Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

The adolescence-adulthood transition and Robins’s continuity paradox:

Criminal career patterns of juvenile and adult sex offenders in a
prospective longitudinal birth cohort study
Patrick Lussier a,⁎, Arjan Blokland b,c
a
Faculty of Social Sciences, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
b
Leiden Law School, Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
c
The Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 4 September 2013
Purpose: It is assumed that juvenile sex offenders (JSO) are tomorrow's adult sex offenders (ASO) and ASO
were previously JSO. The current study tests these two assumptions using prospective longitudinal data.
Methods: Using data from the 1984 Dutch Birth Cohort study, the study examines the criminal career of JSO
and the continuity of sex offending into early adulthood.
Results: The study findings show much heterogeneity in the criminal careers of JSO suggesting several crim-
inal career outcomes in adulthood. Put differently, the vast majority of JSO do not become ASO while adult
sex offending does not require juvenile sex offending. Against the backdrop of this principle, the study
found a small group of JSO recidivist at-risk of persisting into adulthood and a group of chronic juvenile of-
fenders who are at-risk of escalating their offending to sex crimes in adulthood.
Conclusions: For the most part, JSO and ASO are two distinct phenomenon. The vast majority of JSO desist
from sex offending while the vast majority of ASO started sexually offending in adulthood. As the frequency
of general nonsexual offending increases during adolescence, so is the risk of becoming ASO. This group of
youth warrants closer scrutiny for prevention programs.
© 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction
The perception of juvenile sex offenders has changed drastically in
the past four decades. Not so long ago, a predominant view regarding
sex crimes committed by youth was that these acts were mostly
sexual nuisance and sexual experimentation (e.g., Reiss, 1960). This
perception started to change in the 1980s following a series of obser-
vations, namely the importance of the prevalence of sex offending
among youth; that youth were responsible for a large share of sex
crimes; that untreated juvenile sex offenders are responsible for sev-
eral hundreds of sex crimes in their lifetime, most of them not known
by the criminal justice system; and increased concerns among clini-
cians working with adult sex offenders observing that these men
started offending during adolescence (Barbaree, Hudson, & Seto,
1993). Such observations increased awareness about the scope of
juvenile sex offending but also raised the issue of continuity of sex
offending over time. Juvenile sex offenders became regarded as
tomorrow’s adult sex offenders. In recent years, policies aimed to
⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Social Sciences, 1030 Ave. des Sciences-Humaines,
Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, G1V0A6. Tel.: +1 418 656 2131 5978.
E-mail address: patrick.lussier@svs.ulaval.ca (P. Lussier).
address the problem of sex offending have reached a new level with
the increasing reliance of adult-like sentences with juvenile of-
fenders. At the core of these policy goals is the problem of continuity
of sex offending from adolescence to adulthood. An emerging corpus
of research based on prospective longitudinal data has challenged
such perception and associated policies have been described as mis-
guided. It is believed that the origins of misperception of JSO as to-
morrow`s adult sex offenders stems from retrospective observations
made with convicted adult sex offenders, especially in clinical set-
tings (e.g., Abel et al., 1987). Criminal career researchers have ob-
served for a long time that retrospective data with adult offenders
tend to artificially inflate the importance of continuity in offending.
This is especially so when the retrospective information in collected
from individuals whose criminal career is still active (e.g., recently in-
carcerated offenders). Such conclusion is also referred to as Robins’s
paradox and calls into question the use of retrospective data to
study continuity of the criminal activity.
Robins (1978) observed that while most antisocial children do not
go on to become antisocial adults, adult antisocial behaviors virtually
requires childhood antisocial behavior. Robins’s first observation
speaks about the importance of discontinuity in offending over time
while the second highlights the presence of continuity for a subgroup
of individuals. Robins argued that antisocial personality (i.e., highly

0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.07.004
154 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163
antisocial adults) rarely or never arose de novo in adulthood. These
conclusions were based on observations regarding general antisocial
behaviors (e.g., regular drug use, alcoholism, violence, vagrancy)
and not intended for specific behavioral forms. Longitudinal research
has replicated these observations in various settings and has since fo-
cused on explaining the paradox or the presence of continuity and
discontinuity in offending (e.g., LeBlanc & Loeber, 1998). The current
study re-examines Robins’s paradox in terms of a specific form of
offending, thus raising the following question: Are juvenile sex of-
fenders tomorrow’s adult sex offenders? Does adult sex offending vir-
tually require juvenile sex offending? Can juvenile sex offending be
considered as an early onset of a persistent and repetitive pattern of
sex offending? Examination of Robins’s paradox in the context of
sex offending is important given that current policies assume that ju-
venile sex offenders are sex crime specialists, recidivists, persistent
and dangerous offenders (e.g., Zimring, 2004; Zimring, Piquero, &
Jennings, 2007). The scientific literature has provided mixed conclu-
sions regarding the continuity-discontinuity paradox in the context
of sex offending. Part of the difficulties drawing conclusions is the
fact that juvenile and adult sex offending are two phenomenon rarely
studied in a single study. In fact, most studies rely on retrospective
data from clinical samples of juvenile or adult sex offenders to draw
conclusion about continuity and discontinuity in offending. The cur-
rent study attempts to bridge these gaps and limitations by examin-
ing the criminal career patterns of juvenile and adult sex offenders
using longitudinal data from a birth cohort. First, the scientific litera-
ture related to the continuity and discontinuity of sex offending is
reviewed.
The criminal careers of juvenile sex offenders
While the criminal career approach has been described elsewhere
(Blokland & Van Wijk, 2008; Blokland & Lussier, 2013; Lussier, 2005;
Lussier & Cale, in press), it remains in its infancy with respect to the
study of sex offenders and represents a significant departure from
the traditional clinical research perspective. The criminal career
approach is concerned with the study of the longitudinal sequence
of offenses committed by an individual. This is a departure from
traditional research conducted with sex offenders on several grounds.
First, criminal career researchers have been concerned by the scope of
offending (i.e., prevalence) and tend to focus on population-based or
community-based data (e.g., LeBlanc & Loeber, 1998). More often
than not, research on sex offenders has been based on clinical
samples in a treatment setting which can seriously limit generaliza-
tion of study findings. Second, the criminal career perspective takes
into account both past and future offending and the link between
the two. Past research on sex offenders has focused on either past
(criminal history) (e.g., Lussier, 2005; Seto & Lalumière, 2010;
Smallbone, 2006) or future offending (recidivism) (e.g., Caldwell,
2010; McCann & Lussier, 2008), and only occasionally the link be-
tween the two (Lussier, Van den Berg, Bijleveld, & Hendriks, 2012).
When the link between past and future offending is studied, often
only crude measures of offending are used (e.g., prior conviction for
a sex crime to predict sexual recidivism) (for a critical perspective,
Amirault & Lussier, 2011). Third, criminal career researchers usually
take into account the whole spectrum of offenses committed by an in-
dividual, not just a specific crime type. This allows researchers to in-
vestigate qualitative aspect of offending, such as offending diversity,
crime specialisation, offending pathways, and escalation. Traditional-
ly, research on sex offenders has focused on their sex offending,
which may have led to the impression that youth committing sex
crimes are only involved in sex crimes (or sexually deviant behaviors)
or are sex crime specialists.
Criminal career researchers are concerned with the continuity of
offending or the tendency to commit crimes at different developmen-
tal stages. Research on sex offenders has mainly come from studies
conducted on JSO or studies on ASO. Clinical researchers have typically
drawn a thick line between the two populations perhaps due to the lo-
gistic of comparing the two groups in a single study and not to associ-
ate the two populations as a single phenomenon. The drawback is that
we are left wondering whether there are differences between JSO and
ASO and what those differences are. This leaves a significant gap for
policymakers with respect to the prevention of sexual violence and
abuse. Criminal career researchers have repeatedly shown the link be-
tween the early age of onset and several other criminal career param-
eters such as persistence, frequency and seriousness (LeBlanc &
Loeber, 1998; Piquero et al., 2003). Such findings have led many to
stress the importance of the identification of early starters to prevent
adult offending (e.g., LeBlanc & Loeber, 1998; Moffitt, 1993). In that
context, it is not surprising, therefore, that in the relative absence of
data specific to the continuity of sex offending, JSO are currently
being viewed as tomorrow’s ASO. While policymakers assume in the
absence of firm evidence against it that such continuity exists, the em-
pirical evidence currently available is not supportive of this assump-
tion. Yet, criminologists have also shown relationship between onset
and other criminal career markers is far from perfect when looking
at general offending (e.g., Piquero, Farrington & Blumstein, 2003). In
other words, although a higher proportion of early onset offenders
will persist offending in adulthood, not all early onset offenders or ju-
venile offenders for that matter become adult criminals. Are those
findings generalizable to sex offending? Based on the current state of
empirical evidence, it remains unclear whether juvenile sex offending
should be understood as a risk factor for adult sex offending and
whether this early onset sex offending represent a distinctive pattern
of sex offending over time.
Generality of offending
First, reviews and meta-analyses of prior research on JSO suggest
that the majority of JSO do reoffend after their release (Caldwell,
2002; Caldwell, 2010; McCann & Lussier, 2008). It is unclear, however,
whether the reoffending occurs exclusively during adolescence or not,
as researchers tend to not specify the developmental period in which
reoffending occurs. Recidivism studies show that when they do
reoffend, JSO tend to be re-arrested and re-convicted for a nonsexual
crime (e.g., Blokland & Van Wijk, 2008). This observation is in line
with the fact that the criminal history of JSO tend to include a wide
array of nonsexual offenses (Smallbone, 2006). Research suggests
that about half of JSO have a prior history for a nonsexual crime. In
fact, a meta-analysis has shown that, as a group, JSO have a less exten-
sive criminal history than comparison groups of nonsexual offenders
(Seto & Lalumière, 2010). Whether this reflects particularities of
JSO’s criminal history or the group of youth they are typically com-
pared to (e.g., chronic juvenile offenders) remains unknown. This re-
sult could also be explained by the heterogeneity of JSO’s criminal
career (e.g., Lussier, van den Berg, Bijleveld & Hendriks, 2012; van
den Berg, Bijleveld, & Hendriks, 2011) and the presence of generalists,
sex crime specialists and first-time offenders (Blokland & Van Wijk,
2008) among the group of JSO. Interestingly, research has shown
that close to half of JSO from a birth cohort are chronic offenders,
and about three-quarters of them had only one police contact for a
sex crime (Zimring et al., 2007). Taken, together, any investigation ex-
amining the continuity of offending in JSO needs to take into account
non-sex offenses and the possible crime switching from sex offending
to non-sex offending.
Short-lived sex offending career
Are juvenile sex offender’s tomorrow adult sex offenders or simply
adolescent-limited sex offenders? Recent longitudinal studies provide
part of the answer to the conundrum. Longitudinal empirical studies
have shown that the sexual recidivism rates of JSO are relatively low
 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163
even when extended into adulthood. In fact, a small fraction of JSO,
varying between 5 and 10 percent, sexually re-offends in adulthood
(e.g., Kemper & Kistner, 2007; Nisbet, Wilson, & Smallbone, 2004;
Sipe, Jensen, & Everett, 1998; Vandiver, 2006; Zimring, Piquero &
Jennings, 2007; Zimring, Jennings, Piquero, & Hays, 2009). This recid-
ivism rate gradually increase, between 10 and 15 percent, but not
dramatically when the follow-up period in adulthood is extended
(e.g., Hagan & Gust-Brey, 1999; Hendriks & Bijleveld, 2008; Lussier
et al., 2012). Some studies have presented much higher base rate of
reoffending (i.e., N 30 percent) which may be due to sampling issues
(e.g., Rubenstein et al., 1993). Reliance on self-report data, as opposed
to the often used official data on offending provides similar conclu-
sion, albeit with relatively higher recidivism rates. In that regard,
Bremer (1992) reported a 6% reconviction rate in a sample of serious
juvenile sex offenders, but the recidivism rate rose to 11% when
based on self-reports. Therefore, while the use of official data does un-
derestimate the true recidivism rates, it can’t explain the fact that the
vast majority are not re-arrested for a sex crime. With these numbers
in mind, two general observations can be drawn. First, the sexual
criminal activity of JSO appears to be short-lived and limited to the pe-
riod of adolescence. Second, it is almost inconceivable to argue that
the small group of JSO who persist in adulthood account for a substan-
tial proportion of sex crimes committed by adults.
Prospective identification of adult sex offenders
Some of the most important findings of the last decade with re-
spect to the understanding of the criminal activity of JSO have come
from prospective longitudinal studies based on sample of general of-
fenders, including JSO. Findings from these empirical studies suggest
that JSO may not be the group most at risk of adult sex offending.
Zimring et al. (2007) reported that while the prevalence of adult sex
offending in the Racine birth cohort study was about 3 percent, it
was 8.5 percent among those having committed a sex crime during
adolescence. While the odds of becoming an adult sex offender were
somewhat greater than that of the general population, it hides the
fact that JSO accounted for only 4 percent of sex crimes in adulthood.
When examining the long-term predictors of adult sex offending,
the total number of police contacts for any crime was more predictive
of adult sex offending than having a police contact for a sex crime dur-
ing adolescence. Of importance, the number of police contact had vir-
tually the same predictive value of adult sex offending irrespective of
whether or not the individual has committed a sex crime during ado-
lescence. In other words, chronic offenders were the group most
at-risk of becoming adult sex offenders, more so than JSO. This may
also suggest that adult-onset sex offending is more important than
the continuity of sex offending from adolescence to adulthood. It
could also mean that adult-onset sex offending tend to be preceded
by a pattern of chronic offending, or as Moffitt (1993) puts it, a
life-course persistent pattern of antisocial behavior (Cale, Lussier, &
Proulx, 2009; Lalumière et al., 2005; Lussier, Proulx, & LeBlanc, 2005;
Seto & Barbaree, 1997). In that regard, using data from the Pittsburgh
Youth Study, Lussier, Blokland, Mathesius, Pardini, and Loeber (2013),
examined the childhood risk factors of juvenile-onset and adult-onset
sex offending. They found some but not significant overlap between
juvenile and adult-onset sex offending. In fact the identified childhood
risk factors of JSO showed poor-to-modest predictive validity to iden-
tify adult-onset sex offending. Those findings suggest that juvenile-
onset and adult-onset sex offending are two relatively different
phenomenon. Similar to what was observed in Zimring et al. (2007)
study, chronic offending was predictive of adult-onset offending.
Aim of study
The current study examines the criminal career patterns of juve-
nile and adult sex offenders in the 1984 Dutch birth cohort study.
155
We follow the footsteps of others (e.g., Zimring et al., 2007) using
data from a birth cohort study to address methodological limitations
of prior studies with the aim of examining the continuity and discon-
tinuity in sex offending. The current study has four overarching goals.
First, the study aims to compare the criminal career patterns of JSO
and ASO. In doing so, the current study examines the whole spectrum
of offenses committed by JSO and ASO in youth and adulthood. There
is more to be known about sex offenders’ offending than focusing
only on their sexual criminal activity. This comparison will help to de-
termine whether JSO and ASO have similar long-term patterns of
offending or whether sex crimes committed in youth and adulthood
tend to occur on a specific pattern of offending. Second, the study
aims to compare the criminal career of JSO and ASO with those of
non-sex offenders. Such comparison will help to address the seem-
ingly contradictory finding that past clinical studies suggest, that
JSO are less criminally active than other young offenders (Seto &
Lalumière, 2010), yet longitudinal research suggest that most of
them are chronic offenders (Zimring et al., 2007). Third, the study
aims to determine the continuity of sex offending from adolescence
to adulthood. This will allow establishing the proportion of JSO who
becomes ASO, but also the proportion of ASO who were previously
JSO. This analysis will evaluate current perceptions and assumptions
about the importance of continuity among JSO. Fourth, the study
aims to clarify whether the criminal history in youth helps to predict
ASO. Recent studies have shown a link between chronic juvenile
offending and adult sex offending, a link more important than having
committed a sex crime during adolescence.
Methodology
Sample
This study is based on data from all persons born in the Netherlands
in 1984 (Blokland, Grimbergen, Bernasco, & Nieuwbeerta, 2010). The
selection of the 1984 birth cohort is straightforward. Police data in the
Netherlands is registered in the Police Record System (PRS) which has
been operational since 1986. The PRS data, however, can only be reli-
ably used for scientific analyses since 1996 (Bijleveld, 2007). Consider-
ing the minimum age of legal responsibility (12 years old), 1984 marks
the first birth cohort for which complete data on the entire criminal
career is available for research purposes using PRS data. In total, the
sample includes 170,891 individuals. This sample excludes all individ-
uals that either died or emigrated prior to the end of the follow-up
period conducted in 2007. Therefore, at the end of the follow-up period,
all cases were about 23 years old. For the purpose of this study, only
data on men (n = 87,528) are analyzed.
Procedures
For all cases included in the study, criminal career data from 12 to
about 23 years old was used. Data used to examine the criminal ca-
reer of the 1984 birth cohort in the Netherlands comes from the
PRS. The PRS contains information on every suspect detained by the
police and the indictable offenses involved. Indictable offences that
in a later stage result in an acquittal or discharge from further prose-
cution are, in principle, removed from the PRS, as are prosecutorial
dismissals due to illegally obtained evidence, unlawful use of force
or being wrongly accused. Individuals that accept an out-of-court set-
tlement remained in the PRS, as did some prosecutorial dismissals
due to technical reasons other than those already mentioned.
Furthermore, the removal of acquittals and discharges from prosecu-
tion was not always 100 percent accurate. While cognizant of these
differences in legal status, to adhere to the criminal career terminolo-
gy, we refer to individuals registered in the PRS as ‘offenders’ and not
as ‘suspects’.
156 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163

Table 1 (12 to 23 years old). The prevalence of offending during adolescence

Descriptive information about the Dutch birth cohort of men born in 1984 was 8.8 percent while it was 21.4 percent for adulthood. During ado-
Descriptive information General Population Offender Population lescence, property offenses were the most prevalent crime type ob-
n = 87,528 n = 21,860 served (n = 3,651; 4.2%) while in adulthood, the most prevalent
Mean (SD) or % Mean (SD) or % form was violent offenses (n = 5,918; 6.8%) followed closely by
Age of onset of offending - 18.6 (2.8) property offenses (n = 5,506; 6.3%).The current study is concerned
Number of registrations for a 0.8 (2.7) 3.2 (4.7) mainly with the prevalence of sex crimes in the 1984 Dutch birth co-
nonsex crime (12-23)
hort during adolescence and adulthood. The cohort study includes
Number of registrations for a 0.01 (0.1) 0.04 (0.3)
sex crime (12-23) 341 individuals (0.4%) having been registered for a sex crime during
Juvenile offenders (12-17) adolescence and 377 individuals (0.5%) having been registered for a
Abstainers 91.2 64.9 sex crime in adulthood. Hence, the prevalence of sex offending in ad-
One-time offender 4.6 18.5 olescence is similar to that of early adulthood. Fig. 1 presents informa-
Recidivists 3.3 12.0
tion about the annual prevalence of sex offending. The annual
Chronic offenders 0.9 4.7
Adult offenders (18-23) prevalence is at its lowest point between age 12 and 13 (less than
Abstainers 78.6 14.5 0.5 offender per 1,000 individuals), but it increases sharply after,
One-time offender 11.1 44.4 peaking at age 15 and 16 (about 1.1 offender per 1,000 individuals).
Recidivists 8.0 28.9
The annual prevalence drops to about 0.7-0.8 offender per 1,000 indi-
Chronic offenders 8.2 12.3
Juvenile criminal history viduals thereafter.
Drug-related crimes 0.1 0.5
Property crimes 4.2 16.7 Frequency
Violent crimes 2.6 10.3 Prevalence can be distinguished from frequency which refers to
Sexual crimes 0.4 1.6
the number of registrations for a specific crime type for an offender.
Adult criminal history
Drug-related crimes 1.9 7.5 This sample of offender had on average 3.2 registrations for non-sex
Property crimes 6.3 25.2 crimes and 0.04 registrations for sex crimes. Looking more specifically
Violent crimes 6.8 27.1 at the sample of sex offenders, this group had on average 1.3 (SD =
Sexual crimes 0.5 1.7
0.9) registration for a sex crime. In other words, most sex offenders
in this cohort were one-time sex offenders. The inspection of the
annual frequency revealed that, contrary to annual prevalence, the
Measures lambda of sex offending is relatively stable across the study period,
varying between 1.6 sex crime per offender (age 12) to a low of
The current study examines delinquency at two time period; ado- 1.13 (age 22) (see Fig. 1).
lescence and emerging adulthood. For the current study, adolescence
refers to the period starting at age 12 (minimal age of criminal re- Age of onset
sponsibility) and ending at age 17. Emerging adulthood starts at age Age of onset refers to the age at first registration. Two types of
18 and ends with the end of the follow-up period, that is, at age 23. onset were examined in the current study. Age of onset refers to the
Note that both periods cover a five-year time window. Descriptive in- age at first registration for any crime. The mean age of onset for this
formation about the criminal activity of this sample is presented in sample was 18.6 (SD = 2.8). The study also looked at the age of
Table 1. onset for a sex crime which refers to the age at first registration for
any sex crime. The mean age of onset for a sex crime was 17.9
Prevalence (SD = 3.0).

Prevalence refers to the proportion of a specific population being Delinquent status

registered for a crime. In the current sample, there were 21,860 indi- Delinquent status refers to the level of general criminal activity
viduals (25%) with at least one registration during the study period during adolescence and adulthood. Of importance for the study was
Annual mean number of offenses per offender

1.2 1.8
Prevalence of offending per 1,000 h.

1.6
1.0
1.4

0.8 1.2

1
0.6
0.8

0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0.0 0
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Age at registration
Prevalence Lambda

Fig. 1. Prevalence and annual frequency (lambda) of sex offending in the birth cohort.
 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163 157

Table 2
Comparison of criminal career parameters between sex offenders and non-sex offenders

Criminal career parameters Juvenile sex offenders Juvenile non-sex offenders

(n = 341) (n = 7,339)

One-time Offenders Recidivists Chronic offenders

Age of onset 14.8 (1.4) 15.8 (1.3) 15.3 (1.3) 14.4 (1.3)
% with a record in adulthood 57.2% 43.7% 64.6% 87.4%
Total number of registrations (12-23) 6.9 (8.2) 2.6 (3.1) 6.2 (5.2) 17.9 (10.5)
Juvenile offending 3.5 (3.9) 1.0 (0.0) 2.8 (1.0) 9.9 (4.7)
(number of registrations)
% with a violent offense 24.1 19.4 37.3 58.0
% with a drug-related offense 0.6 1.0 1.9 3.6
% with a property-related crime 30.8 31.8 60.2 94.6

Adult sex offenders Adult non-sex offenders

(n = 377) (n = 18,321)

One-time offenders Recidivists Chronic offenders

Age of onset 18.6 (2.7) 20.1 (2.4) 18.7 (2.5) 16.5 (2.3)
% with a juvenile record 29.4 12.6 29.0 63.4
Total number of registrations (12-23) 6.0 (8.3) 1.3 (1.0) 3.6 (2.3) 13.7 (8.6)
Adult offending 4.7 (6.1) 1.0 (0.0) 2.8 (1.0) 10.6 (6.2)
(number of registrations)
% with a violent offense 34.7 17.5 40.1 71.1
% with a drug-related offense 7.4 4.4 10.3 25.6
% with a property-related crime 27.6 16.5 34.2 77.0

the identification of chronic offenders. There are various definitions of
chronic offending (LeBlanc, 1998). One of the most accepted opera-
tional definitions can be traced back to the work of Wolfgang et al.
(1972) who defined juvenile chronic offending as being arrested on
at least five occasions. The selection of five arrests as a criterion re-
mains arbitrary and empirically-based definitions have been pro-
posed, such as recidivism probabilities (e.g., Piquero, Farrington &
Blumstein, 2007). Analyzing recidivism probabilities using in the
1984 Dutch cohort, Blokland and Palmen (2012) observed that in
both adolescence and adulthood, recidivism probabilities become
stable (about .80) from the sixth registration onwards. Therefore,
this operationalization is used in the current study. Based on this def-
inition, the current delinquent groups were created for both adoles-
cence and adulthood reflecting the level of general criminal activity:
(a) abstainers (no registration during the period); (b) one-time of-
fenders (only one registration during the period); (c) recidivists
(between 2 and 5 registrations during the period; (d) chronic of-
fenders (at least 6 registrations during the period).
Results
Sex offenders and non-sex offenders
In Table 2, basic parameters of the criminal career of JSO (n = 341)
are compared to that of other juvenile non-sex offenders (n = 7,339).
Analysis of variance revealed that JSO started their juvenile offending
earlier [F(3, 7676) = 282.1, p b .001] than the one-time offenders
and the recidivists, but later than the chronics (Scheffé post hoc test,
all significant p b .001). While significant, those differences were not
important (i.e., about one-year on average between JSO and the
one-time offender). In youth, when looking at the number of registra-
tions, JSO were more prolific than the one-time offenders, and some-
what more active that the recidivist, but less than the chronic. When
looking at the total number of registrations during the whole study
period (12-23 years old), JSO had significantly more registrations
that the one-time offenders, but significantly less than the group of
chronics. There were no significant differences between JSO and
the group of juvenile recidivists. There was a clear association, as
expected, between juvenile offending and adult offending [x2(3) =
587.7, p b .001]. As shown in Table 2, the proportion of youth becom-
ing adult offenders was in line with their status in youth. Hence, while
87% of chronic did have at least one registration in adulthood, only 43%
of one-time offenders did. Particularly interesting is the fact that the
percentage of youth among JSO with at least one registration in adult-
hood (57%) was what was expected by chance alone (adjusted resid-
uals Z b 2.00). Put differently, the frequency of general offending
informs about the risk of continuity in adulthood, but not for juvenile
sex offending.
The same analytical approach is used to compare the criminal
career of ASO (n = 377) to that of adult non-sex offenders (n =
18,321) in the birth cohort. There were group differences in terms
of age of onset [F(3,18694) = 1298.0, p b .001] showing that ASO
started their criminal career earlier than one-time adult non-sex of-
fenders, but later than non-sex chronic offenders. There were no sig-
nificant differences between the group of ASO and that of the non-sex
recidivists in terms age of onset. In terms of frequency of offending
during the whole study period, ASO were significantly more active
than the one-time offenders and the recidivists but less so that the
chronic offenders. Similar findings were observed when looking spe-
cifically at adult offending. As expected, there was a retrospective link
between adult offending and having a criminal record during adoles-
cence and that link was in the expected direction [X2(3) = 2406.7,
p b .001]. Hence, more than 63% of chronic adult offenders had at
least one registration during adolescence as opposed to 12.6% for
one-time adult offenders. For ASO, 29% had at least one registration
in youth and that percentage was barely higher than expected by
chance alone (adjusted standardized residuals Z = 2.4). That per-
centage was similar to that of non-chronic recidivists. Taken together,
as a group, JSO were quite similar to the non-sex recidivists youth in
terms of their criminal career while the criminal career of ASO was
somewhere between the non-sex adult recidivists and that of the
chronic offenders.
Continuity in sex offending
Findings regarding the continuity of sex offending are shown in
Table 3. Several key results can be highlighted regarding the likeli-
hood of juvenile sex offenders to become sex offenders in emerging
adulthood. First, results show clearly that being a JSO increases the
odds of becoming an adult sex offender. If 0.5% of non-juvenile sex
offenders become one-time adult sex offenders, 3.0% of one-time
JSO become adult sex offenders. Second, and relatedly, the risk of
158 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163

Table 3 chronic offenders had committed a sex crime in youth. In fact, 92 per-
Continuity of sex offending from adolescence to adulthood cent of chronic offenders were not JSO. When removing all JSO from
Juvenile sex Adult sex offending Adult sex offender status the group of chronic offenders, this group accounted for 4 percent
offending (12-17) (18-23) of all sex crimes committed by the cohort in adulthood. Together,
Abstainers Adult sex One-time Sexual these findings show that first and foremost, adult sex offending
offenders offender Recidivists does not require youth offending (sexual or not). Against the back-
Abstainers 99.6% (86,827) 0.5% (360) 0.4% (313) 0.1% (47) drop of much discontinuity, the findings illustrate that as the frequen-
One-time offenders 97.0% (260) 3.0% (8) 1.9% (5) 1.1% (3) cy of general offending in youth increases, so is the likelihood of
Sexual recidivists 87.7% (64) 12.3% (9) 5.5% (4) 6.8% (5) committing a sex crime in adulthood.

Juvenile sex offenders, adult sex offenders and persisters

becoming an adult sex offender is significantly higher for juvenile re-
cidivists, with 12.3% of them becoming adult sex offenders. Third,
with regard to continuity these findings show the increased risk for
JSO of becoming ASO, while also highlighting the fact that the overall
risk of such continuity, even for JSO recidivists, is quite low. Fourth,
the continuity of sex offending from juvenile sex offending to adult
sex offending is especially seen in adult sexual recidivists where 8
of 55 adult sexual recidivists were JSO (14.5%). Fifth, the findings
also put in perspective the fact that 17 of the 377 ASO were JSO
(4.5%). Taken together, if prospectively, few juvenile sex offenders
do become sex offenders in emerging adulthood, the reverse is also
true, that is, the vast majority of adult sex offenders were not juvenile
sex offenders. This overall pattern hides the fact that there is a very
small subgroup of JSO at-risk of continuing in adulthood.
Table 4 presents the proportion of sex crimes committed in adult-
hood by juvenile offender types. When first looking at offender types
based on the juvenile sex offending career, results show that ab-
stainers, or those who did not commit a sex crime in youth, were re-
sponsible for the bulk of sex crimes committed in adulthood (91.3%).
JSO, one-time offenders and sexual recidivists, who represented
about 0.4% of the birth cohort, accounted together for only 8.8% of
adult sex offenses. These numbers reiterate that we cannot deny
that JSO are at a greater risk of committing a sex crime in adulthood,
but these numbers also remind us that these youths account for a lim-
ited proportion of sex crimes in adulthood. Adult-onset sex offending
is clearly an important phenomenon. When looking at categories of
youth based on their general offending, several key findings emerged.
First, abstainers, or those with no juvenile record, accounted for
about two-thirds (67%) of all sex crimes committed in adulthood.
Second, recidivists and chronic offenders, together representing 4.2
percent of the cohort, accounted for 22.8 percent of all sex crimes
committed by the cohort in adulthood. Third, chronic offenders,
who account for only 1.2 percent of the birth cohort, are responsible
for 8.7 percent of all adult sex offenses committed by the cohort.
This proportion of sex crimes committed in adulthood by chronic ju-
venile offenders is equivalent to that of JSO. Note that few of the
Table 4
Proportion of sex crimes in adulthood accounted by juvenile offender types
Offending status in Percentage of sex offenses
youth (12-17) responsible for
Table 5 presents information about the criminal career of JSO
(n = 325), ASO (n = 360) as well as persisters or those having com-
mitted a sex crime during both adolescence and adulthood (n = 16).
The table includes information for both general and sexual offending.
The analysis of the criminal career of these three groups reveals in-
teresting similarities and differences for both general and sexual
offending. JSO and persisters had a significantly younger age of onset
for general offending than ASO (p b .001). This result is not surprising
given that only about one out of five ASO had a registration in youth.
Clearly, ASO were, for the most part, adult-onset offenders, not just
in terms of their sex offending. On the other hand, both JSO and per-
sisters were involved in other crime types in youth, mainly property
and violent offenses. There were no significant differences between
JSO and persisters both in terms of age of onset of general offending
and sex offending. The three groups did not differ in terms of their
overall number of registrations for any crime. In other words, if ASO
started significantly later than JSO and persisters, they caught up
with them in terms of the frequency of offending later on. The three
groups, however, did differ in terms of frequency of sexual offending.
Persisters committed significantly more sex crimes than both JSO and
ASO. This results in not surprising given that, of the persister group,
half were sexual recidivists in youth and half were recidivists in adult-
hood. Comparatively speaking, 19 percent of JSO were recidivists dur-
ing adolescence while 13 percent of ASO were recidivists in adulthood.
That said, it is interesting to note that the number of registrations for
non-sex crimes surpasses the number of registrations for sex crimes
across all three groups of sex offenders suggesting that their offending
was first and foremost, general and non-specific to sex offending.
Fig. 2 shows the type of delinquent careers across the three groups
of sex offenders, that is, JSO, ASO and persisters. First, findings show
that most JSO (about 80%) were either one-time offenders (their sex
crime) or recidivists during adolescence. In adulthood, the most
prevalent pattern was abstainers with close of half of JSO. The other
half was spread across the other three adult delinquent careers
(one-timer, recidivists, chronics). The clear majority of ASO during ad-
olescence were abstainers. In adulthood, however, there were mainly
one-timers (their sex crime) or recidivists. The criminal career of per-
sisters stands out from the other two groups. These individuals were
mainly recidivists and this group includes the highest proportion of
chronic offenders.

Juvenile sex offending Prevalence Juvenile sex Adult sex Prospective identification of adult sex offenders
% offending offending
(12-17) (18-23) A logit regression analysis was conducted to determine the best
Abstainers 99.6% 0.0% 91.3% predictor of adult sex offending based on juvenile criminal career pa-
One-time offenders 0.3% 57.4% 4.1% rameters (Table 6). The sample for this analysis includes all individ-
Sexual recidivists 0.1% 42.6% 4.7%
uals who were registered as a juvenile offender. The rationale being
Juvenile offending Prevalence Juvenile sex Adult sex that the analysis examines whether at-risk individuals could be iden-
% offending offending tified among youth known by the criminal justice system. The model
(12-17) (18-23) included the age of onset, juvenile sex offending (frequency of regis-
Abstainers 91.2% 0.0% 67.0% trations for a sex crime in youth), presence of a violent offense, a prop-
One-time offenders 4.6% 28.5% 10.2% erty offense, as well as delinquent status in youth, that is, whether the
Recidivists 3.0% 43.0% 14.1% offender was a one-time offender, a recidivist or a chronic offender.
Chronic offenders 1.2% 28.5% 8.7%
Note here the inclusion of a measure of frequency of juvenile sex
 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163 159

Table 5
Comparison between juvenile sex offenders-only, adult sex offenders-only and persisters

Sex offenders in the birth cohort

(n = 701)

Criminal history Juvenile sex offenders only Adult sex offenders only Persisters F or X2
(n = 325) (n = 360) (n = 16)

General offending
Age of onset 14.8 (1.3) 18.8 (2.6) 15.1 (1.7) 325.1***
Total number of registrations for non-sex crimes† 5.2 (7.9) 4.5 (8.0) 8.1 (11.4) 2.1
% juvenile non-sex offending 42.0 22.4 41.7 28.0***
% adult non-sex offending 43.4 50.3 41.7 2.8
% with a violent offense in youth 24.3 11.4 31.3 21.5***
% with a violent offense in adulthood 29.8 35.0 31.3 2.1
% with a drug offense in youth 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2
% with a drug offense in adulthood 9.8 7.2 12.5 1.8
% with a property crime in youth 30.2 13.1 43.8 34.1***
% with a property crime in adulthood 30.5 27.2 35.7 1.5

Sexual offending
Age of onset 15.2 (1.3) 20.4 (1.7) 15.9 (1.3) 1000.2***
Mean number of registrations 1.3 (0.8) 1.2 (0.6) 4.8 (2.8) 152.7***
% of sexual recidivists in youth 19.7 0.0 56.2
% of sexual recidivists in adulthood 0.0 13.1 50.0
% for indecent exposure 6.5 15.6 31.2 19.7***
% for rape 17.5 29.9 62.5 24.8***
% for a sexual assault 55.2 32.5 68.7 17.6***

†This excludes sex crimes. *p b .05 **p b .01 ***p b .001.

offending to control for the fact that delinquent status includes both
sex and non sex crimes. In doing so, the measure of delinquent status
becomes a measure of non-sex offending. Two predictors emerged as
significant predictors of adult sex offending: having committed a sex
crime in youth (OR = 1.75) as well as delinquent status, which is,
being a recidivist (OR = 2.49) or a chronic offender (OR = 3.86).
Discussion
The current study aimed to examine the criminal careers of juve-
nile and adult sex offenders in a birth cohort. Of importance, this re-
search made several key observations regarding the continuity and
discontinuity of sex offending over time. The study was designed to in-
vestigate Robins’s continuity paradox in the context of sex offending.
In doing so, the study could not replicate the observation that while
most highly antisocial adults were juvenile offenders, most antisocial
youth do not become antisocial adults in the context of sex offending.
Rather, the study found much discontinuity between JSO and ASO. Put
differently, the current investigation found that while most JSO do not
become ASO, it also showed that most ASO were not JSO. The same
conclusion applies when looking at sexual recidivists. Therefore, we
are left with the conclusion that JSO and ASO are mainly two distinct
phenomenon. Yet, against the backdrop of much discontinuity, this re-
search also showed some presence of continuity.
Indeed, three patterns of continuity were found between juvenile
offending and ASO: (1) a small group of JSO who sexually reoffended
during adolescence and were subsequently re-arrested in early adult-
hood for another sex crime, (2) a group of JSO who persist offending in
adulthood but in nonsexual crimes, and (3) a group of juvenile of-
fenders who were not arrested for a sex crime in youth but were in-
volved in many other crime types and were subsequently arrested
for a sex crime in early adulthood. While the first path has been sub-
ject to much scrutiny among practitioners and clinical researchers in
recent years, the second group and third group have been relatively

Fig. 2. Patterns of general offending in juvenile sex offenders, adult sex offenders and persisters.
160 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163
Table 6
Juvenile delinquency and the prediction of adult sex offending in the birth cohort
Offender-based†
(n = 7,680)
Odds ratio
Age of onset of juvenile offending 1.05 (.91-1.22)
Juvenile sex offending 1.75 (1.40-2.20)
Violent offending in youth 1.27 (.83-1.93)
Property crime in youth 0.76 (.48-1.19)
Delinquent status in youth††
Recidivists 2.49 (1.55-3.99)
Chronics 3.86 (1.89-7.87)
Note: Logit regression model was used. † Refers to the population of juvenile offenders
only. †† The reference category for the computation of odds ratio is one-time offender
group.
overlooked. More specifically, these results provide preliminary
evidence of the importance of distinguishing: (a) the adolescent-
limited sex offender, (b) the adult-onset sex offender, and; (c) the per-
sistent juvenile sex offender. In the next section, these findings are
discussed and policy implications outlined. In doing, so we extendt
the previous classification model of Lussier et al. (2012) by including
adult-onset sex offenders.
Adolescent-limited juvenile sex offenders
The study findings show that the adolescent-limited group repre-
sent the vast majority of JSO. The current study estimates that with
a follow-up to age 23, about 95 percent of JSO falls within that
group. In a previous study with a longer follow (up to mid-thirties),
90 percent of JSO were adolescent-limited as far as their sex offending
is concerned (Lussier et al., 2012). This is also consistent with the low
base rate of sexual recidivism found in samples of JSO across studies
(McCann & Lussier, 2008) even when the follow-up period is extend-
ed into adulthood (e.g., Nisbet et al., 2004) or using self-report
offending data (Bremer, 1992). It could be argued that a longer
follow-up beyond the period of emerging adulthood could have inflat-
ed the proportion of JSO persisting in adulthood. However, research
has shown that it is uncommon for JSO to sexually reoffend after
5-6 years following their release (Langstrom, 2002). For the most
part, therefore, sex offending committed in youth is first and foremost,
transitory, and not reflective of propensity for sex crimes. As a group,
these youth showed a criminal career pattern in youth similar to that
of the nonsexual juvenile recidivists, but not to the same extent of
chronic juvenile offenders.1 At one end of the spectrum, for about 40
percent of JSO, their sex crime was their only arrest during adoles-
cence. At the other end, a group of about 20 percent were chronic of-
fenders. This suggests that a juvenile sex crime can occur on a series
of offending trajectories. In that context, one has to wonder whether
the term “juvenile sex offender” is a meaningful one because of the
underlying complexities of offending patterns sex crimes committed
by youth are associated to. It also raises concerns over typological
models of JSO with one category referred to as the “antisocial”
(Becker, 1998) or the “sex-plus” (Butler & Seto, 2002) designating a
group of JSO involved in other crime types. The diversity of offending
patterns found for JSO is reminiscent of the findings of prior longitudi-
nal studies (Lussier et al., 2012; van den Berg et al., 2011) which
highlighted five distinctive general offending trajectories with distinc-
tive patterns of onset, persistence, specialisation and desistence.
This pattern of sex offending is similar to Lalumière et al. (2005)
concept of young male syndrome. The sex offending is episodic and
limited to the period of adolescence which reflects a reckless,
sensation-seeking, here-and-now orientation typical to the period of
adolescence. While this pattern may appear similar to the concept of
adolescence-limited antisocial behavior proposed by Moffitt (1993),
some factors characterizing the adolescent-limited sex offender
group found in this study put them apart. One fifth of them sexually
reoffend in youth showing that this pattern of adolescent-limited
sex offending involves for a sub-group sexual recidivists, but their re-
cidivism is limited to the period of adolescence (see also Lussier et al.,
p value 2012). This challenges the notion of juvenile sex offending and juve-
nile sexual reoffending as risk factors of sexual deviance, a conclusion
.492
.000 supported by previous empirical work (e.g., Zimring et al., 2007). The
.272 most likely outcome for them in emerging adulthood is not being
.234 arrested for any crime. Hence, in spite of their record of sex offending,
most of these youth do transition well into emerging adulthood. That
.000
.000
said, about 40 percent of the adolescent-limited sex offenders, are
arrested in adulthood for a nonsexual crime. In other words, if they
do persist in adulthood, it is primarily for a property crime or a violent,
not for a sex crime. Hence, in the context of prevention and interven-
tion, the focus should be put on preventing adult nonsexual offending.
Taken together, the adolescent-limited sex offender appears to transi-
tion well into adulthood as far as sex offending is concerned. This pos-
itive outcome, however, hides the fact that a substantial proportion of
them will persist offending nonsexually in adulthood which may in-
volve other serious crimes (i.e., violent offenses).
The persistent juvenile sex offender
As expected from prior longitudinal studies, only a small subgroup
of JSO of the birth cohort was also ASO in emerging adulthood.
This group represents about 5 percent of JSO in the current study,
not far from the 10 percent found in prior research with a longer
follow-up in adulthood (Lussier et al., 2012). In fact, this pattern is
similar to the high rate slow desister group identified by Lussier et
al. (2012). They also represent about 4 percent of adult sex offenders
in line with retrospective longitudinal studies with adult sex offenders
(Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale, & Amirault, 2010). Clearly, this group repre-
sents a marginal proportion of all sex offenders being arrested up to
age 23. While criminal justice policies are aimed at identifying and
preventing this group of youth from sexually offending in adulthood,
it is worth noting that they were responsible for less than five percent
of all sex crimes in adulthood by this birth cohort. This group of youth
did not transition well into adulthood, showing the poorest adult out-
comes as far as offending is concerned. Not surprisingly, this group
was composed mainly of recidivists and chronic offenders in both ad-
olescence and adulthood. They showed the highest number of arrests
for both nonsexual and sexual offenses during the study period show-
ing evidence of criminal versatility. Similarly, Knight et al. (2009) have
reported that adult sex offenders who started their sex offending in
youth had more arrests than JSO. It is unclear whether at least part
of their nonsexual offending is actually sexually motivated (i.e., break-
ing and entering, stealing underwear, assault, etc.).
That said, prior research has shown that this group should not
be confused with Moffitt’s life course persistent (LCP) offenders as
the scope of their nonsexual offending and offending trajectory is
atypical to the LCP group (see also, Lussier et al., 2012). Sex offending
represented a sizeable proportion of their offending. In fact, this group
included the highest proportion of juvenile sexual recidivists and
adult sexual recidivists. They were more likely to be arrested for
indecent exposure, rape and sexual assault as opposed to JSO-only
and ASO-only group. While this may indicate versatility as a group, it
does not speak of versatility in sex offending at the individual level.
That is, the group of persisters may include frequent rapists and fre-
quent exhibitionists without them crossing over in terms of crime
type. That said, as a group, the offending behavior of persistent sex of-
fenders may take different shape with sub-groups of offenders having
a preferred offending mode based on past offending experiences,
sexual fantasies and sexual interests as well as offending opportuni-
ties (e.g., Lussier, Leclerc, Healey, & Proulx, 2007). This offending
pattern of persisters may suggest evidence of hypersexuality or sexu-
alisation (e.g., Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003; Lussier, Proulx et al., 2005)
 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163
which encompass a lack of control over sexual urges, high sexual in-
vestment, and a high sexual outlet. In fact, using retrospective data,
Knight et al. (2009) found that persisters (ASO having committed a
sex crime during adolescence) were significantly different from a
group of JSO and a group of adult-onset sex offenders on a number
of individual characteristics such as expressive aggression, sexual
compulsivity, preoccupation and drive, pornography usage, hostility
against women, poorer perspective taking, as well as characteristics
similar to that of Hare’s Factor 1 psychopathy checklist (i.e., interper-
sonal and affective components of psychopathy). Lussier et al. (2012)
hypothesized that this group may be more likely to specialize in sex
crime over time as their offending becomes more specific. In terms
of intervention and prevention, this group may be the one that should
be screened for a specialized intervention dealing, among other
things, with the youth’s sexual development and emerging sexual
deviance.
The adult-onset sex offending
Prior research has shown much heterogeneity in the antisocial his-
tories and criminal careers of adult sex offenders (e.g., Cale, Lussier &
Proulx, 2009; Lussier et al., 2010). Only a small fraction of ASO were
previously JSO, in fact most ASO did not have a criminal record for
any crime during adolescence. These findings along with others (e.g.,
Lussier & Mathesius, 2012) challenge the idea that ASO are JSO
grown up (Abel & Rouleau, 1990). Rather, the study findings reiterate
that JSO and ASO are, for the most part, two relatively distinct phe-
nomenon (Lussier, Blokland, Mathesius, Pardini & Loeber, 2013). The
complex pattern of continuity and discontinuity in offending charac-
terizing adult-onset sex offenders is further exemplified by the inspec-
tion of their criminal career. Indeed, current research findings suggest
the presence of two main groups of adult-onset sex offenders: (a) the
adult-onset offender, and (b) the LCP offender or the chronic juvenile
offender grown up.
The adult-onset offender
Adult-onset offenders remain a neglected area of criminological re-
search (Eggleston & Laub, 2002). The substantial proportion of
adult-onset sex offenders found in the current study had no or limited
arrest record during adolescence. These results are in agreement with
the retrospective study of Knight et al. (2009) which showed that
adult-onset sex offenders had lower levels of juvenile non-sexual de-
linquency than persisters and JSO. This group is of considerable impor-
tance as they are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all sex crimes
committed in early adulthood by this birth cohort. That said, close to
40 percent of adult-onset sex offenders had only one arrest in emerg-
ing adulthood, that is, their arrest for a sex crime. This is not reflective
of a pattern of specialisation in sex crime, but rather, perhaps of con-
textual difficulties experienced transitioning from adolescence to
adulthood. It is possible to hypothesize that their maladaptive transi-
tion may reflect struggles dealing with significant life events in some
important life domains associated with this developmental stage
(e.g., finding and maintaining a relationship with an intimate partner)
or altogether pursuing a different and less conventional mating strat-
egy for their developmental period. For example, empirical research
with college students show that hostility against women, cognitive
distortions supportive of rape and endorsing violence as a legitimate
behavioral strategy are significantly associated with sexual coercion
during that developmental stage (e.g., Malamuth, 1998). Hence, men
endorsing these beliefs may be more prone to use violence in a sexual
context in response to a conflict with their partner or in retaliation to a
perceived injustice. It could also be that some men may actively pur-
sue short-term and uncommitted sexual relationships in early adult-
hood (Lalumière & Quinsey, 1996) but have less success than during
adolescence as their young adult females might be less tempted by un-
committed sexual relationships during in early adulthood. Hence,
161
faced with increasing difficulties finding a sexual partner, these men
may revert to sexual coercion. The offending of this group warrants
further investigation, especially with self-report data on offending. In-
deed, the adult-onset offender may have had some involvement in de-
linquency in youth but managed somehow to avoid detection and
apprehension. In that regard, it would be interesting to examine de-
tection avoidance in sex offending during adolescence for this offend-
er group (Lussier, Bouchard & Beauregard, 2011).
The chronic juvenile offender grown up
The second group of adult-onset sex offenders found in this study is by
no means an adult-onset group. Indeed, while this second group
initiated their sex offending in adulthood, their general offending is in
continuation with a pattern of chronic offending that started earlier.
These findings replicate those observed in earlier reports (Zimring et al.,
2007). Based on official data, the study findings show that their offending
is frequent, serious and diversified in youth. Our study findings show that
chronic juvenile offenders, in spite of not being arrested for a sex crime in
youth, were at-risk of becoming ASO. While they represented slightly
more than 1 percent of the Dutch birth cohort, they were responsible
for more than 8 percent of sex crimes committed in adulthood. Hence,
this pattern suggests that as the frequency of general offending increases,
so does the likelihood of being arrested for a sex crime. This group may
be the most representative of Moffitt’s (1993) LCP offenders suggesting
a pattern of criminal versatility and escalation to sex offending. This LCP
group has been identified repeatedly in research studies conducted with
samples of adult sex offenders, especially sexual aggressors against
women and non-recidivist sexual aggressors of children (e.g., Lussier,
LeBlanc, & Proulx, 2005; Cale et al., 2009). Developmentalists interpret
this pattern of offending as evidence of heterotypic continuity (e.g.,
Lussier, Leclerc, Cale, & Proulx, 2007). Heterotypic continuity refers to
the continuity of conceptually related behaviors as opposed to the conti-
nuity of the exact same behavior (i.e., homotypic continuity). Hence, for
this group, sex offending is described merely as simply another manifes-
tation of an underlying propensity for general offending which mani-
fest itself differently in different social contexts across developmental
stages. Stated differently, contrary to the adult-onset offender, the sex
offending of this group may reflect long-lasting cumulative individual def-
icits (Lussier, LeBlanc, et al., 2005). Furthermore, Lussier, Proulx, et al.
(2005) hypothesized that their antisocial lifestyle may favor the commis-
sion of a sex offense by creating opportunities conducive for a sex crime,
among other things by favouring encounters with vulnerable and poten-
tial victims (e.g., drug users and addicts, teenage girls recruited by gang
members, prostitutes, etc.). In terms of prevention and intervention,
existing treatment programs with chronic juvenile offenders could be
complemented by adding components dealing with intimate relation-
ships, sexual education, and how their antisociality may manifest itself
in sexual, intimate contexts.
The study is not without limitations. It is based on a birth cohort of
Dutch youth and the findings may not apply to non-Dutch samples.
Furthermore, the study is based on official data and the study findings
should be interpreted accordingly. It would be important to replicate
this study using other source of information on offending. Moreover,
the current study examined offending in early adulthood and it is
expected that, with a longer follow-up in adulthood, more individuals
will commit a sex crime. More longitudinal studies are needed to ex-
amine the adult life outcomes of juvenile sex offenders at different
developmental stages in adulthood. The study also did not take into
account the type of sex crimes committed as more detailed informa-
tion was not available at the time of the research study. For example,
the research study did not compare the adult life outcomes of young
sex offenders against peers to those who offended against children.
While it was not a goal of this study, further research should investi-
gate whether the various groups of youth identified in this study dif-
fer in terms of developmental factors and whether specific risk and
protective factors could explain differential adult outcomes. Finally,
162 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163
and importantly, the study did not control for the potential impact of
criminal justice interventions (e.g., sentencing, treatment, supervi-
sion, etc.) which might have affected the trajectories of these youths.
This is an important point not sufficiently addressed in past research
that should be examined in light of the current study findings.
Conclusion
The current study examined the adolescence-adulthood transition
in a Dutch birth cohort prospective longitudinal study, most particularly
to address the continuity sex offending across these two developmental
stages. The main findings show that juvenile sex offenders are typically
adolescent-limited offenders whose sexual and nonsexual offending is
limited to the period of adolescence. Conversely, the vast majority of
adult sex offenders was not arrested for a sex crime in youth. For the
most part, therefore, the study findings suggest that JSO and ASO are
two distinct phenomenon. Albeit the discontinuity of sex offending
over time, the current longitudinal study identified some patterns of
continuity that warrant further examination in future research studies:
(a) the adolescent-limited sex offenders who persist offending in early
adulthood but nonsexually; (b) the adolescent sex offender who persist
sexually offending in early adulthood, and; (c) the chronic nonsexual
juvenile offender whose offending persists in early adulthood and esca-
lates to sex crimes. Together, these findings highlight the heterogeneity
of early negative adult outcomes for a subgroup of juvenile sex of-
fenders. It suggests that prevention and intervention programs should
be adapted to reflect such heterogeneity in adult outcomes and the
fact that, as far as offending is concerned, persistence of sex offending
is not the most prevalent negative outcome in emerging adulthood.
Note
1. This result suggest that sampling issues may explain observations from earlier
clinical studies having shown that JSO’s criminal history is less extensive than compar-
ison groups of non-sex offenders (see, Seto & Lalumière, 2010).
References
Abel, G., Becker, J. V., Mittelman, M., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Rouleau, J. L., & Murphy,
W. D. (1987). Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 2, 3–25.
Abel, G. G., & Rouleau, J. L. (1990). The nature and extent of sexual assault. In W. L.
Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues,
theories and treatment of the offender (pp. 9–21). New York: Plenum Press.
Amirault, J., & Lussier, P. (2011). Population heterogeneity, state dependence and sex-
ual offender recidivism: The aging process and the lost predictive impact of prior
criminal charges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 344–354.
Barbaree, H. E., Hudson, S. M., & Seto, M. C. (1993). Sexual assault in society: The role of
the juvenile offender. In H. E. Barbaree, W. L. Marshall, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), The
juvenile sex offende (pp. 1–24). New York: Guilford.
Becker, J. V. (1998). What we know about the characteristics and treatment of adoles-
cents who have committed sexual offenses. Child Maltreatment, 3, 317–329.
Bijleveld, C. (2007). Sex offenders and sex offending. Crime and Justice, 35, 319–387.
Blokland, A. A. J., Grimbergen, K., Bernasco, W., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2010). Criminaliteit
en etniciteit: Criminele carrieres van autochtone en allochtone jongeren uit het
geboortecohort 1984. Tijdschrift Voor Criminologie, 52, 122–152.
Blokland, A. A. J., & Lussier, P. (2013). Sex Offenders: A Criminal Career Approach. Oxford,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Blokland, A., & Palmen, H. (2012). Criminal career patterns. In R. Loeber, M. Hoeve, N. W.
Slot, & P. van der Laan (Eds.), Persisters and desisters in crime from adolescence into adult-
hood: Explanation, prevention and punishment (pp. 13–50). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
Blokland, A., & Van Wijk, A. Ph. (2008). Criminal careers of Dutch adolescent sex
offenders; a criminological perspective. In M. J. Smith (Ed.), Childhood Sexual
Abuse: Issues and Challenges (pp. 203–219). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.
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 offenders.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1, 83–90.
Caldwell, M. F. (2002). What we do not know about juvenile sexual reoffense risk. Child
Maltreatment, 7, 291–302.
Caldwell, F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex
offender recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 54, 197–212.
Cale, J., Lussier, P., & Proulx, J. (2009). Heterogeneity of antisocial trajectories in youth of
adult sexual aggressors of women: An examination of initiation, persistence, escala-
tion, and aggravation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 223–248.
Eggleston, E. P., & Laub, J. H. (2002). The onset of adult offending: A neglected dimen-
sion of the criminal career. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 603–622.
Hagan, M. P., & Gust-Brey, K. L. (1999). A ten-year longitudinal study of adolescent
rapists upon return to the community. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 43, 448–458.
Hendriks, J., & Bijleveld, C. (2008). Recidivism among juvenile sex offenders after
residential treatment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 14, 19–32.
Kemper, T. S., & Kistner, J. A. (2007). Offense history and recidivism in three victim-age
based groups of juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 19, 409–424.
Knight, R. A., Ronis, S. T., & Zakireh, B. (2009). Bootstrapping persistence risk indicators
for juveniles who sexually offend. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 878–909.
Knight, R. A., & Sims-Knight, J. E. (2003). Developmental antecedents of sexual coercion
against women: Testing of alternative hypotheses with structural equation
modeling. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior:
Understanding and management, 989. (pp. 72–85). New York: Annals of New York
Academy of Sciences.
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.
Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1996). Sexual deviance, antisociality, mating effort, and
the use of sexually coercive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 33–48.
Langstrom, N. (2002). Long-term follow-up of criminal recidivism in young sex
offenders: Temporal patterns and risk factors. Psychology, Crime and Law, 8, 41–58.
LeBlanc, M. (1998). Screening of serious and violent juvenile offenders: Identification,
classification, and prediction. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and
violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 167–193).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LeBlanc, M., & Loeber, R. (1998). Developmental criminology updated. Crime and
Justice: A Review of Research, 23, 115–198.
Lussier, P. (2005). The criminal activity of sexual offenders in adulthood: Revisiting the
specialization debate. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 269–292.
Lussier, P., Blokland, A. A. J., Mathesius, J., Pardini, D., & Loeber, R. (2013). The childhood
risk factors of adolescent-onset and adult-onset of sex offending: Evidence from a
prospective longitudinal study.
Lussier, P., & Mathesius, J. (2012). Criminal achievement, career initiation, and cost
avoidance: The onset of successful sex offending. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35,
376–394.
Lussier, P., LeBlanc, M., & Proulx, J. (2005). The generality of criminal behaviour: A con-
firmatory factor analysis of the criminal career parameters of sexual offenders.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 177–189.
Lussier, P., Leclerc, B., Cale, J., & Proulx, J. (2007). Developmental pathways of deviance
in sexual aggressors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1441–1462.
Lussier, P., Leclerc, B., Healey, J., & Proulx, J. (2007). Generality of Deviance and Preda-
tion: Crime-switching and Specialization Patterns in Persistent Sexual Offenders.
In M. Delisi & P.J. Conis (Eds.), Violent Offenders: Theory, Research, Public Policy,
and Practice. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Lussier, P., & Mathesius, J. (2012). Criminal achievement, career initiation, and cost
avoidance: The onset of successful sex offending. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35,
376–394.
Lussier, P., Proulx, J., & LeBlanc, M. (2005). Criminal propensity, deviant sexual interests
and criminal activity of sexual aggressors against women: A comparison of explan-
atory models. Criminology, 43, 249–281.
Lussier, P., Tzoumakis, S., Cale, J., & Amirault, J. (2010). Criminal trajectories of adult
sexual aggressors and the age effect: Examining the dynamic aspect of offending
in adulthood. International Criminal Justice Review, 20, 147–168.
Lussier, P., Bouchard, M., & Beauregard, E. (2011). Patterns of criminal achievement in
sexual offending: Unravelling the "successful sex offender". Journal of Criminal Jus-
tice, 39, 433–444.
Lussier, P., Van den Berg, C., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2012). A developmental taxonomy
of juvenile sex offenders for theory, research and prevention: The adolescent-limited
and the high-rate slow desister. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1559–1581.
Malamuth, N. M. (1998). The confluence model as an organizing framework for research on
sexually aggressive men: Risk moderators, imagined aggression, and pornography con-
sumption. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human Aggression: Theories, Research,
and Implications for Social Policy (pp. 229–245). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McCann, K., & Lussier, P. (2008). Antisociality, sexual deviance, and sexual reoffending
in juvenile sex offenders: A metaanalytical investigation. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 6, 363–385.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behav-
ior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 4, 674–701.
Nisbet, I., Wilson, P. H., & Smallbone, S. W. (2004). A prospective longitudinal study of
sexual recidivism among adolescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 16, 223–234.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm:
Background and recent developments. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A
Review of Research, 30. (pp. 359–506). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career re-
search: New analyses of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Reiss, I. L. (1960). Premarital sexual standards in America. New York: Free Press.
Robins, L. N. (1978). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult antisocial behaviour: replica-
tions from longitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine, 8, 611–622.
 P. Lussier, A. Blokland / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 153–163
Rubenstein, M., Yeager, C. A., Goodstein, C., & Lewis, D. O. (1993). Sexually assault-
ive male juveniles: A follow up. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 150,
262–265.
Seto, M. C., & Barbaree, H. E. (1997). Sexual aggression as antisocial behavior: A devel-
opmental model. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial
behavior (pp. 524–533). New York: Wiley.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sex
offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 526–575.
Sipe, R., Jensen, E., & Everett, R. (1998). Adolescent sexual offenders grown up: Recid-
ivism in young adulthood. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 109–124.
Smallbone, S. (2006). Social and psychological factors in the development of delin-
quency and sexual deviance. In H. E. Barbaree & W.L. Marshall (Eds.), The juvenile
sex offender (pp. 105–127) (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
163
van den Berg, C. J. W., Bijleveld, C. C. J. H., & Hendriks, J. (2011). Jeugdige
zedendelinquenten. Lange termijn criminele carrières en achtergrondkenmerken.
Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 53, 227–243.
Vandiver, D. M. (2006). A prospective analysis of juvenile male sex offenders. Character-
istics and recidivism rates as adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 673–688.
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Zimring, F. E. (2004). An American travesty: Legal responses to adolescent sexual
offending. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zimring, F., Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A., & Hays, S. (2009). Investigating the continuity of sex
offending: Evidence from the second Philadelphia birth cohort. Justice Quarterly, 26, 58–76.
Zimring, F. E., Piquero, A. R., & Jennings, W. R. (2007). Sexual delinquency in Racine:
Does early sex offending predict later sex offending in youth and young adulthood.
Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 507–534.