Category: Juvenile Delinquency

Introduction

Juvenile courts and adults’ courts are similar in the structural system but different in ideas. The ideas vary because of their purposes and goals in each court. Chapter four of the juvenile justice system describes that a juvenile can decide to commit a crime because of his own choice or due to the environment he lives. Juvenile courts were established to deter delinquencies from engaging in more crimes. The U.S Supreme Court decided that children were guilty of their actions, and therefore they could not be tried in adult criminal courts.

In the case McKeiver V. Pennsylvania of 1971, the United States Supreme Court decided that juveniles can access a jury trial only if they relate to the adult court system. The case involved a 16-year-old who was charged with larceny charges (FindLaw, n.d.). The attorney of the boy had requested a jury trial but, because the case was not bound over the adult system, it was retained in the juvenile system. The Supreme Court agreed with the state court decision. The judge said that a jury trial would only ruin the character and the formation of the juvenile proceedings. He added that the jury trials in the juvenile courts would only affect the clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution.

If the juvenile was an adult and tried in an adult court, the Supreme Court could have ruled that the accused had the right to a jury trial. Each person charged with a misdemeanor offense has the right to a jury trial for a fact-finding. The outcomes of McKeiver could be different if he were tried in the adult courts. He could have been given the right to a jury trial. If the jury finds him guilty of the crime beyond any reasonable doubt, he could go to prison.

The first juvenile court was established in Chicago, Illinois. The court has undergone some changes since then. The process of the court involved the conversation between the judge and the youth. ‘The original theory behind separating juvenile offenders from adult offenders was to provide care and direction for youngsters instead of isolation and punishment’ (Meng et al., 2013). Therefore, it is believed that children are not fully mature, either mentally or physically; they cannot really be held accountable for their crimes such as adults are. During Roman times, juveniles were disciplined by their parents depending on their age and the extent of the crime. In 1825, a society called Prevention of Pauperism opened the first house of refugees, and by 1828, similar organizations followed (Meng et al., 2013). With these past practices during Roman times, it influenced the way the juvenile justice system is setup.

When a juvenile is arrested, a decision is made based on the extent of the crime. the court decides whether to send the matter further into the system or transfer the case out of the system (alternative programs). The law enforcement officer decides some of the cases after talking to the parties involved. The juvenile system was specifically designed for the children since they are not entirely responsible for some of their actions. The juvenile offenses are referred to as ‘status offenses.’ Such offenses that fall under this category are ‘runaway behavior, truancy, unruly behavior, and curfew violation’ (Champion et al., 2013). These are just some known examples.

‘Juvenile courts are civil proceedings designed for juveniles, whereas criminal courts are proceedings designed to try adults charged with crimes’ (Champion et al., 2013). With that in mind, there are several key differences between both courts. First, in a juvenile court, juveniles are not found guilty or not guilty, whereas adults are in an adult court. Juveniles do not obtain a criminal record. The second key difference is the proceedings. In a juvenile court, they are informal, whereas, in an adult court, they are formal.

Moreover, cases are sometimes held in a judge’s chamber, and judges tend to ‘address juveniles directly and casually’ (Champion et al., 2013). For an adult, cases are held in the courtroom. The third difference is trial by jury. Adults are entitled to a trial by jury, whereas juveniles are not. The fourth key difference is a representation by counsel. In an adult court, adults are obligated to be represented by counsel, whereas juveniles have the option to opt-out. A fifth difference is the courts of records. In a juvenile court, written records of court proceedings are not kept. In other words, they are not courting of records like an adult court is. In an adult court, everything is scripted and transcribed, and a court reporter is presented. For a judge in a juvenile court to request a court reporter to be present in a juvenile case, it all ‘depends on the specific jurisdiction’ (Champion et al., 2013). In adult court, the standard of proof is utilized, whereas, in juvenile court, the preponderance of the evidence is used. Lastly, the range of penalties differs. In an adult court, a penalty could extend to life with no parole or penalty of death, whereas, in a juvenile court, it is limited. With these differences, the champion noted that in an adult court system, “criminal court actions are more serious and have harsher long-term consequences for offenders compared with juvenile court proceedings.’

Certain factors followed during the transferring of a youth being tried as an adult, such as; how violent was the crime, any aggravating circumstances, and are they a danger to the community. It is a substantial choice transferring an adolescent offender to an adult prison. The possibility of moving youth to an adult prison could more than likely expose them to the possibility of harsher punishment, therefore exposing them to the possibility of ‘physical, sexual, and psychological victimization by other inmates'(Mulvey & Schulbert, 2012). The juvenile court system focuses on rehabilitating the juvenile. However, based on the extent of the crime or if the juvenile is a repetitive offender, the juvenile court may petition to transfer to an adult court. The decision to move youth to an adult court exposes the juvenile to waive their protective rights.

Even though there are differences, there are some similarities in regard to their structures, yet differences are apparent. For example, in both courts, the individual must be proven guilty before being sentenced in any way. All in all, juvenile and adult court systems differ. Juvenile courts are mostly based on a rehabilitation model, whereas adult courts are not. Adult courts are harsh and more of a punishing model Overall, both courts aim in assuring that any individual, whether it is a juvenile or an adult, who has a court proceeding, adhere to all laws.

References

1. Champion, D. J., Merlo, A. V., Benekos, P. J., & (2013). The juvenile justice system: Delinquency, processing, and the law (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
2. FindLaw, (n.d.). United States Supreme Court. McKEIVER v. PENNSYLVANIA (1971) No. 322. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/403/528.html
3. Making. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25(3), 275-278. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2013-0062
4. Meng, A., Segal, R., & Boden, E. (2013). American juvenile justice system: History in the
5. Merlo, A. V., Benekos, P. J., Champion, D. J. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing, and the Law. [University of Phoenix]. Retrieved from https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323145074/

Macro/systemic factors that disempower young people in these systems A discussion about civic engagement for juvenile justice involved youth begins with an understanding of the experiences and systemic barriers that contribute to civic disengagement. One such example is characterized as the “School-to-Prison Pipeline” (Nussbaum, 2018) which traces the disparate impact of zero tolerance school discipline policies (automatic school expulsion for pre-determined codes of conduct) on youth and families of color. Under these policies and practices, schools as civic communities foster a punitive rather than civil culture of engagement for these youth (Kupchik & Catlaw, 2015). Citizenship, a component of civic engagement, is characterized as a status (Hart & Atkins, 2003) reserved for members of a community who have agency and standing among members. As disproportionate numbers of youth of color are suspended from public schools under zero tolerance policies and overrepresented in our criminal justice systems, these youth are ultimately excluded and marginalized from early civic opportunities and community membership. Since the 1970s, schools have experienced a massive shift in how they respond to misbehavior in the classroom. The suspension rate for all students has nearly doubled, with students of color and students with disabilities incurring exclusion at an even greater rate. In Massachusetts, 17% of all incidents involved low-income Black or Latino students receiving special education, a rate that is estimated to be 10 times greater than their enrollment (The State of School Discipline, 2014).

Negative developmental and life course outcomes, such as high school dropout and longstanding emotional trauma, are associated with youth who experience school suspension, expulsion, and school arrest (Ispa-Landa, 2017): “Adolescents are developmentally primed to notice societal hypocrisy, and rebel or disengage when institutional practices contradict the principles of civility, respect, and fairness that adults espouse” (pg.4). Rubin (2007) identifies the educational experiences of youth of color from low-income communities as having an impact on their civic engagement and feelings of empowerment as agents of change. Rubin’s (2007) study links inconsistencies between young people’s personal lives and community circumstances and the civic ideals and texts taught in school with uncertainty about whether change was possible and discouragement about being able to impact inequalities they personally experienced and a sense of hopelessness about using established channels of civic participation to bring about change. Rubin (2007) asserts that what is described as “disengagement” by these marginalized youth may be a rational response to the civil disparities between purported equalities in our society and the injustices they experience.

Kirk and Sampson (2013); Sampson and Laub (1997) utilize labeling theory framework to explain that being labeled a ‘‘criminal’’ changes the way school systems treat youth and begins a “life-course turning-point” for youth whereby the stigma of such a label damages prosocial peer relationships and leads to rejection from teachers, parents and community members. Labeling and stigmatization generate negative consequences for youth related to social networks, jobs, and self-esteem. Social rejection (Sampson and Laub, 1997) undermines the attachment of youth to the school and creates a vicious cycle of negative interactions. Kirk and Sampson (2013) identify a detachment process experienced by youth excluded from school linked to juvenile arrest and a snowball effect that can lead to more deviance and school drop-out. Among Chicago adolescents otherwise equivalent on prearrest characteristics (Kirk and Sampson , 2013), 73 percent of those arrested later dropped out of high school compared with 51 percent of those never arrested.

Kupchik and Catlaw (2015) associate school discipline as a negative predictor of long-term civic participation rates among adults with a history of school suspensions. In their research, high suspension rates (Kupchik & Catlaw, 2015) are correlated with adults voting less often and being less likely to participate in community volunteer activities. Nussbaum (2018) sites extensive documentation of the correlations between widespread adoption of Zero-tolerance policies in schools across the country and increases in school suspensions, school arrests, and dropout rates as well as lower attendance rates and academic performance among low-income, youth of color and youth with disabilities.

Atkins and Hart (2003) associate structural factors such as neighborhood and socioeconomic status as barriers for low income and youth of color in the development of strong civic identity and community participation into adulthood. These researchers define civic identify as a sense of connectedness to one’s community, in which schools are also considered primary communities for young people. Atkins and Hart (2003) identify community participation as a key component in the development of civic identity. Community participation is defined as contributions and responsibilities such as voting and community service activities. Adolescence is highlighted by Atkins and Hart (2003) as a critical time for the development and sustainment of civic identity and a stage during which community membership advantages begin to be accrued. They explain that it is during this stage that adults (other than parents) and prosocial communities (to include schools) begin to exert influence on a young person’s development of social identity and “social capital.” After controlling for age, race, gender, and parental educational attainment, the researchers find that youth living in a high-poverty, urban neighborhoods are 50% less likely than their suburban counterparts to participate in community service activities (Hart & Atkins, 2003).

Godsey and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2012) associate regular interaction and involvement with the criminal justice system for youths in low-income communities with lower participation in civic and community activities. Lack of youth engagement in community is linked to hostility towards authority and hopelessness about having an impact on changing problems. An analysis of data from the Black Youth Project Survey (Godsey & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2012) finds that, “the act of being arrested has a negative and statistically significant impact on almost all indicators of political efficacy”.

Policy Review Passed in Massachusetts, An Act Relative to Student Access to Educational Services and Exclusion from School, as Chapter 222 of the Acts of 2012. Provisions ensuring that students who are suspended or expelled from school continue to have an opportunity to make academic progress through educational services provided by their district or charter school. Requires principals and headmasters to create a “school-wide education service plan” for all students who are suspended or expelled for more than 10 consecutive school days, whether in or out of school, so that students have an opportunity to make academic progress. The Principal shall exercise discretion in deciding the consequence for the offense and in cases not involving possession of a controlled substance, a weapon, an assault on staff or felony charges, shall avoid using long-term suspension from school until alternatives have been tried. Non-exclusionary Alternatives: Mediation; Conflict resolution; Restorative justice; Positive intervention and supports; Probation; Detention; Saturday School; Contracting; Loss of Privileges; Restitution. To ensure there is not an overrepresentation of low-income, youth of color and youth with disabilities among those suspended from school, each year the Department of Education is required to publish the district level data, to include an analysis dis-aggregated by student status and categories to be established. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the most recent version (2015) of the federal government’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Each state is required to set statewide, long-term goals and interim progress targets for improving outcomes for all students and including economically disadvantaged students, students from major ethnic and racial groups, children with disabilities, and English learners. All states must also submit an annual Civil Rights Data Collection survey that includes disaggregated data on the following: in-school suspensions; out-of-school suspensions; expulsions; school related arrests; referrals to law enforcement; allegations and reports of bullying and harassment; chronic absenteeism. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/What-is-in-ESSA.pdf

Strategies, their effects, limitations Zeldin (2004) identifies restorative justice strategies, such as peer juries and peace circles, as antidotes to punitive discipline policies by promoting instructive and inclusive approaches. Suvall (2009) notes restorative justice approaches in schools show promise in helping to address broader issues of youth connectedness and agency within by providing youth an opportunity to resolve discipline problem and make repairs to the school community through reflection and participation in the correct action process. Such restorative approaches have the potential to increase school community safety with evidence of a positive impact on youth re-engagement and reduction in interpersonal violence rates and delinquent behaviors. There is, however, a lack of evaluation research on restorative justice curricula and best practices with the reasons cited (Nussbaum, 2018) as inconsistent implementation, as well as, lack of local, state and federal funding for development and school staff training.

Civic education advocates (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2018) also point to the need to include intercultural competence as an important component of restorative justice programming and youth re-engagement initiatives. Teaching youth of color the history of racial inequality and the systemic and structural policies and practices that act to sustain such inequalities, works to empower youth towards social action and away from internalized messages of self-blame and marginalization.

Kiesa and Vito (2018) highlight the need for youth-centered participatory approaches to help youth develop civic literacy and individual civic agency: “Democracy needs all young people to see themselves as participants and for leaders and practitioners to ensure they have received messages supporting and welcoming their participation” (P.2). Formal programs like YouthBuild and AmeriCorp, designed to provide career/vocational and civic activities, show immediate and long-term impact on youth perceptions and levels of community engagement (Godsey & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2012). A study by Godsey and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2012) finds that graduates of these and seven other similar programs, are more likely to be employed and less likely to be arrested: “African American men who graduated from the program were more than four times as likely to have voted than their counterparts in a control group” (P.43).

Pasek et al. (2008) identified positive long-term impacts on civic engagement associated with the Student Voices program, a combination of hands-on service-learning activities and education about how political institutions address problems in local communities. In this program, students are given independence and autonomy to identify local problem(s) and to practice communicating with stakeholders and lawmakers. The use of interactive media opportunities for youth as part of civics education programming has shown initial increases in internal sense of control and sense of empowerment to affect change (Feldman et al., 2007).

Youth interviews (Evans, 2007) reveal that opportunities for decision-making and direct influence over agenda setting and action steps is closely associated with youth “sense of community”. Additionally, empowerment and agency are positively influenced when young people believe that adults and figures of authority value and act on their ideas and suggestions (Evans, 2007). Positive skill and knowledge development as well as positive self-identify are associated with youth advisories models (Roholt, VeLure, & Mueller, 2013) that include youth participation in program evaluation, civic projects and community organizing activities. A review of advisory models utilized with juvenile justice involved youth found highest rates of sustained positive civic engagement and social connectedness was associated with authentic opportunities for youth to shape policies, program design and community projects, prepare and train in civics and effective group skills, and that provided youth with multiple platforms for self-expression (Roholt, VeLure, & Mueller, 2013).

References

1. Atkins, R., & Hart, D. (2003). Neighborhoods, adults, and the development of civic identity in urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 156-164.
2. Baldi, S., Perie, M., Skidmore, D., Greenberg, E., & Hahn, C. (2001). What democracy means to ninth graders: U.S. results from the international IEA Civic Education Study. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
3. Checkoway, B., & Aldana, A. (2013). Four forms of youth civic engagement for diverse democracy. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1894-1899.
4. Evans, S. (2007). Youth Sense of Community: Voice and Power in Community Contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 6, 693–709.
5. Feldman, L., Pasek, J., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2007). Identifying best practices in civic education: Lessons from student voices Philadelphia. American Journal of Education, 114, 75–100.
6. Fine, M., Weis, L. & Powell, L. (1997). Communities of difference: A critical look at desegregated spaces created by and for youth. In Harvard Educational Review, 67 (2), 247–284.
7. Ginwright, S. & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. In New Directions for Youth Development. 96, 27–46.
8. Godfrey, E. B., Santos, C. E., & Burson, E. (2019). For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior Across Early Adolescence. Child Development.
9. Hahn, C. (2001). Student views of democracy: The good and bad news. In Social Education, 65(7), 456–460.
10. Ispa-Landa Simone. (2017) Racial and Gender Inequality and School Discipline: Toward a More Comprehensive View of School Policy. The Southern Sociological Society.
11. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2003). Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. In Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 34–66.
12. Kirk, David and Robert Sampson. 2013. “Juvenile Arrest and Collateral Educational Damage in the Transition to Adulthood.” Sociology of Education 86(1):36–62.
13. Kathleen Knight Abowitz and Jason Harnish, “Contemporary Discourses of Citizenship.” Review of Educational Research 76 (2006), 653-690.
14. McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Journal of Sociology. 71, 401-425
15. Niemi, R., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Rubin, Beth, C. (2007). “‘There’s Still Not Justice’: Youth Civic Identity Development Amid Distinct School and Community Contexts.” Teachers College Record 109 : 449- 481.
17. Rubin, Beth, C. (2010). “Youth Civic Identity Development in the U. S. History Course.” Social Education 74(3), pp 144–147
18. Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub. 1997. ‘‘A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency.’’ In Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency (Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 7)
19. Suvall, C. (2009). “Restorative Justice in Schools: Learning from Jena High School.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 44:547–69.
20. VeLure, R., Mueller, M. (2013) New Directions for Youth Development. Youth advisory structures: Listening to young people to support quality youth services Vol. 2013 Issue 139, p79-100. 22p.
21. http://lawyerscom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Not-Measuring-up_-The-State-of-School-Discipline-in-Massachusetts.pdf

Abstract

The study of children under Juvenile Justice System in India. This research gives the perspective in the light of which the vast child rights has to be made. The concept of the juvenile justice system was derived from the concept of juvenile delinquency. The young children are unable to see the society in a broader sense as by adults so they fail and indulged in crimes. They are not easily consistive to the legal framework and the processes of criminal law. The Juvenile Justice System, therefore, are made for the care and protection of the juveniles for those who are in direct conflict with law.

One of the main aspect of the juvenile justice system is to provide proper treatment of the children as by various institutions. The child is the national asset of the nation. Their need and care are our responsibility. Therefore, it is imperative for us to uplift children. Children are forever innocent and they are unaware of good and bad. In addition, they are not physically and mentally fit than adults. So the children are to be treated physically and mentally in a whole instance for their better upliftment so in this paper we will discuss the whole scope and parameter of the juvenile justice system according to the rising challenges in this century.

INTRODUCTION

The dynamics of Juvenile offenders is completely different from that of other offenders. The role of the police officer in the Justice system is noteworthy and has an evident impact on the juvenile. In 21st Century India faces several number of challenges in the propogating and securing the interest of a Juvenile or accused as the case may be. Some glaring issues which our paper emphasis on is farcical implementation of Juvenile Justice Act leaves much to be desired. The researchers have used doctrinal method of research carrying out qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis, triangulating on major empirical sources. The researchers feel that there is an urgent need for us to fight against all that is degrading and demeaning our society today, for only and only then will we give our children something to fight for tomorrow. The need of hour is to identify the venerable group, create awareness and to educate the young population of India. The educated need to aware the uneducated, for the lack of awareness is a major challenge. The researchers have tried to address the issues subsequently identifying the strategies to deal with the same.

Children in conflict with law belong to one of the most vulnerable sections of children in India. Rule of law and access to justice are the basic requirements for a country’s development and is as imperative for the reduction of social differences as the provision of basic services such as proper health and education systems. However, it has been recognised that children, when dependent on the same justice mechanism as adults may find themselves further victimised by the system itself. It is this recognition that has led to the development of a separate child justice system or juvenile justice system in many parts of the world. In some countries, despite recognition of the need of a separate juvenile justice system, children in the higher age group may be treated through the adult criminal justice system for certain offences and in many punishment for heinous crimes committed by juveniles is stringent and at par with that prescribed for adults.

The stage of development of the understanding, discourse and even the law in the area of juvenile justice vary fromone region to another, depending on the history and culture of its citizens, their approach to human rights, their legal and technical capacities and their government. There are many aspects of a juvenile justice system, those who are involved in it, the way they act, the procedure, the physical and other facilities. For example, it is about the manner in which police apprehend or interrogate children, the attitude of lawyers and prosecutors ; the way that judges make decisions about guilt or sentencing; handling by prison staff, the living; educational; recreational and safety conditions at places where children are being keptand programmes for rehabilitation and reintegration. Three models or approaches have been identified in the Juvenile Justice System across the world, the welfare or the parens patrie model, the Due Process Model and the Participatory Model. Many countries of the world have combined all these models to evolve their own. Even the understanding of what constitute juvenile justice differs. For example, the juvenile justice system in most countries deals only with children in conflict with law, while other social and state-specific laws are used for children in need of care and protection. In India, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deals with two categories of childreni.e. who are in conflict with lawand those who are in need of care and protection. The reason for including children in need of care and protection is that these are children who are living on the edge and are vulnerable to comein conflict with the law, if there is no timely intervention to prevent them from coming into such situation. [2: Chaudhary, R.N, Law Relating To The Children And Juveniles, Allahabad law Agency]

INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATIONS

The preamble to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 says that the act was enacted with an object to incorporate the standards prescribed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) 1985, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their Liberty 1990 and all other relevant international instruments. In the matter of construction of juvenile legislations, the Supreme Court observed that the Constitution is a source of, and not an exercise of, legislative power. The principles of international law whenever applicable operate as a statutory implication. In the matter of juvenile justice legislation, India followed the British pattern as well as the development taking place at the international level under the auspices of United Nations Organisation. Therefore, the origin, growth and development of Indian juvenile justice system can be traced back somewhere else and not in India itself. To facilitate understanding on the Indian juvenile justice system, the relevant international instruments are cited here with discussions at relevant places. The Third International Congress for the Welfare and Protection of Children (1902)-The Third International Congress for the Welfare and Protection of Children was held in London from 15th to 18th July 1902, under the patronage of His Majesty King Edward VII. The Congress considered the problems of neglected children and the probabilities of their turning towards delinquency if due care of them was not taken. Thus, this is the point where the Congress emphasized the linkage of neglected juveniles and juvenile delinquency. The Covenant of the League of Nations (1919)

Article 23 of the Covenant obliges the Members of the League to endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both is their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend. The Covenant also proposed that the Member of the League should establish necessary international organisations for that purpose.Of course, this provisions related to conditions of labour for children, however, this led to development of today’s children’s rights. The Human Rights of the Child under the Geneva Declaration (1924)-The Declaration provided that the child that is hungry must be fed, there should be no child without food and shelter. [3: Bajpai, Asha, Child Rights In India, Oxford University Press]

NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

As many acts has been passed from certain era or time as firstly in 1986 the act was passed which give a written form to it for the proper welfare of children as for their adjudication and how to be treated in same sense but due to some instant it is to be amended than comes amended act of 2000 it also made certain bodies as we can say the homes for their treatment but it also been amended in 2007 and again in 2015 as after the famous NIRBHAYA case which bring the great revolution in the country against it and many major amendments are been done which we will discuss further.Nowadays, we all know that heinous crimes are being committed by juveniles and now we are in a situation debating about the juvenile’sage and punishment which is not given to them according to the crimes committed by them. Age determination is the most important factor to find out whether the accused falls under the purview of the Juvenile Justice Act. Accurate recording of the age is also important to form child welfare committees and institutes.

In the case of Ram singh and others v. State of Delhi also known as Nirbhaya or the Delhi Gang Rape case, 2012 created huge havoc regarding punishments given to the juvenile convict should be same as given to other convicts. Yes, the juveniles should also be treated in the same way because they have committed the same crime and also if they are below statutory age of majority they need to be punished for the crime they have committed, because if they get away with it will become a habit which will carry on till the later part of their life, definitely they should get same treatment. The sooner a child is held accountable for their actions, the sooner they will come to know there are consequences for their consequences for their actions. Giving punishment is a positive thing so they should receive this understanding and rectify them in their upbringing itself. They should be punished the moment they commit crime that is the best gift they can receive. The sooner the better while their minds are in developing stage. [4: AIR 1959 SC 518]

Next issue arises, whether any special provisions should be made for juveniles? No special provisions have to be made for them, opposing this point because there is no inclusion of extra punishment for them. The difference is only that they are tried in juvenile courts now they will be tried in regular courts where they will be questioned the facts of the crime, their intention behind the crime , mensrea behind crime, etc.

Another issue that the age of a juvenile should be 16 or 18 so as to treat them adults:- as per National Crime Record Bureau in the year 2011 – 64 per cent of the crimes has been committed by juveniles between the age of 16 and 18. Many heinous crimes are committed between the age of 16 and 18. This age is highly volatile and highly unstable. Particularly during this period they don’t know what to do, they don’t know how to react. But rapid mental development occurs during that stage. If they keep on indulging in these type of activities their life is at stake. Whatever may be the age , they have committed a crime so they should be put behind the bars.

Despite the introduction of comprehensive beneficial schemes for children, the implementation is defective. Appropriate training is not there and the main concern is about the accountability. The police officers are highly brutal towards the juveniles and abuse in the observation homes. It is high time now that government should take necessary steps to seek charge of juveniles pending or on completion of inquiry.

And also there are been certain provisions in the constitution of India which firmly deals with the children as to their rights etc and how they to be dealed in certain circumstance as it is been mentioned in certain articles as in Art. 15, 21, 21(a), 23, 24, 39(e), 39(f) etc so these all deals with the children or juveniles and their protection as to care and assistance. [5: Pandey, J.N, Constitutional Law Of India, seventh edition]

JUDICIAL TRENDS

As from time to time many trends had been made over the juvenile justice system in india as by different judgement by various courts and legislations and some out of that are as follows-

The Supreme Court of India in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India while dealing with writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution pertaining to the plight of the prostitutes or fallen women and their progeny, spoke about the Preamble of the Constitution and stated that it is an integral part of the Constitution of India and that the children have the right to equality and the opportunity for all well beings, dignity and care for the proper protection and rehabilitation by the society with open hands open to make them onto the particular way of social life without any mark based on them for no fault. [6: AIR 1990 SC 292]

In Laxmikant Pandey v. State[ the hon Court of India observed that every juvenile has a right to proper care and assistance and affection and of morality and proper security and this is only claimable only when the juveniles will be brought up in proper family and good environment.. [7: AIR 1992 SC 118]

In Subramanian Swamy v. Raju Thr. Member, Juvenile Justice Board [8: AIR 1955 SC 661] Some incidence becomes mileage stone that shook the psyche of the society or nation.

One of such is the case of the delhi gang rape as where the 5, 6 persons rape a girl though brutally and killing her by putting rod in private part and the justice system is as such the juvenile involve in it is to be released after small imprisonment.In the particular case Dr. Subramaniyam Swami a senior lawyer of Supreme Court moved to the Supreme Court of India requesting the court for an order restraining the release the set juvenile from special home. The Supreme Court of India maintain that they are unable for the same as due to the law made for it not tend to do son and affirm him to move to parliament and make proper law for it. Here, it would not be out of context to mention that set juvenile was kept in a special home along with an accused Delhi Blast Case. Thus, one can easily imagine the influence of the blast case accused on the sad juvenile and vice versa.

It has further been observed that juvenile released from observation home and special home were found to commit a more heinous crime. Thus, a question naturally arises whether this reformatory home is capable serving the objectives for which these homes were established.

CONCLUSION

The heinous nature of the crime. The cover-up afterwards. The denial. They were all, to me, earmarks of someone who was acting as an adult.”- Gary Gambardella The above quote summarizes the methodology adopted to hoodwink the Indian criminal system by hardcore criminals. The law of the juvenile justice act like a system of opportunity which can be taken easily to any instance and can be mould in any way. Section 16 of the JJ Act lays down provisions for orders that may be passed regarding a juvenile, wherein the maximum penalty a juvenile has to pay is to remain in the observation home for three years or till he attains the age of twenty-one. In Bhoop Ram. V. State of UP, although the Supreme Court found that the accused had in fact committed the offence but had to quash the sentence as the accused was already twenty-eight years of age and could not be sent to an observation home. Arnit Das v. State of Bihar has been a highly controversial case and has been criticized to the core but the court seems have to have taken a contrary view from the earlier case because it is known to have taken same set of persons which evolve juvenile justice action till they turn 50 years of age. The problem with this decision was that it set the same yardstick for everyone – whether a serial criminal or a petty offender So, an amendment in the existing act is definitely necessary in order to thwart any attack on the nation. Apart from terrorists taking advantage of the lacuna in the system, serious crimes like rapes and murders also go unpunished with the offen [9: AIR 1989 SC 1329] [10: AIR 1989 PAT 217] der wearing the garb of juvenility. The legislators of the country have their task cut up as they need to work out a middle path that takes the country’s and society interest into account but does not go to extremes like in the case of Arnit Das.

In our textbook, Christopher A. Mallett defines delinquency as “the ongoing committing of criminal acts or offenses by a young person, normally younger than 18 years of age”. Delinquent behavior can come in all shapes and sizes and can range from minor violations like skipping school all the way up to more serious crimes like burglary and assault. There are many factors that lead juveniles down a path towards a life filled with committing delinquent acts. Some examples of these factors are lack of moral guidance, substance abuse, peer pressure, violence at home, poverty and much more. This essay will touch upon what is most likely the main factor leading to juvenile delinquency and that is poor school attendance and school connectedness.

There are obvious links made between academic struggle, trouble at school, bullying, truancy and school exclusion policies that lead to juvenile delinquency. This is why schools play such an important role in helping to grow and shape the future for today’s youth. Education is the foundation for success. Without education, the chances of these juveniles going down the wrong path and committing delinquent acts skyrockets. “Schools are not only a place to learn and grow, but it is also a structured routine that provides children with a goal to accomplish each day” (Baysinger. (2019, August 9). Not only do schools give the youth a time and place to be during the day but it also gives them the opportunity to be able to visualize and achieve goals on a daily basis. This isn’t the case with all schools though. Unfortunately, not every school system gives children the best opportunity for success. Schools that are overcrowded and underfunded may lack discipline and order and therefore give the children the opportunity to take part and carry out in more delinquent behavior. “Schools that are poorly organized, that function below minimum safety standards, and do not promote safe learning environments are additional risk factors leading to delinquency” (Mallet, C. A. (n.d.)).

School discipline and suspension/expulsion are also factors that lead to delinquent behavior. Excluding a youth from attending school not only takes the youth away from receiving an education but also puts that youth at a disadvantage because we are forcing him/her to hang out in the streets of their neighborhoods where crimes are present. By doing this we aren’t giving the youth a fair chance to want to go to school. Why would a child want to go to school where they are getting yelled at and getting in trouble on a daily basis when they could be at home hanging out with other youths from the neighborhood with little to no responsibilities. Studies have shown that individuals that are less connected to their schools are more likely to commit delinquent acts. Therefore keeping kids out of schools gives the kids a greater chance of getting involved with a gang.

Adolescence is a time period that is marked by change, immaturity, impulsiveness, and ongoing development for preteens and teens alike. This is a crucial stage in life for directing and putting youth on the right path to succeed in life. “Early aggressive behavior may lead to difficulties in the classroom. These difficulties could then result in a child receiving poor grades and evaluations from teachers. This then could lead them towards a life of delinquency” (Baker, M. L. (2001, September).

Truancy has been linked to higher delinquency rates in youths. Sometimes an abundancce of delinquent behavior as a youth can carry over into adulthood. “As a risk factor for delinquent behavior in youth, truancy has been found to be related to substance abuse, gang activity, and involvement in criminal activities such as burglary, auto theft, and vandalism” (Baker, M. L. (2001, September). Truancy can lead to punitive actions from the school or law. Not only can the truant student get in trouble but his/her legal guardian may also get in trouble. This could jeopardize the relationship between student and school officials. If a child continues to get in trouble or they get arrested at school, it could leave a bad taste in their mouth whenever they go back to that specific area where the incident occurred. This could trigger a PTSD response only making situations worse for the child.

Children who commit minor unlawful behaviors were exposed to harsh punishment, therefore this is the inappropriate treatment for children in conflict with the law, as it disobeys act 108 of 1996 in section 28 of the constitution. In the 1990s South Africa introduced diversion to focus on the best interest of the child, providing appropriate treatment and punishment for children in conflict with the law (Steyn (2010). Z. K. Hamilton et al. (2006) define diversion as channel out, children in conflict with the law from the child justice system. According to Heidi Sauls (2018), South Africa experienced a transition when the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 (CJA) was implemented in April 2010. Child justice act considers diversion as the backbone of the juvenile courts; it is essentially assisting the court to make decisions on how to treat young offenders and try to support young offenders with the goal that they could continue to have better lives (Mears et al. 2016).

According to Section 48 of the Bill of rights, the purposes of diversion are to: “encourage the children to be responsible of their unlawful behaviors; encounter individual needs; to reconcile with their families; victims are allowed to express their view and how the crime affected them and benefit from some form of compensation; promote reconciliation between the offender and people affected by the crime; prevent stigmatization and prevent adverse consequences flowing from being subject to the criminal justice system, and prevent the offender from having a criminal record”. The diversion process follows a restorative justice system, it discourages upcoming unlawful actions. According to Anderson (2003), restorative justice emphasizes the importance of consensus and reconciliation, it also restores the imbalance and creates peace within communities which is caused by the offender. It does not encourage punishment however it offers to heal the wounds caused by crime and mending the relationships that have broken. It involves all people affected by the crime, such as the victim, offender, and the community.

Diversion is a voluntary program, so the person who is referred by the state attorney gets to decides whether to participate considering the benefits of the program (Muntingh, 2001). According to Anderson (2003), the Diversion process can also be called out-of-court contract settlement. it is considered as a contract between the offender and the prosecution whereby the offender’s trial is withdrawn in exchange for participating in the diversion program and obeying the terms and conditions of the contract. The contract is a list of activities that are required to be done for the program to be successful. When the contract is completed the court diversion program informs the state attorney and the case is dismissed by the court. If the offender does not commit unlawful behavior after two years, the court will order the case sealed. If the contract is not completed the case will return to the state attorney to be prosecuted. The person will go to court for the original charge and may end up plea guilty of not (Muntingh 2001).

The two important components to all diversion programs are namely screening and assessment. The screening process helps program staff to be able to identify offenders that are appropriate to be diverted (Z. K. Hamilton et al. 2006). Assessments need to occur before the prosecutor decides to divert the young offender. The information that is shared during assessment helps to identify the appropriate diversion scheme for individual child offenders (Merwe & Dawes 2019).

Diversion can be used whereby the child understands and admits the charges against him/her and willing to plead guilty; where the caregivers do not consent to diversion; and where there is unsatisfactory evidence to prosecute (Nielsen & Gallinetti, 2004). According to P. Daniel Mears 2016 diversion may improve the lives of young offenders and decrease offending, however, if it is used inappropriately, it may worsen recidivism.

Steyn (2010) listed diversion intervention programs and their services namely:

1. The Noupoort Youth and Community Development Project in the Northern Cape specialized in its life skills program. Lifeskills training focuses on providing skills that are needed everyday basis working effectively in society, skills on how to react healthily to live’s stressors and be able to deal with conflicts excellently.
2. The National Youth Development Outreach in Pretoria is known for its mentoring initiative. This service helps the young offender to deal with life’s challenges.
3. The National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) in Bloemfontein popular for its outdoor intervention. It suggests nature-based experiences, using physical and emotional difficulties, that achieve the mental awareness that is needed to develop behavioral change.
4. The Restorative Justice Centre in Pretoria is known for its family group conference program. Fixing the damage brought about by the offense and accommodating those influenced by the activity are two significant ideas in family bunch conferencing.

The life skills training, mentoring, and conferencing, involves young offenders ranging from 13 and 18 of age, whereas outdoor intervention involves young offenders from 16 to 18 years of age. From 1999 to 2000 diversion was still implemented in child justice courts (Wood, 2003). The aim was still to encourage children’s rights, and for children to be treated in a dignified manner to be respected self-worth (Merwe & Dawes, 2019). The most popular diversion intervention was found to be NICRO, it was also found to be the most effective intervention program due to fewer cases returning to court. NICRO still finds that the majority of its participants are pre-trial referrals (Wood, 2003). NICRO is South Africa’s largest diversion program established in 1910. it aims to assist offenders to be diverted from the criminal justice system by providing life skills training, community service, victim-offender mediation, and outdoor intervention. NICRO has branches all over South African in nine provinces. It focused on offender reintegration, community victim support, economic development, and diversion and youth development (Steyn, 2010).

Facilitation has a major contribution to the ineffectiveness of the diversion program (Gxubane, 2019). The probation officer’s lack of specialized skills during the assessment process affected the quality and completeness of assessments. Specialized training in the field of probation was requested (Sauls, 2018). The other challenge of the diversion program is the staff shortage and insufficient organizational resources such as the venue for facilitation and aftercare services (Merwe & Dawes, 2019). Security of venues, transporting children to and from the programs, and the time schedules for the diversion programs have been identified as major challenges in implementing these programs (Sauls, 2018). Sauls (2018). The placement of child offenders’ inappropriate diversion programs was also considered as a challenge, therefore children were placed on the available and suitable diversion programs being presented in the areas where they reside. Parents support has also found to be essential especially in life skills and outdoor processes where they need to be actively involved, without the support it has been discovering that children return to their unlawful behaviors (Steyn, 2010).

All societies have rules that abide by them; social rules define appropriate behavior for a specific group of people or society. According to Becker’s (1963) labeling theory, deviating from social norms result in one being labeled as an outsider. Outsiders happen to have a different perspective and have accepted this label. Lemert (1951) argues that self-identification is essential to individuals, therefore being regarded as a criminal destroys the way an offender perceives themselves. According to Becker (1963) and Lemert’s (1951) perspective of labeling, Patrick & Marsh (2005) argue that labeling offenders affect the juvenile as it increases recidivism. Hence, diversion aims to keep young offenders out of the criminal justice system and discourages labeling.

References

1. Anderson, A.M., 2003, August. Restorative justice, the African philosophy of Ubuntu and the diversion of criminal prosecution. In 17th international conference of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, The Hague, Netherlands (pp. 24-28).
2. Becker, H., 1963. Outsiders-Defining Deviance.
3. Van der Merwe, A., and Dawes, A., 2009. Toward good practice for diversion: the development of minimum standards in the South African Child Justice System. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(7), pp.571-588.
4. Gxubane, T., 2019. Facilitation of residential diversion programs for youth sex offenders in South Africa. Southern African Journal of Social Work and Social Development, 31(2), pp.1-18.
5. Hamilton, Z.K., Sullivan, C.J., Veysey, B.M., and Grillo, M., 2007. Diverting multi‐problem youth from juvenile justice: Investigating the importance of community influence on placement and recidivism. Behavioral sciences & the law, 25(1), pp.137-158.
6. Lemert, E. M., 2010. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Primary and Secondary Deviance, Issue @SAGE, p. 8.
7. Mears, D.P., Kuch, J.J., Lindsey, A.M., Siennick, S.E., Pesta, G.B., Greenwald, M.A. and Blomberg, T.G., 2016. Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: helpful, harmful, or both?. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), pp.953-981.
8. Muntingh, L.M., 2001. The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes-a longitudinal evaluation of cases. Cape Town: NICRO.
9. Patrick, S., and Marsh, R., 2005. Juvenile diversion: Results of a 3-year experimental study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), pp.59-73.
10. Sauls, H., 2018. An evaluation of the diversion program for young offenders, Cape Town: Western Cape Government Social Development.
11. Sloth-Nielsen, J., and Gallinetti, J., 2004. Child Justice in Africa: A Guide to Good Practice, Community Law Center.
12. South Africa. 2008. Child Justice Act, 2008 (Act No. 75 of 2008). Pretoria: Government Printer.
13. Steyn, F., 2012. Challenges of diversion strategies in meeting the diversion objectives of the Child Justice Act (75 of 2008). Acta Criminological: African Journal of Criminology & Victimology, 2012(Special Edition 2), pp.76-86.
14. Wood, C., 2003. Diversion in South Africa: A review of policy and practice, 1990-2003. Institute for Security Studies Papers, 2003(79), p.22.

According to the United States Constitution, the sixth amendment provides citizens with the right to a “speedy and public trial” accompanied by “legal counsel”. When being tried by a jury, there are many legal factors being accounted for. But, in “Race, Socioeconomic Status and Sentencing in the Juvenile Justice System”, Terrence B. Thornberry, Ph.D. in criminal justice, claims there are two extralegal factors contributing to sentencing within the juvenile system: race and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, in “Unfair by Design: The War on Drugs, Race, and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System,” Lawrence D. Bobo and Victor Thompson, Ph.D. in social sciences, states only 28% of blacks feel they were treated with equality within the courts and perceived the system as racially biased, which ultimately calls the justness of the system into question. Therefore, it has been noticed that socioeconomic status (SES) factors into conviction rates along with other extralegal factors.

Taken these claims into account, the question of to what extent low socioeconomic status impact conviction rates arose. Socioeconomic status has been a determining variable in conviction rates. Jeffrey Benedict and Alan Klein, experts in criminal law, discuss sexual assault and conviction rates of professional male athletes, claiming they’re less likely to be convicted. The two concluded that of the 217 cases examined, 172 athletes were arrested and only 10 were convicted while no action was taken for 45 of the cases (Benedict and Klein, p. 89). Therefore, defendants of higher social status have accessibility to resources, as they can afford a skilled attorney resulting in the women being exploited by the system (Benedict and Klein, p. 92).

Often, victimizing the athlete as a target and the accuser being labeled as “attention hungry,” resulting in more sympathy from jurors. According to Paul D. Butler, Ph.D. in law, a person of low SES is more likely to be imprisoned due to a highly selective justice system targeting those with fewer resources (2178). Butler states that more than half of the prisoners in 2005 reported an annual income of $12,000 and about a 25% unemployment rate, suggesting the reason for poor people being incarcerated a higher is to do a societal “sweep” of low SES individuals (2181). Stewart J. D’Alessio and Lisa Stolzenberg, Ph.D. in criminology, claim SES did not impact the conviction of individuals because there is not enough “offense specific evidence” (D’Alessio and Stolzenberg, p. 75). However, more “offense specific evidence” was provided by Thornberry, investigating the relationship of race, SES, and conviction rates showing that differing SES with similar crime history and offense resulted in higher conviction rates for youth of lower SES. Thus, socioeconomic status plays a role in conviction rates.

While examining the impact of SES on conviction rates, race was a transparent variable. According to Thornberry, black youth of lower SES were convicted at higher rates in comparison with the white youth while committing the same offense with the same criminal history (Thornberry, p. 96). Thornberry concluded that “… nonlegal variables are still related to the severity of the dispositions received,” due to members of minority groups with restricted economic accessibility being viewed as “scapegoats of the frustrated police in our local communities” (p. 90). Hence, blacks are incarcerated at higher rates due to racially biased law enforcement looking to decrease crime.

Similarly in a study conducted by Cynthia Willis Esqueda, Ph.D. in social psychology, in a cross-cultural examination of racial bias within a white jury, a low SES Hispanic was given a lengthier sentence and held accountable for a crime whereas a Hispanic of higher SES was not ( Esqueda et al., p. 181). When the defendant was white and the jury was made up of Hispanics, Esqueda concluded there was no bias among the jury (p. 184). Such convictions occur as a result of the negative stereotypes of Hispanics producing biased jury verdicts ( Esqueda et al., p. 183). According to Thomas M. Arvanitis and Martin A. Asher, Ph.D. in sociology, the reason why minorities are incarcerated at higher rates is due to their likeness of committing crimes due to their low socioeconomic status. However, according to Albert J. Meehan and Michael C. Ponder, Ph.D. in sociology, the reason for minorities being incarcerated at higher rates is due to the fact they’re more likely to be racially profiled because of discriminatory police and convicted due to racial biased. Thus, racial disparities relating to SES are notable within the justice system and have a direct correlation with conviction rates.

It has been apparent that the upbringing of a low SES child correlates with violent futures. Depending on the community and surroundings, youth can be heavily influenced. For example, Noni K. Gaylord-Harden, Ph.D. in psychology, states that in places more prone to crimes such as shootings or stabbings, generally black communities, youth is more likely to be desensitized to the thought, even normalizing it ( Gaylord-Harden et al., p. 1). Hence, exposure to such violence at a young age contributes to higher conviction rates within communities of low SES and likeliness of committing the same crime during adulthood due to the numbness of the extremeness of the crime.

Likewise, according to Joan McCord, Ph.D. in criminology, the absence of parents within low SES families due to working multiple jobs calls for juvenile delinquency, resulting in adult criminal behavior (McCord, p. 397). Thus without parental guidance, a child is more likely to be influenced by the wrong crowd or have poor decision-making skills. McCord also states children in homes where alcoholism is an issue tend to grow up with less guidance, therefore also resulting in less parental guidance which leads to criminal behavior in the future (p. 400). Indicating low SES in childhood upbringing results in higher conviction rates. Olena Antonnicio and Charles R. Tittle, Ph.D. in sociology, claim criminal behavior is due to a lack of morality (Antonnicio and Tittle 1). But according to McCord, the influence of children at an extremely young age completely overcomes the morality factor of crimes, as they’ve already become numb and used to crime (McCord, 400). Thus, the impact of crime children of low SES are exposed to results in the likeliness of adulthood criminality.

To conclude, socioeconomic status is a common denominator and plays a significant role in determining extralegal factors such as race or childhood surroundings impacting conviction rates. Shamena Anwar, Ph.D. in criminal justice suggests a system not only restrained on evidence to determine the verdict of a jury but also increasing the number of jurors to decrease the irregularity of verdict outcomes and increase diversity within juries, resulting in more just trials (Anwar et al., p. 1049). The issue discussed is a societal problem, therefore one can not picture a utopian society where all is well and fair. But even though it is not realistic to aim for a utopian society, if no effort is taken to serve justice, inequality and unjust loopholes will continue to weave throughout America.

Theories of social deviance and concepts about the causes of crime are some of the most important pieces of literature in today’s society. Without these explanations for crime commission, there would be no way to try and prevent it. The theories of General Strain and Social Disorganization both seek to understand the reasoning behind deviance and delinquency. These concepts have certain similarities and differences in which they relate to each other. Agnew and Shaw/McKay agree on some aspects of explaining criminal deviance, but also conflict each other on other aspects criminal deviance. The best way to analyze this is to break these theories down to their core.

General Strain Theory by Agnew

Easily one of the most prevalent theories in the criminal justice and criminal sociology world, is General Strain Theory (GST). This theory, as proposed by Robert Agnew, states that specific strains or stressors can raise the probability of crime. Strains are simply things that happen or conditions in a person’s life that they don’t like, or did not wish for. Strains have a higher likelihood of turning into criminal coping when the strain is large, is viewed as unjust, and there is a reward for coping criminally. With strain, comes many negative emotions. Emotions of anger and indignation induce provocation for a way to correct the stressors. Crime is a way for the person to escape the stress, and/or seek vengeance on the cause of the strain.

Obviously, most people don’t handle strains by breaking the law. If someone is stressed about money, it is normal for them to obtain another job, or sell some of their belongings. But GST explains the things that raise the likelihood for one to cope in a criminal manner. Some of these factors would be incorrect social skills, inappropriate problem solving, little familial support, low self control, etc. In addition to these, one of the largest factors to be discussed is the criminal’s social norm which was established through their exposure and surroundings. Throughout Agnew’s theory he points out that mostly everyone desires to achieve a certain position of status, respect, and autonomy, when one is unable to attain a desired position, crime may take place (Thaxton & Agnew, 2017).

There are 4 “categories of strain” as described by Agnew. These categories are a lack of correspondence between expectations and achievements, failure to achieve highly-regarded goals, removal of positive stimuli, and introduction of negative stimuli. Agnew also introduced 3 different coping mechanisms: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive. Cognitive coping would be when someone seeks to minimize their negative emotions. Behavioral coping is when someone tries to permanently settle the cause of their unwanted or angry feelings. And cognitive coping is an emotional way for someone to deal with their negative emotions in a way that will decrease negative emotions (Pontell & Rosoff, 2011).

Social Disorganization Theory by Shaw and McKay

Shaw and McKay were two sociologists who worked with the University of Chicago and the Illinois Institute for Social Research during the 1920’s. These scholars came up with the “Social Disorganization Theory”. In short, this theory focuses on traditional institutions absence of control over its people, and the decrease of influence of widely-known social rules. This theory states that delinquency does not originate at the individual level, but that it is the typical response to abnormal societal circumstances. So essentially somewhere in the process, there is a shortage in the ability to operate communally, resulting in people exercising their unregulated freedom as a way to address their unhappiness and their wants/needs. This is commonly done through delinquent behavior and law breaking (Wong, 2).

Throughout their research, Shaw and McKay were influenced by Burgess’ “Concentric Zone Model”. This model consists of five concentric zones resembling an area from the innermost city all the way out to the extreme suburbs. The innermost circle is considered the “central business district” (CBD) which consists of mainly businesses and offices. Directly outside of the CBD is the “transition zone” which generally is made up of abandoned buildings and factories. The third ring from the middle is the “working class zone” which is said to contain mainly single family workers. The next zone is the “residential zone”, consisting of family homes. And the final outermost part, farthest away from the CBD, is the “consumer zone” or the suburbs.

Shaw and McKay referred strongly to this model as a way to define the distribution of juvenile delinquency and its spreading. They believed that a largely socially disorganized area was in the transition zone, where immigrants had a tendency of residing in due to their socio-economic status. The transition zone was considered to be an undesirable area that most people left when they had the means to do so, so there was never much effort put into the social organization in those areas (Pontell & Rosoff, 2011). The general institutions of social regulation like schools and churches not being organized and not being able to regulate actions of their adolescents, negatively impacts the youth’s behaviors. This pattern goes on through decades, and eventually crime is taught and handed down. Shaw and McKay used the analogy of these neighborhoods creating “fertile soil” for growing crime in adolescents (Review of the Roots, 1).

Literature Review

General Strain Theory: “Strain, Boredom, and Self Control: Extending General Strain Theory to Texting While Driving” by Agnew

This article analyzes the factors of strain in relation to the desire and boredom to text while driving. Slepicka begins by pointing out that 1.6 million car crashes happen per year in the U.S as a result of distracted driving. Some of the theories he relates back to the cause of that stark number, are Social Learning Theory, Self Control Theory, and GST. Self Control Theory states that participation in responding to texts while driving represents low levels of self control. Additionally, that people can have an automatic response to respond quickly when they feel the trigger of their phone vibrating or dinging.

Strain theory says that pressure can be put on people to attain society’s accepted standards, and that people can be led deviant if they cannot achieve this. This ties into texting while driving as the second part of the central aspect of GST focuses on strain as a result of an individual who is being blocked from attaining goals they may believe are meaningful. This second central aspect emphasizes a negative affective state that allows a person to think something needs to be done to change the incorrect perception. When someone believes they need to answer a text while driving, they will engage in criminality to change the “wrong perception” of it.

While GST generally identifies anger as the negative affective state, this article proposes that boredom could also be one. Boredom was defined as a negative psychological experience, and a undesirable feeling of wanting to do something that satisfies you, but being unable to do so. Additionally, GST proposes three major types of strain: failure to attain highly valued objectives, removal of positively valued stimuli, and presence of negative stimuli (Agnew, 1992). Engaging in messaging while driving relates into the removing of a positively valued stimuli, which is taking away something that someone values greatly (Slepicka, 2018).

The procedure in this study was conducted with secondary data analysis of the Survey on Mobility and Mobile Communication. This survey analyzed 925 participants from two different occupations and ages. The independent variables of the study were: The of removal of positively valued stimuli, strain/frustration, negative affective state, and self control. To analyze the removal of stimuli, it was measured by asking questions such as whether receiving or sending a text made the person feel good, if the participant perceived themselves as a texter, and whether the person would feel a loss if they had to stop texting. To evaluate strain/frustration, the participants answered questions including if they felt they had a strong need to belong, if it bothered them when they were not invited to friends events, and if they felt upset when they were not accepted. In analyzing the third independent variable of negative affective state, the survey asked if they engaged in texting when bored. And finally to evaluate self-control, the participants were asked about their perception of their ability to resist temptation, to focus on work even when given other opportunities, and their ability to think through bad decisions. The main dependent variable was obviously texting while driving and this part of the survey questioned the participant on whether they sent/read texts while driving, and if they did so when at a red light.

The results of the study concluded that strain was most commonly associated with an increase in texting while driving, followed by younger age, and lower self control scores. They also concluded higher scores on the boredom scale were commonly associated with increases in the texting while driving scale (Slepicka, 2018). Essentially, GST may relate to texting while driving if the driver believes their action is important, and they have the mindset to do so. This article supports the General Strain Theory pretty well, it recognizes the concepts credibility and different points. The only real difference I see between the theory and this, is that the article alters Agnew’s idea of negative states by adding on the state of boredom.

“General Strain Theory and Delinquency, Focusing on the Influences of Key Strain Characteristics on Delinquency”

This study samples South Korean middle and high-school students to test if there was a positive relationship between strain and delinquency. The study analyzed five key types of strain as stated by Agnew. These are emotional and physical punishment, bullying, financial strain, family conflict, and criminal victimization. They also added in two more types of strain of their own to accommodate the grueling difficulty of Korean schooling, these are examination related strain and emotional/physical punishment by teachers. The authors state that there is an extreme Korean emphasis on academic success, as well as an allowance for teachers to punish students physically. Because of this, it is extremely common for students to have high levels of testing stress and poor relationships with their instructors. A prior study on Korean schooling indicated that children in Korea were more likely to participate in delinquency if they were punished physically and emotionally by teachers (Moon et al., p. 589).

The sample for this study consisted of Korean students attending schools located in three different cities, a school from a 90-school list was randomly chosen and asked to participate in the questionnaire. Overall, there were 900 participants, which the researchers narrowed down to 777 valid cases to include. The students were allotted one full hour to finish the questionnaires.

The independent variables in this study were used to measure strain and emotions of the participants. The students were questioned on how often they experienced each of the seven types of strain throughout the prior 6 months, they provided their feedback through a likert scale of each type. The next independent variable was negative emotions, or anger. The researchers measured this by using an 3 part anger scale on if the participants felt bursts anger they couldn’t control, if they wanted to harm anyone, or break things over the prior 6 months.

The first control variable tested five conditioning factors relating to the student. First was, parental supervision which measured whether the respondent was well supervised and if their parents knew their whereabouts most times. Second, measured their scale for attachment to school which questioned if the student saw school as satisfying, boring, or frustrating. The next tested the students problem solving ability index, and it questioned if they had the ability to effectively solve life problems. The fourth part of the control variable regarded if the respondent believed violence is justifiable to get respect, or avoid appearing weak. And the final part of this index looks at association with delinquent peers, and measured whether or not the student was often around others who were breaking the law via drinking, smoking, stealing, destroying, etc. The second control variable included participation in delinquent behaviors. The participants were questioned on if in the last 6 months they had taken part in any or all of the 14 listed delinquent behaviors. A few of these behaviors were peer abuse, property damage, theft, and drugs.

The results of the study indicated multiple positive significant relationships between forms of strain and delinquent behavior. Higher parental and teacher punishment, financial strain, and bullying were all related to higher delinquent behaviors. Additionally, all of the 7 original strains were causes for higher delinquency. And finally, anger was positively related to delinquent actions. From the results of this study, we can infer that GST is an accurate predictor for juvenile delinquency in Korean youth (Moon et al., 595). This article absolutely supports Agnew’s theory, and the results of the study were able to legitimize General Strain factors and forms of strain in conjunction with adolescent delinquency.

Social Disorganization: “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory”

This is an article which analyzes Social Disorganization Theory to test its validity in real communities. The authors believed that the theory itself was valuable and accurate, but that much of the prior research testing did not accurately test it. They stated two reasons that the theory had not been tested accurately or directly. The first was that prior data relied on the result of macro-level research data that did not account for all of the variables. The second reason they gave was that there was an over-reliance on published crime rates, which to them were not always reliable as they do not account for un-caught crimes. With these questions, the researchers began to wonder what the results would be if the theory was tested properly, including all variables.

One of biggest aspects the article focuses on from Social Disorganization, is the importance of formal and informal social networks within a community, the authors believed that collective supervision would combat many local issues. Intervening Dimensions of Social Disorganization is the next group of constructs Sampson and Grove took an interest in. The first intervening construct from Social Disorganization was the ability of a community to look after and deal with teenager peer groups, due to the fact that delinquency is often a group issue. Shaw and McKay stated that residents of close-knit communities were far better able to monitor and regulate adolescent behaviors that indicated delinquency. The next dimension of community social disorganization brought up is local friendship networks, which is essentially the ability for the community to create residential social networks. Krohn stated that when network density is raised, the ability to control delinquency raises as well. This is essentially the concept that power comes with numbers. The final component they include is the rate of local participation in community organizations. They include this while stating that if the links between community members and institutions are weak, the ability of the community to control and defend its interests is weakened (Sampson & Groves, 1989).

The exogenous community characteristics evaluated were socioeconomic status, residential stability, and ethnic heterogeneity. As stated earlier in the paper, these are all very large interests in the study of Social Disorganization. The methods of collecting data in this study were through the first British Crime Survey which was administered to England and Wales citizens in 1982. The researchers broke down all of the 238 ecological areas, and sent the survey to 60 addresses in each. They believe this gave them a huge upper hand as opposed to prior research being mainly based on localities, and on a much smaller scale. As for the components of the questionnaire, to analyze organizational participation the respondents were asked about activities in their free time for each night of the week. To evaluate social control and supervision of youth groups, they asked respondents how likely it was for groups of teenagers to hangout and act as nuisances in public. Finally, to measure the exogenous characteristics of socioeconomic status, residential stability, and ethnic heterogeneity, the researchers made a scale measuring social class, education, occupation and income.

The results of the study supported Shaw and McKay’s theory of Social Disorganization. The findings established that all of the exogenous characteristics had a great impact on local friendship networks. Essentially, higher socioeconomic status and residential stability, higher friendship network rates. They also found that higher levels of family disruption (single families) experience higher levels of disorderly peer groups. They claim this is likely due to the lack of joined forces. The findings indicated that ethnic heterogeneity had a significant positive effect on the inability for the community to control their youth. This ties into Social Disorganization Theory belief that an issue in Transition Zones, is the racial aspect (Sampson & Groves, 1989).

“Social Disorganization Theory’s Greatest Challenge: Linking Structural Characteristics to Crime in Socially Disorganized Communities”

This article shows extreme support for the theory itself, but similar to the last article, does not support the research findings within the theory. The authors state that a huge limitation of Social Disorganization research is how little attention is put into the processes that mediate the impact of community characteristics. Due to the ways of data analysis in the early 1900’s, researchers and scholars were not able to operate true analyses that would completely examine Shaw and McKay’s arguments. For example, the famous Chicago study was conducted by using spatial distribution of crime throughout, and they concluded it was consistent with Social Disorganization as the crime rates were highest in specific neighborhoods. But this article states the issue is that while the study was able to prove that racially heterogeneous and poor neighborhood had highest crime rates, they were unable to give specifics on the reasoning for the relationship, such as social ties or social control. Because of this, researchers have not been able to completely distinguish, understand, and verify these operations of social interaction that connect structural factors and neighborhoods.

Social capital is the next large concept this article focuses on. Social Capital is the capability of community members to work together and become united in order to make their home area function properly. It is obvious that Social Disorganization Theory and many other theories support the social capital concept, as it can help relate crime rates to prevalence of community organizations. Kubrin and Wo state that civic and social organizations allow and encourage sharing similar beliefs and goals, which increases the opportunity to share information, prioritize resources, and use networks for crime prevention. “Criminologists have adopted the concept of social capital, defined as ‘the investment in social relations with expected returns’” (Kubrin & Wo, 128). Prior analyses of social capital have used data such as the amount of organizations in the community, members participation, and trust levels, in order to better grasp the emotional investment by the community inhabitants. Though there are challenges, a few of them being the impact that crime has on social capital, and figuring out the social capitals spatial impacts. Nevertheless, if social capital is prevalent in a community it allows for members of the community to properly disseminate the information and enforce guardianship behavior.

In moving forward with research of social ties, Kubrin and Wo believe that it is crucial for scholars to realize that there is not equality across all social networks. They finally recognize that Social Disorganization Theory holds an imperative spot in criminology, and to continue that, the theory must be continually tested in the light of limitless empirical evidence (Kubrin & Wo, 130).

How The Theories Conflict/Relate

These theories relate to each other in a few ways, but also do not account for each other in other ways. GST and Social Disorganization relate to one another in the shared concept that people rebel to achieve desired goals. This is a key concept in GST, but it is also supported through Social Disorganization in the sense that majority of individuals living in the disorganized communities grow up thinking deviance is normal, so they believe it is okay to commit crime to achieve a goal. Another way these two tie in together is through the belief that delinquency results from pressure of negative states. In GST, this is a prevalent concept, and in Social Disorganization, living in such unhappy and demeaning communities can cause negative states inducing criminality. Additionally, Social Disorganization has a large focus on the low socioeconomic status of the transition zone inhabitants, this merges with GST as many individuals experience strain due to their low socioeconomic status. The final way these theories relate to each other, is in the concept that everyone experiences strain and hardship, but certain people handle it wrongly. In Social Disorganization, all of the members of those communities experience negative conditions, but people choose to handle it differently. Whether that be by getting out and doing better, or by staying there. In GST, all people experience strains and stressors, but cope with them either criminally or non-criminally.

The main way these theories conflict each other stems from the strong focus on the Social Disorganization mobility issue, and community focus. SD believes that the groups of people moving in and out of the transition zone community has a negative impact on it, and this concept does not necessarily relate to GST which is more focused on the individual. Additionally, Social Disorganization fixates on the community as a whole and how the individuals impact it, whereas Agnew believes the opposite that the community can affect the individual (Pontell & Rosoff, 2011).

Subjective Nature of Deviance

One of the most controversial questions regarding deviance, is whether it is subjective or objective. The subjective nature of deviance believes that some deviant behaviors are simply a result of the socially formed norms and common patterns of behavior seen in the community. So essentially, there is no flat-out definition or universally accepted standard of what is deviant or who is deviant. Everyone in society and across cultures has a different idea of what they believe is deviant and what they believe is not, so this concept accepts that there can never truly be a definition of it. Every different age group, political affiliation, culture, etc. has different experiences and different values regarding what they believe is socially acceptable. Agnew also states that subjective strains are more common strain to result in crime, because they can relate to actions or experiences disliked by those who went through them. As opposed to objective strains which are commonly disliked by a whole group. The objective nature of deviance claims that there are certain standards that will always define deviance (Froggio & Agnew, 2007).

Conclusion

Finally, it may be concluded that Agnew’s General Strain Theory, and Shaw and McKays Social Disorganization Theory have similarities and differences in their focus on deviance. General Strain focuses greatly on the individual and the impacting stressors that are likely to encourage criminality, and Social Disorganization studies the causal factors of poor community participation and networks in certain areas. They both focus on the deep-dive reason behind individual and community deviance, which is something that will be analyzed for years to come. The everlasting commonality between the two theories is that they both made major strides in the study, reasoning, and prevention of deviance as a whole. Due to the ground work these theorists made, communities are able to work to identify and combat deviance.

Works Cited:

1. Froggio, Giacinto & A. Agnew, Robert. The relationship between crime and “objective” versus “subjective” strains. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2007. 81-87.
2. Kubrin, Charis E., and James C. Wo. “Social Disorganization Theory’s Greatest Challenge.” The Handbook of Criminological Theory, 2015, pp. 121–136.
3. Moon, Byongook, et al. “General Strain Theory and Delinquency.” Crime & Delinquency, vol. 54, no. 4, 2007, pp. 582–613.
4. Pontell, Henry N., and Stephen M. Rosoff. Social Deviance: Readings in Theory and Research. McGraw-Hill, 2011.
5. “Review of the Roots of Youth Violence: Literature Reviews .” Ontario Ministry of Children, vol. 5, no. 4, May 2016, pp. 1–7.
6. Sampson, Robert J., and W. Byron Groves. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, no. 4, 1989, pp. 774–802.
7. Slepicka , Jessie. “Strain, Boredom, and Self-Control: Extending General Strain Theory to Texting While Driving.” Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, vol. 19, no. 3, 2018, pp. 1–15.
8. Thaxton, Sherod, and Robert Agnew. “When Criminal Coping Is Likely: An Examination of Conditioning Effects in General Strain Theory.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 34, no. 4, 2017, pp. 887–920.
9. Wong, Carlin. “Shaw and McKay: The Social Disorganization Theory by Carlin Wong.” Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science .

Juvenile delinquency is a societal problem since it threatens many families and communities in general. Due to the recent trends, there is a need to develop intervention for both the youth and their families.

There are so many causes of delinquency behaviors. It is only after assessing them, that preventive measures can be attained and subsequently, reduction of the already scarily trend which is in existence today.

Family factors are particularly the most important factors that can be helpful in creating intervention for youths. To start with, even some of the individual factors that cause incidences of delinquency behaviors are primarily caused by family problems that are in existence.

Abuses by the parent are the main causes of aggression that exists with the children and in turn, what promotes them to engage in delinquency behaviors. It is usually the failures of the families to instill good morals, which are likely to cause the children to engage in violent activities (Siegel, 2008).

A good relationship between the child and the parent can go a long way in avoiding such incidences as children get to share with their parents what they may be troubled about in their lives. The performance of the child in school is one of the individual factors that are likely to cause the child to get involved in violent behaviors.

This can easily be solved especially when the family is committed since they can even hire a tutor that would help out the child in his/her studies. Children develop aggression qualities from the lack of involvement of the parents in their lives; this is one of the individual factors that are most likely to cause the child to be involved in violent behavior (Rouček, 1970).

A commitment by the parents where they are always in knowledge of the activities that children are involved in, would be a quality solution in ensuring that children are not violent. It is also notable that family may seek help for the child, if they find the child with an urge to get involved in violent behaviors and this would in turn minimize the risk of the child being violent.

The best way to intervene in preventing delinquency behavior among the youths is first accessing the risk factors that cause the youth in the first place to be involved in these behaviors. In this case, the family intervention would be the best way to go about it.

The fact that parenting may not be in its best, calls for the parents to get to be taught on the best way of parenting, for the benefit of their children and how well to provide family support. Having a well-established family setup can be a good way of ensuring that children are well focused on doing what is right and they have a lower risk of not getting involved in violent behaviors.

Other ways that children can get is being enrolled in bad behaviors such as getting involved in drugs. This would also be minimized when the youth are brought up in a family with strong family relations (Headman, 2008).

However, it is notable that this method may not work well if the youth is already incarcerated. In such a scenario, an individual approach would be more favorable since the child is getting minimal contact with the family.

Risk factors are indicators of the path way the youth take that leads to serious violent or chronic juvenile delinquency. Researches that have been carried out in reference to the risk factors are instrumental in ensuring that interventions have been found out.

Study of risk factors are also influential in making of a framework that have approaches that aim at preventing delinquency behaviors among the youth. Some of the risk factors that have been associated with the delinquency behaviors include but not limited to the following.

Prenatal and perennial factors, psychological, behavioral, and mental characteristics as well as the influence by the youth are the main causes of violent behaviors. However, other social factors are also inclusive in development of these behaviors; among them are family factors and community factors.

On the other hand, protective factors are conditions that counter the risk factors or increase resistance to the risk factors (Howell, 2003). Preventive effort that comes with preventive factors seeks to reduce the risk factors.

In turn, they promote presence of a health development and avert health to encourage good behavior trends. It is also notable that if risk reduction effort addresses risk and protective factors it is more likely to become effective.

Parent and Child Training Series is one of the intervening means of preventing presence of delinquency behaviors among children. The method has a mission statement of taking children as the most important human beings and the only way to ensure they are stable both emotionally and socially is by establishing a caring relationship between the child and the parent.

The approach ensures the children get the necessary social support that relives the stress they may be undergoing. The method succeeds in making sure that the children get encouragement, attain problem solving skills, and a way of handling misbehaviors (Webster, 2008). Development of these skills ensures the children are well equipped to such an extent that they are less likely to engage in delinquency behaviors.

National Institute on Drug Abuse is also can other way of fighting delinquency behavior. By carrying out research, these institutions ensure the parents as well as the community is knowledgeable of the drugs that children use, which have high likelihood of committing crime.

Such information is important in ensuring that the society is successful in fighting the usage of drugs which subsequently may lead to involvement in delinquency behaviors. It is also notable that this organization is instrumental in funding research important for statistic purpose. Multisystem Therapy Programs are programs that are inclusive of families, community, friends, neighbors, schools, and even teachers.

The programs focus on ensuring that all these in stations are incorporated in fighting chronic and violent behaviors among the youth. It is also notable that this program works with the toughest offenders in the society. The program focuses on treating the environmental problems that causes delinquency behavior among the youth.

The program has the goals of minimizing any social behavior among the youth in the society as well as empowering families against any family difficulties (Henggeler, 2002). Through development of other supportive programs, the program incorporates all the affected parties and has shown much success through the years after it was started out.

The paper is keen to note that there are so many risk factors that are associated with delinquent behavior. However, the family relation is notably one of the best ways to ensure that the child does not engage in these behaviors as family dictates the character of the youth.

However, other intervening and preventive measures are also required to ensure that children are not affected by this problem. Parent and Child Training Series are some of the programs that have seen much success in preventing these behaviors. However, the entire society has a responsibility of ensuring that it assists in preventing this problem.

References

Headman, N. C. (2008). Juvenile Delinquency: Are We Doing the Right Things To Make a Difference? Web.

Henggeler, W.S.. (2002, October 11). Multisystemic Therapy Program. Web.

Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing & reducing juvenile delinquency: a comprehensive framework. New Delhi: SAGE.

Siegel L J.,. Weilsh B. (2008). Juvenile delinquency: theory, practice, and law. Califonia: Cengage Learning.

Rouček, J. S. (1970). Juvenile delinquency. New York: Ayer Publishing.

Webster, C. (2002, October 11). The Incredible Years: Parents, Teachers, And Children Training Series. Web.

Delinquency refers to the social vice or an activity of engaging in socially unaccepted activities such as crime. In general terms, conceptualization may be described as the act of forming concepts about a given issue so as to be able to clarify it while operationalization may be viewed as the act of putting a concept into action or it is the act of implementing a concept.

Juvenile delinquency has been in existence for a long time and has affected the society differently. Generally juvenile delinquency refers to the behavior of youths persistently engaging in law violation, mischief or intractability so as to prevent correction by his or her parents (Anderson, 2002). Youth normally engage in delinquency as a result of indiscipline or at times as a result of psychological disturbance. The research done on the relationship between the broken homes and delinquency has given quite conflicting results (Hollin, 1992, p. 77). Moreover, the relationship between the two is quite small and not big as others put it.

I would conceptualize broken homes in the sense of them being a major player in the increasing rates of crime in the developed countries. The homes either break as a result of desertion, death or divorce. Recent studies have shown that the broken homes are a major cause of the delinquency in a number of societies (Hiroshi, 1982, p. 81).

The studies stress that the breakup is likely to lead to delinquency especially if a certain interpersonal relation exists in that family. Indeed, a study done earlier on in the United Kingdom showed that about 60% of the delinquents were from the broken homes and a similar study done in New York showed that about 45% of the boys in correctional institutions were from the broken homes (Hiroshi, 1982, p. 81). In this study, the measurement would be on the rate of crime amongst the youth from the broken homes. This study will assess the people involved in criminal activities or any kind of antisocial behavior to ascertain as to whether they are from broken homes or from two parent families. Lastly, there will be comparison of the results from both the broken homes and the two parent families.

In this study, a broken home is one in which the parents have separated and one of the parents is therefore forced to care for the children on his or her own where the breakup could be as a result of desertion, death or divorce. In this essay, a broken home shall not include a temporary separation in which the parents are able to be with their children quite often in addition to excluding the homes where adopted children are brought up. This is mainly because the adopted children are likely to consider the foster parents as their parents. Another exclusion will be those homes in which the children have not been psychologically affected by the departure of either of the parents.

The level of measurement in this study will be to assess the frequency of involvement in crime by the children from the broken homes as well as those from the two parent families. I will measure the likelihood of the children being brought up in such families engaging in crime. I will also assess the percentage of the children involved in delinquency; those from the broken homes as well as those from the two parent families.

This seems to be the best level of operationalization of the measurement since the percentages of the youth currently involved in the crime will give me enough information on the situation at hand while the measurement of the frequency of involvement in crime will enable me to come up with the possible predisposing factors of such youth to crime.

In conclusion, the increase in the number of single parent families has been shown to be the major cause of increased delinquency cases in the youth from the broken homes. This is because such children normally lack role models. Broken homes have also been shown to promote delinquency since the children are never really disciplined – they often grow up without any strong moral values.

References

Anderson, K. (2002). Broken Homes, Broken Hearts. Web.

Hiroshi, V. (1982). Heritage of endurance: family patterns and delinquency formation in urban Japan. London: University of California Press.

Hollin, C. (1992). Criminal behavior: a psychological approach to explanation and prevention. East Sussex: Psychology Press Limited.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explain juvenile delinquency using three criminological theories. These include the broken windows theory, the culture of the gang theory and the social disorganization theory.

Criminological Theories

Shaw and McKay (1942, pp. 89-102) developed the social disorganization theory, which explains crime in terms neighborhood dynamics. According to Shaw and McKay (1942, pp. 89-102), socio-economically deprived neighborhoods are socially disorganized. This is because such neighborhoods are characterized with ethnic heterogeneity, low economic achievements, and high residential mobility.

These factors negatively affect the informal and formal institutions of social control such as schools, family, and churches. As a result, regulation of behavior declines and juvenile delinquency increases (Gary, 2003, pp. 10-25). Socially disorganized neighborhoods also promote the development of criminal traditions, which are easily passed from generation to generation of youths.

In this case, young people learn pro-delinquent attitudes through regular interactions with older juveniles. Thus, juvenile delinquency rates will be high in areas where behavior control mechanisms are lacking and the transmission of delinquent values is high.

Wilson and Kelling (1982, pp. 29-38) developed the broken windows theory to explain crime and juvenile delinquency. The theory compares communities to houses whose windows are broken over time. Houses whose broken windows are repaired immediately send the message that the owners are in charge and are likely to avert future attempts to break the windows.

By contrast, houses whose broken windows are unattended to give the impression that no one is in charge, thereby encouraging vandals to break more windows. In this regard, juvenile delinquency is likely to be high in communities with weak or no social controls. Wilson and Kelling (1982, pp. 29-38) assert that juvenile delinquency rate is likely to increase if minor misconducts are allowed to evolve into serious crime.

This gives the impression that there are no formal or informal social control systems to regulate the behavior of individuals. Ultimately, delinquent youths will flock in areas with no social order, whereas responsible and disciplined people will relocate to areas with low crime rates. This explains the difference in the level of juvenile delinquency in different cities or communities.

Cohen (1955, pp. 173-177) developed the culture of the gang theory to explain the origin of juvenile delinquency. According to Cohen (1955, pp. 173-177), goal blockage is the main cause of juvenile delinquency. In particular, the youth aspire to become members of the middle class in their communities.

However, when they fail to achieve this objective or aspiration through legal or illegal means, they tend to create achievable alternative status systems. This involves adopting values that are opposed to conventional value systems. Concisely, the youth who are not able to achieve the middle class status or any other goal are likely to engage in juvenile delinquency as a means to achieve an alternative status.

Conclusion

The social disorganization theory and the broken windows theory suggest that juvenile delinquency is caused by lack of social control mechanisms. This can be illustrated by the high juvenile delinquency rates in communities with weak control institutions such as the police, schools, and family.

The culture of the gang theory, on the other hand, suggests that the youth will adopt non-conventional values and engage in crime if they are not able to achieve their goals.

References

Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York, NY: Free Press.

Gary, J. (2003). Social disorganization theory. New York, NY: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, CH: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982, March 1). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), pp. 29-38.