The deconstructed juvenile sex offender, intersectionality and integration : a discourse analysis of juvenile sex offender research in the Netherlands

(1)

The Deconstructed Juvenile Sex Offender,

Intersectionality and Integration

______________________________________

A Discourse Analysis of Juvenile Sex Offender Research in the

Netherlands

Nathalie Chara, 10861629

Final Thesis- Submitted: August 12, 2015 [Submitted for the retake date of August 15, 2015] Supervisors: Conny Roggeband and Marie-Louise Janssen

(2)

Introduction

‘Sexual offender’ is a label that can evoke repulsion and antipathy. Perhaps because of this the entire subject of ‘sexual offending’ is shrouded within a cloud of negativity and at times hostility. However, particularly when dealing with juvenile sex offenses and offenders, the presentation of the problem and its reception is markedly different. A country that sits at the forefront of progressive sexual policies is the Netherlands. When comparing the Netherlands with other countries and their reactions to juvenile sex offenses, their response to strict punishment has been met with rehabilitative measures. Especially when looking at their track record with juvenile sex offenders, the Netherlands has seemed to remain steady in establishing clinical treatment as an alternative to harsh punitive punishments.

Although the problem of juvenile sex offending is approached differently in the Netherlands, it does not negate the presence of an intersectional construction. Characterized by an initial male-only conceptualization and racialized exclusionary rhetoric, the normalization and implicitness of these types of discourses create multiple meanings of the same problem with a variety of implications and

assumptions. The discourse surrounding juvenile sex offenders creates an explicit notion image of the problem and bypasses how this image can be problematic, problematized, and useful for a larger gendered, racialized, sexuality and class-based discourse in the Netherlands. The next step in this process is to unpack the

construction of the problem of juvenile sex offenders. The question that is of concern now is- how is gender, race, sexuality, and class (intersectionality) used

simultaneously to construct the problem of juvenile sex offenders in the Netherlands? This thesis will address this research question by establishing itself with a Foucauldian and feminist theoretical framework that will incorporate a modified

(4)

version of Carol Bacchi’s public policy methodology to unpack the construction of this problem. Adopting the Foucauldian notions of relational power-knowledge, academic discourse and an interview with a scientist/clinician will be analyzed as two distinct sites of knowledge production and power actors (Foucault, 1972; Foucault, 1977). Similar to the argument for historians, academic discourse will be analyzed as a particular site of knowledge production where claims to truth are made which is taken as legitimate (Foucault, 1972). It is important to note that these articles serve as authoritative texts that are meant to produce knowledge about juvenile sex offenders and, therefore, challenging this text can be difficult. This thesis aims to investigate juvenile sex offender research in the Netherlands and deconstruct the various problem representations found in the research. In order to accomplish this, the following research question and sub-questions have been developed and will be used to guide the research:

A.) Research Question:

How are gender, race, sexuality, and class (intersectionality) used simultaneously to construct the problem of juvenile sex offenders in the Netherlands?

B.) Sub-Questions:

1. What’s the ‘problem’ represented to be in a specific policy? 2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation

of the ‘problem’?

3. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences?

(5)

4. How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?

Using these questions will provide a clear and logical methodological tool for

confronting the various problem representations. This thesis aims to contribute a new understanding of critical race theory and strives to add to the limited and scarce intersectionality scholarship in the Netherlands. Additionally, this thesis intends to contribute a new dimension to the growing work on the difficulties of integration, multiculturalism, and Dutch modernity.

Developing within these frameworks and incorporating Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ questions will allow for a unique in-depth analysis of this construction. This analysis will look at the different ways the problem is constructed, the ways intersectionality is used in the different constructions, the assumptions and implications, and the effects of these different constructions.

When attempting to research any problem it is incredibly necessary to

understand how the question/problem is framed and how it is represented to be within a particular country. As a researcher new to the Netherlands, it becomes even more important to understand the diversity of meanings of this particular problem to reflect on wider processes taking place. The weight of this thesis will come from applying Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be?” approach. This methodological approach will provide an in-depth and critical reading of the research on juvenile sex offenders to analyze the different meanings of juvenile sex offenders in terms of gender, race, sexuality, and class. This methodological approach is an effective method for understanding large problems because it employs “both constructionist and deconstructionist [approaches]” (Verloo & Lombardo, 2007, p. 38). By mapping

(6)

the various meanings of gender, race, sexuality, and class within juvenile sex offender discourse, it will illustrate that juvenile sex offending has different meanings that are exclusionary of some while singling out others. It is vital to understand how this intersectional framing has an influence on the type of language and how the problem itself is understood and conceptualized. The persistence of these intersectionalized claims when profiling juvenile sex offender creates discursive effects on research and creates a specific framing of a problem that has distinct implications and solutions for a targeted group. The way discourse formulates or ‘speaks’ of juvenile sex offenders “make[s] it difficult- but not impossible- to think or to speak outside the terms of reference they establish for conceptualizing people and social relations” (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010, p. 5). In this way, the juvenile sex offender becomes a production of discourse and is therefore altered by discourse. Ideas or images of the juvenile sex offender as a character become apparent, prevalent, and dominant and similar to the argument put forth by Bacchi & Eveline (2010), this thesis will propose that

intersectional claims in this discourse “produce or constitute political subjects” (p. 8). Most important will be to understand how race and ethnicity are initially used to differentiate Dutch offenders and ethnic minority offenders and, subsequently, how then race and ethnicity are used to convey different claims.

The central argument of this thesis is that discourse actively produces realities; but these realities are adjusted based on one’s intersectionality. Yanow and van der Haar (2013) write,

“The argument is based on a central notion in interpretive analysis that word choose is significant to both cognition and action: the seeds for thought are embedded within the source origins of metaphoric terms, as conceptual metaphor theory suggests, and, in metaphoric processes, are carried over in

(7)

and through tem to the realm of policy discourse and action as well as

everyday practices. And policy discourse, in the end, can affect people’s lives” (p. 230).

How do these claims differ between the two offenders, Dutch offenders and ethnic minority offenders, and what is being said about each? Also, what effects can be created and what implications can be drawn from these two distinct

conceptualizations? As these constructions are relative to one another, it will be important to compare what is highlighted as problematic of each offender. Lastly, this thesis attempts to uncover the underlying discourses and argue that they have

exclusionary power. This exclusionary rhetoric has the ability to lend to greater gendered, racialized, sexualized, and classed discourses in the Netherlands.

Consequently, the construction of the problem creates varied meanings of the problem for specific groups. Additionally, these discourses lend to essentializing strategies that misrepresent problems, normalize judgment, and implicitly villianize certain people. If all ethnic minorities are considered immigrants and are considered Allochtoon for generations, these broad claims about ethnic minority offenders have the potential to criminalize all ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. Ultimately, this thesis will bring to light how the prevalence of exclusionary language challenges the process of integration for immigrants in the Netherlands.

Thesis Outline and Structure

This thesis begins by providing an initial theoretical framework that lays the foundation for discourse and the constructive power it holds. Using Foucault to establish this relationship, discourse will be understood as a medium to convey truth claims and produce knowledge. Next, the theoretical framework will be further developed and will be extended to include intersectionality in discourse.

(8)

Intersectionality is a crucial element to this thesis as it shows how gender, race, sexuality, and class become utilized to construct various characters or ideas of a particular concept. Various intersectional claims are made in the construction of juvenile sex offenders that are identified and explained using intersectionality theory. Namely, by identifying these claims there are connections that can be made to wider processes happening in the Netherlands, namely race discourse, Dutch modernity, and integration. Intersectionality in discourse becomes increasingly important to connect these macro processes to this deconstruction. Lastly, using intersectionality theory from Myra Max Ferree and Bacchi and Eveline the framing of intersectionality will be examined. The framing intersectionality in discourse illustrates the function of intersectional claims and how it contributes to the creation of various meanings of the same problem/same concept.

Following the theoretical framework, the methodology section will elaborate how the discourse analysis was carried out. Using Bacchi’s questions

methodologically provided a clear and logical way of organizing and drawing out the implications of the various problem constructions and as the research developed, it was clear that an ongoing methodological approach was necessary. Because of the clarity it provides, the following chapter headings and the content of each chapter is influenced by Bacchi’s questions. Additionally, working closely with these questions allowed me to build each construction in a way that allows for further points of discussion to develop. Presenting this thesis in this format will aid in understanding the extensiveness of deconstructive research. Similar to the set up of my research question and sub-questions, by also setting up my thesis structure in this format it will allow for the nuances of the problem representation to be closely examined. Next, the results section and the discussion section will be somewhat integrated in the Findings

(9)

chapter. Because this research developed reflexively, the results and the discussion work in a circular way. It is vital to understand that each chapter required working backwards. In other words, the results of the discourse analysis are presented as findings in order to allow room for further development and discussion.

Overall, this thesis will be structured in a way that draws inspiration from Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ methodology. It is important to note the aims of this thesis and how it will be structured in order to provide a clear and logical analysis. This analysis is relative and works only when compared between each construction. To reflect the research, the first section will address the problem representation of ‘juvenile sex offending’ and the legal perimeters that construct it. This analysis will provide a general overview of what juvenile sex offending means and will include the gendering aspect involved. To reflect the division in the research, the second section will dive into the construction of the ‘juvenile sex offender’. Interestingly, this division is based in ethnicity/race and two characters emerge- the ‘Dutch juvenile sex offender’ and the ‘ethnic minority juvenile sex offender’.

Stemming from here, each offender problem representation will show the differences in each construction and how they paint entirely different ideas of who each offender is, what type of sexual offense they commit, their reasons for committing, and

who/what contributes to this offense. The aim of this thesis is to challenge this type of discursive construction to shed light on this unequal and unjustified construction. The results of my discourse analysis inform how the theoretical framework and the subsequent discussion take shape. While providing a great logical instrument for discourse analysis, using each of the questions clearly outlines the silhouette of this thesis and also provides a transition to discuss wider processes in the Netherlands.

(10)

Key Concepts: Power, Discourse and Intersectionality

Foucault and Power

This section is meant to provide a theoretical outline for this thesis. It will lay the groundwork for understanding power, discourse, and knowledge production that will be adopted and expanded on here. This thesis will be constructed upon the

relationship between power and discourse, the functions these power-discourses have, and ultimately knowledge production. The relationship of power and discourse came to fruition through the substantial works of Michel Foucault. For the purposes of this paper, it is necessary to develop an understanding of, first, power, and, second, power and discourse or power in discourse. Foucault builds his analysis of power on the simple notion that “power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” (Foucault, 1978, p. 93). Power is conceptualized as “not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are

endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society” (p. 93). This post-structural perspective on power posits that power is relational and is exercised constantly and from every direction. Foucault (1978) writes, “relations of power are not in superstructural positions, with merely a role of prohibition or accompaniment; they have a directly productive role, wherever they come into play” (p. 94). Foucault’s description of power may seem abstract or

inaccessible but the emphasis must not be placed on how power is defined but instead on the functionality of power and the way power expresses itself. In other words, power is something that influences, shapes, and fluctuates relations- primarily the relationship between power and knowledge.

Discourse will be conceptualized here as the “socially produced forms of knowledge that set limits upon what it is possible to think, write or speak about a

(11)

‘given social object or practice’” (McHoul, 1993; Bacchi & Eveline, 2010, p. 5). The relationship of power and knowledge is one that Foucault formulates at the base as a relationship that expresses social control. In The History of Sexuality: Volume I (1978), Foucault illustrates this relationship and expounds on how power functions in sexuality discourse. Foucault (1978) introduces the term “repressive hypothesis” where he argues that the repressive notion of sexuality was not repressive but widely discussed and that within these discussions regulations and social controls on

sexuality were produced. He writes,

“The object, in short, is to define the regime of power-knowledge-pleasure that sustains the discourse on human sexuality… the central issue [is]… to account for the fact that it [sexuality] is spoken about, to discover who does the speaking, the positions and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speak about it and which store and distribute the things that are said.” (p. 11).

The purpose of investigating these issues was to disseminate how power functioned within the discourse and how it ultimately shapes knowledge. He writes, “Hence, too, my main concern will be to locate the forms of power, the channels it takes, and the discourses it permeates… [and] how it penetrates and controls everyday pleasure” (p. 11). In other words, by asking these questions the voices, ideas, and concepts can be addressed and the “polymorphous techniques of power” can be deconstructed (p. 11). But how does this explain power within knowledge? Sexuality discourse by the very fact that it is discussed is generating a power relation. By challenging the general idea that sexuality discourse had been repressed, the way sexuality discourse had been spoken about could be assessed. Thus, sexuality discourse had power relations within and by speaking of sexuality “one had to speak of it [sex] as of a thing to be not

(12)

simply condemned or tolerated but managed, inserted into systems of utility,

regulated for the greater good of all, made to function according to an optimum. Sex was not something one simply judged; it was a thing one administered” (p. 24). The discourse on sexuality had power generate knowledge about sexuality that would change depending on the expression of power. Similarly, the research on juvenile sex offenders is a type of sexuality discourse that creates knowledge about juvenile sexual offending and juvenile sex offenders.

Expressions of power dictate discourse in a variety of ways. Certainly power can be expressed through language. Terminology such as “population” argued by Foucault (1978) was a way individual’s sexuality and sex became regulated through discourse. Using population as a term allowed for its use as a measure of sexuality and “this was the first time that a society had affirmed… that its future and its fortune were tied not only to the number and uprightness of its citizens… but to the manner in which each individual made use of his sex” (p. 26). In other words, sex is seen in relation to the production of children and would only be acceptable if offspring is the aim; simultaneously normalizing heterosexuality and otherizing homosexuality and, to a huge extent, pleasure (Foucault, 1978). Using population as a means of regulating sexuality gave legitimacy as it was intended to benefit the greater good and was framed as so within discourse. Additionally, “through the political economy of population there was formed a whole grid of observations regarding sexuality” (emphasis added) (p. 26). Population could now be legitimized in a variety of ways- birthrate, economics, the state, and politics could have a their hands in sexuality and could regulate normalization, behaviors, morality, and, ultimately, sexual conduct; this in turn creates a certain type of knowledge on sexuality. As sexuality gains legitimacy there are more ways in which it can be discussed and, consequently, what

(13)

kind of knowledge is produced. Medical sex discourse begins to characterize perversions and criminal justice discourse begins to define bad sexuality. Foucault (1978) writes,

“sexuality, particularly in the form of “heinous” crimes… [including] petty offenses, minor indecencies, insignificant perversions… [and] the sexuality of couples, parents and children, dangerous and endangered adolescents-

undertaking to protect, separate, and forewarn, signaling perils everywhere, awakening people’s attention, calling for diagnoses, piling up reports,

organizing therapies. These sites radiated discourses aimed at sex, intensifying people’s awareness of it as a constant danger, and this in turn created a further incentive to talk about it” (p. 30).

In short, sexuality discourse undertaken by medical and criminal justice discourse changes how it regulates through new rhetoric. Sexuality knowledge is now based on two distinct definitions- one sexuality that “ensure[s] population, to reproduce labour capacity… [and is] economically useful and politically conservative” and another that emphasizes perversion, criminality, danger, therapies, and behavior that defines a bad sexuality, or what sexuality is not. Therefore, understanding what juvenile sexual offending entails becomes a integral part of this analysis and will be addressed in a later section. Additionally, the medical and criminal justice discourses as sites of power and knowledge production are a central concern for this thesis and will be revisited.

Intersectionality in Discourse

Discourse as a site of power and knowledge production is the start for this thesis and sets the stage for how intersectionality functions in discourse. Of critical importance to this thesis are the uses of intersectionality in juvenile sex offender

(14)

discourse (what is said about gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, class) and the

expressions of power that emanate from that. Merging Foucault’s works on discourse and a feminist-intersectional perspective, the complex relationship between discourse and intersectionality will be discussed. First and foremost, it is important to define terminology that will be used throughout this paper. One of the most debated concepts in feminism and academia is the concept of intersectionality. For the purposes of this thesis, intersectionality will be defined as a process rather than a location. Ferree (2009) defines intersectionality as

“Rather than identifying points of intersection, [intersectionality] sees the dimensions on inequality themselves as dynamic and in changing, mutually constituted relationships with each other from which they cannot be

disentangled. This gives historically realized social relations in any place or time an irreducible complexity in themselves” (p. 2; Walby, 2007).

Intersectionality is not literally defined as an intersection that looks at the exact location of gender, race, sexuality, and class but looks at the functionality of these aspects and the dynamics involved when they are combined in such a relationship. Great emphasis must be placed on intersectionality as a process that

“Insists that it [intersectionality] cannot be located at any one level of analysis, whether individual or institutional. The “intersection of gender and race” is not any number of specific locations occupied by individuals or groups but a process through which “race” takes on multiple “gendered” meanings for particular women and men depending on whether, how and by whom race-gender is seen as relevant… These domains are to be understood as organizational fields in which multidimensional forms of inequality are experienced, contested and reproduced in historically changing forms” (p. 2).

(15)

The intersectionality developed in this thesis will start with the categories of gender-race-sexuality-class and the process by which they are used will investigate closely. Intersectionality, in this case, will look at how these categories cannot be separated and thus how they work simultaneously to produce knowledge of juvenile sex offenders. To clarify, gender-race-sexuality-class will be collectively labeled as intersectionality. Additionally, expressions of power in language, characterizations, and terminology will be explored as they also produce knowledge on juvenile sex offenders. It is now important to dissect what ‘intersectionality in discourse’ as a concept means and how it functions before understanding what knowledge is produced

By introducing dimensionality to intersectionality the complexity of the concept can be further elaborated on with regards to its functionality in discourse. Ferree (2009) writes,

“In such a complex system [intersectionality], gender is not a dimension limited to the organization of reproduction or family, class is not a dimension equated with the economy, and race is not a category reduced to the primacy of ethnicities, nations, and borders, but all of the processes that systemically organize families, economics and nations are co-constructed” (p. 2; Walby, 2007).

The categories (gender-race-sexuality-class) that work as the basis of intersectionality are indicative of a much larger picture with meanings that extend far past their simple dictionary definitions. In other words, these categories are constructed within

discourse to have various meanings that influence knowledge production. To illustrate this in Mainstreaming Politics: Gendering Practices and Feminist Theory (2010) Bacchi & Eveline argue that there is a struggle over meanings and this struggle can be

(16)

found in discourse (p. 5). When considering gender and the meanings ascribed to gender, Bacchi & Eveline (2010) argue “’gender mainstreaming’, ‘gender analysis’ and ‘gender equality’ are ‘spoken’ about [in a way that] creates them as forms of social knowledge that make it difficult- but not impossible- to think or speak outside the terms of reference they establish” (p. 5). Following this line of thought, by dissecting the intersectionality in the discourses of juvenile sex offenders the “fixed” categories can be deconstructed to examine their diverse meanings and claims.

Seemingly fixed ideas or claims when deconstructed can illustrate “how particular histories of interpreting and institutionalizing class, race and gender as abstract dimensions of inequality continue to shape gender discourse in interactively intersectional ways” (Ferree, 2009, p. 3). Another way of understanding this dynamic is to

“Remember that these ‘knowledges’ do not exist apart from the statements and signs that constitute them. In a sense they are fictions. However, due to their commonly accepted status as truth, they are powerful fictions. Calling something a ‘discourse’ means putting its truth status into question” (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010, p. 5).

Therefore, the meanings of the categories in this intersectionality (gender-race-sexuality-class) are entirely dependent on a variety of ‘conditions’- such as the supposed nature of juvenile sex offending and offenders, criminality, political discourses, and supposed immigration ‘problems’. Bacchi & Eveline (2010) describe discourse as a medium that “accomplish[es] things. They [discourses] make things happen, most often through their truth status” (p. 6). Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that these dependent constructions are circulated in discourse as truth and knowledge. Similar to the argument put forth by Foucault, this power expression

(17)

produces knowledge and this knowledge can be identified as truth claims. The various produced truth claims are vital to understanding how juvenile sex offenders are

framed in the discourse and this will be elaborated one throughout this paper.

Framing Intersectionality

A main point of concern for this thesis is to understand how intersectionality creates different versions of one concept- juvenile sex offender. Another way of understanding this is to examine how different intersectionalities (variations of gender-race-sexuality-class) create varied ideas/definitions/claims of juvenile sex offenders. This becomes increasingly important to understanding the construction of a concept/character/idea. An example of this is to break apart the concept juvenile sex offender into ‘juvenile’ and ‘sex offender’. Depending on how the ‘juvenile’ is intersectionally constructed their type of ‘sexual offender’ is created.

More so than construction, this can be seen as a process of “categorizing and ordering” (Ferree, 2009, p. 3). Ferree (2009) argues,

“Two of the central processes of discursive politics are categorizing and ordering…. As lists, ranks, metaphors and distinctions proliferate, they guide our understanding of who we are and with whom we are more or less related. Thus, for example, when the dimension of “race” is constructed and “fixed” in a national census, it generates meaningful and contestable categories (such as “Asian”) which can always be further decomposed, but which serve to distribute real resources and recognition in response to which identities and activates become oriented” (p. 3).

In other words, the ways in which juveniles are differentiated, ranked, and listed according to their intersectionalities will have real consequences on the ways they are

(18)

viewed, treated, and constructed. What is clear is that these constructions and this category creates beliefs and assumptions and this becomes key in ‘framing’.

Framing, or frameworks, are a key ingredient in what connections are made between individuals and constructions or constructions and reality. According to Ferree (2009),

“Framing means connecting beliefs about social actors and beliefs about social relations into more or less coherent packages that define what kinds of actions are necessary, possible and effective for particular actors. The point of frames is that they draw connections, identify relationships, and create perceptions of social order out of the variety of possible mental representations of reality swirling around social actors” (p. 4).

Framing ties together individual actors and schemas for different concepts. Following the example from earlier, framing works to connect the juvenile to the juvenile sex offender construction and, more importantly, carries with it a certain idea of the nature of these juveniles. Ferre (2009) writes, “framing creates the known world” (p. 4). Another way of understanding this is to understand that the concept of a juvenile sex offender does not exist without an initial frame and that the different types of juvenile sex offenders (violent, solo, etc.) do not exist without framing

intersectionality. This difference is reflected in the research aim of this thesis. Understanding the initial concept of juvenile sex offender is not as necessary as understanding how intersectionality is framed and, therefore, how it’s framing creates varied meanings of juvenile sex offenders.

Methodology Overview

This modified discourse analysis aims at investigating the construction of the problem of juvenile sex offenders in the Netherlands. This construction will be

(19)

dissected by specifically analyzing the use of/the functionality of intersectionality in the discourse surrounding juvenile sex offenders in the Netherlands. Another way of understanding this aim is by adopting the methodology created by Carol Bacchi. Bacchi’s methodology aims to examine “’what’s the problem represented to be?’” (Bacchi, 2009, p. 6). This approach is characterized as a “a poststructural approach to policy analysis… Stated simply, the intent is to dig deeper than usual into the

meaning of policies and into the meaning- making that is part of policy formation” (p. 6). This methodological approach allows researchers to challenge the construction of any problem and question the underlying meanings. In the case of this thesis, I will specifically look at how the problem of juvenile sex offenders is constructed and how intersectionality is used in this construction. In other words, how are gender, race, sexuality, and class used simultaneously (intersectionally) to construct the problem of juvenile sex offenders in the Netherlands?

‘What’s the problem represented to be?’

Bacchi’s methodology originated as a tool to investigate policy- specifically “the ways in which women’s equality has been understood in Western policy interventions, and the implications for feminist theorists” (p. 6). By using this approach, Bacchi was able to identify, “how different understandings of gender are attached to different reform approaches, and how particular ways of conceptualizing gender inhibit the efficacy of the [gender] mainstreaming strategy” (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010, p. 90). But what does problem mean (or how is problem

conceptualized) within this approach? In ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ the word problem “refers to simply the kind of change implied in a particular policy proposal. Using the same example of training schemes for women, a policy that recommends training courses for women implies that the ‘problem’ (or the cause of

(20)

their under-representation) is women’s lack of training” (p. 11). While there may very well exist a problem that needs to be addressed or investigated, the way that the policy constructs it and assigns meanings and values to it shape its conceptualization and, ultimately, how it fixed.

What this approach does is provide the first step in addressing the construction of a problem- by allowing the deconstruction of an implied problem. It provides a logical and clear way of addressing “the very idea of ‘policy’ [as it] becomes the subject for interrogation” (p. 9). Bacchi (2009) writes,

“A brief elaboration is required. In asking how governing takes place the aim is to understand how order is maintained, and how we live within and abide by rules… There is an underlying assumption that policy is a good thing, that it fixes things up… The notion of ‘fixing’ carries with it an understanding that something needs to be ‘fixed’, that there is a problem. This presumed

‘problem’ can be, but does not need to be, explicitly elaborated… Hence, there are implied ‘problems’. It is at this level that a ‘what’s the problem

represented to be?’ approach intervenes” (p. 10).

Bacchi’s methodology allows researchers to articulate the initial representation of the problem and the ways in which that problem is (problematically) constructed. Bacchi (2009) writes,

“The concept of problematisation… grounds this analysis… Problematisations necessarily reduce complexity. That is, by positing an issue as a particular sort of issue, a range of factors must be simplified. Only part of the story is being told. As a result it is critically important to interrogate the problem

(21)

include and what they leave out” (Osborne, 1997, p. 175 as cited in Bacchi, 2009, p. 12).

From the start, this approach works as a way of unpacking how problems are culturally constructed in a simple and logical format. Rather than taking these

proposed problems at face value, they are questioned and assessed within the confines of their discourse. It is important to note here that although this approach is initially intended for policy analysis it can also be used address problem representations in other texts. The core concepts of problem representation are what drive this

methodology and the instrumentation of it. For the purposes of this thesis, scientific and data-driven articles were analyzed using the ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’. An explanation of the exact methodological approach utilized here and the types of articles studied will be detailed throughout this chapter. Bacchi’s approach works through the answering of six ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ analysis questions for each article (see chart below) (Bacchi, 2009, p. 7). These questions are directed at recognizing cultural assumptions within these proposed problems. Bacchi (2009) writes,

“Showing that policies by their nature imply a certain understanding of what needs to change (the ‘problem’) suggests that ‘problems’ are endogenous-created within- rather than exogenous- existing outside- the policy-making process. Policies give shape to ‘problems’; they do not address them” (p. 9).

(22)

The foundation of this methodological approach rests in understanding that the shaping of these problems is already created within the wording (of the article or policy) and that the researcher pulls out these representations from the text.

For my final analysis, I analyzed fourteen articles published in the seven-year period between 2002 and 2008. From my initial research, I learned that research on juvenile sex offenders in the Netherlands is very recent topic and the first articles were published in 2002. The chose to end the time period in 2008 because I had already gathered a substantial number of articles including two overview articles that gave an in-depth and up-to-date collection of the laws and the research. I used two search engines to find articles: UvA library database and Google Scholar. I used two keywords for searching for articles: “Juvenile sex offenders Netherlands” and

“Adolescent sex offenders Netherlands”. Analyzing the documents with my modified questionnaire made logical sense for my article because all fourteen of my articles were data collection articles. The worksheet used for the discourse analysis is the same as the Bacchi ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ questions depicted above.

(23)

Authority in Text

Prior to discussing the findings, the authority of the texts needs to be addressed. Because the topic of juvenile sex offenders is in its infancy in the

Netherlands, there is a small amount of research articles that have been published. Of the fourteen texts, thirteen provided the various author’s affiliations. All of the affiliations provided are considered important institutions in the Netherlands that contribute to knowledge building and knowledge production. These affiliations range from clinics, the police, medical centers, and universities.

De Waag clinic (including their forensic center and various departments) is cited as the affiliation for ten authors and is present in six of the thirteen articles. The Dutch Police Academy and the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement are cited as the affiliation for eleven authors and is present in ten of the thirteen articles. The University of Amsterdam, Vrije University, and Utrecht

University are cited as the affiliation for cited for nine authors and are present in eight of the thirteen articles. Medical centers and other clinics are cited as the affiliation for three authors and is present in three of the thirteen articles. The remaining affiliations occur once and range from Jeugdformaat (Youth Care Institute), Yale University and Forensic Psychiatric Services. Looking at these various affiliations it is clear that there is a concentrated body of knowledge producers. It is vital that this concentration is looked at critically as the knowledge they produce is taken as the truth (claims). This is reflected in my proposed academic contribution as this thesis confronts this knowledge by deconstructing their findings. Furthermore, these texts are the first articles to contribute to dominant constructions of juvenile sex offenders in the Netherlands.

(24)

Findings- What’s the problem represented to be?

What is the problem of ‘Juvenile Sex Offending’ represented to be?

In order to understand the structuring of this thesis it is necessary to establish a brief introduction to the concept of juvenile sex offending. First, the first emergence of juvenile sex offending will be looked at. Next, the origins of the concept of juvenile sex offending and the specifications of offending will be examined. Lastly, the detailed analysis of the juvenile sex offender will be developed in order to understand how offenders are distinguished and how this in turn creates different problem representations.

‘Juvenile sex offending/er’ is a concept that has recently emerged in the Netherlands. The first introduction to this concept came in 2002 through Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (The Dutch Parliament). The term zedendelinquent (juvenile sex offender) first appeared in article 28 292: Aanpak van jeugdcriminaliteit (youth crime) (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2002). The concept of

zedendelinquent is interesting as ‘zeden’ is rooted in morality and therefore, sexual offending is a crime against morality. Bijleveld (2007) writes,

“Sex offenses in the Dutch Criminal Code fall under a section entitled Misdrijven tegen de zeden (crimes against morality). This title illustrates that sex offenses used to be seen predominantly as offenses against good taste, or morality, or as simply indecent. Over the years, sex offenses (and particularly those entailing force or against vulnerable victims) have increasingly become viewed as violent offenses” (p. 321).

Zedendelinquent is the umbrella term and from there depending on the type of force used determines if the crime is a hands-off sex offense, a hands-on sexual offense, or if it concerns child pornography (Bijleveld, 2007, p. 322). Hands-off sexual offenses

(25)

are exhibitionism or “flashing”, hands-on sexual offenses are “rape, sexual assault… with young or child victims”, and child pornography is defined as videos or pictures depicting “actual children [under eighteen years of age] and actual situations” (Bijleveld, 2007, p. 322). While the legal boundaries of juvenile sex offending are somewhat established, or at least have been since the early 2000s, the general notion or idea of the juvenile sex offender character is shaped through the research.

Gendering Juvenile Sex Offending

First and foremost, it is important to point to the gendered aspect of juvenile sex offending. Similar to the general idea of adult sex offending, juvenile sex offending is something typically committed by boys. Bijleveld (2007) writes that adult sex offenders are “predominantly male, tend be generalists rather than specialists, and there is a wide variety in motives for offending, as well as a great variety in types of sex offenses”, the same goes for juvenile sex offenders (p. 320). Research on female juvenile sex offending is still in its infancy, thus most of the ideas about female juvenile sex offenders comes from the little research done on adult female sex offenders. Females sexually offend at “disproportionately low” rates and, if they do, they account for different patterns of offenses (p. 351); when compared to males, females rape less, commit sexual assault less, are less often involved with child pornography, but are involved in pimping at a higher rate (p. 351). Bijleveld (2007) writes,

“Women’s cases are more often dismissed than men’s, but their chances of acquittal are about equal (both 11 percent). Cases with a male perpetrator have higher chance of conviction…. One possible explanation is that cases with females more often involve types of offenses especially likely to be

(26)

Specifically, when it comes to female juvenile sex offenders, it is estimated that girls offend at around 1 percent (Hendriks & Bijleveld, 2006; Bijleveld, 2007, p. 353). It is safe to say that the general image of the juvenile sex offender is gendered. The

urgency of ‘juvenile sex offending’ as a problem should also be addressed as it may push forward a gendered understanding of the problem.

Juvenile sex offenders are a “sizable proportion of sex offenders” in the Netherlands and “about one in eight is a juvenile” (p. 352). Interestingly, Bijleveld (2007) writes,

“With regards to the prosecution level, the proportion of cases with juvenile defendants is substantially higher… it appears that juveniles are

disproportionately more often prosecuted than adults… the number of dispositions involving juvenile defendants is increasing, with the increase being handled by the courts” (p. 352).

With supposed rising numbers, the burden of the problem is increasingly placed on the court system and the treatment centers. Perhaps as a result, there is also a need for research on juvenile sex offenders to specifically identify a profile that includes gendering in order to create supposed specialized treatment programs.

In general, but to different extents that will also be addressed throughout, juvenile sex offending is seen as a treatable or correctable offense and this is reflected in sentencing. Detention time for juveniles found guilty of rape is around five months, around three months for sexual assault, and three and a half months for offenses against children (Bijleveld, 2007, p. 353). Juveniles also tend to be sentenced to shorter detention times when compared to adult sex offenders (p. 353). This may further reflect the ‘treatability’ of sexual offending when committed by juveniles but may only be true for a certain kind of offender. Another form of sentencing is

(27)

outpatient treatment centers (such as The Rutgers/NISSO and De Waag), these treatment centers offer

“leer-straf (learning punishments) on sexuality, in which in ten sessions juvenile sex offenders discuss sexuality, intimate relations, condom use, and the like… [also offered is a] twenty-five session Relapse Prevention course… social skills training… [and] awareness-raising/educational courses [which may be imposed]” (Bijleveld, 2007, p. 353).

These treatment approaches and types of courses are indicative of corrective forms of punishment meaning that they aim to put the offender ‘on the right track’ by teaching ‘healthly sexuality’. Lastly, Bijleveld (2007) writes,

“Not only are juveniles more often prosecuted than adults, but when prosecuted and convicted, treatment and training are more often (in an

estimated 50 percent of cases) imposed than for adult sex offenders (about 40 percent of cases). Detention, however, is much less likely, and when it is imposed, it is much shorter” (p. 354).

Treating juvenile sex offenders in such a treatable and corrective manner sets them apart from adult sex offenders and therefore sets their problem representation apart. Through the high prosecution rates and treatment strategies, the ‘juvenile’ portion of ‘juvenile sex offending’ is highlighted unlike in other areas. Juvenile sex offending that is specifically committed by juveniles retains an element of correctiveness.

The relationship between ‘juvenile’ and ‘corrective disciplinary treatment’ has similarities to Foucault’s analysis in Discipline and Punishment (1977). While

simultaneously punishing male juvenile sex offenders it also creates the normal. By specifically using leer-straf (learning punishments) that focus on sexuality there is a normalization that is happening where these boys are taught correct sexuality and

(28)

conversely, a particular kind of young boy’s sexuality is normalized. Foucault (1977) refers to this process as follows:

“At the point of departure, then, one may place the political project of rooting out illegalities, generalizing the punitive function and delimiting, in order to control it, the power to punish. From this there emerge two lines of

objectification of crime and of the criminal. On the one hand, the criminal designated as the enemy of all, whom it is in the interest of all to track down, falls outside the pact, disqualifies himself as a citizens and emerges, bearing within him as it were, a wild fragment of nature; he appears as a villain, a monster, a madman, perhaps, a sick and, before long, ‘abnormal’ individual” (p. 101).

In other words, two narratives or characters are formed; there is a separation between the crime of juvenile sexual offending and the juvenile sex offender. This division is a critical component to this thesis. While juvenile sexual offending as a whole problem is presented in a neutralized way, the way the juvenile sex offender is researched creates certain interpretations of who the real criminal is. As the normalized version of boy’s sexuality is artificially created through the law and through treatment programs, the various problem representations of the ‘offender’ within juvenile sex offending become more critical to examine. This next section will examine these problem representations.

Findings- What is the problem of the ‘Juvenile Sex

Offender’ represented to be?

As stated above, there is a difference between ‘juvenile sex offending’ and ‘juvenile sex offender’. The construction of juvenile sex offending is based in neutral legal definitions of the whole entire concept of sexual offending. It sets up the

(29)

boundaries and the scope of the crime. On the other hand, the offender aspect is varied and depending on how it’s constructed shapes the image of the offender. Interestingly, while the construction of the offender begins in gender, it quickly evolves into a race/ethnicity-based construction. These race/ethnicity-based

constructions are clearly used to separate and differentiate between Dutch juvenile sex offenders and ethnic-minority juvenile sex offenders. Each ethnicity construction holds very different ideas about the offender himself (remember juvenile sex offending is primarily committed by boys/males), about his type of offense, his sexuality, his family and his environmental surroundings. They also carry different intersectional assumptions and implications for each offender. This section will address these constructions and will develop using the theoretical framework established at the beginning. Working within Foucault’s theories of discourse and supplementing Ferree’s and Bacchi’s intersectional theory/approach will provide the backdrop for this ethnicity-based problem representation analysis.

It is important to note that the Dutch vs. ethnic minority constructions are built in different ways. The Dutch construction is minimal and, to an extent, silenced; in other words, the Dutch construction is used at the “normalized” standard or the backdrop that the ethnic-minority construction is built against. On the other hand, the ethnic minority construction is very detailed and the ethnic-minority offender is increasingly spotlighted. Therefore, the ethnic-minority construction is extensive and far-reaching while the dominant Dutch construction is condensed, short, and isolated. In order to truly examine the extent of each construction, the Dutch construction will be examined first to reflect the way it is written about in the research. The second part of this problem representation analysis will tackle the ethnic-minority construction.

(30)

To illustrate how expansive the problem representation is it will further broken down into subsections.

Dutch Juvenile Sex Offenders

The constructed problem representation of the Dutch juvenile sex offender is constructed in one direction that renders it short, to the point, and self-contained. The dominant problem representation construction of the Dutch juvenile sex offender is that he is a child molester (since his crimes involve children) (Bullens, van Wijk, & Mail, 2006, p. 161; Loeber & Slot, 2007; Van Wijk, Blokland, Duits, Vermeiren, & Harkink, 2007; Bijleveld & Hendriks, 2003; Van Wijk, Van Horn, Bullens, Bijleveld, & Doreleijers, 2005). Of the fourteen articles examined, no articles stated or even suggested that Dutch juvenile sex offenders could be involved with other types of sexual offending (rape, sexual assault) or could be any other type of sexual offender (i.e. non-child molester). As will be discussed later, the ethnic-minority juvenile sex offender is capable of committing a wide range of sexual offenses and can be a wide range of types of sex offender. This does not mean Dutch juvenile sex offenders cannot/do not raipe or sexually assault their peers, but it serves to show that the research on juvenile sex offenders paints a certain dominant picture of who and what Dutch juvenile sex offenders are and what they are capable of. It is important to note that this analysis will initially seem one-dimensional but will be fully developed after the other construction (ethnic minority juvenile sex offender) is offered. In other words, each construction is relative to the other and the full extent of each will be realized after each construction is given.

The Dominant Construction

The dominant construction is that Dutch juvenile sex offenders are more often than not child molesters. One article writes, “Child molesters more often come from a

(31)

Dutch background than from ethnic minorities” (Loeber & Slot, 2007, p. 516). The dominance of this construction is what is important to note as it simultaneously sets a normalized and unproblematic standard for juvenile sex offending. For instance, one article writes, “It appears that non-Dutch delinquents will be found especially among those who are guilty of sexual assault and rape, namely 50.9%” (van Wijk, Mali, & Bullens, 2007, p. 416). What can be understood by this is that while Dutch juvenile sex offenders can commit non-child molestation (and do they at about 50%) they are not labeled in this manner. The Dutch juvenile sex offender almost exclusively is regarded as a child molester. From the fourteen articles, the child molester is seen as the least problematic and the most clinicalized (pathologized) figure when compared to ethnic minority offenders. The comparison between the Dutch and the ethnic minority is central to creating this normalized standard. One article writes, “the majority (63 percent) of peer abusers came from ethnic minority backgrounds and seem to have had fewer personality problem than child molesters” (Loeber & Slot, 2007, p. 516). Most of the articles call for attention to be paid to violent rapists and sexual assaulters but the child molester is seen as psychologically vulnerable and, therefore, less responsible through their individual biology.

This construction is so strong and centralized that the child molester image of the Dutch juvenile sex offender extends past their lives as juveniles and they are considered “at a high risk of becoming the next generation of adult paedophiles” (Bullens, van Wijk, & Mali, 2006, p. 161). Because the Dutch juvenile sex offender is a child molester and a future pedophile, a certain kind of description is employed that paints a biological description. The Dutch juvenile sex offender is constructed in such a way that their sexual offending is considered biological and their construction is pathologized and clinicalized. Lorber and Slot (2207 write, “child molesters… were

(32)

more neurotic and more introverted according to psychological tests. Child molesters… had more often been bullied and has less self-esteem” (p. 516). Child molesters are also said to have a slew of psychological problems including personality disorders, (potentially high rates of) autism, and low moral judgment (Van Wijk, Van Horn, Bullens, Bijleveld, & Doreleijers, 2005; Bijleveld & Hendriks, 2003; Van Vugt et al., 2008; Van Wijk, Blokland, Duits, Vermeiren, & Harkink, 2007, p. 26). While this thesis does not challenge the authenticity of these claims, it does look at how this description of child molesters (Dutch) is set up against rapists and sexual assaulters (ethnic minorities) to create a normalized standard and a non-problematic Dutch offender.

This unproblematic construction of the child molester is interesting because it is done this way in the face of high recidivism rates and rising numbers. Child

molesters are considered future pedophiles and this makes their chances of recidivism higher and the number of child molestation offenses is also substantially rising (Loeber & Slot, 2007, p. 514; Bullens, van Wijk, & Mali, 2006, p. 161). Where high recidivism rates and rising numbers are cited as some of the main reasons why the ethnic minority offender should be further researched, the child molester construction stands apart from that. This unproblematic construction drives the child molester into a further biological discourse. This biological discourse is self-containing and isolates the Dutch juvenile offender. Where does biology and the Dutch juvenile sex offender meet? And how is this done?

Biology and Responsibility- Where Race, Biology, and the Dutch Juvenile Sex Offender Meet

Right off the bat, the Dutch juvenile sex offender is considered a ‘biological’ juvenile sex offender. In other words, the Dutch juvenile’s sexual offending (child molestation) stems from a perceived biological reason- in this case, their (current

(33)

and/or future) pedophilia. But this biological construction does not stop at their sexuality but is extended to provide a solid profile of a Dutch juvenile sex offender. By extending this construction to the race of the sex offender, the isolated and

individualized Dutch juvenile sex offender problem representation is reinforced. One article writes,

“Race, although not widely investigated, might be an important characteristic, since several authors have suggested that Caucasian sex offenders show different sexual arousal patterns compared with sex offenders from ethnic minorities” (Van Wijk, Blokland, Duits, Vermeiren, & Harkink, 2007, p. 17). It is interesting to see how race and biology are utilized to describe the Dutch juvenile sex offender namely through his sexuality (in this case, paraphilia). This biological extension buries the Dutch juvenile offender in psychology and conversely neutralizes the problem. In other words, the Dutch juvenile sex offender is not so much

responsible for this crime as his biological disposition is- this is a pivotal point as the ethnic minority offender is oppositionally painted and responsibility falls onto him, his family, his community, and his status as an immigrant.

The persistence and consistent combination of the ‘child molester’ label, the ‘Dutch’ label, and the ‘pedophile’ label is what serves to distinguish this offender and place him outside of focus. The Dutch offender becomes a secondary figure to his pedophilia and the pedophilia takes the responsibility for the offense. This occurs in the face of all the numbers reporting and statistics that find Dutch juvenile sex offenders commit all different types of sexual offenses onto both children and peers (Van Wijk, Blokland, Duits, Vermeiren, & Harkink, 2007, p. 23). One article cites that Dutch and non-Dutch (ethnic minorities) were “almost equally split” in

(34)

the problem representation of Dutch juvenile sex offenders is not rape or sexual assault but child molestation (Bullens, van Wijk, & Mali, 2006, p. 158). Similarly, the research cites that child molesters work solo, which also serves to differentiate child molesters from ethnic minority offenders who work solo and in groups (Bijleveld & Hendriks, 2003, p. 242; Van Wijk, Van Horn, Bullens, Bijleveld, & Doreleijers, 2005). Once again, this isolates the problem and by articulating that child molester’s act solo and therefore, it doesn’t involve any more offenders.

The constructed problem representation of the Dutch juvenile sex offender is isolated. In this case, ‘isolated’ means that the Dutch juvenile sex offender is very contained as the type of sexual offense they commit, their reason for committing, who they commit onto, their biological composition, and their sexuality is all accounted for and explained. Their isolation appears so prominent that much of the research on ‘juvenile sex offenders’ does not apply to them as they are further pushed into the clinical realm. The highlighting of certain aspects, such as psychology, race/ethnicity, sexuality, and gender provides an interesting intersectional construction of the Dutch juvenile sex offender. This construction speaks volumes about how the Dutch juvenile sex offender is thought of when compared to the ethnic-minority sex offender. In order to provide a full analysis, the next section will address the ethnic minority juvenile sex offender construction. By comparing the two constructions, the full extent to which each offender is constructed can be illustrated.

Ethnic-minority Juvenile Sex Offenders

This offender is the focal point of research as the research finds these offenders to be the most problematic. For starters, it is important to establish who constitutes as an ethnic-minority. Of the fourteen article analyzed, they all established an initial distinction between Dutch and ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities are said

(35)

to be boys of “immigrant origin” which consists of Moroccan, Turkish, Dutch-Antillean, Surinamese, or mixed (van Outsem et al., 2006, p. 132; van Wijk,

Blokland, Duits, Vermeiren, & Harkink, 2007, p. 23; Hendriks & Bijleveld, 2008, p. 25). At the core, the problem representation of this offender posits that he offends in the most severe way using violence to commit rape and sexual assault (Loeber & Slot, 2007). The use of violence and the severity of his offense are what reasons are given to justify the extensive research and problematisation of this offender. In fact, Loeber and Slot (2007) write, “Violent offenders [this includes rapists and sexual assaulters] were the most problematic of the various groups [of all types of juvenile offenders]” (p. 517). The relationship between violence and race/ethnicity is persistent in the case of the ethnic-minority juvenile sex offender.

The research finds that ethnic minority boys commit sexual offenses at an incredibly high rate although there is a small population of ethnic minorities when compared with the Dutch population. Some articles reflect on this point and attempt to challenge the idea of overrepresentation but are quick to reconsider in the end. Bijleveld, Weerman, Looije, and Hendriks (2007) write,

“Just as delinquent behavior in general, ethnic minority youth are over-represented among juvenile group sex offenders… Bijleveld and Hendriks (2003) do not find a particular over-representation of certain ethnic minority groups in their sample, although immigrants of Moroccan descent are prominent as juvenile group sex offenders in official registrations in the Netherlands” (p. 7).

Perhaps this is similar to the cases of overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in sex offense registries in the United States (Hsia, Bridges, & McHale, 2004). The question here is are ethnic minorities actually offending at extremely high rates or are they

(36)

thought of in a way that suggests they are likely/will commit these crimes. Another article offers overrepresentation as a possibility. They write,

“A case study of ninety-one group offenders and accomplices… showed that groups on average consist of four individuals and were ethnically

homogenous. Ethnic minorities, especially Antilleans, were overrepresented” (Loeber & Slot, 2007, p. 515).

While an exact answer to this overrepresentation problem is not clear, the reoccurring theme from the research argues that ethnic minorities do generally commit violent rapes and sexual assaults at a higher rate than their Dutch counterparts. If Dutch juveniles commit rapes and sexual assaults at a high rate, where is the association between rape and Dutch boys or sexual assault and Dutch boys? Why does none of the research elaborate this type of offender? To reflect on the aim of this thesis, the issue of overrepresentation could be partially explained by the degree to which the problem representation greatly differs between Dutch and ethnic minority juvenile sex offenders. This is a clear point that can be made here that allows the development of these findings to be a starting point. In other words, using overrepresentation as a point of initial contention adds an element to this research that challenges the creation of distinction problem representations. Why are there different meanings to the same problem? What is the significance of these different meanings? While these questions are somewhat rhetorical, it is necessary to ask them in order to understand the

underlying mechanisms for this severe distinction. One way of understanding this is to take a look at one of the reoccurring intersectional frames that suggests all ethnic minorities/immigrants (or Allochtoon, the Dutch word for immigrant or foreigner) are the same.

(37)

The Fundamental Assumption- All Minorities/Immigrants are the same Unlike the Dutch juvenile sex offender and his biology assumptions, the notion of violence and the ethnic minority is rooted in intersectionality- understood here as the combination of his gender, sexuality, race, and class. The ethnic-minority juvenile sex offender is depicted as an all-opportunity offender; in other words, the ethnic-minority juvenile sex offender has a lot more reasons that contribute to his offensive and violent behavior. At the foundation of this association is the notion that ethnic minority boys are somewhat prone to this type of behavior. As stated in an earlier section, this is rooted in the gendered aspect of juvenile sex offending and remains a prominent feature in the problem research on ethnic minority offenders. One example of this gendering is seen in the gendered aspect of treatment. One article writes, “group treatment is available only for men [and boys]” (Bijleveld, 2007, p. 349). Similarly most of the assessments that aim to understand the personality makeups of offenders are tailored for boys (van Wijk, Vreugdenhil, van Horn, Vermeiren, & Doreleijers, 2007; van Outsem et al., 2006, p. 136). Since Dutch juvenile sex offenders are isolated and withdrawn from the general population of offenders, these findings have greater implications for ethnic minority offenders.

Within this initial assumption there is another element that reinforces the violence and ethnic minority relationship. All of the fourteen articles analyzed treated the ethnic minority category as a catch-all category; in other words, they utilized the ‘ethnic minority category’ for all ethnicities (van Outsem et al., 2006). The mere creation of the division between the Dutch offender and the ethnic minority offender also promotes this idea. Grouping together these diverse offenders into one big group stacks the numbers against them as a whole. Interestingly, ethnic minorities are grouped together because they are supposedly the same but they are not similar to the Dutch offender; this could be seen as an “us’ [Dutch] vs. “them” [ethnic minorities]

(38)

expression. This is important in understanding how they are discursively constructed. In grouping them all together, the assumptions made are treated as truth for all ethnic minority offenders. For example, when Bijleveld, Weerman, Looije, and Hendriks find that Moroccan boys account for a large number of juvenile sex offenders and then move on to characterize all ethnic minorities as problematic because they, all together, commit a large number of sexual offenses transcends the Moroccan offender and criminalizes Antilleans, Turkish, and Surinamese (p. 7). The same goes for violence, as with this type of categorization if some offenders are violent then violence can be generalized to the entire ethnic minority offender population. Similarly, most of these articles argue that ethnic minority offenders have the

same/very similar reasons for committing sexual offenses that include environmental reasons, parental reasons, and educational reasons (which will be discussed in detail in a later section). It is very hard to understand how all these different types of offenders have this in common especially when the Dutch offender is not included. Similar to the way gendering unifies all ethnic minority offenders, the creation of this category and the assumptions made clearly create a uniformed way of constructing this offender as a problematic figure.

It is important to note that although this categorization is challenged in this thesis there is no way to separate or differentiate the different offenders in the analysis. This also begs the question: how could it be separate? Separating, or differentiating offenders is a tricky question. Quite a bit of research relies on

race/ethnicity to differentiate offenders but that would not be helpful because it would still create a racialized narrative. Starting from the initial distinction between Dutch and ethnic minority offender is where this categorization problem begins and, as it is the foundation for categorization, also persists. Perhaps a different way of

(39)

categorizing offenders would be by the way they commit. This seems like a

possibility since this is a way the ethnic minority offender is already further subtyped. By removing the initial assumption of minority similarity, the categorization of offenders could be evidence based and could potentially eliminate the racial narrative. Moving forward, this analysis will reflect the categorization of the research and will have to use the ethnic minority offender category as the basis for analysis.

Group Offending

Within the larger category of ethnic minority offenders, most of the research aims to differentiate solo offenders from group offenders. The solo offender has been encountered already in the description of the Dutch juvenile offender. With solo offending belonging to the Dutch offender, group offending becomes exclusively composed of ethnic minority offenders. Containing the ethnic minority offender to group offending is another avenue to see how pervasive these racialized constructions are tied into each offender but now they are extended to include intersections with class, sexuality, and, without saying, race. In other words, the construction of the ethnic minority offender only allows him to offend in groups and as a group offender allows for a variety of meanings to be given to his offense.

At the core of the distinction between group and solo offending is that group offending involves violence. The combination of violence and group offending is the driving force behind the various meanings given to ethnic minority offenders. Loeber and Slot (2007) write,

“Serious offenders are defined as those youngsters who committed at least one of the following offenses during the last year: fencing, arson, burglary, theft from a car, carjacking, and pickpocketing. Violent offenders are those who committed at least one of these offenses during the last year: homicide,

The deconstructed juvenile sex offender, intersectionality and integration : a discourse analysis of juvenile sex offender research in the Netherlands