Write a 1,050- to 1,200-word paper about the relationship between child maltreatment and delinquency. Include the following in your paper: A discussion about the association between child maltreatment

SAVIGNAC, J. (2009). Families, youth and delinquency: The state of knowledge, and family-based juvenile delinquency programs (Research Report 2009-1). Ottawa: National Crime Prevention Centre, Public Safety Canada.

Family interactions are most important during early childhood, but they can have long-lasting effects. In early adolescence, relationships with peers take on greater importance. Family structure and family functioning are two general categories under which family effects on delinquency.

Increased risk of delinquency experienced among children of broken homes is related to the family conflict prior to the divorce or separation, rather than to family breakup itself (Rutter et al., 1998).

• 1 Become familiar with the problems of youth in American culture

• 2 Distinguish between ego identity and role diffusion

• 3 Discuss the specific issues facing American youth

• 4 Understand the concept of being “at risk” and discuss why so many kids take risks

• 5 Be familiar with the recent social improvements enjoyed by American youth

• 6 Discuss why the study of delinquency is so important and what this study entails

• 7 Describe the life of children during feudal times

• 8 Discuss the treatment of children in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

• 9 Discuss childhood in the American colonies

• 10 Know about the child savers and the creation of delinquency

• 11 Discuss the elements of juvenile delinquency today

• 12 Know what is meant by the term status offender

chapter features

cyber Delinquency: Catfishing

Case profile: Aaliyah’s Story

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—intervention: Family Key Programs

KEAIRA BROWN WAS JUST 13 YEARS OLD when she was charged with murder and became the youngest person in Wyandotte County, Kansas, ever to be tried as an adult. Her family life was close but troubled. Her mother, Cheryl Brown, had three other children, two enrolled in local colleges. Keaira was involved in after-school activities, including playing the violin. But when her mom went to prison on a drug charge, things began to spiral downhill for Keaira, and when she was only 10 she attempted suicide. On July 23, 2008, at about 4:00 PM, Keaira was supposed to be at a summer program at the Boys and Girls Club in Kansas City. Instead, she was involved in the carjacking of Scott Sappington, Jr., a junior at Sumner Academy, who had just dropped his siblings off at their grandmother’s house. When he returned to his car, neighbors heard him yell, “Hey, hey,” then there was a struggle inside the car, and he was shot in the head. An investigation led to a 6-year-old who told police that a young girl told a group of children to get rid of her bloody clothes. Police distributed pictures of the bloody clothes to the media, and soon after, the clothes were traced back to Keaira Brown.

Prosecutors thought the murder was a result of a carjacking that went wrong, while Keaira’s family claimed she was an innocent pawn for area gang members who thought she would not be prosecuted because of her age. They were incorrect. In April, almost a year after the crime, a Wyandotte County judge ruled that Keaira should face trial as an adult. On November 9, 2010, Keaira Brown was found guilty of first-degree murder and attempted aggravated robbery. She will have to serve 20 years before being eligible for parole.

Stories such as that of Keaira Brown are certainly not unique. While the Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that juveniles cannot be sentenced to the death penalty, it is quite legal to incarcerate them in adult prison for life if they commit a capital crime, as long as the judge takes age into account before sentencing takes place (Miller v. Alabama).1 So Keaira, who was 13 years old at the time she committed her crime, may spend the rest of her life behind bars.

Roper v. Simmons

A juvenile under 18 years of age who commits a capital crime cannot face the death penalty.

Miller v. Alabama

In this case, the Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences, without the possibility of parole, are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.

The problems of youth in contemporary society can be staggering. Because of trouble and conflict occurring in their families, schools, and communities, adolescents experience stress, confusion, and depression. There are approximately 75 million children in the United States, a number that is projected to increase to about 85 million by 2025.2 Since the mid-1960s, children have been decreasing as a proportion of the total US population, so today 24 percent of the population are 18 and under, down from a 1964 peak of 36 percent at the end of the so-called baby boom. Children are projected to remain a fairly stable percentage, about 23 percent, of the total population through 2050. Though the number of children is projected to remain stable, racial and ethnic diversity is growing, so that the population is projected to become even more diverse in the decades to come. In 2023, less than half of all children are projected to be white, non-Hispanic; by 2050, 38 percent of children are projected to be white, non-Hispanic, down from 55 percent today.

The mission of the Children’s Defense Fund (http://www.childrensdefense.org/) is to “leave no child behind” and to ensure every child “a healthy start, a head start, a fair start, a safe start, and a moral start in life,” as well as a successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. The CDF tries to provide a strong, effective voice for kids who cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves. For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at cengagebrain.com, then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

During the baby boom (1946–1964), the number of children grew rapidly (see Exhibit 1.1). Now as the baby boomers enter their senior years, their needs for support and medical care will increase. At the same time, a significant number of kids who are poor and at risk for delinquency and antisocial behavior will need both private and public assistance and aid. While the number of poor kids and the elderly will be rising, the 30- to 50-year-old population who will be expected to care and pay for these groups will constitute a much smaller share of the population.

exhibit 1.1: Six Generations of Americans

The Greatest Generation: Born after World War I and raised during the Depression, they overcame hardships, fought in World War II, and went on to build America into the world’s greatest superpower. They were willing to put off personal gain for the common good.

Baby Boomers: Born between the end of World War II and the Kennedy-Johnson years, and now approaching retirement age, “boomers” are considered a generation who have benefited the most from the American Dream and postwar leadership. Their parents, who grew up during the Great Depression, made sure their children had the best of everything. Baby boomers benefited from affordable college and post-graduate education, relatively low housing costs, and plentiful job opportunities. Though they experienced some significant setbacks, such as the war in Viet Nam, they were a privileged generation that has been accused of being self-absorbed and materialistic.

Generation X: Born between 1963 and 1980 and now approaching 50, Gen-Xers are often accused of being unfocused and uncommitted—the “why me?” generation. Coming of age between 1980 and 1990, when divorce was rampant and greed was good, they are not attached to careers or families. They lived through the 1990s, a time with significant social problems, including teen suicide, homelessness, the AIDS epidemic, a downsizing of the workforce, and overseas conflict. Generation X is described as pessimistic, suspicious, and frustrated slackers who wear grunge clothing while listening to alternative music after they move back home with their parents. They do not want to change the world, just make their way in it and through it without complications.

Generation Y: Born between 1981 and 1994, Gen Y kids were deeply influenced by the 9/11 attacks and as a result are more patriotic than their older peers. They were weaned on reality TV and are sometimes called the MTV generation. Compared to their elders, Gen Y kids are incredibly sophisticated technologically. Gen Y members live in a world that is much more racially and ethnically diverse than their parents, and most are willing to accept diversity. Their worldview is aided by the rapid expansion in cable TV channels, satellite radio, the Internet, e-zines, etc. They may have lived in families with either a single caretaker or two working parents. Members of Generation Y are often accused of being self-centered, irresponsible, and having a lack of understanding of how the work world functions.

Generation Z: Born between 1995 and 2009, they are the first generation to have grown up in a world dominated by the Internet and instant communication; iPads, group video games, texting, and tweeting are their milieu. Will this next generation have the same opportunities as their grandparents in a global economy in which the United States is competing with other powerful nations for dominance?

Generation Alpha: Born after 2012, it’s just too early to tell.

The Adolescent Dilemma

As they go through their tumultuous teenage years, the problems of American society and the daily stress of modern life have a significant effect on our nation’s youth. Adolescence is unquestionably a time of transition. During this period, the self, or basic personality, is still undergoing a metamorphosis and is vulnerable to a host of external determinants as well as internal physiological changes. Many youths become extremely vulnerable to emotional turmoil and experience anxiety, humiliation, and mood swings. Adolescents also undergo a period of biological development that proceeds at a far faster pace than at any other time in their lives except infancy. Over a period of a few years, their height, weight, and sexual characteristics change dramatically. The average age at which girls reach puberty today is 12.5 years; 150 years ago, girls matured sexually at age 16. But although they may become biologically mature and capable of having children as early as 14, many youngsters remain emotionally and intellectually immature. By the time they reach 15, a significant number of teenagers are approaching adulthood but are unable to adequately meet the requirements and responsibilities of the workplace, family, and neighborhood. Many suffer from health problems, are educational under achievers, and are already skeptical about their ability to enter the American mainstream.

In later adolescence (ages 16 to 18), youths may experience a life crisis that famed psychologist Erik Erikson labeled the struggle between ego identity and role diffusion. Ego identity is formed when youths develop a full sense of the self, combining how they see themselves and how they fit in with others. Role diffusion occurs when they experience personal uncertainty, spread themselves too thin, and place themselves at the mercy of people who promise to give them a sense of identity they cannot mold for themselves.3 Psychologists also find that late adolescence is a period dominated by the yearning for independence from parental domination.4 Given this explosive mixture of biological change and desire for autonomy, it isn’t surprising that the teenage years are a time of rebelliousness and conflict with authority at home, at school, and in the community.

ego identity

According to Erik Erikson, ego identity is formed when youths develop a full sense of the self, combining how they see themselves and how they fit in with others.

role diffusion

According to Erik Erikson, role diffusion occurs when people spread themselves too thin, experience personal uncertainty, and place themselves at the mercy of people who promise to give them a sense of identity they cannot develop for themselves.

Such feelings can overwhelm young people and lead them to consider suicide as a “solution.” Though most kids do not take their own lives, millions are left troubled and disturbed and at risk for delinquency, drug use, and other forms of antisocial behavior. Acting out or externalized behavior that begins in early adolescence may then persist into adulthood.5 In the United States the teen suicide rate remains unacceptably high: suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24, averaging about 4,500 per year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the top three methods used in youth suicides are firearms (46 percent), suffocation (37 percent), and poisoning (8 percent).6

Adolescent Problems

The population trends take on greater meaning when the special problems of youth are considered. It may not be surprising to some that this latest generation of adolescents has been described as cynical and preoccupied with material acquisitions. By age 18, American youths have spent more time in front of a television set than in the classroom; each year they may see up to 1,000 rapes, murders, and assaults on TV. Today’s teens are watching racy TV shows involving humans, from Teen Mom to Californication, and nonhumans (e.g., True Blood). They listen to rap music, such as the classic “Candy Shop,” by 50 Cent, and “I Hit It First” by Ray J, whose sexually explicit lyrics routinely describe substance abuse and promiscuity. How will this exposure affect them? Should we be concerned? Maybe we should. Research shows that kids who listen to music with a sexual content are much more likely to engage in precocious sex than adolescents whose musical tastes run to Katy Perry or Adele.7

Troubles in the home, the school, and the neighborhood, coupled with health and developmental hazards, have placed a significant portion of American youth at risk. Youths considered at risk are those dabbling in various forms of dangerous conduct such as drug abuse, alcohol use, and precocious sexuality. They are living in families that, because of economic, health, or social problems, are unable to provide adequate care and discipline.8

at-risk youth

Young people who are extremely vulnerable to the negative consequences of school failure, substance abuse, and early sexuality.

Data on population characteristics can be found at the website of the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/). For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at cengagebrain.com, then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Adolescent Poverty

According to the US Census Bureau, 48 million people, or one in seven residents, live in poverty in the United States, the highest rate since 1994. And because the government defines poverty as $23,000 a year for a family of four, a great many more Americans live just above the poverty line, the so-called working poor, struggling to make ends meet.9 Today, real incomes are falling, and poverty in the United States is more prevalent now than in the late 1960s and early 1970s—and has escalated rapidly since 2000. While poverty problems have risen for nearly every age, gender, and race-ethnic group, the increases in poverty have been most severe among the nation’s youngest families (adults under 30), especially those with one or more children present in the home. Since 2007, the poverty rate has risen by 8 percent among young families with one or more children in the home, and now rests at about 37 percent; in 1967, it stood at only 14 percent. Among young families with children residing in the home, four of every nine are poor or near poor, and close to two out of three are low income.10

Working hard and playing by the rules is not enough to lift families out of poverty: even if parents work full-time at the federal minimum wage, the family still lives in poverty. Consequently, about 6 million children live in extreme poverty, which means less than $10,000 for a family of four; the younger the child, the more likely they are to live in extreme poverty.11

Which kids live in poverty? As Figure 1.1 shows, kids living in a single-parent, female-headed household are significantly more likely to suffer poverty than those in two-parent families.

figure 1.1: Percentage of Children Ages 0–17 Living in Poverty by Family Structure

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/surveys2.asp?popup=true#cps (accessed May 2013).

Child poverty can have long-lasting negative effects on the children’s cognitive achievement, educational attainment, nutrition, physical and mental health, and social behavior. Educational achievement scores between children in affluent and low-income families have been widening over the years, and the incomes and wealth of families have become increasingly important determinants of adolescents’ high school graduation, college attendance, and college persistence and graduation. The chances of an adolescent from a poor family with weak academic skills obtaining a bachelor degree by his or her mid-20s is now close to zero.12

Health and Mortality Problems

Receiving adequate health care is another significant concern for American youth. There are some troubling signs. Recent national estimates indicate that only about 18 percent of adolescents meet current physical activity recommendations of one hour of physical activity a day and only about 22 percent eat five or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day.13

Kids with health problems may only be helped if they have insurance. And while most kids now have health care coverage of some sort, about 10 percent or 7.5 million youth do not.14 As might be expected, children who are not healthy, especially those who live in lower-income families and children from ethnic and minority backgrounds, are subject to illness and early mortality. Recently, the infant mortality rate rose for the first time in more than 40 years, and is now 7 per 1,000 births. The United States currently ranks 25th in the world among industrialized nations in preventing infant mortality, and the percent of children born at low birth weight has increased.15 It remains to be seen whether the new national health care policy, created by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (aka Obamacare) will eventually reduce or eliminate inadequate health care for America’s children.

While infant mortality remains a problem, so do violent adolescent deaths. More than 3,000 children and teens are killed by firearms each year, the equivalent of 120 public school classrooms of 25 students each. Another 16,000 children and teens suffer nonfatal firearm injuries. Today, more preschoolers are killed by firearms than law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.16

Racial Inequality

Despite years of effort to reduce racial inequality, it still tragically exists. Minority kids are much more likely than white, non-Hispanic children to experience poverty; proportionately, Hispanic and black children are about three times as likely to be poor than their white peers.17 As Figure 1.2 shows, African American median income is significantly below that of white and Asian families.

figure 1.2: Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1968 to 2012, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/surveys2.asp?popup=true#cps (accessed May 2013).

Inequality can also be found in other elements of social life. Educational problems are more likely to hit minority kids the hardest. According to the nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund, African American children are half as likely as white children to be placed in a gifted and talented class and more than one and a half times as likely to be placed in a class for students with emotional disturbances. They are also more likely to face disciplinary problems, including being two and a half times as likely to be held back or retained in school, almost three times as likely to be suspended from school, and more than four times as likely to be expelled.18

Ironically, despite suffering these social and economic handicaps, minority youth are less likely to take their own life than white youth. However, as Exhibit 1.2 shows, they are more likely to be victims of lethal violence.

exhibit 1.2: Race, Ethnicity, Suicide, and Violence

Note: Between 1990 and 2009, suicide was more prevalent than homicide for non-Hispanic white juveniles, while the reverse was true for Hispanic juveniles and non-Hispanic black juveniles.

•  At each age between 12 and 24, suicide was more common than murder for non-Hispanic whites, in sharp contrast to patterns for Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks.

•  For every 10 white homicide victims ages 7 to 17, there were 25 suicide victims (a ratio of 10:25); the corresponding ratio was 10:2 for black juveniles and 10:4 for Hispanic juveniles.

•  Between 1990 and 2009, the juvenile suicide rate for white non-Hispanic youth (i.e., suicides per million for persons ages 7 to 17 in this race/ethnicity group) was 27.

•  The suicide rates were substantially lower for Hispanic (17), black non-Hispanic (16), and Asian non-Hispanic (15) juveniles ages 7 to 17.

•  In contrast, the suicide rate for American Indian juveniles (63) was more than double the white non-Hispanic rate and more than triple the rates for the other racial/ethnic groups.

SOURCE: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, March 5, 2012, http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02703.asp?qaDate=2009 (accessed May 2013).

Self-Image Problems

Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to stress caused by a poor self-image. According to recent surveys by the American Psychological Association, citizens of all ages are likely to live stress-filled lives, but children and adults alike who are obese or overweight are more likely to feel stressed out; overweight children are more likely to report that their parents were often or always stressed. When asked, one-third (31 percent) of American children report being very or slightly overweight. These kids are more likely to report they worry a lot or a great deal about things in their lives than children who are normal weight (31 percent versus 14 percent). Overweight children are also significantly more likely than normal-weight children to report they worry about the way they look or about their weight (36 percent versus 11 percent). Children, regardless of weight or age, say they can tell that their parents are stressed when they argue and complain, which many children say makes them feel sad and worried.19

Family Problems

Divorce strikes about half of all new marriages, and many intact families sacrifice time with each other to afford more affluent lifestyles. Today, about 70 percent of children under age 18 live with two married parents. Kids who live with one parent only are much more likely to experience poverty than those living in two-parent families. Because of family problems, children are being polarized into two distinct economic groups: those in affluent, two-earner, married-couple households and those in poor, single-parent households.20

Formed in 1985, the Children’s Rights Council (CRC) is a national nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC, that works to assure children meaningful and continuing contact with both their parents and extended family regardless of the parents’ marital status. For more information about this topic, visit their website at http://www.crckids.org or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at cengagebrain.com, then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Substandard Living Conditions

Millions of children now live in substandard housing—high-rise, multiple-family dwellings—which can have a negative influence on their long-term psychological health.21 Adolescents living in deteriorated urban areas are prevented from having productive and happy lives. Many die from random bullets and drive-by shootings. Some are homeless and living on the street, where they are at risk of drug addiction and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including AIDS. Today about one-third of US households with children have one or more of the following three housing problems: physically inadequate housing, crowded housing, or housing that costs more than 30 percent of the household income.22 Despite the fact that the minimum wage has increased to more than $6.50 per hour, the poor can barely afford to live in even the lowest-cost neighborhoods of metro areas such as Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC.23

Inadequate Educational Opportunity

Education shapes the personal growth and life chances of children. Early educational experiences of young children, such as being read to daily, encourage the development of essential skills and prepare children for success in school. Later aspects of academic performance, such as mastering academic subjects, completing high school, and enrolling in college, provide opportunities for further education and future employment. Youths who are neither enrolled in school nor working are a measure of the proportion of young people at risk of limiting their future prospects.24 Although all young people face stress in the education system, the risks are greatest for the poor, members of racial and ethnic minorities, and recent immigrants. By the time they reach the fourth grade, students in poorer public schools have lower achievement scores in mathematics than those in more affluent districts.25 According to the watchdog group Children’s Defense Fund:

•  About 70 percent of fourth-graders in our public schools cannot read at grade level.

•  Minority children are most seriously affected: almost 90 percent of black fourth-graders, 80 percent of Hispanic fourth-graders, and 80 percent of American Indian/Alaska native fourth-graders are not reading at grade level.26

The problems faced by kids who drop out of school do not end in adolescence.27 Adults 25 years of age and older without a high school diploma earn 30 percent less than those who have earned a diploma. High school graduation is the single most effective preventive strategy against adult poverty.

At home, poor children receive less academic support from their harried parents. Take for instance having parents who read to their children at home, a key to future academic success. Although about half of all children ages 3 to 5 who are not yet in kindergarten are read to daily by a family member, the likelihood of having heard a story at home is stratified by class. About two-thirds of children in families with incomes at or above 200 percent of the poverty level are read to daily; in contrast, less than half of children whose family falls 200 percent below the poverty level are read to at home.28

Problems in Cyberspace

Kids today are forced to deal with problems and issues that their parents could not even dream about. While the Internet and other technological advances have opened a new world of information gathering and sharing, they have also brought a basketful of new problems ranging from sexting to cyberstalking.

Cyberbullying

Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old Massachusetts girl, hanged herself in a stairwell at her home after enduring months of torment by her fellow students at South Hadley High School. Prince, who had immigrated from Ireland, was taunted in the school’s hallways and bombarded with vulgar insults by a pack of kids led by the ex-girlfriend of a boy she had briefly dated. As she studied in the library on the last day of her life, she was openly hounded and threatened physically while other students and a teacher looked on and did nothing. In the aftermath of her death, prosecutors accused two boys of statutory rape and four girls with violating Prince’s civil rights and criminal harassment. Ironically, most of these students were still in school, and some continued to post nasty remarks on Prince’s memorial Facebook page after her death.29

Experts define bullying among children as repeated, negative acts committed by one or more children against another.30 These negative acts may be physical or verbal in nature—for example, hitting or kicking, teasing or taunting—or they may involve indirect actions such as manipulating friendships or purposely excluding other children from activities.

While in the past bullies were found in the school yard, they can now use the Internet to harass their victims through emails or instant messages. Physical distance is no longer a barrier to the frequency and depth of harm doled out by a bully to his or her victim.31 Obscene, insulting, and slanderous messages can be posted to social media sites or sent directly to the victim via cell phones; bullying has now morphed from the physical to the virtual.32

Cyberbullying is the willful and repeated harm inflicted through Internet social media sites such as Facebook, blogs, or microblogging applications such as Twitter. Like their real-world counterparts, cyberbullies are malicious aggressors who seek implicit or explicit pleasure or profit through the mistreatment of other individuals. Although power in traditional bullying might be physical (stature) or social (competency or popularity), online power may simply stem from Net proficiency.

cyberbullying

Willful and repeated harm inflicted through Internet social media sites or electronic communication methods such as Twitter.

It is difficult to get an accurate count of the number of teens who have experienced cyberbullying. A recent study by Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja found that more than 20 percent of the youth they surveyed reported being the target of cyberbullying.33 As Figure 1.3 shows, adolescent girls are significantly more likely to have experienced cyberbullying in their lifetimes (26 percent versus 16 percent) than boys. Girls are also more likely to report cyberbullying others during their lifetime (21 percent versus 18 percent). The type of cyberbullying tends to differ by gender; girls are more likely to spread rumors while boys are more likely to post hurtful pictures.34

figure 1.3: Cyberbullying by Gender

SOURCE: Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja, Cyberbullying Research Center, http://cyberbullying.us/research.php (accessed May 2013).

Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking refers to the use of the Internet, email, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Some predatory adults pursue minors through online chat rooms, establish a relationship with the child, and later make contact. Today, Internet predators are more likely to meet and develop relationships with at-risk adolescents, and beguile underage teenagers, rather than use coercion and violence.35

Others, as the Cyber Delinquency feature shows, engage in a misleading practice called catfishing: taking on a fictional identity to lure unsuspecting kids into romantic relationships.

Sexting

Adolescents now have to worry that the compromising photos they send their boyfriends or girlfriends—a practice called sexting—can have terrible repercussions. In 2008, Jesse Logan, an 18-year-old Ohio high school girl, made the mistake of sending nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend. When they broke up, he sent them around to their schoolmates. As soon as the e-photos got into the hands of her classmates, they began harassing her, calling her names and destroying her reputation. Jesse soon became depressed and reclusive, afraid to go to school, and in July 2008 she hanged herself in her bedroom.36

While the sexting phenomenon has garnered national attention, there is some question as to how often teens actually engage in the distribution of sexually compromising material. One recent survey of 1,560 Internet users ages 10 through 17 found that about 2.5 percent had appeared in or created nude or nearly nude pictures or videos and that 1 percent of these images contained sexually explicit nudity. Of the youth who participated in the survey, 7 percent said they had received nude or nearly nude images of others; few youth distributed these images. It is possible that sexting is not as common as previously believed or that it was a fad that is quickly fading.37

Are Things Improving?

Though American youth do face many hazards, there are some bright spots on the horizon. Teenage birthrates nationwide have declined substantially during the past decade, with the sharpest declines among African American girls. In the same period, the teen abortion rate has also declined. These data indicate that more teens are using birth control and practicing safe sex.

Fewer children are being born with health risks today than in 1990. This probably means that fewer women are drinking or smoking during pregnancy and that fewer are receiving late or no prenatal care. In addition, since 1990 the number of children immunized against disease has increased.

Kids are taking less risks when they ride in cars:

•  From 1991 to 2011, the percentage of high school students who never or rarely wore a seatbelt declined from 26 to 8 percent

•  From 1991 to 2011, the percentage of students who rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol during the past 30 days declined from 40 to 24.

•  The percentage of high school students who had driven a car during the past 30 days when they had been drinking alcohol decreased from 17 in 1997 to 8 in 2011.38

They are also drinking less alcohol. Since 1999, the percentage of high school students who drank alcohol during the past 30 days decreased from 50 percent to 39 percent and, since 1997, the percentage who reported binge drinking (having 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row during the past 30 days) decreased from 33 percent to 22 percent.39

More parents are reading to their children, and math achievement is rising in grades 4 through 12. And more kids are going to college: college enrollment is now about 21 million and is expected to continue setting new records for the next decade.40 Almost 30 percent of the adult population in the United States now have college degrees.

CYBER delinquency: Catfishing

“Catfishing” refers to the practice of setting up a fictitious online profile, most often for the purpose of luring another into a fraudulent romantic relationship. According to The Urban Dictionary, a catfish is “someone who pretends to be someone they’re not using Facebook or other social media.” So, to “catfish someone” is to set up a fake social media profile with the goal of duping that person into falling for the false persona.

While catfishing has been around awhile, it became a topic of public interest when Notre Dame football star Manti Te’o was the apparent target of a catfish. Te’o developed an online relationship with someone he knew as Lennay Kekua. It is difficult to know how deep the relationship was, but he did refer to her as his girlfriend and mentioned repeatedly that he loved her. Te’o amassed a wide sympathy following when it was learned that his grandmother and his girlfriend (Kekua) died on the same day early in the 2012 football season. While his grandmother did in fact die on that day, his “girlfriend” did not—media investigations revealed that she had never existed in the first place. Kekua was in fact a fictitious online persona created by a friend of Te’o’s. In a statement to the press, Te’o maintained that he was a target: “To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone’s sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating.”

In another case that got national attention, 13-year-old Megan Meier began an online relationship with a boy she knew as Josh Evans. For almost a month, Megan corresponded with this boy, exclusively online because he said he didn’t have a phone and was homeschooled. One day in October 2006, Megan received a message from Josh on her MySpace profile saying, “I don’t know if I want to be friends with you any longer because I hear you’re not nice to your friends.” This was followed by bulletins being posted through MySpace calling Megan “fat” and a “slut.” After seeing the messages, Megan became distraught and ran up to her room. A few minutes later, Megan’s mother Tina found her hanging in her bedroom closet. Though Tina rushed her daughter to the hospital, Megan died the next day.

Six weeks after their daughter’s death, the Meier family learned that the boy with whom Megan had been corresponding never existed. Josh Evans (and his online profile) was created by Lori Drew, a neighbor and the mother of one of Megan’s friends. She created the profile as a way to spy on what Megan was saying about her daughter. Drew was eventually acquitted in federal court for her role in Megan’s death.

Another, more extreme example, is the case of 18-year-old Anthony Stancl, who in 2009 impersonated two girls (“Kayla” and “Emily”) on Facebook. He befriended and formed online romantic relationships with a number of boys in his high school (again, while posing and interacting as these two girls). He then convinced at least 31 of those boys to send him nude pictures or videos of themselves. As if that weren’t bad enough, Stancl—still posing as a girl and still communicating through Facebook—tried to convince more than half to meet with a male friend and let him perform sexual acts on them. If they refused, “she” told them that the pictures and videos would be released for all to see. Seven boys actually submitted to this horrific request, and allowed Stancl to perform sex acts on them or they performed sex acts on him. He took numerous pictures of these encounters with his cell phone, and the police eventually found over 300 nude images of male teens on his computer. He was charged with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, and repeated sexual assault of the same child, and received a 15-year prison sentence.

The most famous case of “catfishing” involved Notre Dame’s star linebacker Manti Te’o, shown here speaking with Katie Couric during an interview. Te’o admitted that he briefly lied about his fictitious online girlfriend Lennay Kekua after discovering she didn’t exist, while maintaining that he had no part in creating the hoax. Te’o gained the sympathy of the nation when he was made to believe that his girlfriend had died of cancer.

CRITICAL THINKING

Some might argue that catfishing is harmless Internet fun and that people should know better than to enter into any significant relationship with another person they only know digitally. Do such thoughts make it okay to use technology to mislead someone, and lead to a “victim-blaming” mentality? Should people who catfish others be held criminally liable?

SOURCE: Justin Patchin, “Catfishing as a Form of Cyberbullying,” Cyberbullying Research Center, http://cyberbullying.us/blog/catfishing-as-a-form-of-cyberbullying.html (accessed May 2013).

Although these are encouraging signs, the improvement of adolescent life continues to be a national goal.

The Study of Juvenile Delinquency

The problems of youth in modern society is a major national concern especially when they are linked to juvenile delinquency, or criminal behavior committed by minors.

juvenile delinquency

Participation in illegal behavior by a minor who falls under a statutory age limit.

More than 1.1 million youths are now arrested each year for crimes ranging in seriousness from loitering to murder.41 Though most juvenile law violations are minor, some young offenders are extremely dangerous and violent. About 800,000 youths belong to more than 20,000 gangs in the United States. Violent street gangs and groups can put fear into an entire city (see Chapter 9 for more on gangs). Youths involved in multiple serious criminal acts—referred to as lifestyle, repeat, or chronic delinquent offenders—are now recognized as a serious social problem. State juvenile authorities must deal with these offenders, along with responding to a range of other social problems, including child abuse and neglect, school crime and vandalism, family crises, and drug abuse. The cost to society of these high-rate offenders can be immense. In a series of studies, Mark Cohen, Alex Piquero, and Wesley Jennings examined the costs to society of various groups of juvenile offenders, including high-rate chronic offenders who kept on committing serious crimes as adults.42 They found that the average cost for each of these offenders was over $1.5 million, and their cost to society increased as they grew older. The “worst of the worst” of these offenders, who committed 53 known crimes, cost society $1,696,000 by the time they reached their mid-20s. In all, the high-rate offenders they studied had an annual cost to society of over half a billion dollars.

chronic delinquent offenders (also known as chronic juvenile offenders, chronic delinquents, or chronic recidivists)

Youths who have been arrested four or more times during their minority and perpetuate a striking majority of serious criminal acts. This small group, known as the “chronic 6 percent,” is believed to engage in a significant portion of all delinquent behavior; these youths do not age out of crime but continue their criminal behavior into adulthood.

Given the diversity and gravity of these problems, there is an urgent need for strategies to combat such a complex social phenomenon as juvenile delinquency. But formulating effective strategies demands a solid understanding of delinquency’s causes and prevention. Is delinquency a function of psychological abnormality? A collective reaction by youths against destructive social conditions? The product of a disturbed home life and disrupted socialization? Does serious delinquent behavior occur only in large urban areas among lower-class youths? Or is it spread throughout the entire social structure? What impact do family life, substance abuse, school experiences, and peer relations have on youth and their law-violating behaviors? We know that most youthful law violators do not go on to become adult criminals (what is known as the aging-out process). Yet we do not know why some youths become chronic delinquents whose careers begin early and persist into their adulthood. Why does the onset of delinquency begin so early in some children? Why does the severity of their offenses escalate? What factors predict the persistence, or continuation, of delinquency, and conversely, what are the factors associated with its desistance, or termination? Unless the factors that control the onset and termination of a delinquent career are studied in an orderly and scientific manner, developing effective prevention and control efforts will be difficult.

aging-out process (also known as desistance or spontaneous remission)

The tendency for youths to reduce the frequency of their offending behavior as they age; aging-out is thought to occur among all groups of offenders.

persistence

The process by which juvenile offenders persist in their delinquent careers rather than aging out of crime.

The study of delinquency also involves analysis of the law enforcement, court, and correctional agencies designed to treat youthful offenders who fall into the arms of the law—known collectively as the juvenile justice system. How should police deal with minors who violate the law? What are the legal rights of children? For example, should minors who commit murder receive the death penalty? What kind of correctional programs are most effective with delinquent youths? How useful are educational, community, counseling, and vocational development programs? Is it true, as some critics claim, that most efforts to rehabilitate young offenders are doomed to failure?43 Should we adopt a punishment or a treatment orientation to combat delinquency, or something in between?

juvenile justice system

The segment of the justice system, including law enforcement officers, the courts, and correctional agencies, designed to treat youthful offenders.

The study of juvenile delinquency involves a variety of social problems faced by adolescents. Sgt. Vincent Matranga, of the Sacramento City Unified School District, questions Lydia Ochoa, 15, and her boyfriend, Antonio, 17, about why the pair are not in school, in Sacramento, California. Police teamed up with school officials to start rounding up truants in an effort to cut crime as well as prevent kids from dropping out. After questioning the two juveniles, Matranga released Antonio to an adult who confirmed he was enrolled in a home study program. Lydia was taken to an attendance center at Luther Burbank High School where a social worker worked with her to prevent her from becoming one of the estimated 150,000 California students who leave school each year without a diploma. The study of delinquency involves such issues as devising programs to reduce the dropout rate and determining what effect dropping out of school has on delinquency.

In sum, the scientific study of delinquency requires understanding the nature, extent, and cause of youthful law violations and the methods devised for their control. We also need to study important environmental and social issues associated with delinquent behavior, including substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, education, and peer relations. This text investigates these aspects of juvenile delinquency along with the efforts being made to treat problem youths and prevent the spread of delinquent behavior. Our study begins with a look back to the development of the concept of childhood and how children were first identified as a unique group with its own special needs and behaviors.

The Development of Childhood

The treatment of children as a distinct social group with special needs and behavior is, in historical terms, a relatively new concept. It is only for the past 350 years or so that any mechanism existed to care for even the most needy children, including those left orphaned and destitute. How did this concept of concern for children develop?

Childhood in the Middle Ages

In Europe, during the Middle Ages (roughly 500–1500 ce), the concept of childhood as we know it today did not exist. In the paternalistic family of the time, the father was the final authority on all family matters and exercised complete control over the social, economic, and physical well-being of his wife and children.44 Children who did not obey were subject to severe physical punishment, even death.

paternalistic family

A family style wherein the father is the final authority on all family matters and exercises complete control over his wife and children.

The Lower Classes

For peasant children, the passage into adulthood was abrupt. As soon as they were physically capable, children of all classes were expected to engage in adult roles. Among the working classes, males engaged in farming and/or learning a skilled trade, such as masonry or metal-working; females aided in food preparation or household maintenance.45 Some peasant youths went into domestic or agricultural service on the estate of a powerful landowner or into trades or crafts, perhaps as a blacksmith or farrier (horseshoer).

This view of medieval childhood was shaped by Philippe Aries, whose influential book Centuries of Childhood is considered a classic of historical scholarship. Aries argued that most young people were apprenticed, became agricultural or factory workers, and generally entered adult society at a very early age.46 According to Aries, high infant mortality rates kept parents emotionally detached from their children. Paintings of the time depict children as mini-adults who were sent off to work as soon as they were capable. Western culture did not have a sense of childhood as a distinct period of life until the very late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Though Aries’s view that children in the Middle Ages were treated as “miniature adults” has become the standard view, in a more recent book, historian Nicholas Orme puts forth evidence that medieval children may have been valued by their parents and did experience a prolonged period of childhood. In his Medieval Children, Orme finds that the medieval mother began to care for her children even before their delivery. Royal ladies borrowed relics of the Virgin Mary from the church to protect their unborn children, while poorer women used jasper stones or drawings of the cross, which were placed across their stomachs to ensure a healthy and uneventful birth. Parents associated their children’s birthdays with a saint’s feast day. Medieval children devised songs, rhymes, and games. Some simple games made use of cherry pits or hazelnuts, but children also had toys, which included dolls and even mechanical toys made for royalty.47

As soon as they were physically capable, children of the Middle Ages were expected to engage in adult roles. Young girls worked as maids and housekeepers and at such tasks as food preparation, clothes washing, and household maintenance. Boys worked on farms and performed such tasks as blacksmith or farrier (horseshoer).

Children of the Nobility

Though their lives were quite different, children of the affluent, landholding classes also assumed adult roles at an early age. Girls born into aristocratic families were educated at home and married in their early teens. A few were taught to read, write, and do sufficient mathematics to handle household accounts in addition to typical female duties such as supervising servants and ensuring the food supply of the manor.

At age 7 or 8, boys born to landholding families were either sent to a monastery or cathedral school to be trained for lives in the church or selected to be a member of the warrior class and sent to serve a term as a squire—an apprentice and assistant to an experienced knight. At age 21, young men of the knightly classes completed their term as squire, received their own knighthood, and returned home to live with their parents. Most remained single because it was widely believed there should be only one married couple residing in a manor or castle. To pass the time and maintain their fighting edge, many young knights entered the tournament circuit, engaging in melees and jousts to win fame and fortune. Upon the death of their fathers, young nobles assumed their inherited titles, married, and began their own families.

The customs and practices of the time helped shape the lives of children and, in some instances, greatly amplified their hardships and suffering. Primogeniture required that the oldest surviving male child inherit family lands and titles. He could then distribute them as he saw fit to younger siblings. There was no absolute requirement, however, that portions of the estate be distributed equally; many youths who received no lands were forced to enter religious orders, become soldiers, or seek wealthy patrons. Primogeniture often caused intense family rivalry that led to blood feuds and tragedy.

primogeniture

During the Middle Ages, the right of firstborn sons to inherit lands and titles, leaving their brothers the option of a military or religious career.

Dower

The dower system mandated that a woman’s family bestow money, land, or other wealth (called a dowry) on a potential husband or his family in exchange for his marriage to her. In return, the young woman received a promise of financial assistance, called a jointure, from the groom’s family. Jointure provided a lifetime income if a wife outlived her mate. The dower system had a significant impact on the role of women in medieval society and consequently on the role of children. Within this system, a father or male guardian had the final say in his daughter’s choice of marital partner, as he could threaten to withhold her dowry. Some women were denied access to marriage simply because of their position in the family.

A father with many daughters and few sons might find himself financially unable to obtain suitable marriages for them. Consequently, the youngest girls in many families were forced either to enter convents or stay at home, with few prospects for marriage and family.

The dower system had far-reaching effects on the position of women in society, forcing them into the role of second-class citizens dependent upon their fathers, brothers, and guardians. It established a pattern in which females who did not conform to what males considered to be acceptable standards of feminine behavior could receive harsh sanctions; it established a sexual double standard that in part still exists today.

Childrearing

The harshness of medieval life influenced childrearing practices during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For instance, newborns were almost immediately handed over to wet nurses, who fed and cared for them during the first two years of their life. These women often lived away from the family so that parents had little contact with their children. Even the wealthiest families employed wet nurses, because it was considered demeaning for a noblewoman to nurse. Wrapping a newborn entirely in bandages, or swaddling, was a common practice. The bandages prevented any movement and enabled the wet nurse to manage the child easily. This practice was thought to protect the child, but it most likely contributed to high infant mortality rates because the child could not be kept clean.

swaddling

The practice during the Middle Ages of completely wrapping newborns in long bandage-like cloths in order to restrict their movements and make them easier to manage.

Discipline was severe during this period. Young children of all classes, both peasant and wealthy, were subjected to stringent rules and regulations. They were beaten severely for any sign of disobedience or ill temper. Many children of this time would be considered abused by today’s standards. The relationship between parent and child was remote. Children were expected to enter the world of adults and to undertake responsibilities early in their lives, sharing in the work of siblings and parents. Children thought to be suffering from disease or retardation were often abandoned to churches, orphanages, or foundling homes.48

The roots of the impersonal relationship between parent and child can be traced to high mortality rates, which made sentimental and affectionate relationships risky. Parents were reluctant to invest emotional effort in relationships that could so easily be terminated by violence, accidents, or disease. Many believed that children must be toughened to ensure their survival in a hostile world. Close family relationships were viewed as detrimental to this process. Also, because the oldest male child was viewed as the essential player in a family’s well-being, younger male and female siblings were considered economic and social liabilities.

Development of Concern for Children

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a number of developments in England heralded the march toward the recognition of children’s rights. Some of these events eventually affected the juvenile legal system as it emerged in America. They include (a) changes in family style and child care, (b) the English Poor Laws, (c) the apprenticeship movement, and (d) the role of the chancery court.49

Changes in Family Structure

Family structure and the role of children began to change after the Middle Ages. Extended families, which were created over centuries, gave way to the nuclear family structure with which we are familiar today. It became more common for marriage to be based on love and mutual attraction between men and women rather than on parental consent and paternal dominance. The changing concept of marriage—from an economic arrangement to an emotional commitment—also began to influence the way children were treated within the family structure. Though parents still rigidly disciplined their children, they formed closer parental ties and developed greater concern for their offspring’s well-being.

To provide more control over children, grammar and boarding schools were established and began to flourish in many large cities during this time.50 Children studied grammar, Latin, law, and logic, often beginning at a young age. Teachers in these institutions regularly ruled by fear, and flogging was their main method of discipline. Students were beaten for academic mistakes as well as moral lapses. Such brutal treatment fell on both the rich and the poor throughout all levels of educational life, including universities. This treatment abated in Europe with the rise of the Enlightenment, but it remained in full force in Great Britain until late in the nineteenth century. Although this brutal approach to children may be difficult to understand now, the child in that society was a second-class citizen.

Toward the close of the eighteenth century, the work of such philosophers as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Locke launched a new age for childhood and the family.51 Their vision produced a period known as the Enlightenment, which stressed a humanistic view of life, freedom, family, reason, and law. The ideal person was sympathetic to others and receptive to new ideas. These new beliefs influenced both the structure and lifestyle of the family. The father’s authority was tempered, discipline in the home became more relaxed, and the expression of love and affection became more commonplace among family members. Upper- and middle-class families began to devote attention to childrearing, and the status of children was advanced.

As a result of these changes, in the nineteenth century children began to emerge as a readily distinguishable group with independent needs and interests. Parents often took greater interest in their upbringing. In addition, serious questions arose over the treatment of children in school. Public outcries led to a decrease in excessive physical discipline. Restrictions were placed on the use of the whip, and in some schools, the imposition of academic assignments or the loss of privileges replaced corporal punishment. Despite such reforms, many children still led harsh lives. Girls were still undereducated, punishment was still primarily physical, and schools continued to mistreat children.

Poor Laws

Government action to care for needy children can be traced to the Poor Laws of Britain. As early as 1535, England passed statutes allowing for the appointment of overseers to place destitute or neglected children as servants in the homes of the affluent.52 The Poor Laws forced children to serve during their minority in the care of families who trained them in agricultural, trade, or domestic services. The Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601 were a model for dealing with poor children for more than 200 years. These laws created a system of church wardens and overseers who, with the consent of justices of the peace, identified vagrant, delinquent, and neglected children and took measures to put them to work. Often this meant placing them in poorhouses or workhouses, or apprenticing them to masters.

Poor Laws

English statutes that allowed the courts to appoint overseers over destitute and neglected children, allowing placement of these children as servants in the homes of the affluent.

The Apprenticeship Movement

Under the apprenticeship system, children were placed in the care of adults who trained them to discharge various duties and obtain skills. Voluntary apprentices were bound out by parents or guardians who wished to secure training for their children. Involuntary apprentices were compelled by the authorities to serve until they were 21 or older. The master-apprentice relationship was similar to the parent-child relationship in that the master had complete responsibility for and authority over the apprentice. If an apprentice was unruly, a complaint could be made and the apprentice could be punished. Incarcerated apprentices were often placed in rooms or workshops apart from other prisoners and were generally treated differently from those charged with a criminal offense. Even at this early stage, the conviction was growing that the criminal law and its enforcement should be applied differently to children.

Chancery Court

After the fifteenth century, a system of chancery courts became a significant arm of the British legal system. They were originally established as “courts of equity” to handle matters falling outside traditional legal actions. These early courts were based on the traditional English system in which a chancellor acted as the “king’s conscience” and had the ability to modify the application of legal rules and provide relief considering the circumstances of individual cases. The courts were not concerned with technical legal issues; rather, they focused on rendering decisions or orders that were fair or equitable. With respect to children, the chancery courts dealt with issues of guardianship of children who were orphaned, their property and inheritance rights, and the appointment of guardians to protect them until they reached the age of majority and could care for themselves. For example, if a wealthy father died before his heir’s majority, or if there were some dispute as to the identity (or legitimacy) of his heir, the crown might ask the case to be decided by the chancery court in an effort to ensure that inheritance rights were protected (and taxes collected!).

chancery courts

Court proceedings created in fifteenth-century England to oversee the lives of highborn minors who were orphaned or otherwise could not care for themselves.

Chancery court decision making rested on the proposition that children and other incompetents were under the protective control of the king; thus, the Latin phrase parens patriae was used, referring to the role of the king as the father of his country. The concept was first used by English kings to establish their right to intervene in the lives of the children of their vassals—children whose position and property were of direct concern to the monarch.53 The concept of parens patriae became the theoretical basis for the protective jurisdiction of the chancery courts acting as part of the crown’s power. As time passed, the monarchy used parens patriae more and more to justify its intervention in the lives of families and children by its interest in their general welfare.54

parens patriae

Power of the state to act on behalf of the child and provide care and protection equivalent to that of a parent.

The chancery courts dealt with the property and custody problems of the wealthier classes. They did not have jurisdiction over children charged with criminal conduct. Juveniles who violated the law were handled within the framework of the regular criminal court system. Nonetheless, the concept of parens patriae grew to refer primarily to the responsibility of the courts and the state to act in the best interests of the child.

Childhood in America

While England was using its chancery courts and Poor Laws to care for children in need, the American colonies were developing similar concepts. The colonies were a haven for poor and unfortunate people looking for religious and economic opportunities denied them in England and Europe. Along with early settlers, many children came not as citizens but as indentured servants, apprentices, or agricultural workers. They were recruited from the various English workhouses, orphanages, prisons, and asylums that housed vagrant and delinquent youths during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.55

At the same time, the colonies themselves produced illegitimate, neglected, abandoned, and delinquent children. The colonies’ initial response to caring for such unfortunate children was to adopt court and Poor Laws systems similar to those in England. Involuntary apprenticeship, indenture, and binding out of children became integral parts of colonization in America. For example, Poor Law legislation requiring poor and dependent children to serve apprenticeships was passed in Virginia in 1646 and in Massachusetts and Connecticut in 1673.56

The master in colonial America acted as a surrogate parent, and in certain instances, apprentices would actually become part of the nuclear family structure. If they disobeyed their masters, apprentices were punished by local tribunals. If masters abused apprentices, courts would make them pay damages, return the children to the parents, or find new guardians. Maryland and Virginia developed an orphan’s court that supervised the treatment of youths placed with guardians and ensured that they were not mistreated or taken advantage of by their masters. These courts did not supervise children living with their natural parents, leaving intact the parents’ right to care for their children.57

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, as the agrarian economy began to be replaced by industry, the apprenticeship system gave way to the factory system. Yet the problems of how to deal effectively with growing numbers of dependent youths increased. Early American settlers believed that hard work, strict discipline, and rigorous education were the only reliable means to salvation. A child’s life was marked by work alongside parents, some schooling, prayer, more work, and further study. Work in the factories, however, often taxed young laborers by placing demands on them that they were too young to endure. To alleviate a rapidly developing problem, the Factory Act of the early nineteenth century limited the hours children were permitted to work and the age at which they could begin to work. It also prescribed a minimum amount of schooling to be provided by factory owners.58 This and related statutes were often violated, and conditions of work and school remained troublesome issues well into the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the statutes were a step in the direction of reform.

Controlling Children

In America, as in England, moral discipline was rigidly enforced. “Stubborn child” laws were passed that required children to obey their parents.59 It was not uncommon in the colonies for children who were disobedient or disrespectful to their families to be whipped or otherwise physically chastised. Children were often required to attend public whippings and executions because these events were thought to be important forms of moral instruction. Parents often referred their children to published works and writings on behavior and discipline and expected them to follow their precepts carefully. Because community and church leaders frowned on harsh punishments, child protection laws were passed as early as 1639 (in New Haven, Connecticut). Nonetheless, these laws were generally symbolic and rarely enforced. They expressed the community’s commitment to God to oppose sin; offenders who abused their children usually received lenient sentences.60

Although most colonies adopted a protectionist stance, few cases of child abuse were actually brought before the courts. There are several explanations for this neglect. The absence of child abuse cases may reflect the nature of life in what were extremely religious households. Children were productive laborers and respected as such by their parents. In addition, large families provided many siblings and kinfolk who could care for children and relieve stress-producing burdens on parents.61 Another view is that though many children were harshly punished in early American families, the acceptable limits of discipline were so high that few parents were charged with assault. Any punishment that fell short of maiming or permanently harming a child was considered within the sphere of parental rights.62

Under the apprenticeship system, children were placed in the care of adults who trained them to discharge various duties and obtain different skills. The young boy shown in this illustration is serving as an apprentice to a blacksmith. The system was brought over to colonial America in the seventeenth century.

The Concept of Delinquency

Considering the rough treatment handed out to children who misbehaved at home or at school, it should come as no surprise that children who actually broke the law and committed serious criminal acts were dealt with harshly. Before the twentieth century, little distinction was made between adult and juvenile offenders. Although judges considered the age of an offender when deciding punishments, both adults and children were often eligible for the same forms of punishment—prison, corporal punishment, and even the death penalty. In fact, children were treated with extreme cruelty at home, at school, and by the law.63

Over the years, this treatment changed as society became sensitive to the special needs of children. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, as immigrant youth poured into America, there was official recognition that children formed a separate group with its own separate needs. Around the nation, in cities such as New York, Boston, and Chicago, groups known as child savers formed to assist children in need. They created community programs to serve needy children and lobbied for a separate legal status for children, which ultimately led to the development of a formal juvenile justice system. The child saving movement and the history of the development of the juvenile justice system will be discussed more fully in Chapter 13.

child savers

Nineteenth-century reformers who developed programs for troubled youth and influenced legislation creating the juvenile justice system; today some critics view them as being more concerned with control of the poor than with their welfare.

Delinquency and Parens Patriae

The current treatment of juvenile delinquents is a by-product of the developing national consciousness during the nineteenth century. The designation “delinquent” became popular at the onset of the twentieth century when the first separate juvenile courts were instituted. The child savers believed that treating minors and adults equivalently violated the humanitarian ideals of American society. Consequently, the newly emerging juvenile justice system operated under the parens patriae philosophy. Minors who engaged in illegal behavior were viewed as victims of improper care, custody, and treatment at home. Dishonest behavior was a sign that the state should step in and take control of the youths before they committed more serious crimes. The state, through its juvenile authorities, should act in the best interests of the child. This means that children should not be punished for their misdeeds but instead should be given the care and custody necessary to remedy and control wayward behavior. It makes no sense to find children guilty of specific crimes, such as burglary or petty larceny, because that stigmatizes them and labels them as thieves or burglars. Instead, the catchall term juvenile delinquency should be used, as it indicates that the child needs the care, custody, and treatment of the state.

best interests of the child

A philosophical viewpoint that encourages the state to take control of wayward children and provide care, custody, and treatment to remedy delinquent behavior.

The Legal Status of Delinquency

Though the child savers fought hard for a separate legal status of “juvenile delinquent” early in the twentieth century, the concept that children could be treated differently before the law can actually be traced back much farther to its roots in the British legal tradition. Early English jurisprudence held that children under the age of 7 were legally incapable of committing crimes. Children between the ages of 7 and 14 were responsible for their actions, but their age might be used to excuse or lighten their punishment. Our legal system still recognizes that many young people are incapable of making mature judgments and that responsibility for their acts should be limited. Children can intentionally steal cars and know full well that the act is illegal, but they may be incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their behavior and the harm it may cause. Therefore, the law does not punish a youth as it would an adult, and it sees youthful misconduct as evidence of unreasoned or impaired judgment.

Today, the legal status of “juvenile delinquent” refers to a minor child who has been found to have violated the penal code. Most states define “minor child” as an individual who falls under a statutory age limit, most commonly 17 or 18 years of age. Because of their minority status, juveniles are usually kept separate from adults and receive different consideration and treatment under the law. For example, most large police departments employ officers whose sole responsibility is youth crime and delinquency. Every state has some form of separate juvenile court with its own judges, probation department, and other facilities. Terminology is also different: Adults are tried in court; children are adjudicated. Adults can be punished; children are treated. If treatment is mandated, children can be sent to secure detention facilities; they cannot normally be committed to adult prisons.

Children also have their own unique legal status. Minors apprehended for a criminal act are usually charged with being a juvenile delinquent regardless of the crime they commit. These charges are usually confidential, trial records are kept secret, and the name, behavior, and background of delinquent offenders are sealed. Eliminating specific crime categories and maintaining secrecy are efforts to shield children from the stigma of a criminal conviction and to prevent youthful misdeeds from becoming a lifelong burden. Each state defines juvenile delinquency differently, setting its own age limits and boundaries. The federal government also has a delinquency category for youngsters who violate federal laws, but typically allows the states to handle delinquency matters.

Legal Responsibility of Youth

In our society, the actions of adults are controlled by two types of law: criminal and civil. Criminal laws prohibit activities that are injurious to the well-being of society and threaten the social order, such as drug use, theft, and rape; they are legal actions brought by state authorities against private citizens. Civil laws, on the other hand, control interpersonal or private activities and are usually initiated by individual citizens. The ownership and transfer of property, contractual relationships, and personal conflicts (torts) are the subject of the civil law. Also covered under the civil law are provisions for the care and custody of those people who cannot care for themselves—the mentally ill, incompetent, or infirm.

Today, the juvenile delinquency concept occupies a legal status falling somewhere between criminal and civil law. Under parens patriae, delinquent acts are not considered criminal violations nor are delinquents considered criminals. Children cannot be found guilty of a crime and punished like adult criminals. The legal action against them is considered more similar (though not identical) to a civil action that determines their “need for treatment.” This legal theory recognizes that children who violate the law are in need of the same care and treatment as law-abiding citizens who cannot care for themselves and require state intervention into their lives.

Delinquent behavior is sanctioned less heavily than criminality because the law considers juveniles as being less responsible for their behavior than adults. As a class, adolescents are believed to (a) have a stronger preference for risk and novelty, (b) assess the potentially negative consequences of risky conduct less unfavorably than adults, (c) have a tendency to be impulsive and more concerned with short-term than long-term consequences, (d) have a different appreciation of time and self-control, and (e) be more susceptible to peer pressure.64 Although many adolescents may be more responsible and calculating than adults, under normal circumstances the law is willing to recognize age as a barrier to having full responsibility over one’s actions. The limited moral reasoning ability of very young offenders is taken into consideration when assessing their legal culpability. In Timothy v. Superior Court, a California appellate court made it clear that some juvenile defendants may simply be too young to stand trial. The case involved an 11-year-old defendant prosecuted for stealing candy bars. The court ruled that the child was so immature that he could not understand the legal proceedings or assist in his own defense. In doing so, the justices overruled prior case law that held that children must have either a mental disorder or a developmental disability to be deemed incompetent to stand trial. In the words of the court:

As a matter of law and logic, an adult’s incompetence to stand trial must arise from a mental disorder or developmental disability that limits his or her ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and to assist counsel … The same may not be said of a young child whose developmental immaturity may result in trial incompetence despite the absence of any underlying mental or developmental abnormality.65

The upper age of jurisdiction is defined as the oldest age at which a juvenile court has original jurisdiction over an individual for law violating behavior. Today, 37 states and the District of Columbia set the upper limit of juvenile court jurisdiction at age 18; after his or her 18th birthday someone who commits crime is sent to adult court. In another 11 states, the cutoff is 17; New York and North Carolina set the juvenile age limit at 16.66

Although youths share a lesser degree of legal responsibility than adults, they are subject to arrest, trial, and incarceration. Their legal predicament has prompted the courts to grant them many of the same legal protections granted to adults accused of criminal offenses. These legal protections include the right to consult an attorney, to be free from self-incrimination, and to be protected from illegal searches and seizures. In addition, state legislatures are toughening legal codes and making them more punitive in an effort to “get tough” on dangerous youth.

Although appreciation of the criminal nature of the delinquency concept has helped increase the legal rights of minors, it has also allowed state authorities to declare that some offenders are “beyond control” and cannot be treated as children. This recognition has prompted the policy of waiver, or transferring legal jurisdiction over the most serious and experienced juvenile offenders to the adult court for criminal prosecution. To the dismay of reformers, waived youth may find themselves serving time in adult prisons.67 And while punishment is no more certain or swift once they are tried as adults, kids transferred to adult courts are often punished more severely than they would have been if treated as the minors they really are.68 It is possible that as many as 200,000 youths under age 18 have their cases processed in adult criminal court each year as a result of prosecutorial or judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, or because they reside in states with a lower age of criminal jurisdiction. (Waiver will be discussed in detail in Chapter 15.) On any given day, an estimated 7,000 youths under the age of 18 are inmates in adult jails; of these, 90 percent are being held “as adults.”69

waiver (also known as bindover or removal)

Transferring legal jurisdiction over the most serious and experienced juvenile offenders to the adult court for criminal prosecution.

So though the parens patriae concept is still applied to children whose law violations are not considered serious, the more serious juvenile offenders can be declared “legal adults” and placed outside the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Status Offenders

A child also becomes subject to state authority for committing status offenses—actions that would not be considered illegal if perpetrated by an adult; such conduct is illegal only because the child is underage. For example, more than 40 states now have some form of law prohibiting minors from purchasing, using, or possessing tobacco products. These statutes impose a variety of sanctions, including a monetary fine, suspension from school, and denial of a driver’s license. In Florida, repeat offenders may lose their license or be prohibited from obtaining one, and in some communities teens must appear before the judge with their parent or guardian, view an antismoking video, and listen to a lecture from a throat cancer survivor.70 Exhibit 1.3 describes some typical status offense statutes.

status offense

Conduct that is illegal only because the child is underage.

exhibit 1.3: Status Offense Laws: Louisiana and Wisconsin

Louisiana

“Family in need of supervision” refers to families with children who require court involvement because:

• 1. Child is truant or has willfully and repeatedly violated lawful school rules.

• 2. Child is ungovernable.

• 3. Child is a runaway.

• 4. Child repeatedly possessed or consumed intoxicating beverages, or that he has misrepresented or deceived his age for the purpose of purchasing or receiving such beverages from any person, or has repeatedly loitered around any place where such beverages are the principal commodities sold or handled.

• 5. Child committed an offense applicable only to children. [Smoking/purchasing tobacco]

• 6. Child under 10 years of age committed any act which if committed by an adult would be a crime under any federal, state, or local law.

• 7. Caretaker has caused, encouraged, or contributed to the child’s behavior under this Article or to the commission of delinquent acts by minor.

• 8. After notice, caretaker willfully failed to attend meeting with child’s teacher, school principal, or other appropriate school employee to discuss child’s truancy, the child’s repeated violation of school rules, or other serious educational problems of the child.

• 9. Child found incompetent to proceed with a delinquency matter.

• 10. Child found in possession of handgun or semi-automatic handgun under circumstances that reasonably tend to exclude any lawful purpose.

Wisconsin

The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a child alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court, and:

• (1) Who is without a parent or guardian;

• (2) Who has been abandoned;

• (2m) Whose parent has relinquished custody of the child;

• (3) Who has been the victim of abuse, including injury that is self-inflicted or inflicted by another;

• (3m) Who is at substantial risk of becoming the victim of abuse, including injury that is self-inflicted or inflicted by another, based on reliable and credible information that another child in the home has been the victim of such abuse;

• (4) Whose parent or guardian signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is unable or needs assistance to care for or provide necessary special treatment or care for the child;

• (4m) Whose guardian is unable or needs assistance to care for or provide necessary special treatment or care for the child, but is unwilling or unable to sign the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection;

• (5) Who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law;

• (8) Who is receiving inadequate care during the period of time a parent is missing, incarcerated, hospitalized or institutionalized;

• (9) Who is at least age 12, signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is in need of special treatment or care which the parent, guardian or legal custodian is unwilling, neglecting, unable or needs assistance to provide;

• (10) Whose parent, guardian or legal custodian neglects, refuses or is unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child;

• (10m) Whose parent, guardian or legal custodian is at substantial risk of neglecting, refusing or being unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to endanger seriously the physical health of the child, based on reliable and credible information that the child’s parent, guardian or legal custodian has neglected, refused or been unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to endanger seriously the physical health of another child in the home;

• (11) Who is suffering emotional damage for which the parent, guardian or legal custodian has neglected, refused or been unable and is neglecting, refusing or unable, for reasons other than poverty, to obtain necessary treatment or to take necessary steps to ameliorate the symptoms;

• (11m) Who is suffering from an alcohol and other drug abuse impairment, exhibited to a severe degree, for which the parent, guardian or legal custodian is neglecting, refusing or unable to provide treatment; or

• (13) Who has not been immunized.

SOURCES: Louisiana Children’s Code, Title VII: Families in Need of Services, http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/louisiana/la-laws/louisiana_childrens_code_title_vii; WI Stat. Ann. Children’s Code § 48.13, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0048.pdf (both accessed May 2013).

It is extremely difficult to evaluate the annual number of status offenses, as most cases escape police detection and those that do not are more often than not handled informally by social service agencies. Yet, according to data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, about 250,000 juveniles are arrested each year for such status-type offenses as disorderly conduct, breaking curfew, and violating liquor laws.71 At last count about 140,000 of these status offenders are petitioned to juvenile court each year.72

The History of Status Offenses

A historical basis exists for status offense statutes. It was common practice early in the nation’s history to place disobedient or runaway youths in orphan asylums, residential homes, or houses of refuge.73 In 1646, the Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law was enacted, which provided, “If any man have a stubborne and rebellious sonne of sufficient years and understanding, which will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them” they could bring him before the court and testify that he would not obey. If the magistrate then found the child to be unrepentant and incapable of control, such a child could be put to death.74

When the first juvenile courts were established in Illinois, the Chicago Bar Association described part of their purpose as follows:

The whole trend and spirit of the [1899 Juvenile Court Act] is that the State, acting through the Juvenile Court, exercises that tender solicitude and care over its neglected, dependent wards that a wise and loving parent would exercise with reference to his own children under similar circumstances.75

State control over a child’s noncriminal behavior is believed to support and extend the parens patriae philosophy because it is assumed to be in the best interests of the child. Typically, status offenders are petitioned to the juvenile court when it is determined that their parents are unable or unwilling to care for or control them and that the offender’s behavior is self-destructive or harmful to society. Young teenage girls are much more likely to engage in precocious sex while under the influence of alcohol if they are involved with older teens. Parents may petition their underage daughter to juvenile court if they feel her sexual behavior is getting out of control and they are powerless to stop its occurrence.76 The case then falls within the jurisdiction of state legal authorities, and failure to heed a judicial command might result in detention in the juvenile correctional system.

Status offenses include running away, being disobedient, and engaging in behavior forbidden to minors, such as drinking. This cheerleader from Danvers High School in Massachusetts is shown at a court hearing after she was arrested after allegedly showing up drunk for a football playoff game with archrival Walpole High.

At first, juvenile codes referred to status offenders as wayward minors, sometimes failing to distinguish them in any significant way from juvenile delinquents. Both classes of children could be detained in the same detention centers and placed in the same youth correctional facilities. A trend begun in the 1960s has resulted in the creation of separate status offense categories—children, minors, persons, youths, or juveniles in need of supervision (CHINS, MINS, PINS, YINS, or JINS)—which vary from state to state. The purpose of creating separate status offender categories was to shield noncriminal youths from the stigma attached to the label “juvenile delinquent” and to signify that they were troubled youths who had special needs and problems. Most states now have separate categories for juvenile conduct that would not be considered criminal if committed by an adult; these sometimes pertain to neglected or dependent children as well.

wayward minors

Early legal designation of youths who violate the law because of their minority status; now referred to as status offenders.

Legally, delinquents and status offenders are considered independent concepts, but the distinction between them has become blurred. Some noncriminal conduct may be included in the definition of delinquency, and some less serious criminal offenses occasionally may be included within the status offender definition.

Some states grant the juvenile court judge discretion to substitute a status offense for a delinquency charge. Replacing a juvenile delinquency charge with a status offense charge can be used as a bargaining chip to encourage youths to admit to the charges against them in return for a promise of being treated as a (less stigmatized) status offender receiving less punitive treatment. Concept Summary 1.1 summarizes the differences among delinquents, adult criminals, and status offenders.

CONCEPT SUMMARY 1.1: Treatment Differences among Juvenile Delinquents, Status Offenders, and Adults

The Status Offender in the Juvenile Justice System

Separate status offense categories may avoid some of the stigma associated with the delinquency label, but they can have relatively little practical effect on the child’s treatment. Youths in either category can be picked up by the police and brought to a police station. They can be petitioned to the same juvenile court, where they have a hearing before the same judge and come under the supervision of the probation department, the court clinic, and the treatment staff. At a hearing, status offenders may see little difference between the treatment they receive and the treatment of the delinquent offenders sitting across the room. Although status offenders are usually not detained or incarcerated with delinquents, they can be transferred to secure facilities if they are repeatedly unruly and considered uncontrollable; about 7 percent of all status offenders are placed in pretrial detention of some sort. Some states are more likely to prosecute status offenses formally in the juvenile court, while others handle most cases informally. Within individual states, some courts make a habit of prosecuting status offenders, and others will divert most cases to treatment institutions.77

Efforts have been ongoing to reduce the penalties and stigma borne by status offenders and help kids avoid becoming status offenders. The Case Profile entitled “Aaliyah’s Story” shows how one young status offender was able to overcome her problems.

The federal government’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), an agency created to identify the needs of youths and fund policy initiatives in the juvenile justice system, has made it a top priority to encourage the removal of status offenders from secure lockups, detention centers, and post-disposition treatment facilities that also house delinquent offenders. States in violation of the initiative are ineligible to receive part of the millions of dollars in direct grants for local juvenile justice annually awarded by the federal government.78 This initiative has been responsible for significantly lowering the number of status offenders kept in secure confinement.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Branch of the US Justice Department charged with shaping national juvenile justice policy through disbursement of federal aid and research funds.

Despite this mandate, juvenile court judges in many states can still detain status offenders in secure lockups if the youths are found in contempt of court. The act that created the OJJDP was amended in 1987 to allow status offenders to be detained and incarcerated for violations of valid court orders.79 Children have been detained for misbehaving in court or not dressing appropriately for their court appearance.80 There is also some question whether the “valid court order” exception disproportionately affects girls, who are much more likely to be arrested for status offenses than boys and receive more severe punishment than boys. Because girls are more likely to be status offenders, criminalization of status offenses through the “violation of court order” exception may contribute to the increasing numbers of girls in the juvenile justice system.81

case profile: Aaliyah’s Story

AALIYAH PARKER ran away from home at the age of 17. She struggled with family issues and felt she could no longer live with her mother, stepfather, and younger siblings in their California home. Arriving in Colorado with no family support, no money, and no place to live, she joined other runaway adolescents, homeless on the streets. Aaliyah was using drugs and was eventually arrested and detained at a juvenile detention center for possession of methamphetamines and providing false information to a police officer. Five feet seven inches tall and weighing only 95 pounds, Aaliyah was an addict. Her health and quality of life were suffering greatly.

When Aaliyah entered the juvenile justice system she was a few months from turning 18. Due to issues of jurisdiction, budget concerns, and Aaliyah’s age, system administrators encouraged the caseworker assigned to Aaliyah to make arrangements for her to return to her family in California. After interviewing her at length about her situation and need for treatment, the case-worker could see that Aaliyah had a strong desire to get her life back on track. She needed assistance, but the cost of her treatment would be more than $3,000 per month, and the county agency’s budget was already stretched. Despite objections from administrators, the caseworker remained a strong advocate for Aaliyah, convincing them of the harsh reality she would face back at home without first receiving drug treatment. The caseworker’s advocacy on her behalf, combined with Aaliyah’s motivation to get her life together, compelled the department to agree to pay for her treatment program, but only until she turned 18. She was transported from the juvenile detention center to a 90-day drug and alcohol treatment program where she was able to detoxify her body and engage in intensive counseling. The program also provided family therapy through phone counseling for Aaliyah’s mother, allowing the family to reconnect. Despite this renewed contact, returning home was not an option for Aaliyah.

Nearing the end of the 90-day program, Aaliyah was again faced with being homeless, but she was determined not to return to the streets. She needed an environment where she could make new friends who did not use and be supported in her sobriety. Due to her age, the county department of human services had to close the case and could no longer assist her with housing or an aftercare program. The caseworker provided Aaliyah with some places to call, but she would have to be her own advocate.

Aaliyah contacted a group home run by a local church that takes runaway adolescents through county placements and provides a variety of services for clients and their families. In Aaliyah’s case, no funding was available, so she contacted the therapist at the group home and explained her situation. Initially, they indicated that they would not be able to assist her, but Aaliyah was persistent and determined to find a quality living environment for herself. She continued to contact professionals at the group home to plead her case and was eventually successful. Aaliyah entered the group home, was able to get her high school diploma, and eventually enrolled in an independent living program that helped her find a job and get her own apartment. Aaliyah has remained in contact with her juvenile caseworker. Though she has struggled with her sobriety on occasion, she has refrained from using methamphetamines and is now at a healthy weight. Her caseworker continues to encourage Aaliyah and has been an ongoing source of support, despite the fact that the client file was closed several years ago. Aaliyah’s success can be credited to the initial advocacy of her caseworker, the effective interventions, and the strong determination demonstrated by this young woman.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Housing is a major issue for many teens aging out of the justice system. Often, children placed in alternative care settings, such as foster homes or residential treatment centers, are not prepared to live on their own when they turn 18 or are released from juvenile custody. How can this issue be addressed?

2.

Many juvenile delinquents commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or because they are addicted and need to support their habit. If this is the case, should these juveniles be court-ordered into a treatment program? Why or why not? What can be done to prevent alcohol and drug abuse in the teen population?

3.

Teens close to the age of 18, like Aaliyah, may be too old for the juvenile justice system, but too young for the adult system. What should be done with juveniles who are close to 18 when they receive a delinquency charge? Should something be done to bridge the gap between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal justice system?

4.

What should happen to teens who run away from home? This is considered a status offense, but many communities do not charge runaways or require them to be involved in the juvenile justice system. Do you agree with this? Should something more be done and, if so, what?

Several studies have found that as a result of deinstitutionalization, children who can no longer be detained are being recycled or relabeled as delinquent offenders so they can be housed in secure facilities. Juvenile court expert Barry Feld finds that juvenile court judges may “relabel” status offenders as delinquents in order to keep control over kids they feel are incorrigible. Evaluating data on assault charges leveled against adolescent girls, he found that increases in the number of girls being sent to juvenile institutions reflects policy changes rather than an actual increase in criminal activity. Policy changes in the juvenile justice system itself, especially the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, encouraged “relabeling” of female status offenders as delinquents to retain access to facilities in which to confine “incorrigible” girls. Ironically, a policy change designed to remove kids from secure confinement and protect them from stigma and labeling resulted in more negative labels and confinement in even more secure institutions.82

Even more troubling is the charge that some minors no longer subject to detention as status offenders are being committed involuntarily and inappropriately to inpatient drug treatment facilities and psychiatric hospitals.83

Change in the treatment of status offenders reflects the current attitude toward children who violate the law. On the one hand, there appears to be a national movement to severely sanction youths who commit serious, violent offenses. On the other hand, a great effort has been made to remove nonserious cases, such as those involving status offenders, from the official agencies of justice and place these youths in informal, community-based treatment programs. The quality of treatment on status offenders can be significant. A recent study by Wesley Jennings found that the effect of formal processing on status offenders can increase the likelihood that they will get involved in subsequent delinquency. Half of the status offenders he studied in Florida, both males and females, accumulated delinquent arrests in adolescence following their initial referral for a status offense.84

Reforming Status Offense Laws

In 1976, the federal government’s National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, a task force created to develop a national crime policy, opted for the nonjudicial treatment of status offenders: “The only conduct that should warrant family court intervention is conduct that is clearly self-destructive or otherwise harmful to the child.” To meet this standard, the commission suggested that the nation’s juvenile courts confine themselves to controlling five status offenses: habitual truancy, repeated disregard for parental authority, repeated running away, repeated use of intoxicating beverages, and delinquent acts by youths under the age of 10.85 Since this call to reform, a number of other prestigious institutions have joined in the call for status offense reform. The American Bar Association’s National Juvenile Justice Standards Project, designed to promote significant improvements in the way children are treated by the police and the courts, called for the end of juvenile court jurisdiction over status offenders: “A juvenile’s acts of misbehavior, ungovernability, or unruliness which do not violate the criminal law should not constitute a ground for asserting juvenile court jurisdiction over the juvenile committing them.”86 In 2006, the ABA issued this statement about reforming the juvenile status offender process:

Many teens come before the courts because of behavior that would not otherwise subject them to judicial involvement if they were adults. Lawyers should examine how law, prosecutorial policy, and court practice address youth who are chronic runaways, persistent school truants, or continually out-of-control at home. They should also examine how these interventions differ between boys and girls, since there has been a significant increase in the number of girls entering the juvenile justice system. Special attention also needs to be given to the problem of and solutions to chronic truancy.87

These calls for reform prompted a number of states to experiment with replacing juvenile court jurisdiction over most status offenders with community-based treatment programs. Some states, such as Connecticut, have completely reorganized the treatment of status offenders and now refer all status offense cases involving children under 16 to the Department of Children and Family Services as a Family With Service Needs (FWSN). The troubled youths and their families are now directed to community resources for assistance and treatment, and those with specific treatment needs are referred to family support centers for individualized, group, and family therapy. The law provides for the coordinated utilization of a wide range of public and private social, educational, and court services at a local, regional, and statewide level. Kids cannot be placed in detention, though the juvenile court does retain authority over children who exhibit noncriminal behaviors, and although these children cannot be detained in a detention or correctional facility, they can be detained if they violate a court order because violation of a court order is a delinquent act.88

New York now requires that all alleged status offenders and their families be offered intervention and diversion services before status offense petitions may be filed. Only after intervention services have been offered and failed may the social service agency or juvenile justice agency designated to provide prevention services determine if it is appropriate to seek court involvement. New York has also increased the age limit for status offense jurisdiction from 16 to 18 so that thousands more needy kids fall under the jurisdiction of the New York family court each year.89 The Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature entitled “Family Key Programs” shows how one county dealt with the influx of new cases.

Status offenses involve behaviors, such as drinking and smoking, that are forbidden to minors but legal for adults. Should a teen be placed in custody for underage smoking or running away or skipping school? Are such controls contrary to the ideals of freedom and liberty? Should any behaviors be prohibited youth because of their age, and if so, what are they?

Other states have amended their laws to eliminate vague terms and language.90 A few states have tried to amend status offense laws and offer help to families with neglected or dependent children, giving child protective services the primary responsibility for their care. As you may recall, the Louisiana status offense statute set out earlier in Exhibit 1.3 refers to “families” rather than “children.” However, juvenile court judges strongly resist removal of status jurisdiction. They believe that reducing their authority over children leads to limiting juvenile court jurisdiction to only the most hard-core juvenile offenders and interferes with their ability to help youths before they commit serious antisocial acts.91 Their concerns are fueled by research that shows that many status offenders, especially runaways living on the street, have serious emotional problems and engage in self-destructive behaviors ranging from substance abuse to self-mutilation and suicide.92

Those who favor removing status offenders from juvenile court authority charge that their experience with the legal system further stigmatizes these already troubled youths, exposes them to the influence of “true” delinquents, and enmeshes them in a system that cannot really afford to help them.93 Reformer Ira Schwartz, for one, argues that status offenders “should be removed from the jurisdiction of the courts altogether.”94 Schwartz maintains that status offenders would be best served not by juvenile courts but by dispute resolution and mediation programs designed to strengthen family ties, as “status offense cases are often rooted in family problems.”95

Increasing Social Control

Those in favor of retaining the status offense category point to society’s responsibility to care for troubled youths. Some have suggested that the courts’ failure to extend social control over wayward teens neglects the rights of concerned parents who are not able to care for and correct their children.96 Others maintain that the status offense should remain a legal category so that juvenile courts can “force” a youth into receiving treatment.97 Although it is recognized that a court appearance can produce negative stigma, the taint may be less important than the need for treatment.98 In addition, concern over serious delinquency has resulted in laws that actually expand social control over juveniles.99

Curfews

One way jurisdictions have attempted to maintain greater control over wayward youth has been the implementation of curfew laws. The thought is that the opportunity to commit crimes will be reduced if troubled kids are given a curfew.

The first curfew law was created in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1880, and today about 500 US cities have curfews on teenage youth. Curfews typically prohibit children under 18 from being on the streets after 11:00 pm during the week and after midnight on weekends. About 100 cities also have daytime curfews designed to keep children off the streets and in school.100

Each year about 60,000 youths are arrested for curfew violations, and their number is considered responsible for the decade-long increase in the status offender population in juvenile court. As yet there is little conclusive evidence that curfews have a significant impact on youth crime rates. While surveys find that police favor curfews as an effective tool to control vandalism, graffiti, nighttime burglary, and auto theft, empirical studies found that both juvenile arrests and juvenile crime do not seem to decrease significantly during curfew hours.101 Some research efforts have even found that, after curfews were implemented, victimizations increased significantly during noncurfew hours. This indicates that, rather than suppressing delinquency, curfews merely shift the time of occurrence of the offenses. Some studies have found that strict enforcement of curfew laws actually increases juvenile crime rates.102 The failure of curfews to control crime coupled with their infringement on civil rights prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to condemn the practice.103 Other civil libertarians maintain that curfews are an overreaction to juvenile crime, that they are ineffective, and give the police too much power to control citizens who are being punished merely because of their age.104

Right now there are a number of ongoing legal challenges to curfew laws arguing that they are violations of the constitutional right to assembly, and some have been successful. A challenge to the Rochester, New York, law (Anonymous v. City of Rochester) found that the ordinance enabled police to arrest and interrogate a disproportionate percentage of minority youth; 94 percent of those picked up on curfew violations were black or Hispanic. On June 9, 2009, New York’s State Court of Appeals invalidated Rochester’s curfew, finding that the ordinance gives parents too little flexibility and autonomy in supervising their children, while violating children’s rights to freedom of movement, freedom of expression and association, and equal protection under the law. Influencing the court were data showing that young people in Rochester were more likely to be involved in a crime—either as a victim or offender—when the curfew was not in effect.105 Similarly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down provisions of a local curfew law that made it a crime for youth under 17 to be on the street after 11:00 pm unless accompanied by a parent or a guardian. While they left in place civil penalties that allowed individuals convicted of violating the curfew to be fined up to $300, it is no longer permissible to charge curfew violators with a crime.106

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Intervention: Family Key Programs

Key programs focus on unlocking the potential of youth and families through a variety of residential and nonresidential program models and settings. Key provides direct services through child welfare, mental health, juvenile justice, and educational systems. Two such programs are discussed below.

Southwest Key

Southwest Key’s Alternatives to Out-of-Home Placement model is designed to provide highly effective case management services that prevent at-risk youth from repeat violations that could result in juvenile probation or detention. Youth and families are provided with a unique combination of support services designed to address the needs of their specific circumstances, discourage future acts of delinquent behavior, and promote positive youth development.

The level of service provided is tailored to the individualized need of the particular youth and family referred to the program. The individualized approach to the delivery of case management services allows each youth and family to receive the precise combination of services needed in response to their particular circumstances.

The model addresses the multiple contributing factors to a youth’s potential detention, including but not limited to multiple violations, failure to attend school, and curfew violations. Casework staff work in partnership with the youth and family to address and overcome these factors, ultimately supporting their efforts to lead law-abiding and productive lives.

Family Keys, Orange County, New York

Officials in Orange County, located approximately one hour north of New York City, became concerned about the projected impact of the state’s increasing number of at-risk kids, and therefore wanted to increase their jurisdiction over status offenders to age 18. After much study, and with the legislature’s backing, they adopted the Family Keys model. Under the program, the county probation department receives inquiries from parents about PINS (persons in need of supervision). If, after a brief screening, the intake officer finds sufficient allegations to support a PINS complaint, the officer refers the case to Family Keys rather than to probation intake. Depending on the severity of the case, Family Keys dispatches counselors to assess the family’s situation 2 to 48 hours after receiving a referral. Based on the assessment, the agency develops an appropriate short-term intervention plan for the youth and family and provides links to community-based programs. Family Keys works with the family for up to three weeks to ensure that the family is engaged in the service plan.

The Family Keys intervention takes place in lieu of filing a PINS complaint, provides intensive, short-term crisis intervention to families, and diverts PINS cases from the court system. When these short-term interventions do not suffice, cases are referred to an interagency team operated through the mental health department’s Network program. Following a family conferencing model, the Network team performs an in-depth assessment and serves as the gateway to the county’s most high-end services, such as multi-systemic therapy or family functional therapy. Under Orange County’s system, a PINS case is referred to court only as a last resort.

Evaluation of the Family Keys program has been very promising. The time between a parent’s first contact with probation and subsequent follow-up has decreased dramatically, from as long as six weeks under the previous system to as little as two hours through the Family Keys process.

•  93 percent of youths were living at home in the community with their parents/guardians. None had been placed in out-of-home care. This is a 7 percent increase from intake to exit of youths living at home and a 3 percent decrease in the number of youths whose living arrangement was categorized as “‘runaway.”

•  There was a 25 percent increase in the number of youths who improved “connectedness” with parents/guardians and a 24 percent increase in the number of youths who improved “connectedness” with a sibling or other family members.

•  School attendance remained the same, with 100 percent of the program youths regularly attending school.

•  There was an 18 percent increase in the number of youths who improved their health-protecting skills, which includes reducing use of alcohol and drugs.

The success of the Family Keys program has prompted other applications around the United States. In addition to the sites discussed above, the program is being used in sites such as Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Brownsville, and Houston, Texas; Erie County (Buffalo), New York; and more than 20 counties in Georgia and Wisconsin.

CRITICAL THINKING

How would you answer a critic who argues that all social programs should be cut and that social programs are a waste of time? Does the Orange County success story influence your thinking about intervening with troubled youth?

SOURCES: Southwest Key Programs, http://www.swkey.org/about/ (accessed May 2013); Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Family Keys PINS Diversion Program,” http://www2.dsgonline.com/dso2/dso_program_detail.aspx?ID=757&title=Family+Keys+PINS+Diversion+Program (accessed May 2013).

Disciplining Parents

So what happens if kids repeatedly break curfew and get into trouble and their parents refuse or are incapable of doing anything about it? Since the early twentieth century, there have been laws aimed at disciplining parents for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The first of these was enacted in Colorado in 1903, and today all states have some form of statute requiring parents to take some responsibility for their children’s misbehavior.107 All states make it either mandatory or discretionary for the juvenile court to require a parent or guardian to pay at least part of the support costs for a child who is adjudicated delinquent and placed out of the home. Even when the payment is required, however, it is based on the parent’s financial ability to make such payments. During the past decade, approximately one-half of the states enacted or strengthened existing parental liability statutes that make parents criminally liable for the actions of their delinquent children. These laws can generally fall into one of three categories:

•  Civil liability. An injured party may bring a case against the parents for property damage or personal injury caused by one of their children.

•  Criminal liability. The guardian or other adult may be held criminally responsible for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. These laws apply when an adult does some action that encourages delinquent behavior by a child.

•  General involvement. These statutes are based upon legislative efforts to make parents more involved in the juvenile court process and include such things as requiring the parents to pay for court costs, restitution, and treatment, and to participate in the juvenile’s case. Failure to comply with the parental involvement requirements can lead to more punitive sanctions.108

Within this general framework there is a great deal of variation in responsibility laws. Some states (Florida, Idaho, Virginia) require parents to reimburse the government for the costs of detention or care of their children. Others (Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma) demand that parents make restitution payments—for example, paying for damage caused by their children who vandalized a school. All states have incorporated parental liability laws in their statutes, although most recent legislation places limits on recovery; in some states, such as Texas, the upward boundary can be as much as $25,000. Exhibit 1.4 illustrates three such statutes.

exhibit 1.4: Parental Responsibility Laws in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington

© Cengage Learning 2015

Parents may also be held civilly liable, under the concept of vicarious liability, for the damages caused by their child. In some states, parents are responsible for up to $300,000 in damages; in others the liability cap is $3,500 (sometimes homeowner’s insurance covers at least some of liability). Parents can also be charged with civil negligence if they should have known of the damage a child was about to inflict but did nothing to stop it—for example, when they give a weapon to an emotionally unstable youth. Juries have levied awards of up to $500,000 in such cases. Since 1990 there have been at least 18 cases in which parents have been ordered to serve time in jail because their children have been truant from school.

Some critics charge that these laws contravene the right to due process, because they are unfairly used only against lower-class and minority parents. As legal scholar Elena Laskin points out, imposing penalties on these parents may actually be detrimental.109 Forcing a delinquent’s mother to pay a fine removes money from someone who is already among society’s poorest people. If a single mother is sent to jail, it leaves her children, including those who are not delinquent, with no parent to raise them; the kids may become depressed, and lose concentration and sleep. Even if punishment encourages the parent to take action,110 it may be too late, because by the time a parent is charged with violating the statute, the child has already committed a crime, indicating that any damaging socialization by the parent has already occurred. Finally, responsibility laws may not take the age of the child into account, leaving important questions unanswered: Are parents of older offenders equally responsible as those whose much younger children violate the law? Does an adolescent’s personal share of responsibility increase with age? Despite these problems, surveys indicate that the public favors parental responsibility laws.111

A Final Word

Research shows that a majority of youth routinely engage in some form of status offenses and that those who refrain form an atypical minority.112 “Illegal” acts such as teen sex and substance abuse have become normative and commonplace. It makes little sense to have the juvenile court intervene with kids who are caught in what has become routine teenage behavior. In contrast, juvenile court jurisdiction over status offenders may be defended if in fact the youths’ offending patterns are similar to those of delinquents. Is their current offense only the tip of an antisocial iceberg, or are they actually noncriminal youths who need only the loving hand of a substitute parent-figure interested in their welfare? Some find that status offenders are quite different from delinquents, but others note that many status offenders also had prior arrests for delinquent acts and that many delinquents exhibited behaviors that would define them as status offenders.113

These disparate findings may be explained in part by the fact that there may be different types of status offenders, some similar to delinquents and others who are quite different.114 It might be more realistic to divide status offenders into three groups: first-time status offenders, chronic status offenders, and those with both a delinquent record and a status offense record.115 The fact that many young offenders have mixed delinquent–status offender records indicates that these legal categories are not entirely independent. It is also recognized that some “pure” first-time status offenders are quite different from delinquents and that a juvenile court experience can be harmful to them and escalate the frequency and seriousness of their law-violating behaviors.116

The removal of these status offenders from the juvenile court is an issue that continues to be debated. The predominant view today is that many status offenders and delinquents share similar social and developmental problems and that consequently both categories should fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Not surprisingly, research does show that the legal processing of delinquents and status offenders remains quite similar.117

SUMMARY

• 1 Become familiar with the problems of youth in American culture

  •  Young people are extremely vulnerable to the negative consequences of school failure, substance abuse, and early sexuality.

  •  Adolescents and young adults often experience stress, confusion, and depression because of trouble and conflict occurring in their families, schools, and communities.

  •  The problems of American society and the daily stress of modern life have had a significant effect on our nation’s youth as they go through their tumultuous teenage years.

• 2 Distinguish between ego identity and role diffusion

  •  According to psychologist Erik Erikson, adolescence is a time of trial and uncertainty for many youths.

  •  According to Erik Erikson, ego identity is formed when youths develop a full sense of the self, combining how they see themselves and how they fit in with others.

  •  Role diffusion occurs when people spread themselves too thin, experience personal uncertainty, and place themselves at the mercy of people who promise to give them a sense of identity they cannot develop for themselves.

• 3 Discuss the specific issues facing American youth

  •  Many children suffer from chronic health problems and receive inadequate health care.

  •  Children are living in substandard housing—high-rise, multiple-family dwellings—which can have a negative influence on their long-term psychological health.

  •  Although all young people face stress in the education system, the risks are greatest for the poor, members of racial and ethnic minorities, and recent immigrants.

  •  Minority kids usually attend the most underfunded schools, receive inadequate educational opportunities, and have the fewest opportunities to achieve conventional success.

• 4 Understand the concept of being “at risk” and discuss why so many kids take risks

  •  Troubles in the home, the school, and the neighborhood, coupled with health and developmental hazards, have placed a significant portion of American youth at risk to delinquency and substance abuse.

  •  Youths considered at risk are those dabbling in various forms of dangerous conduct such as drug abuse, alcohol use, and precocious sexuality.

  •  Why do youths take such chances? Taking risks is normative among teens.

• 5 Be familiar with the recent social improvements enjoyed by American youth

  •  Teenage birthrates nationwide have declined substantially during the past decade.

  •  More children are being read to by their parents than ever before.

  •  Fewer children with health risks are being born today than in 1990.

• 6 Discuss why the study of delinquency is so important and what this study entails

  •  The problems of youth in modern society are both a major national concern and an important subject for academic study.

  •  Though most juvenile law violations are minor, some young offenders are extremely dangerous and violent.

  •  Some youths involved in multiple serious criminal acts are referred to as lifestyle, repeat, or chronic delinquent offenders.

  •  The scientific study of delinquency requires understanding the nature, extent, and cause of youthful law violations and the methods devised for their control. The study of delinquency also involves analysis of the law enforcement, court, and correctional agencies designed to treat youthful offenders who fall into the arms of the law—known collectively as the juvenile justice system.

• 7 Describe the life of children during feudal times

  •  In Europe, during the Middle Ages (roughly 500 to 1500 ce), the concept of childhood as we know it today did not exist.

  •  In the paternalistic family of the time, the father was the final authority on all family matters and exercised complete control over the social, economic, and physical well-being of the family.

  •  Western culture did not have a sense of childhood as a distinct period of life until the very late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

  •  Discipline was severe during this period. Young children of all classes were subjected to stringent rules and regulations. They were beaten severely for any sign of disobedience or ill temper.

  •  The roots of the impersonal relationship between parent and child can be traced to high mortality rates, which made sentimental and affectionate relationships risky.

• 8 Discuss the treatment of children in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

  •  Extended families gave way to the nuclear family structure with which we are familiar today.

  •  To provide more control over children, grammar and boarding schools were established and began to flourish in many large cities during this time.

  •  The philosophy of the Enlightenment stressed a humanistic view of life, freedom, family, reason, and law. The ideal person was sympathetic to others and receptive to new ideas.

  •  Under the apprenticeship system, children were placed in the care of adults who trained them to discharge various duties and obtain skills.

  •  Chancery courts became a significant arm of the British legal system.

  •  The parens patriae concept gave the state the power to act on behalf of the child and provide care and protection equivalent to that of a parent.

• 9 Discuss childhood in the American colonies

  •  The colonies adopted Poor Laws systems similar to those in England.

  •  Apprenticeship, indenture, and binding out of children became integral parts of colonization in America.

  •  In America, as in England, moral discipline was rigidly enforced. “Stubborn child” laws were passed that required children to obey their parents.

  •  Although judges considered the age of an offender when deciding punishments, both adults and children were often eligible for the same forms of punishment—prison, corporal punishment, and even the death penalty.

• 10 Know about the child savers and the creation of delinquency

  •  Child savers were nineteenth-century reformers who developed programs for troubled youth and influenced legislation creating the juvenile justice system.

  •  The designation “delinquent” became popular at the onset of the twentieth century when the first separate juvenile courts were instituted.

  •  The state, through its juvenile authorities, was expected to act in the best interests of the child.

  •  This philosophical viewpoint encourages the state to take control of wayward children and provide care, custody, and treatment to remedy delinquent behavior.

• 11 Discuss the elements of juvenile delinquency today

  •  Today, the legal status of “juvenile delinquent” refers to a minor child who has been found to have violated the penal code.

  •  Most states define “minor child” as an individual who falls under a statutory age limit, most commonly 17 or 18 years of age.

  •  Because of their minority status, juveniles are usually kept separate from adults and receive different consideration and treatment under the law.

  •  Under parens patriae, delinquent acts are not considered criminal violations nor are delinquents considered criminals. Children cannot be found guilty of a crime and punished like adult criminals.

  •  Although youths share a lesser degree of legal responsibility than adults, they are subject to arrest, trial, and incarceration.

• 12 Know what is meant by the term status offender

  •  A child also becomes subject to state authority for committing status offenses—actions that would not be considered illegal if perpetrated by an adult; such conduct includes running away, truancy, and disobedience.

  •  State control over a child’s noncriminal behavior is believed to support and extend the parens patriae philosophy because it is assumed to be in the best interests of the child.

  •  Separate status offense categories may avoid some of the stigma associated with the delinquency label, but they can have relatively little practical effect on the child’s treatment.

  •  Those in favor of retaining the status offense category point to society’s responsibility to care for troubled youths.

KEY TERMS

Roper v. Simmons, p. 3

Miller v. Alabama, p. 3

ego identity, p. 5

role diffusion, p. 5

at-risk youth, p. 5

cyberbullying, p. 10

juvenile delinquency, p. 13

chronic delinquent offenders, p. 13

aging-out process, p. 13

persistence, p. 13

juvenile justice system, p. 13

paternalistic family, p. 14

primogeniture, p. 16

swaddling, p. 16

Poor Laws, p. 17

chancery courts, p. 18

parens patriae, p. 18

child savers, p. 20

best interests of the child, p. 20

waiver, p. 22

status offense, p. 23

wayward minors, p. 23

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), p. 25

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Is it fair to have a separate legal category for youths? Considering how dangerous young people can be, does it make more sense to group offenders on the basis of what they have done and not on their age?

2.

At what age are juveniles truly capable of understanding the seriousness of their actions?

3.

Is it fair to institutionalize a minor simply for being truant or running away from home? Should the jurisdiction of status offenders be removed from juvenile court and placed with the state department of social services or some other welfare organization?

4.

Should delinquency proceedings be secret? Does the public have the right to know who juvenile criminals are?

5.

Can a get-tough policy help control juvenile misbehavior, or should parens patriae remain the standard?

6.

Should juveniles who commit felonies such as rape or robbery be treated as adults?

VIEWPOINT

As the governor of a large southern state, you have been asked by a young man’s family and friends to grant him a pardon. Nathaniel B. was convicted of second-degree murder in 1995 and received a sentence of 28 years in the state penal system. Tried as an adult, he was found guilty of murder for intentionally killing Mr. Barry G., his English teacher, because he was angry over receiving a failing grade and being suspended for throwing water balloons. During trial, Nathaniel’s attorney claimed that the gun Nathaniel brought to school had gone off accidentally after he pointed it at Mr. G. in an attempt to force him to let Nathaniel talk to two girls in the classroom.

“As he’s holding the gun up, he’s overwhelmed with tears,” Nathaniel’s lawyer told the jury. “His hand begins to shake, and the gun discharges. The gun discharged in the hands of an inexperienced 13-year-old with a junk gun.” The prosecutor countered that Nathaniel’s act was premeditated. He was frustrated because he was receiving an F in the class, and he was angry because he was being barred from talking to the girls. His victim “had no idea of the rage, hate, the anger, the frustration” filling the young man. There was also damaging information from police, who reported that Nathaniel told a classmate he was going to return to school and shoot the teacher; he said he’d be “all over the news.”

At his sentencing hearing, Nathaniel read a statement: “Words cannot really explain how sorry I am, but they’re all I have.” His mother, Polly, blamed herself for her son’s actions, claiming that he was surrounded by domestic abuse and alcoholism at home.

Now that he has served seven years in prison, Nathaniel’s case has come to your attention. As governor, you recognize that his conviction and punishment raise a number of important issues. His mother claims that his actions were a product of abuse and violence in the home. You have read research showing that many habitually aggressive children have been raised in homes in which they were physically brutalized by their parents; this violence then persists into adulthood.

•  Should troubled children, such as Nathaniel, be punished again by the justice system?

•  Should Nathaniel be held personally responsible for actions that may in fact have been caused by a home life beyond his control?

•  Even though he was only 13 years old when he committed his crime, Nathaniel’s case was heard in an adult court, and he received a long sentence to an adult prison. Should minor children who commit serious crimes, as Nathaniel did, be treated as adults, or should they be tried within an independent juvenile justice system oriented to treatment and rehabilitation?

•  Would you pardon Nathaniel now that he has served more than seven years in prison?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

Before you make your decision in Nathaniel’s case, you might want to look at the website of Children’s Rights (http://www.childrensrights.org/), a group that fights to enshrine in the law of the land every child’s right to be protected from abuse and neglect and to grow up in a safe, stable, permanent home. In addition, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) has championed children and promoted community safety. The coalition’s website (http://www.juvjustice.org/) provides information on judicial waiver. You can also find these websites by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at cengagebrain.com and accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), http://www.scotusblog.com/miller-v-alabama/ (accessed May 2013).

2. US Bureau of the Census, Age and Sex Composition (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, 2010), http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/wbriefs/c2010br-03.pdf (accessed May 2013).

3. Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society (New York: W. H. Norton, 1963).

4. Roger Gould, “Adult Life Stages: Growth toward Self-Tolerance,” Psychology Today 8:74–78 (1975).

5. Robin Malinosky-Rummell and David Hansen, “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Physical Abuse,” Psychological Bulletin 114:68–79 (1993).

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Suicide Prevention: Youth Suicide,” http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pub/youth_suicide.html (accessed May 2013).

7. Steven Martino, Rebecca Collins, Marc Elliott, Amy Strachman, David Kanouse, and Sandra Berry, “Exposure to Degrading versus Nondegrading Music Lyrics and Sexual Behavior Among Youth,” Pediatrics 118:430–441 (2006).

8. Children’s Defense Fund, “The State of America’s Children, 2012,” http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-of-americas-children-2010-report-key-facts.pdf (accessed May 2013).

9. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines, One Version of the [U.S.] Federal Poverty Measure, http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml (accessed May 2013).

10. Children’s Defense Fund, The Impact of Rising Poverty on the Nation’s Young Families and Their Children, 2000–2010, CDF Policy Brief #1m September 2011, http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/the-impact-of-rising-poverty.pdf (accessed May 2013).

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012, Health Care, http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/care.asp (accessed May 2013).

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Children’s Defense Fund, State of America’s Children, 2012.

17. Ibid.

18. Children’s Defense Fund, Black and White: Black Children Compared to White Children, http://www.childrensdefense.org/programs-campaigns/black-community-crusade-for-children-II/bccc-assets/black-and-white-factsheet.pdf (accessed May 2013).

19. American Psychological Survey press release, “APA Survey Raises Concern about Health Impact of Stress on Children and Families,” November 9, 2010, http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/11/stress-in-america.aspx (accessed May 2013).

20. David Eggebeen and Daniel Lichter, “Race, Family Structure, and Changing Poverty among American Children,” American Sociological Review 56:801–817 (1991).

21. Gary Evans, Nancy Wells, and Annie Moch, “Housing and Mental Health: A Review of the Evidence and a Methodological and Conceptual Critique,” Journal of Social Issues 59:475–501 (2003).

22. Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012, http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/ (accessed May 2013).

23. Children’s Defense Fund, “The State of America’s Children, 2012.”

24. Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012, Education, http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/edu.asp (accessed May 2013).

25. National Center for Education Statistics, “The Condition of Education, 2013,” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ (accessed May 2013).

26. Children’s Defense Fund, “Elementary and High School Education,” http://www.childrensdefense.org/policy-priorities/elementary-high-school-education/ (accessed May 2013).

27. Ibid.

28. Forum on Child and Family Statistics, “America’s Children in Brief.”

29. Kevin Cullen, “The Untouchable Mean Girls,” Boston Globe, January 24, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/24/the_untouchable_mean_girls/ (accessed May 2013).

30. Jane Ireland and Rachel Monaghan, “Behaviours Indicative of Bullying among Young and Juvenile Male Offenders: A Study of Perpetrator and Victim Characteristics,” Aggressive Behavior 32:172–180 (2006).

31. This section leans heavily on Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja, “Bullies Move Beyond the Schoolyard: A Preliminary Look at Cyber-bullying” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:148–169 (2006).

32. Ibid.

33. Justin Patchin, “How Many Teens Are Actually Involved in Cyber-bullying?” April 4, 2012, http://cyberbullying.us/blog/how-many-teens-are-actually-involved-in-cyberbullying.html (accessed May 2013).

34. Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja, Cyberbullying Research Center, http://cyberbullying.us/research.php (accessed May 2013).

35. Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, Kimberly Mitchell, and Michele Ybarra, “Online ‘Predators’ and Their Victims: Myths, Realities, and Implications for Prevention and Treatment,” American Psychologist 63:111–128 (2008).

36. Mike Celizic, “Her Teen Committed Suicide over ‘Sexting’: Cynthia Logan’s Daughter Was Taunted About Photo She Sent to Boyfriend,” Today: Parenting, March 6, 2009, http://www.today.com/id/29546030/ (accessed November 2009).

37. Kimberly Mitchell, David Finkelhor, Lisa Jones, and Janis Wolak, “Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study,” Pediatrics 129:1–8 (2012).

38. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “U.S. High School Students Improve Motor Vehicle-Related Health Behaviors,” June 7, 2012, http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0607_yrb_telebriefing.html (accessed May 2013).

39. Ibid.

40. Thomas Snyder and Sally Dillow, Digest of Education Statistics 2011 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, 2012), http://nces .ed.gov/pubs2012/2012001.pdf (accessed May 2013).

41. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011, Table 41 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2012), http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-41 (accessed May 2013).

42. Mark Cohen, Alex R. Piquero, and Wesley G. Jennings, “Studying the Costs of Crime Across Offender Trajectories,” Criminology and Public Policy 9:279–305 (2010); Cohen, Piquero, and Jennings, “Monetary Costs of Gender and Ethnicity Disaggregated Group-Based Offending,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 35:159–172 (2010).

43. John Whitehead and Steven Lab, “A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Correctional Treatment,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26:276–295 (1989).

44. See Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England: 1500–1800 (New York: Harper & Row, 1977).

45. This section relies on Jackson Spielvogel, Western Civilization (St. Paul, MN: West, 1991), pp. 279–286.

46. Philippe Aries, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life (New York: Knopf, 1962).

47. Nicholas Orme, Medieval Children (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003).

48. Aries, Centuries of Childhood.

49. See Douglas R. Rendleman, “Parens Patriae: From Chancery to the Juvenile Court,” South Carolina Law Review 23:205 (1971).

50. See Stone, The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, and Lawrence Stone, ed., Schooling and Society: Studies in the History of Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970).

51. Ibid.

52. See Wiley B. Sanders, “Some Early Beginnings of the Children’s Court Movement in England,” National Probation Association Yearbook (New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1945).

53. Douglas Besharov, Juvenile Justice Advocacy—Practice in a Unique Court (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1974), p. 2.

54. Rendleman, “Parens Patriae.”

55. See Anthony Platt, “The Rise of the Child Saving Movement: A Study in Social Policy and Correctional Reform,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 381:21–38 (1969).

56. Robert H. Bremner, ed., and John Barnard, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, asst. eds., Children and Youth in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 64.

57. Elizabeth Pleck, “Criminal Approaches to Family Violence, 1640–1980,” in Lloyd Ohlin and Michael Tonry, eds., Family Violence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 19–58.

58. Ibid.

59. John R. Sutton, Stubborn Children: Controlling Delinquency in the United States, 1640–1981 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).

60. Pleck, “Criminal Approaches to Family Violence,” p. 29.

61. John Demos, Past, Present and Personal (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 80–88.

62. Elizabeth Pleck, Domestic Tyranny: The Making of Social Policy against Family Violence from Colonial Times to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 28–30.

63. Graeme Newman, The Punishment Response (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1978), pp. 53–79.

64. Stephen J. Morse, “Immaturity and Irresponsibility,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88:15–67 (1997).

65. Hudson Sangree, “Juvenile Defendants May Be Too Immature to Stand Trial, Appeals Panel Says,” Sacramento Bee, May 11, 2007, www.rtumble.com/archive/07_05_10.htm (accessed August 2013).

66. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, released December 17, 2012, http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04101.asp?qaDate=2011 (accessed May 2013).

67. Shay Bilchik, “Sentencing Juveniles to Adult Facilities Fails Youths and Society,” Corrections Today 65:21 (2003).

68. Kareem Jordan and David Myers, “Juvenile Transfer and Deterrence: Reexamining the Effectiveness of a ‘Get-Tough’ Policy,” Crime and Delinquency 57:247–270 (2011).

69. Campaign for Youth Justice, http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/Downloads/Resources/jjdpafactbook.pdf (accessed May 2013).

70. M. Wakefield and G. Giovino, “Teen Penalties for Tobacco Possession, Use, and Purchase: Evidence and Issues,” Tobacco Control 12:6–13 (2003).

71. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011, Table 28 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2012), http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-38 (accessed May 2013).

72. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and National Center for Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Court Statistics, 2009 (Washington, DC: 2012), http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239114.pdf (accessed May 2013).

73. See David Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971).

74. Quote from Jerry Tyler, Thomas Segady, and Stephen Austin, “Parental Liability Laws: Rationale, Theory, and Effectiveness,” Social Science Journal 37:79–97 (2000).

75. Reports of the Chicago Bar Association Committee, 1899, cited in Anthony Platt, The Child Savers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), p. 119.

76. L. Kris Gowen, S. Shirley Feldman, Rafael Diaz, and Donnovan Somera Yisrael, “A Comparison of the Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes of Adolescent Girls with Older vs. Similar-Aged Boyfriends,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33:167–176 (2004).

77. David J. Steinharthe, Status Offenses: The Future of Children 6(3) (The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Winter 1996).

78. To read more about the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention programs and priorities, go to http://www.ojjdp.gov.

79. 42 U.S.C.A. 5601–5751 (1983 and Supp. 1987).

80. Claudia Wright, “Contempt No Excuse for Locking Up Status Offenders, Says Florida Supreme Court,” Youth Law News 13:1–3 (1992).

81. Susanna Zawacki, “Girls’ Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System,” Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Statistical Bulletin, October 2005, http://www.ncjj.org/Publication/Girls-Involvement-in-Pennsylvanias-Juvenile-Justice-System.aspx (accessed May 2013).

82. Barry Feld, “Violent Girls or Relabeled Status Offenders? An Alternative Interpretation of the Data,” Crime and Delinquency 55:241–265 (2009).

83. Steinharthe, Status Offenses, p. 5.

84. Wesley Jennings, “Sex Disaggregated Trajectories of Status Offenders: Does CINS/FINS Status Prevent Male and Female Youth from Becoming Labeled Delinquent?” American Journal of Criminal Justice 36:177–187 (2011).

85. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), p. 311.

86. American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Summary and Analysis (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977), sect. 1.1.

87. American Bar Association, Youth at Risk Initiative Planning Conference, March 22, 2006, http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=431&itemid=2 (accessed May 2013).

88. Connecticut Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 46-3-31, Families with Service Needs (FWSN), http://www.dir.ct.gov/dcf/policy/court46/46-3-31.htm (accessed May 2013).

89. New York State Office of Children and Family Services, “Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2005, PINS Reform Legislation Summary, Effective April 1, 2005,” http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/legal/legislation/pins/ (accessed May 2013).

90. Gail Robinson and Tim Arnold, “Changes in Laws Impacting Juveniles—An Overview,” The Advocate 22:14–15 (2000).

91. Barry Feld, “Criminalizing the American Juvenile Court,” in Michael Tonry, ed., Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 232.

92. Sean Kidd,” Factors Precipitating Suicidality Among Homeless Youth: A Quantitative Follow-up,” Youth and Society 37:393–422 (2006); Kimberly Tyler et al., “Self-Mutilation and Homeless Youth: The Role of Family Abuse, Street Experiences, and Mental Disorders,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 13:457–474 (2003).

93. Thomas Kelley, “Status Offenders Can Be Different: A Comparative Study of Delinquent Careers,” Crime and Delinquency 29:365–380 (1983).

94. Ira Schwartz, (In)justice for Juveniles: Rethinking the Best Interests of the Child (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989), p. 171.

95. Ibid.

96. Lawrence Martin and Phyllis Snyder, “Jurisdiction over Status Offenses Should Not Be Removed from the Juvenile Court,” Crime and Delinquency 22:44–47 (1976).

97. Lindsay Arthur, “Status Offenders Need a Court of Last Resort,” Boston University Law Review 57:631–644 (1977).

98. Martin and Snyder, “Jurisdiction over Status Offenses Should Not Be Removed from the Juvenile Court,” p. 47.

99. David McDowall and Colin Loftin, “The Impact of Youth Curfew Laws on Juvenile Crime Rates,” Crime and Delinquency 46:76–92 (2000).

100. Tony Favro, “Youth Curfews Popular with American Cities, But Effectiveness and Legality Are Questioned,” City Mayors Society, July 21, 2009, http://www.citymayors.com/society/usa-youth-curfews.html (accessed May 2013).

101. Danny Cole, “The Effect of a Curfew Law on Juvenile Crime in Washington, D.C.,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 27:217–232 (2003).

102. Kenneth Adams, “The Effectiveness of Juvenile Curfews at Crime Prevention,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587:136–159 (2003); Canadian Parental Responsibility Act, 2000 S.O. 2000, Chapter 4, http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_00p04_e.htm (accessed May 2013).

103. Michael Luke, “ACLU, Others Take Aim at Expanding Teen Curfew Citywide,” WWLTV Eyewitness News, January 18, 2012, http://www .wwltv.com/news/ACLU-others-take-aim-at-expanding-teen-curfew-citywide-137592918.html (accessed May 2013).

104. Margaret Anne Cleek, John Youril, Michael Youril, and Richard Guarino, “Don’t Worry, It’s Just a Tool: Enacting Selectively Enforced Laws Such as Curfew Laws Targeting Only the Bad Guys,” Justice Policy Journal 7:1–23 (2010).

105. Anonymous v. City of Rochester (2009), http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I09_0095.htm (accessed May 2013).

106. Jonathan Saltzman, “SJC Sharply Limits Youth Curfew Law: Bars Criminal Charge, Allows Civil Penalty,” Boston Globe, September 26, 2009.

107. Gilbert Geis and Arnold Binder, “Sins of Their Children: Parental Responsibility for Juvenile Delinquency,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 5:303–322 (1991).

108. Eve Brank, Edie Greene, and Katherine Hochevar, “Holding Parents Responsible: Is Vicarious Responsibility the Public’s Answer to Juvenile Crime?” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17:507–529 (2011).

109. Elena Laskin, “How Parental Liability Statutes Criminalize and Stigmatize Minority Mothers,” American Criminal Law Review 37:1195–1217 (2000).

110. Brank, Greene, and Hochevar, “Holding Parents Responsible: Is Vicarious Responsibility the Public’s Answer to Juvenile Crime?”

111. Eve Brank and Victoria Weisz, “Paying for the Crimes of Their Children: Public Support of Parental Responsibility” Journal of Criminal Justice 32:465–475 (2004).

112. Carolyn Smith, “Factors Associated with Early Sexual Activity among Urban Adolescents,” Social Work 42:334–346 (1997).

113. Charles Thomas, “Are Status Offenders Really So Different?” Crime and Delinquency 22:438–455 (1976); Howard Snyder, Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1988), p. 65.

114. Randall Shelden, John Horvath, and Sharon Tracy, “Do Status Offenders Get Worse? Some Clarifications on the Question of Escalation,” Crime and Delinquency 35:202–216 (1989).

115. Solomon Kobrin, Frank Hellum, and John Peterson, “Offense Patterns of Status Offenders,” in D. Shichor and D. Kelly, eds., Critical Issues in Juvenile Delinquency (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980), pp. 203–235.

116. Schwartz, (In)justice for Juveniles, pp. 378–379.

117. Chris Marshall, Ineke Marshall, and Charles Thomas, “The Implementation of Formal Procedures in Juvenile Court Processing of Status Offenders,” Journal of Criminal Justice 11:195–211 (1983

The Nature and Extent of Delinquency

Chapter Outline

Official Records of Delinquency: The Uniform Crime Report

• Compiling the Uniform Crime Report

• Is the UCR Valid?

• The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

Self-Report Surveys

• Are Self-Reports Valid?

• National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Trends in Crime and Delinquency

• What the UCR Tells Us about Delinquency

• Juvenile Arrest Trends

• Self-Reported Findings

• Are the Data Sources Compatible?

• What the Future Holds

Correlates of Delinquency

• The Time and Place of Delinquency

• Gender and Delinquency

• Race and Delinquency

• Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Delinquency

• Age and Delinquency

Chronic Offending: Careers in Delinquency

• Delinquency in a Birth Cohort

• What Causes Chronic Offending?

• Policy Implications

Juvenile Victimization

• Juvenile Victimization Trends

• Teen Victims

Learning Objectives

• 1 Explain how the UCR data are gathered and used

• 2 Discuss the concept of self-reported delinquency

• 3 Be familiar with the National Crime Victimization Survey

• 4 Describe alternative measures of delinquent activity and behavior

• 5 Be familiar with recent trends in juvenile delinquency

• 6 Recognize the factors that affect the juvenile crime rate

• 7 List and discuss the social and personal correlates of delinquency

• 8 Discuss the concept of the chronic offender

• 9 Identify the causes of chronic offending

• 10 Be familiar with the factors that predict teen victimization

chapter features

focus on Delinquency: Juvenile Sex Offenders

focus on Delinquency: Shaping Delinquency Trends

Case profile: Jamesetta’s Story

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice— treatment: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Youth stories: Elizabeth Smart, Jaycee Dugard, and Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight

cyber Delinquency: Christopher Gunn

ON JANUARY 31, 2013, two teenage boys, Leonel Contreras (shown here) and William Steven Rodriguez, who kidnapped and sexually assaulted two girls in a San Diego park, were sentenced to at least 50 years in prison. Though they were both 16 years old when they committed the crime, they were tried as adults and convicted of various charges, including conspiracy, rape, kidnapping, and the use of a knife.

The two boys had kidnapped their victims, ages 15 and 16, as they walked along a greenbelt behind a residential neighborhood. They took them to a secluded area and subjected them to multiple sex acts in a brutal attack that lasted 30 to 40 minutes. At the sentencing hearing, the judge told them, “You robbed them [the victims] of their spirit… It was brutal, callous, and ruthless. If I could sentence you to 645 years I would, but the law says I can’t do that. Since you were a minor you were spared that sentence.” In court, a letter was read from the family of one of the girls, detailing the victim’s struggles since the attack. The letter said that the defendants stole “something they had no right to take.” Their victim had constant nightmares but “has chosen not to live as a victim” and to “work toward healing.” To the mothers of the defendants, the victim’s parents said, “Our hearts break for you.”1

While many people believe that when adolescents commit crime they stick to petty offenses—shoplifting, smoking pot, spray painting their school—cases like the rapes in San Diego show that the opposite is often true. Kids today engage in serious crimes involving robbery, rapes, and even murder (see the Focus on Delinquency feature). Who commits these serious acts, and where are they most likely to occur? Is the juvenile crime rate increasing or decreasing? Are juveniles more likely than adults to become the victims of crime? To understand the causes of delinquent behavior and to devise effective means to reduce its occurrence, we must seek answers to these questions. When experts want to find out more about the nature and extent of delinquency, they rely on three primary sources of data: official records, victim surveys, and self-report surveys. It is important to understand how these data sets are collected to gain insight into how delinquency is measured and what the data sources tell us about youth crime and victimization. Each is discussed in detail in this chapter.

Official Records of Delinquency: The Uniform Crime Report

Some of the most valuable information about delinquent behavior comes from data collected from local law enforcement agencies by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and published yearly in their Uniform Crime Report (UCR). The UCR includes both criminal acts reported to local law enforcement departments and the number of arrests made by police agencies.2 The FBI receives and compiles records from more than 17,000 police departments serving a majority of the US population. The FBI tallies and annually publishes the number of reported offenses by city, county, standard metropolitan statistical area, and geographical divisions of the United States for the most serious crimes, referred to as Part I crimes: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, arson, and motor vehicle theft.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Arm of the US Department of Justice that investigates violations of federal law, gathers crime statistics, runs a comprehensive crime laboratory, and helps train local law enforcement officers.

Uniform Crime Report (UCR)

Compiled by the FBI, the UCR is the most widely used source of national crime and delinquency statistics.

Part I crimes

Offenses including homicide and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, arson, and motor vehicle theft; recorded by local law enforcement officers, these crimes are tallied quarterly and sent to the FBI for inclusion in the UCR.

FOCUS on delinquency: Juvenile Sex Offenders

Among the most serious adolescent offenders are those who commit sex offenses against other minors. Though people who are described as “pedophiles” or “predators” are often thought of as adults, it is important to understand that a substantial portion of these offenses are committed by other minors who do not fit the image of “sex offender.” The number of youths who commit sexual offenses has grown in recent years and now makes up more than a third of all sex offenders known to the police. Sociologists David Finkelhor, Richard Ormrod, and Mark Chaffin recently reviewed existing information on juvenile sex offenders and examined police data in order to determine trends in reported juvenile sex offending.

What Do They Do, and Why Do They Do It?

Clinical studies show a diversity of behaviors that bring youths into clinical settings, including but not limited to: sharing pornography with younger children; fondling a child over their clothes; grabbing peers in a sexual way at school; date rape; gang rape; or sex with a much younger child. Offenses can involve a single event, a few isolated events, or a large number of events with multiple victims. Juvenile sex offenders come from a variety of social and family backgrounds and can either be well-functioning or have multiple problems. A number but not all have experienced maltreatment or exposure to violence. In some cases, a history of childhood sexual abuse appears to contribute to later juvenile sex offending, but most sexual abuse victims do not become sex offenders. Among preteen children with sexual behavior problems, a history of sexual abuse is particularly prevalent.

In addition to a diversity of backgrounds, variety in motivation is evident. Some juvenile sex offenders seem to be motivated primarily by sexual curiosity. Others have long-standing patterns of violating the rights of others. Some offenses occur in conjunction with serious mental health problems. Some of the offending behavior is compulsive, but it more often appears impulsive or reflects poor judgment.

Very Young Offenders

Most juvenile sex offenders are teenagers, but about 16 percent of those who come to police attention are younger than age 12. Professionals commonly use other terms, such as “children with sexual behavior problems,” to describe this group. Younger offenders are also more likely to offend against family members and in a residential environment, and to target male victims close to their own age. Their most serious offense is more likely to be fondling and less likely to be rape.

Female Juvenile Sex Offenders

Female juvenile sex offenders are another group that has attracted a particular interest among clinicians and law enforcement officials. They constitute only a small proportion (7 percent) of all juvenile sex offenders, but they have several features that distinguish them from male juvenile sex offenders. Female offenders are younger than their male counterparts. Of the female offenders, 31 percent were younger than 12, compared with 14 percent of male offenders. Female offenders were considerably more likely than male offenders to offend in conjunction with others (36 percent versus 23 percent) and in conjunction with adults (13 percent versus 5 percent). They were also more likely than male offenders to be involved in incidents with multiple victims (23 percent versus 12 percent) and to be considered by investigators to be victims at the same time they were offending. Female offenders are somewhat more likely to offend in a residence or home and less likely to offend at a school. They were more likely than male offenders to have male victims (37 percent versus 21 percent) and victims younger than age 11 (60 percent versus 43 percent).

CRITICAL THINKING

Should juvenile offenders be treated or punished? Do you view them as being younger versions of adult pedophiles, or are they a separate class who were most likely victims themselves?

SOURCE: David Finkelhor, Richard Ormrod, and Mark Chaffin, “Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Minors” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009), http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf (accessed May 2013).

In addition to these statistics, the UCR gathers data on the number and characteristics (age, race, and gender) of individuals who have been arrested for these and all other crimes, referred to as Part II crimes). This is particularly important for delinquency research because it shows how many minors are arrested each year.

Part II crimes

All crimes other than Part I crimes; recorded by local law enforcement officers, arrests for these crimes are tallied quarterly and sent to the FBI for inclusion in the UCR.

Compiling the Uniform Crime Report

The methods used to compile the UCR are quite complex. Each month, law enforcement agencies report the number of crimes known to them. These data are collected from records of all crime complaints that victims, officers who discovered the infractions, or other sources reported to these agencies.

Whenever crime complaints are found through investigation to be unfounded or false, they are eliminated from the actual count. However, the number of actual offenses known is reported to the FBI whether or not anyone is arrested for the crime, the stolen property is recovered, or prosecution ensues.

In addition, each month, law enforcement agencies also report how many crimes were cleared. Crimes are cleared in two ways: (1) when at least one person is arrested, charged, and turned over to the court for prosecution, or (2) by exceptional means, when some element beyond police control precludes the physical arrest of an offender (such as when the offender leaves the country). Data on the number of clearances involving the arrest of only juvenile offenders, data on the value of property stolen and recovered in connection with Part I offenses, and detailed information pertaining to criminal homicide are also reported. Traditionally, slightly more than 20 percent of all reported Part I crimes are cleared by arrest each year (see Figure 2.1).

figure 2.1: Percent of Crimes Cleared by Arrest

SOURCE: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011.

Violent crimes are more likely to be solved than property crimes because police devote additional resources to these more serious acts. For these types of crime, witnesses (including the victim) are frequently available to identify offenders, and in many instances the victim and offender were previously acquainted.

The UCR uses three methods to express crime data. First, the number of crimes reported to the police and arrests made are expressed as raw figures (for instance, 14,612 murders occurred in 2011). Second, crime rates per 100,000 people are computed. That is, when the UCR indicates that the murder rate was 5 in 2011, it means that 4.7 people in every 100,000 were murdered between January 1 and December 31, 2011. This is the equation used:

Number of Reported CrimesTotal U.S. Population  × 100 , 000 = Rate per  100 , 000

Third, the FBI computes changes in the number and rate of crime over time. Murder rates decreased 1.5 percent between 2010 and 2011; between 2007 and 2011, the murder rate declined 17 percent; since 2002, the murder rate has decreased almost 17 percent.

Is the UCR Valid?

Though the UCR is the primary source of official crime data, experts have long questioned its accuracy. Surveys indicate that fewer than half of all crime victims report incidents to police. Those who don’t report crime may believe that the victimization was a “private/personal matter,” that the crime was “not important enough,” to report or it was “reported to some other official.”3 Some victims do not trust the police or have confidence in their ability to solve crimes. Others do not have property insurance and therefore believe it is useless to report theft. In other cases, victims fear reprisals from an offender’s friends or family or, in the case of family violence, from their spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend.4 They may believe that they are themselves somehow responsible for the crime: for example, the date rape victim who was drinking or took drugs before the attack.5 Some crimes that directly influence children, such as child abuse, may be underreported considering the age of the victims and their ability to contact police authorities. Crime reporting practices can have a significant influence on the crime rate and can shape the crime trends reported in the UCR.6 What may be viewed as a significant decline in crime may in fact represent a change in victims’ behavior more than in criminals’ behavior.

Another problem: local law enforcement agencies may make intentional and/or unintentional errors in their reporting practices. Some departments may define crimes loosely—for example, reporting an assault on a woman as an attempted rape—whereas others pay strict attention to FBI guidelines.7 There is evidence that, under intense political pressure, police departments may alter record keeping to show they are effective at fighting crime and their methods are providing positive results.8 And ironically, as the tech revolution takes hold, police departments are getting better at recording and reporting crime. In some local jurisdictions, what appears to be a rising crime rate may simply be an artifact of improved police record-keeping ability!9

The complex scoring procedure used by the FBI means that many serious crimes are not counted. For example, during an armed bank robbery, the offender strikes a teller with the butt of a handgun. The offender then runs from the bank and steals an automobile at the curb. Although the offender has technically committed robbery, aggravated assault, and motor vehicle theft, because robbery is the most serious offense, it is the only one recorded in the UCR.10 There are also definitional differences between jurisdictions so that what might be considered a minor crime in one state may be ranked as a felony in another. Because definitions of crime are constantly shifting, those used in the UCR may also change accordingly. For example, the definition of rape is undergoing revision and expansion to include more forms of sexual assault, making it compatible with the way local police departments categorize sex crimes.

Although these questions are troubling, the problems associated with collecting and verifying the official UCR data are consistent and stable over time. This means that although the absolute accuracy of the data can be questioned, the trends and patterns they show are probably reliable. In other words, we cannot be absolutely sure about the actual number of adolescents who commit crimes, but it is likely that the teen crime rate has been in a significant decline.

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

The FBI is currently instituting a program called the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) that collects data on each reported crime incident. Instead of submitting statements of the kinds of crime that individual citizens reported to the police and summary statements of resulting arrests, when fully implemented NIBRS will require local police agencies to provide at least a brief account of each incident and arrest, including the incident, victim, and offender information. Under NIBRS, law enforcement authorities provide information to the FBI on each criminal incident involving 46 specific offenses, including the eight Part I crimes, that occur in their jurisdiction; arrest information on the 46 offenses plus 11 lesser offenses is also provided in NIBRS. These expanded crime categories include numerous additional crimes, such as blackmail, embezzlement, drug offenses, and bribery; this allows a national database on the nature of crime, victims, and criminals to be developed. Currently the FBI has certified 26 state programs for NIBRS participation. Twelve state programs are in the various stages of testing NIBRS. Eight other state agencies are in various states of planning and development.

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

Program that collects data on each reported crime incident and requires local police to provide at least a brief account of each incident and arrest.

Measuring the full extent of delinquency is difficult because many acts are not included in the UCR. Here, a young man is escorted past his family after a court appearance on a charge of making a false bomb threat while boarding a flight. Would this act be reported to the FBI’s program?

While official data are used quite often in delinquency research, the data only represent the number of kids arrested and not how many are actually committing delinquent acts. To remedy this flaw, researchers often rely on self-report data in their research.

Self-Report Surveys

One of the most important tools to measure delinquency and youthful misconduct is the self-report survey. These surveys ask kids to describe, in detail, their recent and lifetime participation in antisocial activity—for example, “How many times in the past year did you take something worth more than $50?” In many instances, but not always, self-reports are given in groups, and the respondents are promised anonymity in order to ensure the validity and honesty of the responses.11 But even when the reports are given on an individual basis, respondents are guaranteed that their answers will remain confidential.

self-report survey

Questionnaire or survey technique that asks subjects to reveal their own participation in delinquent or criminal acts.

In addition to questions about delinquent behavior, most self-report surveys contain questions about attitudes, values, and behaviors. There may be questions about a participant’s substance abuse history (e.g., how many times have you used marijuana?) and the participant’s family history (e.g., did your parents ever strike you with a stick or a belt?). By correlating the responses, delinquency experts are able to analyze the relationships among values, attitudes, personal factors, and delinquent behaviors. Statistical analysis of the responses can be used to determine such issues as whether people who report being abused as children are also more likely to use drugs as adults or if school failure leads to delinquency.12

Some self-report surveys are carried out on an annual basis and employ national samples so that delinquency trends can be recorded and analyzed. An indispensable source of self-report data is the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, which researchers at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR) have been conducting annually since 1978. This national survey typically involves more than 2,500 high school seniors.13 The MTF is considered the national standard to measure substance abuse trends among American teens.

The MTF data indicate that the number of people who break the law is far greater than the number projected by official statistics. Almost everyone questioned is found to have violated a law at some time, including truancy, alcohol abuse, false ID use, shoplifting or larceny under $50, fighting, marijuana use, and damage to the property of others. Furthermore, self-reports dispute the notion that criminals and delinquents specialize in one type of crime or another; offenders seem to engage in a mixed bag of crime and deviance.14

Are Self-Reports Valid?

Critics of self-report studies frequently suggest that it is unreasonable to expect kids to candidly admit illegal acts. Some surveys contain an overabundance of trivial offenses, such as shoplifting small items or using false identification to obtain alcohol, often lumped together with serious crimes to form a total crime index. Consequently, comparisons between groups can be highly misleading. Responses may be embellished by some subjects who wish to exaggerate the extent of their deviant activities, and understated by others who want to shield themselves from possible exposure.

The “missing cases” phenomenon is also a concern. Even if 90 percent of a school population voluntarily participate in a self-report study, researchers can never be sure whether the few who refuse to participate or are absent that day make up a significant portion of the school’s population of persistent high-rate offenders. Research indicates that offenders with the most extensive prior criminality are the most likely “to be poor historians of their own crime commission rates.”15 It is also unlikely that the most serious chronic offenders in the teenage population are willing to cooperate with researchers administering self-report tests.16 Institutionalized youths, who are not generally represented in the self-report surveys, are not only more delinquent than the general youth population but are also considerably more misbehaving than the most delinquent youths identified in the typical self-report survey.17 Consequently, self-reports may measure only nonserious, occasional delinquents while ignoring hard-core chronic offenders who may be institutionalized and unavailable for self-reports.

Reporting practices may differ among racial, ethnic, and gender groups. One study found that while girls are generally more willing to report drug use than boys, Hispanic girls tend to underreport substance abuse. Such gender/cultural differences in self-reporting can skew data and provide misleading results.18

To address these criticisms, various techniques have been used to verify self-report data.19 The “known group” method compares youths who are known to be offenders with those who are not to see whether the former report more delinquency. Some research shows that when kids are asked if they have ever been arrested or sent to court, their responses accurately reflect their true life experiences.20 However, some kids with an official arrest record deny legal involvement, while others who remain arrest-free report having an official record. Why would adolescents claim to have engaged in antisocial behaviors such as getting arrested or using drugs when in fact they had not? One reason is that they may live in a subculture that requires kids to be tough rule-breakers, unafraid of conventional authority. Kids may fear that they would be taunted or harassed if anyone found out they were not really “experienced” delinquents.21

Self-report data must be interpreted with some caution. Asking subjects about their past behavior may capture more serious crimes but miss minor criminal acts; that is, people remember armed robberies and rapes better than they do minor assaults and altercations.22 Some kids fabricate their criminal histories, while others (e.g., substance abusers) may have a tough time accounting for their prior misbehavior.23 Other factors that influence self-report validity are age, criminal history, currency of the reported event, IQ, education level, and variety of criminal acts. Despite these caveats, some of the most recent research supports the validity of the self-report method with both occasional and committed (e.g., gang members) delinquents.24 They therefore remain a fixture in delinquency research methodology.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

An issue of interest for delinquency scholars is juvenile victimization. How many kids are victims each year, and who are the adolescents most likely to become crime victims? To address this issue, the federal government sponsors the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a comprehensive, nationwide survey of victimization in the United States.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

The ongoing victimization study conducted jointly by the Justice Department and the US Census Bureau that surveys victims about their experiences with law violation.

In the most recent survey, more than 40,000 households and 73,000 individuals age 12 or older were interviewed twice for the NCVS.25 Households stay in the sample for three years, and new households are rotated into the sample on an ongoing basis. The NCVS collects information on crimes suffered by individuals and households, whether or not those crimes were reported to law enforcement. It estimates the proportion of each crime type reported to law enforcement, and it summarizes the reasons that victims give for reporting or not reporting. In 1993, the survey was redesigned to provide detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. In 2006, significant changes were also made to the way the NCVS is collected. The methodological changes included a new sampling method, a change in the method of handling first-time interviews with households, and a change in the method of interviewing. Computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) replaced paper and pencil interviewing (PAPI). While these issues are critical, there is no substitute available that provides national information on crime and victimization with extensive detail on victims and the social context of the criminal event.

The NCVS finds that fewer than half of violent crimes, fewer than one-third of personal theft crimes (such as pocket picking), and fewer than half of household thefts are reported to police. Victims seem to report to the police only crimes that involve considerable loss or injury. If we are to believe NCVS findings, the official UCR statistics do not provide an accurate picture of the crime problem because many crimes go unreported to the police.

While it contains many underreported incidents, the NCVS may also suffer from some methodological problems. As a result, its findings must be interpreted with caution. Among the potential problems are the following:

•  Overreporting due to victims’ misinterpretation of events. A lost wallet may be reported as stolen, or an open door may be viewed as a burglary attempt.

•  Underreporting due to the embarrassment of reporting crime to interviewers, fear of getting in trouble, or simply forgetting an incident.

•  Inability to record the personal criminal activity of those interviewed, such as drug use or gambling; murder is also not included, for obvious reasons.

•  Sampling errors, which produce a group of respondents who do not represent the nation as a whole.

•  Inadequate question format that invalidates responses. Some groups, such as adolescents, may be particularly susceptible to error because of question format and wording.26

In addition to these primary sources of crime data, criminologists use other data in their studies. These are set out in Exhibit 2.1.

exhibit 2.1: Secondary Sources of Delinquency Data

In addition to the primary sources of crime data—UCR, NCVS, and self-report surveys—criminologists use several other methods to acquire data. Although this list is not exhaustive, the methods described here are routinely used in criminological research and data collection.

Cohort Research Data

Collecting cohort data involves observing over time a group of people who share certain characteristics. Researchers might select all girls born in Boston in 1970 and then follow their behavior patterns for 20 years. The research data might include their school experiences, arrests, and hospitalizations, along with information about their family life (marriages, divorces, parental relations, for example). If the cohort is carefully drawn, it may be possible to accumulate a complex array of data that can be used to determine which life experiences are associated with criminal careers.

Experimental Data

Sometimes criminologists conduct controlled experiments to collect data on the cause of crime. To conduct experimental research, criminologists manipulate, or intervene in, the lives of their subjects to see the outcome or the effect of the intervention. True experiments usually have three elements: (1) random selection of subjects, (2) a control or comparison group, and (3) an experimental condition.

Observational and Interview Research

Sometimes criminologists focus their research on relatively few subjects, interviewing them in depth or observing them as they go about their activities. This research often results in the kind of in-depth data that large-scale surveys do not yield.

Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Meta-analysis involves gathering data from a number of previous studies. Compatible information and data are extracted and pooled together. When analyzed, the grouped data from several different studies provide a more powerful and valid indicator of relationships than the results provided by a single study. Similar to meta-analysis, a systematic review involves collecting the findings from previously conducted scientific studies that address a particular problem, appraising and synthesizing the evidence, and using the collective evidence to address a particular scientific question.

Data Mining

A relatively new criminological technique, data mining uses multiple advanced computational methods, including artificial intelligence (the use of computers to perform logical functions), to analyze large data sets that usually involve one or more data sources. The goal is to identify significant and recognizable patterns, trends, and relationships that are not easily detected through traditional analytical techniques.

Crime Mapping

Criminologists now use crime mapping to create graphical representations of the spatial geography of crime. Computerized crime maps enable criminologists to analyze and correlate a wide array of data to create immediate, detailed visuals of crime patterns.

Trends in Crime and Delinquency

Crime and delinquency rates trended upward between 1960 and 1991, when police recorded about 15 million crimes. Since then the number of crimes has been in decline; about 10 million crimes were reported in 2012, a drop of more than 4 million reported crimes since the 1991 peak, and this despite a boost of about 50 million in the general population.

What the UCR Tells Us about Delinquency

Because the UCR arrest statistics are disaggregated (broken down) by suspect’s age, they can be used to estimate adolescent delinquency. Juvenile arrest data must be interpreted with caution, however. First, the number of teenagers arrested does not represent the actual number of youths who have committed delinquent acts. Some offenders are never counted because they are never caught. Others are counted more than once because multiple arrests of the same individual for different crimes are counted separately in the UCR. Consequently, the total number of arrests does not equal the number of people who have been arrested. Put another way, if 2 million arrests of youths under 18 years of age were made in a given year, we could not be sure if 2 million individuals had been arrested once or if 500,000 chronic offenders had been arrested four times each. When an arrested offender commits multiple crimes, only the most serious one is recorded. In addition, we know that only 20 percent of crimes are cleared by arrest. If this ratio applies to juveniles, it is possible that the 2 million arrested juveniles committed 10 million crimes before they were apprehended. If 2 million juveniles are arrested, the number of crimes committed is at least 2 million, but it may be much higher.

disaggregated

Analyzing the relationship between two or more independent variables (such as murder convictions and death sentence) while controlling for the influence of a dependent variable (such as race).

Despite these limitations, the nature of arrest data remains constant over time. Consequently, arrest data can provide some indication of the nature and trends in juvenile crime. What does the UCR tell us about the nature and extent of delinquency?

Juvenile Arrest Trends

The latest data available show an estimated 12.4 million arrests in 2011. Of these arrests, about 530,000 were for serious Part I violent crimes and 1.6 million for serious Part I property crimes. Among both serious and minor crimes, the highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1.5 million), larceny-theft (estimated at 1.2 million), and driving under the influence (estimated at 1.2 million).

Juveniles were responsible for about 12 percent of all arrests, including about 13 percent of the Part I violent crime arrests and about 20 percent of the property crime arrests (see Table 2.1). Because kids ages 14 to 17, who account for almost all underage arrests, constitute less than 10 percent of the population, these data show that teens account for a significantly disproportionate share of all arrests.

table 2.1: Persons Arrested for Serious Crimes, by Age

About 1 million juvenile arrests were made in 2011 for Part II offenses. Included in this total were status violations: 69,000 arrests for liquor law violations, 106,000 for disorderly conduct, and 59,000 for curfew violations.

Recent trends in juvenile delinquency arrests reflect the general crime rate. The juvenile arrest rate began to climb in the 1980s, peaked during the mid-1990s, and then began to fall; it has since been in decline. For example, arrests of juveniles for all offenses decreased 11 percent in 2011 when compared with the 2010 number; during the same period arrests of adults declined less than 4 percent.

Even the teen murder rate, which had remained stubbornly high, has undergone a decline during the past few years.27 In 1997, 1,700 youths were arrested for murder, a number that by 2011 had declined by more than half (650 arrests for murder). Similarly, 3,800 juveniles were arrested for rape in 1997, falling to less than 2,000 in 2011. In all, about 52,000 youths 18 and under are being arrested for violent crimes and 259,000 for property crimes.

FOCUS on delinquency: Shaping Delinquency Trends

Delinquency experts have identified a variety of social, economic, personal, and demographic factors that influence juvenile crime rate trends. The most important influences on delinquency rates are discussed here.

Age

Because teenagers have relatively high crime rates, crime experts view changes in the population age distribution as having the greatest influence on crime trends: As a general rule, the crime rate follows the proportion of young males in the population. Kids who commit a lot of crime early in childhood are also likely to continue to commit crime in their adolescence and into adulthood. The more teens in the population, the higher the crime rate. However, the number of senior citizens is also expanding, and their presence in the population may have a moderating effect on crime rates (seniors do not commit much crime), offsetting the effect of teens.

Economy/Jobs

There is debate over the effect the economy has on crime rates. It seems logical that when the economy turns down, people (especially those who are unemployed) will become more motivated to commit theft crimes. Kids who find it hard to get after-school jobs or find employment after they leave school may be motivated to seek other forms of income such as theft and drug dealing. As the economy heats up, delinquency rates should decline because people can secure good jobs; why risk breaking the law when there are legitimate opportunities?

However, this issue is far from settled. A poor economy may actually help lower delinquency rates because it limits the opportunity kids have to commit crime: unemployed parents are at home to supervise children and guard their possessions, and because there is less money to spend, people have fewer valuables worth stealing. Law-abiding kids do not suddenly begin to violate the law just because there is an economic downturn.

Although the effect of the economy on delinquency rates is still in question, it is possible that over the long haul a strong economy will help lower delinquency rates, while long periods of sustained economic weakness and unemployment may eventually lead to increased rates. Crime skyrocketed in the 1930s during the Great Depression; crime rates fell when the economy surged for almost a decade during the 1990s. Also, economic effects may be very localized: People in one area of the city are doing well, but people living in another part of town may be suffering unemployment. The economic effect on the delinquency rates may vary by neighborhood or even by street.

Immigration

Immigration has become one of the most controversial issues in American society. One reason given by those who want to tighten immigration laws is that immigrants have high crime rates and should be prevented from entering the country. However, the most empirically sound research indicates that immigrants are actually less violent and criminal than the general population. Mexican immigrants, for example, experience lower rates of violence compared to their native-born counterparts. Immigration has a negative effect on overall levels of homicides and drug-related homicides specifically. In sum, as the number of immigrants in the population increases, the overall delinquency may decline.

Social Problems

As the level of social problems increases—such as single-parent families, dropout rates, racial conflict, and teen pregnancies—so do delinquency rates. Delinquency rates are correlated with the number of unwed mothers in the population. It is possible that children of unwed mothers need more social services than children in two-parent families. As the number of kids born to single mothers increases, the child welfare system is taxed and services depleted. The teenage birthrate has trended downward in recent years, and so have delinquency rates.

Racial conflict may also increase delinquency rates. Areas undergoing racial change, especially those experiencing a migration of minorities into predominantly white neighborhoods, seem prone to significant increases in their delinquency rate. Whites in these areas may be using violence to protect what they view as their home turf. Racially motivated crimes actually diminish as neighborhoods become more integrated and power struggles are resolved.

Abortion

In a controversial work, John J. Donohue III and Steven D. Levitt found empirical evidence that the recent drop in the delinquency rate can be attributed to the availability of legalized abortion. In 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide. Within a few years of Roe v. Wade, more than 1 million abortions were being performed annually, or roughly one abortion for every three live births. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the delinquency rate drop, which began approximately 18 years later, in 1991, can be tied to the fact that at that point the first groups of potential offenders affected by the abortion decision began reaching the peak age of criminal activity. The researchers found that states that legalized abortion before the rest of the nation were the first to experience decreasing delinquency rates and that states with high abortion rates have seen a greater drop in delinquency since 1985.

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health.

It is possible that the link between delinquency rates and abortion is the result of three mechanisms: (1) selective abortion on the part of women most at risk to have children who would engage in delinquent activity, (2) improved childrearing or environmental circumstances because women are having fewer children, and (3) absence of unwanted children who stand the greatest risk of delinquency. If abortion were illegal, Donohue and Levitt find, delinquency rates might be 10 to 20 percent higher than they currently are with legal abortion. Carter Hay and Michelle Evans found that children unwanted by their mothers do in fact commit more delinquency than children who were wanted or planned; the effect, however, was only modest and temporary. By their late teens and 20s, unwanted kids commit as much crime as their wanted brothers and sisters, a finding that seems to contradict Donohue and Levitt.

Guns

The availability of firearms may influence the delinquency rate, especially the proliferation of weapons in the hands of teens. Surveys of high school students indicate that between 6 and 10 percent carry guns at least some of the time. Guns also cause escalation in the seriousness of delinquency. As the number of gun-toting students increases, so does the seriousness of violent delinquency: A school yard fight may well turn into murder.

Gangs

Another factor that affects delinquency rates is the explosive growth in teenage gangs. Surveys indicate that there are more than 800,000 gang members in the United States. Boys who are members of gangs are far more likely to possess guns than nongang members; criminal activity increases when kids join gangs.

Drug Use

Some experts tie increases in the violent delinquency rate between 1980 and 1990 to the crack epidemic, which swept the nation’s largest cities, and to drug-trafficking gangs that fought over drug turf. These well-armed gangs did not hesitate to use violence to control territory, intimidate rivals, and increase market share. As the crack epidemic has subsided, so has the violence in New York City and other metropolitan areas where crack use was rampant. A sudden increase in drug use, on the other hand, may be a harbinger of future increases in the delinquency rate.

Media

Some experts argue that violent media can influence the direction of delinquency rates. The introduction of home video players, DVDs, cable TV, computers, and video games coincided with increasing teen violence rates. Perhaps the increased availability of media violence on these platforms produced more aggressive teens? Watching violence on TV may be correlated with aggressive behaviors, especially when viewers have a preexisting tendency toward delinquency and violence. Research shows that the more kids watch TV, the more often they get into violent encounters.

Juvenile Justice Policy

Some law enforcement experts have suggested that a reduction in delinquency rates may be attributed to adding large numbers of police officers and using them in aggressive police practices aimed at reducing gang membership, gun possession, and substance abuse. It is also possible that tough laws such as waiving juveniles to adult courts or sending them to adult prisons can affect crime rates. The fear of punishment may inhibit some would-be delinquents, and tough laws place a significant number of chronic juvenile offenders behind bars, lowering delinquency rates.

CRITICAL THINKING

Although juvenile delinquency rates have been declining in the United States, they have been increasing in Europe. Is it possible that factors that correlate with delinquency rate changes in the United States have little utility in predicting changes in other cultures? What other factors may increase or reduce delinquency rates?

SOURCES: Jeremy Staff, D. Wayne Osgood, John Schulenberg, Jerald Bachman, and Emily Messersmith, “Explaining the Relationship Between Employment and Juvenile Delinquency,” Criminology 48:1101–1131 (2010); Tim Wadsworth, “Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000,” Social Science Quarterly 91:531–553 (2010); Ramiro Martinez Jr., Jacob Stowell, and Matthew Lee, “Immigration and Crime in an Era of Transformation: A Longitudinal Analysis of Homicides in San Diego Neighborhoods, 1980–2000,” Criminology 48:797–830 (2010); Scott Decker, Charles Katz, and Vincent Webb, “Understanding the Black Box of Gang Organization: Implications for Involvement in Violent Crime, Drug Sales, and Violent Victimization,” Crime and Delinquency 54:153–172 (2008); Carter Hay and Michelle Evans, “Has Roe v. Wade Reduced U.S. Crime Rates? Examining the Link Between Mothers’ Pregnancy Intentions and Children’s Later Involvement in Law-Violating Behavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:36–66 (2006); Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson, “Media Violence and the American Public,” American Psychologist 56:477–489 (2001); John J. Donohue III and Steven D. Levitt, “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116:379–420 (2001).

So despite a continuing media barrage covering the havoc caused by violent youth gangs roaming the streets, arrests of juveniles actually decreased significantly in the past decade. And while juveniles account for a disproportionate number of arrests, the recent decline in the juvenile arrest rate has been significant, far outstripping that experienced by adults.

What factors account for change in the crime and delinquency rates? This is the topic of the Focus on Delinquency box entitled “Shaping Delinquency Trends.”

Self-Reported Findings

Most self-report studies indicate that the number of children who break the law is far greater than official statistics would lead us to believe.28 In fact, when truancy, alcohol consumption, petty theft, and recreational drug use are included in self-report scales, delinquency appears to be almost universal. The most common offenses are truancy, drinking alcohol, using a false ID, shoplifting or larceny under five dollars, fighting, using marijuana, and damaging the property of others. In Chapter 11, self-report data will be used to gauge trends in adolescent drug abuse.

A great deal of delinquent activity is not recorded in the official crime statistics. Take teen drug use. Here, at an “outlaw” party in Queens, New York, an ecstasy deal takes place. Self-report studies can measure the delinquent activity that would otherwise escape detection.

As you may recall, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research’s Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey is considered one of the most important ongoing self-report studies. In its current form, approximately 50,000 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students are surveyed each year. In addition, annual follow-up questionnaires are mailed to a sample of each graduating class for a number of years after their initial participation.

Table 2.2 contains some of the data from the latest available MTF survey. A surprising number of these typical teenagers reported involvement in serious criminal behavior. About 12 percent reported hurting someone badly enough that the victim needed medical care (6 percent said they did it more than once); about 25 percent reported stealing something worth less than $50, and another 9 percent stole something worth more than $50; 24 percent reported shoplifting; 11 percent had damaged school property.

table 2.2: Survey of Criminal Activity of High School Seniors, 2011

If the MTF data are accurate, the juvenile crime problem is much greater than official statistics would lead us to believe. There are approximately 40 million youths between the ages of 10 and 18. Extrapolating from the MTF findings, this group accounts for more than 100 percent of all the theft offenses reported in the UCR. About 4 percent of high school students said they had used force to steal (which is the legal definition of a robbery) at least once. At this rate, high school students alone commit more than 1 million robberies per year. In comparison, the UCR tallied about 354,000 robberies for all age groups in 2011. Over the past decade, the MTF surveys indicate that with a few exceptions, self-reported teenage participation in theft, violence, and damage-related crimes seems to be more stable than the trends reported in the UCR arrest data.

Are the Data Sources Compatible?

Each source of crime data has strengths and weaknesses. The FBI survey contains data on the number and characteristics of people arrested, information that the other data sources lack. It is also the source of information on particular crimes such as murder, which no other data source can provide.29 While used extensively, the UCR omits the many crimes that victims choose not to report to police, and relies on the reporting accuracy of individual police departments.

The NCVS includes unreported crime missed by the UCR and also contains important information on the personal characteristics of victims. However, the data consist of estimates made from relatively limited samples of the total US population, so that even narrow fluctuations in the rates of some crimes can have a major impact on findings. The NCVS also relies on personal recollections that may be inaccurate. It does not include data on important crime patterns, including murder and drug abuse.

Self-report surveys provide useful information because questions on delinquent activity are often supplemented with items measuring the personal characteristics of offenders, such as their attitudes, values, beliefs, and psychological profiles. Self-reports can also be used to measure drug and alcohol abuse; these data are not included in the UCR and NCVS. Yet, at their core, self-reports rely on the honesty of criminal offenders and drug abusers, a population not generally known for accuracy and integrity.

Although their tallies of delinquency are certainly not in synch, the patterns and trends measured by various data sources are often quite similar: When the UCR shows a drop in illegal activity, so too does the NCVS.30 They all generally agree about the personal characteristics of serious delinquents (i.e., age and gender) and where and when delinquency occurs (i.e., urban areas, nighttime, and summer months). Because the measurement problems inherent in each source are consistent over time, the sources are reliable indicators of changes and fluctuations in delinquency rates.

What the Future Holds

Today, approximately 17 percent of the population is between ages 5 and 18, resulting in a school-age population of around 50 million. Although many come from supportive homes, others lack stable families and adequate supervision; these are some of the children who will soon enter their prime crime years.31 Though teen violence may increase, it is unlikely that this will translate into skyrocketing crime rate increases, because the effect of teenage crime is offset by the growing number of relatively crime-free senior citizens.32

Of course, prognostications, predictions, and forecasts are based on contemporary conditions that can change at any time due to the sudden emergence of war, terrorism, social unrest, economic meltdown, and the like.33

Correlates of Delinquency

Measurement of the personal traits and social characteristics associated with adolescent misbehavior is a crucial aspect of delinquency research. If, for example, a strong association exists between delinquent behavior and family income, then poverty and economic deprivation must be considered in any explanation of the onset of adolescent criminality. If the delinquency-income association is not present, then other forces may be responsible for producing antisocial behavior. It would be fruitless to concentrate delinquency control efforts in areas such as job creation and vocational training if social status were found to be unrelated to delinquent behavior. Similarly, if only a handful of delinquents are responsible for most serious crimes, then crime control policies might be made more effective by identifying and treating these offenders. The next sections discuss where and when delinquent acts take place, as well as the relationship between delinquency and the characteristics of gender, race, social class, and age.

The Time and Place of Delinquency

Most delinquent acts occur during the warm summer months of July and August. Weather may affect delinquent behavior in a number of different ways. During the summer, teenagers are out of school and have greater opportunity to commit crime. Homes are left vacant more often during the summer, making them more vulnerable to property crimes. Weather may also have a direct effect on behavior: As it gets warmer kids get more violent.34 However, some experts believe if it gets too hot, over 85 degrees, the frequency of some violent acts such as sexual assault will begin to decline.35

There are also geographic differences in the incidence of delinquent behaviors. Large urban areas have by far the highest juvenile violence rates; rural areas have the lowest. Typically, the western and southern states have had consistently higher delinquency rates than the Midwest and Northeast, which have been linked to differences in cultural values, population makeup, gun ownership, and economic differences.

Gender and Delinquency

Males are significantly more delinquent than females. The teenage gender ratio for serious violent crime is approximately four to one, and for property crime, approximately two to one, male to female. The only exception to this pattern is arrests for being a runaway: girls are more likely than boys to be arrested as runaways. There are two possible explanations for this. Girls could be more likely than boys to run away from home, or police may view the female runaway as the more serious problem and therefore are more likely to process girls through official justice channels. This may reflect paternalistic attitudes toward girls, who are viewed as likely to “get in trouble” if they are on the street.

While males still commit more crimes than females, and the arrest rate for both sexes has declined in the past decade, more than 330,000 teenage girls are arrested each year, including about 60 for murder, 1,600 for robbery, and almost 8,000 for aggravated assault. The total number of female arrests has declined about 25 percent since 2002.

Three young women cover their faces while waiting in a holding room before their individual court appearances in Bartow, Florida. They were among seven girls accused of beating a classmate and putting the half-hour video on YouTube. One of the girls was sentenced to 15 days behind bars, the others received probation. Young women are now involved in the same violent offenses as their male peers.

Official arrest data may significantly underreport the total amount of female delinquency. Self-report data also seem to show that the incidence of female delinquency is much higher than believed earlier, and that the most common crimes committed by males are also the ones most female offenders commit.36 Table 2.3 shows the percentages of male and female high school seniors who admitted engaging in delinquent acts during the past 12 months in the latest MTF survey. As the table indicates, more than 20 percent of all boys and girls admitted to shoplifting; 12 percent of boys and 6 percent of girls said they stole something worth more than $50; and 17 percent of boys and 6 percent of girls said they hurt someone badly enough that they required medical care. Over the past decade girls have increased their self-reported delinquency, whereas boys report somewhat less involvement. Because the relationship between gender and delinquency rate is so important, this topic will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

table 2.3: Percentage of High School Seniors Admitting to at Least One Offense During the Past 12 Months, by Gender

case profile: Jamesetta’s Story

JAMESETTA was born in a poor, urban neighborhood. As her parents struggled with substance abuse, poverty, and unemployment, Jamesetta suffered both physical and sexual abuse before being placed in foster care at the age of 5. By the age of 9, Jamesetta was shoplifting, skipping school, and violating curfew. At age 13, she physically assaulted her foster mother and entered the juvenile justice system with charges of disorderly conduct and being a habitual delinquent. Her foster home placement was terminated and Jamesetta was sent to live with her aunt, uncle, and six cousins. It wasn’t long before her relatives began to have additional concerns that Jamesetta was exhibiting sexualized behavior, “sneaking around” with her 17-year-old boyfriend, staying out all night, and being disrespectful. They felt she was out of control.

Jamesetta had been ordered by the juvenile court to cooperate with her family’s household rules, attend school on a regular basis, have no further law violations, complete 25 hours of community service, and pay restitution for the shoplifting, but she refused to cooperate with any of the programs or services, continuing to come and go as she pleased. The family was receiving support from Jamesetta’s intensive supervision program counselor, as well as a family therapist, but during the second month of placement with her relatives, at the age of 14, Jamesetta disclosed that she was pregnant and planning to keep her baby. The program counselor and other professionals involved in Jamesetta’s case had to work with her and her family to reevaluate their plan.

Jamesetta was enrolled in a school specifically designed to support teens who are pregnant or already parenting, where in addition to her academic studies to complete high school, she would receive help from parenting classes, independent living courses, and relationship counseling. Jamesetta also received services from a neighborhood intervention program that focused on providing structure and accountability for her through counselors and daily group meetings to encourage her. Even with these additional supports and interventions, Jamesetta continued to get involved in some minor status offenses: She skipped school, didn’t come home on time, and would not follow household rules. Nonetheless, she had no involvement with more serious delinquent activities.

Jamesetta continued to live with her aunt and uncle, and did eventually complete her community service and restitution payment. After the baby was born Jamesetta began to understand the consequences of her actions. With continued services and support from her counselors, she started following the rules and expectations of her family. Upon taking responsibility to find the necessary medical and child care for her daughter, Jamesetta found employment—a position in retail—and started planning for her future. Despite being at high risk for dropping out of school, Jamesetta completed her high school education and had a positive view of her future. The team of involved professionals continued to provide the needed supports and encouraged Jamesetta to make good decisions for both herself and her new baby. She still struggles at times, but has remained free of further law violations.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Jamesetta received a number of interventions to address her issues, but it still took a long time for her to reduce her delinquent behavior. How long should the juvenile justice system give a young person to change? How many chances should a teen get? Do you think she would have likely been removed from her aunt and uncle’s home if her criminal behavior had continued?

2.

As Jamesetta grew older, she was less involved in criminal activity. Discuss the reasons for the “aging-out” process and apply them to this case example.

3.

What childhood risk factors did Jamesetta have regarding the possibility of becoming a persistent delinquent? How was this avoided? What can be done to reduce chronic offending among at-risk youth?

The Case Profile entitled “Jamesetta’s Story” tells the true story of how one young girl overcame the adversities that made her “at risk” for delinquency.

Race and Delinquency

There are approximately 40 million white and 11 million African American youths under 18 in the United States, a ratio of about four to one. The official statistics show that minority youths are arrested for serious criminal behavior at a rate that is disproportionate to their representation in the population. For example, 54 percent of teens arrested for murder are African American and 68 percent of those arrested for robbery; African American teens are represented in more than half of all arrests for serious violent crimes.

To many delinquency experts, this pattern reflects discrimination in the juvenile justice system. In other words, African American youths are more likely to be formally arrested by the police, who, in contrast, will treat white youths informally. One way to examine this issue is to compare the racial differences in self-reported data with those found in the official delinquency records. Given the disproportionate numbers of African Americans arrested, charges of racial discrimination would be supported if we found little difference between the number of self-reported minority and white crimes.

Early researchers found that the relationship between race and self-reported delinquency was virtually nonexistent.37 This suggests that racial differences in the official crime data may reflect the fact that African American youths have a much greater chance of being arrested and officially processed.38 Self-report studies also suggest that the delinquent behavior rates of African American and white teenagers are generally similar and that differences in arrest statistics may indicate discrimination by police.39 The MTF survey, for example, generally shows that offending differences between African American and white youths are marginal.40 However, some experts warn that African American youths may underreport more serious crimes, limiting the ability of self-reports to be a valid indicator of racial differences in the crime rate.41

Institutional Racism and Delinquency

How can the disproportionate number of African American youngsters arrested for serious crimes be explained? One view is that it is a result of bias by the police and courts. Police are more likely to arrest African American youth and courts more likely to punish them because of their race.42 To make matters worse, according to the racial threat theory, as the percentage of minorities in the population increases, so too does the amount of social control imposed on minority citizens at every stage of the justice system, from arrest to final release.43 For example, when Malcolm Holmes and his colleagues studied law enforcement actions in southwestern border communities they found that as the numbers of poor Hispanics increase, affluent Anglos demand greater levels of police protection.44 The result is a stepped-up effort to control and punish minority citizens, and isolate them in barrios.45

racial threat theory

As the size of the black population increases, the perceived threat to the white population increases, resulting in a greater amount of social control imposed against African Americans by police.

As pressure grows to contain “the racial threat,” police will then routinely search, question, and detain all African American males in an area if a violent criminal has been described as “looking or sounding black”; this is called racial profiling, made famous by the Trayvon Martin case. A recent meta-analysis of numerous studies that estimates the effect of race on the police decision to arrest found significant evidence that minority suspects are more likely to be arrested than white suspects when stopped by police for the same behaviors.46 Racial profiling may be more common in communities where there are relatively few racial minorities (i.e., “white neighborhoods”). In racially segregated communities, police may be especially suspicious of people based on their race if it is inconsistent with the neighborhood racial composition.47

racial profiling

Police practice of routinely searching, questioning, and detaining all African American males in an area, especially after a crime has been committed involving a black suspect.

Racial profiling takes a particular toll on younger African American males who often see their experience with police as unfair or degrading. They approach future encounters with preexisting hostility; police take this as a sign that young black men pose a special danger. They respond with harsh treatment, and a never-ending cycle of mutual mistrust is created.48

The Effects of Profiling

In the event they are picked up again and sent back to juvenile court, their earlier record makes them eligible for harsher treatment.49 Racial discrimination at the onset of the justice system ensures that minorities receive greater punishments at its conclusion.50

Juvenile court judges may see the offenses committed by minority youths as more serious than those committed by white offenders. Consequently, they are more likely to keep minority juveniles in detention pending trial in juvenile court than they are white youths with similar backgrounds.51 White juveniles are more likely to receive lenient sentences or have their cases dismissed.52 As a result, African American youths, suspected by police, are more likely to accumulate an adult criminal record and face a bleak future in a jobless economy in which those with a criminal record are less likely to receive job offers.53

In sum, according to the institutional racism view, the disproportionate number of minority youth who are arrested is less a function of their involvement in serious crime and more the result of the race-based decision making in the juvenile justice system.54 Institutional racism by police and the courts is still an element of daily life in the African American community, a factor that undermines faith in social and political institutions and weakens confidence in the justice system.55

Structural Racism and Delinquency

Another view of race differences in the delinquency rate holds that although evidence of some racial bias does exist in the justice system, there is enough correspondence between official and self-report data to conclude that racial differences in the crime rate are real.56 If African American youths are arrested at a disproportionately high rate for crimes such as robbery and assault, it is a result of actual offending rates rather than bias on the part of the criminal justice system.57

If they exist, how can racial differences in the delinquency rate be explained? According to the structural racism view, racial differentials are tied to the social and economic disparity suffered by African American youths. Too many are forced to live in the nation’s poorest areas that suffer high crime rates.58 Many black youths are forced to attend essentially segregated schools that are underfunded and deteriorated, a condition that increases the likelihood of their being incarcerated in adulthood.59 The burden of social and economic marginalization has weakened the African American family structure. When families are weakened or disrupted, their ability to act as social control agents is compromised.60

Even during times of economic growth, lower-class African Americans are left out of the economic mainstream, causing a growing sense of frustration and failure.61 As a result of being shut out of educational and economic opportunities enjoyed by the rest of society, this population may be prone, some believe, to the lure of illegitimate gain and criminality. However, even among at-risk African American kids growing up in communities characterized by poverty, high unemployment levels, and single-parent households, those who do live in stable families with reasonable incomes and educational achievement are much less likely to engage in violent behaviors than those lacking family support.62 Consequently, racial differences in the delinquency rate would evaporate if the social and economic characteristics of racial minorities were improved to levels currently enjoyed by whites, and African American kids could enjoy the same social, economic, and educational privileges.63

For more information about race-related issues in America, visit the University of Pittsburgh’s Center on Race and Social Problems (http://www.crsp.pitt.edu/). You can also find this information by going to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at cengagebrain.com, then accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Delinquency

Determining the true association between socioeconomic status (SES) and delinquency is critical and a key element in the study of delinquency. If youth crime is purely a lower-class phenomenon, its cause must be rooted in the social forces that are found solely in lower-class areas: poverty, unemployment, social disorganization, culture conflict, and alienation. However, if delinquent behavior is spread throughout the social structure, its cause must be related to some noneconomic factor: intelligence, personality, socialization, family dysfunction, educational failure, or peer influence. According to this line of reasoning, providing jobs or economic incentives would have little effect on the crime rate.

At first glance, the relationship between SES and delinquency should be clear-cut:

•  Youths who lack wealth or social standing should be the ones who use illegal means to achieve their goals and compensate for their lack of economic resources.

•  Communities that lack economic and social opportunities should have the highest delinquency rates.

•  Kids who live in these areas believe that they can never compete socially or economically with adolescents being raised in more affluent areas. They may turn to illegal behavior for monetary gain and psychological satisfaction.64

•  Family life is most likely to be frayed and disrupted in low-income areas. As a consequence, gangs and law-violating youth groups should thrive in a climate that undermines and neutralizes the adult supervision that families provide.65

•  Kids who live in poor families within poor communities are doubly at risk for delinquency and find it hard to resist the lure of streets.66

Research on Social Class and Delinquency

The social class–delinquency relationship was challenged by pioneering some self-report studies, specifically those that revealed no direct relationship between social class and the commission of delinquent acts.67 Instead, socioeconomic class was related to official processing by police, court, and correctional agencies.68 Police may devote more resources to poor areas, and consequently apprehension rates may be higher there. Similarly, police may be more likely to formally arrest and prosecute poor kids than those in the middle and upper classes, which may account for the lower class’s overrepresentation in official statistics and the prison population.69 Self-report data do show that kids in all levels of society and in all social classes commit crime, but arrest rates are higher in lower-class communities.70 Although both poor and affluent kids get into fights, shoplift, and take drugs, only the indigent are likely to be arrested and sent to juvenile court.71 This finding casts doubt on the assumption that poverty and lower-class position are significant causes of delinquent behavior.

Those who fault self-report studies also point to the inclusion of trivial offenses—for example, using a false ID—in most self-report instruments. Although middle- and upper-class youths may appear to be as delinquent as those in the lower class, it is because they engage in significant amounts of such status offenses. Lower-class youths are more likely to engage in serious delinquent acts.72

In sum, there are those experts who believe that antisocial behavior occurs at all levels of the social strata. While some middle- and upper-class youths engage in some forms of minor illegal activity and theft offenses, it is members of the under-class who are responsible for the majority of serious delinquent acts.73 The prevailing wisdom is that kids who engage in the most serious forms of delinquency (such as gang violence) are more likely to be members of the lower class.

Age and Delinquency

It is generally accepted that age is inversely related to criminality: Deviance in adolescence is fueled by the need for money and sex and reinforced by a teen culture whose informal rules stress defying conventional morality. It is not a coincidence that kids get piercings and tattoos as soon as the law allows.

At the same time, teenagers are becoming independent from parents and other adults who enforce conventional standards of morality and behavior. They have a new sense of energy and strength and are involved with peers who are similarly vigorous and frustrated.

It is not surprising then that regardless of race, sex, social class, intelligence, or any other social variable, people commit less crime as they age. As noted in Chapter 1, this is referred to as the aging-out process, sometimes called desistance from crime or spontaneous remission.74 Aging out of crime may be a function of the natural history of the human life cycle, and no one is immune.75 Even the most chronic juvenile offenders commit less crime as they age. Though high-rate offenders will commit more crime as adults than their nondelinquent peers, even these committed and persistent delinquents will slow down as they age; few people get into as much trouble when they are 51 as they did when they were 15.76

Age also impacts delinquency because the earlier kids commit crime in their life cycle, the more serious and aggressive their criminal involvement. Age of onset is an important determinant of the length and seriousness of a delinquent career. Kids who are persistent offenders begin committing crime early in their childhood, rapidly increase their offending activities in late adolescence, and only begin to slow down in adulthood.77 Those kids who demonstrate antisocial tendencies at a very early age are also more likely to commit more crimes and for a longer period of time.

age of onset

Age at which youths begin their delinquent careers; early onset is believed to be linked with chronic offending patterns.

In sum, youths who get involved with delinquency at a very early age are most likely to become career criminals; age is a key determinant of delinquency.78

Why Does Crime Decline with Age?

Delinquency experts have developed a number of reasons for the aging-out process:

•  Growing older means having to face the future. Young people, especially the indigent and antisocial, tend to “discount the future.”79 Why should they delay gratification when faced with an uncertain future? As they mature, troubled youths are able to develop a long-term life view and resist the need for immediate gratification.80

•  With maturity comes the ability to resist the “quick fix” to their problems. Research shows that some kids may turn to crime as a way to solve the problems of adolescence, loneliness, frustration, and fear of peer rejection. As they mature, conventional means of problem solving become available. Life experience helps former delinquents seek nondestructive solutions to their personal problems.81

•  Maturation coincides with increased levels of responsibility. Petty crimes are risky and exciting social activities that provide adventure in an otherwise boring world. As youths grow older, they take on new responsibilities that are inconsistent with criminality.82 For example, young people who marry, enlist in the armed services, or enroll in vocational training courses are less likely to pursue criminal activities.83

•  Personalities can change with age. As youths mature, rebellious youngsters may develop increased self-control and be able to resist antisocial behavior.84 In adulthood, people strengthen their ability to delay gratification and forgo the immediate gains that law violations bring. They also start wanting to take responsibility for their behavior and to adhere to conventional mores, such as establishing long-term relationships and starting a family.85 Getting married, raising a family, and creating long-term family ties provide the stability that helps people desist from crime.86

•  Young adults become more aware of the risks that accompany crime. As adults, they are no longer protected by the relatively kindly arms of the juvenile justice system.87

Of course, not all juvenile criminals desist as they age; some go on to become chronic adult offenders. Yet even they slow down as they age. Crime is too dangerous, physically taxing, and unrewarding, and punishments too harsh and long lasting, to become a way of life for most people.88

Jonathan Rosario, born to a drug-addicted mother, spent the first seven years of his life in a housing project in the Mott Haven section of the Bronx. As a young man, feeling rebellious, he began cutting classes and getting involved in trouble. He was arrested after he was caught smoking marijuana on the street. Then a friend asked him to hold on to three guns for safekeeping. Without giving it much thought, Rosario agreed to do so, storing them in the apartment he shared with a girlfriend. One day, the police showed up; there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. He had failed to appear in court a second time on the marijuana charges because he had not realized he had to. The police searched the apartment, found the guns, and charged him with possession of guns and ammunition. After a few days on Rikers Island, he was sentenced to three years of probation. Why does someone like Rosario continually get involved in offending? Later he was able to turn his life around, with the help of a settlement house program. Does his story mean that even chronic offenders can one day leave a life of crime?

Chronic Offending: Careers in Delinquency

Although most adolescents age out of crime, a relatively small number of youths begin to violate the law early in their lives (early onset) and continue at a high rate well into adulthood (persistence). The association between early onset and high-rate persistent offending has been demonstrated in samples drawn from a variety of cultures, time periods, and offender types. These offenders are resistant to change and seem immune to the effects of punishment. Arrest, prosecution, and conviction do little to slow down their offending careers. However, as the Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature entitled “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy” indicates, some treatment interventions may help.

These chronic offenders are responsible for a significant amount of all delinquent and criminal activity. Because almost everyone commits less crime as they age, it is difficult to predict or identify in advance the relatively few offenders who will continue to commit crime as they travel through their life course.89

Current interest in the delinquent life cycle was prompted in part by the “discovery” in the 1970s of the chronic juvenile (or delinquent) offender. According to this view, a relatively small number of youthful offenders commit a significant percentage of all serious crimes, and many of these same offenders grow up to become chronic adult criminals.

Chronic offenders can be distinguished from other delinquent youths. Many youthful law violators are apprehended for a single instance of criminal behavior, such as shoplifting or joyriding. Chronic offenders begin their delinquent careers at a young age (under 10 years), have serious and persistent brushes with the law, and may be excessively violent and destructive. They do not age out of crime but continue their law-violating behavior into adulthood.90 Most research shows that early, repeated delinquent activity is the best predictor of future adult criminality.

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Treatment: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a treatment that focuses on patterns of thinking and the beliefs, attitudes, and values that underlie thinking. Cognitive behavioral therapy can help restructure distorted thinking and perception, which in turn changes a person’s behavior for the better. Characteristics of distorted thinking may include the following:

•  Immature or developmentally arrested thoughts

•  Poor problem solving and decision making

•  Inability to consider the effects of one’s behavior

•  An egocentric viewpoint with a negative view or lack of trust in other people

•  Hampered ability to reason and accept blame for wrongdoing

•  A mistaken belief of entitlement, including an inability to delay gratification, confusing wants and needs, and ignoring the rights of other people

•  A tendency to act on impulse, including a lack of self-control and empathy

•  Inability to manage feelings of anger

•  Use of force and violence as a means to achieve goals

Recently, Patrick Clark reviewed the existing literature on cognitive behavior to assess its effectiveness. He found that unlike other approaches, CBT places responsibility in the hands of clients while supplying them with the tools to solve their problems, focusing on the present rather than the past. People taking part in CBT learn specific skills that can be used to solve the problems they confront all the time as well as skills they can use to achieve legitimate goals and objectives. CBT first concentrates on developing skills to recognize distorted or unrealistic thinking when it happens, and then on changing that thinking or belief to mollify or eliminate problematic behavior.

The programs, often offered in small group settings, incorporate lessons and exercises involving role play, modeling, or demonstrations. Individual counseling sessions are often part of CBT. Clients are given homework and conduct experiments between sessions. These components are used to gauge the individual’s readiness for change and foster engagement in that change. A willingness to change is necessary for CBT or any other treatment to be effective in reducing further criminal behavior.

Programs often limit clients to 20 to 30 sessions, lasting over a period of up to 20 weeks. The more treatment provided or the more sessions participants attend over time, the greater the impact on and decrease in recidivism.

The typical CBT program is provided by trained professionals or paraprofessionals. Training for nontherapist group facilitators often involves 40 hours or more of specialized lessons and skill building. Licensed and certified therapists are often part of cognitive programs, especially those involving individual counseling.

Characteristics of the counselor are important to a program’s effectiveness. Counselor honesty, empathy, and sensitivity are helpful traits. Support and encouragement, partnership or alliance, and acceptance are necessary in establishing effective rapport, which is especially important in CBT because counselors often take on the role of coach. Counselors need to be consistent in modeling and expressing the prosocial attitudes and behaviors, moral values, and reasoning that are often part of CBT with criminal offenders.

Program Effectiveness

CBT is one of the few approaches to behavioral change that has been broadly validated with research. Unlike other traditional and popular therapies, CBT has been the subject of more than 400 clinical trials involving a broad range of conditions and populations. It has shown to be reliably effective with a wide variety of personal problems and behaviors, including substance abuse, antisocial and aggressive behavior, and mood disorders, all of which have been linked to delinquency. It has successfully addressed many issues experienced by children, including disruptive or noncompliant behavior, oppositional defiant disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

In what is considered a milestone of evaluation, Mark Lipsey reviewed the results of more than 500 treatment programs and found that therapeutic approaches based on counseling, skill building, and multiple services had the greatest impact in reducing problem behavior. Lipsey showed that programs based on cognitive behavioral therapy are effective with juvenile offenders in various settings, including residential, probation, and aftercare; cognitive behavioral therapy significantly reduced recidivism even among high-risk offenders.

CRITICAL THINKING

Do you believe that a treatment program such as cognitive behavioral therapy can work with gang boys living in the most deteriorated inner-city neighborhoods, or are their problems beyond the scope of a program based on psychological counseling? If you do not believe such a program would work, how would you deal with the most hard-core juvenile offenders?

SOURCES: Patrick Clark, “Preventing Future Crime with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy,” National Institute of Justice Journal 265 (2010), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/265/therapy.htm (accessed May 2013); Mark Lipsey, “The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview,” Victims and Offenders 4:124–147 (2009); Nana Landenberger and Mark Lipsey, “The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment,” Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1:451–476 (2005).

A number of research efforts have set out to chronicle the careers of serious delinquent offenders. The next sections describe these initiatives.

Delinquency in a Birth Cohort

The concept of the chronic career offender is most closely associated with the research efforts of Marvin Wolfgang.91 In 1972, Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin published a landmark study, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. They followed the delinquent careers of a cohort of 9,945 boys born in Philadelphia from birth until they reached age 18. Data were obtained from police files and school records. Socioeconomic status was determined by locating the residence of each member of the cohort and assigning him the median family income for that area. About one-third of the boys (3,475) had some police contact. The remaining two-thirds (6,470) had none. Those boys who had at least one contact with the police committed a total of 10,214 offenses.

The most significant discovery of Wolfgang and his associates was that of the so-called chronic offender. The data indicated that 54 percent (1,862) of the sample’s delinquent youths were repeat offenders. The repeaters could be further categorized as nonchronic recidivists and chronic recidivists. Nonchronic recidivists had been arrested more than once but fewer than five times. In contrast, the 627 boys labeled chronic recidivists had been arrested five times or more. Although these offenders accounted for only 18 percent of the delinquent population (6 percent of the total sample), they were responsible for 52 percent of all offenses. Known today as the “chronic 6 percent,” this group perpetrated 71 percent of the homicides, 82 percent of the robberies, and 64 percent of the aggravated assaults (see Figure 2.2).

figure 2.2: Distribution of Offenses in the Philadelphia Cohort

Arrest and juvenile court experience did little to deter chronic offenders. In fact, the greater the punishment, the more likely they were to engage in repeat delinquent behavior. Strict punishment also increased the probability that further court action would be taken. Two factors stood out as encouraging recidivism: the seriousness of the original offense and the severity of the punishment. The researchers concluded that efforts of the juvenile justice system to eliminate delinquent behavior may be futile.

Wolfgang and his colleagues conducted a second cohort study with children born in 1958 and substantiated the finding that a relatively few chronic offenders are responsible for a significant portion of all delinquent acts.92 Wolfgang’s results have been duplicated in a number of research studies conducted in locales across the United States and also in Great Britain.93 Some have used the records of court-processed youths, and others have employed self-report data. One study that followed a 10 percent sample of the original Pennsylvania cohort (974 subjects) to age 30 found that 70 percent of the persistent adult offenders had also been chronic juvenile offenders. Chronic juvenile offenders had an 80 percent chance of becoming adult offenders and a 50 percent chance of being arrested four or more times as adults.94 Paul Tracy and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard conducted a follow-up study of all the subjects in the second 1958 cohort. By age 26, Cohort II subjects were displaying the same behavior patterns as their older peers. Kids who started their delinquent careers early, committed a violent crime, and continued offending throughout adolescence were most likely to persist in criminal behavior as adults. Delinquents who began their offending careers with serious offenses or who quickly increased the severity of their offending early in life were most likely to persist in their criminal behavior into adulthood. Severity of offending rather than frequency of criminal behavior had the greatest impact on later adult criminality.95

These studies indicate that chronic juvenile offenders continue their law-violating careers as adults, a concept referred to as the continuity of crime. Kids who are disruptive as early as age 5 or 6 are most likely to exhibit disruptive behavior throughout adolescence.96

continuity of crime

The idea that chronic juvenile offenders are likely to continue violating the law as adults.

What Causes Chronic Offending?

Research indicates that chronic offenders suffer from a number of personal, environmental, social, and developmental deficits, as shown in Exhibit 2.2. Other research studies have found that involvement in criminal activity (for example, getting arrested before age 15), relatively low intellectual development, and parental drug involvement were key predictive factors for future chronic offending.97 Measurable problems in learning and motor skills, cognitive abilities, family relations, and other areas also predict chronicity.98 Youthful offenders who persist are more likely to abuse alcohol, become economically dependent, have lower aspirations, and have a weak employment record.99 Apprehension and punishment seem to have little effect on their offending behavior. Youths who have long juvenile records will most likely continue their offending careers into adulthood.

exhibit 2.2: Childhood Risk Factors for Persistent Delinquency

Individual Factors

•  Early antisocial behavior

•  Emotional factors such as high behavioral activation and low behavioral inhibition

•  Poor cognitive development

•  Low intelligence

•  Hyperactivity

School and Community Factors

•  Failure to bond to school

•  Poor academic performance

•  Low academic aspirations

•  Living in a poor family

•  Neighborhood disadvantage

•  Disorganized neighborhoods

•  Concentration of delinquent peer groups

•  Access to weapons

Family Factors

•  Parenting

•  Maltreatment

•  Family violence

•  Divorce

•  Parental psychopathology

•  Familial antisocial behaviors

•  Teenage parenthood

•  Family structure

•  Large family size

Peer Factors

•  Association with deviant peers

•  Peer rejection

SOURCE: Gail Wasserman, Kate Keenan, Richard Tremblay, John Coie, Todd Herrenkohl, Rolf Loeber, and David Petechuk, “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” Child Delinquency Bulletin Series (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2003).

Policy Implications

Efforts to chart the life cycle of crime and delinquency will have a major influence on both theory and policy. Rather than simply asking why youths become delinquent or commit antisocial acts, theorists are charting the onset, escalation, frequency, and cessation of delinquent behavior. Research on delinquent careers has also influenced policy. If relatively few offenders commit a great proportion of all delinquent acts and then persist as adult criminals, it follows that steps should be taken to limit their criminal opportunities.100 One approach is to identify persistent offenders at the beginning of their offending careers and provide early treatment.101 This might be facilitated by research aimed at identifying traits (for example, impulsive personalities) that can be used to classify high-risk offenders.102 Because many of these youths suffer from a variety of problems, treatment must be aimed at a broad range of educational, family, vocational, and psychological problems. Focusing on a single problem, such as a lack of employment, may be ineffective.103

Sheila Pott poses with a portrait of her daughter Audrie in Los Altos, California, on May 23, 2013. Audrie Pott committed suicide in September 2012 after being sexually assaulted by three boys during a house party in Saratoga, California. Photos of the incident were circulated around Pott’s high school, prompting the teenager to hang herself in a bathroom at home. There has been a spate of such cyber victimizations that have resulted in young women taking their own lives.

Juvenile Victimization

Richard and Maureen Kanka thought their daughter Megan was safe in their quiet, suburban neighborhood in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. Then on July 29, 1994, their lives were shattered when 7-year-old Megan went missing. Maureen Kanka searched the neighborhood and met 33-year-old Jesse Timmendequas, who lived across the street. Timmendequas told her that he had seen Megan earlier that evening while he was working on his car. The police were called in and soon focused their attention on Timmendequas’s house when they learned that he and two other residents were convicted sex offenders who had met at a treatment center and decided to live together upon their release. Timmendequas soon confessed to luring Megan into his home by telling her she could see his puppy and then raping and strangling her to death.

youth stories: Elizabeth Smart, Jaycee Dugard, and Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, Michelle Knight

Three cases that made recent national headlines illustrate the danger that youth face from adult predators. The first involved Elizabeth Smart, a 14-year-old Salt Lake City girl, who was kidnapped from her home on June 5, 2002. She was taken in the middle of the night from a room she shared with her 9- year-old sister, Mary Katherine, who pretended to be asleep. A massive search failed to find Elizabeth, and many felt the girl was gone forever. Months later, Mary Katherine suddenly remembered that she had heard the kidnapper’s voice before and that it belonged to a man named Emmanuel, whom the Smarts had hired to work around the house. The police did not consider this information reliable, so the family turned to a sketch artist to draw a rendering that was released to the media and given media attention on TV shows such as Larry King Live and America’s Most Wanted. Family members of Brian David Mitchell, the real name of Emmanuel, recognized him in the drawing and provided photos. Now wanted by police around the nation, Mitchell was spotted in Sandy, Utah, on March 12, 2003, nine months after the abduction. Mitchell and his wife, Wanda Barzee, were taken into custody and Elizabeth Smart reunited with her family. During the trial, Elizabeth Smart, now 23 years old, testified about her horrific experiences during the nine months she was held captive. She was raped every day and constantly threatened that she would be killed if she tried to escape. Mitchell was eventually found guilty of kidnapping and sexual assault, charges that brought him a life sentence in prison. Barzee had earlier pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Melissa Baum, whose 10-year-old daughter Lindsey disappeared in June 2009, wipes a tear from her eye after being introduced in 2013 to kidnap survivor Elizabeth Smart at a speaking engagement. Smart told Baum and the rest of her audience about her harrowing abduction at age 14 and her nine-month ordeal at the hands of her kidnapper.

Amanda Berry (right) hugs her sister, Beth Serrano, after they were reunited in a Cleveland hospital. Berry, along with Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight, were freed from a Cleveland house after 10 years of captivity. Next comes recovery from sexual abuse and their sudden, jarring reentry into a world much different than the one they were snatched from a decade ago.

In another tragic case, 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard had been abducted on June 10, 1991, at a school bus stop within sight of her home in South Lake Tahoe, California. After being grabbed off the street by Phillip Garrido, she was held captive for 18 years, living in a tent in a walled-off compound on land Garrido owned in Antioch, California. Raped repeatedly, Dugard bore two daughters, in 1994 and 1998. Law enforcement officers had visited the residence at least twice but failed to detect Jaycee or her children. Garrido and his wife were indicted on charges including kidnapping, rape, and false imprisonment. In 2011, Garrido received a sentence of 431 years to life and his wife Nancy was sentenced to 36 years to life.

The third and most recent case involved three young women missing at least a decade and miraculously freed from a home in downtown Cleveland. Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight were all held captive in a home owned by a local musician and bus driver named Ariel Castro. Amanda Berry had been kidnapped when she was 17 years old. She left her part-time job at a Burger King on April 21, 2003, and was not heard from again. Her family never gave up hope and sought public support on TV shows like America’s Most Wanted. Gina DeJesus was 14, in seventh grade, when she vanished while walking home from school on April 2, 2004. Michelle Knight was 21 when she disappeared. She was last seen at a cousin’s house on August 22, 2002, not far from where Berry and DeJesus were last seen.

After a decade, neighbors Angel Cordero and Charles Ramsey heard screaming and found Berry at the door of Castro’s house. The door was just wide enough to fit a hand through. She was trying desperately to get out and pleaded for help to reach police, so the two men kicked down the door to free Berry.

Neighbors then helped her to make a 911 call in which she said: “I’m Amanda Berry. I’ve been on the news for the last 10 years.” She begged police officers to come to the home before the man who had kidnapped her returned. “I’ve been kidnapped, and I’ve been missing for 10 years,” she told the dispatcher. “And I’m here. I’m free now.”

The three women had been chained up in the basement of Castro’s home and repeatedly beaten and raped. Berry gave birth in captivity and her child was six years old at the time of the rescue. The women told police that Castro’s beatings had resulted in their having numerous miscarriages. Michelle Knight told her rescuers that Castro had impregnated her multiple times and forced her to abort each time. Castro would starve Knight for weeks and then repeatedly punch her in the stomach until she miscarried.

All the women were survivors despite their brutal treatment. Elizabeth Smart has become a journalist and advocate for missing and abused children. In February 2012, Elizabeth married Matthew Gilmour, a Scot, whom she met while doing mission work in Europe. In July 2010, the State of California approved a $20 million settlement with Jaycee Dugard to compensate her for “various lapses by the Corrections Department [which contributed to] Dugard’s continued captivity, ongoing sexual assault, and mental and/or physical abuse.” Amanda Berry, Michelle Knight, and Gina DeJesus have reunited with their families.

These abductions are tragically not unique. Nearly 30,000 children are taken and sexually assaulted by strangers each year. So, while cases involving long-term abduction and sexual exploitation are relatively rare, detention and rape of children is all too common.

CRITICAL THINKING

The long-term kidnapping of young girls seems to occur all too often. How much punishment does a kidnapper deserve? Should a person such as Ariel Castro, who abducts a young woman, impregnates her, and then causes her to lose the child, be charged with murder?

SOURCES: Trip Gabriel and Steven Yaccino, “Officials, Citing Miscarriages, Weigh Death Penalty in Ohio Case,” May 9, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/cleveland-kidnapping.html; Eesha Pandit, “In the Cleveland Kidnapping Case, Bystander Intervention Worked. What Happens When It Doesn’t?” The Nation, May 13, 2013, http://www.thenation.com/article/174302/cleveland-kidnapping-case-bystander-intervention-worked-what-happens-when-it-doesnt; Russell Goldman, “Elizabeth Smart Tells Court Brian David Mitchell Would Pray for Sex,” ABC News, November 10, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/US/elizabeth-smart-tells-court-brian-david-mitchell-pray/story?id=12110773; David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, “Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics,” US Department of Justice, 2002, http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf; Sarah Netter and Sabina Ghebremedhin, “Jaycee Dugard Found After 18 Years, Kidnap Suspect Allegedly Fathered Her Kids,” ABC News, August 27, 2009, http://abcnews .go.com/US/jaycee-lee-dugard-found-family-missing-girl-located/story?id=8426124 (all URLs accessed May 2013).

Megan’s death led to a national crusade to develop laws that require sex offenders to register with local police when they move into a neighborhood and require local authorities to provide community notification of the sex offender’s presence. On the federal level, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Law passed in May 1996, which requires states to pass some version of “Megan’s Law” or lose federal aid. At least 47 states plus the District of Columbia have complied. Jesse Timmendequas was sentenced to death on June 20, 1997, and remained on New Jersey’s death row until December 17, 2007, when the state’s death penalty was abolished and his sentence was commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

As the Megan Kanka case sadly tells us, juveniles are also victims of crime. The difference is particularly striking when we compare teens with people over age 65: teens are 15 times more likely to become victims than their grandparents. The data also indicate that male teenagers have a significantly higher chance than females of becoming victims of most violent crime, and that African American youth have a greater chance of becoming victims of violent crimes than whites of the same age. Young girls are much more likely to be the victim of sexual assaults, while boys are much more likely to be the victims of robbery. In either event, the likelihood of victimization for both crimes declines after the teenage years.

In the previous Youth Stories feature, three notorious cases of juvenile victimization are discussed in some detail.

Juvenile Victimization Trends

Delinquency rates have been in decline for the past two decades so it comes as no surprise that so too have rates of adolescent victimization. Since 1994, the overall rate of serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault—against youth has declined by more than 75 percent, down from 62 victimizations per 1,000 youth ages 12 to 17 in 1994 to 14 per 1,000 today. Among serious violent crimes against youth, the rate of rape or sexual assault declined by 68 percent, robbery declined by 77 percent, and aggravated assault declined by 80 percent. The overall rate of simple assault declined by 83 percent during the same period, from 125 victimizations per 1,000 youth in 1994 to 22 per 1,000.

While overall teen victim rates have been in sharp decline, some notable trends have taken place in the past two decades. Since 1994, a significant convergence has occurred in male and female teen victim rates. In 1994, male youth (79 per 1,000) were nearly twice as likely as female youth (44 per 1,000) to experience serious violent crime. Today male and female youth are equally likely to experience serious violent crime. In comparison, there has been a divergence in victimization trends among racial and ethnic groups. While rates of serious violent crime among white and Hispanic youth have been in sharp decline, rates have remained the same among black youth.104 The Cyber Delinquency feature discusses a notorious example of how youths are being victimized in the cyber age.

Reporting Victimizations

How often do kids report their victimizations to police, school, and medical authorities? Results from the most recent (2012) National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) found that compared with a similar study in the early 1990s, authorities were more likely to know about incidents of violence, which may reflect an ongoing effort by authorities, criminal justice and child protection agencies, and advocates to promote disclosure. The survey found that 46 percent of children who were victimized in the previous year had at least one victimization known to school, police, and medical authorities, with school authorities (e.g., teachers, principals, and counselors) being the most likely to know of the victimizations. Police were most likely to know about many of the most serious victimizations. In general, authorities were most likely to know about serious victimizations, including sexual abuse by an adult, kidnapping, and gang or group assaults. They were least likely to know about victimizations committed by other youth, including peer and sibling assaults, dating violence, flashing, and completed or attempted rape.

So while disclosure is increasing, child victimizations are decreasing.105 It is possible that an increase in reporting has produced sufficient action by authorities to help limit juvenile victimization.

Teen Victims

NCVS data can also tell us something about the relationship between victims and offenders. This information is available because victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery, can identify the age, sex, and race of their attackers.

In general, teens tend to be victimized by their peers, whereas victims age 20 and over identified their attackers as being 21 or older. However, people in almost all age groups who are victimized by groups of offenders identify their attackers as teenagers or young adults.

The data also tell us that victimization is intraracial (within race). White teenagers tend to be victimized by white teens, and African American teenagers tend to be victimized by African American teens.

CYBER delinquency: Christopher Gunn

In 2011, 31-year-old Christopher Gunn pleaded guilty to producing child pornography in connection with an online sextortion scheme that spanned the globe. Over a period of more than two years, Gunn repeatedly used chat rooms and other social media outlets to threaten hundreds of young girls ages 9 to 16 located throughout the United States and internationally and coerce them into sending him sexually suggestive photos. The first scheme—dubbed “The New Kid Ruse”—involved contacting the victims over Facebook and pretending to be a new kid in town looking for friends. Once he had gained their trust through chatting, Gunn would ask the girls a series of personal questions, such as their sexual histories, intimate details about their bodies, and so on. If they divulged that personal information, Gunn would then ask the girls to send him a topless photo. If they refused, he would threaten to email their intimate conversation to the school principal or post it on Facebook for everyone to see. The second scheme—dubbed “The Justin Bieber Ruse”—involved pretending to be pop star Justin Bieber, contacting young girls via video chat services, such as Omegle and Skype, and offering them free concert tickets, backstage passes, or some other fan-related benefits if they would agree to send him a webcam transmission or a photo of themselves with their breasts exposed.

For those who complied, Gunn continued sending further demands and more threatening communications. If any of his demands were not met, Gunn would threaten to withhold the benefits he had promised the girls and/or to injure the girls’ reputations by publishing their compromising images and videos over the Internet. More than 10 girls were forced to send him sexually suggestive photos. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor read a transcript of a conversation between Gunn and a 13-year-old victim. In the transcript, the victim told Gunn that she did not want to take her shirt off in front the webcam. Gunn replied that if she didn’t, he would push Send, meaning send the prior pictures to the victim’s friends and family. The victim responded that she was only 13 years old and that she had “a life, please do not ruin it.” Gunn responded, “I am sending it now since u won’t do what I want.” The victim then told Gunn that if he pushed Send, she would kill herself. Gunn completely disregarded her cry for help and demanded that she take off her top. The victim complied. Gunn was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his crimes against children.

CRITICAL THINKING

In order to deter predators like Christopher Gunn, what’s more effective—to educate kids about the dangers of online involvement with strangers or to harshly punish adults whom prey upon children?

SOURCE: US Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Alabama, “Montgomery Man Pleads Guilty to Massive Online Sextortion Plot,” August 23, 2012, http://www.fbi.gov/mobile/press-releases/2012/montgomery-man-pleads-guilty-to-massive-online-sextortion-plot (accessed May 2013).

As Table 2.4 shows, young people are more often victimized by strangers than adults and the likelihood of stranger victimization declines with age. Table 2.4 also shows that the chances of victimization have declined significantly over the past two decades. For teens, the average annual rate of violent victimization committed by strangers against persons ages 12 to 17 was 15 per 1,000, slightly lower than the rate of 18 per 1,000 for persons ages 18 to 24. Persons age 65 or older experienced the lowest rate of violence by strangers (1.6 per 1,000).106

table 2.4: Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, by Victim’s Age

SUMMARY

• 1 Explain how the UCR data are gathered and used

  •  Official data on delinquent behavior are gathered in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR).

  •  The UCR gathers data on the number and characteristics (age, race, and gender) of individuals who have been arrested. This is particularly important for delinquency research because it shows how many underage minors are arrested each year.

  •  The accuracy of the UCR is somewhat suspect because surveys indicate that fewer than half of all crime victims report incidents to police.

• 2 Discuss the concept of self-reported delinquency

  •  These surveys ask kids to describe, in detail, their recent and lifetime participation in antisocial activity.

  •  Self-reports are given in groups, and the respondents are promised anonymity in order to ensure the validity and honesty of the responses.

  •  In addition to questions about delinquent behavior, most self-report surveys contain questions about attitudes, values, and behaviors.

• 3 Be familiar with the National Crime Victimization Survey

  •  The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a comprehensive, nationwide survey of victimization in the United States.

  •  Each year data are obtained from a large nationally representative sample who are asked to report their experiences with crimes.

  •  Due to the care with which the samples are drawn and the high completion rate, NCVS data are considered a relatively unbiased, valid estimate of all victimizations for the target crimes included in the survey.

• 4 Describe alternative measures of delinquent activity and behavior

  •  Delinquency experts routinely use a number of other methods to acquire data on youth crime and delinquency.

  •  Collecting cohort data involves observing over time a group of kids who share a like characteristic.

  •  Sometimes researchers are able to conduct controlled experiments to collect data on the causes of delinquency.

  •  Meta-analysis involves gathering data from a number of previous studies.

  •  Data mining uses multiple advanced computational methods, including artificial intelligence (the use of computers to perform logical functions), to analyze large data sets usually involving one or more data sources.

• 5 Be familiar with recent trends in juvenile delinquency

  •  Crime and delinquency rates trended upward between 1960 and 1991 when police recorded about 15 million crimes. Since then the number of crimes has been in decline.

  •  More than 1 million juvenile arrests are now being made annually.

  •  Juvenile delinquency continues to have a significant influence on the nation’s overall crime statistics.

• 6 Recognize the factors that affect the juvenile crime rate

  •  Because teenagers have extremely high crime rates, crime experts view changes in the population age distribution as having the greatest influence on crime trends.

  •  As a general rule, the crime rate follows the proportion of young males in the population.

  •  There is debate over the effect the economy has on crime rates. A drop in the delinquency rate has been linked to a strong economy. Some believe that a poor economy may actually help lower delinquency rates because it limits the opportunity kids have to commit crime.

  •  As the level of social problems increases—such as single-parent families, dropout rates, racial conflict, and teen pregnancies—so do delinquency rates.

  •  Racial conflict may also increase delinquency rates.

  •  There is evidence that the recent drop in the delinquency rate can be attributed to the availability of legalized abortion.

  •  The availability of firearms may influence the delinquency rate, especially the proliferation of weapons in the hands of teens.

  •  Another factor that affects delinquency rates is the explosive growth in teenage gangs.

  •  Some experts argue that violent media can influence the direction of delinquency rates.

• 7 List and discuss the social and personal correlates of delinquency

  •  Delinquents are disproportionately male, although female delinquency rates are rising faster than those for males.

  •  Minority youth are overrepresented in the delinquency rate, especially for violent crime.

  •  Experts are split on the cause of racial differences. Some believe they are a function of system bias; others see them as representing actual differences in the delinquency rate.

  •  Disagreement also exists over the relationship between class position and delinquency. Some experts believe that adolescent crime is a lower-class phenomenon, whereas others see it throughout the social structure.

  •  Problems in methodology have obscured the true class-crime relationship. However, official statistics indicate that lower-class youths are responsible for the most serious delinquent acts.

  •  There is general agreement that delinquency rates decline with age.

• 8 Discuss the concept of the chronic offender

  •  Some experts believe this phenomenon is universal, whereas others believe a small group of offenders persist in crime at a high rate.

  •  The age-crime relationship has spurred research on the nature of delinquency over the life course.

  •  Delinquency data show the existence of a chronic persistent offender who begins his or her offending career early in life and persists as an adult.

  •  Marvin Wolfgang and his colleagues identified chronic offenders in a series of cohort studies conducted in Philadelphia.

• 9 Identify the causes of chronic offending

  •  Ongoing research has identified the characteristics of persistent offenders as they mature, and both personality and social factors help us predict long-term offending patterns.

  •  Early involvement in criminal activity, relatively low intellectual development, and parental drug involvement have been linked to later chronic offending.

  •  Measurable problems in learning and motor skills, cognitive abilities, family relations, and other areas also predict chronicity.

  •  Apprehension and punishment seem to have little effect on offending behavior. Youths who have long juvenile records will most likely continue their offending careers into adulthood.

• 10 Be familiar with the factors that predict teen victimization

  •  Teenagers are much more likely to become victims of crime than are people in other age groups.

  •  Teens tend to be victimized by their peers.

  •  A majority of teens have been victimized by other teens, whereas victims ages 20 and over identified their attackers as being 21 or older.

  •  Teen victimization is intraracial. White teenagers tend to be victimized by white teens, and African American teenagers tend to be victimized by African American teens.

KEY TERMS

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), p. 39

Uniform Crime Report (UCR), p. 39

Part I crimes, p. 40

Part II crimes, p. 40

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), p. 42

self-report survey, p. 43

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), p. 45

disaggregated, p. 46

Roe v. Wade, p. 48

racial threat theory, p. 55

racial profiling, p. 55

age of onset, p. 58

continuity of crime, p. 62

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

What factors contribute to the aging-out process?

2.

Why are males more delinquent than females? Is it a matter of lifestyle, culture, or physical properties?

3.

Discuss the racial differences found in the crime rate. What factors account for differences in the African American and white crime rates?

4.

Should kids who have been arrested more than three times be given mandatory incarceration sentences?

5.

Do you believe that self-reports are an accurate method of gauging the nature and extent of delinquent behavior?

VIEWPOINT

As a juvenile court judge you are forced to make a tough decision during a hearing: whether a juvenile should be waived to the adult court. It seems that gang activity has become a way of life for residents living in local public housing projects. The Bloods sell crack, and the Wolfpack controls the drug market. When the rivalry between the two gangs exploded, 16-year-old Shatiek Johnson, a Wolfpack member, shot and killed a member of the Bloods; in retaliation, the Bloods put out a contract on his life. While in hiding, Shatiek was confronted by two undercover detectives who recognized the young fugitive. Fearing for his life, Shatiek pulled a pistol and began firing, fatally wounding one of the officers. During the hearing, you learn that Shatiek’s story is not dissimilar from that of many other children raised in tough housing projects. With an absent father and a single mother who could not control her five sons, Shatiek lived in a world of drugs, gangs, and shootouts long before he was old enough to vote. By age 13, Shatiek had been involved in the gang-beating death of a homeless man in a dispute over $10, for which he was given a one-year sentence at a youth detention center and released after six months. Now charged with a crime that could be considered first-degree murder if committed by an adult, Shatiek could—if waived to the adult court—be sentenced to life in prison or even face the death penalty.

At the hearing, Shatiek seems like a lost soul. He claims he thought the police officers were killers out to collect the bounty put on his life by the Bloods. He says that killing the rival gang boy was an act of self-defense. The district attorney confirms that the victim was in fact a known gang assassin with numerous criminal convictions. Shatiek’s mother begs you to consider the fact that her son is only 16 years old, that he has had a very difficult childhood, and that he is a victim of society’s indifference to the poor.

•  Would you treat Shatiek as a juvenile and see if a prolonged stay in a youth facility could help this troubled young man, or would you transfer (waive) him to the adult justice system?

•  Does a 16-year-old like Shatiek deserve a second chance?

•  Is Shatiek’s behavior common among adolescent boys or unusual and disturbing?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

To help you answer these questions and to learn more about gang membership, go to the Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program website (http://www.great-online.org/). The G.R.E.A.T. program is a school-based, law enforcement officer–instructed classroom curriculum. With prevention as its primary objective, the program is intended as an immunization against delinquency, youth violence, and gang membership.

Another valuable site is Find Youth Info (http://findyouthinfo.gov/), a collaborative web-based resource supported by various federal agencies focused on general youth-related issues. Find Youth Info is the US government website that helps users create, maintain, and strengthen effective youth programs. Included are youth facts, funding information, and tools to help users assess community assets, generate maps of local and federal resources, search for evidence-based youth programs, and keep up to date on the latest youth-related news.

For more information about these websites, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at cengagebrain.com, then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Sharon Chen, “Teens to Grow Old in Prison for Brutal Double Rape,” Fox5 San Diego, January 31, 2013, http://fox5sandiego.com/local-news/stories/teens-guilty-of-raping-girls-in-park/ (accessed May 2013).

2. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2012).

3. Bureau of Justice Statistics Data, 2012, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index .cfm?ty=tp&tid=96 (accessed May 2013).

4. Richard Felson, Steven Messner, Anthony Hoskin, and Glenn Deane, “Reasons for Reporting and Not Reporting Domestic Violence to the Police,” Criminology 40:617–648 (2002).

5. Bonnie Fisher, Leah Daigle, Francis Cullen, and Michael Turner, “Reporting Sexual Victimization to the Police and Others: Results from a National-Level Study of College Women,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 30:6–39 (2003).

6. Eric P. Baumer and Janet L. Lauritsen, “Reporting Crime to the Police, 1973–2005: A Multivariate Analysis of Long-term Trends in the National Crime Survey (NCS) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),” Criminology 48:131–185 (2010).

7. Duncan Chappell, Gilbert Geis, Stephen Schafer, and Larry Siegel, “Forcible Rape: A Comparative Study of Offenses Known to the Police in Boston and Los Angeles,” in James Henslin, ed., Studies in the Sociology of Sex (New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1971), pp. 169–193.

8. William K. Rashbaum, “Retired Officers Raise Questions on Crime Data,” New York Times, February 6, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/nyregion/07crime.html?scp=1&sq=police% 20crime%20data&st=cse (accessed May 2013).

9. Robert O’Brien, “Police Productivity and Crime Rates: 1973–1992,” Criminology 34:183–207 (1996).

10. FBI, UCR Handbook (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), p. 33.

11. A pioneering effort in self-report research is A. L. Porterfield, Youth in Trouble (Fort Worth, TX: Leo Potishman Foundation, 1946); for a review, see Robert Hardt and George Bodine, Development of Self-Report Instruments in Delinquency Research: A Conference Report (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Youth Development Center, 1965). See also Fred Murphy, Mary Shirley, and Helen Witner, “The Incidence of Hidden Delinquency,” American Journal of Orthopsychology 16:686–696 (1946).

12. Christiane Brems, Mark Johnson, David Neal, and Melinda Freemon, “Childhood Abuse History and Substance Use among Men and Women Receiving Detoxification Services,” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 30:799–821 (2004).

13. Lloyd Johnston, Patrick O’Malley, and Jerald Bachman, Monitoring the Future, 2012 (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 2012), http://www.monitoringthefuture.org (accessed May 2013).

14. D. Wayne Osgood, Lloyd Johnston, Patrick O’Malley, and Jerald Bachman, “The Generality of Deviance in Late Adolescence and Early Adulthood,” American Sociological Review 53:81–93 (1988).

15. Leonore Simon, “Validity and Reliability of Violent Juveniles: A Comparison of Juvenile Self-Reports with Adult Self-Reports Incarcerated in Adult Prisons,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, November 1995, p. 26.

16. Stephen Cernkovich, Peggy Giordano, and Meredith Pugh, “Chronic Offenders: The Missing Cases in Self-Report Delinquency Research,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 76:705–732 (1985).

17. Terence Thornberry, Beth Bjerregaard, and William Miles, “The Consequences of Respondent Attrition in Panel Studies: A Simulation Based on the Rochester Youth Development Study,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9:127–158 (1993).

18. Julia Yun Soo Kim, Michael Fendrich, and Joseph S. Wislar, “The Validity of Juvenile Arrestees’ Drug Use Reporting: A Gender Comparison,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:419–432 (2000).

19. See Spencer Rathus and Larry Siegel, “Crime and Personality Revisited: Effects of MMPI Sets on Self-Report Studies,” Criminology 18:245–251 (1980); John Clark and Larry Tifft, “Polygraph and Interview Validation of Self-Reported Deviant Behavior,” American Sociological Review 31:516–523 (1966).

20. Mallie Paschall, Miriam Ornstein, and Robert Flewelling, “African-American Male Adolescents’ Involvement in the Criminal Justice System: The Criterion Validity of Self-Report Measures in Prospective Study,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:174–187 (2001).

21. David Kirk, “Examining the Divergence Across Self-report and Official Data Sources on Inferences About the Adolescent Life-course of Crime,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 22:107–129 (2006).

22. Jennifer Roberts, Edward Mulvey, Julie Horney, John Lewis, and Michael Arter, “A Test of Two Methods of Recall for Violent Events,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:175–193 (2005).

23. Lila Kazemian and David Farrington, “Comparing the Validity of Prospective, Retrospective, and Official Onset for Different Offending Categories,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:127–147 (2005).

24. Vincent Webb, Charles Katz, and Scott Decker, “Assessing the Validity of Self-Reports by Gang Members: Results from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program,” Crime and Delinquency 52:232–252 (2006).

25. Michael Planty and Jennifer Truman, Criminal Victimization, 2011 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012), http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf (accessed May 2013).

26. L. Edward Wells and Joseph Rankin, “Juvenile Victimization: Convergent Validation of Alternative Measurements,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:287–307 (1995).

27. Thomas Bernard, “Juvenile Crime and the Transformation of Juvenile Justice: Is There a Juvenile Crime Wave?” Justice Quarterly 16:336–356 (1999).

28. For example, the following studies have noted the great discrepancy between official statistics and self-report studies: Maynard Erickson and LaMar Empey, “Court Records, Undetected Delinquency, and Decision Making,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 54: 456–469 (1963); Martin Gold, “Undetected Delinquent Behavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 3:27–46 (1966); James Short and F. Ivan Nye, “Extent of Unrecorded Delinquency, Tentative Conclusions,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 49:296–302 (1958).

29. Barbara Warner and Brandi Wilson Coomer, “Neighborhood Drug Arrest Rates: Are They a Meaningful Indicator of Drug Activity? A Research Note,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:123–139 (2003).

30. Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and Richard Rosenfeld, “Trend and Deviation in Crime Rates: A Comparison of UCR and NCVS Data for Burglary and Robbery,” Criminology 29:237–248 (1991). See also Michael Hindelang, Travis Hirschi, and Joseph Weis, Measuring Delinquency (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981).

31. James A. Fox, Trends in Juvenile Violence: A Report to the United States Attorney General on Current and Future Rates of Juvenile Offending (Boston: Northeastern University, 1996).

32. Steven Levitt, “The Limited Role of Changing Age Structure in Explaining Aggregate Crime Rates,” Criminology 37:581–599 (1999).

33. Julie Phillips, “The Relationship between Age Structure and Homicide Rates in the United States, 1970 to 1999,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:230–260 (2006).

34. Brad Bushman, Morgan Wang, and Craig Anderson, “Is the Curve Relating Temperature to Aggression Linear or Curvilinear? Assaults and Temperature in Minneapolis Reexamined,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:62–66 (2005).

35. Paul Bell, “Reanalysis and Perspective in the Heat-Aggression Debate,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:71–73 (2005); Ellen Cohn, “The Prediction of Police Calls for Service: The Influence of Weather and Temporal Variables on Rape and Domestic Violence,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 13:71–83 (1993).

36. Michael Hindelang, Travis Hirschi, and Joseph Weis, Measuring Delinquency (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981); Gary Jensen and Raymond Eve, “Sex Differences in Delinquency: An Examination of Popular Sociological Explanation,” Criminology 13:427–448 (1976); Michael Hindelang, “Age, Sex, and the Versatility of Delinquent Involvements,” Social Problems 18:522–535 (1979); James Short and F. Ivan Nye, “Extent of Unrecorded Juvenile Delinquency, Tentative Conclusions,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 49:296–302 (1958).

37. Leroy Gould, “Who Defines Delinquency? A Comparison of Self-Report and Officially Reported Indices of Delinquency for Three Racial Groups,” Social Problems 16:325–336 (1969); Harwin Voss, “Ethnic Differentials in Delinquency in Honolulu,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 54:322–327 (1963); Ronald Akers, Marvin Krohn, Marcia Radosevich, and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, “Social Characteristics and Self-Reported Delinquency,” in Gary Jensen, ed., Sociology of Delinquency (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981), pp. 48–62.

38. David Huizinga and Delbert Elliott, “Juvenile Offenders: Prevalence, Offender Incidence, and Arrest Rates by Race,” Crime and Delinquency 33:206–223 (1987); see also Dale Dannefer and Russell Schutt, “Race and Juvenile Justice Processing in Court and Police Agencies,” American Journal of Sociology 87:1113–1132 (1982).

39. Paul Tracy, “Race and Class Differences in Official and Self-Reported Delinquency,” in Marvin Wolfgang, Terrence Thornberry, and Robert Figlio, eds., From Boy to Man, from Delinquency to Crime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 120.

40. Monitoring the Future, 2012.

41. Samuel Walker, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam DeLone, The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America (Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1992), pp. 46–47.

42. Miriam Sealock and Sally Simpson, “Unraveling Bias in Arrest Decisions: The Role of Juvenile Offender Typescripts,” Justice Quarterly 15:427–457 (1998).

43. Andres F. Rengifo and Don Stemen, “The Unintended Effects of Penal Reform: African American Presence, Incarceration, and the Abolition of Discretionary Parole in the United States,” Crime and Delinquency, first published online on May 25, 2012; David Eitle and Susanne Monahan,” Revisiting the Racial Threat Thesis: The Role of Police Organizational Characteristics in Predicting Race-Specific Drug Arrest Rates,” Justice Quarterly 26:528–561 (2009).

44. Malcolm Holmes, Brad Smith, Adrienne Freng, and Ed Muñoz, “Minority Threat, Crime Control, and Police Resource Allocation in the Southwestern United States,” Crime and Delinquency 54:128–152 (2008).

45. Bradley Keen and David Jacobs, “Racial Threat, Partisan Politics, and Racial Disparities in Prison Admissions,” Criminology 47:209–238 (2009).

46. Tammy Rinehart Kochel, David B. Wilson, and Stephen D. Mastrofski, “Effect of Suspect Race on Officers’ Arrest Decisions,” Criminology 49:473–512 (2011).

47. Kenneth Novak and Mitchell Chamlin, “Racial Threat, Suspicion, and Police Behavior: The Impact of Race and Place in Traffic Enforcement,” Crime and Delinquency 58:275–300 (2012).

48. Richard Rosenfeld, Jeff Rojek, and Scott Decker, “Age Matters: Race Differences in Police Searches of Young and Older Male Drivers “Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49:31–55 (2011).

49. Rodney Engen, Sara Steen, and George Bridges, “Racial Disparities in the Punishment of Youth: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of the Literature,” Social Problems 49:194–221 (2002).

50. Karen Parker, Brian Stults, and Stephen Rice, “Racial Threat, Concentrated Disadvantage and Social Control: Considering the Macro-Level Sources of Variation in Arrests,” Criminology 43: 1111–1134 (2005); Lisa Stolzenberg, Stewart J. D’Alessio, and David Eitle, “A Multilevel Test of Racial Threat Theory,” Criminology 42: 673–698 (2004).

51. Michael Leiber and Kristan Fox, “Race and the Impact of Detention on Juvenile Justice Decision Making,” Crime and Delinquency 51:470–497 (2005); Traci Schlesinger, “Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Pretrial Criminal Processing,” Justice Quarterly 22:170–192 (2005).

52. Christina DeJong and Kenneth Jackson, “Putting Race into Context: Race, Juvenile Justice Processing, and Urbanization,” Justice Quarterly 15:487–504 (1998).

53. Michael Hallett, “Reentry to What? Theorizing Prisoner Reentry in the Jobless Future,” Critical Criminology 20:213–228 (2012).

54. Engen, Steen, and Bridges, “Racial Disparities in the Punishment of Youth.”

55. David Eitle, Stewart D’Alessio, and Lisa Stolzenberg, “Racial Threat and Social Control: A Test of the Political, Economic, and Threat of Black Crime Hypotheses,” Social Forces 81:557–576 (2002); Michael Leiber and Jayne Stairs, “Race, Contexts, and the Use of Intake Diversion,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:56–86 (1999); Darrell Steffensmeier, Jeffery Ulmer, and John Kramer, “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male,” Criminology 36:763–798 (1998).

56. Robert Sampson, “Race and Criminal Violence: A Demographically Disaggregated Analysis of Urban Homicide,” Crime and Delinquency 31:47–82 (1985).

57. Walker, Spohn, and DeLone, The Color of Justice, pp. 47–48.

58. Mallie Paschall, Robert Flewelling, and Susan Ennett, “Racial Differences in Violent Behavior among Young Adults: Moderating and Confounding Effects,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:148–165 (1998).

59. Gary LaFree and Richard Arum, “The Impact of Racially Inclusive Schooling on Adult Incarceration Rates among U.S. Cohorts of African Americans and Whites Since 1930,” Criminology 44:73–103 (2006).

60. Julie Phillips, “Variation in African-American Homicide Rates: An Assessment of Potential Explanations,” Criminology 35:527–559 (1997).

61. Melvin Thomas, “Race, Class, and Personal Income: An Empirical Test of the Declining Significance of Race Thesis, 1968–1988,” Social Problems 40:328–339 (1993).

62. Thomas McNulty and Paul Bellair, “Explaining Racial and Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Violence: Structural Disadvantage, Family Well-Being, and Social Capital,” Justice Quarterly 20:1–32 (2003).

63. Julie Phillips, “White, Black, and Latino Homicide Rates: Why the Difference?” Social Problems 49:349–374 (2002).

64. Robert Agnew, “A General Strain Theory of Community Differences in Crime Rates,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:123–155 (1999).

65. Bonita Vesey and Steven Messner, “Further Testing of Social Disorganization Theory: An Elaboration of Sampson and Groves’s ‘Community Structure and Crime,’” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:156–174 (1999).

66. Carter Hay, Edward Fortson, Dusten Hollist, Irshad Altheimer, and Lonnie Schaible, “Compounded Risk: The Implications for Delinquency of Coming from a Poor Family that Lives in a Poor Community,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36:593–605 (2007).

67. James Short and Ivan Nye, “Reported Behavior as a Criterion of Deviant Behavior,” Social Problems 5:207–213 (1958).

68. Classic studies include Ivan Nye, James Short, and Virgil Olsen, “Socioeconomic Status and Delinquent Behavior,” American Journal of Sociology 63:381–389 (1958); Robert Dentler and Lawrence Monroe, “Social Correlates of Early Adolescent Theft,” American Sociological Review 26:733–743 (1961); Charles Tittle, Wayne Villemez, and Douglas Smith, “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the Empirical Evidence,” American Sociological Review 43:643–656 (1978).

69. Nancy Rodriguez, “Concentrated Disadvantage and the Incarceration of Youth: Examining How Context Affects Juvenile Justice,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, first published on December 13, 2011.

70. Charles Tittle and Robert Meier, “Specifying the SES/Delinquency Relationship,” Criminology 28:271–301 (1990); R. Gregory Dunaway, Francis Cullen, Velmer Burton, and T. David Evans, “The Myth of Social Class and Crime Revisited: An Examination of Class and Adult Criminality,” Criminology 38:589–632 (2000).

71. Dunaway, Cullen, Burton, and Evans, “The Myth of Social Class and Crime Revisited.”

72. Margaret Farnworth, Terence Thornberry, Marvin Krohn, and Alan Lizotte, Measurement in the Study of Class and Delinquency: Integrating Theory and Research, working paper no. 4, rev. (Albany, NY: Rochester Youth Development Survey, 1992), p. 19.

73. G. Roger Jarjoura and Ruth Triplett, “Delinquency and Class: A Test of the Proximity Principle,” Justice Quarterly 14:765–792 (1997).

74. See, generally, David Farrington, “Age and Crime,” in Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, eds., Crime and Justice: An Annual Review, vol. 7 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), pp. 189–250; Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson, “Age and the Explanation of Crime,” American Journal of Sociology 89:552–584 (1983).

75. James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), pp. 126–147.

76. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, “The True Value of Lambda Would Appear to Be Zero: An Essay on Career Criminals, Criminal Careers, Selective Incapacitation, Cohort Studies, and Related Topics,” Criminology 24:213–234 (1986); further support for their position can be found in Lawrence Cohen and Kenneth Land, “Age Structure and Crime,” American Sociological Review 52:170–183 (1987).

77. Misaki Natsuaki, Xiaojia Ge, and Ernst Wenk, “Continuity and Changes in the Developmental Trajectories of Criminal Career: Examining the Roles of Timing of First Arrest and High School Graduation,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37:431–444 (2008).

78. Marvin Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972); Lyle Shannon, Assessing the Relationship of Adult Criminal Careers to Juvenile Careers: A Summary (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1982); D. J. West and David P. Farrington, The Delinquent Way of Life (London: Heinemann, 1977); Donna Hamparian, Richard Schuster, Simon Dinitz, and John Conrad, The Violent Few (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1978).

79. Margo Wilson and Martin Daly, “Life Expectancy, Economic Inequality, Homicide, and Reproductive Timing in Chicago Neighbourhoods,” British Journal of Medicine 31:1271–1274 (1997).

80. Edward Mulvey and John LaRosa, “Delinquency Cessation and Adolescent Development: Preliminary Data,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:212–224 (1986).

81. Timothy Brezina, “Delinquent Problem-Solving: An Interpretive Framework for Criminological Theory and Research,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:3–30 (2000).

82. Gordon Trasler, “Cautions for a Biological Approach to Crime,” in Sarnoff Mednick, Terrie Moffitt, and Susan Stack, eds., The Causes of Crime, New Biological Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 7–25.

83. Alicia Rand, “Transitional Life Events and Desistance from Delinquency and Crime,” in Wolfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, eds., From Boy to Man, pp. 134–163.

84. Marc LeBlanc, “Late Adolescence Deceleration of Criminal Activity and Development of Self- and Social-Control,” Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 2:51–68 (1993).

85. Ibid.

86. Ryan King, Michael Massoglia, and Ross MacMillan, “The Context of Marriage and Crime: Gender, the Propensity to Marry, and Offending in Early Adulthood,” Criminology 45:33–65 (2007).

87. Barry Glassner, Margaret Ksander, Bruce Berg, and Bruce Johnson, “Note on the Deterrent Effect of Juvenile vs. Adult Jurisdiction,” Social Problems 31:219–221 (1983).

88. Neal Shover and Carol Thompson, “Age, Differential Expectations, and Crime Desistance,” Criminology 30:89–104 (1992).

89. Lila Kazemian and David Farrington, “Exploring Residual Career Length and Residual Number of Offenses for Two Generations of Repeat Offenders,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:89–113 (2006).

90. Arnold Barnett, Alfred Blumstein, and David Farrington, “A Prospective Test of a Criminal Career Model,” Criminology 27:373–388 (1989).

91. Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort.

92. Paul Tracy, Marvin Wolfgang, and Robert Figlio, Delinquency in Two Birth Cohorts, Executive Summary (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1985).

93. Shannon, Assessing the Relationship of Adult Criminal Careers to Juvenile Careers; Howard Snyder, Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1988); Donald J. West and David P. Farrington, The Delinquent Way of Life (London: Heinemann, 1977); Donna Hamparian, Richard Schuster, Simon Dinitz, and John Conrad, The Violent Few (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1978).

94. See, generally, Wolfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, From Boy to Man.

95. Paul Tracy and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, Continuity and Discontinuity in Criminal Careers (New York: Plenum, 1996).

96. R. Tremblay, R. Loeber, C. Gagnon, P. Charlebois, S. Larivee, and M. LeBlanc, “Disruptive Boys with Stable and Unstable High Fighting Behavior Patterns During Junior Elementary School,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 19:285–300 (1991).

97. Peter Jones, Philip Harris, James Fader, and Lori Grubstein, “Identifying Chronic Juvenile Offenders,” Justice Quarterly 18:478–507 (2001).

98. Jennifer White, Terrie Moffitt, Felton Earls, Lee Robins, and Phil Silva, “How Early Can We Tell? Predictors of Childhood Conduct Disorder and Adolescent Delinquency,” Criminology 28:507–535 (1990).

99. Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, Paul Tracy, and James Howell, “Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: The Relationship of Delinquency Career Types to Adult Criminality,” Justice Quarterly 18: 449–478 (2001).

100. Kimberly Kempf, “Crime Severity and Criminal Career Progression,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 79:524–540 (1988).

101. Jeffrey Fagan, “Social and Legal Policy Dimensions of Violent Juvenile Crime,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 17:93–133 (1990).

102. Peter Greenwood, Selective Incapacitation (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1982).

103. Terence Thornberry, David Huizinga, and Rolf Loeber, “The Prevention of Serious Delinquency and Violence,” in James Howell, Barry Krisberg, J. David Hawkins, and John Wilson, eds., Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).

104. Nicole White and Janet Lauritsen, Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994–2010, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2012, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf (accessed May 2013).

105. David Finkelhor, Richard Ormrod, Heather Turner, and Sherry Hamby, Child and Youth Victimization Known to Police, School, and Medical Authorities, OJJDP National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence Series, 2012, http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/235394.pdf (accessed May 2013).

106. Erika Harrell, Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993–2010, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf (accessed May 2013).

3: Individual Views of Delinquency

Chapter Outline

Rational Choice Theory

• The Rational Delinquent

• Shaping Delinquent Choices

• Routine Activities

Controlling Delinquency

• General Deterrence

• Specific Deterrence

• Incapacitation

• Situational Crime Prevention

• Why Do Delinquents Choose Delinquency?

Trait Theories: Biosocial and Psychological Views

• Origins of Trait Theory

Contemporary Biosocial Theory

• Vulnerability vs. Differential Susceptibility

• Biochemical Factors

• Neurological Dysfunction

• Genetic Influences

• The Association between Inherited Traits and Delinquency

• Evolutionary Theory

Psychological Theories of Delinquency

• Psychodynamic Theory

• Attachment Theory

• Mental Disorders and Delinquency

• Behavioral Theory

• Cognitive Theory

• Personality and Delinquency

• Intelligence and Delinquency

• Critiquing Individual-Level Theories

• Trait Theory and Delinquency Prevention

Learning Objectives

• 1 Be familiar with and distinguish between the two branches of individual-level theories of delinquency

• 2 Know the principles of choice theory

• 3 Discuss the routine activities theory of delinquency

• 4 Know the principles of general deterrence theory

• 5 Be familiar with the concept of specific deterrence

• 6 Discuss the concept of situational crime prevention

• 7 Trace the history and development of trait theory

• 8 Be familiar with the branches and substance of biological trait theory

• 9 Know the various psychological theories of delinquency

• 10 Be familiar with the psychological traits that have been linked to delinquency

chapter features

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice— prevention: Using Diet to Control Delinquent Behavior

Case profile: Timothy’s Story

Professional Spotlight: Julie Medlin, Ph.D.

focus on Delinquency: The Media and Delinquency

Youth Stories: The Zantop Killings

Case profile: Eric’s Story

FROM THE TIME HE WAS LITTLE, Adam Lanza couldn’t bear to be touched. By middle school, the commotion in his classroom upset him and kept him apart from other kids. At age 6, he was diagnosed with “sensory integration disorder”—now known as sensory processing disorder (SPD), which made him over-respond to stimuli and find clothing, physical contact, light, sound, and food unendurable. Those with SPD may also under-respond and feel little or no reaction to pain or extreme hot and cold. There may be sensory motor problems that can cause weakness and clumsiness or delay in developing motor skills. His mother, Nancy, warned people about him. One of her friends told reporters, “Adam was a quiet kid. He never said a word. There was a weirdness about him, and Nancy warned me once at one of the Scout meetings… ‘Don’t touch Adam.’ She said he just can’t stand that. He’d become teary-eyed and I think he would run to his mother.” Could his psychological condition be the reason why on December 14, 2012, the withdrawn Lanza shot his mother four times in her own bed, then went to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and killed six female teachers and administrators and massacred 20 first-graders before taking his own life?1

The recent spate of mass killings highlights the fact that the availability of mental health treatment may be linked to violent crime rates. Take for example mass shootings such as the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre in which the perpetrator Adam Lanza is believed to have suffered mental illness. Adam Lankford studied mass shootings and found that in the 1980s, there were 18. In the 1990s, there were 54. In the 2000s, there were 87. At the same time, the availability of mental-health treatment has been reduced by budget cuts, and as a result the number of state hospital beds in America per capita has dropped to 1850 levels, or 14.1 beds per 100,000 people.2 If more treatment were available for people like Lanza, would such incidents of mass shootings as the Newtown massacre be prevented?

Adam Lanza, 13 years old

Some delinquency experts believe that the decision to commit an illegal act is a product of an individual-level decision-making process shaped by the personal characteristics and traits of the decision maker. Delinquents are not in fact a “product of their environment,” but instead, individual actors, sometimes directed by some inner trait—selfish temperament, impulsive personality, abnormal hormones, mental illness—in their choice of antisocial over conventional behaviors.

If delinquency, the argument goes, reflects social and economic factors, how is it that many youths residing in the most dangerous and deteriorated neighborhoods are law-abiding citizens? According to the most recent US Census Bureau data (2011), more than 48 million Americans live in poverty, including millions of children, yet the vast majority of poor people do not become delinquents and criminals or join law-violating youth gangs.3 Research indicates that relatively few youths in any population, even the most economically disadvantaged, actually become hard-core, chronic delinquents.4 If poverty and environment were solely responsible for antisocial behaviors, there would be many more delinquent youths, and crime rates would be increasing.

If social factors are not responsible for the onset of delinquency, what is? To some theorists, the locus of delinquency is rooted in the individual: how the individual makes decisions, the quality of his or her biological makeup, and his or her personality and psychological profile.

Individual-level explanations of delinquency can be divided into two distinct categories. One position, referred to as choice theory, suggests that young offenders choose to engage in antisocial activity because they believe their actions will be beneficial and profitable. Whether they join a gang, steal cars, or sell drugs, their delinquent acts are motivated by the reasoned belief that illegal acts can be profitable and relatively risk free. They have little fear of getting caught and, if they are apprehended, discount the legal consequences. Some are motivated by fantasies of riches, whereas others may simply enjoy the excitement and short-term gratification produced by delinquent acts such as beating up an opponent or stealing a car.

choice theory

Holds that youths will engage in delinquent and criminal behavior after weighing the consequences and benefits of their actions; delinquent behavior is a rational choice made by a motivated offender who perceives that the chances of gain outweigh any possible punishment or loss.

All youthful misbehavior, however, cannot be traced to rational choice, profit motive, or criminal entrepreneurship. Some delinquent acts, especially violent ones, seem irrational, selfish, and/or hedonistic. Some delinquency experts believe that these seemingly irrational and destructive antisocial behaviors, such as Adam Lanza’s mass shooting, may be inspired by aberrant physical or psychological traits rather than rational thought and decision making. While it may be true that some youths choose to get involved in delinquent behaviors, others may be driven by biological or psychological abnormalities, such as hyperactivity, low intelligence, biochemical imbalance, or genetic defects. This view of delinquency is referred to here generally as trait theory because it links delinquency to biological and psychological traits that control human development.

trait theory

Holds that youths engage in delinquent or criminal behavior due to aberrant physical or psychological traits that govern behavioral choices; delinquent actions are impulsive or instinctual rather than rational choices.

Choice and trait theories, though independent, are linked here because they share some common ground:

•  Both focus on mental and behavioral processes at the individual level. Delinquency is an individual-level problem, not a social problem.

•  Both recognize that because all people are different, each person reacts to the same set of environmental and social conditions in a unique way. Not all people living under the same socioeconomic conditions behave in the same manner or react in the same manner.

•  Because the root cause of delinquency is located at the individual level, delinquency prevention and control efforts must be directed at the individual offender. We must change people rather than society.

This chapter first covers those theoretical models that focus on individual choice. Then we discuss the view that biological and psychological development controls youngsters’ ability to make choices, rendering some of them violent, aggressive, and antisocial.

Rational Choice Theory

The first formal explanations of crime and delinquency held that human behavior was a matter of choice. Because it was assumed that people had free will to choose their behavior, those who violated the law were motivated by personal needs such as greed, revenge, survival, and hedonism. Over 250 years ago, Cesare Beccaria argued that people weigh the benefits and consequences of their future actions before deciding on a course of behavior.5 His writings formed the core of what is referred to today as classical criminology.

free will

View that people are in charge of their own destinies and are free to make personal behavior choices unencumbered by environmental factors.

classical criminology

Holds that decisions to violate the law are weighed against possible punishments, and to deter crime, the pain of punishment must outweigh the benefit of illegal gain; led to graduated punishments based on seriousness of the crime (let the punishment fit the crime).

According to this “classical view,” the decision to violate the law comes after a careful weighing of the benefits and costs of criminal behaviors. Most potential law violators would cease their actions if the potential pain associated with a behavior outweighed its anticipated gain; conversely, law-violating behavior seems attractive if the future rewards seem far greater than the potential punishment.6

Classical criminologists argued that punishment should be only severe enough to deter a particular offense and that punishments should be graded according to the seriousness of particular crimes: “Let the punishment fit the crime.” In his famous analysis, Beccaria stated that to be effective, punishment must be sufficiently severe, certain, and swift to control crime. If rapists and murderers were punished in a similar fashion—put to death—it might encourage a rapist to kill his victims in order to prevent them from calling the police or testifying in court.7

The Rational Delinquent

According to the rational choice view, delinquents are rational decision makers who choose to violate the law. Before they decide to commit a delinquent act, they weigh the possible benefits or profits, such as cash to buy cars, clothes, and other luxury items, with the potential costs or penalties, such as arrest followed by a long stay in a juvenile facility. If, for instance, they believe that drug dealers are rarely caught and even then usually avoid severe punishments, the youths will more likely choose to become dealers than if they believe that dealers are almost always caught and punished by lengthy prison terms. Some kids may know people or hear about criminals who make a significant income from illegal activities and want to follow in their footsteps.8

Once involved in antisocial activities, many delinquent kids take a reasoned approach to their criminal enterprises. Those who join drug-dealing street gangs demonstrate a reasoned analysis of market conditions, interests, and risks. When James Densley studied gangs in London, he found that they evolved from nonviolent, noncriminal adolescent peer groups and into organized criminal enterprises.9 Nothing was left to chance, one gang member, street name “Wolverine,” explained to Denlsey,

We was committing crimes so we sat down together, it was like a meeting, I suppose and we just gave each other names and it started like that. Because it was not like socializing, it was actually going out to commit crime and do stuff. We was premeditating what we was doing before it happened. Planning it up.

Get more information on Cesare Beccaria via the Constitution Society (http://www.constitution.org/cb/beccaria_bio.htm) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/beccaria/), or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at cengagebrain.com, then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Densley found that gang boys learn special skills—how to seize territory, how to use violence, how to maintain secrecy, how to obtain intelligence—that enable them to successfully regulate and control the production and distribution of illegal drugs while maximizing their profits.

Shaping Delinquent Choices

Choice theorists believe that law-violating behavior occurs when a reasoning offender decides to take the chance of violating the law after considering his or her personal situation (need for money, learning experiences, opportunities for conventional success), values (conscience, moral values, need for peer approval), and situation (overcoming some immediate problem). What are some of the most important social developments that produce or influence delinquent decision making?

Personal Problems

Kids may be forced to choose delinquent behavior to help them solve problems.10 Adolescents may find themselves feeling “out of control” because society limits their opportunities and resources. By engaging in antisocial behaviors, some adolescents are able to exert control over their own lives and destinies. When they cut school they are avoiding a situation they find uncomfortable; when they run away from home they may be fleeing from physical or sexual abuse. Delinquency may also enable them to obtain things they desire by stealing or selling drugs to buy stylish outfits, or deal with rivals or adversaries by getting a gun for self-protection from a local gang.

Financial Needs/Rewards

The choice of delinquency may be shaped by economic needs. Kids who use drugs may increase their delinquent activities in proportion to the costs of their habit. As the cost of their drug habit increases, the lure of illegal profits becomes overwhelmingly attractive.11

Kids may also choose delinquency because they believe they have little chance of becoming successful in the conventional world. In the long run, they view drug dealing and car thefts as their ticket to a better life; in the short run, delinquency can provide them with the cash for bling. When Steven Levitt and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh studied the financial rewards of being in a drug gang, they found that despite enormous risks to their health, life, and freedom, the average gang member earned slightly more than what they could in the legitimate labor market (about $6–$11 per hour).12 Why did they stay in the gang? Gang members believed that there was a strong potential for future riches if they stayed in the drug business and achieved a “management” position as a gang leader who earned quite a bit more than the rank-and-file members.13 In reality, the likelihood of becoming a well-off gang leader was pretty remote, but kids based their behavior on what they believed would happen in the future and not upon what was really likely to occur—for example, the likelihood that they would get shot, go to jail, and never actually become a gang leader.

Parental Controls and Supervision

Adolescents whose parents are poor supervisors have the freedom to socialize with their peers, an opportunity that enables them to engage in deviant behaviors.14 Teenage boys may have the highest crime rates because they, rather than their sisters, are given autonomy and unsupervised socialization.15 Physically mature girls have a lifestyle more similar to boys, and without parental supervision they are the ones most likely to engage in antisocial acts.16

The lack of supervision can neutralize any positive benefits accrued from after-school or summer jobs. Though gainful employment sounds like a healthy choice, an adolescent’s work experience may actually increase delinquency rather than limit its occurrence. Rather than saving for college as their parents hope, kids who get jobs use their cash to buy drugs and alcohol; after-school jobs may attract teens who are more impulsive than ambitious.17 At work, they have the opportunity for unsupervised socialization with their peers; lack of parental supervision increases criminal motivation.18 Though some adults may think that providing teens with a job will reduce criminal activity—under the theory that “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”—some aspects of the work experience, such as autonomy, increased social status among peers, and increased income, may neutralize the positive effects of working. The after-school job effect is most pronounced on novice delinquents who may be experiencing unsupervised freedom for the first time. In contrast, experienced offenders may actually benefit from an after-school job.19

Revenge, Deterrence, and Vengeance

Some adolescents may choose crime in order to retaliate against a hated rival or seek vengeance for an actual or perceived wrong. Psychologist Richard Felson argues that violence can be used to achieve a number of specific goals:

•  Control. The violent person may want to control his victim’s behavior and life.

•  Retribution. Violence may be used to punish someone without calling the police or using the justice system to address grievances. Kids will take the law into their own hands if they do not trust the law.

•  Deterrence. The attacker may want to stop or deter someone from repeating acts that he considers hostile or provocative.

•  Reputation. An attack may be motivated by the need to enhance reputation and create self-importance in the eyes of others. Kids with a tough rep shield themselves from revenge and retribution if they choose to victimize other adolescents.20

Scott Jacques investigated the forms of drug market retaliation and found that dealers use a number of rational techniques to retaliate if they feel they have been wronged or cheated; Exhibit 3.1 shows the patterns Jacques found that seem to follow a rational pattern.21

exhibit 3.1: Forms of Retaliation in the Drug Trade

Nonviolent Retaliation

•  Stealth retaliation. Defined as “nonviolent revenge gained through resource confiscation without interaction between the retaliator and wrongdoer during the transfer.” Here, some kind of resource, such as drugs, money, or jewelry, is taken or confiscated in retaliation for a perceived wrong. So if a dealer feels he may have been ripped off, he may break into his victim’s apartment and take his plasma TV and a kilo of drugs for good measure.

•  Fraudulent retaliation. Defined as “nonviolent retribution accomplished using deception to trick a wrongdoer into an unfair trade.” For example, after realizing he was short-changed in a drug deal, a gang boy sells his rival a gram of bogus or doctored cocaine. Fraudulent retaliation schemes can involve immediate payback, or may involve elaborate scams that take weeks to pull off.

Violent Retaliation

•  Violent confiscation. Defined as “retaliation that involves both violence and resource confiscation.” Sometimes drug dealers will use violence to rip off their opponents. They may stage a robbery and steal a pound of marijuana or kidnap a member of a rival gang and hold him for ransom.

•  Pure fight. Defined as “violent vengeance that does not involve resource transfer between disputants.” A pure fight may occur when a gang boy feels a rival is poaching on his territory and decides to “take him out” in order to protect his turf and maintain his tough guy rep.

SOURCE: From Scott Jacques, “The Necessary Conditions for Retaliation: Toward a Theory of Non-Violent and Violent Forms in Drug Markets,” Justice Quarterly 27:186–205. Copyright © 2010 by Routledge. Reprinted by permission.

Creating Scripts

As they gain experience some kids create scripts that guide their interactions with victims. If they follow the script, they can commit their crimes and avoid detection. For example, before committing their crimes, young sex offenders will go through a series of steps, first locating their victims in institutional, domestic, or public locations, then gaining their victims’ trust, and then formulating strategies to proceed to the best location for sexual contact. For that purpose, offenders will usually promise rewards or give inducements such as money to the victim or even threaten or use violence to get their way.22

Routine Activities

Given the fact that youthful behavior may be shaped by life experiences, why do some kids choose to commit crimes while others are resigned to a conventional lifestyle? And are there structural factors that influence delinquent decision making? According to routine activities theory, originally developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, the volume and distribution of predatory crime (violent crimes against the person and crimes in which an offender attempts to steal an object directly from its holder) are influenced by the interaction of three variables that reflect the routine activities found in everyday American life: the lack of capable guardians (such as homeowners and their neighbors, friends, and relatives), the availability of suitable targets (such as homes containing easily salable goods), and the presence of motivated offenders (such as unemployed teenagers). If each of these components is present, there is greater likelihood that a predatory crime will take place (see Figure 3.1).23

routine activities theory

View that crime is a “normal” function of the routine activities of modern living; offenses can be expected if there is a motivated offender and a suitable target that is not protected by capable guardians.

predatory crime

Violent crimes against people, and crimes in which an offender attempts to steal an object directly from its holder.

figure 3.1: Routine Activities Theory Posits the Interaction of Three Factors Helps Explain Fluctuations in the Delinquency Rate

Capable Guardians

The presence of capable guardians who can protect homes and possessions can reduce the motivation to commit delinquent acts. Even the most motivated offenders may ignore valuable targets if they are well guarded. Private homes and/or public businesses may be considered off-limits if they are well protected by capable guardians and efficient security systems.24 Since 1970, the number of adult caretakers at home during the day decreased because more women entered the workforce. Because mothers are at work and children are in daycare, homes are left unguarded and become suitable targets. Similarly, with the growth of suburbia and the decline of the traditional neighborhood, the number of such familiar guardians as family, neighbors, and friends has diminished.25 Research shows that crime levels are relatively low in neighborhoods where residents keep a watchful eye on their neighbors’ property.26 Parents who monitor their children’s activities serve as guardians. The more time kids spend with their parents and the less time with their friends, the more limited their opportunity to commit delinquent activities.27

Betty, 14 (right), with her friend, Christian, 14, are shown hanging out in a city park. Betty, the newcomer in the park, decided to run away after getting involved in numerous family conflicts. “I’m just tired of it all, and I don’t want to be in my house anymore,” she said, explaining why she had run away. “One month there is money, and the next month there is none. One day, she [her mother] is taking it out on me and hitting me, and the next day she is ignoring me. It’s more stable out here…. I can survive fine out here,” Betty said as she brandished a switchblade she pulled from her dirty sweatshirt pocket. At a nearby picnic table was part of the world she and the others were trying to avoid: a man with swastikas tattooed on his neck and an older homeless woman with rotted teeth, holding a pit bull named Diablo. Was Betty’s decision to run away truly rational?

Delinquent youth are also wary of police guardianship. In order to convince them that “crime does not pay,” cities have been putting more police on the street. Proactive, aggressive law enforcement officers who quickly get to the scene of the crime help deter would-be delinquents by reducing their criminal motivation.28

Suitable Targets

Routine activities theory suggests that the availability of suitable targets such as easily transportable commodities will increase delinquency rates.29 Research has generally supported the fact that the more wealth a home contains, the more likely it will become a target.30 As laptop computers, smart phones, tablets such as iPads, and netbooks become more commonplace, burglary rates have risen. The more high-priced, easily transported, and easily resold goods are made available, the more offenders will be motivated to profit from their theft.31

Motivated Offenders

As the number and motivation of offenders increase, so too do delinquency rates. What increases delinquent motivation? One possible source is scarcity of resources. Delinquency rates may increase if there is a surplus of youths of the same age category competing for a limited number of jobs and educational opportunities.

Motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the lack of guardianship have an interactive effect. Delinquency rates will increase if these motivated offenders are placed in close proximity to unguarded, suitable targets. Take after-school programs, for example. Although many adults believe that such programs can reduce delinquency levels, after-school programs designed to reduce criminal activity may produce higher crime rates because they lump together motivated offenders—teen boys—with vulnerable victims, other teen boys.32

Controlling Delinquency

If delinquency is a rational choice as some believe, then delinquency prevention is a matter of three general strategies: (1) It stands to reason that it can be prevented by convincing potential delinquents that they will be severely punished for committing delinquent acts; then (2) they must be punished so severely that they never again commit crimes; or (3) it must be so difficult to commit crimes that the potential gain is not worth the risk. This vision has generated four strategies of control: general deterrence, specific deterrence, incapacitation, and situational crime prevention. Each is discussed below.

General Deterrence

The general deterrence concept holds that the choice to commit delinquent acts is structured by the threat of punishment. If kids believe they will get away with illegal behavior, they may choose to commit crime.33 If, on the other hand, kids believe that their illegal behavior will result in apprehension and severe punishment, only the truly irrational would commit crime; they would be deterred.34

general deterrence

Crime control policies that depend on the fear of criminal penalties, such as long prison sentences for violent crimes; the aim is to convince law violators that the pain outweighs the benefit of criminal activity.

One of the guiding principles of deterrence theory is that the more severe, certain, and swift the punishment, the greater its deterrent effect will be.35 Even if a particular crime carries a severe punishment, there will be relatively little deterrent effect if most people do not believe they will be caught.36 Conversely, even a mild sanction may deter delinquency if kids believe punishment is certain.37 So if the juvenile justice system can convince would-be delinquents that they will be caught—for example, by putting more police officers on the street—they may decide that delinquency simply does not pay.38

Perception and Deterrence

According to deterrence theory, not only the actual chance of punishment but also the perception that punishment will be forthcoming influence the decision to engage in delinquency.39 A central theme of deterrence theory is that people who believe or imagine that they will be punished for crimes in the present will avoid doing those crimes in the future.40 Even the most committed young offenders (e.g., gang members) who fear legal punishments will forego delinquent activities.41 Conversely, the likelihood of being arrested and punished will have little effect on kids if they believe that they have only a small chance of suffering apprehension and punishment in the future. If kids can be convinced that illegal activities will lead to serious punishment, they will be deterred regardless of the actual or real chance of their being caught and punished.

While logical, the association between perception and deterrence is not a simple one nor does it appear to be linear—that is, the greater the perception of punishment, the less kids are willing to commit crime. Perception of punishment appears to change and evolve over time, shaped by a delinquent’s experience and personality. Some kids are more deterrable than others, their perceptions shaped by their own personal experiences. It comes as no surprise that when delinquent offenders are separated into two groups—high-rate offenders who constantly break the law and low-rate offenders who occasionally are involved in antisocial behaviors—the former group’s members perceive less risk and more reward from delinquent acts; low-rate offenders tend to view it as less rewarding.42

Actual Deterrence and Delinquency

Not only are people deterred from the perceived threat of punishment, but they will also avoid a life of crime if the threat of punishment is real. The more cops are likely to make arrests, the courts to convict, and the correctional system to punish, they less likely it is that kids will engage in delinquency. This approach may work with youth because, unlike adults who do a poor job of estimating their chances of being punished, kids actually are more aware of the threat of punishment and the likelihood it will be applied if they get caught.43

How have actual deterrence measures been operationalized? If kids choose delinquency because “it pays,” then it stands to reason that they will forgo illegal behavior if they can be convinced that “crime does not pay.”44 Such measures as adding police officers and having them aggressively patrol the streets, adding school resource officers, and creating antigang units are all measures designed to convince would-be delinquents that the chances of apprehension are too great to risk crime. Another approach is to threaten harsh punishments such as waiver to adult court and a sentence to prison. Many kids know that as they age they will no longer be treated as a juvenile, and that an adult prison sentence is much more serious than a stay in a juvenile correctional center. Soon they may begin to realize that the risks of crime are greater than the potential profits and decide to go straight.

One approach has been to put more cops on the street and have them aggressively enforce the law. Recently, John Worrall and Tomislav Kovandzic found that cities that increase the size of their patrol force are the ones most likely to experience a reduction in crime and delinquency.45 Proactive, aggressive law enforcement officers who quickly get to the scene of the crime may help deter delinquent activities.46 Increasing the visibility of the police, hiring more officers, and allocating them in ways that increase the perceived risk of apprehension does produce significant deterrent effects. Deterring potential offenders, they conclude, is a more economical crime control mechanism than incapacitating people in prison after they have committed a criminal offense.47

Focusing police activity on particular problems seems to work best.48 Police are now more willing to use aggressive tactics, such as gang-busting units, to deter membership in drug-trafficking gangs. Youthful-looking officers have been sent undercover into high schools in order to identify, contact, and arrest student drug dealers.49

Traditionally the juvenile court relied on the parens patriae philosophy, which mandates that children be treated and not punished. This limits the power of the law to deter juvenile crime. Kids know that the sanctions given out in juvenile court are far more lenient than those given adults, and that knowledge negates the application of get-tough measures. However, the juvenile courts have also attempted to initiate a deterrence strategy. Juvenile court judges have been willing to waive youths to adult courts.50 In sum, actual deterrence policies may work and their application seems to have had a significant influence on the declining delinquency rate.

Shame and Humiliation

One aspect of deterrence that seems to have an impact on juveniles is shame, embarrassment, and social disgrace. If kids fear being rejected by family and peers, they will be reluctant to engage in deviant behavior.51 Kids who say they would be ashamed if their involvement in crime becomes public are less likely to offend than those not so easily embarrassed.52

While shame can be a powerful deterrent, young offenders also seem to be influenced by forgiveness and acceptance. They are less likely to repeat their delinquent acts if victims are willing to grant them forgiveness.53

The fear of exposure and consequent shaming may vary according to the cohesiveness of community structure and the type of crime. Informal sanctions may be most effective in highly unified areas where everyone knows one another and the crime cannot be hidden from public view. The threat of informal sanctions seems to have the greatest influence on instrumental crimes, which involve planning, and not on impulsive or expressive criminal behaviors or those associated with substance abuse.54

Do General Deterrence Strategies Work?

Punishment is up, millions of people are behind bars, and the crime rate is down. So it seems like deterrence strategies do work! Or do they? While the general deterrence concept makes logical sense, there is actually little conclusive evidence that the threat of apprehension and punishment alone can deter delinquency.55 There are a number of reasons why strategies that attempt to frighten teens may not work:

•  Deterrence strategies are based on the idea of a rational, calculating offender; they may not be effective when applied to immature young people. Many offenders are under the influence of drugs when they commit crimes, others suffer from mental illness, while many bear the burden of both mental illness and drug abuse.56 They may be impulsive and imprudent rather than reasoning and calculating. Minors tend to be less capable of making mature judgments about their behavior choices when under the influence of drugs and alcohol. In sum, even the harshest deterrence strategies may have little effect on psychologically or drug-impaired youth.57

•  The deterrent threat of punishment may have little influence among high-risk offenders, such as teens living in economically depressed neighborhoods whom actually commit most of the crimes in the United States. Even if they truly fear the consequences of the law, they must commit crime to survive in a hostile environment.58 Young people in these areas have less to lose if arrested; they have a limited stake in society and are not worried about their future. They also may not make connections between delinquent behavior and punishment because they see many people in their neighborhood commit crimes and not get caught or punished.59

•  It is also possible that experience with the law and punishment actually defuses fear of punishment, thus neutralizing its deterrent effect. Greg Pogarsky and his associates found that getting arrested had little deterrent effect on youth and that kids who experienced punishment were the ones most likely to continue committing crime. One reason may be that crime-prone youth, the ones who have a long history of delinquency, know that crime provides immediate gratification, whereas the threat of punishment remains far in the future.60

•  Kids may learn to adapt to deterrent measures. Police crackdowns and gang sweeps may convince them that it’s too dangerous for them to commit crime at the moment, but that does not mean they are willing to forgo future delinquent activities. They find ways to adapt to this perceived threat:

  •  They reduce the number of crimes they are willing to commit during a particular period of time.

  •  They commit less-serious crimes, assuming that even if they are apprehended, the punishment will not be as severe for a “minor” infraction. They are unlikely to be placed in a juvenile facility or waived to adult court for shoplifting, but robbery is another matter entirely.

  •  They take action to reduce the chance that they will be caught and to reduce the risk of detection (e.g., stop wearing their gang colors or tagging walls).

  •  They relocate to more favorable terrain.61

In sum, deterring delinquency through the fear of punishment may have value under some but not all circumstances.62 Deterrence may work for some offenders and some crimes—for example, where a small group of chronic offenders is responsible for a great majority of the delinquent activity in the community. Under these circumstances a targeted strategy that directs a surge of law enforcement activity against a few repeat offenders may help reduce delinquency rates.63

Specific Deterrence

The theory of specific deterrence holds that the more severely young offenders are punished, the less likely they are to repeat their illegal acts. General deterrence focuses on potential offenders; specific deterrence targets offenders who have already been apprehended. For example, juveniles are sent to secure incarceration facilities with the understanding that their ordeal will deter future misbehavior.

specific deterrence

Sending convicted offenders to secure incarceration facilities so that punishment is severe enough to convince offenders not to repeat their criminal activity.

Specific deterrence strategies suppose that people can “learn from their mistakes” and that kids who are caught and punished will perceive greater risk than those who have escaped detection.64 As the perceived benefits of crime decline, desistance escalates.65 Specific deterrence strategies may actually work better with young, inexperienced juvenile offenders than adult miscreants. Research shows that punishment has less of an effect on the experienced offender than it does on the novice.66 Therefore punishing an inexperienced juvenile offender may convince them that “crime does not pay,” while punishing a more experienced offender is simply “business as usual.”

While novice delinquents may be scared off by an arrest, the more experienced offender will not, and these experienced delinquents, who after multiple arrests are placed in a juvenile justice facility, may actually be more likely to persist in their delinquent behaviors.67 In fact, a history of prior arrests, convictions, and punishments has proven to be the best predictor of rearrest among young offenders released from correctional institutions.68 So once involved in the system, the threat of punishment seems to have little deterrent effect. Why is this so?

•  Offenders may believe that though they were caught and punished, the experience was actually beneficial: they have learned from their experiences, now know how to beat the system, and can get away with crime.69

•  Kids who have already been severely punished by being placed in a juvenile facility may represent the “worst of the worst,” who will offend again no matter what punishments they experience.70

•  Punishment may bring defiance rather than deterrence. Adolescents who are harshly treated may want to show that they cannot be broken by the system.

•  Punishment might be perceived to be capricious, unjust, or unfair, causing some kids to want to lash out and retaliate against wha