Juvenile Sex Offenders in Turkey: A Study on Offense Characteristics,Risk Factors,and the Differences between Juvenile Sex Offenders and Other Juvenile Offenders

Abstract

Based on a data set (n = 920) derived from court files of adjudicated youth in one of the largest court districts in Turkey, this study represents the first systematic attempt to understand juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) and their offenses in this contemporary urban context. The study results show, first off, that sexual offending among Turkish youth has been increasing at a rate comparable to that of other Western societies. Secondly, the victims of the sex offenses examined in the study were mostly of the opposite sex (female), were typically younger than the offenders, and commonly were acquaintances (friends, family, partners). Thirdly, the results indicated that the JSOs were significantly different from other juvenile offenders, and in terms of most of the risk factors used in juvenile justice assessments they had an advantage over the other juvenile offenders. These results are discussed in light of findings reported in previous studies, along with considerations relating to the public policy implications and the research recommendations arising from the outcomes of this foundational research.

Keywords

juvenile sex offenders delinquency risk factors victims turkey

Introduction

This study represents the first attempt, to our knowledge, to explore JSOs in Turkey based on data retrieved from a large archive of juvenile court records. We seek to enhance the scientific foundation for understanding more fully the issue of how to best deal with JSOs, and we seek to do this through the use of a comparative international approach. While sexual offending during adolescence is not very likely to persist into adulthood (Beaudry-Cyr et al., 2017; Calleja, 2015; Chaffin, 2008; Ryan & Otonichar, 2016), JSOs” recidivism rate for non-sexual offending is relatively high (McCann & Lussier, 2008). Hence, juvenile sex offenders¹ (JSOs) are of great concern in Turkey similar to many other countries principally because of their potential for victimizing minors (Finkelhor et al., 2009; Ryan & Otonichar, 2016) along with some vulnerable adults. The concepts of “juvenile” and “sex crimes” are dealt with in two major statutes under the laws of Turkey: The Child Protection Code (CPC) (#5395)² and the Turkish Criminal Code (TCC) (#5237).³ Both of these statutes classify every individual under the age of 18 as a juvenile. The CPC requires establishing juvenile courts in each judicial district, and mandates trying every juvenile defendant in those courts according to the special regulations indicated therein (with some limited exceptions). The minimum age of criminal responsibility is 12 according to these laws, and between 12 and 18 years of age juveniles are assumed to have limited responsibility for their criminal behavior.

In relation to the perceived danger of sex crimes committed by juveniles, many countries have enacted laws requiring harsher punishments for JSO as well as registering them like adult sex offenders (Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014). More importantly, a sizeable body of research has indicated the presence of complexities in dealing with this offender subgroup, such as enduring effects of their own past victimization, the lack of timely treatment opportunities to address their problems, and the adult-only appropriateness of the reactive punitiveness doled out to them for their offenses (Beaudry-Cyr et al., 2017; Meiners, 2015; Piquero & Steinberg, 2010; Rasmussen et al., 2013). Finally, earlier and current research findings regarding the substantial heterogeneity of that group (Fox, 2017; Hunter, 2018; Hunter et al., 2003), and the clear need to identify variations among the JSOs and determine appropriate measures that can be used to rehabilitate each type of them (Fanelli, 2018; Fanniff & Kolko, 2012) are other reasons for the increasing attention on juvenile sex offenders.

According to the FBI’s Unified Crime Report (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2018), juveniles constitute almost 17% of all arrests related to sex offenses, excluding rape and prostitution, and almost 16% of all rape-related arrests in 2017 in the US. According to the same 2017 statistics, the total number of juveniles arrested for sex offenses increased by 1.2% from the previous year, and the total number of juveniles arrested for rape increased by 6.3% in the US. Juveniles constituted about 18% percent of all sex offenders in Australia between 2012 and 2013 (Warner & Bartels, 2015), while this offense rate was around 17% in England and Wales as of 2018 (Office for National Statistics [ONS], 2018; see Ryan, 2018, for a broader discussion of the prevalence of sex offenses committed by juveniles). Turkish Judicial Statistics (TJS, 2018) indicated that 13.5% of all sexual offenses and 17% of all rape offenses were committed by juveniles in 2017 in Turkey; this represents a 114% increase in the number of adjudicated JSOs over the past decade (from 2,482 in 2007 to 5,331 in 2018). In that same time frame, according to the same set of official statistics, the percentage of sex offenders who are JSOs increased from 12.3% to 13.5% in Turkey. It should, however, be noted that a significant proportion of juvenile sex offenses might not be detected and officially recorded (Riser et al., 2013).

Several studies have reported that almost half of all adult sex offenders commit their first sex offense during their adolescence. The review of the Turkish-language literature on JSOs in Turkey yielded only limited information on the subject matter, and only informed our own work with respect to the level of presence of JSOs in two separate study populations. Yıldız (2012), for instance, reported that 26% of the sex offenders she examined in a prison setting were under the age of 18. Similarly, Şengül et al. (2012) examined the court files of a large juvenile court and reported that 39.8% of the cases involved sexual offenses committed by juveniles. However, we could not locate a single study examining the offense and offender characteristics for JSOs in Turkey.

Due to the aforementioned concerns and conflicting figures on incidence, the number of scientific publications on JSOs has increased significantly in recent years—going from “a handful” before the mid-1980s to more than 200 published studies by 2009 (Budd & Bierie, 2018; Finkelhor et al., 2009; van Wijk et al., 2006). Even so, reliable information on many aspects of JSOs remains limited (Fox & Delisi, 2018) meaning that further exploration of the risk factors, appropriate prevention strategies, and effective treatment programs related to JSOs is highly warranted (Riser et al., 2013; Rosa et al., 2018). Furthermore, the degree of distinctiveness of juvenile sex offenders—that is, whether they are significantly different from other juvenile offenders as a group—continues to be a critically important unresolved empirical question (Blokland & Lussier, 2015). Accordingly, this study strives to compare juvenile sex offenders’ personal and social characteristics with juvenile non-sex offenders in the Turkish context. Doing so, the overarching goal of this study is to shed further much-needed light on that very issue of distinctiveness through a systematic analysis of the personal and environmental risk factors for a group of adjudicated juveniles in a non-Western context.

Literature Review

Known Characteristics of JSOs

Although there is a common consensus on the great difficulty of predicting the occurrence of the first sex offense among youth (Ryan & Otonichar, 2016), understanding the specific risk factors and the characteristics of persistent JSOs have been of interest to scholars for quite some time. This focus on early risk factor identification is mostly due to the widely shared belief that prevention and intervention programs targeting potential sex offenders stand a better chance of success if undertaken at earlier stages of life (Riser et al., 2013). Likewise, identifying the higher-risk JSOs early on could help to focus resources on these individuals and minimize the collateral consequences of publicly labeling all first-time JSOs through a registry (Beaudry-Cyr et al., 2017). Hence, several published studies have identified several vulnerabilities and risk factors for both initial involvements and recidivism among JSOs, at both the individual level and the aggregate social level.

Individual-level characteristics

Being male was identified as the single most powerful predictor of being a JSO (Finkelhor et al., 2009; Fox, 2017). Second, several personality characteristics, certain behavioral problems, as well as several psycho-pathologies are intertwined with sexual offending among youth (Gamache et al., 2012; Keogh, 2012). Conduct disorder (Kavoussi et al., 1988), high impulsivity, having learning disabilities (Hackett et al., 2013), showing low empathy, suffering from depression, presence of psychosis (Fox, 2017), and experiencing deviant sexual interests (Ryan & Otonichar, 2016) were commonly identified psychological issues for JSOs in the research literature. Similarly, Andrade et al. (2006) have reported that aggressive behavior, sexual frustration, feelings of inadequacy, and disinhibition were generally determined to constitute noteworthy psychological issues for many JSOs. The JSOs were also found to be inclined to more often display antisocial behavior and poor social integration than their non-sexual offending counterparts (Dwyer & Letourneau, 2011). On the other hand, Finkelhor et al. (2009) indicated that the JSOs tended to act as members of a group of sexually active peers, and typically relied less on physical violence as compared to adult sex offenders.

Third, the earlier studies indicated that JSOs generally commit their first offense at a relatively young age, and mostly commit felonies in their subsequent justice-system involvement (Calleja, 2015; Christiansen & Vincent, 2013; Fox, 2017; Ryan & Otonichar, 2016). Lastly, the earlier studies indicated that most JSOs had experienced sexual abuse in their youth (Fox, 2017) and some other types of trauma-inducing experiences or maltreatment while they were growing up (Rasmussen & Miccio-Fonseca, 2007). Miyaguchi and Shirataki (2014) reported that exposure to trauma in general, not only sexual abuse, was common among the JSOs. Karsten and Dempsey (2018) reported that victimization from parental neglect was more common than victimization from physical and sexual abuse among JSOs.

Family and social characteristics

Previous studies have reported that JSOs usually experience some level of persisting conflict within their families (Dwyer & Letourneau, 2011; Karsten & Dempsey, 2018). These adverse and conflictual situations may be related to general family dynamics, problematic interactions and communications among the family members, resulting in lack of affection and cohesion, and weak bonding with parents (Ryan, 2018; Veneziano & Veneziano, 2002; Yoder et al., 2018). Along with those issues residing within the context of their families, JSOs tend to experience problems in school as well. They are, for instance, more likely to be school dropouts (Christiansen & Vincent, 2013; Fox, 2017), or exhibit behaviors such as truancy or conduct disorder while at school, and exhibit learning-related limitations (Veneziano & Veneziano, 2002). Lastly, some studies have indicated that JSOs tend to associate with other delinquent peers at higher rates than other juvenile non-sex offenders (DeGue et al., 2013; Dwyer & Letourneau, 2011).

Offense characteristics

Though limited in scope and number, several published studies have identified some characteristics of the types of sex offenses committed by JSOs. In this regard, Finkelhor et al. (2009) reported that most JSOs they studied had victimized their peers or younger children who were known to them before the offense for which they were adjudicated (see also Finkelhor et al., 2009; Riser et al., 2013). Finkelhor et al. (2009) also stressed that male children, especially those under 12 years old, were at heightened risk of being sexually victimized by an older juvenile to the same extent as female children. Lastly, they reported that the JSOs also tended to target older people as they got older—they often did not display a fixed attraction to other children.

Along the same lines, in Hackett et al.’s 2013 study, most of the victims (75.2%) were under 11 years old, and 17% of them were adults. In the same study, 19% of the JSOs had only victimized males while 51% had abused only females, and another 30% had abused both males and females. In the cases they examined, 50% did not feature any physical contact, like indecent exposure.

Hackett et al. (2013) also reported that most offenses committed by JSOs happened either on school grounds or in residential facilities (see also Finkelhor et al., 2009). Leclerc et al. (2007) reported that JSOs’ assaults of children under the age of 12 occurred mostly at the residence of the offender when no adult was at home. Williams et al. (2014) indicated that the high-school-age JSOs tended to target their peers when they were under the influence of alcohol (see also Hunter et al., 2003; as cited in Riser et al., 2013).

What Do We Know About the Differences Between the JSOs and Other Juvenile Offenders?

The literature on the characteristics of the risk factors of JSOs suggests that there is a large overlap between JSOs and other delinquents. Ryan and Otonichar (2016) indicated that JSOs are more similar to other juvenile delinquents than are adult sex offenders. However, Zakireh et al. (2008) pointed out that only a “few studies have included appropriate comparison groups (e.g., juvenile offenders who have not committed sexual crimes). Without such control groups, it is difficult to determine whether the observed results are linked with sexual offending in particular or with delinquency in general” (p. 324). Therefore, recent studies have focused on identifying how, and with regard to what kind of factors, JSOs differ from other delinquents. Identifying those differences could help tailor prevention and intervention programs for the specific needs of JSOs rather than treating them in the same way as all other delinquents within the juvenile justice system are treated. Similar to that perspective, the sex offender treatment programs started to differentiate between adult and juvenile sex offenders since the early 1990s (Frye, 2019).

In this respect, the previous studies exploring the differences between JSOs and other juvenile offenders identified three groups of variables: (a) those that did not differ across the two groups; (b) those in which the JSOs were better situated over other delinquents; and (c) those in which the other delinquents were better situated over the JSOs. First off, the earlier studies did not find a significant difference between the two offender groups in terms of general, antisocial personality traits, attitudes, beliefs, early conduct problems, intelligence, (Seto & Lalumière, 2010), having engaged in earlier sexual activity (Margari et al., 2015), having an ineffective coping style when dealing with negative emotions (Margari et al., 2015), lacking in peer attachment (Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014; Yoder et al., 2018), and manifesting higher-than-normal sensation-seeking urges (Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014).

Second, according to the earlier studies, the JSOs, compared to other juvenile offenders, were less likely to have criminogenic tendencies (extensive criminal history, pro-criminal attitudes, prior criminal records, etc.) (Driemeyer et al., 2013; Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014; Margari et al., 2015; Pullman et al., 2014; Seto & Lalumière, 2010⁴), alcohol/drug abuse problem (Falligant et al., 2017; Fanelli, 2018; Seto & Lalumière, 2010), delinquent or antisocial friends (Fox, 2017; Seto & Lalumière, 2010), a previous boyfriend/girlfriend (Pullman et al., 2014), had consensual sex (Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014; Margari et al., 2015; Pullman et al., 2014), behavioral control or impulsivity problems (Margari et al., 2015), and emotional abuse experience (Fox, 2017).

Third, previous studies indicated that JSOs were more likely to have the following risk factors compared to other juvenile offenders: male gender (Fox, 2017; Margari et al., 2015); sexual abuse experiences (Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014; Fox, 2017; Pullman et al., 2014; Seto & Lalumière, 2010); early exposure to sex, pornography, and intrafamilial sexual violence; sexual anomalies (Driemeyer et al., 2013; Pullman et al., 2014; Seto & Lalumière, 2010; Wanklyn et al., 2012); dysfunctional perceptions of parental bonding (Margari et al., 2015; Yoder et al., 2018), previous felony arrests (Fox, 2017); having a criminal family member; and being raised by an adolescent mother (Wanklyn et al., 2012).

Lastly, the earlier research pertaining to the differences between JSOs and other delinquents features inconsistent findings as regards to having a single parent (Margari et al., 2015; Pullman et al., 2014), having a physical abuse history (Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014; Fox, 2017; Pullman et al., 2014; Seto & Lalumière, 2010), having psychopathological and psychiatric issues (Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014; Fox, 2017; Pullman et al., 2014; Seto & Lalumière, 2010), social problems (Pullman et al., 2014; Seto & Lalumière, 2010), age of onset of criminal activities (Fanelli, 2018; Fox, 2017; Seto & Lalumière, 2010), and school-related problems (Falligant et al., 2017; Fanelli, 2018; Margari et al., 2015; Wanklyn et al., 2012).

Implications for Current Research

This study seeks to contribute to the body of evidence on the distinctiveness of JSOs by comparing their characteristics with the characteristics of other types of juvenile offenders. Along the same lines, this study attempts to explore the predictors of being a sex offender rather than any other type of offender among Turkish juvenile offenders. Lastly, this study addresses the lack of comparative research to explore possible differences across different societies’ experiences with JSOs. This lack of systematic comparative analyses is an important and widely known limitation in the relevant research literature (Beaudry-Cyr et al., 2017; Hart, 2016). This study seeks to address this limitation by expanding the relevant body of knowledge through the exploration of data on JSOs and their offenses in the under-studied Turkish society context. Hence, the last important objective for this study is to spearhead the deeper exploration of, and improve our understanding of, the personal and social background characteristics of JSOs and their offenses in Turkish society.

In sum, the objectives of this study can be stated in three broad research questions as follows:

Research Question 1: How do JSOs differ from other juvenile offenders in Turkey?

Research Question 2: What are the predictors of being a JSO rather than any other type of juvenile offender in Turkey?

Research Question 3: What are the differences, if any, between the characteristics of Turkish JSOs, and JSOs in other societies?

Method

Data

The present data were collected through a retrospective examination of the court files of adjudicated youth in one of the largest judicial districts of Turkey, featuring a population of approximately 3.5 million people located in 11 different cities.⁵ The files included information about offense characteristics, the offenders’ past offending records, and a social examination report. This comprehensive social examination report is required under Turkish law for every adjudicated juvenile and is prepared by a court-appointed expert. During the process of writing this report, the expert administers a face-to-face interview with the juvenile, observes him/her during the interview while taking notes, and collects volunteered information about the juvenile’s: (a) emotional, cognitive, and moral developmental characteristics; (b) family characteristics and dynamics; and (c) social status and activities. Additional information is collected from his/her parents, and if applicable from his/her teachers and from other legal documents. This social examination process aims to collect pertinent information regarding the juvenile’s total life circumstances. This information must be perused by juvenile judges presiding during the pre- and post-trial processes, as well as during the sentence determination phase of the adjudication. The information collected for this social examination report formed a rich resource for the development of the data set used for this study.

Accordingly, the authors first developed a schema regarding the useful information located in these files on adjudicated juvenile cases, and determined how to code and then enter that information on the study datasheet. One of the authors, Ayhan Erbay, an active social worker assigned to that jurisdiction, examined the cases adjudicated between the years 2006 (when these courts were officially established) and 2018. A total of 70 case files (of JSOs) were randomly selected, coded, and re-coded to check for intercoder reliability. The results of a test of intercoder agreement indicated there was a 99.1% degree of consistency between the coders. Consequently, 460 sex offense cases, out of 3,301 court cases processed in that jurisdiction in the given time frame, were selected as the study population. All of the JSOs in those 460 cases were male. The classification of sex offense was done based on the Turkish Criminal Code (TCC), Articles 102 to 105. The aforesaid articles include the acts of sexual assault (rape), child molestation, statutory rape, and sexual harassment under the title Offenses against Sexual Immunity. In order to make a clear and global distinction of a “sex offense,” only the juvenile offenders who were sentenced for sexual assault (Article 102) and child molestation (Article 103) were coded as “juvenile sex offender” for this study.

In order to assess the predictive value of certain risk factors for sexual offending among youth, we matched that main study population of JSO (n = 460) cases with one of the randomly selected non-sex offender cases (n = 460) from a separate data set which was collected for an earlier study on juvenile offenders. The data for those cases were collected identically to the data on JSOs’ cases being explored in this study (see Erbay & Buker, 2019; Buker & Erbay, 2018). The comparison group cases include all the same measures for risk factors, permitting a side-by-side comparison through either a goodness-of-fit or a mean comparison test, depending on the level of measurement of each risk factor involved. The offenders in the group were all male as well. They committed both violent and non-violent crimes which were not sex offenses.

Variables

Dependent variable

The dependent variable in this study is being a JSO (1 = yes 0 = no) rather than being a juvenile offender for another type of crime. We identified the juvenile status per the provisions of The Child Protection Code (CPC) (#5395)⁶ and the Turkish Criminal Code (TCC) (#5237), which classifies every individual under the age of 18 as a juvenile. The sex offender categorization was based on the criteria explained above.

Independent variables

The first group of independent variables investigated in the data set describes the victims of the JSOs, including their age, gender, and their relationship to the offender (friend, relative, romantic partner, stranger, school peer, etc.), victim/offender age differential, disability status of the victim, and the disclosure type (to the family, teacher, CJ officials, etc.). The second group of independent variables describes case characteristics, including the crime location (victim’s residence, offender’s residence, abandoned building, street, school, etc.), the time between the incident and the reporting of this incidence, and the availability/type of coercion employed. The third and the largest group of independent variables includes aspects of the JSOs’ risk factors, at both the individual and family unit levels.

These risk-related variables include the following: age, level of education, school dropout status, presence of deviant peers, history of self-harming behavior, previous criminal record, drug abuse, psychological problems, work status, family type, parental education level, parental criminal behavior, number of siblings, siblings’ criminal record, exposure to domestic violence, level of family communication, homeownership, and household income. Table 1 displays the categorization and description of the independent variables included in the analyses.

Table 1.

Categorization and Description of the Independent Variables Included in the Analyses.

	Variable	Measure	Explanation
Victim characteristics	Gender	Categorical (M/F)	Whether the victim is male or female
	Age	Continuous	The age of the victim at the time of the offense
	Victim-offender age difference	Continuous	Age differences between the offender and the victim at the time of the offense
	Relationship to offender	Categorical	Relationship between the victim and the offender
	Disclosure type	Categorical	To whom the victim first disclosed the offense
	Victim disabled	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether the victim has any kind of disability
Case characteristics	Crime location	Categorical	Where the offense occurred
	Time for complaint (day)	Continuous (day)	Difference between the offense date and the official complaint date
	Type of coercion	Categorical	What kind of coercion is used in the offense
Offender risk factors	Age	Continuous	The age of the JSO at the time of the offense
	Education	Continuous	Years of completed formal education
	School dropout	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not the juvenile dropped out of a formal education system
	Deviant peer	Categorical (Y/N)	Having friends who use drugs or have criminal records
	Self-harming behavior	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not the juvenile intentionally cut or burn his own body
	Criminal record	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not the juvenile had previous crime record
	Run-away	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not the juvenile ever left home without parents' knowledge and spent the night outside
	Drug use	Categorical (Y/N)	Any drug use, including a one-time use
	Work	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not the juvenile has part/full-time job
	Family type (non-traditional)	Categorical (Y/N)	Live with both biological parents: Traditional/all others: Non-traditional.
	Maternal education in years	Continuous	Juvenile’s mother’s years of completed formal education
	Paternal education in years	Continuous	Juvenile’s mother’s years of completed formal education
	Parents’ criminal record	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not any of the juvenile’s parents had any recorded offense
	Number of siblings	Continuous	The number of siblings of the juvenile
	Siblings’ criminal record	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not the juvenile’s any sibling had any recorded offense
	Siblings’ drug use	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not the juvenile’s any sibling use drug, including a one-time use
	Domestic violence in the family	Categorical (Y/N)	Domestic violence mentioned by the juvenile in the social examination process
	Ineffective family communication	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether or not the child shared problems with family members
	Domestic migration	Categorical (Y/N)	Born in another province and moved to the current province
	Household income	Continuous	Monthly income of the juvenile’s family
	Homeownership	Categorical (Y/N)	Whether the family of the juvenile lives in their own property

Analytical Strategy

The initial analysis we conducted, first, described the victims’ demographics, their relation to the offenders, their disability status, and how they disclosed their victimization to authorities. Second, we examined the case characteristics in terms of the location and the type of coercion, if any, used during the sexual offense. In addition to describing victims and case characteristics, we cross-tabulated victim/offender relationship status (friend, stranger, partner, family) with the “crime location,” and “type of coercion” variables in order to determine if the victim/offender relationship was correlated with the location of the crimes and the type of coercion used during these sexual crimes. After this descriptive analysis of the case characteristics, we explored the prevalence of several risk factors among the JSOs and juvenile non-sex offenders to determine the extent to which the two groups differed on the prevalence of these risk factors. Lastly, we ran a binomial regression analysis using the aforementioned risk factors as potential predictors of falling into the group of JSOs rather than the group of juvenile non-sex offenders.

Findings

Our initial descriptive analysis indicated that the JSOs (all male) investigated in this study predominantly (72.8%) victimized females (opposite sex), but more than one-fourth of the victims were males (same-sex). On average, the victims were about 13 years old and 2 years younger than the offenders. The vast majority of the victims (81.3%) were acquaintances (friends, family, relatives, partner) of the offenders, and disclosed their victimization most often to a family member, followed by revelation to school teachers. A rather small group (7.6%) of victims reported having a disability. The descriptive analysis explored other case characteristics, revealing that most of the crimes were committed either at the offender’s/his friend’s residence or in a deserted area (forest, park, woodshed, abandoned place, etc). An intriguing finding in this regard was that about 10% of the cases occurred in the school setting. In 85% of these sex crime cases, the offenders used either a form of coercion or clever deception to gain compliance to commit their criminal acts. The most common type of coercion used in these cases was the use of physical violence or the issuance of a threat to seriously harm or kill the victim (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Analysis of the Victim and Case Characteristics in Sex Offenses Committed by Juveniles (n = 460).

Variable	Victim characteristics			Case characteristics
Variable	Yes	%	Mean (SD)	Yes	No%
Gender
Female	335	72.8
Male	125	27.2
Age			12.69 (4.90)
Victim-offender age difference			1.99 (4.45)
Relationship to offender
Friend	304	66.1
Stranger	86	18.7
Family, relatives	47	10.2
Spouse (non-legal)	23	5.0
Disclosure type
Informing family	201	43.7
Informing school teachers	84	18.3
Informing police/prosecutor’s office	48	10.4
Being pregnant	33	7.2
Others	94	20.4
Victim disabled	35	7.6
Crime location
Offender’s/offender's friend’s residence				169	36.7
Deserted area				156	33.9
Residence of victim				77	16.7
School				47	10.2
Others				11	2.4
Time for complaint (day)			166.5 (377.70)
Type of coercion
Physical violence/threat to kill				238	51.7
NA/mutual consent				71	15.4
Threat to disseminate photos or videos on social media				67	14.6
Promise to marriage/deception				70	15.2
Using alcohol or drug				14	3.0

Through the cross-tabulation of victim/offender relationship status (friend, stranger, partner, family) with the “crime location,” and “type of coercion” variables, first, we identified a strong (p < .001; DF 16) correlation between the victim’s relation to the offender and the location of the offense. Accordingly, all offenses against family members occurred at the victim’s residence, while no stranger was victimized in that venue. The majority (70.1%) of the offenses against strangers took place in some deserted area, followed by the offender's/his friend’s residence (23.3%). On the other hand, most (77%) of the offenses against friends took place at the offender’s/offender’s friend’s residence, a location which was followed in frequency by the school setting (15%). All offenses committed at a school were against friends of the offender.

Our cross-tabulation of victim/offender relationship status and the type of coercion used during the offense also indicated a strong correlation (p < .001; DF 16) between the two variables. The results of that analysis indicated that the most prevalent type of coercion used against all groups, except the intimate partners, was physical violence or a threat to seriously harm or kill the victim. A threat to disclose personal pictures/videos was occasionally used against both friends and strangers. Lastly, alcohol/drugs were used most often against friends (93%), and on occasion against strangers (7%).

The results of our analysis on the prevalence of several risk factors among the JSOs and juvenile non-sex offenders to determine the extent to which the two groups differed on the prevalence of these risk factors are displayed in Table 3. In that analysis, we observed that JSOs were significantly different from other juvenile offenders on nearly all of the risk factors examined, except for age, family type, and presence of ineffective family communication. Being a school dropout, having risky friends, engaging in self-harming behavior, previous criminal activity, having a run-away history, and acknowledged drug use were all less prevalent among JSO individual-level risks factors while the increased prevalence of JSOs was reported among delinquents with higher means of education (in years) and those employed. With regard to family-level characteristics, parental criminal record, having fewer siblings, siblings’ criminal record, siblings’ drug use, exposure to domestic violence, domestic migration history, and living in a rental property were less prevalent factors while increases in both mean parental education level and mean household income increased were reported among the JSOs compared to non-juvenile sex offenders.

Table 3.

Comparison of the Risk Factors between the JSOs and Other Juvenile Offenders.

	Juvenile non-sex offenders (0)		JSOs (1)		t (df)	χ² (df)
	n	%	n	%	t (df)	χ² (df)
Frequency	460	100	460	100
Individual-level risk factors
Age (SD)	15.06 (1.6)		15.0 (1.6)		0.228 (918)
Education in year (SD)	7.11 (2.8)		7.87 (2.6)		−4.413 (918)*
School dropout (yes)	340	73.9	300	65.2		8.21 (1)**
Deviant peers (yes)	294	63.9	176	38.3		60.57 (1)*
Self-harming behavior (yes)	165	35.9	121	26.3		9.82 (1)**
Criminal record (yes)	244	53	109	23.7		83.77 (1)*
Run away (yes)	177	38.5	90	19.6		39.94 (1)*
Drug use (yes)	203	44.1	93	20.2		60.27 (1)*
Work (yes)	209	45.4	304	66.1		39.77 (1)*
Family characteristics
Family type (non-traditional)	155	33.7	150	32.6		0.123 (1)
Maternal education in years (SD)	3.33 (3.3)		4.33 (2.9)		−3.62 (61)*
Paternal education in years (SD)	5.18 (2.7)		5.75 (2.6)		−2.32 (56)***
Parents criminal record (yes)	61	13.3	32	7.0		6.88 (1)**
Number of siblings (SD)	3.91 (2.9)		3.12 (2.3)		4.59 (92)*
Siblings’ criminal record (yes)	101	22	42	9.1		28.82 (1)*
Siblings’ drug use (yes)	61	13.3	26	5.7		15.55 (1)*
Domestic violence (yes)	159	34.6	119	25.9		8.25 (1)**
Ineffective family communication (yes)	200	43.4	197	42.8		0.026 (1)
Domestic migration (yes)	198	43	113	24.6		35.39 (1)*
Home ownership (no)	274	59.6	242	52.6		60.57 (1)*
Household income (SD)	2,381.1 (1,966.1)		3,013.5 (1,812.9)		−4,924 (868)*

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Lastly, the results of the binomial regression analysis indicated (see Table 4) that having a paid job and being raised in a higher-income household significantly increased the likelihood of falling into the JSOs group. On the other hand, growing up in the context of ineffective family communication, having experienced domestic migration, and having deviant peers were all significant predictors of falling into the juvenile non-sex offender group rather than the JSOs group.

Table 4.

Binomial Regression Models Predicting Sexual Offending (Non-Sexual Offender = 0; Sexual Offender = 1).

Predictor variable	B	Odds ratio
Individual-level risk factors
Age	−1.5	0.42
Education in year	1.74	0.73
School dropout	−2.5	0.42
Deviant peer	−8.2	0.003**
Self-harming behavior	6.04	0.05
Criminal record	−6.03	0.05
Runaway	−0.66	0.52
Drug use	−6.2	0.06
Work	1.15	9.15***
Family characteristics
Family type	2.84	0.37
Maternal education in years	−2.9	0.5
Paternal education in years	1.6	0.74
Parents criminal record	−3.8	0.35
Number of siblings	−5.9	0.29
Siblings’ criminal record	−2.8	0.56
Siblings’ drug use	−3.4	0.95
Domestic violence	1.2	0.69
Ineffective family communication	−9.37	0.0003***
Domestic migration	−9.17	0.0003***
Home ownership	−4.5	0.9
Household income	2.6	0.004**
Nagelkerke's R²	0.30
χ² (df)	120 (19)*

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

This study aimed to contribute to the international, comparative literature on the characteristics of the JSOs and their differences from other juvenile offenders based on a data set collected from the court files of adjudicated youth in a metropolitan area of Turkey. Besides being the first systematic exploration of JSOs in the Turkish context, the findings of the present analyses yielded invaluable comparative results from a non-Western setting, results which both concur with and differ from the earlier findings reported in the extant research literature.

First, the analysis of the official statistics gathered in Turkey indicated that the prevalence of sexual offending among youth (13% of all sex offenses) has increased significantly (TJS, 2018) over the past decade, and has nearly reached a rate comparable to the rates observed in the US, UK, and Australia (16%, 17%, and 18%, respectively) (FBI, 2018; Stevens et al., 2013; Warner & Bartels, 2015). This fact, per se, might not be alarming, but the continuous increase in this rate certainly warrants further exploration of the matter in Turkey to prevent sexual victimization more effectively and to identify appropriate intervention strategies for the JSOs. Second, this study revealed important information regarding the victims of sexual offenses committed by juveniles. The victims of the JSOs in this study consisted mostly of children, on average between 12 and 13 years old, ranging from 3 to 56. The vast majority (95.5%) of these victims were under the age of 18, while 37.5% were under the age of 12. Similar to the findings of the previous studies (Finkelhor et al., 2009; Hackett et al., 2013), male children, as well as adults, were also targeted by male JSO in some cases. This study also revealed that there is no fixed attraction among the JSOs against females or children; the victims could be males and adults as well as children. Most of the victims (81.3%) were acquaintances of the offenders, which is a finding similar to previous study results reported in the research literature for both adult and juvenile sex offenders (Riser et al., 2013; Zolondek et al., 2001).

Third, the findings of this study provide important information regarding the case characteristics of the offenses committed by the JSOs. Our study, similar to the Hackett et al. (2013) study, indicated that most of the offenses were committed either at the offenders’ or at the victims’ residences. However, our study indicated that the location of the crime varied significantly across the different types of victim/offender relationships. Accordingly, strangers were the most likely group of victims to be assaulted in a deserted area. On the other hand, the largest group of victims, friends of the JSOs, were assaulted at the offender’s/his friend’s residence. Similarly, we identified a significant difference across the types of coercion used against victims based on their relationship status with the offenders. The offender’s friends were the most vulnerable group to be coerced, often with a threat to spread a private picture/video or with the aid of impairment by alcohol/drugs. Since we could not locate a particular study looking at that type of association, we have not been able to compare our findings with those of any previous research.

Lastly, this study identified several significant differences in the prevalence of certain individual-level and family-level risk factors that differentiated the JSOs and other juvenile non-sex offenders. This finding is at odds with what Ryan and Otonichar (2016) have reported, though the lack of an effective comparison group in their study (and most other studies) raises serious concerns. In that sense, our study featuring a side-by-side comparison of JSO and non-JSO cases can be considered to provide a significant contribution to the research literature. An intriguing finding, when these differences were examined in some detail, was that the majority of the commonly employed risk factors were less prevalent among the JSOs compared to their non-JSO counterparts. Our findings generally concur with those of Seto and Lalumière (2010) and later studies, research concluding that JSOs have fewer incidents of past criminal behavior, are less likely to be involved in substance abuse and have a lower number of deviant peers than their non-sexual offender counterparts among juvenile offenders (Driemeyer et al., 2013; Falligant et al., 2017; Fanelli, 2018; Fanniff & Kimonis, 2014; Fox, 2017; Margari et al., 2015; Pullman et al., 2014). In addition, our findings on fewer earlier problem behaviors (self-harming, run away), lower school drop-out rates, and longer education durations concur with the findings of a number of the earlier studies (Falligant et al., 2017; Fanelli, 2018; Margari et al., 2015; Wanklyn et al., 2012). However, our finding as regards to family members’ past criminal behaviors (less common among JSOs) is not consistent with results observed by Wanklyn et al. (2012).

When the predictive impact of those risk factors was examined through a regression analysis, we observed that having a deviant peer, coming from a family domestically migrated from another province in Turkey, and having ineffective communication within the family significantly predicted being a non-sex offender, but not becoming a JSO among the juveniles examined in this study. In contrast, having a paid job and coming from a higher income household family setting were the only predictors of being a JSO rather than a juvenile non-sex offender. In short, a typical JSO in this study was more likely to be surrounded by regular youth (not risky), live in a family which is a long-term resident in that jurisdiction, have parents who enjoy a higher income and provide a better level of communication with their children than their non-JSO matched counterparts. This set of findings indicated that the JSOs were better suited in terms of many risk factors when compared to non-sex offenders.

Conclusion

Exploring a special group of juvenile offenders, JSOs, in a non-Western context, this study aimed to contribute to the growing number of studies on this special group of youth offenders with a comparative perspective. In that respect, this study indicated that the rate of sex offenses committed by Turkish youth has reached a level comparable to the Western countries. As discussed previously, conservative cultural aspects of Turkish society would have led one to presume the opposite, however. In addition to a comparable rate of prevalence, our study indicated more similarities between Turkish JSOs and JSOs in other Western countries. The characteristics of victims, like mostly being an acquaintance, both male and female, and older and younger than the offenders were all similar to what previous studies conducted in Western countries indicated. Furthermore, Turkish JSOs, similar to Western JSOs, carried less conventional risk factors (i.e., past criminal history, substance/drug abuse, more deviant peers) than other juvenile offenders. Based on these findings and our discussion of the impact of societal values regarding youth and their sexual activities, we assert that most sex offenses/offenders might be social constructs of the value systems surrounding them, rather than actual criminogenic factors.

As discussed above, most of the typical criminogenic factors for regular offending do not predict committing sex offenses in the same way. This primary finding of the study supports the idea that intervention programs for JSOs, or the prevention strategies employed to counter their offenses, should be tailored as much as possible to their actual backgrounds and needs rather than assuming that their risk factors are identical with the risk factors seen among typical juvenile offenders and that conventional at-risk youth programs will work on juvenile sexual offenders to either prevent offenses or rehabilitate them after they have offended.

Since our study could not include several potential risk factors, our inferral for policy implications from this main finding is limited in scope. In this regard, we suggest that Turkish society may benefit from educational programs to raise awareness of youth in regards to consensual/non-consensual sex among youth. In our sample, the majority of the victims were acquaintances of the offenders, and we argued that the value systems of the Turkish society might be constructing “sex offenses” rather broadly and precipitously. These educational programs might raise awareness among young Turkish men to understand what actual consent for sex looks like. Along the same lines, the Turkish legal system should explore the effectiveness of its approach to sexual activities between two consenting youth. A rather value-driven prosecutorial approach to these activities might indeed be broadening the net of the justice system to apprehend, adjudicate, and label male youth as criminals while they should be educated about appropriate sexual behaviors. Since our study sample included only male offenders, we could not control for the impact of potentially gender-specific treatment of the judicial system, as previously reported by Vandiver (2010).

Future studies should further explore how a youth drifts into sexual offending, even if he/she is better situated with respect to general risk factors over other youth who involve in other types of delinquency. For instance the role of psychopathological traits should be explored and included in the future studies as laid out in Daversa and Knight’s (2007) study. In addition, the literature on JSOs should include more self-reported data as most information is currently based on official/clinical data, and the sex offenses are less likely to be reported and captured by these sources.

Limitations

An important limitation of this study is the unavailability of potentially important additional factors and variables that would help to explore and distinguish JSOs from the other offenders. We, for instance, did not have information regarding the participants’ past sexual, physical, or emotional abuse history, and the extant literature indicates that this characteristic could be a significant predictor of being a JSOs rather than a juvenile non-sex offender. Besides, our analyses indicated that the JSOs had advantages over other juvenile offenders pertaining to financial status, but we could not empirically explore how this advantage presented itself in the lives of these youth. It can also be speculated that financially and socially better-suited youth were more likely to be exposed to a value system where sexual liberation is more likely. Lastly, we could not record information on the dates of the cases. Thus, we could not control for the impact of the time change during that time frame, but future studies should control for that.

Our results, however, should be interpreted a bit cautiously in as much as the study population consisted of adjudicated youth in a single non-Western context, and the risk factor data were collected from their statements made to social workers as preserved in juvenile court files. While the current study did not employ a proper analytical strategy to assess the possible reasons for that increase, based on our own experience with working in the Turkish juvenile justice system, we attribute this increase mostly to the increased capacity and sensitivity of the Turkish juvenile system and the professionals working in that system to identify and investigate these offenses. As mentioned before, Turkey enacted the Child Protection Act in 2005, and with that act, required establishing juvenile courts in every jurisdiction. Along with the courts, separate law enforcement and prosecution units were also established just to focus on juvenile offenders per that Act. This increased attention on juveniles and the capacity to identify and investigate crimes committed by juveniles might explain a significant proportion of that increase. On the other hand, this steep increase might also be associated with several socio-cultural patterns and dynamic social changes as discussed toward the end of this section.

The potential impact of the socio-cultural values of Turkish society should also be counted for a possible explanation of our findings. For instance, the steep increase in the number of JSOs might be attributed to existing social structure and cultural values determining the nature of gender relations. Regardless of all improvements in the public realm in recent years, Turkish society is still a male-dominant (Akın & Aydemir, 2007) and “deeply-patriarchal” (Ozyegin, 2015) society. As such, masculine personality features like competitiveness, dominance, and independence are embraced over possible feminine personality features like compassion and caring among male adolescents. Several contemporary Turkish scholars (Arat, 2017; Cagaptay, 2017) indicated that increasing authoritarian political discourse in recent years has elevated the impact of hegemonic masculinity in gender relations. In turn, the formation of hegemonic masculinity contributes to the legitimation of male supremacy and gender inequality—two possible domains that might include various predictors of sexual violence embedded in the very fabric of Turkish society (Ozbay & Soybakis, 2020). This legitimation of male supremacy and gender inequality, in turn, might have contributed to the increasing sex offenses committed by male youth. As mentioned before, we did not design our analyses to assess the reasons for that steep increase in the number of sex offenses committed by youth; however, exploring a possible association between the increasing impact of hegemonic masculinity in the highly politicized social life of Turkish youth and sex crimes committed by them needs to be further studied in that context.

Our results might be affected by the socio-cultural values of Turkish society in some other ways, as well. Since the 1980s, rapid and pervasive cultural and economic change has shaken the fixity of national, class, religious, gender, and sexual identities in Turkey. The premarital sexual relationship between male and female youth is still a strict taboo, and the virginity of girls is still highly praised in Turkish society (Ozyegin, 2009). The society idealizes female chastity and the symbolic value of virginity as an indicator of honor and purity for females that relates to the honor of family, parents, and the nation in an order (Cindoglu, 1997). As such, when parents of a girl find out that their daughter had sex with a boy, they might press charges, and the judicial system under the impact of this very socio-cultural perception might pursue punishment for the boy, even if both parties might have consensually had sex. Therefore, a group of victims in this study who were identified as female friends of male offenders could be consenting partners of those male youth. Those males could later be misjudged as “juvenile sex offenders” in the system.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Nicholas Lovrich, Dr. Achraf Cohen, and the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback on the earlier versions of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Hasan Buker

Ayhan Erbay

Notes

Author Biographies

Hasan Buker holds a PhD in Criminal Justice from Washington State University. He is currently an Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at UWF. His teaching and research interests include juvenile delinquency, criminological theory, policing, and crimes against children. His most recent work has been published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology and the Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Ayhan Erbay holds a PhD in Forensic Social Science from Istanbul University. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Halic University, Turkey. Before he joined university he was a social worker in the juvenile courthouse for heavy crimes in Istanbul, Turkey. His research interests are juvenile delinquency, juvenile justice, criminological research techniques, and crime prevention. His most recent work has been published in The Journal of Interpersonal Violence and the Bulletin of Legal Medicine.

References

Akın

M. H.

Aydemir

M. A.

(2007). The approach of female university students to family and marriage institutions in the context of gender role attitudes. Selcuk University, Journal of Faculty of Letters, 18, 43–60.

Andrade

J. T.

Vincent

G. M.

Saleh

F. M.

(2006). Juvenile sex offenders: A complex population. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(1), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2005.00010.x

Arat

(2017). Men’s coups, women’s troubles. Journal of Middle East Women's Studies, 13(1), 175–177. https://doi.org/10.1215/15525864-3728800

Beaudry-Cyr

Jennings

W. G.

Zgoba

K. M.

Tewksbury

(2017). Examining the continuity of juvenile sex offending into adulthood and subsequent patterns of sex and general recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15594442

Blokland

A. A.

Lussier

(2015). The criminal career paradigm and its relevance to studying sex offenders. In Blokland

A. A.

Lussier

(Eds.), Sex offenders: A criminal career approach (pp. 3–21). Wiley-Blackwell.

Budd

K. M.

Bierie

D. M.

(2018). Victims of sexual assault perpetrated by female youth: An exploratory study of gender differences. Journal of Sexual Aggression,24(3), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2018.1528793

Buker

Erbay

(2018). Is this kid a likely experimenter or a likely persister?: An Analysis of Individual-Level and Family-Level Risk Factors Predicting Multiple Offending Among a Group of Adjudicated Youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(13), 4024–4045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18755917

Cagaptay

(2017). The new Sultan: Erdogan and the crisis of modern Turkey. I.B.

Calleja

N. G.

(2015). Juvenile sex and non-sex offenders: A comparison of recidivism and risk. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 36(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1874.2015.00031.x

10.

Carpentier

M. Y.

Silovsky

J. F.

Chaffin

(2006). Randomized trial of treatment for children with sexual behavior problems: Ten-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.482

11.

Chaffin

(2008). Our minds are made up—Don’t confuse us with the facts: Commentary on policies concerning children with sexual behavior problems and juvenile sex offenders. Child Maltreatment, 13(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559508314510

12.

Chaffin

Berliner

Block

Johnson

T. C.

Friedrich

W. N.

Louis

D. G.

Lyon

T. D.

Page

I. J.

Prescott

D. S.

Silovsky

J. F.

Madden

(2008). Report of the ATSA task force on children with sexual behavior problems. Child Maltreatment, 13(2), 199–218.

13.

Christiansen

A. K.

Vincent

J. P.

(2013). Characterization and prediction of sexual and nonsexual recidivism among adjudicated juvenile sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(4), 506–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2070

14.

Cindoglu

(1997). Virginity tests and artificial virginity in modern Turkish medicine. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016-S0277-5395(96)00096-9

15.

Daversa

M. T.

Knight

R. A.

(2007). A structural examination of the predictors of sexual coercion against children in adolescent sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(10), 1313–1333.

16.

DeGue

Massetti

G. M.

Holt

M. K.

Tharp

A. T.

Valle

L. A.

Matjasko

J. L.

Lippy

(2013). Identifying links between sexual violence and youth violence perpetration: New opportunities for sexual violence prevention. Psychology of Violence, 3(2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029084

17.

Driemeyer

Spehr

Yoon

Richter-Appelt

Briken

(2013). Comparing sexuality, aggressiveness, and antisocial behavior of alleged juvenile sexual and violent offenders. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(3), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12086

18.

Dwyer

R. G.

Letourneau

E. J.

(2011). Juveniles who sexually offend: Recommending a treatment program and level of care. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2011.03.007

19.

Erbay

Buker

(2019). Youth who Kill in Turkey: A study on Juvenile Homicide Offenders, their Offenses, and their Differences from Violent and Non-Violent Juvenile Delinquents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519834088

20.

Falligant

J. M.

Alexander

A. A.

Burkhart

B. R.

(2017). Offence characteristics and cognitive functioning in juveniles adjudicated for illegal sexual behaviour. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23(3), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2017.1362271

21.

Fanelli

C. A.

(2018). Comparing juvenile sex offenders and juvenile non-sex offenders in an adjudicated group (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University.

22.

Fanniff

A. M.

Kimonis

E. R.

(2014). Juveniles who have committed sexual offenses: A special group? Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 32(2), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2111

23.

Fanniff

A. M.

Kolko

D. J.

(2012). Victim age-based subtypes of juveniles adjudicated for sexual offenses: Comparisons across domains in an outpatient sample. Sexual Abuse, 24(3), 224–264.

24.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2018). Crime in the United States, 2017. U.S. Government Printing Office.

25.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

Chaffin

(2009). Juveniles who commit sex offenses against minors. PsycEXTRA Dataset. http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV171.pdf https://doi.org/10.1037/e630532009-001

26.

Fox

(2017). What makes a difference? Evaluating the key distinctions and predictors of sexual and nonsexual offending among male and female juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 7(2), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-12-2016-0047

27.

Fox

Delisi

(2018). From criminological heterogeneity to coherent classes. Developing a typology of juvenile sex offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(3), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204017699257

28.

Frye

(2019). Juvenile sex offender treatment: How are we doing and where are we going? Forensic Scholars Today, 5(1). https://online.csp.edu/forensic-scholars-today/volume-5-issue-1-july-2019

29.

Gamache

Diguer

Laverdière

Rousseau

J.-P.

(2012). Development of an object relation–based typology of adolescent sex offenders. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 76(4), 329–364. https://doi.org/10.1521/bumc.2012.76.4.329

30.

Hackett

Phillips

Masson

Balfe

(2013). Individual, family and abuse characteristics of 700 British child and adolescent sexual abusers. Child Abuse Review, 22(4), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2246

31.

Hart

S. D.

(2016). Culture and violence risk assessment: The case of Ewert v. Canada. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 3(2), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000068

32.

Hunter

J. A.

(2018). Patterns of sexual offending in juveniles and risk factors. In Ryan

E. P.

Hunter

J. A.

Murrie

D. C.

(Eds.). Juvenile sex offenders: A guide to evaluation and treatment for mental health professionals (pp. 34–53). Oxford University Press.

33.

Hunter

J. A.

Figueredo

A. J.

Malamuth

N. M.

Becker

J. V.

(2003). Juvenile sex offenders: Toward the development of a typology. Sexual Abuse, 15(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320301500103

34.

Karsten

T. M.

Dempsey

(2018). Neuropsychological risk factors to consider when assessing for sexually abusive youth. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27(8), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1542419

35.

Kavoussi

R. J.

Kaplan

Becker

J. V.

(1988). Psychiatric diagnoses in adolescent sex offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(2), 241–243. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198803000-00018

36.

Keogh

(2012). Internal world of the juvenile sex offender: Through a glass darkly then face to face. (1st ed.). Routledge.

37.

Letourneau

E. J.

Chapman

J. E.

Schoenwald

S. K.

(2008). Treatment outcome and criminal offending by youth with sexual behavior problems. Child Maltreatment, 13(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559507306717

38.

Letourneau

E. J.

Schoenwald

S. K.

Sheidow

A. J.

(2004). Children and adolescents with sexual behavior problems. Child Maltreatment, 9(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559503260308

39.

Leclerc

Beauregard

Proulx

(2007). Modus operandi and situational aspects in adolescent sexual offenses against children. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x07300271

40.

Margari

Lecce

P. A.

Craig

Lafortezza

Lisi

Pinto

Stallone

Pierri

Pisani

Zagaria

Margari

Grattagliano

(2015). Juvenile sex offenders: Personality profile, coping styles and parental care. Psychiatry Research, 229(1–2), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.066

41.

McCann

Lussier

(2008). Antisociality, sexual deviance, and sexual reoffending in juvenile sex offenders: A meta-analytical investigation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204008320260

42.

Meiners

E. R.

(2015). Offending children, registering sex. WSQ: Womens Studies Quarterly, 43(1–2), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2015.0021

43.

Miyaguchi

Shirataki

(2014). Executive functioning problems of juvenile sex offenders with low levels of measured intelligence. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 39(3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2014.925103

44.

Office for National Statistics. (2018). Sexual offending: Victimisation and the path through the criminal justice system. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffendingvictimisationandthepaththroughthecriminaljusticesystem/2018-12-13#sexual-offences-recorded-by-the-police

45.

Ozbay

Soybakis

(2020). Political masculinities: Gender, power, and change in Turkey. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 27(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxy/jxy040

46.

Ozyegin

(2009). Virginal Facades: Sexual Freedom and Guilt among Young Turkish Women. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 16(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506808101761

47.

Ozyegin

(2015). New desires, new selves: Sex, love and piety among Turkish youth. New York University Press.

48.

Piquero

A. R.

Steinberg

(2010). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 1–6.

49.

Pullman

L. E.

Leroux

E. J.

Motayne

Seto

M. C.

(2014). Examining the developmental trajectories of adolescent sexual offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(7), 1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.03.003

50.

Rasmussen

L. A.

Lev-Wiesel

Eisikovits

(2013). Current perspectives on children and youth who sexually abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2013.744644

51.

Rasmussen

L. A.

Miccio-Fonseca

L. C.

2007. Paradigm shift: Implementing MEGA, a new tool proposed to define and assess sexually abusive dynamics in youth ages 19 and under. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16(1): 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v16n01_05

52.

Riser

D. K.

Pegram

S. E.

Farley

J. P.

(2013). Adolescent and young adult male sex offenders: Understanding the role of recidivism. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2013.735355

53.

Rosa

Fox

Jennings

W. G.

(2018). Do developmental and life-course theory risk factors equally predict age of onset among juvenile sexual and nonsexual offenders? Sexual Abuse, 32(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218797714

54.

Ryan

(2018). Sexual offending in society and the legal system. In Ryan

E. P.

Hunter

J. A.

Murrie

D. C.

(Eds.). Juvenile sex offenders: A guide to evaluation and treatment for mental health professionals (pp. 1–20). Oxford University Press.

55.

Ryan

E. P.

Otonichar

J. M.

(2016). Juvenile sex offenders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(67). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0706-1

56.

Şengül

H. A.

Cantürk

Dağalp

(2012). Ankara 1. Çocuk Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde akran istismarı nedeniyle yargılanan çocukların değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the children on trial in the Ankara 1st children's High Criminal Court for peer abuse]. Türk Pediatri Arşivi [Turkish Archives of Pediatrics], 47(4), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.4274/tpa.909

57.

Seto

M. C.

Lalumière

M. L.

(2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019700

58.

Stevens

Hutchin

French

Craissati

(2013). Developmental and offence-related characteristics of different types of adolescent sex offender: A community sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19(2), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2011.645889

59.

Turkish Judicial Statistics. (2018). Ministry of justice. General Directorate of Judicial Record and Statistics. http://www.adlisicil.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/1792019103654adalet_ist_2018.pdf

60.

Vandiver

D. M.

(2010). Assessing gender differences and co-offending patterns of a predominantly “male-oriented” crime: A comparison of a cross-national sample of juvenile boys and girls arrested for a sexual offense. Violence and Victims, 25(2), 243–264.

61.

van Wijk

Vermeiren

Loeber

Hart-Kerkhoffs

Doreleijers

Bullens

. (2006). Juvenile sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7(4), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838006292519

62.

Veneziano

(2002). Adolescent sex offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3(4), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838002237329

63.

Wanklyn

S. G.

Ward

A. K.

Cormier

N. S.

Day

D. M.

Newman

J. E.

(2012). Can we distinguish juvenile violent sex offenders, violent non-sex offenders, and versatile violent sex offenders based on childhood risk factors? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(11), 2128–2143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511432153

64.

Warner

Bartels

(2015). Juvenile sex offending: Its prevalence and the criminal justice response. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 38(1), 48–75.

65.

Williams

C. M.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

Bush

H. M.

Clear

E. R.

Lewis

A. M.

Garcia

L. S.

Coker

A. L.

Fisher

B. S.

(2014). Victimization and perpetration of unwanted sexual activities among high school students. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1239–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214551575

66.

Yıldız

(2012). Çocukların Cinsel İstismarı Suçu ve İkincil Mağduriyet Sorunu. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Adli Tıp Enstitüsü, Sosyal Bilimler Anabilim Dalı, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi [Crime of sexual abuse of children and the problem of secondary victimization] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Istanbul University.

67.

Yoder

J. R.

Leibowitz

G. S.

Peterson

(2018). Parental and peer attachment characteristics: Differentiating between youth sexual and non-sexual offenders and associations with sexual offense profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(17), 2643–2663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516628805

68.

Zakireh

Ronis

S. T.

Knight

R. A.

(2008). Individual beliefs, attitudes, and victimization histories of male juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(3), 323–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208322424

69.

Zolondek

S. C.

Abel

G. G.

Northey

W. F.

Jr Jordan

A. D.

(2001). The self-reported behaviors of juvenile sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(1), 73–85.