Adolescent Sex Offending: an Analysis of Judicial Sentencing Remarks

The sentencing of young people convicted of sexual violence presents a dilemma: how to reconcile the seriousness of the offence and the youthfulness of the offender? And how to censure these offences and stress their seriousness without imposing penalties that are too harsh? The literature suggests that adult sex offenders, especially those who abuse children, are dealt with in an increasingly punitive manner, but there is a lack of research on the legal treatment of youthful sex offenders. This thesis builds on an archival study of 385 sexual offence cases, which were disposed of in court and by conference and formal caution, in South Australia from 1995 to 2001. Using the sentencing remarks in all those cases sentenced by judges, this study examines the specific processes and discourses that occur during the sentencing of youthful sex offenders. I specifically explore three questions. The first asks how cases of youthful sexual offending and the offenders are characterised? Second, what are the judges’ orientations and aims at sentencing? And third, what is the character of the judges’ moral and personal communication with the young persons? This study’s most striking finding is the identification of a three-way typology, which runs through virtually all the findings, and captures the different ways that judges understand, interpret, and respond to the cases. Category 1 cases, which have children and siblings as victims, are viewed as most serious and thought to require an intensive therapeutic intervention. Offenders in Category 2, which contains cases of coercive sexual behaviour against peers as well as serious general offending, are not perceived as having a specific sexual problem, but it is their violent and generally antisocial behaviour, and their persistent offending that cause concern. Category 3 cases are viewed as instances of consensual underage sex, and judges believe the youths will stop offending with maturity. When sentencing, judges take a futureoriented perspective and their foremost aim is to try to stop further offending. Judges censure the offences and provide norms of conduct to the adolescents in their relationships, and stress the importance of taking responsibility for their future behaviour. There are problems with how judges address the question of victim consent. In cases with child victims (half the cases) judges do not minimise the seriousness of the harm, but in about a third of cases with older adolescent victims, judges interpret these cases as consensual underage sex, when victims had reported they had been raped. The study suggests that, in these cases, an intervention that challenges the offenders’ beliefs and attitudes toward girls and women would be appropriate.