follow-up study, although descriptive and exploratory in nature, is the longest in JSHO research to date. It is unique in the sense that the eight sample subjects were tried as adults and convicted of murder, and that most were released from prison back into society. Had the released JSHOs not reoffended, they could have been potentially in the community for many years at the time of the 30-year follow-up. When these youths were sentenced to prison under existing state statutes in the early 1980s in this Southeastern state, sentencing laws were very different. Thirty years ago, unlike today’s laws, violent offenders did not serve at least 85% of their sentences and life without parole was not a sentencing option. Offenders convicted of first-degree murder were eligible for parole after serving 25 years of their sentence. Life sentences did not mean that an offender would necessarily spend the rest of his life in prison. “Good time credit” (sentence reduction for good behavior) was awarded generously; offenders, including those serving life sentences for second-degree murder, were given 2 days of good time credit for every day served without disciplinary incidents. Life sentences were calculated at 17 years. Accordingly, it was possible for offenders with life sentences to be released after serving 6 or 7 years in prison. Although the small sample size in this study limits the generalizability of its results, several preliminary findings are helpful in broadening our understanding of these offenders’ experiences and suggest further avenues for research. Notably, the sample consisted of two adolescents who acted alone when they killed White female victims and six youths who acted in groups when they killed two gay men following involvement in sexual activity with the victims. The six offenders released from prison were involved in the two group homicide incidents. Accordingly, the investigation of


Khachatryan et al.

13

post-release recidivism, although not planned at the outset of the study, focused on JSHOs who killed gay men. As noted by Beauregard and Proulx (2007), sexual homicide offenders who murdered same-sex victims were likely to exhibit a different set of motivating factors than those who sexually murdered opposite-sex victims (i.e., female victims). For instance, revenge and profit as motivating factors have generally not been found in sexual homicides of females, but were found in their study of male offender–male victim sexual homicides. Some research, however, has shown revenge to play a certain role in the sexual killings of female victims (Myers, 2002). First, the fact that none of the released offenders committed another homicide is both encouraging and intriguing. This finding is consistent with the results in the study by Hill and colleagues (2008), but contradicts the results obtained by Myers and colleagues (2009), where three of the six JSHOs in the recidivism group committed additional sexual homicides. Psychopathy and sexual sadism data were not available for the present sample; perhaps, the differences in recidivism outcomes between the two samples are due to these clinical factors. Second, time served in prison may influence whether an offender recidivates or not, as well as the degree and type of recidivism. Perusal of Table 2 indicates that those who served longer sentences generally committed less post-release offenses and less serious offenses. For example, all the violent recidivists in the sample served less than 8 years prior to their first release from prison. The lower recidivism rate, however, does not appear to be due simply to time at risk (time offender spends in the community after release from prison). At the time of follow-up, the two JSHOs who did not recidivate were in the community significantly longer than three of the four recidivists had been before being arrested. The two non-recidivists had been free in one case for more than 11 years and in the other, for 5½ years. In contrast, the three co-defendants in Case D, all of whom recidivated, were in the community for 2 years or less. The recidivist who committed the relatively minor crimes had been out for more than 8 years before his first arrest. The four recidivists in our study committed post-release offenses more quickly than the six recidivists in Myers and colleagues’ (2009) follow-up study. The mean time at risk before being rearrested was 3.02 years for the offenders in our study; in the study by Myers et al., it was 4.43 years. The lower recidivism rate among JSHOs who were in prison for longer periods is not an effect of treatment. In the Southeastern state in which these JSHOs were imprisoned, therapeutic intervention in the form of group therapy, family therapy, cognitivebehavioral programming, and anger management was for the most part unavailable. Resources for individual therapy by correctional mental health counselors were meager and rarely sought out by inmates due to their concerns that communications with counselors would not be treated as privileged. Rehabilitative services in most correctional facilities were limited to General Equivalency Diploma (GED) programs, vocational programs, and self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Some prisons for a time had therapeutic or educational drug programs, which were discontinued due to statewide cuts to the DOC.


14


Another more plausible explanation for the lower recidivism of offenders who served longer sentences is that they were older and possibly more mature at the time of their release. As violent offenders are typically younger males, being released at an older age may have influenced these individuals not to become involved in violence and other types of serious crime. In other words, they may have “aged out” of committing crime (Farrington, 1986; Sampson & Laub, 2003). Third, perusal of the cases of these JSHOs reveals that most of them would have met the diagnostic criteria of Conduct Disorder, meaning that they had a history of violating the rights of others (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), as noted in previous research by Myers (2002). The results in this study further suggest that JSHOs are generalist offenders, rather than specialists; they committed a wide variety of crimes (e.g., violent, property, drug-related), instead of “specializing” in sex offenses. This typology had not been examined previously in relation to juvenile sexual killers. Available research on juvenile sex offenders, as discussed in the literature review, has found that the majority of them are generalist offenders (Pullman & Seto, 2012; Zimring et al., 2009). Our findings suggest that the JSHOs likely would not have benefited from sex offender treatment, given that they were not arrested post-release for sex crimes. However, given the small nature of our sample, it is crucial to evaluate further whether certain JSHOs are at risk primarily for committing future sex-related crimes or sexual homicides for the purpose of selecting a treatment program that will properly address their needs. Fourth, we note that the proportion of JSHOs in our sample that was involved in group homicides (6 of 8) was higher than the proportion in the 2002 study by Myers (6 of 16). This difference should be viewed with caution due to the small sample sizes in both studies.

Implications The preliminary findings in this study offer several implications for treatment of JSHOs inside the correctional system and after release. The extensive record of disciplinary infractions of the two never-released offenders, as well as the serious recidivistic activity of three out of the six released offenders, is a clear indication that violent juvenile offenders do not receive the therapeutic intervention needed for them to desist from antisocial behavior during incarceration and after release. Prior research has demonstrated that intensive intervention can reduce the rate of recidivism of many juveniles who committed murder and other serious violent offenses and can improve their post-release community adjustment (Heide, 2013; Texas Youth Commission, 1997). From a societal perspective, it makes sense for adult correctional facilities to allocate resources for addressing the needs of these JSHOs, including reducing aggressive and impulsive behavior and developing proper coping skills. The criminal activity committed by the released offenders highlights the need for effective aftercare and monitoring of JSHOs in their communities. These individuals need to be closely supervised after their release to discourage them from resuming the deviant and violent behavior in which they were engaged prior to incarceration. In


Khachatryan et al.

15

conjunction with supervision, community-based treatment needs to be provided to JSHOs, with components such as educational advancement, vocational training, job placement, drug and alcohol counseling, social skills training, anger management, and monitoring of aggressive and sadistic urges.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research This study has several limitations. As mentioned before, the small sample size was certainly a limitation. In addition to affecting generalizability, it also impeded statistical analysis. Future research should obtain larger samples to increase the representativeness of the sample and to statistically explore variables that differentiate between recidivists and non-recidivists. A larger sample would also make it possible to examine differences in post-release outcome between solo and groups JSHOs and to explore differences between JSHOs who murder females and those who murder males of whatever sexual orientation. Future research might also consider comparing the gendered reoffending profile and trend in juvenile sexual homicide. Although analysis of 32 years of arrest data from 1976 to 2007 in the United States revealed that only 5% of sexual homicide offenders were female, recent studies of female sexual homicides indicate a potential gender difference in their offending patterns (Chan & Frei, 2013; Chan, Frei, & Myers, 2013). Also, future research would be enhanced by examining group sexual homicides more in depth. In Case C, it was known that both offenders actively participated in sexual acts with the victim before killing him. In Case D, police reports noted sexual activity between at least two of the offenders, but were not clear about the sexual involvement of the remaining two offenders. Police reports in Case D, however, were clear that all offenders actively participated in the homicidal incident and went along with the plan to kill the victim. Larger samples with more incidents of group sexual homicides might make it possible to discern whether there are important differences between homicide offenders who participate in sexual acts with the victim and those who do not in a sexual homicide. The longer incarceration of JSHOs who murdered female victims, relative to those who murdered adult male victims, is another area that warrants further research. Is this finding an artifact of the present study? Are JSHOs who murder female victims perceived as more dangerous than those who kill adult gay men? Is there an implicit view that gay men are less deserving of protection from predatory offenders than female victims and/or those who kill children? Another limitation in this study is the fact that the JSHO sample was not compared with a control group, in terms of recidivistic behavior. Future research should pair JSHOs with two types of comparison samples: (a) non-sexual JHOs and (b) adult sexual homicide offenders, which would replicate the previously mentioned study by Hill and colleagues (2008). Post-release qualitative data, in the form of an interview, would have been helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of the circumstances facing JSHOs upon release from prison. For example, do such offenders commit crimes because they are unable


16


to get jobs and are trying to survive? Although none of the six released JSHOs in our study were convicted of sex crimes, it would be valuable to investigate whether sex offender registration laws, designed to protect the public, make it substantially harder for JSHOs to make a successful readjustment to the community. In addition, future studies would benefit from either conducting follow-up interviews or reviewing data from such interviews to examine the prevalence of protective factors among released juvenile sexual killers, and whether these protective factors are effective in shielding individuals from recidivating. In addition, clinical interviews with released JSHOs could be designed to build on the findings of this study and those of previous followup studies by examining the effects of psychopathic and sexually sadistic traits, time at risk, and type of treatment, if any. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author. Beauregard, E., & Proulx, J. (2002). Profiles in the offending process of nonserial sexual murderers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 386399. Beauregard, E., & Proulx, J. (2007). A classification of sexual homicide against men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 420-432. Caldwell, M. F. (2007). Sexual offense adjudication and sexual recidivism among juvenile offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 107-113. Chan, H. C. O., Beauregard, E., & Myers, W. C. (2014). Single-victim and serial sexual homicide offenders: Differences in crime, paraphilias, and personality traits. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/cbm.1925 Chan, H. C. O., & Frei, A. (2013). Female sexual homicide offenders: An examination of an underresearched offender population. Homicide Studies, 17, 96-118. Chan, H. C. O., Frei, A. M., & Myers, W. C. (2013). Female sexual homicide offenders: An analysis of the offender racial profiles in offending process. Forensic Science International, 233, 265-272. Chan, H. C. O., & Heide, K. M. (2008). Weapons used by juveniles and adult offenders in sexual homicides: An empirical analysis of 29 years of US data. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 189-208. Chan, H. C. O., & Heide, K. M. (2009). Sexual homicide: A synthesis of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 31-54. Chan, H. C. O., Heide, K. M., & Myers, W. C. (2013). Juvenile and adult offenders arrested for sexual homicide: An analysis of victim–offender relationship and weapon used by race. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58, 85-89.


Khachatryan et al.

17

Chan, H. C. O., Myers, W. C., & Heide, K. M. (2010). An empirical analysis of 30 years of U.S. juvenile and adult sexual homicide offender data: Race and age differences in the victimoffender relationship. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1282-1290. Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189-250. Hagan, M. P. (1997). An analysis of adolescent perpetrators of homicide and attempted homicide upon return to the community. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 41, 250-259. Harris, D. A., Smallbone, S., Dennison, S., & Knight, R. A. (2009). Specialization and versatility in sexual offenders referred for civil commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 37-44. Heide, K. M. (1999). Young killers: The challenge of juvenile homicide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Heide, K. M. (2013). Understanding parricide: When sons and daughters kill parents. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Heide, K. M., Spencer, E., Thompson, A., & Solomon, E. P. (2001). Who’s in, who’s out, and who’s back: Follow-up data on 59 juveniles incarcerated in adult prison for murder or attempted murder in the early 1980s. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 97-108. Hill, A., Habermann, N., Klusmann, D., Berner, W., & Briken, P. (2008). Criminal recidivism in sexual homicide perpetrators. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 5-20. Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., Donner, C. M., Henderson, B. B., & Tewksbury, R. (2014). Considering specialization/versatility as an unintended collateral consequence of SORN. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 184-192. Kerr, K. J., Beech, A. R., & Murphy, D. (2013). Sexual homicide: Definition, motivation and comparison with other forms of sexual offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 1-10. Lussier, P., Leblanc, M., & Proulx, J. (2005). The generality of criminal behavior: A confirmatory factor analysis of the criminal activity of sex offenders in adulthood. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 177-189. Lussier, P., Proulx, J., & Leblanc, M. (2005). Criminal propensity, deviant sexual interests, and criminal activity of sexual aggressors against women: A comparison of explanatory models. Criminology, 43, 249-281. Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). Myers, W. C. (2002). Juvenile sexual homicide. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Myers, W. C., & Chan, H. C. O. (2012). Juvenile homosexual homicide. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 90-102. Myers, W. C., Chan, H. C. O., Vo, E. J., & Lazarou, E. (2009). Sexual sadism, psychopathy, and recidivism in juvenile sexual murderers. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 49-58. Myers, W. C., Eggleston, C. F., & Smoak, P. (2003). A media violence-inspired juvenile sexual homicide offender 13 years later. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(6), 1-6. Pullman, L., & Seto, M. C. (2012). Assessment and treatment of adolescent sexual offenders: Implications of recent research on generalist versus specialist explanations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 203-209. Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motive. New York, NY: Free Press. Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183. (2005).


18


Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys to age 70. Criminology, 41, 301-339. Texas Youth Commission. (1997, February). Specialized treatment recidivism effectiveness summary. Austin, TX: Author. Vries, A. M., & Liem, M. (2011). Recidivism of juvenile homicide offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 483-498. Zimring, F. (2004). An American travesty: Legal responses to adolescent sexual offending. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Zimring, F. E., Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Hays, S. (2009). Investigating the continuity of sex offending: Evidence from the second Philadelphia birth cohort. Justice Quarterly, 26, 58-76. Zimring, F. E., Piquero, A. R., & Jennings, W. G. (2007). Sexual delinquency in Racine: Does early sex offending predict later sex offending in youth and young adulthood? Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 507-534.


Attempted Homicide among Early-Onset Juvenile Offenders.

Criminal Recidivism Among Homicide Offenders.

Female sexual homicide offenders: an analysis of the offender racial profiles in offending process.

The future of homicide offenders. Results from a homicide project in Copenhagen.

Mental Illness and Juvenile Offenders.

Recidivism in sexual offenders.

Sexual history disclosure polygraph outcomes: do juvenile and adult sex offenders differ?

[Treatment management of sexual offenders].

Sexual homicide: social, psychological, and legal aspects.

Psychopathology among substance abusing juvenile offenders.

An integrated treatment program for sexual offenders.

Sadism and Violent Reoffending in Sexual Offenders.

Juvenile addison's disease: followup behavioral studies in seven cases.

Sadism in sexual offenders: evidence for dimensionality.

King's theory of goal attainment applied in group therapy for inpatient juvenile sexual offenders, maximum security state offenders, and community parolees, using visual aids.

Juvenile sex offenders: similar to, or different from, other incarcerated delinquent offenders?

What is so special about female sexual offenders? Introduction to the special issue on female sexual offenders.

HIV-Risk Reduction with Juvenile Offenders on Probation.

Computer projective drawings of juvenile offenders and college freshmen.

HIV testing among non-incarcerated substance-abusing juvenile offenders.

The Effectiveness of Aftercare for Juvenile and Young Adult Offenders.

The neural correlates of emotion processing in juvenile offenders.

Facial attractiveness and juvenile delinquency among black and white offenders.

Trauma History and PTSD Symptoms in Juvenile Offenders on Probation.