Friends of the Forensic Science Club, this week we present the paper “Juvenile Homicide Offenders Look Back 35 years later: Reasons They Were Involved In Murder” by Heide, K. M. (2020), in which the author carries out a series of interviews with people that, in their youth, served time for committing murders, to investigate which are the causes that made them commit them, according to their own opinion.

 The homicide committed by young people and the subsequent treatment of justice with them, has been a controversial issue and to which experts have paid attention especially since the last century.

When young people engage in violent crime, especially murder, society questions why, and what should be done about them.

In the context of the United States there are two periods in which the murders committed by minors increased. The first occurred between 1960 and 1975, when juvenile arrests for murder and homicide increased by 200%. The second stage occurred between 1984 and 1993, when arrests of minors went from 1,004 to 3,284. In addition, of these arrests, the percentage of homicides went from 7.3% to 16.2%.

This significant increase in the involvement of minors in murders also occurred at a time when the youth population was declining.

Experts warned the nation to expect a wave of young predators and predicted there would be a continued escalation in child murders in the coming years.

In response to this phenomenon, a series of laws were passed in the United States in the late 1980s and 1990s that facilitated the transfer of juveniles involved in serious crimes such as murder to adult court.

Juveniles convicted in the adult criminal justice system during that period, like them, were subject to the death penalty, life in prison without parole, and long prison terms.

In the 21st century, the courts of the United States recognized that minors have a different development from that of adults. Because their brains are not fully developed, they are less equipped to critically assess situations and tend to be more impulsive. They are also more vulnerable to peer pressure and have limited ability to extricate themselves from unfavorable environments in their homes or neighbourhoods.

Some experts investigate what happened to these young people once a few years had passed since the crime was committed. Those who had been released from prison, had they reoffended? Those who had not been released, had they reoffended in prison?

Vries and Liem followed 137 young people convicted of homicide who were admitted to juvenile facilities in the Netherlands. The follow-up was carried out for a period between 1 and 16 years. 59% were sentenced again for other crimes, including more murders.

These authors consider that age at first arrest, age at time of homicide, number of prior crimes, and relationships with criminal friends were significant predictors of crime.

To analyze recidivism, impressions regarding their crimes, and other factors, the author conducted a series of interviews with people who were part of the sample of one of Heide’s studies.

Heide conducted five follow-up studies of a group of young men convicted of murder, attempted murder, or homicide. These young people had been tried in adult courts with the consequent penalties.

At the time of writing this article, these young people were already a little over 50 years old, because 35 had passed since the first study. They were given semi-structured interviews with open and closed questions about their experiences in prison, their post-release experiences, recidivism, and were asked preferably what the reasons were for getting into trouble.

One factor stands out as the most important reason. 70% of the participants identified peer pressure as the most influential factor in their criminal involvement. More than 50% said that the most important factors were drug addiction, in addition to living with daily crime in their neighborhoods.

This is consistent with subcultural theory and social disorganization theory.

Only a third of those interviewed said they acted impulsively. We must remember that impulsiveness is a very significant feature of psychopathy and a major factor in the self-control theory of crime, which is sometimes also called the general theory of crime.

Within the limitations of the study, the author points out that the follow-up period should be reduced, since some subjects who participated in the original study had already died when these interviews were conducted.

She proposes dissuading rehabilitated youth from returning to their old neighborhoods, particularly if their homes were in communities where crime was common. It is also recommended that they do not associate with their old friends if they still live in this environment.

If you want to know more about the criminal mind, criminal profiling, and forensic science, don’t miss our Certificate in Criminal Profiling, a 100% online program certified by Heritage University (USA), with special grants for the Forensic Science Club readers

Author

Write A Comment

Forensic Science Club