The relationship between marijuana and juvenile delinquency - Essay Example

This paper eluci s the relationship between marijuana and juvenile delinquency. It attempts to look into the probable reason/s why a young man could commit a crime against his friend or the latter's family, and what are the most appropriate actions a victim should do upon discovering the same. Recommendations and/or conclusions are based on prevailing criminology theories. INTRODUCTION Juvenile delinquency or the commission of crimes by youth offenders is very prevalent nowadays. From a simple theft, this could extend all the way to heinous crimes such as rape with murder. There are a variety of reasons why such crimes are committed by the youth. Alongside with determination of its causes, one should also learn how to handle this situation, especially when the offender is related to him/her, or he/she is a victim per se. These parts are therefore the most crucial part in every criminal study. DISCUSSION Based on transactional analysis theory, in the case at hand, it can be deduced from the physical and circumstantial evidence that my son's friend has committed the following criminal violations: trespass to dwelling, theft, and illegal possession of picklocks. Trespass to dwelling is committed by a person who shall enter the house or dwelling of another without the latter's prior consent. In the case at bar, the mere presence of my son's friend inside the house (which is presumed to have been closed and temporarily inhabited as not even a single occupant was found thereon at that time) raises the presumption that he is guilty thereof. At that time, no one could have given him the permission to come inside the house as there was no legitimate occupant was there at that time. His being my son's friend doesn't in any way legitimize his intrusion into the house without invitation or prior permission. My son's friend is also presumed guilty of illegal possession of picklocks. I must consider first the fact that I am very sure, non one in the house has ever had a picklock nor uses the same. The fact that my son's friend was able to enter the house without the assistance of anybody, or any occupant from within, should be considered in relation to the presence of picklock found on the counter very near to the place where I found him. Common sense would indicate that the picklock could have been used to open the house door in order for him to gain entry thereon. It is not necessary though to actually see him in the act of using it as mere possession is sufficient to incriminate him. Theft could also be considered against him in relation to my jewelries which I found lying in the counter next to him. Of course, I should be careful with the fact that neither I nor anybody from my family in the house had put the jewelries there. Besides, jewelries are not commonly placed in or near the kitchen but inside the bedroom. For example, if I usually keep my jewelries inside my bedroom cabinet, the mere fact that they were taken outside the cabinet (where they should be), already consummates the crime of theft. The jewelries need not be successfully taken outside the house because the thief has already exercised control over the subject jewelries when he took them outside the bedroom cabinet where they are kept. There is no other logical presumption that could be made on the information of the presence of my jewelries in the kitchen beside the culprit whose presence in the house is under question. On the other hand, the fact that he smells of marijuana is not sufficient to indict him for violation of the law on prohibited or regulated drugs. On this aspect, the intervention of a professional is necessary in order to properly determine his condition. If it is positive, then he is guilty thereof. If it is negative, then he is not. I cannot rely entirely on my intuition as I may not be considered an expert in determining the smell of marijuana. Based on the facts given and discussion above, I will do the following: First, I will call the police right away. This is for the purpose of determining the extent of the violation and for conducting the proper investigation without delay as I might be accused of planting evidence against my son's friend. Through police assistance, they could easily check the fingerprints and the like, in order to get sufficient and accurate evidence in case I decide to file a case in court. Besides, the offender should learn his lesson for his wrongdoings. Even if my son treats him as a friend, his acts tell that he feels otherwise because he was able to commit such transgressions to his friend. His actions reflect a great deal of insensitivity or a trait that shows lack of guilt.1 Next thing that I will do is to call the parents of the offender in order to inform them of their son's acts. However, I will do this only after the police have finished their initial investigation, and probably, have effected a valid arrest of the suspect if necessary. This is in order to ensure that the suspect is not forewarned of the probable arrest and thereby elude the arresting officers. My decision to inform the parents is somehow opposite to my act of reporting to the police authorities at the outset. The latter shall be made in order to serve and protect my interest while the former is for the purpose of making proper coordination with the parents of my son's friend, a purely personal act that is impelled by personal concern. Through this act, I could explain my situation of being a victim and at the same time, a concerned parent just like that of my son's friend who happened to be my suspect. This will then explain and probably address the problems that could be the reason why the suspect committed the crimes. The underlying reason/s behind the behavior of my son's friend can be determined through the application of the control theory. This theory is totally opposite with other criminology theories which focus on the things that drive the offender to commit a crime. This theory focuses on the other hand in determining the facts that could have prevented or restrained the people from committing transgressions.2 The parents are the most reliable sources that could explain their son's behavior. Through this, the parents could assist the State in the reformation of their son. The factors that contributed to the low self control of their son as an individual could easily be addressed by his parents without prejudice to the penalty that the State may impose against the suspect for violation of my right/s. As explained by Hirschi, if these restraining facts involve the society, it hereby relates to a social bond theory.3 I therefore consider my social responsibility to assist the parents of my son's friend in rehabilitating their son through giving them sufficient information. It is sad to realize that sometimes, it is the parents' continued apathy that their children become juvenile delinquents. Through proper approach to the parents, they can no longer claim ignorance of their son's condition and action. Lastly, I deem it best to inform my son about the whole situation despite the probability that he could be hurt by the situation and my action in reporting his friend's act to the police authorities. At the very least, he could be forewarned about the other plans or relations of his friend due to my actions. Of course, it cannot be denied that I am very concerned about the possibility that my son could be influenced by the culprit's behavior such as the smoking of marijuana (although what I have at present is mere suspicion) or commission of other crimes due to peer pressure.4 As explained in the theory of "logical structure of a crime," drug users are prone toward criminality and have big tendency to disregard legal prohibitions and do not care about its consequences.5 CONCLUSION As a socially aware person, there is a need for any victim in a situation like mine, to contact the police, inform the suspect's relatives, and explain the situation to my son in order to protect his physical, moral, and emotion well-being. It is only through proper coordination with the concerned authorities or persons that crimes could be solved and prevented. This is explained by the need to punish the offender, and at the same time, prepares a society that is susceptible to reformation of erring individuals, especially the youth. Solution to crimes and its prevention do not just involve one aspect of the society. It requires cooperation from all sectors, starting from the citizens as individuals, up to the government authorities. Investigation need not be left alone with the police authorities, let alone the reformation of criminals left to the courts and jail wardens. An alert mind, a friendly environment, a warm family, all these affects the morals of every individual. Prosecution of criminals should not be hindered by close relationships between the victim and the offender. It should be borne in mind that prosecution is not for the purpose of satisfying the feeling of vengeance towards the offender. In fact, it should be viewed as a way of showing one's concern to the offender by bringing to him the realities of life and allowing the latter to examine himself and his position in the society as a civil person. WORKS CITED: Belson, W. 1975. Juvenile Theft: The Causal Factors. Pp. 20-26. NY: Harper. Gottofredson, M. and Hirschi, T. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Pp. 35-57. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hirschi, T. 1983. 'Crime and the Family." In J. Wilson (ed.) Crime and Public Policy. Pp. 4-21. San Francisco: ICS. Siegel, L. 2004. Criminology: Theories, Patterns and Typologies, 8e. pp. 104-108. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Wiatrowski, M., Griswold, D. and Roberts, M. 1981. "Social Control Theory and Delinquency." Am Soc Review. 46:525-541. Read More