The tragic school shooting at the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wis. represents one of the rarest events in criminal justice—a mass shooting by a teenage girl. One of the “iron laws” in criminology is that males commit violent acts far more frequently than females. In fact, the best predictor of crime is a person’s gender, where men and boys’ criminality far outweigh that of women and girls, especially violence. And yet, females are far more likely to be victims of violence, not the perpetrators. This is why we need to adequately fund and expand evidence-based, early intervention programs for children with behavioral health needs.
Analyzing data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Council on Criminal Justice noted that in 2022, females experienced more than half (51 percent) of all violent victimizations, which is 24 percent higher than the female share in 1993. Comparatively, the male share was 16 percent lower in 2022 than in 1993.
While we are still learning about the shooter’s motivations and upbringing, the incredible nature of her behavior suggests that she likely experienced significant childhood trauma. Girls simply do not commit such heinous acts unless there is some combination of serious trauma, mental illness, or dysregulated emotional states such as impulsivity and anger.
Criminal victimization, especially sexual victimization, is a key driver for girls and women’s entry into juvenile and criminal justice settings. While prior victimization is not an excuse for violence, it helps explain why expanding evidence-based, trauma-informed prevention programs among schools and troubled families is crucial to avoiding such violence in the first place. We have solutions to children’s behavioral health problems; we simply choose not to adequately fund and expand them.
Instead, policymakers mistakenly choose to arm teachers with weapons, target harden schools with more law enforcement focused resource officers, and enhance sentencing penalties in a futile effort to deter others. None of these interventions have demonstrated consistent reductions in female or male violence, whereas early behavioral interventions among children do show such reductions in the long-term.
When girls and young women are physically or relationally violated, often repeatedly by people who are supposed to protect them, it challenges not only their sense of safety but their entire sense of self—their psychological, emotional, and identity development. This may be one reason why studies have found that adolescent girls are more likely than adolescent boys to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a significant trauma. Research shows that traumatic stress alters the structure of developing brains, and researchers at Stanford University showed that girls who experienced traumatic stress and PTSD symptoms appeared to have accelerated cortical aging in an area of their brain responsible for emotion processing and empathy. While studies indicate that all children who experience threat-related trauma and violence age faster at the cellular level compared to children without these experiences, girls showed unique aging in the region associated with emotional processing in the Stanford study. Further, early brain maturation among girls exposed to high levels of stress may contribute to early puberty, which is found among girls with PTSD.
The fact that girls who experience traumatic stress may literally be aging faster in the emotional processing centers of their brain coheres with psychological studies of justice involved girls and women—these populations typically have far more trouble with emotional regulation and psychopathology involving mood instabilities (depression, anxiety, bipolar, Borderline Personality Disorder) compared to male justice-involved populations.
To effectively reduce and prevent the rare violence perpetrated by girls, we must understand that it requires multifaceted interventions that are tailored to their psychological, neurological, and social risks and strengths—that interventions need to be designed for her. As my research shows, assessment and intervention strategies designed for boys (and men) and applied to girls (and women) backfire because they assume their pathways to crime and delinquency are the same. These so called “gender-neutral” practices further victimize girls and women, many of whom are in dire need of behavioral health treatment tailored to their specific needs and strengths.
Emily J. Salisbury, Ph.D., is an associate professor of social work and the director of the Utah Criminal Justice Center at the University of Utah.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
The post Girls’ Violence is Rare—But Not Their Violent Victimization appeared first on Newsweek.
