Persistent Juvenile Offenders - Research Paper Example

Persistent Juvenile Offenders Youth deviance is a prevalent phenomenon associated with impulsivity/risk-taking behavior and is linked to certain risk factors. Studies over the past few decades on child development and the onset of delinquent behavior indicate that individual, social, and community conditions, as well as social interactions, influence behavior. Overall, there is widespread agreement that behavior, inclusive of antisocial and delinquent behavior, represents an intricate interplay of individual, biological, and genetic factors, as well as environmental factors. Most children reach maturity devoid of involvement in serious delinquent behavior, even in instances where there may be multiple risks involved. Hence, although risk factors may aid to highlight which children are in dire need of preventive interventions, the factors cannot identify children that will become serious or chronic offenders. The paper explores life-course persistent offender in relation to risks and consequences, as well as adolescent onset delinquency. Persistent Juvenile Offenders Introduction Youth deviance has over time become one of the most significant social problems afflicting the society. As a result, there have been growing public concerns centering on public fear of youth crime, the media, and moral panic. Youth crime can be regarded as a narrow term outlining acts punishable by law only and mainly attracts official reaction of social control, as well as social reactions (Steinberg, 2008). The sociological definition of youth crime outlines delinquency as engagement in antisocial behavior (illegal behavior) by an individual who is yet to attain the age of the majority (statutory age limit), and hence, subject to legal action. Juvenile offenders can be differentiated into categories; life course delinquents and adolescent onset. Life course offenders mainly manifest early onset of offending, characteristically associated with difficult family backgrounds, exposure to neglect and abuse, early onset and recurrent aggressive behavior, and parents/caregivers who possess criminal records. Adolescent onset offenders mainly mature out of offending (although not until they reach mid twenties). Majority of juvenile offenders are generalists while a small proportion involve in serious violence and sexually violent crimes (Sampson & Laub, 1992). The Issue of Persistent Juvenile Offenders in Relation to Risk and Consequences Several factors are considered as distal causes of deviant behavior such as social change, poverty, disproportionate distribution of economic resources and power. Distal factors are reconciled by more proximal factors such as peer group pressure, drug abuse, or education difficulties (Farrington & Loeber, 1999). A study on the causes of youth offending demands a look into both risk and protective factors. Risk factors mainly fall into five domains; individual characteristics, family factors, school/work factors, association with peer group, biological factors, and community (Andrade, 2009). The onset of risk factors does not necessarily translate into offending. Whereas it is accurate that the presence of multiple risk factors enhances the likelihood of deviance behavior among the adolescents, the degree to which those risk factors can lead to delinquency is not clear cut. For instance, some risk factors such as poor parenting are more direct causes of offending compared to other risk factors such as poverty and conflict between parents that may possess more indirect or distal relationship to offending (Farrington & Loeber, 1999). At the individual level, early onset (ages 6-11) of delinquency may be related to substance use, hyperactivity, aggression, exposure to television violence, antisocial attitudes, being male and low IQ. Late onset of delinquency may be related to risk taking, antisocial attitudes, substance abuse, low IQ, physical violence, and aggression. At the family level, early onset to juvenile delinquency may be related to low socioeconomic status/poverty, broken home, abusive parents/caregivers, separation from parents, harsh, lax, or inconsistent discipline, and neglect (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2011). At the family domain, late onset of delinquency may be linked to poor parent-child relationship, harsh or lax discipline, broken home, low socioeconomic status, family conflict, and low parental involvement. At the school, risk factors to juvenile delinquency include poor attitude, performance, and academic failure, whereas, at peer group domain, risk factors to juvenile delinquency include association with antisocial delinquent peers, weak social ties, and gang membership (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). At the community level, risk factors to juvenile delinquency include neighborhood crime, drugs, and neighborhood disorganization. The risk factors of “life-course persistent” offenders are frequently diverse compared to those for adolescent onset offenders since life-course offenders manifest neuro-developmental factors right from their early childhood as the core cause of their offending. The risk factors for the offending centers on the home and family environment detailing factors such as poverty, family disruption, weak relationships, and transience. The risk factors for adolescent onset offenders mainly relate to the individuals present social environment detailing factors such as drug and alcohol abuse, delinquent peers, and family dysfunction (Sampson & Laub, 1992). How “Life-course Persistent” Offenders and their Crimes Differ from Adolescent Onset Offenders The life course persistent offender manifests severe behavior problems from an exceptionally early age. As children, the individuals may exhibit subtle cognitive deficiencies, hyperactivity, or difficult temperament (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2011). These factors may be aggravated by unfavorable environmental factors detailing poor and/or inadequate parenting, poverty, exposure to violence, poverty and disrupted family bonds. Life-course persistent offenders may be sometimes labeled as possessing “conduct disorder,” and consequently may be violent, oppositional, or aggressive (Nagin & Tremblay, 1999). Such individuals frequently lack feelings of guilt, victim empathy, or remorse and may be inclined to be egocentric hunters of immediate gratification devoid of caring about consequences. While challenging behaviors may be manifested at diverse stages of development, some children and young people manifest behaviors that can be regarded as worse than age-appropriate norms. These behaviors remain predominantly characterized by aggression, hostility, rule breaking, defiance of authorities, or extreme anti-social behavior (Steinberg, 2008). Conduct disorder is mainly present in children who come from home environments that manifest diverse sources of social, economic, and family disadvantage. The adolescent onset offenders are a much bigger group comprising of up to 80% of all youth offenders. The lives of this group of offenders are not necessarily disordered, and mainly do not manifest disproportionate anti-social behavior during childhood. During puberty, however, behavioral issues begin to manifest whereby the causes of their offending detail social processes such as poor parenting, or substance use (especially exposure to cannabis), instead of neuro-developmental processes (Steinberg, 2008). This group equally experiences normal range of emotions encompassing remorse and willingness to rectify and put things right. Theories Explaining Deviant Behavior Theories within the classical school include deterrence theory, rational choice theory, and routine activities theory. Positive school sociological theories encompass social structure theories (social disorganization), social process theories (social process theory (differential association/learning theory and social control theory), and social conflict (labeling and stigma). Developmental and life course theories view human development across the life span as a perpetual process of change (Moffitt, 1993). Earlier theories that continue to bear influence are those of strain and control theory. Strain theory asserts that society (in which the school comes out as a dominant agent) acts to leave out low class members from resources and opportunities. Hence, lower class members are forced to highlight different (and frequently antisocial) means of attaining their objectives (Steinberg, 2008). Thus, since the society present similar desirable images to all youth if the desirable commodities cannot be attained legitimately, then they must be obtained illegitimately. Conversely, control theory makes the assumption that any criminal act is a calculated act. Control theory proposes that individuals will become delinquent only if certain blockades that hinder them from engaging in criminal activity are absent. Two fundamental barriers can be cited; having high self-esteem and a network of attachments to individuals and institutions within the wider society (mainly in schools and within the family) (Richards, 2011). Differential association theory asserts that since all behavior is learned, then deviant behavior is also learned. The theory stipulates that the younger the learner, and the intense relationship with deviant “teacher,” the higher probability of the learner been deviant. In the consensus view, the law defines crime and agreements exist on outlawed behavior with laws applying to all citizens. The definition of deviant behavior takes into account what is good and evil, moral or immoral, legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Deviant behavior plays the function of availing identity/status, as a warning of the urge for social change, employment, and scapegoating. In the conflict view of crime, on the other hand, the law remains perceived as a tool of the ruling class and is employed to control the underclass. Crime, in this case, may be perceived as a politically and socially defined concept (concept of deviance reflecting upper class perception). As a result, the definitions of crime change over time (Siegel, 2012). Empirical and Theoretical Literature on Juvenile Delinquency Different theoretical models describe the association between variables and outcomes. However, it is worth noting that there is no single path to delinquency and that the presence of several risk factors frequently increases a youth’s chance of offending. Indeed, there is no “one size fit all” as there are diverse types of youth offenders, as well as diverse causes of offending (Steinberg, 2008). Studies also indicate the interaction of risk factors that yield a multiplicative effect when a number of factors are at play, and the means in which certain protective factors may work to offset risk factors. Individuals who continuously engage in violent crimes mainly possess a history of serious conduct disorders. Indeed, studies indicate that a history of antisocial behavior can be placed as the sole best predictor of future criminal activity (Chambliss, 2011). Young people who involve in serious and chronic crime manifest signs of weakened learning ability, poor self control as manifested by impulsivity, an inclination to risk-taking, and enhanced levels of aggressive emotions. These traits are prominent in individuals who exhibit a life-course-persistent pattern encompassing violent actions. The third factor encompasses antisocial attitudes and values. This is mirrored in negative feelings regarding police, teachers, parents, or anyone occupying positions of authority, as well as dysfunctional modes of perception and information processing (Richards, 2011). Common Forms of Youth Crime Child delinquents manifest their own typical offense profile such as graffiti; vandalism, shoplifting, and fare evasion are committed variably by young people. Conversely, extremely serious offences such as homicide and sexual offences, as well as white collar crime, are infrequently perpetrated by young people. Overall, juveniles are highly probable to be apprehended by the police with regard to offences against a property compared to offences against persons (Chambliss, 2011). The nature of juvenile offending is such that juveniles are highly probable to come to the attention of police compared to adults. Despite their age, adolescents mainly desire to act, and be treated like adults; however, adolescents are developmentally different in a number of ways. First, juveniles tend to have little experience at perpetrating offences, mainly commit offences in groups, commit offences close to where they reside, and commit offences mainly in public areas (Jewkes & Letherby, 2002). Similarly, juveniles mainly commit offences that are episodic, unplanned and opportunistic, besides the offences being attention seeking and public. Adolescents’ relative developmental immaturity plays a part in immature judgment and criminal behavior associated with the youth in diverse ways: poor decision making, disregard of the future giving in to peer-pressure, impulsivity and self-control, risk taking, and unformed identity (Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002). Examples of youth-typical forms of deviance include alcohol/drug misuse, (cyber-) bullying, truancy, petty theft, physical assault, graffiti/vandalism, and group-related risk-taking behavior (Siegel, 2012). Examples of youth-atypical forms of behavior include torture, kidnapping, murder, identity theft/fraud, robbery, sexual assault, premeditated offences, organized crime, drug trafficking, arson, prostitution, and domestic violence. Factors Associated with Juvenile Delinquency and How they Change Overtime Criminal behavior changes over the life course manifested by the fact that few individuals show serious problems amid childhood; however, with the onset of adolescence, many, if not the majority, individuals engage in some form of criminal behavior. The engagement in criminal behavior (offending) dips from adolescence to early adulthood (Siegel, 2012). In this regard, extremely few individuals develop life-course persistent offending patterns. Studies indicate that close to one-quarter of all young men will perpetrate at least one offence whereby 80% perpetrate one offence while the remaining 20% are responsible for 80% of the offending. The risk factors that predispose adolescents to offending include physical changes, changes in roles/status, changes in schooling, changes in family relationships, alterations in peer relationships. The unsuccessful navigation in the outlined upheavals leads to risk of offending (Savage, 2009). Even in cases where the adolescent navigates the outlined challenges, participation in youth-limited offending is still probable. Some factors that may yield adolescent–limited or life-course persistent offending include inadequate parenting associated with parental conflict and criminality, mental health issues and harsh, inconsistent discipline. Other factors include neurocognitive problems/abnormalities affecting motor development, intelligence, and neuropsychological memory linked to pre-natal risk and temperament/behaviors associated with aggression, hyperactivity, and peer rejection (Bercroft, 2009). Conclusion Accumulating risk factors that are marked by individual and structural strain such as home placement, indigenous status, gender, neglect and abuse play an essential role in shaping high-risk (life course) offending. Similarly, juvenile offenders are typically overrepresented in males living in urban settings, and in indigenous cultures. In most cases, substance abuse and comorbid mental health problems impact upon offending by enhancing both its intensity and duration. It is essential to embrace factors that shield against juvenile offending such as adequate links with significant social institutions such as family and school, and associate minimally with delinquent friends in order to mitigate the rise of adolescent onset and life-course persistent offenders. References Andrade, J. T. (2009). Handbook of violence risk assessment and treatment: New approaches for mental health professionals. New York, NY: Springer. Bercroft, A. (2009). What causes youth crime, and what can we do about it? On Youth Court Publications. Retrieved From: http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/youth/publications-and-media/speeches/what-causes-youth-crime-and-what-can-we-do-about-it Burfeind, J. W., & Bartusch, D. J. (2011). Juvenile delinquency: An integrated approach. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Chambliss, W. J. (2011). Key issues in crime and punishment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (1999). Serious & violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jewkes, Y., & Letherby, G. (2002). Criminology: A reader. London, UK: Sage. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100 (1), 674–701. Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70 (5), 1181–1196. Richards, K. (2011). What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders? Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no.409. Retrieved From: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/401-420/tandi409.html Sampson, R. & Laub, J. (1992). Crime and deviance in the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 18 (1), 63-84. Savage, J. (2009). The development of persistent criminality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Scott, E. & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime. The Future of Children, 18 (2), 25-33. Siegel, L. J. (2012). Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Steinberg, L. (2008). Juvenile justice. The Future of Children, 8 (2), 3-15. Stouthamer-Loeber, M., et al. (2002). Risk and promotive effects in the explanation of persistent serious delinquency in boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70 (1), 11-123. Read More