Changing approaches of prosecutors towards juvenile repeated sex-offenders: a Bayesian evaluation. (English) Zbl 1194.62130

Bandyopadhyay, Dipankar; Sinha, Debajyoti; Lipsitz, Stuart; Letourneau, Elizabeth

Ann. Appl. Stat. 4, No. 2, 805-829 (2010).

Summary: Existing state-wide data bases on prosecutor decisions about juvenile offenders are important, yet often un-explored resources for understanding changes in patterns of judicial decisions over time. We investigate the extent and nature of change in judicial behavior toward juveniles following the enactment of a new set of mandatory registration policies between 1992 and 1996 via analyzing the data on prosecutor decisions of moving forward for youths repeatedly charged with sexual violence in South Carolina. To analyze this longitudinal binary data, we use a random effects logistic regression model via incorporating an unknown change-point year. For convenient physical interpretation, our models allow the proportional odds interpretation of effects of the explanatory variables and the change-point year with and without conditioning on the youth-specific random effects. As a consequence, the effects of the unknown change-point year and other factors can be interpreted as changes in both within youth and population averaged odds of moving forward. Using a Bayesian paradigm, we consider various prior opinions about the unknown year of the change in the pattern of prosecutor decisions. Based on the available data, we make posteriori conclusions about whether a change-point has occurred between 1992 and 1996 (inclusive), evaluate the degree of confidence about the year of change-point, estimate the magnitude of the effects of the change-point and other factors, and investigate other provocative questions about patterns of prosecutor decisions over time.

MSC:

62P25	Applications of statistics to social sciences
62P99	Applications of statistics
65C60	Computational problems in statistics (MSC2010)
62J12	Generalized linear models (logistic models)
65C40	Numerical analysis or methods applied to Markov chains

Keywords:

bridge density; change-point; Dirichlet prior; Markov chain Monte Carlo

Software:

BayesDA; WinBUGS

References:

[1]	Bandyopadhyay, D. (2009). Supplement to “Changing approaches of prosecutors towards juvenile repeated sex-offenders: A Bayesian evaluation” DOI: .
[2]	Barrett, D. E., Katsiyanis, A. and Zhang, D. (2006). Predictors of offense severity, prosecution, incarceration and repeat violations for adoloscent male and female offenders. Journal of Child and Family Studies 15 709-719.
[3]	Bumby, K. M., Talbot, T. B. and Carter, M. M. (2009). Sex offender reentry: Facilitating public safety through successful transition and community reintegration. Criminal Justice and Behavior .
[4]	Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multivariate Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach , 2nd ed. Springer, New York. · Zbl 1005.62007 · doi:10.1007/b97636
[5]	Caldwell, M. F. (2002). What we do not know about juvenile sexual reoffense risk. Child Maltreatment 7 291-302.
[6]	Carlin, B. P. and Louis, T. A. (2000). Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis , 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. · Zbl 1017.62005
[7]	Chaffin, M. (2008). Our minds are made up: Don’t confuse us with the facts. Child Maltreatment [Special Issue: Children with Sexual Behavior Problems] 13 110-121.
[8]	Chaiken, J. M. (1998). Introduction paper presented at the Bureau of Justics Statistics National Conference on Sex Offender registries. Available at (retrieved February 21, 2003).
[9]	Edwards, W. and Hensley, C. (2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Theraphy and Comparative Criminology 45 83-101.
[10]	Fortune, C.-A. and Lambie, I. (2006). Sexually abusive youth: A review of recidivism studies and methodological issues for future research. Clinical Psychology Review 26 1078-1095.
[11]	Garfinkle, E. (2003). Coming of age in America: The misapplication of sex-offender registration and community-notification laws to juveniles. California Law Review 91 163-208.
[12]	Gelfand, A. E., Dey, D. K. and Chang, H. (1992). Model determination using predictive distributions with implementation via sampling-based methods (with discussion). In Bayesian Statistics 4 (J. M. Bernardo, J. O. Berger, A. P. David and A. F. M. Smith, eds.) 147-167 Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
[13]	Gelfand, A. and Smith, A. F. M. (1990). Sampling based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 85 398-409. · Zbl 0702.62020 · doi:10.2307/2289776
[14]	Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. and Rubin, D. (2004). Bayesian Data Analysis , 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York. · Zbl 1039.62018
[15]	Gilks, W. R. and Wild, P. (1992). Adaptive rejection sampling for Gibbs sampling. Appl. Statist. 41 337-348. · Zbl 0825.62407 · doi:10.2307/2347565
[16]	Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework . Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[17]	Kaban, A. (2007). On Bayesian classification with Laplace priors. Pattern Recognition Letters 28 1271-1282.
[18]	LaFond, J. Q. (2005). Preventing Sexual Violence: How Society Should Cope With Sex Offenders . Am. Psychol. Assoc., Washington, DC.
[19]	Letourneau, E. and Miner, M. H. (2005). Juvenile sex offenders: A case against the legal and clinical status quo. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment 17 293-312.
[20]	Letourneau, E., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D. and Armstrong, K. (2009). Effects of sex offender registration policies on juvenile justice decision making. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 21 149-165.
[21]	Levenson, J. S. and Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megans Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 21 49-66.
[22]	McManus, R. (2005). South Carolina Criminal and Juvenile Justice Trends: 2004 . South Carolina Dept. Public Safety, Columbia, SC.
[23]	Wang, Z. and Louis, T. A. (2003). Matching conditional and marginal shapes in binary mixed-effects models using a bridge distribution function. Biometrika 90 765-775. · Zbl 1436.62294 · doi:10.1093/biomet/90.4.765
[24]	Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., Best, N. and Lunn, D. (2005). WinBUGS user manual, version 1.4.2, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health and Dept. Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College School of Medicine. Available at http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs.
[25]	Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P. and van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 64 583-639. · Zbl 1067.62010 · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00353
[26]	Terry, K. J. and Furlong, J. S. (2004). Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: A ‘Megan’s Law’ Sourcebook . Civic Research Institute, Kingston, NJ.
[27]	Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 21 67-82.
[28]	Trivits, L. C. and Reppucci, N. D. (2002). Application of Megan’s Law to juveniles. American Psychologist 57 690-704.
[29]	Zeger, S. L. and Liang, K.-Y. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 42 121-130.
[30]	Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies 19 193-208.
[31]	Zimring, F. E. (2004). An American Travesty: Legal Responses to Adolescent Sexual Offending . Chicago Univ. Press.
[32]	Zimring, F. E., Piquero, A. R. and Jennings, W. G. (2007). Sexual delinquency in racine: Does early sex offending predict later sex offending in youth and young adulthood? Criminology and Public Policy 6 507-534.