Juvenile Sex Offending Through A Developmental Life Course Criminology Perspective

580966
research-article2015
SAXXXX10.1177/1079063215580966Sexual AbuseLussier
Article
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment
Juvenile Sex Offending 1–30
© The Author(s) 2015
Through a Developmental Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Life Course Criminology DOI: 10.1177/1079063215580966
sax.sagepub.com
Perspective: An Agenda
for Policy and Research
Patrick Lussier1
Abstract
Current American policies and responses to juvenile sex offending have been
criticized for being based on myths, misconceptions, and unsubstantiated claims. In
spite of the criticism, no organizing framework has been proposed to guide policy
development with respect to the prevention of juvenile sex offending. This article
proposes a developmental life course (DLC) criminology perspective to investigate
the origins, development, and termination of sex offending among youth. It also
provides a review of the current state of knowledge regarding various parameters
characterizing the development of sex offending (e.g., prevalence, age of onset,
frequency, persistence, continuity in adulthood, and versatility). The review highlights
some heterogeneity across these developmental parameters suggesting the presence
of different sex offending patterns among youth. In fact, it is proposed that, based on
the current knowledge, such heterogeneity can be accounted for by a dual taxonomy
of adolescents involved in sexual offenses: (a) the adolescent-limited and (b) the
high-rate/slow-desister. The DLC criminology approach and the dual taxonomy are
proposed as organizing frameworks to conduct prospective longitudinal research to
better understand the origins and development of sex offending and to guide policy
development and responses to at-risk youth and those who have committed sexual
offenses.
1Laval University, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Patrick Lussier, Professor of criminology, School of social work, Faculty of social sciences, Laval
University, Pavillon Charles-De Koninck, 1030, ave. des Sciences-Humaines, Quebec City (Quebec),
Canada G1V 0A6.
Email: patrick.lussier@svs.ulaval.ca
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

2 Sexual Abuse
Keywords
continuity, desistance, juvenile delinquency, juvenile sexual offender, onset,
prevention, sexual offending, sexual recidivism, taxonomy, trajectory
Several scholars have criticized current American policies and responses to juve-
nile sexual offending for being based on myths, misconceptions, and unsubstanti-
ated claims (e.g., Chaffin, 2008; Letourneau & Miner, 2005; Zimring, 2004). There
is a need for a paradigm shift to better align the societal response to juvenile sexual
offending with theoretically grounded and methodologically sound empirical evi-
dence, but no systematic framework has been proposed to guide and inform research
and policy development. In recent years, researchers have demonstrated the need
and the rationale for a developmentally informed approach to sexual offending
(Chaffin, Letourneau, & Silovsky, 2002; Lussier, 2005; Smallbone, 2006).
Developmental life course (DLC) criminology is presented in this article as one
possible avenue that can guide theory and research and facilitate this paradigm
shift. Developmental criminology emerged in the early 1990s (LeBlanc & Fréchette,
1989; Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990) as an organizing research and policy framework
for the study and prevention of juvenile delinquency (e.g., Elliott, Huizinga, &
Ageton, 1985; West & Farrington, 1977; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). This
approach has been questioned in the past for its overemphasis on the early years
and the seemingly deterministic perspective. Life course scholars (e.g., Laub &
Sampson, 2003) argued that life events, life transitions, and turning points in adult-
hood matter for everyone, irrespective of the formative years and early life experi-
ences. The life course approach stresses that human development does not stop in
childhood, but rather, continues to unfold well beyond that point. Attitudes, values,
and behaviors are shaped by life experiences and significant turning points (e.g.,
employment, marriage, parenthood). These ideas are not incompatible with the
developmental criminology perspective (e.g., Elder, 1998) and Farrington (2005)
has since argued that the developmental and life course perspective provide com-
plementary theoretical frameworks.
This theoretical integration is known as developmental life course (DLC) criminol-
ogy. In this article, DLC criminology is introduced as a theoretical and research para-
digm to improve the description and explanation of onset, developmental course, and
termination of sexual offending. Therefore, the current article aims to introduce to the
field of sexual violence and abuse some of the core concepts of the DLC approach and
how these concepts apply to the study of sexual offending. First, the DLC is contrasted
with the traditional approach used to study and explain juvenile sexual offending.
Second, key concepts and developmental parameters are outlined and defined. In
doing so, a dynamic developmental model of sexual offending is presented. Third, the
scientific literature concerning several key parameters of sexual offending is reviewed
(e.g., prevalence, age of onset, continuity, frequency, versatility, specialization, and
trajectories) in light of the DLC perspective. Finally, based on the current scientific
evidence, a developmental taxonomy of juvenile sex offending is offered as an

Lussier 3
organizing framework to conduct longitudinal research on juvenile sexual offenders

(JSO) and to initiate a shift toward developmentally informed policies regarding the
prevention of juvenile sexual offending.
DLC Research and Traditional Research on Juvenile

Sexual Offending
DLC criminology contrasts with the more traditional view about juvenile sexual
offending in at least two significant ways. First, to date, clinical research has been
focused on the identification of traits associated with juvenile sexual offending, such
as psychopathic traits, insecure attachment style, high sexual drive and sexual compul-
sivity, negative masculinity, and poor social competence to name a few (e.g., Hunter,
Figueredo, Malamuth, & Becker, 2003; Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003; Marshall &
Marshall, 2000; Seto & Lalumière, 2010). Although this approach provides a clinical
profile of juveniles involved in sexual offenses, it does little to inform about the ori-
gins and the developmental course of juvenile sexual offending. Also, the trait-based
approach cannot be reconciled with the low sexual recidivism rates observed across
studies (e.g., McCann & Lussier, 2008). Current explanatory models of juvenile
offending can be enhanced by incorporating juveniles’ past developmental antecedents
such as past history of sexual and nonsexual delinquency as well as exposure to risk
and protective factors at different developmental stages (e.g., pregnancy, birth, infancy;
see Smallbone, 2006). These models can also be improved by incorporating the prob-
able future development of delinquency as well as the expected exposure to risk and
protective factors at different development stages in the future (e.g., late adolescence,
emerging adulthood, adulthood). If the understanding of the development of juvenile
delinquency has drastically improved in the past three decades with the advent of pro-
spective longitudinal studies (e.g., DeLisi & Piquero, 2011; Piquero, Farrington, &
Blumstein, 2003), the understanding of the development of juvenile sexual offending
remains equivocal.
Second, several studies have been conducted to determine what is so special about
JSO and whether they are a distinct group of offenders (e.g., Seto & Lalumière, 2010).
The main strategy has been to compare a clinical sample of JSO with another sample
of juvenile nonsexual offenders (JNSO) on a series of indicators. This comparative
approach aims to identify between-individual differences that could be specifically
associated with sexual offending during adolescence. The almost exclusive use of
clinical or legal samples does not provide a representative view of JSO. It could be
reasonably argued that the odds of entering a clinical or a legal sample is cumulative
and related to the frequency and/or the seriousness of the offending behavior. In other
words, juveniles having committed more or more serious sexual offenses are more
likely to be found in those samples. Furthermore, this strategy contributes to the por-
trayal of JSO as a homogeneous group, and empirical evidence suggests that the “aver-
age” JSO is not representative enough to guide theoretical, research, and policy
development. There is sufficient empirical evidence showing significant within-group
variations among JSO along several dimensions and constructs (e.g., Butler & Seto,

4 Sexual Abuse
2002; Knight & Prentky, 1993; McCuish, Lussier, & Corrado, 2014). Various classifi-
cation models have been proposed to account for the heterogeneity among juveniles
involved in sexual offenses, but such models are not informative about the develop-
mental course of sexual offending and associated risk factors (e.g., Becker, 1998;
Butler & Seto, 2002). In other words, there is a need for a research framework that can
simultaneously take into account the between- and within-group heterogeneity charac-
terizing juveniles involved in sexual offenses while allowing the identification of the
different patterns of development associated with juvenile sexual offending.
This is what the DLC perspective is proposing, and, in many ways, it is consistent
with a person-oriented approach (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997). Developmentalists
introduced the person-oriented approach to favor a paradigm that shifts the focus from
variables to individuals. The variable-oriented approach is based on aggregate data
and average series across individuals, which can misrepresent individual patterns of
development (von Eye & Bergman, 2003). Consequently, conclusions from variable-
oriented studies might not apply to all or most individual cases. If the variable-oriented
approach aims to identify and isolate the effect of a single individual-level factor, the
person-oriented approach is concerned with the individual as an undivided whole
(Bergman & Trost, 2006). For example, from a variable-oriented perspective, one
could examine the role of pornography use on sexual offending, but from a person-
oriented approach, this is problematic given that the relationship between pornography
use and sexual offending could be reciprocal and the effect could change over time and
across developmental stages (i.e., childhood, adolescence, adulthood). Therefore, to
better account for the heterogeneity of individual development, the person-oriented
approach focuses on the disaggregation of information and the identification of indi-
vidual longitudinal patterns, with the understanding that some patterns are occurring
more often than others (e.g., Lussier & Davies, 2011). In that regard, development can
be conceptualized as a process characterized by states that can change over time
(Bergman & Magnusson, 1997). Thus, repeated measurements become pivotal for the
identification of continuity and change as individuals age. As such, the modeling of
human development needs to account for the diversity of intercepts (i.e., initial level
of the behavior) and slopes (i.e., trends of the behavior). To that end, nonlinear model-
ing becomes crucial to detect patterns of individual development. Configuration of
variables, time-dependent variables and effect, longitudinal data with repeated mea-
surements, nonlinear patterns, and changes over time best characterize the person-
oriented approach. This perspective is in sharp contrast to the cross-sectional nature of
studies typically conducted in the field of juvenile sexual offending. This is not to say
that the person-oriented approach is superior to the variable-oriented one, but it pro-
vides a complementary perspective on human development (Bergman & Trost, 2006).
Juvenile Offending: A Dynamic Process View of

Development
DLC criminologists have proposed theoretical models of offending that recognize
human development, developmental stages, life events and transitions, and how such

Lussier 5
Table 1. Conceptual Parameters of Development.
Parameters Definition
Boundary-type parameters
Age of onset Age at first sexual crime
Age of offset Age at last sexual crime
Duration Time elapsed between age at first and last offense
Generic-type parameters
Frequency Number of victims/number of sexual crime events
Persistence Repetition of sexual offending over time
Versatility Number of different sexual offenses committed
dynamic processes influence the development of offending over time (e.g., Farrington,
2005; Moffitt, 1993; Thornberry, 2005). Such models aim to explain both between-
and within-individual stability and changes in offending over time (Loeber & LeBlanc,
1990).1 Unlike the measure of sexual recidivism, which only takes into consideration
whether an individual will be rearrested (or convicted) for a sexual crime during some
follow-up period, DLC researchers are concerned by the entire longitudinal sequence
of offenses committed by an individual. This sequence of offending is best described
by a series of boundary or time-related parameters and generic descriptors of offend-
ing (Table 1). On one hand, boundary or time-related parameters include the age of
onset of offending, the age of offset or age at which the behavior stops, and the time in
between (i.e., duration of offending). These parameters help contextualize the devel-
opmental stages (e.g., infancy, early and late childhood, early, middle and late adoles-
cence, emerging adulthood, and so on) during which offending starts, unfolds, and
terminates. On the other hand, generic descriptors refer to quantitative and qualitative
aspects of offending over time as the offending unfolds. Quantitative aspects of offend-
ing refer, among other things, to the number of offenses committed (i.e., frequency)
and the number of different types of offending someone has committed (i.e., variety).
Qualitative aspects of offending refer to the nature of offending over time, such as
escalation and seriousness. This is in sharp contrast with measures of sexual recidi-
vism that do not specify the type of offense, the number of victims, the duration and
frequency of offending, and so on (Lussier & Cale, 2013). In sum, if sexual recidivism
informs of the probability that an adolescent may sexually reoffend during some spe-
cific time period, developmental parameters inform the field about the longitudinal
quantitative and qualitative sequence of offending over time and the context in which
the sequence unfolds.
Boundaries and generic developmental parameters of offending can be chronologi-
cally organized to describe three developmental processes of offending (Figure 1), that
is, activation, course or escalation, and desistance (LeBlanc & Fréchette, 1989). Onset
marks the debut of offending, which is a precursor of persistence. For offending to
become frequent and diversified, it needs first to persist. The activation phase is the most
empirically examined stage of general offending and encompasses three developmental

6 Sexual Abuse
Figure 1. A process view of offending: An organizing framework.
processes: (a) stabilization, that is, the impact of onset on the persistence of offending
over time; (b) acceleration, that is, the impact of onset on the frequency of offending
over time; and (c) diversification, that is, the impact of onset on the variety of offending
over time. The escalation stage refers to the processes by which persistent offending is
more likely to become chronic (i.e., chronicity) and move along a developmental
sequence of increasingly serious offenses (i.e., progression). Finally, desistance is
described by developmentalists as a slowing down of offending until complete termina-
tion (e.g., LeBlanc & Fréchette, 1989). Under such conceptualization, desistance refers
to three processes: (a) culmination, that is, where offending stops progressing; (b) spe-
cialization, that is, a slowing down of the variety of offending or the gradual tendency to
restrict offending to specific offenses; and (c) deceleration, that is, the gradual slowing
down of frequency of offending. In other words, desistance is conceived as a process that
may take some time and involves lapses and relapses until complete termination of
offending.2
The DLC approach provides concepts and processes that can shed some light on the
origins and the developmental course of sexual offending over time. It does not sug-
gest that all adolescents involved in sexual offenses have a sustained pattern of sexual
offending comprised of multiple victims or multiple sexual crime events. In fact, it
could be reasonably argued the DLC is not a suitable framework to study juvenile
sexual offending given that only a small subgroup of adolescents, often overrepre-
sented in clinical settings and in the juvenile justice system, shows such a pattern of
sexual offending. The same argument can be raised regarding general delinquency and
serious offending given that the most common patterns of juvenile delinquency are
short-lived and involve trivial offenses (e.g., Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990). Knowing that,

Lussier 7
Figure 2. Hypothesized developmental stages of sexual offending and heterogeneity across
stages.
for most juveniles, sexual offending is limited to a single event is as important and
informative for policy and theoretical development as knowing about the multiple
sexual offenses committed by a relatively small subgroup of JSO. The DLC approach,
first and foremost, provides a common language for researchers and practitioners from
various disciplines to communicate and discuss more precisely about juvenile sexual
offending, its nature, prevalence, and development. It also addresses a limitation of
existing classification models of JSO that are not informative of longitudinal patterns
of the behavior.
The DLC approach also provides concepts and processes that can be operational-
ized and measured to inform about patterns of sexual offending among juveniles. In
fact, it is suggested that there is great heterogeneity in sexual offending across stages
of offending (Figure 2). At one end of the continuum, most youth are hypothesized to
be late-starters (or adolescent-onset), show little or minimal escalation or progression
in sexual offending, and desist almost immediately from sexual offending. Is it also
hypothesized that, at the other end of the continuum, there is a small group of adoles-
cents who are characterized by an early onset (i.e., childhood-onset) who are more
inclined to repeat and show evidence of escalation in terms of the nature of their sexu-
ally violent and/or abusive behaviors and whose desistance is more gradual over time.
Such heterogeneity is not accounted for by existing explanatory models of juvenile
sexual offending. In this article, a DLC framework is proposed to explore and describe
the heterogeneity of sexual offending patterns among all youth involved in sexual
offenses and not just those found in treatment programs or in the juvenile justice sys-
tem. The next sections provide a review of the current state of knowledge on the
developmental parameters of sexual offending.

8 Sexual Abuse
The Prevalence of Juvenile Sexual Offending

Prevalence of offending refers to the proportion of individuals in a given group com-
mitting the behavior at least once during some specific time period. Although there is
a plethora of prevalence studies of general juvenile delinquency (e.g., Piquero et al.,
2003), these studies are not very informative of the prevalence of sexual offending
given that self-report measures of delinquency do not include many items related to
sexual offenses (e.g., rape, sexual assault). Consequently, these measures do not cap-
ture the whole spectrum of sexual offenses committed by juveniles and are likely to
underestimate the actual prevalence of sexual offending. Surprising, given how sig-
nificant concerns for juvenile sexual offenses have grown in recent years, is the lack
of a self-report scale designed specifically to measure juvenile sexual offending.
Therefore, most estimates of juvenile sexual offending come from official data (e.g.,
arrests). Police data show that the prevalence rate of sexual offending peaks during the
teenage years, more precisely during the early to middle period of adolescence (e.g.,
Kong, Johnson, Beattie, & Cardillo, 2003). Official data also show that juvenile sexual
offending is mostly a male phenomenon with more than 95% of the accused being
males (Ryan, Miyoshi, Metzner, Krugman, & Fryer, 1996).3 For example, the birth
cohort studies conducted in England/Wales by the Home Office show that the overall
official prevalence of juvenile sexual offending varied between about 0.3% and 0.5%
(Marshall, 1997). Other birth cohort studies provide relatively similar estimates when
controlling for the definition of sexual offense used (e.g., Zimring, Piquero, &
Jennings, 2007). In the Cambridge longitudinal study of 411 boys followed from age
8, while 41% of them have been convicted at least once (for any crime), only 2.5% of
the sample had a conviction for a sexual crime up to age 50 (Piquero, Farrington,
Jennings, Diamond, & Craig, 2012). The study highlighted the presence of only four
convicted JSO, for a prevalence of about 1%. More recently, using data from the 1984
Dutch birth cohort study, based on police data, Lussier and Blokland (2014) estimated
that the prevalence of juvenile sexual offending was 0.4%. In sum, in spite of histori-
cal, sociocultural, and legal differences across studies, it is somewhat surprising to
observe a certain regularity in the prevalence estimates of juvenile sexual offending
using official data across jurisdictions and time periods. These numbers show that for
every 1,000 individuals of a birth cohort, between 3 and 5 are arrested for a sexual
offense during adolescence. This number illustrates how infrequently the phenomenon
comes to the attention of the police and, relatedly, how difficult it is for researchers to
isolate and identify possible explanations.
Researchers would argue that juvenile sexual offending is largely underestimated
by official data and that other means for estimating the prevalence is necessary. Given
that the field lacks a valid and reliable measure of juvenile sexual offending, it is not
surprising that few empirical studies have estimated the prevalence of juvenile sexual
offending using self-report measures. Recently, Kjellgren, Priebe, Svedin, and
Langström (2010) estimated the self-reported prevalence of sexually coercive behav-
iors in a Swedish sample of high school students aged between 17 and 20 years. For
this study, sexually coercive behaviors were defined as “talked someone into, used

Lussier 9
pressure or forced somebody to masturbate them, to have sexual intercourse, oral sex
or anal sex” (p. 1162). In total, 5% of the sample reported any lifetime coercive sexual
behaviors. Kjellgren et al. (2010) also reported that not only several key criminogenic
risk factors of antisocial behavior were related to sexually coercive behaviors by males
(e.g., aggression, risk-taking, substance use, depression, poorer perceived parental
care) but also risk factors that appear more specific to sexual offending such as the
endorsement of rape myths, frequent use of pornography, early age of onset of sexual
intercourse, and having more sexual partners. This estimated prevalence found by
Kjellgren et al. (2010) is about 12 times higher than those reported in studies using
official data (e.g., Marshall, 1997). Comparatively speaking, data with adults suggest
that the self-report of sexual coercion is up to about 50 times higher than what is
reported in official data (Lussier & Cale, 2013). These comparative estimates are
hardly reliable given that they are based on data stemming from different samples and
using different definitions of sexual violence and abuse. Prevalence estimates using
both official and self-report data on the same samples are needed to better estimate the
prevalence of sexual violence and abuse across developmental stages. To achieve this,
first and foremost, the development of measures of juvenile sexual offending should
be a high priority among researchers.
The Age of Onset of Juvenile Sexual Offending

The age of onset refers to the age at first sexual offense and it is particularly important
because it marks the origins of the behavior (Lussier & Healey, 2010). The limited
research reporting on the age of onset has been conducted with clinical samples of
juveniles and these studies tend to report an average age of 14 years (e.g., Carpentier,
Leclerc, & Proulx, 2011; Jacobs, Kennedy, & Meyer, 1997; Ryan et al., 1996). Similar
findings have been reported in a birth cohort study (Lussier & Blokland, 2014) as well
as in an at-risk community sample (Lussier, Blokland, Mathesius, Pardini, & Loeber,
2014), reinforcing the idea that middle adolescence is a critical period for the onset of
sexual offending. This corresponds to a period, at least for U.S. schools, where chil-
dren going through puberty typically transition from eighth (middle school) to ninth
grade (high school). This age is also associated with the onset of reckless and rebel-
lious behaviors such as vandalism at school, driving without a driver’s license, using
hard drugs, and prostitution (see LeBlanc & Loeber, 1998). Also notable, the average
age of onset of juvenile sexual offending is younger than the average age of first sexual
intercourse (Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008).
In line with this observation, prospective longitudinal research has shown that an
early onset of sexual intercourse is a developmental risk factor of juvenile sexual
offending (e.g., Lussier et al., 2014). There is clearly a need to examine the onset of
sexual offending in the context of what constitutes normal sexual development during
early to middle adolescence. Furthermore, longitudinal studies of general offending
have shown that self-reported onset occurs significantly earlier than official onset age
(e.g., Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990. Research conducted with JSO also suggests such a
trend, but the length of the discrepancies between the two onset measures remains

10 Sexual Abuse
unknown. In addition, sexual offending encompasses a broad range of manifestations,

and empirical studies suggest that the age of onset may vary across these behaviors. In
that regard, the Zolondek, Abel, Northey, and Jordan (2001) findings show that atypi-
cal sexual behaviors may precede in some cases the onset of sexual offending.
Unfortunately, such a hypothesis has not been empirically examined. Also, there is
some but limited evidence suggesting that juveniles who offend against significantly
younger victims tend to be significantly younger than those offending against victims
their own age (Groth, 1977; Hendriks & Bijleveld, 2004). These findings may speak,
among other things, to the physical and psychological maturity necessary to create a
context conducive to a sexual offense against adolescents as opposed to children.
Clearly, existing studies highlight the need for studies combining official and self-
report data that describe the onset of sexual offending. Studies using both methodolo-
gies with adult sexual offenders show, on average, a 7-year gap between the actual and
official ages of onset of convicted adult male sexual offenders (Lussier & Mathesius,
2012), and it is unclear how this actual–official onset gap characterizes the develop-
ment of sexual offending in JSO. This is important given that adolescents may be
active for quite some time before their sexual offending is assessed and intervention
strategies are proposed. This is especially relevant for the identification of the early-
onset group of JSO.
For developmentalists, the identification of early onset, persistent offenders is piv-
otal given that this group is at risk of a long-term pattern of chronic, violent, and ver-
satile offending (e.g., LeBlanc & Loeber, 1998; Moffitt, 1993). Furthermore,
researchers have highlighted the fact that onset ages of juvenile delinquency are not
distributed in a bimodal way as the early–late onset categorization suggests, but fol-
lows a relatively normal distribution (e.g., Thornberry, 2003), raising issues about
whether an early-onset group is a meaningful concept. It is unclear, however, whether
such considerations apply specifically to sexual offending. Given that the typical offi-
cial onset of juvenile sexual offending occurs during middle adolescence, researchers
have been concerned with a group whose sexual offending is activated in an earlier
developmental stage, that is, childhood.
There has been limited research estimating the prevalence of early, childhood-onset
sexual offending. Findings based on clinical samples of JSO suggest that a small group
starts offending during childhood, with estimates ranging between 5% and 26% across
studies (Awad & Saunders, 1991; Carpentier et al., 2011; Ryan et al., 1996). A retro-
spective file review of 280 cases referred to a community assessment and treatment
service by Vizard and colleagues (Vizard, Hickey, French, & McCrory, 2007; Vizard,
Hickey, & McCrory, 2007) examined and compared early- and late-onset offenders.
Several developmental differences were found between the two groups, suggesting
that the early-onset group was more likely to come from disorganized familial envi-
ronments, to have been neglected and victimized, and more likely to be disruptive,
impulsive, hyperactive, and to show a difficult temperament. The early-onset group, as
opposed to the late-onset, was more likely to have abused male victims and less likely
to use verbal coercion or to penetrate their victim. Of importance, Vizard and col-
leagues defined individuals with an early onset of sexually abusive behaviors as those

Lussier 11
who (a) had committed a sexually abusive act prior age 11 and (b) who also continued
to sexually abuse during adolescence. In other words, their early-onset group excluded
those who did not persist into adolescence. On closer examination of Vizard et al.’s
numbers, it can be estimated that 34% of early-onset children did not persist into ado-
lescence and were excluded from the analyses. The exclusion of this early-onset
desister or “recovery” group might have contributed to the clinical portrayal of the
early-onset group as being more dysfunctional than the late-onset group. This exclu-
sion also raises issues about who this early-onset desister group is, what their clinical
profile is, and whether this group is significantly different from the early-onset
persisters.
Although these findings are promising, they should be interpreted with caution.
These clinical studies are based on retrospective data of the age of onset and, conse-
quently, may overestimate the continuity between atypical childhood sexual behaviors
and juvenile sexual offending. In fact, although the identification of early-onset
offenders may seem straightforward, it raises the issue of identifying criteria defining
who the early onset offenders are and whether they can be prospectively identified. It
also raises conceptual issues as to whether the term “early-starter” is appropriate in the
absence of detailed information about normative and nonnormative sexual behaviors
at the earliest developmental stages4 (for a discussion, see Chaffin et al., 2008).
Whereas retrospective studies suggest that atypical childhood sexual behaviors may
be early signs of persistent juvenile sexual offending, prospective longitudinal studies
may show that most children with atypical childhood sexual behaviors do not become
JSO. For example, a prospective longitudinal study by Carpentier, Silovsky, and
Chaffin (2006) showed that only 2% of a group of children with sexual behavior prob-
lems who took part in a cognitive-behavioral treatment had a sexual abuse perpetration
report over a 10-year follow-up period. The current state of knowledge remains equiv-
ocal as to what are normative and nonnormative childhood sexual behaviors and what
may appear to some as atypical sexual behaviors (e.g., a 4-year-old wanting to touch
other children’s genitals) may in fact be part of a relatively normative pattern of sexual
development. To uncover the presence of a developmental pathway (or pathways) of
normative and nonnormative sexual development, prospective longitudinal data on
sexual behaviors at the earliest developmental stages are needed.
Persistence and Continuity in Sexual Offending

Persistence of offending encompasses a behavioral (i.e., repetition of the behavior)
and a temporal dimension (i.e., duration of offending). Prior clinical studies using
retrospective data measured persistence using mainly behavioral indicators of prior
sexual offenses and tend to report a relatively high level of persistence. For example,
the study by Groth (1977) with a small sample of JSO assessed at a forensic mental
health facility showed that more than 60% of them had a prior sexual offense. Other
reports provided results consistent with Groth’s portrayal of JSO as persistent sexual
offenders (e.g., Awad & Saunders, 1991; Awad, Saunders, & Levene, 1984; Becker,
Kaplan, Cunningham-Rathner, & Kavoussi, 1986; Fehrenbach, Smith, Monastersky,

12 Sexual Abuse
& Deisher, 1986). These findings led some to conclude that “sex offenders have estab-
lished a repetitive pattern of deviant behavior prior to an arrest” (Boyd, Hagan, & Cho,
2000, p. 139). The image of the persistent offender that emerged from clinical studies
in the 1980s appears to have been a function of the selective nature of the samples used
to conduct the studies and the differential criminal justice response to juvenile sexual
offending prevailing at the time.5
Indeed, the portrayal of JSO as persisters does not fit the general picture provided
by other empirical studies (e.g., Doshay, 1943; Way & Urbaniak, 2008; Worling &
Långström, 2006). For example, in the Ryan et al. (1996) study of more than 1,000
JSO, only 7.5% had previously been charged with a sexual offense and less than half
of them had been found guilty. Prospective longitudinal studies also portray persis-
tence of juvenile sexual offending as something rather unusual. A meta-analysis has
shown that sexual recidivism rates typically reported in longitudinal studies tend to
vary between 5% and 10% (McCann & Lussier, 2008). These findings do not appear
to be the result of a relatively short follow-up period following their release (about 3-5
years) as longitudinal research with JSO has shown that it is uncommon for them to
sexually reoffend after 5 or 6 years following their release (Langström, 2002). Few
empirical studies report relatively higher base rate of sexual recidivism, but those are
probably attributable to the nature of their sample (e.g., Hagan, Gust-Brey, Cho, &
Dow, 2001; Langström & Grann, 2000). Reliance on self-report data, as opposed to the
often used official data on offending, provides similar conclusions that persistence of
sexual offending is an unusual phenomenon. In that regard, Bremer (1992) reported a
6% reconviction rate in a sample of serious JSO, but the recidivism rate rose to 11%
when based on self-reports. Therefore, while the use of official data underestimates the
true recidivism rates, it cannot explain why the vast majority are not rearrested for a
sexual crime.
A related concept of persistence is the continuity of sexual offending in adulthood.
Research has shown how important it is to separate retrospective and prospective con-
tinuity. The importance of distinguishing between retrospective and prospective conti-
nuity was highlighted by Robins (1978). Robins observed that while most antisocial
children do not go on to become antisocial adults, adult antisocial behaviors virtually
requires prior antisocial behaviors. In other words, she argued that highly antisocial
behaviors rarely or never arose de novo in adulthood. These conclusions, therefore,
suggest that while most JSO do not go on to become adult sexual offenders, most adult
sexual offenders were previously JSO. In line with empirical studies examining persis-
tence, the current state of empirical knowledge shows that most JSO do not become
adult sexual offenders. In that regard, an examination of the Philadelphia birth cohort
longitudinal data led Zimring, Jennings, Piquero, and Hays (2009) to conclude that
“the most striking feature of the Philadelphia data was the lack of overlap between
juvenile sexual offending and adult sex offending” (p. 65). They observed that for
every 10 JSO, only 1 had a sexual offense record in adulthood. The group of JSO
accounted for roughly 8% of the total adult sexual offenses committed by the entire
members of the birth cohort. The lack of continuity found in the Zimring et al. (2009)
studies (see also Zimring et al., 2007) were confirmed in another birth cohort study.

Lussier 13
Indeed, Lussier and Blokland (2014) reported in the 1984 Dutch birth cohort study
that, while the prevalence of adult sexual offending in non-JSO was 0.5% (n = 360), it
rose to 3% for one-time JSO (n = 8) and 12% for JSO who sexually reoffended during
adolescence (n = 9). Percentages, however, can be somewhat misleading in the absence
of absolute numbers on the continuity of sex offending. Indeed, the study shows that
360 of the 377 adult sex offenders found in the study had no prior record for a sex
crime during adolescence while 17 did. In other words, only 4.5% of adult sex offend-
ers were previously JSO. Therefore, the overlap between juvenile and adult sexual
offending, as far as official data show, is minimal.
Albeit some continuity between the two, juvenile and adult sexual offending are
relatively two distinct phenomena. The empirical knowledge explaining why they are
relatively independent of one another is only tentative and the DLC approach could
help shed some light on this. From a DLC perspective, it could be argued that the
motives for sexual offending are developmental stage–specific; that is, factors that are
specific to adolescence may explain juvenile sexual offending while factors that are
more specific to adulthood may explain adult sexual offending. It could also be argued
that even within the period of adolescence (i.e., early, middle, and late adolescence),
different developmental factors (e.g., puberty, onset of sexual contacts, substance use,
peer pressure, and delinquency) may put individuals at risk of committing a sexual
offense.
The Frequency of Sexual Offending

Criminologists have long been concerned with the identification of chronic juvenile
offenders (e.g., Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Such concerns arose from the work of
Wolfgang et al. (1972) who identified in the Philadelphia birth cohort study that a
small group of adolescents (about 6%) were responsible for more than half of all
crimes committed by all members of the birth cohort and an even larger proportion of
more serious offenses, including rape. These numbers have been replicated in many
countries, across gender, using both self-report and official data (Piquero et al., 2003).
The identification of chronic offenders raises two key issues. First, chronic offending
refers to the frequency of offending and requires an operational definition to identify
chronic offenders (e.g., five or more arrests during adolescence), a definition without
any theoretical rationale and regarded by many as arbitrary. Second, this definition is
not very useful from a prevention standpoint given that one needs to chronically offend
to be identified as a chronic offender. It is unclear, however, how these two consider-
ations translate to chronic sexual offending. Unlike some nonsexual offenses, the fre-
quency of sexual crimes refers to two dimensions of offending (Lussier & Cale, 2013).
Traditionally, the frequency of sexual offending has referred to the number of dif-
ferent people an offender has sexually victimized. It can also refer, however, to the
number of sexual crime events, that is, the total number of different times or occasions
an individual has sexually abused his or her victim(s). This approach provides a more
precise picture of the extent of the sexual offending, but is more difficult to estimate,
especially for cases involving multiple and repeated victimization over time. Research

14 Sexual Abuse
with adults conducted by Lussier, Bouchard, and Beauregard (2011) has shown that it
is more advisable to distinguish persistent offenders who pursue a victim-oriented
strategy (i.e., multiple victims victimized on a very limited number of occasions) from
those pursuing an event-based strategy (i.e., limited number of victims victimized
multiples times). It is unclear, however, if such dichotomy also applies to JSO.
There has been limited research on the frequency of sexual offending in JSO. In a
sample of more than 300 convicted JSO, Carpentier et al. (2011) found that the self-
reported average number of victims was about 2, ranging from 1 to 16. These offend-
ers primarily victimized children exclusively (close to 60%), followed by peers or
adults exclusively (about 25%). Jacobs et al. (1997) reported similar numbers for a
sample of 78 JSO in a residential specialized treatment program. It is unclear, how-
ever, if they referred to the number of events or the number of different victims or
both. The inspection by Becker et al. (1986) of self-report data from a sample of 67
juveniles referred to a clinic revealed that the frequency of offending when based on
the number of victims is about 1, but rose to about 2 for adolescents having sexually
abused a young boy. For those having offended against similar age female victims, the
average number of victims was about 1.5. Data regarding the average number of
events were quite similar with the exception of those having offended against intrafa-
milial victims as well as males of a similar age for whom the number of events per
victim was much higher. Furthermore, Miranda and Corcoran (2000) compared the
frequency and duration of the abuse between a small sample of JSO and a small sam-
ple of adult sexual offenders. The findings showed that, on average, juveniles had been
involved in about 2 child sexual abuse incidents over a period of about 9 months and
had offended less frequently and over a shorter period of time compared with adult
sexual offenders. Taken together, these findings suggest that most JSO offend against
1 or 2 victims. The number of victims remains relatively low unless sexual offending
is against boys in an intrafamilial context.
Other research on JSO suggests that the frequency of sexual offending may be
higher than what is typically reported in empirical research (e.g., Ryan et al., 1996;
Zolondek et al., 2001). This variation is probably due to sample and sampling differ-
ences as well as the presence of a subgroup of offenders disproportionately more crim-
inally active than others. This group of juveniles is more likely to be overrepresented
in clinical settings or in juvenile detention centers. For example, a study by Wieckowski,
Hartsoe, Mayer, and Shortz (1998) revealed that a small sample of adjudicated JSO
had on average a little more than 3 hands-on victims and were involved on average in
more than 70 hands-on events (median = 12). In contrast, the average number of
hands-off victims reported was well more than 30 (median = 14) while the mean num-
ber of events was more than 100 (median = 51). This is suggestive that frequency is
higher for hands-off than hands-on sexual offenses. In other words, it is more likely
that hands-off offenses involve multiple simultaneous victims as opposed to hands-on
offenses. Wieckowski et al.’s (1998) findings suggest that some forms of sexual
offending may be more conducive to repetition because it may involve concealing
behaviors that may go unnoticed or might be perceived as minor or not serious enough
to be reported to the authorities. The findings also show a significant gap between the

Lussier 15
mean and the median of offending frequency, suggesting an asymmetric distribution

of offending frequency. Such asymmetric distribution is likely to occur when a small
group of individuals present a frequency of offending that is much higher than most
other offenders included in the sample.6 To date, no studies have examined the preva-
lence of chronic sexual offending and whether chronic JSO present a clinical profile
distinct from other nonchronic JSO. The frequency of sexual offending examined in
past research does not take into consideration the time at risk or how long offenders
were active, or as criminologists call it, the lambda (i.e., offending rate; see Deslauriers-
Varin & Beauregard, 2014).
Crime Versatility and Specialization

Versatility in offending has often been described and defined by opposition to special-
ization. Developmentalists, however, define versatility and specialization as two dis-
tinct phases of persistent offending (e.g., Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990). Indeed, persistent
offending is said to become quite diverse and versatile and, with experiences and con-
tingencies, to become more patterned and specialized over time. Such processes have
been shown with adult sexual offenders (e.g., Miethe, Olson, & Mitchell, 2006) but
have not been examined with JSO. The specialization/versatility issue first refers to
whether JSO tend to limit their offending to sexual crimes (i.e., specialization) or
whether their offending, if persistent, is not limited to sexual crimes (i.e., versatility).
Studies conducted in clinical settings as well as those with samples of adjudicated
juveniles have shown that between 40% and 60% of JSO have a history of nonsexual
offenses (e.g., Awad et al., 1984; Lussier & Blokland, 2014; Ryan et al., 1996). It is
then safe to say that among adjudicated JSO, a substantial proportion of recidivists
have been through the youth justice system before for nonsexual crimes. For example,
in Ryan et al.’s (1996) examination of the criminal history profile of more than 1,000
JSO, close to 28% were known to have three or more nonsexual offenses. The most
prevalent offenses were shoplifting, theft, assault, runaway, and vandalism, all of
which are common among juvenile offenders. Consequently, to recognize the presence
of a subgroup of JSO involved in nonsexual offenses, researchers have suggested dis-
tinguishing JSO into sex-only and sex-plus groups.
Butler and Seto (2002) distinguished JSO who had been charged only with sexual
crimes (referred to as sex-only; n = 22) from JSO who had been charged with sexual
crimes and other crimes (referred to as sex-plus; n = 10). The two groups of JSO were
compared with a group of nonsexual juvenile offenders. Butler and Seto (2002) found
few significant differences between these two groups of juvenile offenders. They did
find, however, that the sex-plus group was more similar to nonsexual juvenile group
than the sex-only group. The sex-only group had fewer conduct problems, more pro-
social attitudes and beliefs, and a lower expected risk of future delinquency than the
sex-plus group. The study was based on retrospective data and did not provide a lon-
gitudinal view of their sexual offending. The nondevelopmental approach taken by
Butler and Seto (2002) raises several questions about the unfolding of JSO behaviors
over time. For example, is it possible that the sex-only JSO are late-onset nonsexual

16 Sexual Abuse
offenders. Similarly, is it possible that the sex-plus group includes individuals who
committed nonsexual crimes that are sexually motivated (e.g., stealing underwear,
break and entry). Also, it appears that the approach taken by Butler and Seto (2002)
might be too restrictive to account for the various antisocial patterns among JSO
(Lussier, van den Berg, Bijleveld, & Hendriks, 2012; McCuish et al., 2014).
The specialization/versatility issue also refers to whether persistent sexual offend-
ers tend to repeat the same offense across sexual crimes (specialization) or whether
their sexual offending is versatile and includes a wide array of sexual offenses. This
issue is important given that it may help to delineate the nature of treatment and inter-
vention offered. If sexual offending is repetitive and specific in nature, it may require
a more circumscribed and specialized intervention aligned to the factors associated
with the type of offense committed. Measuring versatility in sexual offending is chal-
lenging because sexual crimes are multidimensional and implies that sexual offenses
can vary along multiple dimensions, such as victim’s age and gender, victim–offender
relationship, the type and level of coercion used, and the type and level of sexual intru-
siveness (Lussier, Leclerc, Healey, & Proulx, 2008). Studies conducted with JSO
rarely include more than one or two dimensions of sexual offenses therefore limiting
the examination of versatility in sexual offending. The general trend is that juveniles
tend to repeat the same type of sexual offense in terms of the offender–victim age dif-
ference and the victim’s gender (Awad & Saunders, 1991; Awad et al., 1984;
Fehrenbach et al., 1986). Limited research also suggest that those who initiate their
sexually abusive behaviors in childhood and persist into adolescence are more likely
to commit a different sexual offense than those who initiate their abusive behaviors in
adolescence. For example, Vizard, Hickey, French and McCrory (2007) reported that
55% of childhood-onset persisters and 33% of adolescent-onset offenders had com-
mitted sexually abusive behaviors against both male and female victims. Furthermore,
31% of childhood-onset persisters had sexually abused both a child and an adult com-
pared with 19% of the adolescent-onset group. Both differences were statistically sig-
nificant, which suggest that versatility in sexual offending follows a diversification
process.
Sexual Offending Trajectories

The preceding sections aimed to describe the current state of knowledge regarding
specific developmental parameters of juvenile sexual offending. It is hypothesized that
these parameters can be organized into theoretically informative sexual offending tra-
jectories. The dual taxonomy of juvenile offenders proposed by Moffitt (1993) is a
prominent example of theoretical model describing and explaining distinct general
juvenile offending patterns. The dual taxonomy has been the subject of numerous
empirical examinations generally supportive of the model (e.g., Piquero & Moffitt,
2005) but has also been subject to reformulation (e.g., Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, &
Milne, 2002), commentaries, and critiques (e.g., Sampson & Laub, 2005; Skardhamar,
2009). Moffitt’s (1993) taxonomy distinguished a group of life course persisters (LCP)
and a group of adolescent-limited (AL) offenders. The taxonomy includes not only

Lussier 17
several predictions about developmental antecedents, individual differences, and

familial environment, but also the course of delinquency and crime. More specifically,
Moffitt (1993) argued that LCP represents about 5% to 10% of a male birth cohort. On
one hand, they show a childhood onset of conduct disorder, an earlier onset of delin-
quency, a more pronounced pattern of offending versatility and aggravation, a ten-
dency to specialize in violent offenses (e.g., assault, intimate partner abuse), and a
much greater likelihood of persisting into adulthood, than the AL group. Members of
the AL group, on the other hand, are described by an adolescence-onset of offending
with a tendency to specialize in property and statutory offenses. These individuals
typically desist from offending before reaching adulthood. Moffitt (1993) argued that
during adolescence, the LCP and AL groups might be virtually indistinguishable in
terms of their offending, thus creating a challenge for clinicians and practitioners
involved in the case management and treatment of juveniles. It is likely that a similar
situation may characterize JSO, which has contributed to the proliferation of risk
assessment tools to guide clinicians distinguishing the sexual recidivists from the
nonrecidivists.
Longitudinal studies have shown that the dual taxonomy might be too restrictive
and should be expanded to account for other offending patterns, such as common
offending and the low chronic offending (LeBlanc & Loeber, 1998; Piquero, 2008). Of
importance, Moffitt’s LCP group was hypothesized to be most likely to escalate to
rape and sexual assault as such behaviors would reflect a complex process of hetero-
typic continuity of antisocial behavior (Lussier, Leclerc, Cale, & Proulx, 2007). The
LCP group is reminiscent of the antisocial JSO group identified by Becker (1998) as
well as Butler and Seto (2002). The LCP syndrome, however, is unlikely to character-
ize all JSO as research suggests that no more than 40% of JSO meet the criteria of a
conduct disorder (e.g., France & Hudson, 1993; Langström & Grann, 2000; Seto &
Lalumière, 2010). Furthermore, the proportion of child-onset and adolescent-onset
conduct disordered JSO remains unknown. The AL group was initially described as
adolescent-onset offenders who were involved in crimes that matched their desire for
an adult status (e.g., driving without a license, property theft), rather than violent
offenses. This prediction is therefore counterintuitive to the idea of AL offenders com-
mitting sexual crimes. Some researchers have raised some objections (Lalumière,
Harris, Quinsey, & Rice, 2005; Seto & Barbaree, 1997), arguing that members of the
AL group may escalate their antisocial behaviors to sexual coercion by, among other
things, mimicking the behaviors of LCP offenders who may be involved in sexual
assaults. Based on this hypothesis, it would be expected that a relatively high propor-
tion of AL offenders would be initially involved in gang rape or pressured into sexual
offenses by their peers
Moffitt’s (1993) taxonomy of antisocial behaviors represents a starting point for the
elaboration of a developmental classification model of juvenile sexual offending. This
taxonomy is useful given that (a) sexual offenses committed by juveniles are first and
foremost crimes and not necessarily manifestations of sexual deviance (Smallbone,
2006); (b) there is a significant presence of behavioral problems and conduct disorder,
antisocial attitudes and cognitions, and general delinquency among adolescents

18 Sexual Abuse
involved in sexual crimes (e.g., Butler & Seto, 2002; France & Hudson, 1993; Seto &
Lalumière, 2010; van Wijk et al., 2006); (c) JSO who recidivate are more likely to be
rearrested for a nonsexual crime (Caldwell, 2002; Hendriks & Bijleveld, 2008;
McCann & Lussier, 2008); and (d) the criminal behavior preceding and following a
sexual crime is mainly nonsexual in nature (van Wijk, Mali, Bullens, & Vermeiren,
2007). Accordingly, sexual crimes committed by JSO are more often than not commit-
ted in isolation as part of a more general nonsexual offending pattern. The extent to
which the taxonomy can account for both nonsexual and sexual offending patterns
remained unclear until recently. In that regard, Hendriks, van den Berg, and Bijleveld
(2014); Lussier et al. (2012); and more recently McCuish, Lussier, and Corrado (2015)
established that the dual taxonomy does not account for general offending trajectories
of JSO. Furthermore, a recent study (Lussier et al., 2012) reported modest synchrony
between sexual offending and nonsexual offending trajectories with respect to Moffitt’s
(1993) dual taxonomy of antisocial behaviors (i.e., AL and LCP). In other words, AL
sexual offending is not necessarily associated with AL nonsexual offending, and a pat-
tern of high-rate sexual offending is not necessarily associated with a pattern of life
course persistence of nonsexual offending. This finding is crucial in that it shows that
Moffitt’s taxonomy does not account for patterns of juvenile sexual offending and it
emphasizes the need for a specific developmental model of juvenile sexual offending.
Put differently, given the current state of knowledge, a specific developmental classi-
fication model of juvenile sex offending is more advisable and complementary to a
developmental classification model of general delinquency.
The scientific literature highlights the presence of much discontinuity, albeit some
continuity, in sexual offending over time. Becker (1998) suggested that JSO may
include an abstainer group (i.e., nonrecidivist), an antisocial group (i.e., sexual offense
as part of a general tendency to engage in delinquency), and a sexual group (i.e., at risk
of persistence in sexual offense). The model is clinically intuitive but has not been
empirically tested. It does suggest, however, that the sexual group will never desist
from sexual offending, which is not supported by the empirical literature. It also sug-
gests that the antisocial group is not at risk of sexually reoffending, which is counter-
intuitive with the fact that adolescents whose sexual offending persists in adulthood
are more involved in nonsexual offending than those who do not persist (Lussier &
Blokland, 2014; Zimring et al., 2007). Furthermore, Becker’s (1998) focus on recidi-
vism informs neither about other developmental aspects of offending nor about offend-
ing trajectories. Empirical research conducted with adult sexual offenders has shown
that general offending trajectories and sexual trajectories are different in number,
shape, and rate (Francis, Harris, Wallace, Knight, & Soothill, 2014; Lussier & Davies,
2011; Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale, & Amirault, 2010). Emerging findings highlight sim-
ilar trends with JSO (Lussier et al., 2012), thus reinforcing the importance of distin-
guishing sexual and nonsexual offending. The proposed developmental classification
system focuses on sexual offending.
The current state of theoretical and empirical knowledge suggests the presence of
two distinct trajectories of juvenile sexual offending: (a) the AL sexual offenders and
(b) the high-rate/slow-desisters (Table 2). It is hypothesized that these two trajectories

Lussier 19
Table 2. A Developmental Taxonomy of Juvenile Sexual Offenders.
Developmental taxonomy
Developmental features
of sexual offending Adolescence-limited High-rate/slow-desisters
Official prevalence About 90% About 10%
Onset Adolescence Childhood
Frequency Limited Repetitive
Persistence Limited, if any, to nonsexual Yes, and involves continuity
offending in adulthood
Recidivism May be present, but limited Present in adolescence,
to adolescence probabilities declining in
adulthood
Versatility Limited Present
Specialization Limited Limited in adolescence, some
evidence in adulthood
Desistance Rapid, in adolescence Slow and gradual, in
adulthood
can be distinguished on a series of developmental indicators. The AL JSO are hypoth-

esized to represent the vast majority of juveniles who are involved in sexual offenses.
Their prevalence, however, might not be as important in clinical settings or in the
juvenile justice system. This group may share some similarities with the young male
syndrome described by Lalumière et al. (2005). This group is unlikely to show sexual
behavior problems during childhood and is hypothesized to be characterized by a rela-
tively normal sexual development up to puberty. Their offending tends to start between
the period of early to midadolescence. It is also argued that the growth of their sexual
offending is very limited given that these young offenders may offend only once
although some of them may repeat their behavior. Persistence, therefore, is possible if
the associated risk factors are present and the protective factors are limited. In the
context where there is persistence of sexual offending over time, it is argued that the
sexual offending behavior will tend to be of the same nature.
It is believed that, for this group, the risk factors for sexual offending are transitory
and more specific to the period of adolescence (e.g., puberty, peer influence, binge
drinking, delinquency involvement, sexual arousal, opportunity). It is also hypothe-
sized that sexual offending may take various shapes (e.g., child abuse, peer abuse)
because situational, contextual, and social factors will be pivotal in creating opportuni-
ties for illegal sexual behaviors. It is therefore argued that their offending will neither
be reflective of overwhelming deviant sexual thoughts, fantasies, or urges, nor of a
deviant sexual preference in the making. However, these individuals may show a pat-
tern of nonsexual juvenile delinquency. It is hypothesized that desistance from sexual
offending will be rapid, if not immediate, for most of them and will occur in either late
adolescence or in emerging adulthood. If there is persistence of offending beyond that
period, it is expected that offending will be nonsexual in nature. This group is most

20 Sexual Abuse
likely to be found in community-based samples and therefore reflects trends and

observations found in community-based studies. Currently, given the absence of a
developmental model to guide clinical assessment and the similarities in terms of
offending during adolescence, these adolescents may be misclassified as high-rate/
slow-desisters.
The second group is referred to as the high-rate/slow-desisters and they represent a
small subgroup of adolescents having committed a sexual offense. The high-rate/slow-
desisters are most likely to be found in clinical samples and therefore reflect trends and
observations found in clinical studies. This group is unlikely to be found in self-
reported, population-based community samples given their overall low prevalence.
This pattern of juvenile sexual offending, however, is more prevalent in criminal jus-
tice settings, especially those handling more serious cases and juvenile sexual recidi-
vists (i.e., detention, inpatient treatment programs). It is hypothesized that their onset
of sexual offending occurs in childhood. This group is likely to show atypical sexual
behaviors during childhood, which may precede or co-occur with their sexual offend-
ing. This is not suggesting that all children showing atypical sexual behaviors go on to
become JSO, but rather that the atypical sexual behaviors of this group in particular
persist beyond childhood. In other words, this group is at risk of sexual offending dur-
ing adolescence, especially if the exposure to risk factors of sexual offending persists
and continues to overcome the protective factors.
The growth of their sexual offending will be gradual and constant without any
intervention. This group is more likely to persist in their sexual offending beyond the
period of adolescence. It is argued that these juveniles will eventually desist from
sexual offending, but the desistance process is significantly longer due to the long-
lasting effect of the multiple risk factors to which they have been exposed to early.
They are more likely to be characterized with developmental risk factors related to
sexual offending (e.g., childhood sexual victimization, exposure to sexually deviant
models). The persistence of their sexual offending is reflective of the presence and the
role of more stable risk factors and individual differences conducive to the commis-
sion of sexual offenses. These juveniles are at risk of manifesting one or multiple
paraphilia and deviant sexual preferences later in adulthood. The high-rate/slow-
desister group is also the one most likely to show evidence of diversification of sexual
offending, which is most likely to occur during adolescence and young adulthood, and
progressive evidence of increasing specialization in sexual offenses over time until
termination of sexual offending.
The dual taxonomy of JSO has received preliminary empirical support from the
field of sexual violence and abuse. Using both retrospective and prospective longitu-
dinal data of a group of close to 500 adjudicated JSO, Lussier et al. (2012) used semi-
parametric group-based modeling to examine their sexual offending and nonsexual
offending trajectories from age 12 to about age 32. Those authors identified that a two
sexual offending trajectory model best fitted the longitudinal data, and the identified
trajectories were in line with the dual taxonomy of JSO, that is, a group that mirrors
the AL pattern (89.6%) and a group that resembles the high-rate/slow-desister pattern
(10.4%). Key observations of the study were made about the two sexual offending

Lussier 21
trajectories. First, both groups had a similar proportion of sexual recidivists during
adolescence but, albeit with a few exceptions, only the high-rate group included adult
sexual recidivists. Second, the types of offender (i.e., child abusers, peer abusers,
group offenders) were proportionally distributed across sexual offending trajectories,
suggesting the dual taxonomy applied to different sexual offender types. Clearly, the
Lussier et al. (2012) study requires replication, but it does point out that, during ado-
lescence, both groups may look similar in terms of their sexual offending. Without
additional research helping to identify developmental factors discriminating the two
groups, classification errors are likely to occur.
Conclusion
The DLC approach presented in this article is one possible avenue that can guide
research and facilitate this paradigm shift and to inform policy makers about the origins
and development of sexual offending. The current state of knowledge on the origins and
developmental course of sexual offending is limited to crude developmental parameters
based on a limited number of studies conducted mainly with small samples of adjudi-
cated juveniles that are not representative of the general population involved in sexual
offenses. In spite of these limitations, the current state of knowledge does highlight the
presence of much heterogeneity in terms of onset, frequency, persistence, continuity,
and specialization in sexual offenses. Based on available evidence, it is argued that JSO
are best represented by the presence of at least two distinct juvenile sexual offending
trajectories: the AL and the high-rate/slow-desisters. These patterns are not considered
by current policies, treatment models, or clinical assessment protocols, which may lead
to the portrayal of all JSO as potential adult sexual offenders. Although the taxonomy
presented in this article may be clinically intuitive and practically appealing, it should
be seen as tentative for the time being, given the scarcity of DLC research on sexual
offending. In fact, based on the available evidence, it is neither possible to prospec-
tively identify juveniles at risk of following a pattern of high-rate slow desistance, nor
to identify JSO presenting this offending pattern. The article also highlights several
conceptual and methodological issues that limit the possibility of drawing firm conclu-
sions about the origins and developmental course of juvenile sexual offending. To date,
research conducted with JSO has been focused on between-individual differences either
through trait-based or comparative studies to determine what is unique about this group.
Future research now needs to be more focused on within-individual stability and
changes or how one person evolves across developmental stages and life transitions and
how the stability and changes affect sexual offending.
To address these issues, there is an urgent need for prospective longitudinal cohort
studies examining the onset and the developmental course of normative and nonnorma-
tive sexual behaviors in representative samples drawn from the general population.
Such longitudinal studies should start prior adolescence and the onset of juvenile sexual
offending to examine prospectively the onset and course of juvenile sexual offending
over time and associated risk and protective factors (e.g., Lussier et al., 2014). Given
the low prevalence of official juvenile sex offending in general population studies,

22 Sexual Abuse
prospective longitudinal research should also be conducted with at-risk, vulnerable

population presenting developmental risk factors of juvenile sex offending. Such popu-
lations may include, for example, samples of children presenting nonnormative sexual
behaviors and those presenting early behavioral problems (e.g., Carpentier et al., 2006).
These studies would inform about not only the continuity and the discontinuity of mal-
adaptive behaviors over time but also the context in which continuity and discontinuity
is most likely to occur. Finally, while the field of research has been heavily focused on
juvenile sexual offending by males, prospective longitudinal studies should include the
study of females’ normative and nonnormative sexual development. A pivotal aspect of
DLC research will be to determine the extent and nature of gender differences to be
taken into account for the development of explanatory and prevention models of juve-
nile sex offending (e.g., Lanctôt & Le Blanc, 2002). Using longitudinal cohort data,
repeated measurements of normative and nonnormative sexual behaviors across devel-
opmental stages are needed to better understand the dynamic development of sexual
behavior over time. Research should assist and guide practitioners as to what sexual
behaviors, qualitatively (e.g., shape, context, etc.) and quantitatively (e.g., frequency),
are developmental stage–normative and what behaviors are not. A challenge for
researchers will be to develop a valid and reliable instrument that can measure sexual
development (normative and nonnormative) from the earliest developmental stages and
across these stages (e.g., Friedrich, Lysne, Sim, & Shamos, 2004). Given the complex
association between general delinquency and sexual offending, the cooccurrence of
sexual and nonsexual offending, it is recommended that the longitudinal study of nor-
mative and nonnormative sexual behaviors include longitudinal measures of antisocial
behaviors. To do this, developmentalists have proposed various ways of looking simul-
taneously at between-individual and within-individual differences over time to inspect
for the presence of offending trajectories and associated risk and protective factors.
Examples of methods used to analyze longitudinal and repetitive measurements include
latent-growth curve modeling (Duncan & Duncan, 2004), semiparametric group-based
modeling (Nagin, 2005), as well as latent-transition class (Collins & Lanza, 2010).
Research in the area of general delinquency has shown that serious, chronic, and
violent delinquency is a multistage phenomenon that develops over time with different
and cumulating risk factors across various developmental stages (e.g., Thornberry,
2005). Research has also shown that serious, chronic, and violent delinquency can be,
to some degree, prospectively screened when simultaneously taking into account risk
and protective factors across multiple domains (e.g., biological, criminological, psy-
chological, psychiatric, social) and multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, peer,
school, neighborhood; for example, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, Farrington, & White,
2008). Emerging longitudinal research suggest that sexual offending trajectories may
follow relatively distinct courses than nonsexual offending trajectories (Lussier et al.,
2012), but the similarity of some risk and protective factors may not preclude the
intersection of these trajectories at some time point during childhood, adolescence,
and/or adulthood. The implementation of prospective longitudinal cohort studies with
repeated measurements of normative and nonnormative sexual behaviors across devel-
opmental stages could not only provide key policy information on between- and

Lussier 23
within-individual changes in sexual behaviors over time but also inform about path-
ways leading to sexually violent and abusive behaviors. In this article, it is hypothe-
sized that at least two main developmental patterns best represent the sexual offending
patterns among juveniles. This information is pivotal for the elaboration and imple-
mentation of multistage prevention and intervention programs. Currently, the scarcity
of research on the origins and developmental course of juvenile sexual offending pre-
cludes the development of screening instruments that may support and guide the clini-
cal assessment and treatment of children who may or may not be at risk of committing
sexual offenses as well as those at risk of a long-term sexual offending trajectory.
Author’s Note
Portion of this study was presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Treatment
of Sexual Abusers, Chicago, USA, October 2013.
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.
Notes
1. Between-individual differences refer to differences in offending across juveniles (e.g.,
Why is X committing a sexual crime and not Y, Why is X committing more or less sexual
offenses than Z), whereas within-individual differences refers to someone’s stability and
changes in offending over time (e.g., Why is X committing more or less sexual offenses
during late adolescence than in early adolescence).
2. The template provided by developmentalists may give the false impression that career
criminals offend on a regular basis and their offending is relatively constant over time
until termination. Contrary to this popular belief, the narratives of individuals character-
ized by long-term offending patterns suggest the presence of “zigzag” criminal careers
where active and more intense periods of offending are often interrupted by either short or
long nonoffending sequences (e.g., Laub & Sampson, 2003). These zigzag criminal careers
or episodic offending may be explained by developmental stages as well as life events,
circumstances, and opportunities more conducive to offending than others. It is believed
that the same may apply to sexual offending.
3. For example, in Canada, the prevalence of adolescent sexual offending varies between
200 and 225 cases per 100,000 individuals of their respective age group or roughly 0.2%
(Kong, Johnson, Beattie, & Cardillo, 2003).
4. To illustrate this point, the work of Richard Tremblay and colleagues on physical aggres-
sion (PA) and the origin of violence is informative (e.g., Tremblay, Japel, & Pérusse, 1999;
Tremblay & Nagin, 2005; Tremblay et al., 2004). Tremblay and colleagues studied the PA
of toddlers and challenged the early-start conceptualization by showing that most, if not
all, children use some form of PA as soon as they have the physical strength to do so and

24 Sexual Abuse
mostly in a reactive manner (i.e., retaliation, being provoked, fighting over a toy). They
argued that the onset and peak of PA occurs at around age 2 and that there is no such thing
as an adolescence-onset of violence as youth violence is conceptually and developmentally
linked to these earlier manifestations of PA. Tremblay and colleagues have shown the pres-
ence of two main trajectories of PA: (a) childhood-limited, the most prevalent and norma-
tive pattern where PA peaks early and gradually stops prior to elementary school entry,
and (b) chronic PA, where PA persists after school entry and tends to precede a pattern of
general delinquency and violence during adolescence. In other words, the level of PA at age
2, or the early start, is not very informative of childhood and adolescent outcomes in terms
of violent behavior; it is the persistence of the behavior beyond a particular developmen-
tal stage (school entry) that is informative about youth violence outcomes. Based on this
empirical evidence, Tremblay and colleagues concluded that the vast majority of children
learn, as part of a normal developmental process, to inhibit PA by acquiring psychosocial
skills to better regulate their negative emotional states and developing alternative behav-
ioral responses to frustrating events. This line of work may have implications as to how
atypical childhood sexual behaviors are conceptualized and explained.
5. For example, a closer analysis of the Groth (1977) data also indicates that more than 20%
of those with a prior sexual offense were either not charged or the charge was dismissed
for that initial sexual offense. It also indicated that another 34% received a suspended sen-
tence for their offense. Indeed, the Groth study points out that the court dealt with the ini-
tial offense through alternative sanctions, which may have diverted these first-time sexual
offenders from mental health facilities and clinical settings. In other words, the elevated
level of persistence found may have been a function of the way the court dealt with recidi-
vists (as opposed to first-time offenders). More explicitly, the Groth (1977) study reported
data on persistence of mostly young sexual recidivists, which may have led some to con-
clude that most if not all juvenile sexual offenders (JSO) were persisters.
6. In fact, in the field of criminology, the arithmetic mean is rarely used alone to describe
the offending frequency of a particular sample because of its asymmetric distribution and
should be, at the very least, presented in combination with the median.
References
Awad, A. B., & Saunders, G. A. (1991). Male adolescent sexual offenders: Exhibitionism and
obscene phone calls. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 21, 169-178.
Awad, G. A., Saunders, E., & Levene, J. (1984). A clinical study of male adolescent sexual
offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 28,
105-116.
Becker, J. V. (1998). What we know about the characteristics and treatment of adolescents who
have committed sexual offenses. Child Maltreatment, 3, 317-329.
Becker, J. V., Kaplan, M. S., Cunningham-Rathner, J., & Kavoussi, R. (1986). Characteristics
of adolescent incest sexual perpetrators: Preliminary findings. Journal of Family Violence,
1, 85-97.
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach to research on devel-
opmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291-319. doi:10.1017/
S095457949700206X
Bergman, L. R., & Trost, K. (2006). The person-oriented versus the variable-oriented approach:
Are they complementary, opposites, or exploring different worlds? Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 52, 601-632. doi:10.1353/mpq.2006.0023

Lussier 25
Boyd, N. J., Hagan, M., & Cho, M. E. (2000). Characteristics of adolescent sex offenders: A
review of the research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 137-146. doi:10.1016/S1359-
1789(98)00030-5
Bremer, J. (1992). Serious juvenile sex offenders: Treatment and long-term follow-up.
Psychiatric Annals, 22, 326-332.
Butler, S. M., & Seto, M. C. (2002). Distinguishing two types of adolescent sex offend-
ers. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 83-90.
doi:10.1097/00004583-200201000-00015
Caldwell, M. (2002). What we do not know about juvenile sexual reoffense risk. Child
Maltreatment, 7, 291-302. doi:10.1177/107755902237260
Carpentier, J., Leclerc, B., & Proulx, J. (2011). Juvenile sexual offenders: Correlates of onset,
variety, and desistance of criminal behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 854-873.
doi:10.1177/0093854811407730
Carpentier, M., Silovsky, J. F., & Chaffin, M. (2006). Randomized trial of treatment for children
with sexual behavior problems: Ten year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 74, 482-488. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.482
Chaffin, M. (2008). Our minds are made up—Don’t confuse us with the facts: Commentary on
policies concerning teen and preteen juvenile sex offenders. Child Maltreatment, 13, 110-121.
doi:10.1177/1077559508314510
Chaffin, M., Berliner, L., Block, R., Johnson, T. C., Friedrich, W., Louis, D., . . .Silovsky, J. F.
(2008). Association for the treatment of sexual abusers task force report on children with sex-
ual behavior problems. Child Maltreatment, 13, 199-218. doi:10.1177/1077559507306718
Chaffin, M., Letourneau, E., & Silovsky, J. F. (2002). Adults, adolescents, and children who
sexually. In J. E. B. Myers, L. Berliner, J. Briere, C. T. Hendrix, T. Reid, & C. Jenny (Eds.),
The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (2nd ed., pp. 205-232). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applica-
tions in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York, NY: John Wiley.
DeLisi, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000-2011:
A state of the art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 289-301. doi:10.1016/j.jcrim-
jus.2011.05.001
Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Beauregard, E. (2014). Unravelling crime series patterns amongst
serial sex offenders: Duration, frequency, and environmental consistency. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11, 253-275. doi:10.1002/jip.1418
Doshay, L. J. (1943). The boy sex offender and his later career. New York, NY: Grune &
Stratton.
Duncan, T. E., & Duncan, S. C. (2004). An introduction to latent growth curve modeling.
Behavior Therapy, 35, 333-363. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80042-X
Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1-12.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06128.x
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use.
Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
Farrington, D. P. (2005). Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Fehrenbach, P. A., Smith, W., Monastersky, C., & Deisher, R. W. (1986). Adolescent sexual
offenders: Offender and offense characteristics. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53,
148-151.

26 Sexual Abuse
France, K. G., & Hudson, S. M. (1993). The conduct disorders and the juvenile sex offend-
ers. In H. E. Barbaree, W. L. Marshall, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), The juvenile sex offender
(pp. 225-234). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Francis, B., Harris, D., Wallace, S., Knight, R., & Soothill, K. (2014). Sexual and general
offending trajectories of men referred for civil commitment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 26, 311-329. doi:10.1177/1079063213492341
Friedrich, W. N., Lysne, M., Sim, L., & Shamos, S. (2004). Assessing sexual behavior in high-
risk adolescents with the Adolescent Clinical Sexual Behavior Inventory (ACSBI). Child
Maltreatment, 9, 239-250. doi:10.1177/1077559504266907
Groth, N. (1977). The adolescent sex offender and his prey. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 21, 249-254.
Hagan, M. P., Gust-Brey, K. L., Cho, M. E., & Dow, E. (2001). Eight-year comparative analyses
of adolescent rapists, adolescent child molesters, other adolescent delinquents, and the gen-
eral population. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
45, 314-324. doi:10.1177/0306624X01453004
Hendriks, J., & Bijleveld, C. (2004). Juvenile sexual delinquents: Contrasting child abusers with
peer abusers. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 12, 238-250. doi:10.1002/cbm.591
Hendriks, J., & Bijleveld, C. (2008). Recidivism among juvenile sex offenders after residential
treatment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 14, 19-32. doi:10.1080/13552600802133852
Hendriks, J., van den Berg, C., & Bijleveld, C. (2014). Juvenile sex offenders and reoffend-
ing. In A. Blokland & P. Lussier (Eds.), Sexual offenders: A criminal career approach.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Hunter, J. A., Figueredo, A. J., Malamuth, N. M., & Becker, J. V. (2003). Juvenile sex offend-
ers: Towards the development of a typology. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 15, 27-45. doi:10.1023/A:1020663723593
Jacobs, W. L., Kennedy, W. A., & Meyer, J. B. (1997). Juvenile delinquents: A between-group
comparison study of sexual and nonsexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment, 9, 201-217. doi:10.1007/BF02675065
Kjellgren, C., Priebe, G., Svedin, C. G., & Langström, N. (2010). Sexually coercive behavior
in male youth: Population survey of general and specific risk factors. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 39, 1161-1169. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9572-9
Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. (1993). Exploring characteristics for classifying juvenile sex
offenders. In H. E. Barbaree, W. L. Marshall, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), The juvenile sex
offender (pp. 45-83). London, England: Guildford Press.
Knight, R. A., & Sims-Knight, J. E. (2003). The developmental antecedents of sexual coer-
cion against women: Testing alternative hypotheses with structural equation modeling.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 72-85. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.
tb07294.x
Kong, R., Johnson, H., Beattie, S., & Cardillo, A. (2003). Sexual offences in Canada. Juristat,
23, 1-26.
Lalumière, M. L., Harris, G. T., Quinsey, V. L., & Rice, M. E. (2005). The causes of rape:
Understanding individual differences in male propensity for sexual aggression. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Lanctôt, N., & Le Blanc, M. (2002). Explaining deviance by adolescent females. Crime and
Justice, 29, 113-202.
Langström, N. (2002). Long-term follow-up of criminal recidivism in young sex offenders:
Temporal patterns and risk factors. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 8, 1-58. doi:10.1080/
10683160208401808

Lussier 27
Langström, N., & Grann, M. (2000). Risk for criminal recidivism among young sex offenders.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 855-871. doi:10.1177/088626000015008005
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to
age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LeBlanc, M., & Fréchette, M. (1989). Male criminal activity from childhood through youth:
Multilevel and developmental perspectives. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
LeBlanc, M., & Loeber, R. (1998). Developmental criminology updated. Crime and Justice: A
Review of Research, 23, 115-198.
Letourneau, E. J., & Miner, M. (2005). Juvenile sex offenders: A case against the legal and
clinical status quo. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 293-312.
doi:10.1177/107906320501700304
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Never too early, never too late: Risk factors and success-
ful interventions for serious and violent juvenile offenders. Studies on Crime and Crime
Prevention, 7, 7-30.
Loeber, R., & LeBlanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. Crime and Justice,
12, 375-473.
Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Farrington, D. P., & White, H. R. (2008). Violence and
serious theft: Development and prediction from childhood and adulthood. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Lussier, P. (2005). The criminal activity of sexual offenders in adulthood: Revisiting the spe-
cialization debate. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 269-292.
doi:10.1007/s11194-005-5057-0
Lussier, P., & Blokland, A. (2014). The adolescence-adulthood transition and Robins’s continu-
ity paradox: Criminal career patterns of juvenile and adult sex offenders in a prospective
longitudinal birth cohort study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 153-163. doi:10.1016/j.
jcrimjus.2013.07.004
Lussier, P., Blokland, A., Mathesius, J., Pardini, D., & Loeber, R. (2014). The childhood risk
factors of adolescent-onset and adult-onset of sex offending: Evidence from a prospective
longitudinal study. In A. Blokland & P. Lussier (Eds.), Sex offenders: A criminal career
approach. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Lussier, P., Bouchard, M., & Beauregard, E. (2011). Patterns of criminal achievement in sex-
ual offending: Unravelling the “successful” sex offender. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39,
433-444. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.08.001
Lussier, P., & Cale, J. (2013). Beyond sexual recidivism: A review of the sexual criminal career
parameters of adult sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 445-457.
Lussier, P., & Davies, G. (2011). A person-oriented perspective on sexual offenders, offend-
ing trajectories, and risk of recidivism: A new challenge for policymakers, risk assessors,
and actuarial prediction? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 17, 530-561. doi:10.1016/j.
avb.2013.06.005
Lussier, P., Leclerc, B., Cale, J., & Proulx, J. (2007). Developmental pathways of deviance in sexual
aggressors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1441-1462. doi:10.1177/0093854807306350
Lussier, P., Leclerc, B., Healey, J., & Proulx, J. (2008). Generality of Deviance and Predation:
Crime-switching and Specialization Patterns in Persistent Sexual Offenders. In M. Delisi
& P. J. Conis(Eds), Violent Offenders: Theory, Research, Public Policy, and Practice
(pp. 161-183). Bostan, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Lussier, P., & Mathesius, J. (2012). Criminal achievement, criminal career initiation, and detec-
tion avoidance: The onset of successful sex offending. Journal of Crime & Justice, 35,
376-394. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.666842

28 Sexual Abuse
Lussier, P., Tzoumakis, S., Cale, J., & Amirault, J. (2010). Criminal trajectories of adult sex
offenders and the age effect: Examining the dynamic aspect of offending in adulthood.
International Criminal Justice Review, 20, 147-168. doi:10.1177/1057567710368360
Lussier, P., van den Berg, C., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2012). A developmental taxon-
omy of juvenile sex offenders for theory, research, and prevention. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 39, 1559-1581. doi:10.1177/0093854812455739
Marshall, W. L. (1997). Pedophilia: Psychopathology and theory. In D. R. Laws & W.
O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 152-174). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Marshall, W. L., & Marshall, L. E. (2000). The origins of sexual offending. Trauma, Violence,
& Abuse, 1, 250-263. doi:10.1177/1524838000001003003
McCann, K., & Lussier, P. (2008). Antisociality, sexual deviance, and sexual reoffending
in juvenile sex offenders: A meta-analytical investigation. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 6, 363-385. doi:10.1177/1541204008320260
McCuish, E., Lussier, P., & Corrado, R. (2014). Examining antisocial behavioral antecedents
of juvenile sexual offenders and juvenile non-sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research and Treatment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1079063213517268
McCuish, E., Lussier, P., & Corrado, R. (2015). Criminal careers of juvenile sex and nonsex
offenders: Evidence from a prospective longitudinal study. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1541204014567541
Miethe, T. D., Olson, J., & Mitchell, O. (2006). Specialization and persistence in the arrest his-
tories of sex offenders: A comparative analysis of alternative measures and offense types.
Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 43, 204-228. doi:10.1177/0022427806286564
Miranda, A. O., & Corcoran, C. L. (2000). Comparison of perpetration characteristics between
male juvenile and adult sexual offenders: Preliminary results. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 12, 179-188. doi:10.1023/A:1009582025086
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Life-course persistent and adolescence limited antisocial behavior: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.100.4.674
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-persis-
tent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years. Development
and Psychopathology, 14, 179-207.
Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Piquero, A. R. (2008). Taking stock of developmental trajectories of criminal activity over the
life course. In A. M. Liberman (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal
research (pp. 23-77). New York, NY: Springer.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. In
M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 359-506). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Jennings, W. G., Diamond, B., & Craig, J. (2012). Sex offend-
ers and sex offending in the Cambridge study in delinquent development: Prevalence,
frequency, specialization, recidivism, and (dis)continuity over the life course. Journal of
Crime & Justice, 35, 412-426. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.688527
Piquero, A. R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Explaining the facts of crime: How the developmental
taxonomy replies to Farrington’s invitation. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated develop-
mental and life-course theories of offending (pp. 51-72). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Lussier 29
Robins, L. N. (1978). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult anti-social behavior: Replications

from longitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine, 8, 611-622.
Ryan, G., Miyoshi, T. J., Metzner, J. L., Krugman, R. D., & Fryer, G. E. (1996). Trends in a
national sample of sexually abusive youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 17-25. doi:10.1097/00004583-199601000-00008
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12-45.
doi:10.1177/0002716205280075
Seto, M. C., & Barbaree, H. E. (1997). Sexual aggression as antisocial behavior: A developmen-
tal model. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior
(pp. 524-533). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offend-
ing? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136,
526-575. doi:10.1037/a0019700
Skardhamar, T. (2009). Reconsidering the theory on adolescent-limited and life-course persis-
tent anti-social behaviour. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 863-878. doi:10.1093/bjc/
azp048
Smallbone, S. (2006). Social and psychological factors in the development of delinquency and
sexual deviance. In H. E. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The juvenile sex offender
(pp. 105-127). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Thornberry, T. P. (2005). Explaining multiple patterns of offending across the life course
and across generations. The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 602,
168-186. doi:10.1177/0002716205280641
Tremblay, R. E., Japel, C., & Pérusse, D. (1999). The search for the age of “onset” of physical
aggression: Rousseau and Bandura revisited. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 9,
8-23. doi:10.1002/cbm.288
Tremblay, R. E., & Nagin, D. S. (2005). The developmental origins of physical aggression in
humans. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of
aggression (pp. 83-106). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Seguin, J. R., Zoccolillo, M., Zelazo, P. D., Boivin, M., Pérusse,
D., . . .Japel, C. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood: Trajectories and pre-
dictors. Pediatrics, 114, 43-50. doi:10.1542/peds.114.1.e43
van Wijk, A., Mali, B., Bullens, R., & Vermeiren, R. (2007). Criminal profiles of violent juve-
nile sex and violent juvenile non-sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22,
1340-1355. doi:10.1177/0886260507304802
van Wijk, A., Vermeiren, R., Loeber, R., Hart-Kerkhoffs, L., Doreleijers, T., & Bullens, R.
(2006). Juvenile sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders: A review of the literature
1995-2005. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7, 227-243. doi:10.1177/1524838006292519
Vizard, E., Hickey, N., French, L., & McCrory, E. (2007). Children and adolescents who pres-
ent with sexually abusive behaviour: A descriptive study. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry
& Psychology, 18, 59-73. doi:10.1080/14789940601056745
Vizard, E., Hickey, N., & McCrory, E. (2007). Developmental trajectories associated with juve-
nile sexually abusive behaviour and emerging severe personality disorder in childhood: 3
years study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 49, 27-32. doi:10.1192/bjp.190.5.s27
von Eye, A., & Bergman, L. R. (2003). Research strategies in developmental psychopathology:
Dimensional identity and the person-oriented approach. Development and Psychopathology,
15, 553-580. doi:10.1017/S0954579403000294

30 Sexual Abuse
Way, I., & Urbaniak, D. (2008). Delinquent histories of adolescents adjudicated for
criminal sexual conduct. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1197-1212.
doi:10.1177/0886260508314296
West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1977). The delinquent way of life. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.
Wieckowski, E., Hartsoe, P., Mayer, A., & Shortz, J. (1998). Deviant sexual behavior in chil-
dren and young adolescents: Frequency and patterns. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment, 10, 293-303. doi:10.1023/A:1022194021593
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago. IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Worling, J. R., & Långström, N. (2006). Risk of sexual recidivism in adolescents who offend
sexually: Correlates and assessment. In H. E. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The juve-
nile sex offender (pp. 219-247). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Helfand, M. (2008). Ten years of longitudinal research on U.S.
adolescent sexual behavior: Developmental correlates of sexual intercourse, and the
importance of age, gender and ethnic background. Developmental Review, 28, 153-224.
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.06.001
Zimring, F. E. (2004). An American travesty: Legal responses to adolescent sexual offending.
Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Zimring, F. E., Jennings, W., Piquero, A., & Hays, S. (2009). Investigating the continuity of
sex offending: Evidence from the second Philadelphia birth cohort. Justice Quarterly, 26,
58-76. doi:10.1080/07418820801989734
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. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00451.x
Zolondek, S. C., Abel, G. G., Northey, W. F., & Jordan, A. D. (2001). The self-reported
behaviors of juvenile sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 73-85.
doi:10.1177/088626001016001005

Juvenile Sex Offending Through A Developmental Life Course Criminology Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juvenile Sex Offending Through A Developmental Life Course Criminology Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

580966

1Laval University, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

organizing framework to conduct longitudinal research on juvenile sexual offenders

DLC Research and Traditional Research on Juvenile

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Juvenile Offending: A Dynamic Process View of

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Table 1. Conceptual Parameters of Development.

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Figure 1. A process view of offending: An organizing framework.

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

The Prevalence of Juvenile Sexual Offending

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

The Age of Onset of Juvenile Sexual Offending

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

unknown. In addition, sexual offending encompasses a broad range of manifestations,

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Persistence and Continuity in Sexual Offending

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

The Frequency of Sexual Offending

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

mean and the median of offending frequency, suggesting an asymmetric distribution

Crime Versatility and Specialization

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Sexual Offending Trajectories

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

several predictions about developmental antecedents, individual differences, and

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Table 2. A Developmental Taxonomy of Juvenile Sexual Offenders.

can be distinguished on a series of developmental indicators. The AL JSO are hypoth-

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

likely to be found in community-based samples and therefore reflects trends and

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

prospective longitudinal research should also be conducted with at-risk, vulnerable

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Robins, L. N. (1978). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult anti-social behavior: Replications

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on June 5, 2016

You might also like