While children are often perceived as innocent creatures unable to do harm on purpose, this view does not always prove to be accurate. Some young people commit a crime with a full understanding of the consequences of their actions. However, most situations include children who are driven by the curiosity of what happens as a result or simply replicate the behavior that they see in media and their community.
Case Summary
Lionel Tate was 14 years old when he murdered a girl twice as young by applying wrestling moves towards her. His mother had to babysit the girl, but she went upstairs for some reason and returned only after 45 minutes when Lionel told her the girl was not breathing. Although the mother heard the noise coming from downstairs, she did not check on the children. Lionel Tale later claimed that he was trying to exercise wrestling that he watched on television.
Factors for Delinquency
The first factor of media influence is the most obvious in this case study. The boy admitted that the idea to wrestle came to him from TV shows where he saw different techniques that fascinated him. The teenage mind is usually not skilled in critical thinking, and media figures often play the role of examples that children want to follow. Besides, even some adults perceive television as a source of acceptable behavior. There are controversial results of studies that focused on adverse media influence on children, with some proving it to be true (Nikkelen, Vossen, Piotrowski, & Valkenburg, 2016). However, there is currently no single opinion on the subject.
The second factor can be read between the lines. The family of Lionel seems to consist only of him and his mother. There is no evidence of him having a father or siblings. This gives a reason to conclude that this was a family of a single mother who probably did not have enough time to educate her son about the right behavior (Fagan, 2013). Besides, the boy did not have a man in the house that could have been a role model.
Finally, the income rate is the third factor. Tate’s mother had to work as a babysitter, which is hardly ever an option for a woman that has a successful career in a demanding industry. This means that she probably had low income and searched for ways to earn money to feed her family. The fact that the woman did not come down to check the source of noise demonstrates she did not like her job.
Behavioral Theory
Juvenile delinquency in this case can be explained by the behavioral theory. It implies that behavior is a result of people’s interactions with the world through their lifetime (Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2014, p. 115). The social learning theory that is a part of it suggests that children observe the behavior of others and replicate it. This is applicable to the case of Lionel Tate when he imitated the actions of professional wrestlers. The social cognition concept implying that children learn from what they observe and experience also play a role here. Tate was neglected by his mother, which made him believe that children can be treated in such away.
Strategy for Prevention
The obvious solution for such cases would be to make parents better educate their children on acceptable behavior. It is their role to describe that models they see in media cannot be applied in real life. Unfortunately, many parents do not have the time or willingness to speak to their children and leave this function to society. Such a step is irresponsible as it is difficult to predict how a child would shape his or her behavior resulting from the experience of outside interactions.
References
Fagan, A. A. (2013). Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(4), 617-650.
Nikkelen, S., Vossen, H., Piotrowski, J., & Valkenburg, P. (2016). Media violence and adolescents’ ADHD-related behaviors: The role of parental mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(4), 657-675.
Regoli, R. M., Hewitt, J. D., & DeLisis, M. (2014). Delinquency in society. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Delinquency is a form of behavior which is more prevalent in adolescents than adults. In youths and children, the trajectory tends to lean towards criminal and delinquent actions rather than arbitrary engagement. In light of this development, an effective intervention program that prevents the aberrant conduct and supports the maturity of youth character is important. Though deterrence, punishment and retribution, and isolation as well as control programs are widely used to deter delinquency; they do not excite the public in their pursuit to rehabilitate the offenders. Rehabilitation and reintegration work successfully. It is made up of programs and ideals which are effective in treatment of the offender, reintegrating them in the society and limiting them from committing similar offenses.
Rehabilitation and reintegration
Rehabilitation and reintegration is a tested and proven program in addressing delinquency. Bradshaw and Rosenborough (2005) illustrate that rehabilitative treatment is widely used in reaction to criminal offenses. Rehabilitation attempts are geared towards programming or treatment aimed at limiting offenders from committing a similar offense. It achieves this through offering intervention programs such as training, probation supervision, behavior therapy cognitive skills, training and work readiness. These intervention strategies help change the offender’s behavior and shrink the frequency of offenses, making them lead a better criminal-free life in the society.
Being a tested program, rehabilitation and reintegration enable the delinquents re-integrate into the conventional society (Vasquez, 2000). It establishes an avenue for a healthy living in the community for the offender because it encompasses medical and social therapies which assist the offender reintegrate once they are released from the juvenile justice system. Siegel and Welsh (2014) assert that the rehabilitation and reintegration program is ideal. It does not focus on punishment, unlike other models such as retribution as deterrent for delinquency. Similarly, other preventive programs give priority in deterring the juveniles engaging in delinquency and violent behavior before they happen.
The pragmatic nature of rehabilitation program makes it effective as an intervention program for delinquency. Rehabilitation deals with the personal needs of the delinquent. It provides delinquents with pragmatic options to make in the community. The delinquent makes these options without recidivating. Vasquez (2000) argues that the rehabilitation is critical as a prevention program because at every stage of the program, a person is taught how to attain certain goals and the means of accomplishing them legitimately.
The rehabilitation programs are funded right from the local, State and the Federal level. The fact that rehabilitation program is costly; most of the intervention programs implemented are realistic. They teach the juveniles how to succeed in the society after being rehabilitated. The objective of changing the minds of the juveniles is to make them reintegrated freely in the community besides saving huge amount of money by the government.
Unlike other preventive programs, rehabilitation and reintegration is a secondary crime prevention program (Coie and Miller-Johnson, 2001). Thus, rehabilitation and reintegration programs can be tailored to be within, or as a component of probation: criminal justice sanction or incarceration.
In conclusion, though most prevention programs are aimed at deterring delinquency behavior, rehabilitation and reintegration is the most suitable program. Rehabilitation and reintegration approach is pragmatic, tested and sponsored by the government. The program prepares the juveniles by equipping them with skills such as training, behavior therapy cognitive skills, training and work readiness which makes them to be responsible members of the society (Siegel and Welsh, 2014).
References
Bradshaw, W., & Rosenborough, D. (2005). Restorative Justice Dialogue: The Impact of Mediation and Conferencing on Juvenile Recidivism. Federal Probation, 69 (2), 15-21.
Coie, J.D., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2001). Peer factors and interventions. In Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
It is important to understand that the primary goal of day treatment reporting programs is to provide to support to a juvenile offender after an adjudication to ensure that behavior is corrected, and similar issues will not occur in the future. Moreover, it is paramount to note that legal systems have been looking for various ways to use such initiatives because they are viewed as incredibly efficient.
One of the core aspects that should not be disregarded is that such programs may be used as a particular assessment tool that would help to identify needs of a juvenile, and this approach may lead to numerous discussions. The issue is that it may be viewed as a particular form of punishment before a due process. However, the need to review strengths and weaknesses of this approach should not be disregarded. The biggest benefit of such initiatives is that they have access to enormous amounts of resources, and trained professionals would be capable of providing juveniles with services of highest possible quality. Moreover, the assessment would be reasonable and adequate. The problem is that an enormous percentage of young offenders that are forwarded to such centers are mentally ill, and they require a unique treatment. The age of a person is also vital most of the time and affects the decision-making process in such situations. Furthermore, other types of punishment may not be viewed as reasonable.
Another aspect that is worth noting is that this approach would help to ensure that individuals are provided with help much earlier, and prompt treatment may be vital in some cases. It is imperative to understand that the identification of factors related to predisposition is critical most of the time, and would help to ensure that issues that a juvenile has to deal with are addressed. Moreover, a day treatment center may be viewed as a primary sanction against juveniles that are not violent (Siegel & Welsh, 2014). Moreover, it is imperative to understand that many young offenders are punished only with a verbal warning because they are not dangerous, and their offenses are relatively minor. On the other hand, some vital information may be obtained during such assessments, and it can be viewed as a particular contradiction. Also, it is necessary to understand that the difference between juvenile and adult legal systems is significant, and a young individual may not have an understanding of his or her rights. It is imperative to mention that preventive aspect needs to be taken into account, and a group theory that is common in such centers may be incredibly useful in some situations (Shoemaker, 2013). However, the problem that is currently present is that a consensus on particular aspects of risk assessment has not been reached, and it may be viewed as a complication most of the time, and it may be hard to justify the use of day care centers as a measurement tool.
In conclusion, it is important to note that it is not likely that this approach would punish juveniles before the due process because such programs do not have the same power as law institutions. Moreover, it is entirely possible that every case needs to be reviewed individually to ensure that rights of an individual are not broken. Overall, particular modifications to the current systems may be required if it is necessary.
References
Shoemaker, D. J. (2013). Juvenile delinquency. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2014). Juvenile delinquency: theory, practice, and law (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Juvenile justice system has great legacy since it has served the society across the century despite its inherent flaws and weaknesses. Abolitionists and critics of juvenile justice system have capitalized on its inherent flaws and weakness to advocate for its abolition.
The defenders of the system on the other hand appreciate the marked role of juvenile justice system in rehabilitating juvenile delinquents and are advocating for the conservation of the system and reforming critical structures that will enable it to carry out its functions effectively.
The raging debate over abolition of juvenile justice system revolves around the efficiency of the system. If a system has flaws and weaknesses, there might be two options, to abolish or reform it.
In this case, the best way to improve efficiency in the juvenile justice system is by reformation. Abolition and integration of juvenile justice system into criminal justice system will not solve the inherent flaws in the two systems.
The integrated system will have deeper complicated flaws due to combination of systemic flaws that will degenerate into another quest for abolition, if that is the trend. In conclusion, the juvenile justice system needs reforms and not abolition.
Introduction
Juvenile court system is a parallel criminal system provided for juvenile delinquents. Criminal justice system realized that juvenile offenders have special needs as compared to adult criminals in that they are young, and have great future to pursue; therefore, the main objective of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate them.
The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) asserts that, the objective of the juvenile justice system is to “encourage a process of behavioral change by helping the child or young person to feel accountable for his or her actions and understand their impact on others, and foster integration rather than alienation (2010, p. 4).
The juvenile justice system follows the same philosophy as in criminal justice system but it is more inclined to rehabilitating than punishing juvenile offenders.
Due to different approaches to justice, many critics have perceived juvenile justice system as a lenient approach of convicting juvenile criminals and are advocating for its abolition. This research paper explores the reasons why there should be no abolition of the juvenile justice system.
Increased Juvenile Offenders
Critics of the juvenile justice system argue that the system has become ineffective in its objective and mission of protecting the rights of the juvenile offenders and rehabilitating them. The critics base their evidence in the rapid increase of juvenile offenders.
According to Dickens, “there is a general perception, sometimes correct and sometimes unjustified, that juvenile offending rates are increasing constantly and significantly, and that ever more serious and violent crimes are being committed by ever-younger children” (2007, p. 6). Regrettably, critics attribute the rapid increase of juvenile offenders to the weakness of the juvenile justice system.
This perception has greatly backed the critics’ bid in their abolition of juvenile justice system campaign citing that the system has failed in its mandate of punishing and rehabilitating juvenile delinquents. This line of argument is not valid since it does not consider other factors such as social dynamics and economic challenges in contemporary society.
It is not plausible to attribute a complex issue of increased incidences of juvenile delinquency to a single system as juvenile justice for there are many factors that need consideration.
The exponential rate of juvenile offenders in the contemporary society emanates from social and economic intricacies. According to UNICEF views, “…sudden and often extreme economic precariousness … the population quickly found itself when drastic measures were introduced to prepare for the market economy, and to the anomie and rejection of authority that often characterized the initial period of post-Communism” (6).
The rapid increase of juvenile offenders is due to changes in economic system. Transition from communism into capitalism tremendously increased the number of juvenile offenders because the change in economic system affected labor markets which affected families and by extension social and economic aspects of youth.
Therefore, instead of putting the whole blame on juvenile justice system, it is prudent to focus on probable factors that have led to the rapid increase in juvenile delinquencies. The function of the juvenile justice system is to correct juvenile delinquents through appropriate programs and not to prevent occurrence of crimes.
Even if there was an effective criminal justice system but social and economic aspects of the society were very poor, criminal activities will obviously increase. Therefore, abolition of juvenile justice system based on increased juvenile offenders is farfetched.
Juvenile Delinquency is a Disorder
Juvenile delinquency is an adolescent disorder that affects children between the ages of about 7 and 17 years. Juveniles at this age normally experience adolescent disorder that affects their rational decision making abilities. The rational ability of a juvenile and an adult are not equal hence juveniles need special consideration in punishment and rehabilitation programs.
Scott and Steinberg argue that juveniles who constantly commit crimes, “in contrast to the vast majority of juvenile offenders, their involvement in crime does not only appear to be the product of adolescent immaturity; it has additional roots in the neurological, psychological, familial, and environmental deficits” (2008, p. 225). Based on this argument, juvenile delinquency results from a complex youth disorder that requires rehabilitation rather than punishing them.
Contemporary abolitionists want to merge criminal justice system and juvenile justice system without considering the unique needs of the juvenile offenders. It is imperative to realize and consider the unique psychological conditions of juvenile offenders by assigning them separate justice system that will consider their needs; therefore, juvenile justice system needs no abolition.
Abolition and Integration
Leading abolitionist Barry Feld is advocating for an integrated justice system after he observed that the juvenile justice system failed terribly in its mission and vision of enforcing law. The mission and vision of the juvenile justice system is to provide a lenient justice environment, and separate juvenile offenders from adult criminals to rehabilitate them effectively.
Although Barry Feld agrees with this important goal, he argues that, “…the juvenile justice system was doomed to failure even from the beginning; because it was thrown into the role of providing child welfare at the same time it was instrument of law enforcement” (Sigel & Welsh, 2008, p. 522).
The critics and abolitionists of the juvenile justice system do not care about the welfare of the children because they are focusing more on legal punishment but they are forgetting the fact that juvenile delinquents still have great future to pursue unlike adult criminals. To improve the future wellbeing of the juvenile offenders, there should be no abolition of the juvenile justice system since it cares about children welfare through its rehabilitation program.
Abolitionists further argue that juvenile justice system has limited access to privileges of the criminal justice system. According to Scotts and Steinberg, “modern abolitionists argue that juveniles continue to receive inadequate representation and procedural protection, despite Gault extending to the juveniles many of the procedural protections enjoyed by adults in criminal trials, including right to an attorney” (2008, p. 226).
The primary purpose of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation but the abolitionists are advocating for substitution of this purpose with punishment. The abolitionists view justice from punishment perspective while the defenders of the juvenile justice system view it from welfare perspective.
Incorporation of juvenile justice system into criminal justice system will not help in reducing the incidences of juvenile delinquency but will worsen moral states of the juvenile offenders because there are no effective and specific rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents in criminal system.
Rehabilitation of the juvenile offenders is key objective and benefit of juvenile justice system and hence, its abolition will degenerate into poor rehabilitation.
Critics’ and Abolitionists’ Assumptions
The critics and abolitionists of the juvenile justice system base their arguments on assumptions that are impractical. Barry Feld and other abolitionists assume that it is quite impossible to reform the juvenile justice system due to conflicting roles of child welfare and punishment. He is proposing abolition and integration as the only means of achieving streamlined justice system for all.
He argues that, “the money spent on serving the court and its large staff would be better spent on the child welfare, which would target a larger audience and prevent children’s antisocial acts before they occur in lieu of juvenile court” (Siegel & Welsh, 2008, p. 523). From this argument, abolitionists do not want anything to do with the welfare of the children in the justice system.
They also perceive the juvenile justice system as ineffective in preventing further crimes. It is fair to judge the performance of the juvenile justice system on the number of juvenile delinquents who have undergo successful rehabilitation rather than judging them on crimes they have not prevented.
Barry Feld and other critics further assume that integration of the juvenile justice system will enable juvenile offenders receive complete procedural protection in the criminal justice system, which is practically impossible.
“It is naïve to assume the criminal courts can provide the same or greater substantive and procedural protection as the juvenile court … and may be impossible for juvenile offenders to obtain adequate legal defense in the adult system” (Siegel & Welsh, 2008, p. 522).
In the criminal justice system, many bureaucracies are under discretion of the judges and this will not augur well with the juveniles from minority community who are subject to racism, ethnicity and discrimination. Since the judges in the criminal have prerogatives to take into consideration the age factor and administer sentence, there is likelihood that there will be some bias.
It is preferably better to reform the juvenile justice system than abolish it because it provides unique procedural protection and rehabilitation to the juvenile offenders unlike the criminal justice system.
Correctional Specialization
The basic important feature of the juvenile justice system is that it provides correctional specialization by separating adults and children.
“This basic and long-standing principle has two purposes: to protect children from exploitation, abuse and negative influences by the adults; and to ensure that the detention of children is effectively done in facilities that cater to their special needs” (UNICEF, 2010, p. 13).
Abolition and integration of juvenile justice system into the criminal justice system means that there will be no differential treatment of juveniles and adults.
Juvenile offenders not only receive protection from the influences of adults but they also get protection against unfair trial due to their ages. The juvenile justice system provides both protections; hence, its abolition will severely affect fair trial and rehabilitation as process of justice.
Juvenile offenders are very delicate and sensitive to the influences of adults, and harsh sentences will impair positive behavior change. Therefore, leniency and welfare objectives of the juvenile justice system creates conducive environment for effective rehabilitation.
The juvenile justice system has benefitted the juvenile offenders and the society for the last 100 years, thus it may seem unwise to abolish it rather than reforming it to keep abreast with dynamics of the justice systems.
“Juvenile courts allowed society to intervene early in the lives of troubled youth and they prevented a variety of horrors that occurred whenever young defendants were thrown in with adult criminals” (Butts, 2010, p. 25).
The system has enabled many youths to change their behaviour and pursue their dreams making them great people in the society. The flaws in the juvenile justice system can be mitigated in the long term provided the appropriate measures are put in place.
There are no flawless systems; however, during the course of time the hitherto flawed systems achieve perfection through reforms and not by abolition. Therefore, reformation of the juvenile justice system should strike a balance between public safety and the juveniles’ rights in building a better society for the benefit of everybody.
The critics and abolitionists of specialised justice systems like the juvenile justice system should channel their energies towards reforming rather than abolishing important institutions as the juvenile justice system. The more specialised systems of justice, the better the justice mechanisms in the society.
Conclusion
The juvenile justice system is a system that has stood the test of time amidst great challenges over a century. It is unreasonable to abolish the system that has served the society for a period of 100 years due to its inherent flaws.
Abolishing the system means discrediting its cumulative marked roles and substituting it with the criminal justice system that will not serve unique needs of the juvenile offenders is tantamount to ineptness.
Examining the legacy the juvenile justice system has build for a long period; the best way to reward the system is by carrying out objective reforms geared towards enhancing its legal structures rather than abolishing it.
Since every system has inherent flaws, time and experiences shape them for it is not reasonable to abolish any system in order to avoid flaws. In the light of these revelations, it suffices to say that, juvenile justice system needs reforms and not abolition.
References
Butts, J. (2010). Can we do without Juvenile Justice? American Bar Association, 4(2), 22-45.
Dickens, C. (2007). A perspective on the Juvenile Justice System. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 3(1), 4-18.
Scott, E., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Rethinking Juvenile Justice. New York: Harvard University Press
Sigel, L., & Welsh, B. (2008). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. New York: Cengage Learning.
United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, (2010). Juvenile Justice. The Innocenti Digest, 1-24.
Young people are increasingly losing track of the moral behaviors taught to them in this period. Their lives are constantly challenged by the daily pressures. Although this has reached alarming levels, Parents have a role to play in the mitigation of this problem. The lifestyles of children are increasingly becoming difficult to predict with a lot of changes in the global civilization. Family relations that had kept the children intact are falling apart with increasing divorce, separation, and conflicts.
Furthermore; more children are now living in single homes with divided attention, challenging the basic structures of socialization. The effects are grave as more children and youths are turning delinquent and immoral, posing the question of what the future holds for our nations across the globe. Among the most affected countries is the United States which is recording startling records of delinquent youths. This paper will attempt to investigate the roles of the key officials in a juvenile court.
Definitions
Juvenile delinquency is the condition in which children do things contrary to the law. Juvenile legal systems are those institutions set aside to stimulate the processes of dealing with juvenile cases. While the developed countries rate highly with those affected by delinquency, the developing worlds are even worse. They are faced with multiple problems ranging from the pressures of transitions, overcrowding in the towns and slums, inadequate employment opportunities, poverty to faster population growth (World Youth Report, 2003, p.189). Even the female sex known to be more calm have gone into the same behaviors.
Given the few opportunities, youth end up joining illegal lines to survive and this exposes them to potentially harmful experiences. The past decade has witnessed a huge increase in youth delinquency, a situation that is not healthy for the development of any country. Statistics show that children in difficult positions increased to 150 million from 80 million, between 1992 to 2000. many children are faced with a prospect of juvenile delinquency if great care is not taken (Organisation of African Unity and Unicef, 1992).
Juvenile court System
Juvenile court systems are comprised of key individuals responsible for deciding the culprit’s fate in following the processes of the system. These individuals may be from different agencies but serve a common purpose; to help the child in question. The key officers in the juvenile court system are The Juvenile police officers, probation officers, juvenile judges, and prosecutors (Hartjen, 2008, p.106).
The probation officer’s responsibility has been varied depending on the country of residence. In the United States; their role was taken over by the Prosecutors and currently, they are made more as correctional officials to the child than their former task as advocates. Nevertheless, they still can sway decisions depending on their recommendations from their social investigation report.
Prosecutors never had the kind of authority they currently command in the Juvenile court systems, currently, they initiate, present, and direct proceedings in the juvenile courts. They are very important in the proceedings and even have additional authority to propose a waiver of the subject.
The judges are the other officials in a juvenile court system. They are uniquely trained to execute their duties and in some countries are independent of the main regular court system. They are usually considered of lower value than the regular judges, this is because their cases are always considered less compelling. The judge can take an active part in the process or not, in some cases their powers can be delegated while sometimes they do make the ultimate decision.
In the United States, the Judge has the power to reverse the decision but the charging is done by other officials. They also hold the power to end the proceedings once a verdict has been made on the youth, he can assess the validity of the case and give the fate of the youth, and can even dismiss it (Hartjen, 2008, p.108).
There may be Lawyers Juries and other officials. These officials may serve as defense attorneys to the youth. In the United States, the jury is never used for children unless the youth is an adult. In some societies where the role of the community is valued, they can be involved in the trial.
In processing youth, there are three steps followed namely; initiation, charging, and adjudication. The initiation process can be done by anyone although it is mainly done by the Probation officers. In the United States, police officers are actively involved in the initiation process. The charging also referred to as intake screening, is done by the prosecutors and the probing officials. In this process, the youth can be charged, waived, diverted, or dismissed.
Dismissal changes reduce with further processing. Various ways can be used to help reform the youth, some are putting through correctional centers, Educational programs, or by using Therapeutic interventions among others. In a case example where a ten-year-old, Charlie has been charged with several counts of shoplifting at a local store (Hartjen, 2008, p.131). Case the police officer acts as the initiating officer, the judge will wait for the other officials to give the charge (the probation officer and the prosecutor). The Judge will then give the verdict based on the charge given with an option for reviewing. Penalties are reduced to help children from progressing to status offenders (Siegel & Welsh, 2008, p.22).
Conclusion
The key officials have overlapping roles depending on the country of residence. The prosecutors are more dominant than the probation officials, the Judge gives the final verdict, based on the charge given by the other officials and sometimes (depending on the country) can make his/her own decision. Since it is Charlie’s first appearance in the Juvenile court, his charges would be greatly reduced and be given a second chance to reform. The decision should be made in the Child’s best interest.
Reference List
Hartjen, C. A. (2008). Youth Crime and Justice: a global inquiry. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Organisation of African Unity and Unicef. (1992). Africa’s Children, Africa’s future. Web.
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2008). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Stamford, Mass: Cengage Learning.
Juvenile delinquency, its severity, and consequences significantly influence the future development of society. In the current conditions of law enforcement, entering the criminal justice system at a young age determines the individual’s future. Due to the existing cycle of recidivism that occurred because of the challenges of integrating offenders into society, current juvenile delinquency could have major negative consequences in the future. Preventing further extend of crimes among adolescents requires additional research of the core reasons for teenage crimes.
The topic for the term project that I have decided to cover is “The influence of parental relations in crimes among adolescents aged 13 to 17 years”. I chose to focus my work on one of the main factors that could potentially predict juvenile delinquency: the family’s input. Even though different factors contribute to the possible reasons for crimes among adolescents, including mental health problems and socio-economic factors, the primary source of influence for teenagers is family. Although government and society simultaneously participate in defining morality and societal norms for teenagers through the educational process, the main influence for teenagers’ moral perception is family background and upbringing. In my work, I suggest that determining the familiarity in the family context of adolescent crimes could provide vital input into the theme of delinquent behavior. The addition of family context to the existing perception of adolescent crimes could be used to explore the core reasons for the crimes and to define possible methods for the prevention of juvenile crimes.
Literature Review
The problem of juvenile crimes is thoroughly covered in the literature; however, the number of researches conducted with concerns on parental input being the predictor of delinquent behavior is significantly smaller. The main purpose of this study is to conduct a review of existing literature and research on the influence of family relations on adolescent crimes and analyzing the data to define factors that negatively affect the child’s behavior. The factors could include any parental activity or inactivity, such as family structure, level of participation in the child’s life, and parents’ substance use. The literature review includes five articles, with each article touching on family’s input in adolescent crimes.
Bobbio, A., Arbach, K., & Redondo Illescas, S. (2020). Juvenile delinquency risk factors: Individual, social, opportunity or all of these together? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 62, 1-11.
The article written by Bobbio et al. (2020) suggests that family deprivation presents one of the several types of risks implied by the deficiency in prosocial support, such as school disengagement and delinquent friends. The authors introduce the following factors to measure the level of parental participation in adolescents’ life: closeness, monitoring, communication, and approval of peers. According to the article’s findings, poor parenthood with most parental practices sourced from the maternal side contributes to adolescent crimes’ social risk factors.
Delcea, C., Fabian, A. M., Radu, C. C., & Dumbravă, D. P. (2019). Juvenile delinquency within the forensic context. Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine, 27(4), 366-372.
The research conducted by Delcea et al. (2019) presents a quantitative and qualitative approach to juvenile delinquency with results of the study that featured analysis of juvenile delinquents’ files and interviews with 30 minor participants. The research findings determined that two of the most important factors of socialization of minors that contribute to the risk of crimes among adolescents are school and family. The authors suggest that the family factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency in most cases are conflictive family atmosphere and abandonment of the child rather than the family’s structure.
Hoffman, J., & Dufur, M. (2018). Family social capital, family social bonds, and juvenile delinquency. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(11), 1525–1544.
The article written by Hoffman and Dufur (2018) presents an analysis of representative data on youth conducted to determine the influence of family bonds and family social capital on juvenile delinquency. The authors determined the following types of family bonds that contribute t the risk of adolescent crimes: attachment, involvement, and monitoring with the addition of parental warmth and level of parental involvement in school talks. According to Hoffman and Dufur (2018), the family social capital could be perceived as a predicting factor for property offenses but determining factors that predict violent offenses require independent research.
Mwangangi, R. (2019) The role of family in dealing with juvenile delinquency. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 52-63.
The article written by Mwangangi (2019) covers the author’s study’s results on determining family factors that predict juvenile delinquency. According to Mwangangi (2019), several family-related factors influence child crime rates, including parental attitudes, level of family cohesion, presence of physical violence, and level of parental involvement.
Simmons, C., Steinberg, L., Frick, P. J., & Cauffman, E. (2018). The differential influence of absent and harsh fathers on juvenile delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 62, 9-17.
The article written by Simmons et al. (2018) provides a substantial input on fathers’ role in the upbringing of juvenile offenders. Father absence is frequently perceived as one of the factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency. However, according to the study results, the strong presence and harsh father-son relations could negatively affect the child’s development and result in the child’s engagement in offending behaviors.
In conclusion, the current state of literature related to the topic lacks a thorough analysis of how each family factor influences juvenile delinquency. The majority of literature focuses on either maternal or parental support of the child and socio-economic factors, without significant concerns on the family structure and the family’s emotional climate. The current work is geared toward filling the gap in the existing body of knowledge by providing a thorough analysis of the family influence on adolescent crimes in family structure, the emotional component, and the level of parental participation from both mother and father.
Methodology
The methodology for this project is constructing a literature review and analyzing the existing body of knowledge in order to define family factors that influence juvenile delinquency. The study is aimed to prove that family issues present one of the primary factors that cause crime commitment among adolescents. Social bonds between the family members influence delinquent behavior (Hoffman & Dufur, 2018). Through the literature review and original analysis of acquired data, the study results will provide information on the possible family factors contributing to juvenile delinquency among adolescents aged thirteen to seventeen. Understanding the relationship between psychological problems coming from childhood relates to the social bond between parent and children, which is essential in exploring the reasons for juvenile delinquency.
Violence and other criminal actions attract the attention of the government and the general public, as they affect the life of the society adversely. Many interventions were made to prevent such behavior among the adult population but recently the number of the youth who experienced arrests increased, which required reconsideration of the issue. Today, it is mainly known as juvenile delinquency, which presupposes criminal actions conducted by the minors who are about 10-19 years old.
Even though the rates of juvenile delinquency do not increase nowadays, they still constitute a great part of all crimes, so it is critical to determine the chronic offenders at an early age to make the life in the community safer, paying attention to the influences from the neighborhood, parents, and peers.
The information about the delinquency can be received from both the official and unofficial sources of data that are reliable and valid. Official information is provided by Governments, and in this case the data obtained by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2016) can be discussed. It is a part of the U.S. Department of Justice and its main primary source of information. The source is valid and reliable because professionals who gather it require accurate data that can be used to make effective and efficient political and economic considerations. Trustworthy data provides an opportunity to implement policies and other interventions to control the country in different spheres.
Unofficial information that deals with delinquency can be gained from the statistics provided by such private organization as the National Center for Juvenile (2016). It has a narrower focus, and professionals who work in the related spheres cooperate to find out how the problem of juvenile delinquency can be solved. Even though the aims of governments and private/public organizations differ, the data provided by them is decent. They take into consideration data provided by police, healthcare organizations, prisons, and the youth. Of course, in some cases, violent actions may be left unnoticed as well as people who conducted them, but general tendencies can be discussed, as they are able to receive the information about all officially investigated cases.
Juvenile delinquency is a critical issue for the US because its rates are rather high during the last twenty years. Almost 2 million individuals who were not even 18 years old got incarcerated in 2009, which account for “15% of all violent crimes and 24% of all property crimes” (Ryan, Williams, & Courtney, 2013). Chung and Steinberg (2006) found out that the youth often starts committing crimes under the influence of neighborhood, peer and parenting behavior.
They underlined that as the number of adults who use drugs, violate the law, become imprisoned, and treat children badly increased, the number of incarcerated youth also increased. In order to reduce juvenile delinquency rates and make the life of the population, better Tolan et al. (2013) suggest mentoring for high-risk youth. They offer to take into consideration aggression, substance abuse, and academic functioning.
Many professionals, including Tolan et al. (2013) pay attention to the problem of juvenile delinquency and its prevention, pointing out that it is significant to determine the chronic offender as soon as possible. For example, Kempf-Leonard, Tracy, and Howell (2001) state that interventions made at an early age tend to have more successful outcomes than those made when the person has already committed some crimes and became older. They underline that little children are more amenable so assuming measures in time can prevent criminal behavior. In this way, the number of incarcerated adults will decrease, and the life in the community will become much safer.
Thus, the issue of juvenile delinquency is crucial for the US, and it requires the implementation of effective preventive measures such as policies. To develop them, the data from both official and unofficial sources can be gathered and discussed with the support from peer-reviewed sources, in which professionals discuss the most recent trends in juvenile delinquency.
References
Chung, H., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Relations between neighborhood factors, parenting behaviors, peer deviance, and delinquency among serious juvenile offenders. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 319-331.
Kempf-Leonard, K., Tracy, P., & Howell, J. (2001). Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders: The relationship of delinquency career types to adult criminality. Justice Quarterly, 18(3), 449-478.
Ryan,J., Williams, A., & Courtney, M. (2013). Adolescent neglect, juvenile delinquency and the risk of recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 454–465.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). About the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Web.
The National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2016). Our history. Web.
Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M., Bass, A., Lovegrove, P., & Nichols, E. (2013). Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-148.
Before the industrial revolution, juvenile offenders were treated in the same fashion as adult criminals. Children who had committed offenses would be locked up with adults and would be expected to carry out punishments akin to those of their grown-up equivalents. Children who were guilty of certain offenses were even exposed to capital punishment. According to Geisser (2015), some young people who were considered rowdy or belligerent were deported to orphanages, training schools, and workhouses along with any abandoned children. The systems, which had been put in place to control delinquent juveniles, were at times harsh and exploitative. The delinquents would be compelled to labor for a long period under dreadful circumstances where they were deprived of payment. Rather than rehabilitating the children, the programs functioned to exploit them.
At the onset of the industrial revolution, public awareness concerning the fair and ethical treatment of children in workplaces emerged. Large numbers of people became apprehensive about extreme child labor where children would be constrained to work for long hours in factories without suitable compensation. Gradually, various interest groups managed to lobby for the introduction of child labor laws and other programs that were aimed at reversing the prevailing tendencies of child exploitation (Geisser, 2015). Later, the laws paved way for reforms in the way children were handled in the juvenile justice systems. Some of the key personalities who participated in pushing for separate juvenile justice systems include Jane Adams and Julia Lathrop. The National Council of Mothers likewise played a vital role in favor of minors (Geisser, 2015).
While many people were supportive of these initiatives to separate juvenile justice systems from the adult systems, others saw it as a reaction to the amplified delinquency instigated by the Industrial Revolution. Children whose parents were working in the factories were often left unattended and hence vulnerable to delinquency. Other children as young as three years were tasked with domestic labors or family businesses. Besides, other children, especially those above seven years, were sent away to become apprentices in the homes and farms of unrelated masters since their parents were busy working. According to Musick (1995), the masters maltreated a good number of such children. Some of them were even sexually desecrated. Apprenticeship involved precarious labor on massive tracts of land. Some parents sent their children to schools where they could acquire formal education.
The industrial revolution saw a population influx to urban areas, especially large cities. In these environments, children were frequently left unsupervised. However, the same industrial revolution also necessitated the demand for skilled and unskilled labor. Therefore, the solution for unruly juveniles was to send them to the factories or the farms. As industrialization continued to grow, technological advancement was also witnessed. More industries needed less skilled labor and more technical expertise that was mostly beyond the parameters of youths. The technical expertise needed by the growing industries included knowledge to operate intricate machines and technological devices. Competent and better-trained adult workers then supplanted the youthful hands. The law expanded to safeguard children from exploitative employers and negligent families. The government took control over various matters that affected children such as education and health.
Lack of Parental Guidance on Technology and Juvenile Delinquency
After the industrial revolution, there was a rapid rise in the development and use of technology. Technological advancement opened up new avenues for minors to engage in criminal activities. Minors became vulnerable to delinquency in ways that had not even been fathomed before. This risk was particularly high among children and adolescents who are left unsupervised. Such juveniles spent long hours in contact with technological devices such as video games, mobile phones, computers, and television among others. Although technology is useful and convenient for children even today, it becomes a problem when there is a lack of parental guidance and supervision on how they should interact with it. The typical parent spends long hours in the workplace earning a living. Hence, children, specifical adolescents, are left to maneuver on their own. Hence, they are often in contact with unrestricted technology and technological devices.
Through mass media such as television and communication devices such as mobile phones, adolescents are exposed to sensitive materials. The makers of television, movies, and internet content are more concerned with profits than the quality and impact of the content. Movies, video games, and internet content may have negative effects on children. These effects include exposure to violence, obscene language, or filthy acts. Once children have been exposed to this kind of content, it may damage them for life. According to Boyd (2015), young children are exposed to television programs that depict murder, fights, and rape without the attendance of a grown-up to tell them that the actual life should not be based on the movie depictions or the television programs. Therefore, teenagers grow with a distorted image of society and/or how things work in life. This situation leads to them being wayward shortly.
Parents seem to take two approaches in supervising and guiding their children where technology is concerned. The first approach is where they are extremely strict or authoritative. They deny their children access to technology such as television, mobile phones, and video games without a discussion on the reason behind their stance. The children feel unfairly treated. Hence, they become rebellious, which causes them to be delinquent. Children from these families engage in other dangerous activities such as drug abuse and unsafe sexual practices. The other kind of parents is excessively liberal with their children’s use of technology. This practice is particularly rampant among rich families where children are used to parents fulfilling their every wish (Hatch, 1999). Children who are accustomed to having their way can cultivate a sense of entitlement where they become disobedient to any attempts of supervision or control. Due to their lavish lifestyle, they are easily able to access drugs and other harmful substances. Therefore, parents need to strike a balance between the right amount of strictness and liberty to protect their children from delinquency.
With modern progress in communication technology, most people have become more reliant on technological means of communication, as opposed to old-fashioned face-to-face talk. Most parents are often away on important business trips or working. They create limited opportunities for communicating with their children. For instance, they communicate through the phone or email. The conversations lack a personal touch. Hence, parents may not understand exactly what their children are experiencing. The role of supervising and guiding children is left to other children, grandparents, or hired workers. Other times, parents have no idea of how a certain technology works. Some parents are not as conversant with technology as their children are. It becomes impossible for the parent to supervise and guide the child while he or she (parent) has no idea of the required expertise (Hatch, 1999). Parents need to make conscious efforts to familiarize themselves with the technology that their children are exposed to such that they can guide them accordingly.
Social Media and Juvenile Delinquency
Social networking and social media play a key role in modern human interactions. Social media refers to the internet medium, which allows people to generate and exchange content. Social media websites such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and Skype offer communication platforms, as well as chances to connect with friends, family, and peers regularly. According to Hatch (1999), 25% of adolescents access their favorite social websites a minimum of 10 times a day. While three-quarters of the teenage population own cell phones, at least half of that number uses the gadgets for social media (Hatch, 1999). Others utilize them for messaging and texting. Because of their restricted capacity to regulate themselves, adolescents and teenagers are at a massive risk since they experiment and traverse social media. Hatch (1999) confirms the rising trend of exporting offline behavior to online forums. Cases of harassment and bullying have become rampant on social media. Cyberbullying means the deliberate use of online platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to spread false or malicious information about a person. Juvenile delinquency over social media starts with the victims’ access to the platforms. Once teens and adolescents access social media platforms, they are vulnerable to peer pressure and influence from the content on such platforms (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). Juveniles can effortlessly view dubious materials that are accessible on social media. They can similarly espouse these questionable practices in their conduct. Although surfing seems harmless, it can expose juveniles to violent online content. Prolonged access to aggressive content can have devastating effects on the conduct of juveniles by encouraging them to adopt such actions into their conduct.
In addition to accessing violent content on social media, young people have adopted practices such as sexting over social media. Sexting involves teenagers exchanging nude pictures and sensual messages online. The teenagers view these exchanges as harmless. However, this perception is not the case since such exchanges are against child pornography laws. The laws are lenient to first-time-offender teens who are caught transmitting nude pictures over the internet. However, the law becomes stricter for second and third-time offenders. Such exchanges of explicit pictures may appear innocuous and childish. The images have the potential of leaking to other online users. A more serious offense occurs when teenagers expose nude pictures of other teenagers around them. This situation chiefly happens in the setting of teenage relationships. Upon the disintegration of the relationship, a teenager may release nude pictures of the other party to social websites for the whole world to see. This move is mostly taken as “revenge”. To limit this offense, several laws have been passed criminalizing the transmission of child pornography, including nude pictures of teenagers. What remains is stricter enforcement of the laws.
The widespread use of personal computers and mobile phones to access technology has presented overwhelming challenges to parents. The internet can hold voluminous amounts of content and facts, which keep on changing. Many children are more versed with the internet and computer technology than their parents. The children frequently defeat any efforts by their parents to filter or block disagreeable content. However, parents can employ several strategies to protect their children from objectionable social media content. First, they can restrict the use of personal computers and then place household computers in common access locations. This way, children will be deterred by the fear of being discovered from accessing questionable content (Siegel & Welsh, 2013). Likewise, they can use software that regulates and blocks access to websites that contain sexual or violent content. Parents can also track their children’s activities on the internet while limiting their children’s access to social media platforms.
Cyber-crimes and Juvenile Delinquency
Cyber crimes refer to illegal activities that require the use of a computer. These crimes range from hacking, swatting, piracy, and digital trespassing. Peer pressure and the anonymity availed by a computer screen are the main factors that push adolescents and juveniles to commit cyber crimes. The offenses seem harmless to children who are used to a misleading view of the world because of television and video games. Swatting comprises online pranks and threats. Sometimes teenagers in search of thrill or fun call in serious crimes on unsuspecting people to unleash a swat team on them. These teenagers use several techniques to make it appear as though the call originated from the victim’s residence (IRMA, 2011). The prank calls report serious crimes such as hostage situations and robberies to attract the attention of the authorities.
Hacking refers to the modification of software or hardware to allow illegal access to a computer. Most juveniles engage in hacking as a source of thrill or fun without giving any thought to its consequences. Hacking can lead to loss of data, loss of finances, or identity theft. This crime has gained popularity in recent years. One of the reasons that have been given to explain hacking is the easy access to computers and the internet. Presently, more than thirty-five percent of juveniles have access to a computer. Apart from being readily available, computer technology has become ridiculously affordable. The cost of acquiring a computer has seen a ninety-percent descent over the past ten years (Siegel & Welsh, 2013). The increase in hacking activities by teenagers and juveniles has caused a shift of attention to juveniles’ hacking capabilities. A group of teens recently hacked into Sony Play Station’s database and compromised private client data. Another group operating under the pseudo-name “Anonymous” attacked federal agencies and banks where it exposed sensitive documents being exposed.
Most juveniles do not consider digital piracy a crime. Digital piracy refers to unauthorized duplication, sharing, or downloading of content using computers. Downloading or duplicating content such as digital music, movies, and software is not considered theft. The juveniles who partake in these piracy activities do not believe them to be morally wrong (Sundaram & Umarhathab, 2011). Traditionally, theft was defined as illegally appropriating property without the owner’s accord with the intent to deny the said owner of the use of the property. Juveniles have a hard time understanding the fact that they equally deprive the owner of property use, for instance, when they illegally download a song or steal a DVD in the store. Peer pressure from other delinquent youths has been said to increase the likelihood of juveniles committing the offense of digital piracy. Male teenagers have favorable attitudes towards pirating music and movies.
The cyber crimes discussed above can be categorized as digital trespassing. To limit or control digital trespassing by juveniles, the government needs to enact specific legislation that targets specific crimes. Apart from financial loss and threats to sensitive information, digital trespassing can lead to serious consequences such as victimizing teenagers. Nude pictures or other embarrassing information about a specific person may find its way to the internet. If this person happens to be a teenager, the results could be shattering. Such an experience may cause irreparable trauma and depression for the affected party. Teenagers who are found guilty of digital trespass are prosecuted under the same laws, in which terrorists who hack into government systems to wreak havoc are prosecuted. This approach is even though most teenagers undertake digital trespass as a way of proving to themselves and others that they have the skills to do it.
Negative Media Influence and Delinquency (Music and Television)
Music affects people’s attitudes, conduct, tempers, and sentimentalities. Music has a more profound hold on teenagers and juveniles. A survey conducted among teenagers aged 14 to 16 years found that they spend an average of 40 hours a week listening to music (Hatch, 1999). A typical teenager will listen to 1500 rock songs before reaching the 12th grade (Hatch, 1999). Attention has not been given to the correlation between violent music lyrics and aggressive or violent behavior. Although formal studies have not been done to confirm the claim, juveniles who listen to heavy metal music may be more inclined to participate in violent or aggressive activities. Despite numerous legislations forbidding it, it is astonishing how modern music glorifies acts of violence. Musical lyrics have continually become explicit, especially on abuse of drugs, sexual depravity, and violence against women. These explicit lyrics are chiefly found in the hip-hop music category (Signorielli, 2005). The fact that music and lyrics may ultimately affect the behavior and temperaments of teenagers must not be ignored. The music industry should limit the glorification of filthy musical content that seems to encourage teens into delinquent actions.
Children begin watching television at very tender ages, sometimes as young as six months. By the time they get to two or three years of age, they have become regular viewers. A study by Signorielli (2005) showed a resolute correlation between televised violence and violent actions committed by teenagers and juveniles. The study conclusively shows that televised violence has definite negative effects on human temperament and personality. Televised violence not only encourages violent behavior but also sways moral ideals about violence (Signorielli, 2005). Children who interact with large amounts of violent content on television have a greater likelihood of exhibiting violent demeanor. The effects of televised violence cut across all ages, levels of intellect, socio-economic heights, and both genders. Viewers who watch significant amounts of televised violence have a distorted perception of the world. They perceive a nastier world while overrating the prospect of being victims of violence. Some researchers have concluded that televised violence can be addictive to children and adolescents (Signorielli, 2005). Most content creators and supposed regulators such as attendants at movie theatres are more concerned with making profits than protecting teenagers and youngsters against dangerous content. It is not a wonder to see teenagers being allowed into X-rated movies because the attendants do not care. Due to these factors, more people have continually become concerned that televised violence is becoming a national health problem. There have been campaigns to advocate measures to mitigate the effects of televised violence. Such measures can include stricter laws on the rating of content and national education programs on media.
Reference List
Boyd, D. (2015). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New York, NY: Yale University Press.
Several efforts are made to reduce and prevent juvenile delinquency in Hampton, VA. The most important of them are Hampton United and Youth Violence Program Manager. The mentioned programs can be regarded as community-oriented and striving to provide timely and effective interventions. Let us consider each of them in detail.
Analysis
Analyzing and interpreting the current statistics, Hampton United focuses on summer youth employment and grassroots prevention mini-grants. At the same time, this program integrates information from schools, police, public health, and other institutions, thus developing the community-specific plan of action (“Youth Violence Prevention,” 2017). Considering Hampton United in the context of sociological theories, it is possible to note that the anomie theory composes its basis. In particular, the above theory implies that juvenile delinquency occurs as a result of the lack of moral guidelines that are provided to society (Bates & Swan, 2014). Another potential cause may be associated with the fact that youths’ goals and expectations do not go in line with the legal regulations. For example, a juvenile wants to buy a phone yet he or she has an insufficient amount of money. Being unhappy and lacking moral guidelines, he or she steals or commits some other crimes. In order to prevent and reduce juvenile violence, the City of Hampton develops and implements various activities that were mentioned above, promoting the importance of moral standards.
The Youth Violence Program Manager is another means that was introduced to decrease the level of juvenile delinquency. It is a full-time coordinator who may be contacted by phone (757-727-2730) or email ([email protected]) (“Youth Violence Prevention,” 2017). This coordinator applies the individual and specialized approach to each juvenile delinquency case. Besides, the Youth Violence Program Manager promotes the establishment of positive attitudes towards police representatives. For instance, the fee-free 2016 VA Rules Camp was initiated to create the opportunity of making police and juveniles closer. The coordination of non-profit organizations, faith organizations, and other interested parties is also performed by the mentioned coordinator. The research shows that the Youth Violence Program Manager can be attributed to the control theory in the framework of structural functionalism. According to this theory, “conceptualized attachment is an affective bond through which children internalize conventional norms of society” (Hoeve et al., 2012, p. 772). Thus, the coordinating manager aims at the establishment of the strong attachment of young people to their families, schools, police, and society in general. Focusing on involvement, the Youth Violence Program Manager stimulates a sense of the value of such attachments.
Conclusion
In view of the above observations, it is possible to suggest that the City of Hampton may also benefit from the implementation of a range of other programs. In particular, the study initiated by Adirim and Supplee (2013) indicates that Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) is an essential means for the prevention and reduction of juvenile delinquency. This federal program may be implemented either in the existing form or with some community-specific improvements that, in their turn, are likely to lead to the decreased number of juvenile offenders. Home visits are quite significant as they present the opportunity to directly contact the families and provide them with the necessary information, explaining how to interact with their children to prevent juvenile delinquency. The fact that this intervention is successfully used in such communities as Chicago, IL, and Portland, OK proves the effectiveness of MIECHV program.
References
Adirim, T., & Supplee, L. (2013). Overview of the Federal Home Visiting Program. Pediatrics, 132(1), 59-64.
Bates, K. A., & Swan, R. S. (2014). Juvenile delinquency in a diverse society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hoeve, M., Stams, G. J., Put, C. E., Dubas, J. S., Laan, P. H., & Gerris, J. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(5), 771-785.
In the evolving set-up that is society, the expectations levied upon the different age groups in the society have also changed. The changes, to a large extent, have affected the teen and the youth who find themselves in the middle of this quagmire. In the end, the values and principles that the previous generations adhered to and even held sacred are shrinking and disappearing in the thick fog that is time. The other factor is that the norms that governed relationships in the different family and societal set-ups such as in the school and the workplace are being challenged (Klein, 1995). The aspects of society that ensured a smooth transition between the age groups and social classes are either deteriorating or changing, people’s lifestyles are becoming more unorthodox and their predictability is waning too. Other aspects that govern the characters of people the society natures are external, inclusive of which is the labor market (Venkatesh, 1997).
The maturity gap in today’s young adults has considerably increased due to many factors such as unemployment. All in all, these factors have a great impact on the relationship between family members, they affect one’s chances at getting a formal education, one’s participation in both the job and labor market, and their general lifestyles. These problems are not only concentrated in the developed nations, rather, but they are also an issue even in the developing countries. Developing countries, in themself, exert pressure on the young adults in their transition to independence. Factors that affect their economies such as an ever-expanding population, poor or inadequate housing, biting poverty, lack of formal reliable employment, overpopulation in the urban areas, the collapse of the general family structure, and poor quality of education being offered with overstretched facilities are the major issues the youth have to grapple with, these end up defining their characters and personalities in the long run (Dzikus, 1996).
Irrespective of which sex the youth may be, today’s world exposes him to many opportunities; some good and others detrimental. More often than not, society in general has its own perceptions about the youth in general, and as such it takes advantage of the whole scenario when the youth breaks the law through some act such as drug addiction and taking part in violent crime such as fighting, stealing. Nobody takes time to find out what the course of the whole problem may, they are blamed squarely when their character is a summation of what they have gone through in life, what experiences their life stories tell and their history. The result of these actions is mainly the society normally pulls away from such characters, victimizes them and segregates against them. These people are often marked by society and are often suspects wherever they go, giving them very few opportunities to interact and maybe change their characters for the better.
Assumptions surrounding Juvenile delinquency
Assumptions abound as to the definitions and cases of delinquency, with the general public broadly classified according to their perceptions and views on the topic. They mostly look it from one perspective, of the youth being the crook. To the different people in the society, juvenile delinquency has different meanings because each of these classes of people holds a different idea about it. Emiralt et-al in his book claims that criminals understand delinquency as petty crime committed by young offenders between the ages of twelve and twenty years (2010). Sociologists, however have a different perspective that is somehow deeper regarding the topic. They combine the whole point of these classes of people to conclude that juvenile delinquents are sometimes negated and overlooked as possible victims of these acts. This takes a big toll on their social life. They attribute delinquency to a poor upbringing and other environmental factors.
Sociologists point out that signs of delinquency may be detected at a tender age in a child’s life, and that delinquency is the summation of what has transpired in the character’s life. As such they attribute these to several factors; hard and difficult infantry, alcoholic parents, family breakdowns, too much crowding, an abusive up bringing at home, HIV/ AIDs. Other causes may be parental loss due to death of one or both parents as a result of family differences, orphans who lack means of sustenance. This situation makes it open that lack of these and other basic needs in life such as shelter are a sure path for a child to sink into delinquency. The following theories, presented by several authors try to explain the causes to some of these characters and their possible solutions in real life scenarios. Other assumptions made about this topic are that juveniles operate in groups, even if it is a single individual in question. There is a tendency to somehow link him to some group of sorts. It is also assumed that the juveniles are of a given age bracket, and as such.
The causes of juvenile delinquency
There are many causes of juvenile delinquency. These causes are widespread in terms of the aspects of life of the characters involved. Some of the factors that may push one towards delinquency are: Economic and social factors; It is associated the negativity resulting from the social and economic structures of a given society. These are often beyond what any single individual could control such as political instability, economic down turns and the breakdown of major institutions such as the state and major educational centers. Continued unemployment and limited chances to formal degenerates into economic instability, since the young would want to survive whichever way salvation comes.
Cultural factors also play a big role in the mayhem that is juvenile delinquency. Culture sets out the norms that are to be adhered to in a given society, the limits for acceptable behavior. When the need to operate within these set rules is overlooked by certain characters, it is viewed as rebellion. They often engage in deviant and even criminal acts. This mostly occurs in societies where the local culture is undergoing tremendous change such as modernity. The loopholes allow for juvenile operatives in the many forms they occur. Other causes are urbanization, the family unit is also a factor when it is not closely knit and the parents do not lead by example. The media has also played a great role and so has migration of people and peer influence.
Population heterogeneity and state dependent theories
Population heterogeneity is a theory that tries to explain the consistency of some elements in the society to always be in a particular kind of issue against the law. Population heterogeneity gives credence to this fact, claiming that the reason for this chronic situation is the difference in anti-social characteristics among people; these traits are imparted in the people at tender ages and stabilized with time. The theory goes further to claim that these people may suppress the character inside them, but they resurface after sometime.
Population heterogeneity can controlled through collective efforts. Bailey established that cultural homogeneity helps establish cultural consensus, and such these traits are suppressed. In the end, there are very few characters and cases of this nature resulting to very low crime rates or juvenile cases in the given regions.
State dependence on the other hand is a complete contrast to population heterogeneity. It attributes the tranquility in a given society to a process of being in contact to the alleged criminals. It asserts that delinquency, if left to flourish would erode the boundaries and strengthen people’s resolutions to be delinquents. This would imply that delinquency would be adapted later on in life as compared to population heterogeneity where the individual grows up adapting the lifestyles.
Self control theory
This theory suggests that the main causal agent for delinquency can be attributed to the weak societal bonds between the individuals in question and the society in general. Hirschi further suggests that in contrast to this, strong bonds among the members of a given society make it hard for any of their members to
be errant and deviate from the norms governing their institutions. This theory sets out to question why individuals particularly avoid acting contrary to the norms that are set aside by the society. This makes it hard to deviate hence control. Lack of this control would then mean that criminalist behavior or juvenile cases would be on the increase. The theorists’ behind the hypotheses had observed that when the norms in the society merged and there was kind of a uniform code of behavior in a given society, the loopholes to defy these norms are greatly reduced.
According to Hischi, “people would conform to a group when they believe they will have more to gain by conformity rather than by deviance” (Tolman, 2001). Strong bonds result in few if any chances to defy while weak bonds result to a high rate of juvenile delinquency.
He further alludes that strong bonds are made up four major colluding factors; conviction, attachment participation and obligation. Lack of any one of these factors leads to there being a void in society and such creates a leeway to deviance. In summation, this theory states that ‘acts of force and fraud are undertaken in the pursuit of self interest and control, therefore criminality is based on a criminal’s own control of himself (Wolfgang, 1987).
Age graded theory
State dependent theory on the other hand suggests that the connection between delinquency at a young age and the eventual behavior of a grown man after years of delinquency is not purely as a result of individual characters. Other factors also affect this; social factors may cause one to change while others remain the same throughout their lifetime. This theory is made of three major features; the micro level structural context, in which a poor family and school set up which contribute to the overall degree of delinquency.
The other feature is the progression of antisocial behavior from infantry to adulthood through the various life stages an individual passes. The third feature to this theory is that the unofficial bonds in the family and one’s relationship during employment upon attainment of adulthood reflect the changes in delinquency in the lifespan of the individual’s character, these changes tend to be positive despite their being delinquency at his earlier stages in life (Machel, 1996). This explains a person’s desistance in a given relationship, whether romantic or job related (Gilmore, 1990).
Case studies on two adults with different social behaviors
Two cases abound of two individuals raised from two distinct families. Mathew is a very humble person who always seems to understand everybody, is accommodative and is at peace with himself. He comes from a Christian background, his parents have always showed him love and affection, his upbringing was characterized by a mum and a dad who were always there for them.
They could go to church quite often and whenever they made a mistake they were always corrected by their parents without being shouted or scolded at. Their home was characterized by happy faces whenever any of them excelled in anything either academically or in sports, he was always applauded and encouraged to continue with the struggle. Mathew’s brother is an accomplished actor who has featured in big budget Hollywood movies, and he attributes his success to the nurturing his parents gave him (Koss, 1994). In one of the interviews, he recalled at one time when he had not done his homework and his mother was mad at him. He says the mother did shout, but her demeanor changed and all he could feel was guilt.
Though his mother forgave him, he says living with the guilt before he apologized and later did the assignment was the worst punishment he had ever been under. He says his parents were strict about the rules in the house while they were young and somehow it was hard for them because then their perceptions were that hanging out with a certain clique of boys in the neighborhood is cool, smoking weed and marijuana would be a good idea to wind up the day and so on. But their parents often took time to teach them about the dangers of adapting anything that society brings your way, they talked them off their ideas about hanging out and chilling out with a group of boys in the hood (Goodman, 1993). They ended up incorporating the parents counsel, and they were as successful as they were in their respective fields.
This is one aspect of life where both parents have struggled to bring up their children within a certain class of ‘customs’ and rules. The children learn that that is the way to lead their lives, and the resultant norms’ and characters they exhibit are at par to what they were brought up in. This is probably what they will pass across to their off springs in the years ahead of them.
The other character, Timothy is one person nobody wants to associate with. His history is marred by a series of escapades from jail and near death adventures with the police. He lives with his grandmother, the parents were alcoholics’ and they fell apart immediately after Timothy was born. Timothy was taken by the mother who lived with him in the shanties and plied the streets by the night as a prostitute. He harbors vivid images of her mother having sex at his side by the bed side for the money, only for the men she slept with to refuse to pay her (Koss, 1994). An argument would ensure and the men would end up beating her mother, sometimes wounding to the extent of her getting admission into a health facility.
The mother, in most cases ran away from the hospital without clearing her bills and medication because she could not fathom lying there while her son is sleeping in the cold alone and hungry. This resulted to timothy growing up with a negative perception towards life and hated anybody who claims he had it smooth through life. The bare marks he received as a result of the street fights to him are a reminder of where he comes from. He finds it so hard to live a life outside the traditional street fights that sometimes involve the street gangs chasing each other with guns to death. These two cases would only strengthen the theory of age graded, that these two individuals lived to be exposed to different environments while they were growing, these environments molded their characters. Mathew’s environment could hardly accommodate the trappings of Timothy’s lifestyle, hence the two distinct characters.
References
Amirault, J. and Lussier, P., 2010-11-17 “Population Heterogeneity and State Dependent Models: Implications for Actuarial Prediction of Reoffending in Sexual Offenders” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, San Francisco Marriott, San Francisco, California . 2011. Web.
Dzikus, A., & Ochola, L. (1996). “Street children in sub-Saharan Africa: Kenya’s experience”, Journal of Habitat Debate, 2 (2), 12-14.
Gilmore, D. (1990). Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. London: Yale University Press.
Goodman, L.A. (1993). “Male violence against women”, Journal of American Psychologist, 48 (10), 1,054-1,058.
Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence, and Control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Koss, M.P. (1994). No Safe Haven: Male Violence Against Women at Home, at Work and in the Community. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Machel, G. (1996). “Impact of armed conflict on children: report of the expert of the Secretary-General. Time, 4, 5-6.
Tolman, J., Pittman, K., & Cervone, B. (2001). Youth Acts, Community Impacts: Stories of Youth Engagement with Real Impacts, Community and Youth Development Series. Journal of Community and Youths, 5 (2), 7-9.
Wolfgang, M.E., Thornberry, T.P., & Figlio, R.M. (1987). From Boy to Man, from Delinquency to Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Venkatesh, S. (1997). “The social organization of street gang activity in an urban ghetto”, American Journal of Sociology, 103 (7), 82-111.