Juvenile delinquency

Peer rejection in childhood is also a large predictor of juvenile delinquency.[14] This rejection can affect the child's ability to be socialized properly and often leads them to gravitate towards anti-social peer groups.[14] Association with anti-social groups often leads to the promotion of violent, aggressive and deviant behavior.[14] Robert Vargas's "Being in 'Bad' Company," explains that adolescents who can choose between groups of friends are less susceptible to peer influence that could lead them to commit illegal acts.[37] Aggressive adolescents who have been rejected by peers are also more likely to have a "hostile attribution bias", which leads people to interpret the actions of others (whether they be hostile or not) as purposefully hostile and aggressive towards them.[38] This often leads to an impulsive and aggressive reaction.[38]

Conformity plays a significant role in the vast impact that peer group influence has on an individual. Aronson, Wilson, & Akert (2013)[39] point to the research experiment conducted by Solomon Asch (1956),[40] to ascertain whether a group could influence an individual's behavior. The experiment was executed by asking a participant determine which line in the set of 3 lines matched the length of an original line. Confederates knew the purpose of the experiment and were directed to answer the questions incorrectly during certain phases of the experiment. These confederates answered the question before the participant. The confederates answered the first few questions correctly, as did the participant. Eventually, all of the confederates started to answer incorrectly. The purpose of the experiment was to see if the group would influence the participant to answer incorrectly. Asch found that seventy-six percent of the participants conformed and answered incorrectly when influenced by the group.[40] According to these findings, it was concluded that a peer group that is involved in deviant behavior can influence an adolescent to engage in similar activities.[41] Once the adolescent becomes part of the group, they will be susceptible to groupthink.[39]

A common contributor to juvenile delinquency rates is a phenomenon referred to as the school to prison pipeline. In recent years, school disciplinary measures have become increasingly policed.[15] In fact, 67% of high school students attend schools with police officers.[42] This rise in police presence is often attributed to the implementation of zero tolerance policies.[43] Based on the "broken windows" theory of criminology and the Gun-Free Schools Act, zero tolerance policies stress the use of specific, consistent, and harsh punishment to deal with in school infractions.[44][43] Often measures such as suspension or expulsion are assigned to students who deviant regardless of the reason or past disciplinary history.[43] This use of punishment often has been linked with increasing high school drop out rates and future arrests.[16] It was found in a 2018 study that students who received a suspension were less likely to graduate and more likely to be arrested or on probation.[45] As stated in research by Matthew Theriot, the increased police presence in school and use of tougher punishment methods leads student actions to be criminalized and in turn referred to juvenile justice systems.[15]

The Center on Youth Justice at the Vera Institute of Justice found that "for similar students attending similar schools, a single suspension or expulsion doubles the risk that a student will repeat a grade.[46] Being retained a grade, especially while in middle or high school, is one of the strongest predictors of dropping out.[43] In a national longitudinal study, it was reported that youth with a prior suspension were 68% more likely to dropout of school.[43]

The school to prison pipeline disproportionately affects minority students.[47] According to data compiled by the United States Government Accountability Office, 39% of students who received a suspension in the 2013–14 school year were Black, even though Black students accounted for only about 15% of public school students.[48] This over-representation applied to both boys and girls of African descent.[48] Compared to White students, Black students were expelled or suspended 3 times as frequently.[49]

Gender is another risk factor in regards to influencing delinquent behavior. The predictors of different types of delinquency vary across females and males for various reasons, but a common underlying reason for this is socialization.[50][51] Different predictors of delinquency emerge when analyzing distinct offending types across gender, but overall it is evident that males commit more crimes than females.[52] Across all offenses, females are less likely to be involved in delinquent acts than males.[50] Females not only commit fewer offenses, but they also commit less serious offenses.[51]

Socialization plays a key role in the gender gap in delinquency because male and female juveniles are often socialized differently. Girls' and boys' experiences are heavily mediated by gender, which alters their interactions in society. Males and females are differently controlled and bonded, suggesting that they will not make the same choices and may follow different paths of delinquency. Social bonds are important for both males and females, but different aspects of the bond are relevant for each gender.[53] The degree of involvement in social settings is a significant predictor of male's violent delinquency, but is not significant for females. Males tend to be more connected with their peer relationships which in effect has a stronger influence on their behavior.[54][55] Association with delinquent peers is one of the strongest correlates of juvenile delinquency, and much of the gender gap can be accounted for by the fact that males are more likely to have friends that support delinquent behavior. Delinquent peers are positively and significantly related to delinquency in males but delinquent peers are negatively and insignificantly related to delinquency for females.[55] As for females, familial functioning relationships have shown to be more important. Female juveniles tend to be more strongly connected with their families, the disconnect or the lack of socialization between their family members can significantly predict their likelihood of committing crimes as juveniles and even as adults. When the family is disrupted, females are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior than males.[51] Boys, however, tend to be less connected to their family and are not as affected by these relationships.[54] When it comes to minor offenses such as fighting, vandalism, shoplifting, and the carrying of weapons, differences in gender are limited because they are most common among both males as well as females. Elements of the social bond, social disorganization, routine activities, opportunity, and attitudes towards violence are also related to delinquent behavior among both males and females.[51]

Individual psychological or behavioral risk factors that may make offending more likely include low intelligence, impulsiveness or the inability to delay gratification, aggression, lack of empathy, and restlessness.[33] Other risk factors that may be evident during childhood and adolescence include, aggressive or troublesome behavior, language delays or impairments, lack of emotional control (learning to control one's anger), and cruelty to animals.[14]

Children with low intelligence are more likely to do badly in school. This may increase the chances of offending because low educational attainment, a low attachment to school, and low educational aspirations are all risk factors for offending in themselves.[34][56][57] Children who perform poorly at school are also more likely to be truant, and the status offense of truancy is linked to further offending.[33]

Impulsiveness is seen by some as the key aspect of a child's personality that predicts offending.[33] However, it is not clear whether these aspects of personality are a result of "deficits in the executive functions of the brain"[33] or a result of parental influences or other social factors.[13] In any event, studies of adolescent development show that teenagers are more prone to risk-taking, which may explain the high disproportionate rate of offending among adolescents.[27]

Juvenile delinquents are often diagnosed with different disorders. Around six to sixteen percent of male teens and two to nine percent of female teens have a conduct disorder. These can vary from oppositional-defiant disorder, which is not necessarily aggressive, to antisocial personality disorder, often diagnosed among psychopaths.[58] A conduct disorder can develop during childhood and then manifest itself during adolescence.[59]

Juvenile delinquents who have recurring encounters with the criminal justice system, or in other words those who are life-course-persistent offenders, are sometimes diagnosed with conduct disorders because they show a continuous disregard for their own and others safety and/or property. Once the juvenile continues to exhibit the same behavioral patterns and turns eighteen he is then at risk of being diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and much more prone to become a serious criminal offender.[60] One of the main components used in diagnosing an adult with antisocial personality disorder consists of presenting documented history of conduct disorder before the age of 15. These two personality disorders are analogous in their erratic and aggressive behavior. This is why habitual juvenile offenders diagnosed with conduct disorder are likely to exhibit signs of antisocial personality disorder early in life and then as they mature. Some times these juveniles reach maturation and they develop into career criminals, or life-course-persistent offenders. "Career criminals begin committing antisocial behavior before entering grade school and are versatile in that they engage in an array of destructive behaviors, offend at exceedingly high rates, and are less likely to quit committing crime as they age."[60]

Quantitative research was completed on 9,945 juvenile male offenders between the ages of 10 and 18 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the 1970s.[61] The longitudinal birth cohort was used to examine a trend among a small percentage of career criminals who accounted for the largest percentage of crime activity.[61] The trend exhibited a new phenomenon among habitual offenders. The phenomenon indicated that only 6% of the youth qualified under their definition of a habitual offender (known today as life-course persistent offenders, or career criminals) and yet were responsible for 52% of the delinquency within the entire study.[61] The same 6% of chronic offenders accounted for 71% of the murders and 69% of the aggravated assaults.[61] This phenomenon was later researched among an adult population in 1977 and resulted in similar findings. S. A. Mednick did a birth cohort of 30,000 males and found that 1% of the males were responsible for more than half of the criminal activity.[62] The habitual crime behavior found among juveniles is similar to that of adults. As stated before most life-course persistent offenders begin exhibiting antisocial, violent, and/or delinquent behavior, prior to adolescence. Therefore, while there is a high rate of juvenile delinquency, it is the small percentage of life-course persistent, career criminals that are responsible for most of the violent crimes.

Classical criminology stresses that the causes of crime lie within individual offenders, rather than in their external environment. For classicists, offenders are motivated by rational self-interest, and the importance of free will and personal responsibility is emphasized.[63] Rational choice theory is the clearest example of that idea. Delinquency is one of the major factors motivated by rational choice.

Current positivist approaches generally focus on the culture. A type of criminological theory attributing variation in crime and delinquency over time and among territories to the absence or breakdown of communal institutions (such as family, school, church, and social groups) and communal relationships that traditionally encouraged cooperative relationships among people.

Strain theory is associated mainly with the work of Robert K. Merton, who felt that there are institutionalized paths to success in society. Strain theory holds that crime is caused by the difficulty for those in poverty have to achieve socially-valued goals by legitimate means.[63] Since those with, for instance, poor educational attainment have difficulty achieving wealth and status by securing well-paid employment, they are more likely to use criminal means to obtain those goals.[64] Merton's suggests five adaptations to this dilemma:

1. Innovation: individuals who accept socially-approved goals but not necessarily the socially-approved means.
2. Retreatism: those who reject socially-approved goals and the means for acquiring them.
3. Ritualism: those who buy into a system of socially-approved means but lose sight of the goals. Merton believed that drug users are in this category.
4. Conformity: those who conform to the system's means and goals.
5. Rebellion: people who negate socially-approved goals and means by creating a new system of acceptable goals and means.

A difficulty with strain theory is that it does not explore why children of low-income families have poor educational attainment in the first place. More importantly, much youth crime does not have an economic motivation. Strain theory fails to explain violent crime, the type of youth crime that causes most anxiety to the public.

Differential association is another theory that deals with young people in a group context and looks at how peer pressure and the existence of gangs could lead them into crime. It suggests young people are motivated to commit crimes by delinquent peers and learn criminal skills from them. The diminished influence of peers after men marry has also been cited as a factor in desisting from offending. There is strong evidence that young people with criminal friends are more likely to commit crimes themselves. However, offenders may prefer to associate with one another, rather than delinquent peers causing someone to start offending. Furthermore, there is the question of how the delinquent peer group initially became delinquent.

Labeling theory is a concept in criminology that aims to explain deviant behavior from the social context, rather the individual themselves. It is part of interactionism criminology, which states that once young people have been labeled as criminal, they are more likely to offend.[63] The idea is that once labelled as deviant, a young person may accept that role and be more likely to associate with others who have been similarly labeled.[63] Labelling theorists say that male children from poor families are more likely to be labelled deviant, which may partially explain the existence of more working-class young male offenders.[34]

Social control theory proposes that exploiting the process of socialization and social learning builds self-control and can reduce the inclination to indulge in behavior that is recognized as antisocial. These four types of control can help prevent juvenile delinquency:

Direct by which punishment is threatened or applied for wrongful behavior, and compliance is rewarded by parents, family, and authority figures. Internal by which a youth refrains from delinquency through the conscience or superego. Indirect by identification with those who influence behavior, such as because the delinquent act might cause pain and disappointment to parents and others close relationships. Control through needs satisfaction: if all an individual's needs are met, there is no point in criminal activity.

Education promotes economic growth, national productivity and innovation, and values of democracy and social cohesion.[73] Prevention through education has been seen to discourage delinquency for minors and help them strengthen the connection and understanding between peers[74]

A well-known intervention treatment is the Scared Straight Treatment.[75] According to research done by Scott Lilienfeld, this type of intervention is often harmful because of juvenile offenders' vicarious exposure to criminal role models and the possibility of increased resentment in reaction to the confrontational interactions.[76] It has been reasoned that the most efficient interventions are those that not only separate at-risk teens from anti-social peers, and place them instead with pro-social ones, but also simultaneously improve their home environment by training parents with appropriate parenting styles.[72]

In response to the data correlated with the school to prison pipeline, some institutions have implemented restorative justice policies.[77] The restorative justice approach emphasizes conflict resolution and non-punitive intervention.[78] Interventions such as hiring more counselors as opposed to security professionals or focusing on talking through problems would be included in a restorative justice approach.[78]

It is also important to note certain works of legislation that have already been published in the United States in response to general prisoner re-entry, extending to juveniles, such as the Second Chance Act (2007) and most recently, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act (2018).[79]

Juvenile reform deals with the vocational programs and educational approach to reducing recidivism rates of juvenile offenders. Most countries in the world legislate processes for juvenile reform and re-entry, some more elaborate and formal than others. In theory, juvenile re-entry is sensitive to the fact that juveniles are young and assumes they are capable of change; it approaches a juvenile offender's situation and history holistically, evaluating the earlier factors that could lead a juvenile to commit crimes. In practice, this is complicated since juvenile delinquents return home to varying and unpredictable circumstances, including poverty, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc..

In the United States, juvenile reform is split into four main phases:[80]

1. The Entry Phase: The youth enters residential placement
2. The Placement Phase: Amount of time youth is in the placement facility (whatever that may be)
3. The Transitional Phase (re-entry): Act of leaving facility and entering community (from right after exit of facility to right before entering community)
4. The Community-based Aftercare Phase: Period of time after youth returns to the community (usually 120-day period right after transitional phase)

An understanding of the factors involved in each of these steps is crucial to creating an effective juvenile reform program. One non-profit identifies the following approaches to juvenile reform:[81]

1. Early Intervention: preventing juvenile youth from ever encountering the justice system by implementation of conflict-resolution practices or administrative strategies that aim to teach the child healthy actions to take in difficult situations. It is implemented before any offense is committed and often involves a thorough discussion of what individual issues a child is dealing with.
2. Diversion: the placement of youth in programs that redirect youth away from juvenile justice system processing, or programs that divert youth from secure detention in a juvenile justice facility. These programs are most often in attempt to protect juveniles from getting a charge on their record after they have already committed a crime. This can be led through school administration intervention or by law enforcement officers that have been trained in dealing with at-risk youth. These programs are often given to children who have unstable life circumstances and are thus extended aid that will attack the "root problems" rather than further isolate them in society.
3. Alternatives to Secure Confinement: a juvenile justice approach that does not require the juvenile's entry in a "jail-like" facility. Often involves the juvenile's continued participation in society, but in a modified manner. Such alternatives include home confinement, supervision of a probation officer, community service requirements, and community-based facilities, among others.
4. Evidence-Based Practices: the emphasis on encouraging youth participation in programs that have evidence of working. The evaluation of "success" for a program is dependent on multiple factors, such as reduction of recidivism rates, cost-effectiveness, and addressing health problems.
5. Diverting Youth Who Commit Status Offenses: programs that address the "root" problems causing a juvenile's behavior and actions. Such programs are often part of a tiered approach to juvenile justice and reform.
6. Funding Community-Based Alternatives on a Large Scale: the supporting of all initiatives in a community that have been proven to help with juvenile betterment and reform. This allows the community to help its own and does not rely on the decisions of the state regarding the needs of juveniles.

While juvenile reform has proved to be an effective and humanizing approach response to juvenile delinquency, it is a very complex area that still has many ongoing debates. For example, many countries around the world are debating the appropriate age of a juvenile, as well as trying to understand whether there are some crimes that are so heinous, they should be exempt from any understanding. Based on these discussions, legislation needs to be consistently updated and considered as social, cultural, and political landscapes change.

Examining prevalence data and the characteristics of juvenile sex offenders is a fundamental component to obtain a precise understanding of this heterogeneous group. With mandatory reporting laws in place, it became a necessity for providers to report any incidents of disclosed sexual abuse. Longo and Prescott indicate that juveniles commit approximately 30-60% of all child sexual abuse.[84] The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports indicate that in 2008 youth under the age of 18 accounted for 16.7% of forcible rapes and 20.61% of other sexual offenses.[86] Center for Sex Offender Management indicates that approximately one-fifth of all rapes and one-half of all sexual child molestation can be accounted for by juveniles.[87]

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention indicates that 15% of juvenile arrests occurred for rape in 2006, and 12% were clearance (resolved by an arrest).[88] The total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for forcible rape was 3,610 with 2% being female and 36% being under the age of 15 years.[88] This trend has declined throughout the years with forcible rape from 1997–2006 being −30% and from 2005 to 2006 being −10%.[88] The OJJDP reports that the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape increased from the early 1980s through the 1990s and at that time it fell again.[88] Violent crime rates in the U.S. have been on a steady decline since the 1990s.[89] The OJJDP also reported that the total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for sex offenses (other than forcible rape) was 15,900 with 10% being female and 47% being under the age of 15.[88] There was again a decrease with the trend throughout the years with sex offenses from 1997 to 2006 being −16% and from 2005 to 2006 being −9%.[88]

Barbaree and Marshall indicate that juvenile males contribute to the majority of sex crimes, with 2–4% of adolescent males having reported committing sexually assaultive behavior, and 20% of all rapes and 30–50% of all child molestation are perpetrated by adolescent males.[82] It is clear that males are over-represented in this population. This is consistent with Ryan and Lane's research indicating that males account for 91-93% of the reported juvenile sex offenses.[83] Righthand and Welch reported that females account for an estimated 2–11% of incidents of sexual offending.[90] In addition, it reported by The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that in the juvenile arrests during 2006, African American male youth were disproportionately arrested (34%) for forcible rape. In one case in a foster home a 13-year-old boy raped a 9-year-old boy by having forced anal sex with him, in a court hearing the 9-year-old boy said he has done this multiple times, that the 13-year-old boy was charged for sexual assault.[88]

Sexual crimes committed by juveniles are not just an issue in the United States. Studies from the Netherlands show that out of 3,200 sex offenders recorded by police in 2009, 672 of those were juveniles, approximately 21 percent of sexual offenders. The study also points out the male to female ratio of sexual predators.[91]

In 2009, a U.S. congressman proposed legislation that would create an International Sex Offender Registry. The bill was introduced due to the fact that because laws differ in different countries someone who is on the sex offender registry in the U.S. who may be barred from living certain places and doing certain activities has free range in other less developed countries. This can lead to child sex tourism, when a sexual predator will go to less developed countries and prey on young boys and girls. Karne Newburn in his article, The Prospect of an International Sex Offender Registry, pointed out some serious flaws in the proposed bill, such as creating safety issues within the communities for the sex offenders placed on the registry. Newburn suggested instead of creating an International Sex Offender Registry from the U.S. model the U.S. join other countries in a dialogue on creating an effective model. As of now no registry exists. Despite this there is still interest in creating some sort of international registry.[92]

The United Kingdom has three separate and distinct criminal justice systems: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Young offenders are often dealt with by the Youth Offending Team. There is concern young adult offenders are not getting the support they need to help them avoid reoffending.[93]

In England and Wales the age of criminal responsibility is set at 10. Young offenders aged 10 to 17 (i.e. up to their 18th birthday) are classed as a juvenile offender. Between the ages of 18 and 20 (i.e. up to their 21st birthday) they are classed as young offenders. Offenders aged 21 and over are known as adult offenders.

In Scotland the age of criminal responsibility was formerly set at 8, one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe. It has since been raised to 12 by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, which received Royal Assent on 6 August 2010.[94][95]

In Northern Ireland the age of criminal responsibility is 10.

In Canada, the YCJA protects the rights of young offenders. It has four main goals to ensure the youth is subject to meaningful consequences that promote the long-term protection of society, to rehabilitate and reintegrate the youth into society seamlessly, and to prevent crime by examining the underlying causes. The YCJA was introduced in 2003, succeeding the Young Offender's Act.

In Sweden, the age of criminal responsibility is set at 15 since 1902.[96]

In the United States, the age of criminal responsibility for federal crimes is set at 11. While this has been set at the federal level, each state is responsible for setting their own age of criminal responsibility. Thirty-three states have no minimum age for criminal responsibility, while the remaining 17 do. North Carolina has the lowest responsibility age of 7 years old and Wisconsin has the highest of 10 years old.[97]

There are 1.5 million cases per year in the US that handle status offenses or criminal offenses by young offenders. However, only 52 juveniles were fully sentenced to prison-time between 2010–2015. Recidivism is common among young offenders, with 67% becoming repeat offenders.[98]

In Brazil, the age of criminal responsibility is set at the age of 18. Anyone that is found guilty of committing crimes prior to the age of 18 is treated to other options rather than jail. These include, for children under 12, foster care options in order to get them a safer family, and, for young offenders over 12, being sentenced to complying with a range of socio-educative measures that can go from a warning to community work and even to internment in specialized facilities, which include basic schooling and occupational training courses that aim at preventing the offenders from resorting to crime to support themselves, although conditions in such facilities are often subpar.[99][100] With a spike in crime rates among young offenders occurring in 2015, along with an almost 40% increase in internments of young offenders, there was a push to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 16, which ultimately failed.[101][102]