Looking forward in records of young adults convicted of sexual homicide, rape, or molestation as youth: risks for reoffending.

To assess the risks predicting reoffense, 223 Rapists (M age = 14.2 yr., SD = 1.5; 25 girls, 198 boys) were matched with 223 Nonviolent Delinquents; risks were analyzed using logistic regression. The one predictor was prior court contacts (OR = 1.55e+12; AUC = .99, 95% CI = .98-.99). 223 Molesters were similarly matched with 223 Nonviolent Delinquents; this comparison yielded three predictors: previous court contacts (OR = 4.55e+23), poorer executive function (OR = 2.01), and lower social maturity (OR = .97; AUC = .98, 95% CI = .97-.99). Records for all cases (now M age = 24.2 yr., SD = 1.4) were reviewed forward 10 years and youth were classified into groups: Sexual Homicidal (1%, n = 7), Delinquent Rapists Later Adult Rapists (11%, n = 73), Delinquent Rapists (21%, n = 144), Delinquent Molesters Later Adult Molesters (10%, n = 69), Delinquent Molesters (23%, n = 153), Nonviolent Delinquent Later Nonviolent Adult Criminals (7%, n = 45), and Nonviolent Delinquents (27%, n = 178). Comparison of Sexual Homicidal cases (n = 7) with their matched Controls (n = 7) yielded one predictor, poorer executive function (AUC = .89, 95% CI = .71-.93). When Sexual Homicidal cases were matched with Nonviolent Delinquents, predictors were low social maturity and prior court contacts (AUC = .81, 95% CI = .64-.93).

Accepted legal applications of actuarial testing and delinquency interventions: examples of savings in real-life situations.

Violent crime, especially by youth, is an increasing and costly problem. Zagar and colleagues have described five empirical studies in which youths' and adults' risks were identified and used to predict commission of homicide. The samples were more representative of the most violent modern urban delinquents than samples in previous research from smaller cities. From Zagar and colleagues' results, it is clear that the use of actuarial personality and probation-parole tests to identify at-risk individuals and target treatments to their needs would allow organizations to reduce loss of life and improve quality of life and economic and social well-being. The current article first provides a brief review of the situations in which the courts already accept the use of actuarial personality and probation-parole tests. Following that are several representations of the costs and benefits of broader application of testing and treatment in schools, universities, and workplaces. Finally, a specific proposal for generalized screening is proposed in a city of 3 million, with estimates of lives saved and costs reduced.

Cost comparisons of raising a child from birth to 17 years among samples of abused, delinquent, violent, and homicidal youth using victimization and justice system estimates.

Data from youth studied by Zagar and colleagues were randomly sampled to create groups of controls and abused, delinquent, violent, and homicidal youth (n=30 in each). Estimated costs of raising a nondelinquent youth from birth to 17 yr. were compared with the average costs incurred by other youth in each group. Estimates of living expenses, direct and indirect costs of victimization, and criminal justice system expenditures were summed. Groups differed significantly on total expenses, victimization costs, and criminal justice expenditures. Mean total costs for a homicidal youth were estimated at $3,935,433, while those for a control youth were $150,754. Abused, delinquent, and violent youth had average total expenses roughly double the total mean costs of controls. Prevention of dropout, alcoholism, addiction, career delinquency, or homicide justifies interception and empirical treatment on a cost-benefit basis, but also based on the severe personal costs to the victims and to the youth themselves.