Category: Juvenile Crime

16th June 1944 was the darkest day of the 20th century in America. Justice was served for two little white girls in Alcolu in South Carolina by serving cruelty to a young boy. The judiciary failed to make a rational and sensible decision for a juvenile mind. 14-year old George Stinney Jr. was convicted for murdering 7-year old Mary Emma and raping and murdering her 11-year old friend Betty June. George was electrocuted with an electric current of 4000 volts which not only seemed inhumane to the nation but also to Betty’s father and brother who witnessed the punishment. As Betty’s elder sister, Vermelle Tucker said, ‘it really worried him’.

Everyone wanted justice for both the little girls but not at the cost of shaming humanity. George was denied the constitutional right of due process just because of his color. The decision was formed way before the trial started. Everything was orchestrated to maintain white supremacy. From facts to witnesses, defense to appeals, everything was bent as per the majority’s will and after throwing appropriateness out of question. To my eyes, it seemed all wrong from the beginning. So let’s start from the start:

Incommunicado Interrogation

The most important step in any criminal act is the interrogation. It being done right helps in bringing a fair decision. But a biased interrogation might cost somebody his life. Without questioning the integrity of the judiciary, the interrogation carried on by the sheriff was against the constitution and human rights. George was not allowed to meet or talk to his parents and lawyer. He was denied his constitutional right of taking a proper legal recourse during interrogation. This was enough to make everyone believe that George’s confession was coercive.

Facts ignored

The court never questioned the estate owner where the dead bodies of the little girl were found. George had no point going to the far off estate and dump the bodies there. Had he ever done that, it should have been proved rationally.

Weapon used in killing

The use of railroad trestle spike as the murder weapon should have been deliberated. How George got hold of it even when he was not a worker at any mill. Why he used that weapon and when did he secured it and from where. None of the questions were given much consideration which could have led to an unbiased verdict.

No cross-questioning of witnesses

Till the end, George’s family maintained that he was with his family at their home when the crime was supposed to have happened. But no witnesses were called during the trial to establish it as a fact, or maybe a lie. Constitutional right of proving himself not guilty was again denied to George.

Jury members

When a case involving diverse communities needs judgment, the only way to an unbiased and just decision is to form a jury independent of any race or color. In George’s case, the jury was bound to be unjust as there was nil representation from the colored community. The inherent love for their people easily shadowed their sense of fair judgment. Had that been untrue, could the presence of a witness and a search officer, George Burke Sr., be justified as a jury member.

Hastened Justice

It was 24th April 1944 when both the girls were murdered. And George Stinney was executed on 16th June, 1944, just a little before three months. For such a grave crime, it seems a decision a little too hastened. Even the trial of George was over in just two hours and thirty minutes. To serve justice, the jury took only ten minutes to finally arrive at their decision. This unusually hastened trial and sentence raises a lot of suspicion about the credibility of the verdict. There was neither any recommendation for any mercy for the young boy.

No appeal or stays

After the verdict, the white lawyer of George did not file for an appeal. All he needed to do was write a single sentence appeal and try to save his client. George was a young child. If he was the real culprit, he surely had an immature and delinquent mind. He couldn’t have known the severity of the crime he committed. He could have been sent to child welfare or even to the correction center. If not anything else, his sentence could have been changed to life imprisonment just by an appeal or a stay order against such a cruel execution.

The point of contemplation here is not if George was guilty of the crime. Nor it questions how heinous the crime was. Rather it all zeroes down to how heinous a justice can be. The judiciary tried to mask its cruel act by calling it justice which they failed at apparently. After 70 years, in 2014, the 14th Judicial District Judge of South Carolina, Carmen Tevis Mullen reiterated the same. She did not recognize George as innocent or questioned the integrity of the court’s decision. Her main concern was the way George was denied his constitutional right to due process and how America failed at being just and fair to a delinquent mind.

Not only at the judicial level, America’s weak administration also got exposed with this case. The whole case was fastened to avoid a situation of what was a very common way of delivering justice on the spot: lynching. Had George, a young boy of color, not punished immediately, the white people would have served justice as per their will by lynching the poor boy. However, that had hardly been the scenario where the convicted happened to be a white juvenile. This is where the administration, i.e., the cops failed at implementing what Abraham Lincoln fought all his life for. As per statistics provided by Government Accounting Officer, the children of color are eighteen times more likely to be charged as adults for the crimes they committed as juveniles. This shows the biased laws America, a nation of immigrants, adheres to while dealing with young delinquent minds.

In life, we are faced with trials and tribulations, and how we respond to these problems shape us into who we will be. If we respond poorly to these issues, it could land us in a courtroom or even behind bars. As young impressionable juveniles are exposed to family problems, drugs, and peer pressure, how they react can lead them to a life of crime and dancing in and out of the juvenile justice system. Crime causation factors in juveniles include family life, social environment, biological factors, and educational environments. How they respond to these factors can get them in a juvenile court or- if the crime is severe enough- an adult court. Depending on which court a juvenile ends up in, their experiences within the system can revolve around rehabilitation or punishment.

There are many different factors that can cause a juvenile to turn to crime. Biological makeup and genetics can have a hand in causing criminality within juveniles. Along with biological makeup, psychological makeup can also cause criminality within juveniles. However, these are just internal factors that cause criminality; there are many more external factors that can turn juveniles toward crime. Family is a large external factor that affects juveniles the most. Family, as a crime causation factor, focuses on parents, siblings, extended family members, and the dynamic of the family. There is a correlation between parents’ absence and criminality in their children. For example, the Rochester Youth Study focused on the quality of parent-child relationships. The Rochester Youth Study researchers found that “the relationship between family process factors and delinquency is circular; poor-parenting increased the probability if delinquent behavior, and delinquent behavior further weakened the relationship between parent and child” (Taylor and Fritsch, 67). It is found that the presence of a father reduces the chance of his son being delinquent, first born children are less likely to be delinquents, and the larger the family, the more likely that a child from the family will become a delinquent. Coming from a broken home, or a home plagued by abuse or neglect, can correlate to delinquency or delinquent behaviors in juveniles.

The social environment of a juvenile can also play a role in causing criminality. The social environment of a juvenile can relate to social class, the peers in a juvenile’s life, and the activities and interests the juvenile partakes in. Along with the social environment, the ecological and educational environments also play a role in the crime causation of juveniles. These environmental factors include community, neighborhoods, attitude toward school, and performance in school. If a juvenile performs poorly in school and falls into a bad crowd of peers, it is likely that the juvenile is question will fall into delinquent behaviors. In a recent study, one that examined the relationship between educational factors and delinquency, it was found that a “weak school commitment and poor school performance were associated with increased involvement and drug use” (Taylor and Fritsch, 71). In this same study, it was also found that those who were more attached to school also avoided delinquency, and that the involvement in delinquency increased the chances of the juvenile to drop out of school.

There are many factors that can contribute to the causation of crime in juveniles. Many of these factors are external, but there are also a few internal factors that can have the greatest impact on whether a juvenile will or will not participate in delinquent behavior. A child that is failing his classes, a child that is being abused at home, a child without a father, and a child with a poor living situation all have one thing in common; They are at a higher risk of falling into delinquent behaviors and setting on the path of crime.

Differences Between Juvenile and Adult Courts

The court systems in America follow the same basic guidelines; there is an initial arrest, a preliminary hearing to decipher if there is a case to be made, a trial before a jury of the offender’s peers, sentencing, and appeal. However, in the juvenile court system, there are a few other steps and informal approaches to settle cases. There are similarities between the adult court system and the juvenile court system, but there are mostly differences between the two. The biggest difference between the courts are the cases they handle, followed by who is in charge, and finally the sentencing procedures.

Adult courts handle cases ranging from parking tickets to something as severe as murder. While some types of cases overlap between the adult and juvenile courts, there is a different focus in the juvenile court systems. Juvenile court cases revolve around juveniles under the age of 18, and focus on the welfare of the child on or involved in a trial. “The juvenile court not only has jurisdiction over delinquent acts and status offenses but also has jurisdiction over child abuse and neglect matters, adoption, termination of parental rights, custody matters, and child support” (Taylor and Fritsch, 235). The juvenile courts still deal with violent juvenile cases, but also look at cases involving property crimes. This is where the two court systems overlap regarding cases, and the similarities don’t stop there.

How a case is handled in the juvenile courts is similar to how a case is handled in the adult court in the sense that there is a preliminary hearing, a trial, and a sentence. However, sometimes after an arrest is made on a juvenile offender, and a decision is made during intake whether a case can be handled informally. If the juvenile can abide by certain requirements in exchange for having the case handled informally, then they aren’t processed deeper into the system. “The juvenile is typically required to pay victim restitution, perform community service, attend school, or meet some other related requirement” (Taylor and Fritsch, 243). If agreed upon by the offender, they would be released rather than detained, and they would remain free only if they abide by the terms of their release. It is something that is unique to the juvenile court system, and is often used on first-time offenders who commit petty crimes.

Another difference between the court systems is the hierarchy within them. In an adult court, a judge is the only person qualified enough to judge a case in the court. However, there is the option of a court administrator taking over for the judge in the juvenile court system. This applies mostly to the other jobs the juvenile court judge must fulfill, but in an adult court, the judge sticks to his own job. Along with this difference comes the additives to the juvenile court. In both an adult and a juvenile court, there is a defense attorney, a prosecuting attorney, a bailiff, and a judge. Additionally, in a juvenile court there are referees that are present during cases and who tend to pre-adjudication hearings.

It is also notable that the juvenile court can either be part of adult court, or completely separate from all courts. Where the population is larger, it is more common for the juvenile courts to be separate from adult courts, whereas in smaller populations, it’s commonplace for the juvenile courts to be within adult court.

Both adult and juvenile courts have similarities in the way they basically function. The differences between the two are most prevalent in the little details; having a court administrator take over the judge’s duties, cases being informally taken care of during the intake process, types of cases and the focus in said cases, as well as the addition of referees in the court setting. While the differences aren’t terribly noticeable, they are still present, and alter the way a case can pan out for juveniles during their trials.

Rehabilitation vs. Punishment in the Juvenile Justice System

In the world of corrections, there are generally four main goals; rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. Rehabilitation, in corrections, involves treatment and counseling for juveniles in order to reform offenders. These treatments and the counseling is what is commonly emphasized and prescribed in juvenile institutions, or juvenile detention centers. Rehabilitation can involve furthering academic education and, in some cases, providing vocational and job training to juveniles so that they can be prepared to enter the workforce. The main goal of juvenile incarceration is to rehabilitate the juvenile offenders so that they will not become repeat or habitual offenders in their adulthood.

In many facilities, education is a requirement. It is speculated in the text that many juvenile offenders will not continue their education where they left it, so the institutions in which they are housed educate them as needed. It is difficult to teach these children, as they vary in intelligence, age, and capability. However, those who have fallen behind in the curriculum are caught up, and those juveniles who are older will often receive their GEDs through the educational programs provided.

In select institutions, vocational training is offered to juveniles in order to prepare them for work once they leave the facility. In programs like these, juveniles are taught skills required for entry-level jobs. In these programs, juveniles soak up knowledge and learn the proper attitudes to adopt when out and ready to join the workforce. In special cases, the juveniles participating in these programs are working in a partnership with a third-party company in order to be work-ready.

Aside from the low-risk juveniles participating in those rehabilitation programs, there are still serious juvenile offenders in need of rehabilitation. These offenders, arrested for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and rape, are set up in specialized institutions. These specialized institutions focus on repeat offenders and offenders with serious crimes under their belts. Even though the common consensus would be to punish these offenders rather than rehabilitate them, the specialized institutions housing these serious offenders are still focused on rehabilitating its inhabitants. Regimented education, recreational time, and extracurricular activities keep those offenders busy while providing them counseling and rehabilitative programs. The institutions specializing in the more serious juvenile offenders have managed to produce a miniscule recidivism rate, proving that the “students” that have “graduated” from their institutions could be, and have been, rehabilitated.

When an individual goes to jail or prison, whether it be for a petty shoplifting crime or something as severe as murder, the immediate, knee-jerk response would be to say that the individual should be punished for the crime committed. However, the focus on juveniles is rehabilitation, so that they will not grow up to become repeat or habitual offenders. It is important to remember who is being incarcerated, and why they are. It is easy for an adult to be punished rather than rehabilitated because they are adults, and understand right from wrong better than children do. When dealing with juveniles- those under the age of 18- you must look at the situation from a different perspective. A juvenile is still a child, learning right from wrong and making mistakes as they do so. Teaching them that the delinquent behavior they are expressing is wrong, and giving them new coping mechanisms is much more beneficial to the juvenile and to society than locking the juvenile up without explanation. This is why the juvenile corrections system is focused on rehabilitating and educating young offenders rather than dishing out severe punishments.

Works Cited

1. Taylor, Robert W., and Eric J. Fritsch. Juvenile Justice: Policies, Programs, and Practices. Fifth ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.

What differences makes a ‘normal’ child into a child who commits a crime? This is a difficult question to answer as there is not one ‘cause’ of crime. Crime changes across cultures and across time and eras meaning it a highly complex phenomenon to solve the reason it occurs. One action that is legal in one country, for example, alcohol consumption in the UK over the age of 18 is legal but in strict Muslim countries this is illegal. As a result, the question ‘what is crime?’ has no simple answer and therefore not one answer could explain ‘what causes crime?’ Within this essay three theories of youth crime will be discussed, the strain theory, the labelling theory and social control theory. A discussion of these theories and how they can explain causes of crime and deviant behaviour from youths will be given. In the UK there is not a single law that defines the age of a child. Found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Article 1 states that ‘a child means every human being bellow the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child’ (unicef.org.uk, 1989)

The first theory of focus will be strain theories, particularly from the work of Robert Merton, he argued that there are established pathways to success and social goals, however within an unequal society not all individuals have the same opportunities to grasp these goals. Meaning when these ‘goals’ are constrained and cannot be reached using legitimate means, such as education and work, crime is seen as an outcome to achieve these socially valued goals. This concept of imbalance between cultural goals and institutionalised was termed ‘anomie’. He argued that an imbalanced society manufactures this anomie and strain therefore occurs between the goals and means, producing unsatisfied aspirations. Merton’s theory suggests when faced with strain, people have five ways to adapt: Conformity, this is pursuing goals through socially approved means; Innovation, this is using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain goals, for example, stealing or drug dealing to accomplish financial security; Ritualism, using socially approved means but to achieve more modest and humble; Retreatism; rejecting social goals and means, dropping out of society and Rebellion; reject societies goals and means, create their own, for example, setting up a gang.

Although, Merton’s strain theory assumes everyone has the same opportunities within their upbringing and throughout their life. His theory ignores aspects of class, gender and ethnicity and the effects of these on peoples opportunities, and that not everyone will have same goals or start with the same goals and work to the same end goals. Merton also only looks at economic growth, and didn’t consider that all crime is utilitarian, for example terrorism acts, making somewhere with graffiti, and domestic violence are crimes that do not have any financial benefits.

Merton’s theory provided groundwork for a further theory of delinquency; Sub Cultural Theories, such as Albert Cohen’s work on status frustration. Cohen suggested that lower class youth experience problems trying to fulfil middle-class standards, which can lead to status frustration and the formation of delinquent subcultures. Those struggling will find others who feel similar and from an anti-school subcultures, to overcome status frustration together, however, this often leads to petty crimes being committed due to boredom. Members of these groups committing these petty crimes leads to ‘success’ and a status over the other group members creating a hierarchy.

A strength of Cohen’s theory is that it provides an explanation of non-utilitarian crime, and working class delinquency as a group, not individuals. Conversely, Cohen’s suggestion of delinquent subcultures members consciously invert the norms and values of mainstream society has been criticised. When someone decides to destroy and vandalise a car for example, it seems unlikely that before committing the crime their only thoughts are that mainstream society would consider it to be unacceptable, and praiseworthy in their subculture. An opposing argument by Lyng, a post-modern sociologists, suggests that the criminal individual is influenced by boredom or seeking of a thrill/buzz.

Cloward and Ohlin (1960) argued that criminal subcultures develop in lower working class neighbourhoods where youth and juvenile gang role models come from observing and associating with successful criminals. Cloward and Ohlin suggested that these certain varied circumstances in which working class youth live, give rise to three types of delinquent subcultures: Crime Subcultures; characterised by utilitarian crime. These are crimes that which gain the individual status and love/support. Members of these crime subcultures are often abandoned at a young age, and they arise in a neighbourhood where unemployment is high, as well as is crime figures; Conflict Subcultures, these are gangs organised by the young people themselves, often based around claiming territory from other gangs, known as ‘turf wars’. A higher population turnover results in higher levels of social disorganisation preventing a stable professional criminal network developing, with its absence means only illegitimate opportunities available within local gangs. Unrest and conflict arises in society, a well-known example of a conflict subcultures is the Bloods & Crips gangs in LA; Retreatist Subcultures; these subcultures include individuals who have failed to access either legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structures, also known as ‘Double Failures’. Usually likely to drop out of society and the established pathways altogether, as also stated by Merton. This drop out of society is more prone to occur within groups or gangs and not individuals, these groups most likely to abuse drugs as an example.

It is argued that while Cloward and Ohlin’s three forms of subculture seem separate, most criminal gangs frequently have elements of two or more of these subcultures. For example the use of drugs often plays a part in criminal subcultures, while ‘turf wars’ within conflict subcultures is often associated to organised crime, for instance dealing of drugs, rather than only being about conflict. Therefore, it is not clear that Cloward and Ohlin have identified three distinctly separate subcultures.

The second theory of focus is the Labelling Theory. This theory claims that conformity and deviance does not arise from the individual’s actions, but rather from how others respond to the actions. When a crime is committed the usual reactions of the violation by the law is to demand a trail and a punishment convicted. The logic of this process is that the state intervenes to pursue offenders on behalf to protect society. These assumptions are challenged by the Labelling theory, with the argument that the state intervention has the effect of labelling an offender as a ‘criminal’, which has adverse effects.

Howard Becker (1963) suggested that through social groups deviance is created, they make rules that generate deviance and then apply them to particular individuals labelling them as deviant. He also stated that deviance is not the act committed by the individual but the consequences of rules applied by others. And the deviant one who the label has successfully been applied to. As an example, nudity in your own garden or a nudist beach isn’t a deviant act but nudity is considered a crime in certain areas, only when others define it as. Whether the act is labelled deviant depends on who commit and who observed the act, and negotiations with police, court and individual. A strength of Becker’s ideas are that they challenge the idea that deviants are different from ‘normal’ and shows importance of the reactions of others in defining and creating deviance.

Lemert (1951) distinguished deviance into two categories; primary and secondary deviance.

Lemert described primary deviance as episodes of deviant behaviour that many people participate in, for example, traffic laws like speeding or taking illegal drugs. Primary deviance has very few consequences on the individual when no one knows, but when it is discovered and exposed the label of deviant is attached. Secondary deviance is a result of societal reaction, when someone makes something out of that deviant behaviour which creates a negative social label that changes a person’s self-concept and once labelled may only be seen as that label, becoming their master status or controlling identity.

A criticism of labelling theory is that it ignores the processes and structures that lead to deviant acts. Such processes as differences in socialisation, attitudes, and opportunities, and how social and economic structures impact these. A second criticism of labelling theory is that it isn’t clear if there is an increase of deviant behaviour from labelling. Delinquent behaviour tends to increase following conviction, but is this a result of labelling as suggested by the theory. The ‘Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, October 2016 to December 2016’ state that an approximation of 8,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody and around 3,000 of them committed a reoffence. This gives a proven reoffending rate of 40.4%, a decrease of 1.3 percentage points since the same quarter in 2015. (Assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, 2018) It is very difficult to say, since many other factors may be involved, including increased interaction with other delinquents and learning new criminal opportunities.

The third and final theory for discussion is Social Control theory, theoretically speaking control theory does not focus on the causes of crime, but rather looks at why most people don’t commit crime and obey the law, look at conformity for the law rather than deviance. Travis Hirschi (1969) is the theorist primarily associated with this theory. Hirschi proposed that people generally conform to social norms due to strong social bonds. Equally, people who engage in delinquent acts because these bonds have been broken or are weak. Human beings who suffer from weaknesses which make them potentially unable to resist temptation and turn to crime, but stronger social bonds within other people encourage them to exercise self-control and restrain. The four components of social bonds are: Belief, this relates to the persons upbringing, if they have been brought up by family or friends to follow the law and be law abiding, they are seen to be less likely to become involved in crime. People share moral beliefs have more respect for rights of others and obedience to the law; Attachment, this relates to how weak or strong an individual’s relationship with others is. A stronger commitment to conventional activities, such as having a good job and a close family, they do not want to risk losing or damaging this through crime. The stronger their attachment and the stronger the expectations, the more likely it is that the individual will conform; Commitment, if an individual has committed him or herself to a particular lifestyle, getting married and having children as such, the more he or she has to lose if they were to commit or be involved in crime. People are sensitive to and interested in the wishes of others, family, friends and locals; Involvement; this component relates to time. The more amount of time the individual spends partaking in law abiding behaviour, the less time he or she has to engage in law breaking behaviour. For example, keeping busy with sports, community and religious groups, there is no time or opportunity to go against the law. Hirschi’s ideas have been useful in introducing ideas on how to prevent crime and achieving social order. His ideas have influenced social policymakers with the interest in how deviance can be reduced by promoting attachments. Promoting activities for young people, such as youth clubs and sports, encouraging employment for later in life and encouraging values and mortality in education are all effective ways in which policymakers could try and create bonds of attachment and reduce crime amongst youth. Another positive of the social control theory is that it recognises the importance of socialisation in maintaining a cohesive society. Although it fails to explain why some people have weaker bonds than others and does not explain between the different of variations of crime.

Altogether, as shown in this essay using only a few of many theories of why youth crime occurs and how to prevent it happening. There is not one straightforward answer to the question of ‘what causes crime?’. There are many contributing factors within an individual and their surroundings all effecting the reasons behind the crime being committed. Juvenile crime can easily be tackled at its point of origin, individuals usually develop the craving of committing a crime while they are still young therefore posing a very good opportunity to tackle the desire as children are more malleable.

My thoughts on why the supreme court are not giving juniors who committed a horrible crime and will not be getting the life sentence is not fair to the justice system and its not fair for the victims family. The supreme court did this because it broke the 8th amendment which is “unusual punishment” but its not, if they commit the crime they have do the time. The juvenile death penalty was stopped along time ago because it was a cruel punishment. Im against the supreme court for not giving a life sentence to minors who commit a terrible crime and let me tell you why.

I get that their just ¨Kids¨ but I argue that kids should know that murder is wrong and that shouldn’t be an excuse for them to act this way. Furthermore an article by Marjie lundstrom argues that “kids are kids until they make a horrible crime.” I can defend this by saying kids are still growing up but they should only be tried as an adult if there crime was horrible but if it was something small like stealing or drugs they should get a little help like counselling and community hours.

Furthermore if they committed murder then i would sentence them the same as an adult cause they should know taking someones life is never okay. The supreme court’s decision on not giving juveniles life isn’t fair towards the victims family because they wont get the justice they need and just for them to see the person that killed their child or parent get a less sentence because they’re a juvenile isn’t justice. I get that they are young and their brains havent been fully developed in more detail they still should know right from wrong but some kids might have anger issues and don’t know how to handle it. But looking more into why the supreme court stopped giving a youth’s a horrible sentences according to this jlc article states that “they don’t want to give juveniles a life sentence because they aren’t fully grown and brains aren’t fully developed.” this doesn’t mean they dont know right from wrong, it just sounds like an excuse to me.

Defending this depends on the situation to if they have to hurt someone where it leads to that person’s death and they were protecting themselves or others from a bad person in case that’s self defense he’s protecting themselves and maybe others.

The definition of juvenile crime under the Queensland Government state law is “In Queensland, a juvenile is defined as a person aged between 10 and 16 years, inclusive. In all jurisdictions, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. That is, children under 10 years of age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions”. This means that the government deems any child under the age of 10 years would not properly have the cognitive abilities to understand the wrongdoing they are committing and should not be blamed for their delinquency.

The definition for robbery by according to the criminal code act of 1899 is “Any person who steals anything, and, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen, is said to be guilty of robbery”. And explains how to commit a ‘robbery’: “The person stealing an item must also use some sort of weapon or threaten to use a weapon, or threaten to destroy or damage property before or after they’ve already taken the item”. This also includes using the item stolen to be used in a way were they can threaten to damage/break it, to then avoid confrontation to the item being stolen.

The main reason for juveniles becoming delinquents is because of the poor parenting received during their childhood, for example, lack of parental supervision, conflict between the child and the parent or abuse, a lack of emotional warmth, discipline that is inconsistent or inappropriate to the behaviour. Other reasons include, schooling and whether or not the student is engaged in their learning, if they are struggling to find or make friends, or even I they are getting bullied and taking their anger out in a negative way. Another reason for juveniles getting involved in their particular crime could be bad modelling from their parental guardian, for example, their parent could be involved in this sort of behaviour and the child from early on could believe that this is acceptable behaviour and would ‘follow their parents footsteps’. In the recent 2 years there has been an increase in these cases and maybe this is because of the increase of the next generation now being old enough to be parents and they may have a tendency to treat their children differently and as an affect more children may become more delinquent as a result.

Juveniles that commit robbery crimes can face up to 5 years in jail on their first offence, on average; that being the highest offence. 30 months is the least time a first offender a juvenile can receive on average. This is unlikely as many first offender will receive community service time or a house arrest sentence and will be restricted to stay home after certain times and must check in with an officer once a week.

The crimes caused by delinquent children can be prevented through different programs that help them understand their effects and helps them become better people. For example, many educational programs have been put into place to help kids understand the effects of drugs, sex, gangs and weapons. This helps kids have awareness that their actions have consequences. Many groups in the community helps with the youth involvement; church groups, girl/boy scouts and volunteer groups help involve the youths in a safe environment.

Over the years the amount of robbery crimes that have been committed by juveniles have been decreasing year by year since 2010 with a recent spike in the amount of cases in 2017 – 2019 and having a total increase of 83 over the past 3 years. There is many measures put into place to discourage this delinquency, such as communitive groups or more serious measures for example, community service, house arrest or jail time. But the main reasons found for juveniles to commit these crimes if more of the environment they had been brought up in, instead of who they are, as opposed to this, there will always be reasons for this behaviour that may be out of control and cannot be influenced without serious mental support. But in conclusion many consequences are put in place and there are many way communities are supporting their youth to help stop this behaviour form stopping and until very recently the number of cases has decreased every year.

At least 10,000 juveniles are housed in adult prisons and jails across the country each day. In the United States, there are over 250,000 youths who are tried and sentenced as adults each year. The cases where children get tried as an adult usually involve serious charges or remarkable criminal history. Most juveniles being tried as adults end up being sentenced to life without parole. Life without parole means you would spend your whole life in prison. Some of these minors are given unfair trials and do not deserve to be tried as an adult.

At the age of 14, Greg Ousley killed both of his parents and was sentenced to sixty years in jail. Greg had the intention to kill his parents as he plotted their deaths very carefully. During his consultation, he said, “I had been thinking about killing them every time I get mad, they don’t seem to understand me”. Killing someone is taken very seriously, so his case was swiftly waived to the adult justice system. Greg didn’t have the best relationship with his parents, as he described it as being rocky. When he got home from school one day he got in a fight with his parents, in which The New York Time Magazine stated, “It was a normal day at his junior high school, but when Greg came home, he fought with his parents and defiantly locked himself in his bedroom”. His mom ended up getting the door to open and tried to talk to him, but he was being combative when she was asking him questions as to what was wrong with him.

When Nathan Ybanez was 16, he had beaten his mother with fireplace tongs and strangled her to death. Him and his family moved houses a lot, but moving cities never fixed the tensions they had between each other. Nate expressed, “Both of my parents were unhappy, I think. My father, he was kind of a violent man at times. And my mother, she was unstable”. Nate didn’t feel stable when he was at home. When the dad wasn’t home, his mom’s needs turned into sexual abuse. The PBS article states, “Julie was extremely controlling of his behavior and her emotional instability led to a warped and abusive relationship with her son”. Even his childhood was filled with abuse. Nate’s friends knew he had issues at home, but they were too afraid to ask about the problems they suspected. A social worker was even called, but no caseworker was ever assigned to investigate what was happening in the house. I would consider his act of crime a type of defense rather than a first-degree murder.

The juvenile justice system is very different from adult prisons. In adult prisons, children lose more than their freedom. They lose out on the benefits juvenile detention facilities provide, such as education and psychological help. Adults’ minds are different and much more developed than minors. Because prisons can carry minor juveniles it can get dangerous with sexual abuse between prisoners. As said in ‘The Steep Costs of Keeping Juveniles in Adult Prisons’, “they are much more likely to suffer sexual abuse and violence at the hands of other inmates and prison staff”.

When comparing two prisoners, there are a lot of factors that have to be taken into consideration. Both boys committed close to the same crimes, just Greg killed two people while Nathan killed one. I feel that Nathan was in a worse mental state and needed therapy to get his thoughts rights instead of making him suffer in an adult prison. He was getting abused mentally and physically and could not take it anymore, so he ended up killing his mother. Greg Ousley knew what he was doing and had the intent to kill both of his parents which deserves parole. Regardless of how young he was he still knew what killing was the jury made the rightful decision of putting him in an adult facility.

Juvenile justice cases are important cases that can impact a child’s life forever. To be sure juveniles are sentenced right, many factors play a role in deciding what they deserve. I have concluded that Nathan Ybanez should be released early from his sentence. After looking at the hardships and uneasiness he went through I feel sympathetic towards him. He will now end his parole and re-enter society as an individual.

The children of today carry with them the hopes of a better tomorrow. However, certain societal systems and norms have forced these once innocent and hopeful citizens to take a darker path. Juvenile crime is one of the problems being experienced in many countries across the world, especially by developing countries such as the Philippines. According to the Philippine Republic Act no. 9344, which is also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, a “Child in conflict with the law or “CICL” refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as having committed an offense under Philippine laws”. In a BusinessMirror article published in 2016, there were at least 11,000 recorded cases of CICL, a number that is seen a considerable decrease, from 52,000 reported cases of children in detention or custody, prior to the enactment of the law stated above. The article also mentions the breakdown of this number based on different types of crime:

ABOUT 60 percent of juvenile crimes fall under crimes against property. These include theft, robbery, malicious mischief and estafa, statistics by the PNP from 2012 to 2015 revealed. On the other hand, crimes against persons—which include rape, attempted rape, acts of lasciviousness, physical injuries, murder, attempted murder, seduction, grave threats, abduction and homicide—constitute 36 percent of the crimes committed by children covering the same period. In addition, 4 percent of the juvenile crimes from 2012 to 2015 involved violations against special laws, such as Republic Act (RA) 9165 (prohibited drugs), Presidential Decree 1866 (illegal possession of firearms) and Presidential Decree 1602 (illegal gambling). Last year theft, physical injury and rape were the top 3 crimes committed by children. (San Juan & Mayuga, 2016)

As seen in the statistics above, the majority of crimes committed by youth fall under crimes against property. Because of this, one can infer that these crimes stem from the prevalent poverty being experienced by the majority of the Philippine Population. Children are being exposed to negative influences because of these circumstances, and with the legislature pushing for the lowering of the minimum age of responsibility, what hope is left for kids to have in the pursuit of their dreams, passions, and goals? The task now for marketers is to create an effective campaign that will encourage kids to power through these obstacles and to “just do it”. This is why the group aims to utilize sports to lessen juvenile crime in the Philippines.

According to a study published by Stephen Brosnan in 2017, results showed that a 10% increase in sports participation leads to a fall in personal crimes of 1.30 and 1.56%, while a 10% increase in sports participation rates leads to a fall in property crimes of between 0.64 and 0.73% (Brosnan, 2017). In addition, another study conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology stated that “It appears that sport and physical activity can reduce crime by providing accessible, appropriate activities in a supportive social context. In other words, sport and physical activity must be connected positively within the social fabric of groups and communities” (Cameron & MacDougall, 2000). However, the paper also states that this strategy is not “one size fits all”. Therefore, it must be specifically tailored and designed to fit the Philippine context in order for the proposed campaign to be successful.

This is the reason why the group chose the brand Nike to be at the forefront of implementing this campaign. Nike has had a long history of promoting sports development in various sectors across the globe. Along with its slogan “Just Do It”, the brand has been able to empower people of all ages, genders, and races to pursue sports and use it as a tool for positive change. Nike’s success in pioneering successful programs and showcasing its advocacy is what the group aims to localize in the Philippine context.

II. Background on Brand and Company

Company

Nike Inc. was founded in Oregon in 1964 by Bill Bowerman, then track and field coach at the University of Oregon. Before establishing itself as one of the biggest players in sportswear today, it was first named Blue Ribbon Sports which was short-lived and changed just 8 years later (Nike, Inc., n.d.). Through the years, it has acquired different assets and companies in its goal of expanding the company such as Converse, Hurley, Jordan, etc. and has become one of the biggest players in sportswear today.

Brand

At the forefront of the company is Nike, a brand that essentially produces a wide range of athletic wear and equipment. Starting out with only shoes, they now manufacture shoes, jerseys, and athleisure wear — catering to virtually any sport one can name. Additionally, they have teamed up with the company Apple to come up with Nike+ which allows a connection between their shoes and Apple products to monitor performance (Nike Company Background, n.d.).

In Nike, they pride itself on their products and in their customers. Their mission revolves around the task of “Bringing inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world” and is what powers their search for thinking bigger and better for the future of sportswear. Making equality and belongingness their top priority, they are an inclusive company that looks for sustainable means for helping people from different cultures and walks of life move forward in the world of sports. This sustainability aspect is always at its core as they think bigger and better for the future of its brand. With their purpose of “Unit[ing] the world through sport to create a healthy planet, active communities and an equal playing field for all”, they move to become more than just an athletics brand to create a real and lasting impact in the world today.

Analysis

Through the years, Nike has proven to be a strong-willed and resilient brand that can withstand any conflicts that come their way. Well renowned for their strong advocacies about empowerment, equality, and sustainability, they have become a trusted brand in this day and age. With their brand assets like the famous Swoosh and their tagline “Just Do It”, they have built strong brand recall and recognition worldwide. Along with one of their beliefs of constant innovation, they create durable products that are up to date with the current trends today. Targeting men, women, and children from all walks of life, they are able to become the brand that they are today. Despite this, they are a premium sports brand with an expensive price point and perception to the public. Mostly dependent on their footwear to drive profits and sales, their other product lines have less saleability. Additionally, in the past years, they have been criticized for various allegations about unjust labor practices they since then have been trying to address.

III. Environmental Analysis and Competitive Scenario

PESTEL Analysis

• Political

Aside from the fact that the Duterte administration enacted new taxation laws that poorly affected the category, the government does not pose any restrictions to the brands that play in this field. Being a democratic country, there is no use of political propaganda to dictate what citizens should and should not be wearing. Hence, it somewhat serves as an opportunity for brands to have free rein over their businesses and the products that they put in the market.

• Economic

The current economic conditions of the Philippines include rising inflation, the depreciation of the Philippine Peso, and new tax laws implemented by the government have all played a part in affecting the current buying behavior and purchasing power of the consumers. This poses as a threat to the category, as the already price-sensitive Filipinos will become warier of their purchases. Some players in the category may suffer because it could mean that consumers will choose to prioritize basic needs over other luxuries. However, it is also important to note that despite these adversities, the category continues to grow and is still forecasted to reach greater heights in the coming years.

• Social

Consumers are becoming smarter and their decisions have become more and more calculated. With the presence of the internet and even word of mouth, these consumers have become more aware of the different product offerings of each brand and are able to pinpoint which ones they already like and dislike. This serves as both an opportunity and a threat to the category because it allows brands to innovate the way they communicate, but it also makes it harder for them to differentiate themselves from strong competitors. Other social issues that may be detrimental to this category is that of unjust labor hours and wages. Many apparels and footwear brands have faced backlash over the years for having children and women working in sweatshops for long grueling hours. Nike has also faced its fair share of incriminating news which serves as a large threat to the brand, especially for those who feel strongly about this issue.

• Technological

The rise of e-commerce has made shopping much more accessible and convenient. This proves as an opportunity for the category to further innovate and expand its business. By being available in this space, brands are able to better communicate with their consumers, especially those from the younger age brackets. For a big player like Nike, it is easy for them to dominate in this platform because of their well-established brand, but for smaller start-ups, it may prove to be difficult to enter the online sphere and go head to head with the market leaders. On another note, the use of technology also allows brands to study the buying patterns and market basket size of its consumers. This aspect also serves as an opportunity because it allows them to better understand their consumers, which can eventually help brands improve the way they cater to their consumers’ needs.

• Ecological

Sustainability has been one of the most relevant topics in today’s society. In line with this is the discussion on fast fashion and the amount of waste in generates. This poses a large threat to the category because there is a growing number of people who choose not to purchase from stores that mass produce their clothing in large factories. Being a global brand that offers a wide array of products, Nike is certainly one of the candidates on the chopping block. Despite the brand’s own sustainability efforts, this may not be enough to change the minds of green-minded consumers. Thus, this is one of the external factors that may negatively impact the category and the brand.

• Legal

Presidential Decree No. 604 implemented on December 10, 1974, focuses on integrating nationwide youth development, physical fitness, and amateur sports development programs. It calls for the creation of the Department of Youth and Sports Development in order to better integrate recreational activities into the lives of the youth. This serves as a big opportunity for the brand and the intended advocacy because it is supported by the government and is recognized as a social issue that needs to be addressed. This decree gives Nike the room it needs to better implement its plans for the advocacy campaign.

Crime is a big problem in today’s society. Crime is an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Some examples of crimes are assault and battery, murder, arson, child abuse, domestic abuse, kidnapping, rape and statutory rape, etc. With crimes being committed every day, kids are going to be pulled into committing crimes because some adults’, who are committing crimes, think if a kid gets caught instead of them they won’t spend as much time served. This is not the only way kids get pulled into committing crimes. Some kids have a hard life growing up and the only way to be able to eat is to steal, rob a store, or break in places in order to have a safe place to sleep at night.

Juvenile crime examples are different from regular crime examples but just because they are different doesn’t mean juveniles are any less capable of committing violent crimes. The most common juvenile crimes are vandalism and graffiti charges, shoplifting and other petty theft charges, a simple assault which is normally due to fighting incidents, underage drinking violations, joyriding a car and etc. If crime is such a big problem in today’s society, what exactly are the juvenile crime rates? In 2008, an estimated 2.1 million juveniles between the age of 12 and 17 were arrested in the United States.

What is the most commonly committed juvenile crime though? They are normally nonviolent misdemeanor offenses, but the most common is theft-larceny which showed an arrest rate of 401.3 per 100,000 youths in 2016. These two are often used together but they aren’t the same thing. Larceny is considered a smaller crime while theft is considered as a more serious one. Some states divide theft into grand and petty theft which a more serious crime would be something that is a specific amount such as more than $500. The law does not consider youth to be able to make the same choices as adults. The penalties for juvenile theft are intended to teach and correct instead of punishing. There are multiple penalties for juveniles that are different for each case which is, in order, release to parents, restitution, probation, diversion, counseling, and then confinement or placement.

I believe that giving the youth multiple chances is a good thing but also a bad thing. For some youths, they won’t learn or they have no one to care about them. In the case they have no one to care about them because their parents are on drugs or alcoholics then the kid has to fend for himself. So, in order to keep the kids out of juvenile detention and to help build a better future for them would be to give them three chances instead of six chances before they go to juvenile detention. They could also call in social services to see what’s going on in the home and to make sure they aren’t being neglected or abused. If they aren’t being neglected just running with the wrong crowd then they could ask them to volunteer at an animal shelter or community shelter.

There are multiple ways we could keep youth from committing crimes and help them have a better future regardless of their home life or the card they have been dealt. A simple gesture or going out of your way to help the youth is a step in the right direction.

Juvenile crime remains a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Though the rates of juvenile incarcerations have gone down, it still poses a threat to the social fabric. Various theories explain the reasons that contribute to juvenile delinquency. One of these theories is routine activity theory. The theory that was developed by Cohen and Felson in 1979 suggests that three elements must be present for a crime to occur. First is a potentially motivated offender who has criminal intent and the ability to act on them, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian or authority figure that can prevent the crime from happening. If all these factors are present, then a crime is likely to occur. Based on the theory, police officers need to develop strategies that can prevent delinquent behavior. One of these strategies is situational crime prevention. The strategy suggests that crime reduction can occur if the opportunities that lead to crime are limited. Prevention of crime is not about changing the criminal or delinquent disposition. It is about analyzing circumstances that lead to delinquent acts and making modifications that can prevent further crimes from happening.

Juvenile Crime

Juvenile crime is a serious concern for all stakeholders. The rates of incarceration have decreased over the past decades with the rate being 37 juvenile detainees per 100,000 population in 2008 compared to 64.9 per 100,000 in 1981 (Richards, 2011). The most common reasons for incarceration were crimes against people and property. Preventing juvenile crime can be difficult. Law enforcers need to consider many factors to ensure that the behavior is not repeated. Most of the intervention and prevention efforts on juvenile delinquent behavior concentrate on identifying factors that contribute to delinquent behavior and addressing these factors early enough. Also, building on protective factors to offset the risks of the behavior occurring is an additional way of preventing juvenile delinquency. One of the theories that best explain juvenile behavior is the routine activity theory by Cohen and Felson. The theory was developed in 1979. The theory suggests that three elements need to be present for a crime to occur. First is a potentially motivated offender who has criminal intent and the ability to act on them, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian or authority figure that can prevent the crime from happening (Purpura, 2013). The three elements need to be present for a crime to occur. The routine activity theory focuses on the characteristics of the crime and not the offender. Thus, the environment is one of the factors that contribute to crime. Research suggests that high-crime areas have high rates of repeat crimes. Besides, the theory allows the exploration of criminal events by paying focus on the domains in which these events occur. Therefore, there is a need to identify factors that contribute to high juvenile crime rates and find strategies that can minimize these risks. The essay draws on routine activity theory to understand factors that increase delinquent behavior and expose people to motivated offenders.

Routine activity theory is greatly cited in criminological studies. The theory provides greater perspectives on crime compared to a majority of theories that center of the criminal, biological, psychological, and social factors that motivate delinquent acts. By focusing on routine activity, the theory seeks to investigate crime as an event and highlight the relationship between space, time, and the environment with criminal behaviors. The theory provides a greater perspective on crime. It predicts the changes both social and economic and the way they influence an increase in criminal behavior (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen first formulated the theory in 1979 before Felson further developed the theory to include a broader perspective. The developers of the theory suggest that violations or delinquent behaviors are not random or trivial events. Instead, they are informed by a routine of activities that people engage in daily. Certain activities make people engage in criminal activities and others make them more susceptible to being viewed as suitable targets by potential offenders. Other than the daily activities, the patterns of interaction of people daily also inform criminal activity. Thus, the two authors suggest that the crime is normal and the pattern of offending depends greatly on the available opportunities to offend. As long as there is a possible target, a motivated offender is likely to commit a crime.

According to this theory, some factors that occur on a routine basis may motivate an offender. For example, walking through a specific neighborhood on a routine basis, a potential offender may identify easy targets for breaking. As a result, they are likely to commit a burglary into buildings that are not safeguarded. Also, commercial buildings that do not have access controls or any form of security make them suitable targets for potential offenders. In addition to a potential offender and a suitable target, the lack of a capable guardian to prevent the crime is another determinant of criminal behavior according to this theory. This means that guardians should be more involved in the life of their children to minimize delinquent behavior. Thus, the changes in structural patterns of everyday activities and new configurations increase the potential for criminal opportunities.

The authors go ahead to suggest that transformations in modern society have led to an increase in the number of activities far from home and these have led to an increase in criminal activities. For instance, more women have joined the labor force. An increase in vacation travel more so trips outside the city have increased to some homes that are left unprotected. All these activities have led to an increase in predatory contacts. Solitary life also makes one a potential target. Thus, transformations in modern society have led to an increase in the number of delinquent acts.

The third element that contributes to crime based on this theory is the absence of a capable guardian. A capable guardian, in this case, is someone who can intervene to prevent the occurrence of a crime. The concept of guardian, in this case, has a wide meaning. A guardian can be a parent, adult, or someone who functions as a guard of the property but not necessarily a security guard or police. Guardianship in this concept refers to the physical or symbolic presence of an individual that acts to prevent a potential criminal activity. Therefore, the absence is likely to lead to criminal behavior.

The theory has many benefits in the explanation of delinquent behavior. It points out factors that lead to juvenile delinquency and is not limited to a certain population. A potential offender, a potential target, and the absence of a guardian is likely to lead to juvenile delinquency. Youths who are not monitored by parents, guardians, or authority figures are likely to engage in delinquency. Also, the presence of a potential target, for instance, a building that lacks security or someone walking alone is likely to be more targeted.

An additional theory that seeks to explain juvenile delinquency and other criminal acts are Merton’s anomie theory. The theory was developed in 1938 and is among the first theories that provide a sociological explanation of delinquent behavior. The theory focuses on social structures and seeks to understand delinquent behavior based on these formations. The theory seeks to understand the way society social structures constrain behavior and lead to deviant acts. Anomic conditions occur because of the discrepancy between goals and means to achieve them. The discrepancy leads to disorientation of the individual, which leads to stress and social conflicts. For individuals to cope with the pressure that comes from the discrepancy between goals and means individuals either conform, innovate, retreat, reject, or rebel (Merton, 1938). Society places many expectations from a person more so concerning the attainment of societal goals. However, people do not have similar opportunities that can lead to success.

Conformity is one of the most common forms of adaptation. Conformity means that an individual has accepted the cultural goal of success and he or she is trying to achieve it through the set legitimate means. Thus, conformity is the only means of adaptation that is non-deviant.

Innovation is an adaptation. Individuals who innovate accept the cultural goal of success but try to achieve it through illegitimate means. Drug dealing, embezzlement of funds, or robbery are some of these illegitimate means.

Ritualism occurs when individuals have abandoned the cultural goal of success but continue to use legitimate means to make a living. Retreatism occurs when people have abandoned the cultural goal of success and legitimate means of attaining this goal.

Rebellion occurs when individuals do not conform to the rules. Most people who fall under this category are in the political class. They reject the cultural goal of success and replace it with another goal. Individuals then go ahead and use either legitimate or illegitimate means to achieve this goal. The rebels use any means to achieve their goal.

Though the theory argues that people commit crimes because they lack alternatives, it does not explain why they react differently to the different situations they encounter. The theory also does not explain other delinquent behaviors such as murder and rape. Most explanations are for monetary crimes such as burglary or theft. The theory is also limited because it explains criminal activities within the lower class. The theory assumes that the middle and upper class have the means to achieve cultural goals and thus does not engage in delinquent behavior, which is not true.

The theory does not fully account for the causes of juvenile delinquency because it limits the people who commit a crime to those in the lower class. The theory argues that these groups of people are likely to engage in crime because they have limitations in achieving the cultural goal of success. They do not have enough resources, which makes them do illegitimate means to achieve the cultural goal. The theory also fails to explain the meaning of the cultural goal of success. Other than social goals, each individual has personal goals that he or she aims to achieve and thus the means to achieve them can be different.

Various crime prevention strategies exist regarding juvenile delinquent acts. One of these strategies is situational crime prevention. This strategy is different in that it seeks to reduce opportunities that lead to crime. The strategy does not focus on changing the criminal or delinquent disposition. The strategy begins by analyzing the circumstances that result in certain types of delinquent acts and then introduces environmental modifications that can prevent the occurrence of these crimes (Blomberg et al., 2016). The changes go beyond the immediate physical and social settings in which the crime occurs and cover wider societal arrangements that allow the occurrence of the crime. Thus, the theory focuses on the settings and not the delinquent.

Based on routine activity theory, the police can reduce juvenile crime by eliminating factors that are likely to contribute to crime. For instance, reducing the possible target can minimize delinquent behavior. Instead of punishing the youth, the police can make it difficult for them to commit a crime in the first place. Ensuring that buildings have security controls such as alarm systems or physical restrictions that limit access can make it difficult for them to be a potential target. Thus, the crime will not be committed in the first place. Besides, such security measures increase the immediate risks of being caught, which can discourage a person from committing a crime. Also, potential targets should limit their movements or walk around with a lot of money to minimize being attacked. In a 2017 article that appeared in The Chronicle, for instance, one of the factors that stood out on why youths engage in delinquent behavior is the potential wealth that offenders believe targets have (Smith & Hooker, 2017). In the article, for instance, the youth gang attacked the man because he had a luxury car, which they associated with potential wealth. Therefore, eliminating factors that contribute to crime can prevent delinquent behaviour.

Also, removing excuses for offending can minimize juvenile delinquency. Most of the youths who engage in delinquent behavior tend to have factors that make it easier for them to offend. For example, some are from poor homes, which makes it hard for them to afford some things, they consider necessities. To cater to this shortage, they may decide to break into a store or attack someone for money to be able to afford what they desire. Addressing the issue of poverty by providing such families with grants can minimize the burden of juvenile delinquent acts.

Informal control of delinquent behavior can also help to reduce juvenile crime. For example, creating private areas that make it easier to establish guardianship can make it difficult for youth to engage in crime. Routine activity theory suggests that lack of guardianship is one of the factors that contribute to delinquency. Thus, introducing measures that can make it easier to establish guardianship can minimize delinquent acts because the youths are watched all the time.

In conclusion, juvenile delinquency continues to cause serious concern among stakeholders. Although the rates of delinquent behaviors have reduced, they continue to happen due to changes in environmental factors. Thus, identifying factors that lead to criminal activities is important in minimizing their occurrence. One of the theories that best explain juvenile delinquency is the rational activity theory. The theory suggests that for a crime to occur certain factors need to be present, a potential offender, a suitable target, and a lack of guardianship. The availability of a suitable target makes it easier for one to offend. Lack of guardians also makes it easier to offend. However, despite the high rates of delinquent behaviors, situational crime intervention has been documented as one of the strategies that can minimize delinquency. Various research studies have documented situational crime intervention as a successful strategy in crime reduction because the benefits go beyond the targeted crime or criminal and address the underlying issues that motivate this criminal act. The intervention suggests that a change of environment can minimize the motivation that drives delinquency.

Having established that poor parenting is the main cause of youth crime it is now important to identify the main way to prevent crime. This aim will highlight the main ways to prevent youth crime as early intervention, tackling poverty and inequality, and improving the care system. It is evident that improving poverty and inequality will have the most drastic effect on tackling youth crime and ensuring more youths are kept safe and away from offending. Overall, this aim will highlight that tackling poverty and inequality is the most important way of preventing youth crime while all play a key role.

Youths can go through hardships in their lives that can lead them to commit crimes, these can affect them at different stages of their lives through those that are born or grow up in poverty before they release are exposed to crime, therefore tackling poverty and inequality is the pest prevention of youth crime. Ex-chief constable of Merseyside Andy Cooke said The best crime prevention is increased opportunity and reduced poverty. That`s the best way to reduce crime. So there needs to be substantial funding for the infrastructure of our inner cities and our more deprived areas. This is clearly showing that first hand a police officer thinks that the best way to prevent crime is to reduce poverty and inequality. He is enforcing that there needs to be more money put into helping those in poverty as being in a more disadvantaged area is predisposing you to commit crime as you may not have the money to pay bills or purchase food which will resort in crime for survival. Figures in agree with the fact that poverty needs to be tackled in order to reduce youth crime. It can be seen from press releases that three-quarters of the boroughs in with the highest levels of violent offending are also in the top 10 most deprived, while the same boroughs also have higher proportions of children under 20 living in poverty than the average. This is clear evidence that links the fact that those living in more deprived areas have higher violent offending rates. A way that many are wanting to reduce the youth offending rate is by expanding after-school services, this is following the fact that many incidents for those ages 10-16 happen after the school day was complete, this meaning that having after-school care could prevent some of these incidents. Another strategy that is hoped to be put in place is to deal with domestic violence and the fact that those who are experiencing this should receive some extra support to help them through. The following figures show 13% of serious youth violence victims are victims of domestic violence, and evidence of the link between involvement in violence and children witnessing violence in the home. This is clearly shown that more support for those who are experiencing domestic violence at home, could help lower offending rates, this is because with a large number of the youth violent crimes being related to seeing violence in the home, trying to tackle this would have a positive knock-on effect to the youths. The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime has followed around 4,300 young people moving from childhood to adulthood, Lesley McAra and Susan McVie argue that systems of youth justice, far from tackling violence and lifting young people out of poverty, serve instead to entrench them in it. The study showed that poverty had a significant effect on young people`s possibility to engage in violence at age 15, even when controlling for the effects of a range of other factors known to influence violent behavior like poor family functioning, lack of attachment to school, and substance misuse. On the other hand, it looked at factors that could be preventative of crime such as a strong and positive relationship with parents. And yet they still found that young people living in a family where the head of the household was unemployed or in low-status manual employment, and those growing up in a community scarred by high levels of deprivation, are significantly more likely to engage in violence. However, it can be seen that youths from more wealthy backgrounds also commit crimes. Param Sharma who was 18 years old from California went from Instagram’s richest teen to living life in prison for committing the act of selling stolen iPhones online. He was given a 90-day sentence and was put in Santa Rita prison. This is showing that those from privileged backgrounds also do wrong and commit crimes, this means that we cannot state that just improving poverty and inequality will help youth crime as not everyone who has committed a crime is affected by poverty. Overall it is clear that tackling poverty and inequality is the most important factor in looking at preventing youth crime, this is because the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime found that poverty had a significant and direct effect on young people`s possibility to engage in violence at age 15, even when controlling for the effects of a range of other factors known to influence violent behavior, however, it was slightly less useful as young people that are not in poverty also commit a crime. Overall, it is clear that tackling poverty and inequality is the most significant factor in trying to prevent youth crime.

It is important to tackle crime early in order for the best chance to prevent it, early intervention is an important response in trying to stop youth crime. Early intervention is the process of providing support to children and young people who are at risk of poor outcomes and tackling the problems they face before they become worse. Early intervention can take different forms, from school-based programs to improve children`s social and emotional skills, to mentoring schemes for young people who are vulnerable to involvement in the crime. If early intervention is tackled in the right way it can benefit not only the young person but their family and community as a whole. These different types of early intervention will benefit different people in different ways and it is important to analyze the young person and their situation carefully before deciding what is best for them and their situation. One form of early intervention is Behavioural parent training (BPT) which teaches parents to be consistent in reinforcing helpful behavior and punishing or ignoring hostile or uncooperative behavior. BPT is more effective in smaller and more manageable class sizes, and when aimed at parents of older young children approximately aged 10 and above. Another effective way is through Multi-dimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) where young people are placed in short-term foster homes where they receive individual therapy and behavioral coaching similar to child skills training. At the same time, their parents or guardians receive weekly family therapy in which they are taught effective parenting and family management techniques. This can be beneficial in situations of poor parenting as the child is being taken away from their parent which may be beneficial if that is one of the triggers to the young person committing a crime. Both of these techniques have been seen to be effective in helping intervention and although they are challenging for those involved the end result could be life-changing for both the young person and their family. Early intervention prevents the onset of delinquent behavior and supports the development of a youth`s assets and resilience. Intervening early not only saves young lives from being wasted but also prevents the onset of adult criminal careers and reduces the likelihood of youth becoming serious and violent offenders. This is significant as it is showing the long-term impact of a good early intervention program as we are stopping these youths from offending any further in their lives this, in turn, reduces the burden of crime on society. However, there can be problems with early intervention as they can be difficult to evaluate, this is due to the fact that there are no set evaluation methods, assessing the long-term impact of early intervention can mean that there may need to be many follow-up appointments and tests over the years which can be difficult and time-consuming. This is significant as it is showing the downfall of early intervention that it can be difficult to evaluate and ensure that over a long period of time that it has had a positive impact on the young person. Overall, it is clear that early intervention plays a key role to a large extent in preventing youth crime through different types of intervention programs in the hope to help the youth offender in the hope to make their life better as they move into adulthood, this is effective though can be less effective as it is difficult to evaluate especially over a long period of time as it can be hard to get the young person back for follow up appointments. Overall. It is clear that although early intervention is an important factor in trying to prevent youth crime, tackling poverty and inequality is more important.

Improving the care system is another response that can be beneficial to a moderate extent when looking at preventing youth crime. Looked after children come into contact with the youth justice system it is 7.3% of those in the care system compared to 3% of all children and young people. This is significant in looking at improving the care system because it is showing that those who have been in the care system are more likely to come into contact with the youth justice system, this could be due to poor parenting or other factors they may have experienced but also due to their life in the care system.