Offenders Incarcerated 

for Crimes Against 

Juveniles

David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to

improving the justice system’s response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes

that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the victims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes,

like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes

on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of children

can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of

OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the Nation’s efforts

to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization,

including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their special needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs. 

In the past two decades, media coverage

of crimes committed against juveniles has

grown substantially. This publicity has led

to an increase in local and national efforts

to report, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate those who commit these crimes. By

1997, these offenders (hereafter called

“offenders against juveniles”) made up

more than one-fifth of all prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes in State prisons

in the United States.

Offenders against juveniles pose distinct challenges for the criminal justice

system—both because of the vulnerable

nature of their victims and because of

society’s sometimes highly charged reaction to their crimes. More information

about these offenders who have been

successfully prosecuted and incarcerated

would give criminal justice policymakers

specific insights about how to better handle these types of crimes.

This Bulletin uses data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities1 (and a similar survey conducted in

1991; see Beck, 1993) to examine the characteristics of persons incarcerated for victimizing children and youth. The study’s

major findings include the following:

◆ Most offenders incarcerated for crimes

against juveniles (65 percent) were sex

A Message From OJJDP

Public concerns arising from crimes

committed against juveniles have led

to increased efforts to report, arrest,

convict, and imprison those who

prey on youth. As a result of such

enhanced activities, 1 in 5 prisoners

incarcerated in State prisons for violent crime in 1997 was an offender

who had victimized a youth.

Drawing on data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional

Facilities and from an earlier 1991

survey, this Bulletin describes the

characteristics of violent adult offenders who victimize juveniles and

the nature of their offenses.

Trends in the population of offenders

against juveniles are analyzed, and

the sentences received by such criminals are reviewed. Between 1991 and

1997, the proportion of offenders confined for violent crimes whose victims

were youth increased from 19 to 22

percent.

Significant differences exist between

offenders incarcerated for crimes

committed against juveniles and

those imprisoned for crimes against

adults. For example, although only

7 percent of incarcerated offenders

against adults were sex offenders,

nearly two thirds (65 percent) of the

incarcerated offenders against juveniles were sex offenders.

Such distinctions are explored in

these pages in the hope that the information provided herein may make

a difference in protecting youth from

criminal predation.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

December 2001

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2000. An

identical survey conducted in Federal correctional

facilities found a smaller percentage of offenders

against juveniles (8 percent of all violent offenders)

than in State facilities. Because the small number of

offenders against juveniles surveyed in Federal facilities did not produce statistically reliable information,

that survey is not included in this Bulletin.
2

The Prison Inmate Population

Inmates within the State prison population do not represent all offenders against

juveniles, nor have they committed the typical mix of crimes against juveniles that

occur within a given period. State inmates represent a population that has been

convicted of only the most serious offenses—those considered grave enough to

warrant at least a year or more of imprisonment. Many offenders convicted of

lesser offenses do not enter the State prison population. Instead, they may serve

shorter sentences in local jails, be released on probation, or receive suspended

sentences. Additionally, State prison populations do not include juvenile offenders

placed in juvenile correctional facilities or Federal prison inmates (see footnote 1

on page 1).

Most violent offenders in State prisons in 1997 were incarcerated for homicide,

robbery, assault, and sexual assault (29 percent, 27 percent, 21 percent, and 19

percent, respectively, for those inmates who provided information on victims’ ages).

However, not all violent offenders are sent to prison. For example, even though

incarceration rates are not systematically available, studies of sexual offenders

against children have shown that an average of only 53 percent of convicted

offenders actually serve prison time, with the range extending from 44 to 78

percent (Chapman and Smith, 1987; Cheit, 1997; Cross, 1995; Goodman et al.,

1992; Smith and Saunders, 1994).

Furthermore, inmates continually enter and leave the State prison system as they

are convicted and sentenced, serve time, and get released. Some, however, stay

longer than others. Because inmates with longer sentences (including life sentences) accumulate in prison over time, the State prison population at any given

moment does not represent a typical year’s convictions or sentences. For example, the relatively large number of inmates confined in State prisons in 1997 for

homicide (29 percent of all violent offenders) reflects the longer and more severe

sentences typically given for that crime rather than a high frequency of occurrence. It is important to remember that the offender population described in this

Bulletin is simply a cross-section of inmates found in State prisons in 1997 and

not a summary of all offenders who committed crimes during that year.1

1 An analysis of crimes that were committed against juveniles in a single year (1997), reported to police, and recorded in the National Incident-Based Reporting System, has been published in an earlier

Bulletin of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2000).

◆ Between 1991 and 1997, the proportion

of all incarcerated violent offenders

who were offenders against juveniles

increased from 19 to 22 percent. The

largest increase among offenders

against juveniles was for homicide

offenders (especially those with

teenage victims).

◆ There was no evidence that offenders

who commit crimes against preadolescent children received lighter sentences than other offenders.

◆ Sentences for offenders against teenage victims were less severe than for

other offenders, even after the major

factors that influence sentence length

(e.g., crime seriousness and recidivism) had been controlled for. This

leniency may reflect a stereotypical

view that teen victims are, in part, responsible for their own victimization.

offenders, whereas only a small portion (7 percent) of incarcerated offenders against adults were sex offenders.

◆ Most offenders incarcerated for crimes

against juveniles had victimized someone in their family or household (48

percent) or an acquaintance (38 percent), whereas the majority of offenders against adults had victimized a

stranger (54 percent).

◆ The majority of offenders incarcerated

for crimes against juveniles were white

(64 percent), were over 30 years old

(51 percent), and had been married

(56 percent); the majority of offenders

against adults were nonwhite (59 percent), were under 30 (66 percent), and

had never been married (60 percent).

◆ Offenders incarcerated for crimes

against juveniles, particularly those who

victimized children age 12 or younger,

were more likely to have been physically or sexually abused as children.

Survey of Inmates in

State Correctional

Facilities

The 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities is the most recent of a

number of similar surveys conducted by

the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of

Justice Statistics in 1974, 1979, 1986, and

1991. These surveys were designed to

provide nationally representative data

on all inmates held in State prisons.

The survey relied on personal interviews

with inmates to collect information about

their current offenses and sentences,

criminal histories, family backgrounds

and personal characteristics, prior drug

and alcohol use and treatment, and prison conditions. Inmates serving time for

violent crimes were also asked to provide information about their victims.2 For

example, inmates were questioned about

victim number, age, ethnicity, race, gender, injury, and relationship to offender.

The data produced rely on inmates’ memory and truthfulness. Information gathered was not separately verified against

other records because, for much of the

data, no corresponding official records

were available. However, several measures were taken to improve survey reliability, including one-on-one interviews

(interviewer and respondent only), a

confidential setting, and cross-checks

for internal consistency made during

data collection.

In this Bulletin, differences among inmates are reported only for violent offenders who revealed their victims’ ages.

These inmates accounted for 89 percent

of all violent crime offenders identified by

the survey in 1997.

The sample design for the survey produces information that is representative

of the national population of State prison

inmates.3 Estimates of inmate numbers

and percentages were calculated using

sampling weights provided with the data.

2 The inmate survey considered the following types of

offenses to be violent crimes: murder, manslaughter,

kidnapping, rape, other sexual offenses, robbery, and

assault. Some crimes not classified as violent by the

Uniform Crime Reporting Program but which involve

the victimization of individuals (e.g., blackmail, statutory rape, reckless endangerment, child endangerment, and lewdness with a child) were also included

in the survey’s violent crime group. 
3

Characteristics of

Violent Offenders

Against Juveniles

In 1997, offenders against juveniles made

up 22 percent of prisoners incarcerated

in State prisons for violent crimes. The victims of these offenders were evenly divided

between children age 12 or younger (11

percent of offenders) and teens ages 13 to

17 (11 percent of offenders) (figure 1). The

distribution of offenders against juveniles,

however, was not uniform by offense type;

instead, offenders against juveniles accounted for a large majority of the incarcerated sex offenders (71 percent) and a

rather small minority of the assault (13

percent), homicide (10 percent), and robbery (4 percent) offenders.4

In other words, most incarcerated offenders against children (72 percent) and

The way in which information was gathered for the Survey of Inmates in State

Correctional Facilities varied, depending on whether offenses were committed against single or multiple victims.

Multiple-victim offenders were asked a

set of questions aimed at characterizing a group of victims rather than gathering details about each one. For example, whereas a single-victim offender

was asked to place that victim in a specific age group (e.g., 12 or younger),

multiple-victim offenders were asked

only the age of the youngest and oldest

victims to characterize the overall set of

victims. Similar protocols were followed

to ascertain variations in gender, race,

ethnicity, relationship to offender, and

injury in multiple-victim incidents. This

method allowed multiple-victim incidents to be recorded in a variety of

ways (depending on the characteristic

of particular interest), but it did not

permit each victim to be individually

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Victim age 12 or younger Victim age 13–17 Victim age 18+

Percentage

Robbery

(n=116,780)

Homicide

(n=128,205)

Assault

(n=91,000)

Kidnapping

(n=11,294)

Rape or

sexual assault

(n=84,807)

All violent

crimes

(n=436,028)

13 96

4 6 90

6 7 87

13 14 73

39 32 29

11 11 78

Figure 1: Violent Offenders in State Prisons, by Type of Offense and

Age of Victims, 1997

Note: The total number of violent crimes is greater than the sum of the crimes shown because

a small number of offenders convicted of nonviolent crimes, such as statutory rape, also

answered questions about victims.

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons.

described. For example, incidents with

“any female victim” can be distinguished

from those with “no female victims,” and

incidents with “any nonwhite or Hispanic

victim” or “all minority victims” can be

distinguished from those with “no minority victims.”

This Bulletin identifies offenders against

juveniles by following the method used by

Bureau of Justice Statistics researchers

in their analysis of the 1991 State Inmate

Survey (Greenfeld, 1996). Single-victim

offenders were considered offenders

against juveniles if their victims fit into

either the “12 or younger” or the “13 to

17” age categories. Multiple-victim offenders were considered offenders against

juveniles if any of their victims fit into

either of these categories. Inmates who

had targeted only adults (individuals age

18 or older) were considered offenders

against adults.

To compare offenders against child

victims (age 12 or younger) with offenders against teen victims (ages

13–17) for multiple-victim incidents,

the following definitions were established: child victimizers were those

who offended against any child, teen

victimizers were those who offended

against any teen but no child, and

adult victimizers were those who

offended only against adults. Of

course, designating single-victim incidents was straightforward, in that

only one victim was used to designate offender status.

Some comparisons made in this Bulletin required greater specificity of victim

characteristics (e.g., individual injury or

relationship to offender). These comparisons were based only on singlevictim offenders (see figures 6 and 7

on page 7). About three-quarters of

all incarcerated violent offenders had

victimized a single person.

Identifying Offenders Against Juveniles

3 The survey followed a stratified two-stage sample

selection procedure, which did not yield a simple

random sample. Consequently, statistical significance

testing performed in this analysis followed recommendations of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and

used generalized variance estimates included in the

data set for the calculation of variances (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and

Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2000).

4 All differences among offenders against children,

teenagers, and adults described in the text or shown

in the figures are significant at the p<.05 level.
4

most incarcerated offenders against teens

(58 percent) were in prison for committing sex crimes (figure 2). In contrast, only

7 percent of offenders against adults had

committed sex crimes, and larger percentages of offenders against adults had committed homicides (34 percent), robberies

(33 percent), and assaults (23 percent).

Offenders against juveniles in State prisons differed from offenders against adults

in many other ways, including race, gender, age, and marital status. The majority

of offenders against juveniles were white;

they accounted for 73 percent of those

who had victimized children and 56 percent of those who had victimized teens.

In contrast, the majority of incarcerated

offenders against adults (59 percent) were

nonwhite. Although the overall prison population of violent offenders was almost

equally divided between white and black

inmates, more white offenders (30 percent)

than black offenders (13 percent) had committed crimes against juveniles (figure 3).

In terms of gender, women made up only

a small fraction (4 percent) of the incarcerated population for violent crimes of

any sort. However, they were somewhat

overrepresented (6 percent) among offenders against children age 12 or younger and underrepresented (only 1 percent)

among those who had victimized teens

ages 13–17. It is unclear whether this representation is due to the actual incidence

of crimes committed by females or to the

way in which the justice system deals

with their crimes.

72%

10%

11%

3%

3%

2%

Victim Age 12 or Younger

(n=46,850)

58%

18%

14%

8%

3%

Victim Age 13–17

(n=46,913)

33%

23%

34%

7%

1%

2%

Victim Age 18+

(n=342,265)

Rape or sexual assault Kidnapping Homicide Other violent crimes Assault Robbery

Figure 2: Offense Distribution for Violent Offenders in State Prisons, by Age of Victim, 1997

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau

of Prisons.

48% 46%

6%

Offender Race

Other

(n=25,084)

Black White

(n=208,801) (n=202,143)

Age of Victims of

Black Offenders

Age of Victims of

White Offenders

12 or younger (13%)

13–17 (17%)

18+ (70%)

12 or younger (5%)

13–17 (8%)

18+ (87%)

Figure 3: Victim Age Distribution for Violent Offenders in State Prisons, by Offender Race, 1997

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau

of Prisons.
5

Overall, offenders against juveniles in

State prisons were older (51 percent over

age 30) than offenders against adults

(only 34 percent over age 30) at the time

of their arrest. This difference is almost

entirely attributable to the older age distribution of offenders who victimized

children (age 12 or younger) rather than

teens (ages 13–17) (figure 4). Among offenders against children, 62 percent were

over 30 and fewer were ages 18 to 24,

which was the peak age group for inmates

who victimized adults and teens.

In other words, the older the violent offenders were at the time of their arrest,

the more likely they were to have offended against juveniles (figure 5). Fifty-four

percent of offenders arrested at age 60

or older had committed crimes against

juveniles compared with 16 percent of

offenders age 18 to 24 at the time of arrest. Also, older incarcerated offenders

were more likely to have victimized children than teens. Of the sex offenders

older than 60, 100 percent had committed crimes against juveniles.

In addition to being typically older and

white, incarcerated offenders against juveniles were also more likely to have

been married (56 percent) than offenders

against adults (40 percent). The percentage of offenders who had ever been married was particularly high (65 percent)

among those who victimized children age

12 and under. Offenders against juveniles

were also more likely than offenders

against adults to have been employed

during the month before their arrest (76

percent versus 69 percent).

Offense Characteristics

One of the most dramatic differences between incarcerated offenders against juveniles and offenders against adults was the

offender/victim relationship. Offenders

against juveniles were much more likely

to have victimized a family member or an

acquaintance, whereas most offenders

against adults had victimized strangers

(figure 6, page 7).

Offenders’ relationships to their victims

also varied between inmates who victimized children and inmates who victimized

teens. Offenders against children had

most often victimized their own children

or stepchildren (40 percent) or another

young relative (18 percent); very few

(5 percent) had victimized a stranger.

Among offenders who victimized teens, a

considerable number had victimized their

own children (21 percent) or another

0

10

20

30

40

50

Victim age 12 or younger Victim age 13–17 Victim age 18+

Offender Age at Arrest

17 or 

younger

18–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60 or 

older

Percentage of Offenders

Figure 4: Age of Violent Offenders in State Prisons at the Time of

Arrest, by Age of Victim, 1997

Note: Area under each line represents 100 percent of offenders for each victim age group.

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

17 or 

younger

18–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60 or 

older

Victim age 12 or younger Victim age 13–17 Victim age 18+

Offender Age at Arrest

Percentage of Victims

3 5 11 15 16

23

16

32

45

40

19 11

7

8

12

15

16

12

11

14

78

84 83

77

72

62 69

56

44 46

Figure 5: Victim Age Distribution for Violent Offenders in State

Prisons, by Offender Age at Time of Arrest, 1997

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons.
6

relative (9 percent), and another 9 percent had victimized an intimate partner,

such as a spouse or girlfriend. The proportion of offenders who victimized teenage strangers rose to 22 percent. Among

offenders against adults, the proportion

that had victimized strangers increased

to 54 percent and the proportion that

victimized relatives or intimates decreased to 16 percent.

It is important to keep in mind that these

victim/offender patterns vary somewhat,

depending on the type of offense, and

that offenders against juveniles were primarily incarcerated for sex offenses.

Among sex offenders, those who victimized both children and teens were more

likely to have offended against their own

children and relatives, and they were less

likely to have offended against strangers

(figure 7). Among offenders incarcerated

for homicide, however, only those who

had victimized children (and not teens)

had victimized within their families.

Within the inmate sample, no incarcerated offenders who killed teens had killed

their own children, and only 8 percent

had killed another relative. These percentages reflect the typical patterns of

these offenses. Intrafamilial sexual abuse

of a teen, particularly of a daughter by a

father or stepfather, is a relatively frequent sex crime, but when parents kill

their children, they usually kill infants

and young children—rarely are teens the

victims (Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2000;

Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2001). Offenders

who had killed teens or adults, however,

were more likely than offenders against

children to target strangers.

Offenders against juveniles and offenders

against adults also differed in regard to

the gender of their victims. Most offenders against juveniles (76 percent) had female victims. The majority of offenders

against adults (64 percent) had male victims. In part, this reflects the fact that

most offenders against juveniles committed sex crimes, which typically have female victims (Finkelhor and Ormrod,

2000). However, even for the crime of

homicide, offenders against children were

more likely to have female victims than

offenders against adults. For example, 53

percent of offenders who killed children

age 12 or younger targeted females, but

only 30 percent of offenders who killed

teens and 26 percent of offenders who

killed adults had female victims.5 Sexual

assaults showed a somewhat opposite

pattern. Offenders who victimized juveniles (children age 12 or younger and

teens ages 13–17) were somewhat more

likely to target males than offenders who

victimized adults (16 percent and 7 percent, respectively, versus 3 percent).

Offenders against juveniles in State prisons also differed from offenders against

adults in other aspects of the crimes they

committed. Few of the crimes committed

by offenders against juveniles involved

weapons (8 percent of crimes against

children and 27 percent of crimes against

teens, compared with 51 percent of crimes

against adults). Crimes committed by

offenders against juveniles also were less

likely to involve multiple offenders and

multiple offenses. These differences reflect the fact that adults do not need to

rely on weapons and assistance from

other offenders to commit crimes against

juveniles, who are usually smaller than

their offenders and often under their

care and authority. Offenders against juveniles were also less likely than offenders

against adults to have used drugs or alcohol during their offenses (39 percent for

offenders against children, compared with

45 percent and 55 percent for offenders

against teens and adults, respectively).

These considerations may have contributed to the finding that offenders against

juveniles were less likely to inflict injuries

on their victims (14 percent of child victims and 28 percent of teen victims were

injured, compared with 70 percent of

adult victims).

Concern that the criminal justice system treats offenders

against juveniles more leniently than offenders against adults

can be only partially addressed with the data available in the

1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities. A

comparison of sentence severity must take into account several important limitations of these data.

First, although the sentences of inmates in State prisons can

be compared, these prisoners do not represent all the offenders who come into contact with the criminal justice system. In

general, the offenses committed by State prisoners are those

the justice system considers the most serious. However, many

convicted offenders are given suspended sentences, probation, or shorter sentences that are served in local jails rather

than prisons. Additionally, there are other offenders who, for

one reason or other, are not arrested or charged with crimes

at all. Whether offenders against juveniles are treated more

leniently than offenders against adults during the earlier

stages of the legal process cannot be determined from the

information presented in the inmate survey.

Second, offenders are incarcerated in State prisons for a variety of violent offenses, not all of which, by definition, can have

both adult and juvenile victims. For example, the survey includes the crimes of statutory rape, lewd act with children,

Comparison of Sentences of Offenders Against Juveniles and Offenders Against Adults

and child abuse, which have no adult victims, and assaulting

a public officer, which has no juvenile victims. These offenses do not provide equivalent (or comparable) sentences for

both offenders against adults and offenders against juveniles. This Bulletin limits sentence comparisons to inmates

whose offenses can have victims in either age group.

Third, the sentences examined in the survey vary in many

ways, each of which must be taken into account when making comparisons. For example, the survey designates one

offense for each inmate as the “controlling offense” and records sentence details for that offense only. If an inmate is

incarcerated for a single offense, that offense is the controlling offense. If an inmate is incarcerated for multiple offenses,

the controlling offense is the crime that results in the longest

or most severe maximum sentence. Also, because maximum

sentences can be reported either as a specific length of time

(term sentence) or as a life or death sentence, two different

approaches were used to compare sentence severity. The

first compares all inmates by juxtaposing those serving term

sentences (less severe) with those serving life or death sentences (more severe). The second approach considers only

inmates serving term sentences and measures sentence

severity by calculating the length of the sentence.

5 Incidents involving physical assaults (not shown)

are similar to homicide incidents in terms of victim

age, gender, and relationship to offender.
7

Acquaintance Spouse or intimate partner Other relative

40%

5%

37%

18%

39%

22%

21%

9%

9%

54%

30%

13% 3%

Own child or stepchild Stranger

Victim Age 12 or Younger Victim Age 13–17 Victim Age 18+

Note: Data are based on single-victim incidents only.

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau

of Prisons.

Figure 6: Distribution of Offender/Victim Relationship for Violent Offenders in State Prisons, by Age

of Victim, 1997

37%

40%

20%

3%

38%

11%

11%

11%

29%

42%

36%

17%

3%

2%

21%

17% 62%

1%

44%

4%

45%

8%

37%

44%

14%

5%

Rape or

Sexual

Assault

Homicide

Victim Age 12 or Younger Victim Age 13–17 Victim Age 18+

Own child or stepchild Stranger Acquaintance Spouse or intimate partner Other relative

Figure 7: Distribution of Offender/Victim Relationship for Sex and Homicide Offenders in State

Prisons, by Age of Victim, 1997

Note: Data are based on single-victim incidents only.

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau

of Prisons.
8

Offender History

Offenders against juveniles were less likely than other offenders to be recidivists.

Although the majority of incarcerated violent offenders in State facilities are recidivists, the recidivism rates were lower for

offenders against children (59 percent)

and teens (61 percent) than for offenders

against adults (72 percent).

In addition to questions about criminal

history, the survey also asked prisoners

whether they had been physically or sexually abused as children (answers were

uncorroborated by other sources). Offenders against juveniles reported being

victims of physical or sexual abuse more

often than inmates who had committed

crimes against adults only (figure 8).

Perhaps a history of physical and sexual

abuse is more common among those

who commit physical and sexual crimes

against juveniles than it is among other

violent criminals. However, in trying to

understand their crimes, these offenders

may have had more occasion to remember victimizations similar to those they

committed, or they may have used their

childhood experiences to defend their

criminal behavior in court.

Summary of Differences

As a group, incarcerated offenders against

juveniles are clearly different from the

much larger group of offenders against

adults. Table 1 highlights the most

dramatic contrasts. Offenders against

juveniles were mostly white, older,

previously married men who primarily

had committed sex offenses against

female relatives, intimates, or acquaintances, without using weapons. Conversely, offenders against adults were

predominantly nonwhite men, under 30,

who had never married and primarily had

committed violent, nonsexual offenses

with weapons against male strangers.

Given the source of the data, these

contrasts apply only to incarcerated

offenders and cannot necessarily be extrapolated to describe offenders against

juveniles and adults outside State prison

populations. Some groups (for example,

older, white physical assaulters) may not

be reported, arrested, prosecuted, or incarcerated as often as other offenders

for a variety of reasons, and such system biases may create or accentuate the

contrasts found among the incarcerated

population. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy

that a substantial segment of the incarcerated population is imprisoned for crimes

against juveniles. The ways in which

these offenders differ from the rest of the

prison population are also noteworthy.

In particular, offenders against juveniles

have less often committed the kinds of

crimes that most terrify communities—

crimes such as assaults by strangers that

involve weapons and physical injuries.

Given these differences, this offender subpopulation likely constitutes a clearly differentiated group within prisons and may

experience both advantages (employment

experience, family ties, and racial favoritism) and disadvantages (sex crime stigma

15%

59%

11%

15%

Victim Age 12 or Younger

15%

70%

7%

8%

12%

81%

3%

4%

Victim Age 13–17 Victim Age 18+

Sexual abuse Physical abuse Both Not abused

Figure 8: Distribution of Sexual and Physical Abuse History of Violent Offenders in State Prisons,

by Age of Victim, 1997

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau

of Prisons.

Table 1: Typical Characteristics of Violent Offenders in State Prisons,

by Victim Age, 1997

Offenders Against Offenders Against

Characteristic Juveniles Adults

Crime Sex offenses (65%) Violent nonsex offenses (93%)

Race White (64%) Nonwhite (59%)

Age at arrest Over age 30 (51%) Under age 30 (66%)

Marital status Ever married (56%) Never married (60%)

Relation to victim Relative/intimate (48%) Stranger (54%)

Acquaintance (38%)

Weapon No weapon (82%) Weapon (51%)

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons.
9

and physical inferiority) in the prison

environment (Musk and Swetz, 1997;

Toch, 1977).

Trends in the

Victimizers of Juveniles

Population

The number of offenders against juveniles

incarcerated in State prisons was substantially higher in 1997 than it was in

1991, the last year that a State inmate

survey had been conducted—up from

61,040 in 1991 to 93,760 in 1997. The

higher figure, however, is mostly accounted for by a large increase (33 percent) in

the total number of incarcerated violent

offenders with victims of any age (figure

9). There was also a small but significant

increase in the proportion of all violent

offenders who were offenders against

juveniles (from 19 to 22 percent).

Between 1991 and 1997, the number of

offenders against juveniles incarcerated

for homicide rose from 5,793 to 12,746.

As a result, the percentage of homicide

offenders represented within all incarcerated offenders against juveniles rose from

10 to 14 percent. The number of sex offenders against juveniles also increased,

rising from 42,933 to 60,549. However,

because the number of sex offenders increased at a slower rate than the number

of homicide offenders, the relative percentage of sex offenders decreased (from

71 to 65 percent).

Sentences for

Offenders Against

Juveniles

Advocates for child victims, in particular,

sometimes argue that the justice system

is too lenient on victimizers of children.

Cases involving light sentences for child

murderers and sex offenders have received

substantial newspaper coverage (Kirk,

1997; Wolfe, 1998) and prompted some

States to draft new legislation, such as

“homicide by child abuse” laws that allow

prosecutors to charge offenders against

children with more serious crimes

(Phipps, 1999).

Assessing sentencing severity for offenders against children, however, is difficult.

As described above, offenders against

children and teens tend to differ from

other offenders, and these differences

may affect sentence severity. For example,

compared with other offenders, victimizers of juveniles are more likely to be related to their victims, less likely to use

weapons, more likely to be employed, and

less likely to be recidivists—all of which

might ordinarily reduce sentence severity,

regardless of the victim’s age (Erez and

Tontodanato, 1990; Steffensmeier and

Motivans, 2000; Steffensmeier, Ulmer,

and Kramer, 1998). Data from the Survey

of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities

offer information on sentence severity

that can be used to assess whether

offenders against juveniles receive unusually lenient sentences. Although limited in some respects (see sidebar on “Comparison of . . .,” page 6), this information

describes the personal and criminal characteristics of offenders against juveniles

that may be taken into consideration during sentencing.

Sentence severity findings are mixed

when offenders against children, teens,

and adults are directly compared without

any adjustments. Data show that offenders against children and teens are somewhat less likely than offenders against

adults to receive life or death sentences

for their crimes (figure 10, page 10). Twelve

percent of offenders against children, 9 percent of offenders against teens, and 17 percent of offenders against adults received

life or death sentences. However, because

offenses against children and teens are

often sex crimes and offenses against

adults are often homicides, it is important

to view these figures within the context of

specific offenses. When viewed in this way,

the only difference between child, teen,

and adult victimizers appears to be that

offenders against teens are less likely to

receive life or death sentences for sex

crimes.

Term sentence lengths (i.e., excluding life

or death sentences) for offenders were

not as varied (figure 10). The number of

months received by offenders against juveniles and offenders against adults were

fairly similar (examining gross differences

without adjusting for offender or offense

characteristics). However, offenders

against children and teenagers do appear to receive lighter sentences for sex

crimes than offenders against adults (180

months versus 240 months, respectively). In the case of homicides, offenders

against children and teenagers appear to

receive longer sentences than offenders

against adults; however, the differences

are not statistically significant.

Factors other than type of offense also

affect sentence severity, notably, victim/

offender relationship and weapon use. For

example, sentences for offenders against

juveniles may have been more lenient not

simply because they involved younger

victims, but because those crimes involved more family members and fewer

weapons. Differences such as these need

to be taken into account when considering the survey’s findings.

Table 2 (page 11) shows the results of an

analysis in which sentences were statistically adjusted to reflect the effects of various factors, including victim characteristics, such as age, gender, and relationship

to offender; offense characteristics, such

as type of crime, use of weapon, and number of offenders; offender characteristics,

such as gender, race, and age at arrest;

and legal processing conditions, such

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Number of Offenders (in thousands)

Offenders with

juvenile victims

Offenders with

adult victims

1991 1997

81%

19%

78%

22%

Figure 9: Number of Violent

Offenders in State

Prisons, by Age of

Victim, 1991 and 1997

Note: Only violent offenders who reported

a victim’s age are included. Differences 

in juvenile and adult victim proportions for

1991 and 1997 are significant at the p<.05

level. Between 1991 and 1997, the number of violent offenders in State prisons increased by 33% (from 327,960 to 436,030).

Source: Greenfeld, 1996; 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons.
10

as conviction by trial, use of a public

defender, and presence of sentencing

guidelines.6 The data clearly show that

sentences for offenders against children

under age 12 are not more lenient. In fact,

when adjusted for specific types of offenders and crimes, these sentences are

statistically indistinguishable from sentences received by offenders against

adults. However, there does appear to be

a systematic and fairly large tendency for

offenders against teens to receive lighter

sentences than other offenders. When

other factors (i.e., victim, offense, offender, and legal processing) are controlled,

offenders against teens are 52 percent

less likely than offenders against adults to

receive a life or death sentence, 82 percent less likely to receive a life or death

sentence for a nonfatal sexual assault,

and 33 percent less likely to receive a life

or death sentence for a homicide. Offenders against teens are also likely to

receive sentences that are about 2 years

(25 months) shorter than those given to

offenders against adults and about 7

years (87 months) shorter than those

given to inmates who committed nonfatal

sex offenses against adults. Homicide sentences are not significantly different in

length.

Therefore, it appears that offenders against

teens—not offenders against young

children—receive lighter sentences. The

lighter sentences in this case may be, in

part, the result of negative perceptions

about teen victims. Influenced by popular

stereotypes about teens, judges may be

prone to view teenage physical or sexual

assault victims as having behaved provocatively or irresponsibly. These judgments may be mitigating factors in sentencing decisions in cases with teen

victims. Other mitigating factors may

occur in some crimes against teens, such

as gang affiliation by the victim, that are

not captured in the data. Therefore, the

differences in sentencing could be due to

both real features and social stereotypes.

In any case, the differences in sentencing

related to victim age should be researched

more thoroughly.

Conclusion

Individuals who commit crimes against

children and teens make up a large and

growing segment of the population of

violent offenders incarcerated in State

correctional facilities. These inmates, as

a group, have distinguishing features:

they are disproportionately sex offenders against family members and acquaintances; they are mostly older, white, and

employed; and they are less recidivistic

and more likely to have been married

than other incarcerated violent offenders.

Given this group’s distinctiveness, it is

noteworthy that this segment of the

prison population has generated relatively little research.

Many people have observed that sex offenders against children are strongly

reviled within prison subculture and subjected to harassment and assault. For

these reasons, offenders against children

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

All Violent

Offenses

Sex

Offenses

Homicides

Percentage of Sentences That Are Life or Death

**

** *

Victim age 12 or younger Victim age 13–17 Victim age 18+

All Violent

Offenses

Sex

Offenses

Homicides

Median Sentence (in months)

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320

**

**

Figure 10: Sentences of Violent Offenders in State Prisons, by

Offense and Age of Victim, 1997

* Different from adult victims, p<.05.

** Different from adult victims, p<.01.

Source: 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons.

6 A complete list of the factors considered also includes victim race and ethnicity, attempted or completed crime, injury to victim, involvement of multiple

victims, use of drugs or alcohol by offender, offender

employment, offender recidivism, offender abuse history, conviction for multiple offenses, sentencing as

an adult, and sentencing affected by a firearms violation, a drug offense, or previous “strikes.”
11

Table 2: Effects of Victim Age on Sentencing

Effect/Victim Age All Offenses Sex Offenses Homicides

Change in probability of 

life or death sentence†

Child (age 12 or younger) 

vs. adult victim n.s.‡ n.s. n.s.

Teenage (age 13–17) 

vs. adult victim –52%** –82%** –33%*

Change in sentence (months)

(inmates with term sentences)§

Child (age 12 or younger) 

vs. adult victim n.s. n.s. n.s.

Teenage (age 13–17) 

vs. adult victim –25** –87** n.s.

Note: Analysis controlled for selected victim, offense, offender, and legal processing factors.

† Logistic regression model for each offense type with life or death sentence (yes or no) as 

dependent variable. Probabilities reflect approximate relative risk ratios (Zhang and Yu, 1998).

‡ n.s. = not significant.

§ Multiple regression model for each offense type with length of sentence as dependent variable.

* p<.05. ** p<.01.

may conceal their offenses or be segregated from other inmates (Musk and Swetz,

1997). However, such generalizations certainly mask the varied experiences of different facilities and individuals. Some characteristics of this subpopulation, such as

marital ties and employment experience,

may work to its advantage. In addition,

this population’s characteristics may confer upon it differential treatment throughout the justice system, from the prosecution phase to the operation of parole

boards and probation officials. These

potential differences are worthy of more

attention.

A form of differential treatment that has

received much attention in recent years is

when offenders against children are accorded overly lenient sentences, perhaps

because the lives and suffering of children were insufficiently valued in judicial

decisionmaking. Analysis for this Bulletin,

however, suggests that when important

features such as offense seriousness and

offender recidivism are taken into account,

offenders against children age 12 or younger do not receive more lenient sentences

than other offenders. Rather, offenders

against teens receive lighter sentences

than might be expected, based on their

offenses and criminal histories. This disparity certainly merits more attention, particularly if it stems from stereotypical views

that teenage victims are in some way

responsible for their own victimizations.

Although a substantial amount of research has focused on the determinants

of sentencing and possible sentencing

inequities (e.g., Erez and Tontodanato,

1990; Levesque, 2000; McCormick et al.,

1998; Myers, 1979; Steffensmeier and

Motivans, 2000; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and

Kramer, 1998; Steffensmeier and Ulmer,

1995), victim age has never been considered as a possible factor in this literature.

It is particularly important that studies

examine how victim age affects sentencing for offender populations broader than

the one examined in this analysis, which

was limited to offenders sentenced to

State prisons. Juvenile crime victims have

not always had consistent access to the

full and impartial benefits of the justice

system; therefore, monitoring the justice

system’s response to cases involving

these particular victims seems to be a

justified and important priority.

References

Beck, A.J. 1993. Survey of State Prison

Inmates, 1991. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Chapman, J.R., and Smith, B.E. 1987. Child

Sexual Abuse: An Analysis of Case Processing. Washington, DC: American Bar

Association.

Cheit, R.E. 1997. Child molesters in the

criminal justice system: A comprehensive

case-flow analysis of the Rhode Island

docket. New England Journal on Criminal

and Civil Confinement 23(2):267–301.

Cross, T.P. 1995. Criminal justice outcomes of prosecution of child sexual

abuse: A case flow analysis. Child Abuse

& Neglect 19(12):1431–1442.

Erez, E., and Tontodanato, P. 1990. The

effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcome. Criminology

28(3):451–474.

Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R. 2000. Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R. 2001. Homicides of Children and Youth. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Goodman, G.S., Taub, E.P., Jones, D.P.H.,

England, P., Port, L.K., Rudy, L., and

Prado, L. 1992. Testifying in court. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development 57(5):1–142.

Greenfeld, L.A. 1996. Child Victimizers:

Violent Offenders and Their Victims. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Kirk, L.M. 1997. Innocence lost: Child sexual abuse in Rhode Island. Providence

Journal (February 2):A–1.

Levesque, R. 2000. Sentencing sex crimes

against children: An empirical and policy

analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law

18:331–341.

McCormick, J.S., Maric, A., Seto, M.C., and

Barbaree, H.E. 1998. Relationship to victim predicts sentence length in sexual

assault cases. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence 13(3):413–420.

Musk, H., and Swetz, A. 1997. Pedophilia

in the correctional system. Corrections

Today 59(5):24–28.

Myers, M.A. 1979. Offended parties and

official reactions: Victims and the sentencing of criminal defendants. The Sociological Quarterly 20:529–540.

Phipps, C.A. 1999. Responding to child

homicide: A statutory proposal. Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology 89:535–613.

Smith, D.W., and Saunders, B.E. 1994.

Personality characteristics of father/
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 191028

perpetrators and non-offending mothers

in incest families. Paper presented at the

San Diego Conference on Maltreatment of

Children, San Diego, CA, 1994.

Steffensmeier, D., and Motivans, M. 2000.

Older men and older women in the arms

of criminal law: Offending patterns and

sentencing outcomes. Journal of Gerontology 5(3):141–151.

Steffensmeier, D., and Ulmer, J. 1995. Age

differences in sentencing. Justice Quarterly

12(3):583–601.

Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., and Kramer, J.

1998. The interaction of race, gender,

and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment costs of being young, black, and

male. Criminology 36(4):763–793.

Toch, H. 1977. Living in Prison. New York,

NY: Macmillan Publishing, Inc.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was prepared by David Finkelhor, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, and

Director, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire,

david.finkelhor@unh.edu (e-mail); and Richard Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Professor, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire,

rormrod@cisunix.unh.edu (e-mail).

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of

Prisons. 2000. Survey of Inmates in State

and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997.

(Computer file.) Compiled by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university

Consortium for Political and Social

Research (producer and distributor).

Wolfe, J. 1998. Maine courts show leniency

for child killers. Maine Sunday Telegram

(July 12):1.

Zhang, J., and Yu, K.F. 1998. What’s the

relative risk? A method of correcting the

odds ratios in cohort studies of common

outcomes. Journal of the American Medical

Association 280(19):1690–1691.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of 

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant numbers 98–JN–FX–0012 and 2000–JW–VX–0005

from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.