By John G. Horgan, Paul Gill, Noemie Bouhana, James Silver and Emily Corner

Lone actor terrorists (sometimes referred to as ‘lone wolves’) and mass murderers are more often than not assumed to be distinct, with little validity for comparison. Yet, both engage (or attempt to engage) in largely public and highly publicized acts of violence and often use similar weapons. - Using a series of bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses, we compared demographic, psychological and offense-related behavioral variables across and between 71 lone actor terrorists and 115 solo mass murderers. - Results indicate there is little to distinguish these offender types in terms of their socio-demographic profiles. However, their behaviors significantly differ with regards to (a) the degree to which they interact with co-conspirators (b) their antecedent event behaviors and (c) the degree to which they leak information prior to the attack.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016. 122p.

By Josine Junger-Tas, Ineke Haen Marshall, Dirk Enzmann, Martin Killias, Majone Steketee, and Beata Gruszczyāska

This book presents the first comprehensive analysis of the second International Self-Report Delinquency study (ISRD-2). An earlier volume, Juvenile Delinquency in Europe and Beyond (Springer, 2010) focused mainly on the findings with regard to delinquency, victimization and substance use in each of the individual participating ISRD-2 countries. The Many Faces of Youth Crime is based on analysis of the merged data set and has a number of unique features:  The analyses are based on an unusually large number of respondents (about 67,000 7th, 8th and 9th graders) collected by researchers from 31 countries;  It includes reports on the characteristics, experiences and behaviour of first and second generation migrant youth from a variety of cultures;  It is one of the first large-scale international studies asking 12-16 year olds about their victimization experiences (bullying, assault, robbery, theft);  It describes both intriguing differences between young people from different countries and country clusters in the nature and extent of delinquency, victimization and substance use, as well as remarkable cross-national uniformities in delinquency, victimization, and substance use patterns;  A careful comparative analysis of the social responses to offending and victimization adds to our limited knowledge on this important issue;  Detailed chapters on the family, school, neighbourhood, lifestyle and peers provide a rich comparative description of these institutions and their impact on delinquency;  It tests a number of theoretical perspectives (social control, self-control, social disorganization, routine activities/opportunity theory) on a large international sample from a variety of national contexts;  It combines a theoretical focus with a thoughtful consideration of the policy implications of the findings;  An extensive discussion of the ISRD methodology of ‘flexible standardization’ details the challenges of comparative research.

New York; Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London: Springer Science+Business Media, 2012. 384p.

By Gary L. McDowell and Jinney S. Smith

This volume about juvenile delinquency in the United States and United Kingdom includes a foreword, nine chapters organized in three parts, and an afterword. Chapters 1 and 2 in Part I describe juvenile delinquency in both countries and the urgency of the current crisis. Chapters 3 to 6 in Part II deal with the two nations' juvenile justice systems, focusing on structural and ideological obstacles preventing reform. Presented in the final chapters in Part III are suggestions for reform in school, and juvenile justice settings that recognize the importance of character in causing delinquency.

Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999. 209p.

By Marcelo F Aebi

The national correspondents prepared reports on SRD surveys in their countries. Then, a three days seminar took place in Paris from 17th to 19th January 2008 and was attended by the promoters of CRIMPREV, most of the national correspondents and the general rapporteur. Seven reports covering twelve countries were presented. The countries included were Belgium, England, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sweden and Wales. The seminar gave the participants the opportunity of presenting and discussing the reports. Then the general rapporteur prepared an intermediate report of the situation and asked the national correspondents to introduce minor modifications to their papers according to the discussions that took place during the seminar. The final versions of the national reports were then handed over to the general rapporteur who established a first version of this final report that was discussed with the promoters of CRIMPREV in a meeting that took place in Bologna on 9 July 2008 and sent for comments to the national correspondents. Accordingly, this report is based on the national reports, the discussions that took place during the Paris seminar and the Bologna meeting, and the comments of the national correspondents, as well as This report is focused on general SRD studies, but surveys conducted in order to measure specific behaviours such as bullying or drug use are also covered. It includes a discussion of definitional issues, a short synthesis of the national reports, a historical overview of the development of SRD studies, a discussion on methodological issues related to that measure of delinquency, as well as an analysis of the impact of SRD surveys on criminological theories and criminal policies.

Guyancourt - France: GROUPE EUROPÉEN DE RECHERCHE SUR LES NORMATIVITÉS , 2015. 68p.

By Rosemary Barberet, Benjamin Bowling, Josine Junger-Tas, Cristina Rechea-Alberola, John van Kesteren, Andrew Zuruwan.

In 1990 a group of mainly European criminologists embarked on a large comparative study of juvenile delinquency through the use of the self-report method. This methods consists of surveying youths in the general population and asking them directly – in private and in a non-stigmatising manner – about their possible involvement in antisocial and delinquent behaviour. For comparative criminological purposes, it can be seen as superior to other measurements of youth offending, largely because of the common definitions used. Although the self-report method has been used since the 1940s and is judged to be reliable and valid overall by the criminological scientific community, until 1990 no large scale comparative study had ever taken place. This report represents a more intensive analysis of the same data but for three selected European countries: England and Wales, The Netherlands and Spain. These countries represent different regions of Europe and also obtained the support of their respective Ministries of Justice in the funding of fieldwork with relatively large national samples. The authors of the report are the original participants in the self-report study, including its instigator, Josine Junger-Tas. This report received DG XX II funding in 1997-1999 under Action E.II of the ‘Youth for Europe’ programme, and represents a first step in the establishment of a European research agenda on youth offending and deviant behavior. Findings from the analyses reveal broadly similar patterns and correlates in juvenile offending in the three European countries examined, set against different reactions to the same on the part of legal institutions. Social control theory, the core theory used in the study, suggests that the social bonding of youth to prosocial others, commitments, activities and beliefs can be an important way of explaining and preventing youth offending. In a similar fashion, structuring the opportunities available to youth which facilitate offending can also reduce delinquent behavior and its harmful results. The report highlights a number of intriguing differences among the three countries which only substantiates the fact that in terms of juvenile justice policy, European countries have a great deal to learn from each other. The report is divided into ten chapters, each of which details a different aspect of the self-report questionnaire, which appears in the Appendix. The tenth chapter consists of conclusions and research and policy recommendations. An effort was made to use clear and simple language to enable the layperson to grasp the essence of the research, without sacrificing methodological rigour in the analyses, in the tradition of good applied criminological research. It is the hope of the authors that this report will lay the foundation to the establishment, on a European level, of research-based policies aimed at preventing and intervening in the area of juvenile offending.

Helsinki: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, 2004. 181p.