Broken Boundaries
2010
What Do We Know About
Adolescent Sex Offenders?
Anna C. Salter
Adult Sex Offenders
& Age of Onset
1/3 to 1/2 began offending
In adolescence
(Prentky et al., 2000)
Juvenile Sex Offenders:
Age of Onset
Begin Offending Under Age 12
46%
(Burton, 2000)
Scope of the Problem
1994
Under age 13
Arrested for felonies
110,000
(Berman, Kurtines, Silverman, & Serafini,
1996)
Rise and Fall of Juvenile Crime
1983 – 1992 Arrests

Girls
+85%

Boys
+50%

Youth in juvenile facilities +41%
( Children’s Defense Fund, 1997)
Rise of Juvenile Crime
1980 – 1994 Arrests
Violent crimes
+64%
Murder
+99%
(Butts & Travis, 2002)
Fall in Juvenile Violent Crime
Fell 6 years 1994 – 2000
(Butts & Travis, 2002)
Decline in Juvenile Crime
Violent Crime
Murder, rape, robbery aggravated assault
-34%
Decline in Juvenile Crime
Arrests
1994 - 2000
Murder
Robbery
Burglary
Rape
-68%
-51%
-33%
-25%
(Butts & Travis, 2002)
Decline in Violent Crime
2000 Lowest in 20 years
(Butts & Travis, 2002)
Decline in Juvenile Crime
Largest of any age group
Increases in Juvenile Crime
Arrests
1994 – 2000
DUI
+54%
Liquor Law Violations
+33%
Drug Abuse
+29%
(Butts & Travis, 2002)
Decline in Crime 2008
Violent Crime
1999-2008
Decreased 41%
Decline in Crime 2008
Property Crime
1999-2008
Decreased 32%
Decline in Crime 2008
Decline in Rape & Sexual Assault
1999-2008
53%
Adolescents & Violent/Sexual Crime
Age of Onset of Serious Violence
85% of those involved in serious violence by
age 27 report that their 1st act occurred
between 12 & 20
Peak age of onset 16
Almost no serious violence starts
< age 10 & > age 23
(Prentky 2002)
Two Onset “Trajectories”
Childhood Onset
strong link between childhood factors
and persistent violence into adulthood
Juvenile Onset:
most violence begins in adolescence,
ends with the transition into adulthood
(Prentky, 2002)
Chronic Juvenile Offenders
% of Offenders
% of Crime
6.3%
52%
7.5%
61%
(Wolfgang’s 1958)
Juvenile Crime
Offenders
8%
Crimes
70%
(Beuhring, 2002; Howell, 1995;
Kelley et al., 1997)
Onset of Sexual Offending
Incarcerated adolescents
Onset < 12
Onset> 12
Offending < and > age 12
N
48
130
65
Seriousness & complexity of sexual acts
more severe for the continuous offenders
(Burton, 2000)
Boundaries of
Developmentally Normative
Sexual Behavior
Normal & Deviant Adolescent
Sexual Behavior
(Adapted from Dr. Robert Prentky &
Dr. William Friedrich)
“Normal”









Sexually explicit conversations with peers
Obscenities and jokes within cultural norm
Sexual innuendo, flirting and courtship
Interest in erotica
Solitary masturbation
Hugging, kissing, holding hands
Foreplay, (petting, making out, fondling)
Mutual masturbation
Sexual intercourse with consenting partner*
Deviant Behaviors: Level 1










High degree of sexual preoccupation and/or anxiety
Frequent use of pornography or sex shows
Indiscriminate sexual contact with multiple partners
Sexually aggressive remarks/obscenities
Sexual graffiti (especially sexually aggressive images)
Embarrassment of others with sexual remarks or
innuendo
Violation of others’ body space
Pulling skirts up / pants down
Peeping, exposing or frottage with known agemates
Obscene gestures or “mooning”
Deviant Level 1

Red flags - may signal an abnormally high
degree of sexual preoccupation and/or
sexually aggressive impulses

Some form of intervention may be
desirable
Deviant Behaviors: Level 2






Compulsive masturbation (especially public)
Degradation/humiliation of self or others
with sexual overtones
Attempting to expose others’ genitals
Chronic preoccupation with sexually aggressive
pornography
Sexually explicit conversation with young children
Sexualized touching without permission
(grabbing, goosing)


Sexually explicit threats (verbal or written)
Obscene phone calls (voyeurism, exhibitionism, frottage)
Deviant Level 2

Indicate a high degree of sexual
preoccupation and/or deviant sexual
interests,

Require intervention
Deviant Behaviors: Level 3

Genital touching without permission (e.g.
fondling)

Sexual contact with significant age difference
(sexual abuse of children)

Forced sexual contact (any assault having sexual
overtones)



Forced penetration (vaginal or anal)
Sexual contact with animals (bestiality)
Genital injury to others
Deviant Level 3

Victim-involved sexual assault

Require intervention
Adolescent Sex Offenders
Deviant Arousal
or
Criminal Behavior
Specialists?
50% Prior Arrests Same Crime
Rapists
14%
Car Thieves
19%
Burglars
25%
Violent Offenders
34%
Robbers
35%
(Cohen, 1986)
Specialists?
50% of prior crimes were sex offenses
Rapists
4%
Child Molesters
41%
(Lussier et al., 2005)
Hanson Meta-Analysis
Recidivism
Follow-up = 4 - 5 Years

New Sex Offense

Any Offense
13%
37%
(Hanson & Bussiere, 1996)
Adolescent Sex Offenders:
Sexual vs. General Recidivism
FU up to 6 years
Recidivate
7.5 to 14
 Sexual
 General
Criminal
40 to 60
(Langstrom & Grann, 2000)
Adolescent Sex Offenders

Committed a non-sex offense
86%
(Jacobs et al., 1997)
Deviant Arousal or Antisocial
4 variables correctly classified 77% reoffenders
Involvement with delinquent peers
Crimes against persons
Attitudes towards sexual assault
Family normlessness
(Ageton, 1983)
Deviant Arousal or Antisocial
Involvement with delinquent peers
Correctly classified 76% reoffenders
(Ageton, 1983)
Fluidity of Sexual
Preference
Hunter & Becker, 1994
Hunter, Goodwin, & Becker, 1994
Hypothesized that “the majority of juvenile
offenders, in contrast to most adult
offenders, may not have yet developed a
relatively fixed pattern of sexual arousal
and interest which gives direction to
consistent patterns of behaviour,” Hunter
et al., 1994, p. 536.
The assumption of greater
developmental fluidity in JSOs is
supported by:



(1) much higher number of juvenile, as
opposed to adult, offenders with mixed
gender victims;
(2) relatively high percentage of juveniles
with multiple paraphilias;
(3) marked differences between juvenile
and adult incest offenders
(Hunter et al., 1994)
Differences in Incest

Adult incest offenders:
Less deviant arousal on the PPG
Have fewer victims
Begin offending at a later age.

Juvenile sex offenders
All less true
Considerable cross-over incest and non-incest
(Hunter et al., 1994)
Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment:
Impact of Working with Offenders



N = 200 young offenders of all types
Sentence = 2 years
Data:
Presentence
Current offense
Previous convictions
One meeting
(Williams, unpublished)
Risk Assessment:
Impact of Working with Offenders

Data:
Original information
Experience of working with offenders
for previous years
(Williams, unpublished)
Risk Assessment:
Impact of Working with Offenders
Outcome

1st Evaluation
Moderate correlation with recidivism

2nd Evaluation
No outcome with recidivism
(Williams, unpublished)
JSORRAT
Doug Epperson
Item 1
Number of Adjudications for Sexual
Offenses, including the Current

One………………………………………0

Two………………………………………1

Three…………………………………….2

Four or more…………………………….3
Item 1

Count the number of formal adjudications
for sexual offenses

Include attempted sex offenses and
conspiracy

Record the score and NOT the number of
adjudications

Include all adjudications regardless of the
level of the sex offense (misdemeanor or
felony)

The number of victims or number of
discrete events does not count – simply
count the number of adjudications
Number of Adjudications
& Recidivism
No.
N
Sex Recidivism
1
2
3
4+
452
6.2%
118
26.3%
37
35.1%
29
41.4
(Epperson, 2005)
Item 2
Number of Different Victims in Charged
Sex Offenses, Including Current

One………………………………………..0

Two………………………………………..1

Three or more ……………………………2
Item 2

Count the number of different victims in
charged sex offenses including current

Record the score, NOT the number of
victims

For “hands-on” victims, count each distinct
victim in charged offenses
Item 2

For “hands-off” exposure offenses
involving groups, count only one victim for
each offense

The number of events, charges or
adjudications do not count – only the
number of victims of charged sex offenses
Item 2

Do not count victims of self-reported or
alleged offenses that were not charged
Number of Victims
No.
1
2
3+
N
Recidivism
442
6.8%
116
24.1%
78
33.3%
(Epperson, 2005)
Item 3
Length of Charged Sex Offending
History, Including the Current Charge

Zero time (only one charge).……………..0

0.01 to 5.99 months.………………………1

6.00 to 11.99 months.……………………..2

12 months or longer.………………………3
Item 3

Length of time in months between the date
of the first sexual offense CHARGE and
the date of the most recent sexual offense
CHARGE

8 months & 10 days = 8 months

Count the number of full months between
the two charges
Duration of Sex Offense History
Duration
N
0 months(1 charge)
Up to 6 months
6 to 12 months
12 +
416
144
27
49
Recidivism
5.3%
17.4%
37%
55.1%
J-SORRAT Results
Risk Level
Score
Juvenile
Recidivists
Percent
Recidivism
Low
0–2
3/305
1%
Mod/Low
3–4
9/137
6.6%
Moderate
5–7
26/107
24.3%
Mod/High
8 – 11
28/65
43.1%
12+
18/22
81.1%
High
Results for Juvenile Reoffending
Nearly ½ adolescent sex offenders
1% reoffense rate
30%
Significant risk
Results for Anytime Offending
Risk Level
Score
Anytime
Recidivists
Percent
Recidivism
Low
0–2
21/305
6.9
Moderate/Low
3–4
17/137
12.4
Moderate
5–7
33/107
30.8
Moderate/High
8 – 11
37/65
56.9
12+
18/22
81.8
High
Utah Validation Study
Risk Level
Score Range
Recidivists/
Selected
Recidivism Rate
%
1
0
1/56
1.8
2
1-3
27/214
11.2
3
4-7
25/108
18.8
4
8+
16/47
25.4
Iowa Validation Sample
Risk Level
Score
Recidivism 24 mos.
1
0-1
0
2
2-6
14.8
3
7+
42.6
Juvenile Sex Offender
Assessment Protocol
Robert Prentky, Ph.D.
Sue Righthand, Ph.D.
J-SOAP
Criteria
 Boys
– 18
 Nonadjudicated & Adjudicated
 12
(Prentky and Righthand, 2003)
Overview Original J-SOAP
23 items
4 subscales
I. Sexual Drive/Sexual Preoccupation
(5)
II. Impulsive, Antisocial Behavior
III. Clinical/Treatment
IV. Community Adjustment
(Prentky and Righthand, 2003)
Norming Sample

96 juvenile sexual offenders

Age 9 – 20

Low socio-economic status

2/3 adjudicated; 1/3 adjudicated

Average age 14
(Prentky and Righthand, 2003)
Validation Study
12 month follow-up
75 of 96
11% recidivism total
3 sexual offense
4 nonsexual, victim-oriented
1 nonsexual, nonvictim offense
Recidivism Data

Reoffenders

Non Reoffenders
Average Score
30
21
9- Year Follow-up
N = 253
New sexual offense
New offense
4.3%
60%
(Waite, Pinkerton, Wieckowski, McGarvey,
& Brown, 2002)
High Versus Low Scorers
Any New
Offense
Sexual
Offense

High Scorers
74,8%
9.8%

Low Scorers
52.6%
2.9%
(Waite, Pinkerton, Wieckowski, McGarvey, &
Brown, 2002)
Scoring
0
1
2
Absence of factor
Some info that suggests factor
Clear Presence
Scale 1:Sexual
Drive/Preoccupation Items
Item 1: Prior legally charged sex offenses


Total number of prior charged sex
offenses that involved physical contact
Do not count index
 0 = None
 1 = 1 Offense
 2 = More than one
Scale 2: Impulsive/Antisocial
Behavior Items
Item 10. Pervasive Anger



Verbal aggression, angry outbursts, threatening &
intimidating behavior, nonsexual physical assaults
Must be multiple targets across multiple settings
Destroying property only if anger
0 = No evidence
1 = Occasional outbursts or narrow range of
targets
2 = Moderate/Strong Long-standing pattern with
multiple targets
Scale 3 Intervention Items



Item 19 Understands Risk Factors and Applies
Risk Management Strategies
0 = Good understanding. Knows triggers,
thinking errors, and high risk situations.
Uses management strategies
1 = Incomplete understanding or inconsistent
2 = Poor understanding of risk factors and
strategies. Cannot identify triggers, thinking
errors. Offense justifying attitudes.
Scale 4 Community
Stability/Adjustment Factor
Item 24 Management of Sexual Urges and Desire



0 = Well managed expression of sexual urges;
all intimate relationships are age appropriate
and non-coercive
1 = No more than 2 instances of inappropriate
behavior
2 = Frequently gratifies urges in deviant ways on
3 or more occasions. E. g., chronic masturbation
or compulsive pornography. 2 for sexual
promiscuity. Coercive behavior a 2 unless index
Scale 4 Community
Stability/Adjustment Factor




Item 26 Stability of Current Living Situation
Current household members engaging in
substance abuse, frequent changes in sex
partners, poor boundaries, use of pornography,
family violence/child neglect, known criminal
history or frequently relocating home
Frequent changes in juvenile’s living situation
High-risk living situation, such as a shelter or
high-risk location (near bar or playground)
Score for stressfulness of living situation
Scale 4 Community
Stability/Adjustment Factor
Item 26 Stability of Current Living Situation
0 = Stable; no significant disruption
1 = Moderate; Instability intermittent or
any
serious; sexual abuse a “2”
2 = Severe; Instability frequent and
chronic occurring at least one or two
times a week
Adult Psychopathy
Best Predictor of Violence
(Harris, Rice & Cormier, 1991)
Adolescent Psychopathy &
Violence
Age Range
High
Low
Younger (13 - 15.5)
52%
12%
Mid (15.5 - 18)
64%
54%
Older (18 - 20.5)
48%
33%
(Forth, 1995)
High Vs Low Psychopathy
Adolescents
10 or More
Violent Acts

High Psychopathy

Low Psychopathy
64%
37%
(Forth, 1995)
Earlier Onset
of Criminal Activity
Psychopathy & Age of Onset


Low PCL
High PCL
Nonviolent
Violent
12
9
15
12
(Forth, A. E., 1995)
Psychopathy Checklist
Youth Version: PC:YV
No correlation with age
(Forth & Burke, 1998)
Psychopathic Adolescents






More criminal acts
More types of criminal acts
Earlier age of onset for violent & nonviolent
offenses
More likely to have threatened with a weapon
More likely to commit robbery & arson
More likely to commit a sexual offense
(Forth & Burke, 1998)
Psychopathic Adolescent Sex
Offenders

Threatened more

Used more severe violence
(Gretton et al., 1994)
Adolescent Psychopathy &
Recidivism
N = 189
Nonviolent
Violent
High
66%
Low
27%
31%
12%
(Gretton et al., 1994)
Adolescent Psychopathy &
Recidivism
N = 189
High
Months to
Recidivism
16
Low
27
(Gretton et al., 1994)
Psychopathy & Quality of Parenting
Ordinary Personalities
Poor Parenting = More Conduct
Problems
High Factor 1 Personalities
Parenting Not Related
(Wooton et al., 1997)
Recidivism in Adolescent Sex Offenders
•
N = 220 admissions to Sex Offender
Treatment Program, Youth Court
Services, Burnaby, B.C., 1985-1993
• Age at Intake: 14.7
• Mean PCL:YV score = 21.7
• Five-year follow-up
(Gretton et al., 1999)
Recidivism in Adolescent Sex Offenders:
Type of Crime (Gretton et al, 1999)
70
60
Offence Type
Percent
50
Non-Violent
Violent
Sex
40
30
20
10
0
Low (n=80)
Med (n=111)
PCL:YV Group
High (n=29)
Recidivism in Adolescent Sex Offenders:
Mean Time to First Offence
(Gretton et al, 1999)
40
Months
30
20
10
0
Low (n=80)
Med (n=111)
PCL:YV Group
High (n=29)
Recidivism in Adolescent Sex Offenders
Mean Number of Offences
(Gretton et al, 1999)
Mean Number of
Offences
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Low (n=80)
Med (n=111)
PCL:YV GROUP
High (n=29)
Psychopathy & Treatment
Non
Psychopaths
Treated
Untreated
22%
39%
(Harris, Rice et al., 1994)
Psychopathy & Treatment
Psychopaths
Treated
77%
Untreated
55%
(Harris, Rice et al., 1994)
10-Year Follow-Up of Adolescent
Court Referrals (Gretton, 1998)






157 male adolescents referred by the courts to Youth
Court Services Inpatient Unit in 1986 for psychiatric or
psychological evaluation
Age 12 to 18
Had confessed or had been convicted on one or more
violations of the penal code
Awaiting sentencing
Mean PCL:YV score = 22.9 (SD = 7.0)
Reliability: ICC for average of 2 ratings = .88
Recidivism Rates for Sample
(Gretton, 1998)
100
97
96
80
68
60
40
15
20
0
Any
Nonviolent
Sexual
Violent
Age Related Changes in Violent Offending
(Gretton, 1998)
1.2
Mean
1
0.8
NP (n=42)
M (n=77)
P (n=38)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Early
Adolescence
Late
Adolescence
Early
Adulthood
Age Period
NP: Nonpsychopathic Group, M: Mixed Group, P: Psychopathic Group
Denial in Adolescent
Sex Offenders
N = 204 males
Community-based treatment
Tx Compliance
Denial (%)
None
Some
Complete
No
27
49
71
Yes
73
52
29
(Hunter & Figuerdo,1999)
Polygraph and Adolescent Sex
Offenders
N
Collateral
Intake
Polygraph
Child
60
1.52
1.87
2.85
Offenses
51
27.18
20.65
76.59
(Emerick & Dutton, 1993)
Polygraph and Adolescent Sex
Offenders
Intake
Pornography
Voyeurism
Rape
Fetish
Polygraph
27%
78%
29
49
15
29
12
24
(Emerick & Dutton, 1997)
Treatment Versus Sanctions
Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions
(Andrews, 1998)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
Treatment
Sanctions
Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions
Young Offenders
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
Criminal
Sanctions
Treatment
Dowden & Andrews, 1999
Impact of Appropriate Vs.
Inappropriate Treatment
(Andrews, 1998)
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
Combined Tx
Appropriate
Inappropriate
Sanctions
Type of Treatment & Young Offenders
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Non Behavioral
Cognitive
Behavioral
0.05
0
Dowden & Andrews, 1999
Appropriate Treatment
 Higher
Risk More Intensive
 Targets
 Uses
Criminogenic Needs
Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment
 Implement
Treatment As Designed
(Andrews, 1998)
Criminogenic Needs
Criminogenic
Non Criminogenic
Antisocial Attitudes
Antisocial Friends
Substance Abuse
Impulsivity
Self-Esteem
Anxiety
Depression
Targeting Criminogenic Needs
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Targets 1 - 3
Noncriminogen
ic Needs
Targets 4 - 6
Criminogenic
Needs
0
-0.05
Gendreau, French & Taylor, 2002
Self Esteem Vs. Criminogenic Needs
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
Self Esteem
Criminogenic
Needs
What Works






Higher Risk Offenders
At least 2 sessions per week
Smaller groups
Implementation Monitored
Staff Trained on Cognitive-Behavioral Tx
Higher Proportion of Treatment Completers
Programming That Doesn’t Work
 Psychodynamic
 Non-directive/Client-centered
 Disease
Model
(Andrews, 1998)
Cost of Recidivism

To Taxpayers

To Victims
Computing Cost of Recidivism
 Police
Investigation
 Adjudication
 Corrections
 Medical Care of Victims
 Mental Health Care of Victims
 Property Damage
 Reduced Future Earnings
(Aos, 1999)
Computing Victim Cost of Recidivism
 Medical
Care
 Mental Health Care
 Property Damage
 Reduced Future Earnings
 Pain and Suffering
 Loss of Life
(Aos, 1999)
Cost Effectiveness of Correctional
Programming
Every $1 Spent on Correctional Programming
Taxpayers Save $5
Victims Save $7
(Aos, 1999)
“We found the largest and most consistent
returns are for programs designed for
juvenile offenders.”
(Aos et al., 1999, p. 6)
Cost Effectiveness of Programming for
Juveniles
For Every $1 Spent on Juvenile Programs
Tax Payers Save Between $7.62 & $31.4
(Aos, 1999)
Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Non
Offender Programs
Program
Taxpayers
Alone
Taxpayers &
Victims
Quantum
$.09
$.13
Big Brothers
$1.30
$2.12
(Aos, 1999)
Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Non
Offender Programs
Program
Cost/
Participant
Effect
Size
Quantum
$18,292
-.42
Big Brothers
$1,009
-.05
(Aos, 1999)
Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Supervision
Programs
Program



Diversion
Intensive
Probation
Boot Camp
Taxpayers
Alone
Taxpayers &
Victims
$7.62
$13.61
.90
.42
1.49
.26
(Aos, 1999)
Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Treatment
Programs
Program
Taxpayers
Alone
ARP
Multi-Systemic
Functional Fam
Multi Tx Foster
$19.57
8.38
6.85
14.07
Taxpayers &
Victims
$31.40
13.45
10.99
22.58
Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Treatment
Programs
Program
Cost/
Effect
Participant Size
Aggression
Replacement
Training
$404
Multi-Sys
Family Tx
$4,540
-.26
-.68
(Aos, 1999)
What Does It Take to Break Even
Depends on the Cost
Percent Reduction to
Break Even
Aggression
Replacement
Training
1.4%
Multi-Systemic
Family Therapy
10.2%
Sibling Incest
Differences in Incest

Adult incest offenders:
Less deviant arousal on the PPG
Have fewer victims
Begin offending at a later age.

Juvenile sex offenders
All less true
Considerable cross-over incest and nonincest
Sibling vs Parental Incest
No Difference
Self-abusive behaviors
Physical problems
Sexual problems
Level of guilt
Shame
(Cole, 1990)
Adolescent Sex Offenders
N = 170
Males
Mean Age = 15
(O’Brien, 1991)
Sample
Incest
Extrafamilial Molester
Nonchild offender
Mixed
Average Acts
18
4
7.4
8.5
(O’Brien, 1991)
Length of Abuse
> 1 Year

Incest Group
45%

Extrafamilial Molesters
23%

Nonchild Offenders
24%
(O’Brien, 1991)
Intercourse

Incest
46%

Extrafamilial Child
28%

Nonchild Offenders
13%
(O’Brien, 1991)
Age of Victims
< 9 Years-Old
76%
(O’Brien, 1991)
Other Criminal Acts
 Incest
11%
 Extrafamilial
18%
 Nonchild
26%
(O’Brien, 1991)
Prior Sexual Victimization
 Incest
42%
 Extrafamilial
40%
 Nonchild
29%
(O’Brien, 1991)
2 or More Victims

Incest
53%

Extrafamilial
42%
(O’Brien, 1991)
Adolescent Sex Offenders

30 to 50% of child molestations

20% of rapes
(Murphy & Page, 2000)
Adult Sex Offenders with No Juvenile
Charges
33%
Committed undetected sex offenses
(Knight and Prentky, 1993)
Interaction of Genes and
Environment
Males with low MAOA activity allele
(specific gene)
+
Childhood maltreatment
Increased antisocial behavior
(Beaver, 2008)
Genetic Contribution to Violent
Behavior
½ Variance in antisocial behavior
Due to genetic factors
( Beaver, 2008; Mason & Frick, 1994; Miles
& Carey, 1997; Rhee & Wald, 2002)
Genetics & Environment
Interactive
(Rowe, 2002; Rutter, 2006; Walsh, 2002)
Violence Delinquency Scale

How many times past 12 months hurt someone
badly enough to require medical attention

Used a weapon to get something from
someone

Took part in a group fight
(Beaver, 2008)