The Victim–Offender Relationship and Police Charging Decisions for Juvenile Delinquents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While research has established how victim–offender relationship (social distance) relates to police decision-making, comparatively little research has examined this relationship among juvenile delinquents. This article examines how the social relationship between victim and offender has a main and moderating relationship with police charging decisions among juvenile delinquents in Canada. Incidents recorded using the Uniform Crime Reporting Incident-Based Survey ( N = 130,090) are modeled using logistic regression to predict the odds of police laying a charge. Independent variables include nature of the victim–offender relationship as well as demographic, geographic, and offense-specific variables. Main effects models show that incidents involving current intimate partners are most likely to result in arrest, followed by incidents involving strangers. Importantly, stratified models suggest that social distance conditions how other legal and extralegal factors relate to police arrest decisions. Similar to the adult offending population, victim–offender relationship shapes the way criminal incidents are officially addressed in complex ways.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".