Investigation of Juvenile Sex Offenses - Report Example

INVESTIGATION OF JUVENILE SEX OFFENSES REFERENCING STYLE: APA Body Word Count: 3533 words Introduction Juvenile sex offense refers to sexual behavior or act committed without consent, equality or because of coercion or influential seduction. In other words, it is a sexual act that contravenes the criminal policy and committed by a person who is below eighteen years of age. The offenses themselves run the range of human conduct and determined by sexual desires of children and their creativity. These juvenile sexual offenders may engage in fonding, dry humping, frottage, anal or vaginal penetration or other types of aggressive sexual behavior. This paper seeks to explore the difficulties of sexual assault investigations involving juvenile sex offenders. Juvenile offenders can sometimes be predatory as other adult sexual offenders. This means that they are sometimes capable of conducting good planning of their offense and continue the offense over a long period. Receiving protection from the silence about the act, which is a major characteristic of sexual offenses, juvenile offenders can possess the techniques of running away and making arrangements to maneuver the process of investigation. This is a major characteristic of all sexual offenders. As such, combined efforts from all stakeholders, government, parents, religious organizations and learning institutions, are necessary to ensure all juveniles are informed of their expected conduct the repercussions of acting contrary to the set standards. Contrary to young offenders who mostly grow with the offending habit, juvenile sexual offenders have the tendency of growing into it. The behavior of most of the offenders escalates gradually over a long period rather than happening suddenly at once. More surprising is that the process of investigating juvenile sex offense is very complicated and difficult to yield positive results. Therefore, investigators require special techniques and training to bring the offenders into book and thus not all the time their efforts bear fruits (Vieth, 2001). Investigating Juvenile Sex Offenders The complicated dynamics of sexual abuse of a child offense presents numerous challenges in investigating. The investigator requires skills in linguistics, development of a child and knowledge of the factors that restrains children from reporting the offense. This is mainly because the children have not fully developed and usually imitate the adults. Therefore, child exposure to films with sex offence themes may directly or indirectly affect their conduct. In the situation where both the offender and the offended are children, then the challenges will exponentially, increase and more analysis of the individuals involved in order to make a concrete resolution. In case where the offender is also a victim of sexual abuse, the investigator has the difficulty of choosing whether he can treat the offender as a delinquent child or as a victim. In such a situations, both cases must be reviewed and the child addressed on both to enlighten him/her and assist them recover physiologically. Moreover, due to different groups emphasizing on child care, there might be a conflict between the investigation of a social worker and a police investigator because of their different view on the matter and this poses a problem in the manner they can reconcile (Vieth, 2001). In most cases, a police investigator has the burden of determining whether the conduct of the juvenile offender is a common sexual habit present in all young children or whether the behavior has deviated from the normal conduct and constitutes a criminal offense. The investigator must also evaluate whether the behavior shows that the offender is also a victim. Furthermore, the rights provided by the constitution to juvenile suspects are different from the ones for adults. Therefore, for the investigation to produce desirable results, the investigator must clearly understand the constitutional rights of juvenile suspects. The investigator must know the difference in the rights between juvenile suspects and other suspects to be able to come up with evidence that is acceptable for criminal proceedings (Finkelhor, 1991). These numerous challenges prompted many jurisdictions in the various states to recommend that a team approach be employed in the investigation of these cases. This however, adds up to another challenge because, if a case entails a juvenile sex offender, most local authorities lack a coordinated system of response. Part of this challenge is that social workers and police officers have varied view concerning the case; specialists in protection matters view juvenile suspects as victims while the police view juvenile suspects as offenders. Reconciliation is another serious difficulty and in some cases the two may fail to work in harmony (Finkelhor, 1991). However, the agencies that have established multi-disciplinary teams have the responsibility of ensuring that a team strategy is there for investigating juvenile sexual cases. If this is difficult to achieve, then it is necessary to develop a team that specifically deals with juvenile sex offenses. The utilization of this team approach method in investigating these cases aims at achieving improved communication, better decisions, better investigation, treatment as well as service delivery. For the society to minimize the challenges of investigating juvenile sexual offenses, then it is necessary to put seriousness in establishing multi-disciplinary teams (Vieth, 2001). Another common difficulty in investigating juvenile sex offenses is that many people in the society lack seriousness or the crucial allegations. The society dismisses such habit in view that it is simply sexual experimentation, sexual curiosity or a natural situation that is always present for a person who is maturing sexually. This therefore leads to lack of seriousness and hence neglecting the problem. In this condition, investigating the case becomes very difficult since there is very limited support from the society. This means that no intervention during the important stage of development of the problem at the time when the victim starts showing the symptoms. The major problem is that most of these juvenile sexual offenses present a component of childish conduct or horseplay. Considering the case as horseplay may sometimes cause over-estimation of the problem (Vieth, 2001). In assessing the seriousness of the sexual behavior of the child offended, the investigators must possess a clear knowledge that will enable them to differentiate between normal sexual behavior and an abnormal sexual behavior among children. This will enable the investigators have the capability of analyzing the various complex situations that exist. For instance, there might be a report from a school that a boy has grabbed the penis of another boy. In the process of considering whether to take legal action against that child offender, the investigators must establish if the behavior shows that the juvenile offender is also a victim of the abuse. This is because, young children usually engage in various sexual acts that are common to almost all of them. In fact, children not sexually abused exhibit a large range of sexual practices at reasonably great frequencies that involve self-stimulatory conduct as well as exhibition (Vieth, 2001). If the conduct of the child is within the class of abnormal behavior, then the investigator can deal with the behavior as one that needs attention. If we rule out the explanation concerning the behavior being not abusive, such as watching pornographic films, then the sexual conduct is a good indication of sexual abuse. In this case, the investigator can evaluate the possibility of child abuse. The process of interviewing the child should not only base on the behavior of the child but also on the behavior of others towards the child (Fehrenbach et.al., 1986). When interrogating the offended child at home, an investigator is always required not only to ask about the assumed offense committed by the offender, but must also make an effort in establishing whether the child was touched incongruously with another person. During investigation, when the investigator wins the opportunity of interviewing the offended child directly, there are high chances that the child will admit victimization. However, when the investigator fails to obtain the opportunity of interviewing the offended directly, most of the secrets will stay intact. Therefore, many of the offended children cannot tell anything about genital touching until interrogated directly (Finkelhor, 1991). There is no universal approach applicable to all cases concerning juvenile sexual offenses. Nevertheless, investigators must move slowly and carefully when judging these cases because it is very difficult to come up with the exact interpretation of the event. Lack of maturity, curiosity and many other factors may cause the misconduct among these offenders. Therefore, the investigator has no autonomy of considering every juvenile offender as one who deserves serious charges. The behavior of each juvenile offender is very personal and the investigation should treat each case separately or independently. This means that the conclusion derived from one case cannot reflect to other cases irrespective of their similarity. This therefore means that individuals investigating these cases must possess high level of flexibility, and they need to be extra careful, when using labels to these juvenile offenders (Russell, 2013). Labeling children as pedophiles or rapists has the tendency of stigmatizing them and isolating them from their peers, their adults and prospective sources of both social as well as psychological assistance. There should therefore be much consideration in being more descriptive when discussing underage persons and harmful terminologies should not appear. This is because, in dealing with this matter, failure to use the correct methods may produce effects that tend to escalate the problem. This means that the process of investigating these cases must proceed carefully, patiently and be free from hasty judgments before complete examination of the matter (Leibowitz, 2003). Unlike in the sexual offenses involving mature people, juvenile sex offenses require the collection of more information to enable the investigator have the capability of making the correct interpretation. This means that the process of investigating juvenile sexual offenses takes longer time and may require the use of unique approaches. The process will also compel the investigator to interview many persons while weighing the answers produced by each one of them. For example, the investigator will have to interview the parents of the victim, the offender, the victim, the teacher and any other person with some knowledge about the case or the behavior of any of the individuals involved. This is because the previous behavior of the offender can help determine the intention of the current case (Kokrda, 2005). In the process of investigating these juvenile sexual offenders, investigators need to have good knowledge of the relevant case and the laws of the state governing the process of investigation. Juveniles enjoy rights provided by the constitution and the interpretation of these rights is more difficult than in the other cases involving mature people. For instance, juveniles charged in criminal behavior courts have a right in opposition to self-incrimination. In establishing the totality of the situation, courts looks at the age of the juvenile, his previous experience with the law, the physical and the mental fitness at the time of the event, availability of counsel, availability of parents and other relevant factors. The factors to consider are more than the ones considered in dealing with the other similar cases involving mature persons. This makes the process of investigating more difficult (Varnon, 2005). Various jurisdictions propose the cautious way and read the rights of the juvenile even when not in custody. This approach also requires that the parents be present during the interview and give an indication of their waiver about the rights of the child. Despite the fact that the cautious rule enhances the possibility of profession believed to be voluntary, this approach interferes with the process of investigation and impairs the ability of the officer to provide protection to both the victim and the juvenile offender. Because of the high denial level of the offender, the presence of the parents may make it very difficult for the suspect to confess responsibility for his behavior. In the case the juvenile offender is also a child victim in the control of his parents, the presence of parents will interfere with the process of interrogation. If there is fear that the conduct of the child will reflect back to the mature offender, then the parent may prevent the child from speaking to the investigating person. Therefore this protective method greatly interferes with the process of investigation. With the protection from inappropriate coercion, officers investigating the offense can decide to make an audio or video tape during the process of interviewing the suspect. Failure by the officer to make such a record may prompt the juvenile to claim that the process of confession was not autonomous. The credibility of the officer in his interrogation will be in question if the officer fails to produce a recording (Johnson, 1999). Because of the idea of casting all sex offenders including juvenile sex offenders in the same manner, most investigators in the community and other players develop a tendency of treating all sex offenders in the same manner. This means that there is high probability of failure in the part of juvenile sex offenders since the nature of their offenses present some unique characteristics. Despite the similarities in these offenses with the ones committed by matured people, juvenile sex offenses are different in terms reasons for commitment of the offenses as well as the behavior of the offenders. Any approach that will not put these factors into consideration is obviously not going to produce the desired outcomes (Borduin, Schaeffer & Heiblum 2009). Professional favoritisms as well as stereotypes concerning the victims as well as the juvenile offenders can greatly interfere with the process of investigation. For example, family relationship between the victim and the offender and the delays in reporting the case may cause serious difficulty in the process of investigation. This is because, as time lapses, evidence continue to diminish and the offender will have a chance of planning how to manipulate and interfere with the investigation. Sometimes the victim may not decide to report for fear of the consequences after reporting. For example, sometimes the victim may not disclose the information for financial gains. Some may have received intimidation from the offenders hence fear for physical damage from the offender. This is very common in cases where the offender is somehow older than the victim. Sometimes the family can decide to hide the case because they feel that such a shameful case may ruin the image of the family (Caballero, 2004). In some cases, the juvenile sex offender and the victim according to an explanation given by Geer (2008), may be coming from different families. The process of investigation in this case becomes very complicated. In this case, the investigator must be very careful putting into consideration the possible reactions that may emerge from family members because of the investigation. Families may split because some members may believe in the allegations while others may not be willing to accept leading to quarrels. This means that the investigators must be very sensitive to the responses of the victim, offenders and the family members. These negative responses may include anger, despair, confusion, suspicion among others. Acute guilt may influence victims to hide the allegations and in some cases, be influenced by others not to disclose the allegations to the investigators (Geer, 2008). In many states, it is not possible to charge a young offender with felony. The idea is that a young offender is not capable of incriminating himself. In this case, some of the amendment issues cannot find application. In civil cases, the prosecutor can ask the juvenile offender to the stand of the witness and ask the juvenile offender to respond to questions under an oath. If the juvenile is at an age that allows the court to charge him for criminal behavior, the investigator can decide to confer with the prosecution prior to the process of interrogation. On the other hand, if the investigator and the prosecutor are not sure about the evidence gathered, the juvenile will not have charges. The officer may then be free to discuss with the juvenile in a friendlier manner. If the juvenile learn that he will not face charges, he may feel freer and agree to discuss his conduct (Vieth, 2001). In the process of investigating juvenile sex offenses, the effects of trauma on the victim can greatly reduce his or her ability to explain the experience. The memory of the victim can suffer and emotional deadness can greatly complicate the process of questioning. The investigator may be lacking adequate skills in interviewing a person with psychological problems especially if the victim is a child. The investigator will also have the burden of identifying a counselor who can assist a traumatized individual to give information regarding his or her experience. In some severe conditions, investigators may also suffer from constant traumatization if they handle a large number of traumatized individuals (Borduin, Schaeffer & Heiblum 2009). However, another challenge in this case according to Markman (2007) is that the players need to observe a lot of care when informing the juvenile that he will not face charges. First, the interviewer and the investigator have to produce extra and more serious allegations that will guarantee legal act. In addition, the juvenile offender may have involved in more than one offense. In all cases, the officer must understand that the idea of just reading the warning may not be enough. Consequently, a defense attorney can argue that despite the fact that his client said he understood the warning, the juvenile age, emotional status and cognitive development prevented him from achieving a true understanding of the warning. To deal with this attack, the investigator will have to read a section of the warning, discontinue and then ask the juvenile whether he has understood the content. If the child admits that he understood, he will then ask him to speak what he has heard in his own words. This makes the process more complex for the investigator and coming up with a good proof may in some cases be totally impossible (Markman, 2007) Finally, another difficulty in investigating juvenile sex offenses is that children have a constitutional right that protects them from searches and seizures that are naturally not reasonable. Therefore, during investigation, it is very difficult to gather information if there is the necessity of entering a child’s room or property. In most cases, investigators have to obtain a warrant (Wind, 2003). Conclusion The process of investigating sexual assault involving juvenile offenders is very complex right from the beginning to the end. There are numerous unique features that make the investigation process very difficult compared to the sexual offenses committed by mature people. The age and the environment under which these incidences occur pose a barrier to the process of investigation. This explains why very few individuals are capable of acquiring the special skills required in the investigation of these cases. Unlike in the other cases involving mature people, where the investigation simply targets the offender, the investigation in juvenile sex offenses must target both the offender and the individuals associated with the offender. The greatest challenge comes when the investigator has to first establish whether the case is a sexual offence or is just normal child sexual exhibition. However, the society should revive their seriousness in dealing with juvenile sex offenders as this behavior may grow up in these persons in the future. Any strategy aiming at dealing with the problem of juvenile sex offenses must consider all the important factors such as family status and the environment that these offenses occur. Psychological preparations are necessary for all the parties involved right from parents to the victims and the offenders themselves. The idea is not to punish or cause damages to these juvenile sex offenders but to reverse the situation for the benefit of the society. Due to the fact that children are deemed to pick different traits from the people in their vicinity, mostly parents, parents may interfere with the investigation by informing their kids to be non-cooperative for the purpose of maintaining the family image. Moreover, in some instances, children need their parent for them to be cooperative while in other cases, the presence of the parents interferes with their freedom to respond as whatever they might have done may be against what they have been taught by their parent and thus fear punishment from the parents. More importantly, there are different groups that advocate for the rights of children and thus confrontation and disagreement between the different parties involved usually interfere with the investigation. Despite this, the execution of the investigation by a single person may lead to biasedness and thus cooperation between different entities involved is necessary. Moreover, children are among the most protected group of the society and thus proper consideration of all the rules as enshrined in the constitution is necessary to ensure that there is no breach. In that regard, professionals from the legal doctrine ought to offer the outlined steps and necessary legal action on persons who interferes with the investigation Additionally, investigations can interfere with the children physiologically, which consequently affects their response in regard to the accusations made. In this case, they ought to be given the necessary medication before any progress is made. Therefore, due to the nature of the children being under the guidance of their parents and there being numerous laws and individuals advocating for their rights ad care, investigating juvenile sex offenders is a complex process. References Borduin, C., M., Schaeffer, C. & Heiblum, M. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 77(1), 26. Caballero, K. L. (2004). Blended Sentencing: A Good Idea for Juvenile Sex Offenders. . Journal of Civil rights and economic development. 19(2), 379. Fehrenbach et al. (1986). Adolescent sexual offenders: Offender and offense characteristics. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56(2), 225. Finkelhor, D. (1991). Child sexual abuse. Violence in America–a public health approach, 14(1), 79-94. Geer, P. (2008). Justice Served-The High Cost of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration. Dev. Mental Health L., 27(33). Johnson, C. (1999). Traumatic Amnesia in the New Millennium: A New Approach to Exhumed Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Hamline J. Pub. L. & Poly, 19(21), 140-181. Kokrda, J. M. (2005). Juvenile Sex Offenders and the Virginia Transfer Statute: Let Treatment Fit the Crime. Dev. Mental Health L., 24(1). Leibowitz, J. (2003). Criminal Statutes of Limitations: An Obstacle to the Prosecution and Punishment of Child Sexual Abuse. Cardozo L. Rev., 907(910). Markman, J. S. (2007). Community notification and the perils of mandatory juvenile sex offender registration: The dangers faced by children and their families. Viewed 15 November, 2014, Russell, A. (2013). Multidisciplinary Response to Youth with Sexual Behavior Problems. Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., 40(3), 1058-1082. Varnon, J. S. (2005). Difficult Decisions: Should Alabama Laws Be Tougher on Juvenile Sexual Offenders. Ala. L. Rev., 57(3)), 205. Vieth, V. I. (2001). When the Child Abuser is a Child: Investigating, Prosecuting and Treating Juvenile Sex Offenders in the New Millenium. Retrieved from, < http://www.thechildcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Handout-Juvenile-Sex-Offenders-Vieth.pdf> Wind, T. E. (2003). Quandary of Megans Law: When the Child Sex Offender Is a Child, The. J. Marshall L. Rev. 37(73). Read More