Developmental criminologists have criticized typologies of juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) for assuming that JSOs involved in nonsexual offending are a homogenous group. However, this criticism has remained largely conceptual. To help empirically address the validity of this criticism, offending trajectories from age 12 to 23 were measured for a sample of male JSOs (n = 52) and juvenile nonsex offenders (JNSOs; n = 231) interviewed as part of the Incarcerated Serious and Violent Young Offender study. Within this predominantly Caucasian sample, whether offender status (JSO/JNSO) or risk factors were better indicators of trajectory group membership was examined. Four unique offending trajectories emerged, namely, a low-rate offending trajectory, a bell-shaped offending trajectory, a slow-rising chronic trajectory, and a high-rate chronic trajectory. The relatively equal distribution of JSOs in each trajectory indicated that the criminal behavior committed by this group was not expressed by just one pattern. Further, the prevalence of JSOs in each trajectory mirrored the prevalence of JNSOs in the same trajectory, suggesting that having a sex offense in adolescence was not informative of general offending patterns. Individual and familial-level risk/needs factors were better indicators of trajectory membership. Implications for existing typologies of JSOs are discussed.

Little is known about homicide co-offending networks at the individual gang member level. Of particular interest is whether and to what degree gang members who are selected to participate in murder are different from those who are not. The current study constructed the co-offense network of 18 participants from the Incarcerated Serious and Violent Young Offender Study who were identified as members of a prominent gang within British Columbia, Canada, referred to as the BC Gang. This gang started to form not long before seven offenders together committed a homicide that was orchestrated by the founder and leader of the BC Gang. After this offense, some of these seven offenders became the most central actors within a large network of co-offenders (n = 137) that was measured at four time periods over a 20-year period. Over this period, a second murder, like the first, was orchestrated by the leader of the BC Gang, offering a rare glimpse into the co-offending recruitment decisions made by a high ranking gang member for two separate homicides. Although only 25% of the 137 co-offenders are BC gang members (n = 35), 100% of the offenders selected for a homicide were members of this gang (n = 13). The network contained 8 separate components at the final measurement period, but all 13 homicide offenders were connected to the same network component of 48 individuals.