Juvenile delinquency

Juvenile delinquency, also known as "juvenile offending", is the act of participating in unlawful behavior as a minor or individual younger than the statutory age of majority.[1] For example, in the United States of America a juvenile delinquent is a person who is typically below 18 (17 in the states of Georgia, New York, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Texas, and Wisconsin) years of age and commits an act that otherwise would have been charged as a crime if they were an adult.[2] Juvenile crimes can range from status offenses (such as underage smoking/drinking), to property crimes and violent crimes.[3]

"Teenage crime" redirects here. For the song, see Teenage Crime (song).
Criminology
and penology
Theory
Types of crime
Methods
Penology
Justice in penology
Schools
Subfields
Browse
Part of the Politics series on
Youth rights
Activities
Theory/concepts
Issues
Organizations
People
Related
  • Youth rights
  •  Society portal

Some scholars have found an increase in arrests for youth and have concluded that this may reflect more aggressive criminal justice and zero-tolerance policies rather than changes in youth behavior.[4] Youth violence rates in the United States have dropped to approximately 12% of peak rates in 1993 according to official US government statistics, suggesting that most juvenile offending is non-violent.[5] Many delinquent acts can be attributed to the environmental factors such as family behavior or peer influence.[6][7] One contributing factor that has gained attention in recent years is the school to prison pipeline. The focus on punitive punishment has been seen to correlate with juvenile delinquency rates.[8] Some have suggested shifting from zero tolerance policies to restorative justice approaches.[9]

Juvenile detention centers, courts and electronic monitoring are common structures of the juvenile legal system.[10] Juvenile courts are in place to address offenses for minors as civil rather than criminal cases in most instances. The frequency of use and structure of these courts in the United States varies by state.[11] Depending on the type and severity of the offense committed, it is possible for people under 18 to be charged and treated as adults.[12]

Overview

Juvenile delinquency, or offending, is often separated into three categories:

  • delinquency, crimes committed by minors, which are dealt with by the juvenile courts and justice system;
  • criminal behavior, crimes dealt with by the criminal justice system;
  • status offenses, offenses that are only classified as such because only a minor can commit them. One example of this is possession of alcohol by a minor. These offenses are also dealt with by the juvenile courts.[13]

Currently, there is not an agency whose jurisdiction is tracking worldwide juvenile delinquency but UNICEF estimates that over one million children are in some type of detention globally.[14] Many countries do not keep records of the amount of delinquent or detained minors but of the ones that do, the United States has the highest number of juvenile delinquency cases.[15] In the United States, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention compiles data concerning trends in juvenile delinquency. According to their most recent publication, 7 in 1000 juveniles in the US committed a serious crime in 2016.[16] A serious crime is defined by the US Department of Justice as one of the following eight offenses: murder and non-negligent homicide, rape (legacy & revised), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft, and arson.[17] According to research compiled by James Howell in 2009, the arrest rate for juveniles has been dropping consistently since its peak in 1994.[18] Of the cases for juvenile delinquency that make it through the court system, probation is the most common consequence and males account for over 70% of the caseloads.[19][16]

According to developmental research by Moffitt (2006),[20] there are two different types of offenders that emerge in adolescence. The first is an age specific offender, referred to as the adolescence-limited offender, for whom juvenile offending or delinquency begins and ends during their period of adolescence. Moffitt argues that most teenagers tend to show some form of antisocial or delinquent behavior during adolescence, it is therefore important to account for these behaviors in childhood in order to determine whether they will be adolescence-limited offenders or something more long term.[21] The other type of offender is the repeat offender, referred to as the life-course-persistent offender, who begins offending or showing antisocial/aggressive behavior in adolescence (or even in childhood) and continues into adulthood.[21]

Situational factors
Most of influencing factors for juvenile delinquency tend to be caused by a mix of both genetic and environmental factors.[20] According to Laurence Steinberg's book Adolescence, the two largest predictors of juvenile delinquency are parenting style and peer group association.[20] Additional factors that may lead a teenager into juvenile delinquency include poor or low socioeconomic status, poor school readiness/performance and/or failure and peer rejection. Delinquent activity, especially the involvement in youth gangs, may also be caused by a desire for protection against violence or financial hardship. Juvenile offenders can view delinquent activity as a means of gaining access to resources to protect against such threats. Research by Carrie Dabb indicates that even changes in the weather can increase the likelihood of children exhibiting deviant behavior.[22]

Family environment
Family factors that may have an influence on offending include: the level of parental supervision, the way parents discipline a child, parental conflict or separation, criminal activity by parents or siblings, parental abuse or neglect, and the quality of the parent-child relationship.[6] As mentioned above, parenting style is one of the largest predictors of juvenile delinquency. There are 4 categories of parenting styles which describe the attitudes and behaviors that parents express while raising their children.[23]
  • Authoritative parenting is characterized by warmth and support in addition to discipline.
  • Indulgent parenting is characterized by warmth and regard towards their children but lack structure and discipline.
  • Authoritarian parenting is characterized by high discipline without the warmth thus leading to often hostile demeanor and harsh correction
  • Neglectful parenting is both non responsive and non demanding. The child is not engaged either affectionately or disciplinary by the parent.[23]

According to research done by Laura E. Berk, the style of parenting that would be most beneficial for a child, based on studies conducted by Diana Baumrind(1971) is the authoritative child-rearing style because it combines acceptance with discipline to render healthy development for the child.[24][25]

As concluded in Steinberg's Adolescence, children brought up by single parents are more likely to live in poverty and engage in delinquent behavior than those who live with both parents.[20] However, according to research done by Graham and Bowling, once the attachment a child feels towards their parent(s) and the level of parental supervision are taken into account, children in single parent families are no more likely to offend than others. It was seen that when a child has low parental supervision they are much more likely to offend.[6][26] Negative peer group association is more likely when adolescents are left unsupervised.[20] A lack of supervision is also connected to poor relationships between children and parents. Children who are often in conflict with their parents may be less willing to discuss their activities with them.[6] Conflict between a child's parents is also much more closely linked to offending than being raised by a lone parent.[27]

Adolescents with siblings who have committed crimes are more likely to be influenced by their siblings and become delinquent if the sibling is older, of the same sex/gender, and maintains a good relationship with the child.[7] Cases where a younger criminal sibling influences an older one are rare. An aggressive more hostile sibling is less likely to influence a younger sibling in the direction of delinquency, if anything, the more strained the relationship between the siblings, the less they will want to be influence each other.[7]

Children resulting from unintended pregnancies are more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior.[28] They also have lower mother-child relationship quality.[29]

Peer influence

Peer rejection in childhood is also a large predictor of juvenile delinquency.[7] This rejection can affect the child's ability to be socialized properly and often leads them to gravitate towards anti-social peer groups.[7] Association with anti-social groups often leads to the promotion of violent, aggressive and deviant behavior.[7] Robert Vargas's "Being in 'Bad' Company," explains that adolescents who can choose between groups of friends are less susceptible to peer influence that could lead them to commit illegal acts.[30] Aggressive adolescents who have been rejected by peers are also more likely to have a "hostile attribution bias", which leads people to interpret the actions of others (whether they be hostile or not) as purposefully hostile and aggressive towards them.[31] This often leads to an impulsive and aggressive reaction.[31]

Conformity plays a significant role in the vast impact that peer group influence has on an individual. Aronson, Wilson, & Akert (2013)[32] point to the research experiment conducted by Solomon Asch (1956),[33] to ascertain whether a group could influence an individual's behavior. The experiment was executed by asking a participant determine which line in the set of 3 lines matched the length of an original line. Confederates knew the purpose of the experiment and were directed to answer the questions incorrectly during certain phases of the experiment. These confederates answered the question before the participant. The confederates answered the first few questions correctly, as did the participant. Eventually, all of the confederates started to answer incorrectly. The purpose of the experiment was to see if the group would influence the participant to answer incorrectly. Asch found that seventy-six percent of the participants conformed and answered incorrectly when influenced by the group.[33] According to these findings, it was concluded that a peer group that is involved in deviant behavior can influence an adolescent to engage in similar activities.[34] Once the adolescent becomes part of the group, they will be susceptible to groupthink.[32]

School to prison pipeline

A common contributor to juvenile delinquency rates is a phenomenon referred to as the school to prison pipeline. In recent years, school disciplinary measures have become increasingly policed.[8] In fact, 67% of high school students attend schools with police officers.[35] This rise in police presence is often attributed to the implementation of zero tolerance policies.[36] Based on the "broken windows" theory of criminology and the Gun-Free Schools Act, zero tolerance policies stress the use of specific, consistent, and harsh punishment to deal with in school infractions.[37][36] Often measures such as suspension or expulsion are assigned to students who deviant regardless of the reason or past disciplinary history.[36] This use of punishment often has been linked with increasing high school drop out rates and future arrests.[9] It was found in a 2018 study that students who received a suspension were less likely to graduate and more likely to be arrested or on probation.[38] As stated in research by Matthew Theriot, the increased police presence in school and use of tougher punishment methods leads student actions to be criminalized and in turn referred to juvenile justice systems.[8]

The Center on Youth Justice at the Vera Institute of Justice found that “for similar students attending similar schools, a single suspension or expulsion doubles the risk that a student will repeat a grade.[39] Being retained a grade, especially while in middle or high school, is one of the strongest predictors of dropping out.[36] In a national longitudinal study, it was reported that youth with a prior suspension were 68% more likely to dropout of school.[36]

The School to Prison Pipeline disproportionately affects minority students.[40] According to data compiled by the United States Government Accountability Office, 39% of students who received a suspension in the 2013-14 school year were Black, even though Black students accounted for only about 15% of public school students.[41] This over-representation applied to both boys and girls of African descent.[41] Compared to White students, black students were expelled or suspended 3 times as frequently.[42]

Personality factors

Juvenile Delinquency, is the unlawful activities by minors in their teen or pre-teen years. It is influenced by four main risk factors namely; personality, background, state of mind and drugs.

Gender

Gender is another risk factor in regards to influencing delinquent behavior. The predictors of different types of delinquency vary across females and males for various reasons, but a common underlying reason for this is socialization.[43][44] Different predictors of delinquency emerge when analyzing distinct offending types across gender, but overall it is evident that males commit more crimes than females.[45] Across all offenses, females are less likely to be involved in delinquent acts than males.[43] Females not only commit fewer offenses, but they also commit less serious offenses.[44]

Socialization plays a key role in the gender gap in delinquency because male and female juveniles are often socialized differently. Girls' and boys' experiences are heavily mediated by gender, which alters their interactions in society. Males and females are differently controlled and bonded, suggesting that they will not make the same choices and may follow different paths of delinquency. Social bonds are important for both males and females, but different aspects of the bond are relevant for each gender.[46] The degree of involvement in social settings is a significant predictor of male’s violent delinquency, but is not significant for females. Males tend to be more connected with their peer relationships which in effect has a stronger influence on their behavior.[47][48] Association with delinquent peers is one of the strongest correlates of juvenile delinquency, and much of the gender gap can be accounted for by the fact that males are more likely to have friends that support delinquent behavior. Delinquent peers are positively and significantly related to delinquency in males but delinquent peers are negatively and insignificantly related to delinquency for females.[48] As for females, familial functioning relationships have shown to be more important. Female juveniles tend to be more strongly connected with their families, the disconnect or the lack of socialization between their family members can significantly predict their likelihood of committing crimes as juveniles and even as adults. When the family is disrupted, females are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior than males.[44] Boys, however, tend to be less connected to their family and are not as affected by these relationships.[47] When it comes to minor offenses such as fighting, vandalism, shoplifting, and the carrying of weapons, differences in gender are limited because they are most common among both males as well as females. Elements of the social bond, social disorganization, routine activities, opportunity, and attitudes towards violence are also related to delinquent behavior among both males and females.[44]

Neurological

Individual psychological or behavioral risk factors that may make offending more likely include low intelligence, impulsiveness or the inability to delay gratification, aggression, lack of empathy, and restlessness.[26] Other risk factors that may be evident during childhood and adolescence include, aggressive or troublesome behavior, language delays or impairments, lack of emotional control (learning to control one's anger), and cruelty to animals.[7]

Children with low intelligence are more likely to do badly in school. This may increase the chances of offending because low educational attainment, a low attachment to school, and low educational aspirations are all risk factors for offending in themselves.[27][49][50] Children who perform poorly at school are also more likely to be truant, and the status offense of truancy is linked to further offending.[26]

Impulsiveness is seen by some as the key aspect of a child's personality that predicts offending.[26] However, it is not clear whether these aspects of personality are a result of "deficits in the executive functions of the brain"[26] or a result of parental influences or other social factors.[6] In any event, studies of adolescent development show that teenagers are more prone to risk-taking, which may explain the high disproportionate rate of offending among adolescents.[20]

Psychological

Juvenile delinquents are often diagnosed with different disorders. Around six to sixteen percent of male teens and two to nine percent of female teens have a conduct disorder. These can vary from oppositional-defiant disorder, which is not necessarily aggressive, to antisocial personality disorder, often diagnosed among psychopaths.[51] A conduct disorder can develop during childhood and then manifest itself during adolescence.[52]

Juvenile delinquents who have recurring encounters with the criminal justice system, or in other words those who are life-course-persistent offenders, are sometimes diagnosed with conduct disorders because they show a continuous disregard for their own and others safety and/or property. Once the juvenile continues to exhibit the same behavioral patterns and turns eighteen he is then at risk of being diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and much more prone to become a serious criminal offender.[53] One of the main components used in diagnosing an adult with antisocial personality disorder consists of presenting documented history of conduct disorder before the age of 15. These two personality disorders are analogous in their erratic and aggressive behavior. This is why habitual juvenile offenders diagnosed with conduct disorder are likely to exhibit signs of antisocial personality disorder early in life and then as they mature. Some times these juveniles reach maturation and they develop into career criminals, or life-course-persistent offenders. "Career criminals begin committing antisocial behavior before entering grade school and are versatile in that they engage in an array of destructive behaviors, offend at exceedingly high rates, and are less likely to quit committing crime as they age."[53]

Quantitative research was completed on 9,945 juvenile male offenders between the ages of 10 and 18 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the 1970s.[54] The longitudinal birth cohort was used to examine a trend among a small percentage of career criminals who accounted for the largest percentage of crime activity.[54] The trend exhibited a new phenomenon among habitual offenders. The phenomenon indicated that only 6% of the youth qualified under their definition of a habitual offender (known today as life-course persistent offenders, or career criminals) and yet were responsible for 52% of the delinquency within the entire study.[54] The same 6% of chronic offenders accounted for 71% of the murders and 69% of the aggravated assaults.[54] This phenomenon was later researched among an adult population in 1977 and resulted in similar findings. S. A. Mednick did a birth cohort of 30,000 males and found that 1% of the males were responsible for more than half of the criminal activity.[55] The habitual crime behavior found among juveniles is similar to that of adults. As stated before most life-course persistent offenders begin exhibiting antisocial, violent, and/or delinquent behavior, prior to adolescence. Therefore, while there is a high rate of juvenile delinquency, it is the small percentage of life-course persistent, career criminals that are responsible for most of the violent crimes.

Theories

There are a multitude of different theories on the causes of crime, most, if not all, of which are applicable to the causes of juvenile delinquency.

Rational choice

Classical criminology stresses that the causes of crime lie within individual offenders, rather than in their external environment. For classicists, offenders are motivated by rational self-interest, and the importance of free will and personal responsibility is emphasized.[56] Rational choice theory is the clearest example of that idea. Delinquency is one of the major factors motivated by rational choice.

Social disorganization

Current positivist approaches generally focus on the culture. A type of criminological theory attributing variation in crime and delinquency over time and among territories to the absence or breakdown of communal institutions (such as family, school, church, and social groups) and communal relationships that traditionally encouraged cooperative relationships among people.

Strain

Strain theory is associated mainly with the work of Robert K. Merton, who felt that there are institutionalized paths to success in society. Strain theory holds that crime is caused by the difficulty for those in poverty have to achieve socially-valued goals by legitimate means.[56] Since those with, for instance, poor educational attainment have difficulty achieving wealth and status by securing well-paid employment, they are more likely to use criminal means to obtain those goals.[57] Merton's suggests five adaptations to this dilemma:

  1. Innovation: individuals who accept socially-approved goals but not necessarily the socially-approved means.
  2. Retreatism: those who reject socially-approved goals and the means for acquiring them.
  3. Ritualism: those who buy into a system of socially-approved means but lose sight of the goals. Merton believed that drug users are in this category.
  4. Conformity: those who conform to the system's means and goals.
  5. Rebellion: people who negate socially-approved goals and means by creating a new system of acceptable goals and means.

A difficulty with strain theory is that it does not explore why children of low-income families have poor educational attainment in the first place. More importantly, much youth crime does not have an economic motivation. Strain theory fails to explain violent crime, the type of youth crime that causes most anxiety to the public.

Differential association

Differential association is another theory that deals with young people in a group context and looks at how peer pressure and the existence of gangs could lead them into crime. It suggests young people are motivated to commit crimes by delinquent peers and learn criminal skills from them. The diminished influence of peers after men marry has also been cited as a factor in desisting from offending. There is strong evidence that young people with criminal friends are more likely to commit crimes themselves. However, offenders may prefer to associate with one another, rather than delinquent peers causing someone to start offending. Furthermore, there is the question of how the delinquent peer group initially became delinquent.

Labeling

Labeling theory is a concept in criminology that aims to explain deviant behavior from the social context, rather the individual themselves. It is part of interactionism criminology, which states that once young people have been labeled as criminal, they are more likely to offend.[56] The idea is that once labelled as deviant, a young person may accept that role and be more likely to associate with others who have been similarly labeled.[56] Labelling theorists say that male children from poor families are more likely to be labelled deviant, which may partially explain the existence of more working-class young male offenders.[27]

Social control

Social control theory proposes that exploiting the process of socialization and social learning builds self-control and can reduce the inclination to indulge in behavior that is recognized as antisocial. These four types of control can help prevent juvenile delinquency:

Direct by which punishment is threatened or applied for wrongful behavior, and compliance is rewarded by parents, family, and authority figures. Internal by which a youth refrains from delinquency through the conscience or superego. Indirect by identification with those who influence behavior, such as because the delinquent act might cause pain and disappointment to parents and others close relationships. Control through needs satisfaction: if all an individual's needs are met, there is no point in criminal activity.

Prevention
1936 poster promoting planned housing as a method to deter juvenile delinquency, showing silhouettes of a child stealing a piece of fruit and the older child involved in armed robbery.

Delinquency prevention is the broad term for all efforts aimed at preventing youth from becoming involved in criminal, or other antisocial, activity. Prevention services may include activities such as substance abuse education and treatment, family counseling, youth mentoring, parenting education, educational support, and youth sheltering. Increasing availability and use of family planning services, including education and contraceptives helps to reduce unintended pregnancy and unwanted births, which are risk factors for delinquency. It has been noted that often interventions such as peer groups may leave at-risk children worse off then if there had never been an intervention.[58]

Punishment

See Youth detention center.

One criminal justice approach to juvenile delinquency is through the juvenile court systems. These courts are specifically for minors to be tried in. Sometimes, juvenile offenders are sent to adult prisons.[59] In the United States, children as young as 8 can be tried and convicted as adults. Additionally, the United States was the only recorded country to sentence children as young as 13 to life sentences without parole also known as death in prison sentences. As of 2012, the Supreme Court has declared death in prison sentences unconstitutional for the vast majority of cases involving children.[12] According to the US Department of Justice, about 3,600 children are housed in adult jails.[60]

According to a report released by the Prison Policy Initiative, over 48,000 children are held in juvenile detention centers or prisons in America.[10] The worldwide number is unknown but UNICEF estimates that over 1 million children experience confinement in various countries.[61] Juveniles in youth detention centers are sometimes subject to many of the same punishments as adults, such as solitary confinement, despite a younger age or the presence of disabilities.[62] Due to the influx of minors in detention facilities due to the school to prison pipeline, education is increasingly becoming a concern. Children in juvenile detention have a compromised or nonexistent schooling which to a higher number of drop outs and failure to complete secondary education.[63]

Policies

Education promotes economic growth, national productivity and innovation, and values of democracy and social cohesion.[64] Prevention through education has been seen to discourage delinquency for minors and help them strengthen the connection and understanding between peers[65]

A well-known intervention treatment is the Scared Straight Treatment.[66] According to research done by Scott Lilienfeld, this type of intervention is often harmful because of juvenile offenders’ vicarious exposure to criminal role models and the possibility of increased resentment in reaction to the confrontational interactions.[67] It has been reasoned that the most efficient interventions are those that not only separate at-risk teens from anti-social peers, and place them instead with pro-social ones, but also simultaneously improve their home environment by training parents with appropriate parenting styles.[58]

In response to the data correlated with the school to prison pipeline, some institutions have implemented restorative justice policies.[68] The restorative justice approach emphasizes conflict resolution and non-punitive intervention.[69] Interventions such as hiring more counselors as opposed to security professionals or focusing on talking through problems would be included in a restorative justice approach.[69]

It is also important to note certain works of legislation that have already been published in the United States in response to general prisoner re-entry, extending to juveniles, such as the Second Chance Act (2007) and most recently, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act (2018).[70]

Juvenile reform

Juvenile reform deals with the vocational programs and educational approach to reducing recidivism rates of juvenile offenders. Most countries in the world legislate processes for juvenile reform and re-entry, some more elaborate and formal than others. In theory, juvenile re-entry is sensitive to the fact that juveniles are young and assumes they are capable of change; it approaches a juvenile offender's situation and history holistically, evaluating the earlier factors that could lead a juvenile to commit crimes. In practice, this is complicated since juvenile delinquents return home to varying and unpredictable circumstances, including poverty, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc..

In the United States, juvenile reform is split into four main phases:[71]

  1. The Entry Phase: The youth enters residential placement
  2. The Placement Phase: Amount of time youth is in the placement facility (whatever that may be)
  3. The Transitional Phase (re-entry): Act of leaving facility and entering community (from right after exit of facility to right before entering community)
  4. The Community-based Aftercare Phase: Period of time after youth returns to the community (usually 120-day period right after transitional phase)

An understanding of the factors involved in each of these steps is crucial to creating an effective juvenile reform program. One non-profit identifies the following approaches to juvenile reform:[72]

  1. Early Intervention: preventing juvenile youth from ever encountering the justice system by implementation of conflict-resolution practices or administrative strategies that aim to teach the child healthy actions to take in difficult situations. It is implemented before any offense is committed and often involves a thorough discussion of what individual issues a child is dealing with.
  2. Diversion: the placement of youth in programs that redirect youth away from juvenile justice system processing, or programs that divert youth from secure detention in a juvenile justice facility. These programs are most often in attempt to protect juveniles from getting a charge on their record after they have already committed a crime. This can be led through school administration intervention or by law enforcement officers that have been trained in dealing with at-risk youth. These programs are often given to children who have unstable life circumstances and are thus extended aid that will attack the "root problems" rather than further isolate them in society.
  3. Alternatives to Secure Confinement: a juvenile justice approach that does not require the juvenile's entry in a "jail-like" facility. Often involves the juvenile's continued participation in society, but in a modified manner. Such alternatives include home confinement, supervision of a probation officer, community service requirements, and community-based facilities, among others.
  4. Evidence-Based Practices: the emphasis on encouraging youth participation in programs that have evidence of working. The evaluation of "success" for a program is dependent on multiple factors, such as reduction of recidivism rates, cost-effectiveness, and addressing health problems.
  5. Diverting Youth Who Commit Status Offenses: programs that address the "root" problems causing a juvenile's behavior and actions. Such programs are often part of a tiered approach to juvenile justice and reform.
  6. Funding Community-Based Alternatives on a Large Scale: the supporting of all initiatives in a community that have been proven to help with juvenile betterment and reform. This allows the community to help its own and does not rely on the decisions of the state regarding the needs of juveniles.

While juvenile reform has proved to be an effective and humanizing approach response to juvenile delinquency, it is a very complex area that still has many ongoing debates. For example, many countries around the world are debating the appropriate age of a juvenile, as well as trying to understand whether there are some crimes that are so heinous, they should be exempt from any understanding. Based on these discussions, legislation needs to be consistently updated and considered as social, cultural, and political landscapes change.

Juvenile sex crimes

Juveniles who commit sexual crimes refer to individuals adjudicated in a criminal court for a sexual crime.[73] Sex crimes are defined as sexually abusive behavior committed by a person under the age of 18 that is perpetrated "against the victim's will, without consent, and in an aggressive, exploitative, manipulative, and/or threatening manner".[74] It is important to utilize appropriate terminology for juvenile sex offenders. Harsh and inappropriate expressions include terms such as "pedophile, child molester, predator, perpetrator, and mini-perp"[75] These terms have often been associated with this group, regardless of the youth’s age, diagnosis, cognitive abilities, or developmental stage.[75] Using appropriate expressions can facilitate a more accurate depiction of juvenile sex offenders and may decrease the subsequent aversive psychological affects from using such labels.[75] In the Arab Gulf states [sic], homosexual acts are classified as an offense, and constitute one of the primary crimes for which juvenile males are charged.[76]

Prevalence data

Examining prevalence data and the characteristics of juvenile sex offenders is a fundamental component to obtain a precise understanding of this heterogeneous group. With mandatory reporting laws in place, it became a necessity for providers to report any incidents of disclosed sexual abuse. Longo and Prescott indicate that juveniles commit approximately 30-60% of all child sexual abuse.[75] The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports indicate that in 2008 youth under the age of 18 accounted for 16.7% of forcible rapes and 20.61% of other sexual offenses.[77] Center for Sex Offender Management indicates that approximately one-fifth of all rapes and one-half of all sexual child molestation can be accounted for by juveniles.[78]

Official record data

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention indicates that 15% of juvenile arrests occurred for rape in 2006, and 12% were clearance (resolved by an arrest).[79] The total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for forcible rape was 3,610 with 2% being female and 36% being under the age of 15 years.[79] This trend has declined throughout the years with forcible rape from 1997–2006 being −30% and from 2005 to 2006 being −10%.[79] The OJJDP reports that the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape increased from the early 1980s through the 1990s and at that time it fell again.[79] Violent crime rates in the U.S. have been on a steady decline since the 1990s.[80] The OJJDP also reported that the total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for sex offenses (other than forcible rape) was 15,900 with 10% being female and 47% being under the age of 15.[79] There was again a decrease with the trend throughout the years with sex offenses from 1997 to 2006 being −16% and from 2005 to 2006 being −9%.[79]

Males who commit sexual crimes

Barbaree and Marshall indicate that juvenile males contribute to the majority of sex crimes, with 2–4% of adolescent males having reported committing sexually assaultive behavior, and 20% of all rapes and 30–50% of all child molestation are perpetrated by adolescent males.[73] It is clear that males are over-represented in this population. This is consistent with Ryan and Lane’s research indicating that males account for 91-93% of the reported juvenile sex offenses.[74] Righthand and Welch reported that females account for an estimated 2–11% of incidents of sexual offending.[81] In addition, it reported by The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that in the juvenile arrests during 2006, African American male youth were disproportionately arrested (34%) for forcible rape. In one case in a foster home a 13-year-old boy raped a 9-year-old boy by having forced anal sex with him, in a court hearing the 9-year-old boy said he has done this multiple times, that the 13-year-old boy was charged for sexual assault.[79]

Juvenile sex crimes internationally

Sexual crimes committed by juveniles are not just an issue in the United States. Studies from the Netherlands show that out of 3200 sex offenders recorded by police in 2009, 672 of those were juveniles, approximately 21 percent of sexual offenders. The study also points out the male to female ratio of sexual predators.[82]

In 2009, a U.S. congressman proposed legislature that would create an International Sex Offender Registry. The bill was introduced due to the fact that because laws differ in different countries someone who is on the sex offender registry in the U.S. who may be barred from living certain places and doing certain activities has free range in other less developed countries. This can lead to child sex tourism, when a sexual predator will go to less developed countries and prey on young boys and girls. Karne Newburn in his article, The Prospect of an International Sex Offender Registry, pointed out some serious flaws in the proposed bill, such as creating safety issues within the communities for the sex offenders placed on the registry. Newburn suggested instead of creating an International Sex Offender Registry from the U.S. model the U.S. join other countries in a dialogue on creating an effective model. As of now no registry exists. Despite this there is still interest in creating some sort of international registry.[83]

See also

References
  1. Siegel, Larry J.; Welsh, Brandon (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0534519322.
  2. "38. "Juvenile" Defined". www.justice.gov. 2015-02-19. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  3. "Juvenile Arrest Rates". www.ojjdp.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  4. Goode, Erica (December 19, 2011). "Since 2008, "an estimated 60% of children in the United States were exposed to violence, crime, or abuse in their homes, schools, and communities within the past year. Approximately 46% were assaulted at least once in the past year and 10% were injured in an assault."(crimesolutions.gov)The violence in the households of teenagers can/will have a significant impact in the lives of the teenagers as they grow up. Many in U.S. Are Arrested by Age 23, Study Finds". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 12, 2014. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  5. "Childstats.gov - America's Young Adults: Special Issue, 2014 - Contraception". childstats.gov. Archived from the original on 2014-06-26.
  6. Graham, J. & Bowling, B. (1995). Young People and Crime, Home Office Research Study No. 145, London: Home Office.
  7. Bartol, Curt & Bartol, Anne (2009). Juvenile Delinquency and Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Perspective, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  8. Theriot, Matthew T. (2009-05-01). "School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior". Journal of Criminal Justice. 37 (3): 280–287. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.008. ISSN 0047-2352.
  9. Fowler, Deborah (April 2010). "Texas' School-to-Prison Pipeline: School Expulsion, The Path from Lockout to Dropout" (PDF). Texas Appleseed.
  10. Initiative, Prison Policy; Sawyer, Wendy. "Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie 2019". www.prisonpolicy.org. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  11. Read "Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice" at NAP.edu.
  12. "Children in Adult Prison". Equal Justice Initiative. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  13. Woolard; Scott (2009). "The legal regulation of adolescence". In Lerner, R.; Steinberg, L. (eds.). Handbook of Adolescent psychology. 2 (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. pp. 345–371. ISBN 9780470149225.
  14. "JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: DETENTION AS A LAST RESORT Innovative Initiatives in the East Asia and Pacific Region" (PDF). United Nations Children's Fund.
  15. "World Report 2016: Rights Trends in Children Behind Bars". Human Rights Watch. 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2020-03-04.
  16. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice (October 22, 2018). "Victimizations by juveniles per 1,000 youth ages 12-17, 1980-2016". www.ojjdp.gov. Retrieved 2020-03-04.
  17. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics, Federal Bureau of Investigation. "Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics". www.ucrdatatool.gov. Retrieved 2020-03-04.
  18. Howell, James (2009). Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781452274980. ISBN 978-1-4129-5638-3.
  19. OJJDP National Juvenile Court Data, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2015). "Characteristics of delinquency cases handled in juvenile court in 2015" (PDF).
  20. Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescence (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780073405483.
  21. Moffitt (2006). "Life course persistent versus adolescent limited antisocial behavior". In Cicchetti, D.; Cohen, D. (eds.). Developmental Psychopathy (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. pp. 75–103. doi:10.4324/9781315094908-4. ISBN 9781315094908.
  22. Dabb, C (May 1997). The relationship between weather and children's behavior: a study of teacher perceptions. USU Thesis.
  23. Bi, Xinwen; Yang, Yiqun; Li, Hailei; Wang, Meiping; Zhang, Wenxin; Deater-Deckard, Kirby (2018). "Parenting Styles and Parent–Adolescent Relationships: The Mediating Roles of Behavioral Autonomy and Parental Authority". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 2187. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02187. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 6243060. PMID 30483194.
  24. Baumrind, Diana (1971). "Current patterns of parental authority". Developmental Psychology. 4 (1, Pt.2): 1–103. doi:10.1037/h0030372. ISSN 1939-0599.
  25. Berk, Laura E. (2014). Development through the lifespan (Sixth ed.). Boston. ISBN 9780205957606. OCLC 830646471.
  26. Farrington, D. P. (2002). "Developmental criminology and risk-focused prevention". In Maguire, M.; et al. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199256099.
  27. Walklate, S (2003). Understanding Criminology – Current Theoretical Debates, 2nd edition, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  28. Monea J, Thomas A (June 2011). "Unintended pregnancy and taxpayer spending". Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 43 (2): 88–93. doi:10.1363/4308811. PMID 21651707.
  29. "Family Planning - Healthy People 2020". Archived from the original on 2010-12-28. Retrieved 2011-08-18.
  30. Vargas, Robert (September 2011). "Being in "Bad" Company: Power Dependence and Status in Adolescent Susceptibility to Peer Influence". Social Psychology Quarterly. 74 (3): 310–332. doi:10.1177/0190272511414546. ISSN 0190-2725. S2CID 147382098.
  31. Dodge (2003). "A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence". Developmental Psychology. 39 (2): 349–371. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.349. PMC 2755613. PMID 12661890.
  32. Aronson, Elliot. (2013). Social psychology. Wilson, Timothy D., Akert, Robin M. (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson. ISBN 9780205796625. OCLC 796355014.
  33. Asch, Solomon E. (1956). "Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority". Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 70 (9): 1–70. doi:10.1037/h0093718. ISSN 0096-9753.
  34. Kreager, Derek A.; Rulison, Kelly; Moody, James (February 2011). "Delinquency and the Structure of Adolescent Peer Groups". Criminology. 49 (1): 95–127. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00219.x. ISSN 0011-1384. PMC 3092163. PMID 21572969.
  35. Lindsay, Constance A.; Lee, Victoria; Lloyd, Tracey (2018-06-21). "The prevalence of police officers in US schools". Urban Institute. Retrieved 2020-03-08.
  36. "Zero-Tolerance Policies and the School to Prison Pipeline". Shared Justice. Retrieved 2020-03-08.
  37. "Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations" (PDF). American Psychologist. April 2008.
  38. Rosenbaum, Janet (2018-01-17). "Educational and Criminal Justice Outcomes 12 Years After School Suspension". Youth & Society. 52 (4): 515–547. doi:10.1177/0044118x17752208. ISSN 0044-118X. PMC 7288849. PMID 32528191.
  39. "A Generation Later: What We've Learned about Zero Tolerance in Schools" (PDF). Vera Institute of Justice. December 2013.
  40. Morris, Edward W.; Perry, Brea L. (2016-02-01). "The Punishment Gap: School Suspension and Racial Disparities in Achievement". Social Problems. 63 (1): 68–86. doi:10.1093/socpro/spv026. ISSN 0037-7791.
  41. "Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities" (PDF). United States Government Accountability Office. March 2018.
  42. "The school to prison pipeline, explained — Justice Policy Institute". www.justicepolicy.org. Retrieved 2020-03-08.
  43. Junger-Tas, Josine; Ribeaud, Denis; Cruyff, Maarten J. L. F. (July 2004). "Juvenile Delinquency and Gender". European Journal of Criminology. 1 (3): 333–375. doi:10.1177/1477370804044007. ISSN 1477-3708. S2CID 145375000.
  44. Steketee, Majone; Junger, Marianne; Junger-Tas, Josine (2013-01-20). "Sex Differences in the Predictors of Juvenile Delinquency". Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 29 (1): 88–105. doi:10.1177/1043986212470888. ISSN 1043-9862. S2CID 143911396.
  45. Daigle, Leah E.; Cullen, Francis T.; Wright, John Paul (July 2007). "Gender Differences in the Predictors of Juvenile Delinquency". Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 5 (3): 254–286. doi:10.1177/1541204007301289. ISSN 1541-2040. S2CID 144071237.
  46. Svensson, Robert (October 2004). "Shame as a Consequence of the Parent-Child Relationship". European Journal of Criminology. 1 (4): 477–504. doi:10.1177/1477370804045692. ISSN 1477-3708. S2CID 145803713.
  47. Rhoades, Kimberly A.; Leve, Leslie D.; Eddy, J. Mark; Chamberlain, Patricia (December 2016). "Predicting the transition from juvenile delinquency to adult criminality: Gender-specific influences in two high-risk samples: Recidivism from adolescence to adulthood". Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 26 (5): 336–351. doi:10.1002/cbm.1957. PMC 4624625. PMID 25916547.
  48. Piquero, Nicole Leeper; Gover, Angela R.; MacDonald, John M.; Piquero, Alex R. (March 2005). "The Influence of Delinquen Peers on Delinquency". Youth & Society. 36 (3): 251–275. doi:10.1177/0044118x04265652. ISSN 0044-118X. S2CID 144907955.
  49. "Juvenile Arrest and Collateral Educational Damage in the Transition to Adulthood". JournalistsResource.org, retrieved June 18, 2012
  50. Kirk, David S.; Sampson, Robert J. (2012). "Juvenile Arrest and Collateral Educational Damage in the Transition to Adulthood". Sociology of Education. 86 (1): 36–62. doi:10.1177/0038040712448862. PMC 4192649. PMID 25309003.
  51. Hare (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
  52. Holmes, S. E.; James, R. S.; Javad, K. (2001). "Risk Factors in Childhood that Lead to the Development of Conduct Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder". Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 31 (3): 183–193. doi:10.1023/A:1026425304480. PMID 11196010. S2CID 20259352.
  53. DeLisi, Matt (2005). Career Criminals in Society. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications. p. 39. ISBN 978-1412905534.
  54. Marvin, Wolfgang; Figlio, Robert M.; Sellin, Thorsten (1972). Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226905532.
  55. Raine, A. (1993). The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal Behavior as a Clinical Disorder. San Diego, California: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0125761604.
  56. Eadie, T.; Morley, R. (2003). "Crime, Justice and Punishment". In Baldock, J.; et al. (eds.). Social Policy (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199258949.
  57. Brown, S (1998) Understanding Youth and Crime (Listening to youth?), Buckingham: Open University Press.
  58. Dishion; McCord (1999). "When interventions harm :Peer groups and problem behavior". American Psychologist. 54 (9): 755–764. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.9.755. PMID 10510665.
  59. "Juvenile Justice". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2020-03-08.
  60. "Jail inmates younger than 18, 1993-2017". www.ojjdp.gov. Retrieved 2020-03-08.
  61. "World Report 2016: Rights Trends in Children Behind Bars". Human Rights Watch. 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  62. McCluskey, Molly (2017-12-24). "What If This Were Your Kid?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-04-20.
  63. Losen, Daniel (2018-08-24). "11 Million Days Lost: RACE, DISCIPLINE, AND SAFETY AT U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS". The Center for Civil Rights Remedies.
  64. World Bank. "Education and development". Archived from the original on 29 January 2017. Retrieved 18 January 2012.
  65. Katsiyannis, Antonis; Ryan, Joseph B.; Zhang, Dalun; Spann, Anastasia (2008-03-04). "Juvenile Delinquency and Recidivism: The Impact of Academic Achievement". Reading & Writing Quarterly. 24 (2): 177–196. doi:10.1080/10573560701808460. ISSN 1057-3569. S2CID 144089622.
  66. Petrosino, A; Turpin-Petrosino, Carolyn; Hollis-Peel, Meghan; Lavenberg, Julia (2013). "Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Deliquency: A Systematic Review". Campbell Systematic Reviews. 5: 1–55. doi:10.4073/csr.2013.5.
  67. Lilienfeld, Scott O. (2007). "Psychological Treatments That Cause Harm". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2 (1): 53–70. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.531.9405. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00029.x. PMID 26151919. S2CID 26512757.
  68. "Improving School Climate: Evidence from Schools Implementing Restorative Practices" (PDF). International Institute for Restorative Practices. 2014.
  69. Fronius, Trevor (Feb 2016). "Restorative Justice in U.S. Schools: A Research Review" (PDF). WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center.
  70. Portman, Rob (2018-11-15). "All Info - S.3635 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2018". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-15.
  71. "Reentry | Youth.gov". youth.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-11.
  72. "Reform Trends". Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. Retrieved 2020-05-11.
  73. Barbaree, H. E., Marshall, W. L. (2008). An introduction to the juvenile sex offender: Terms, concepts, and definitions (2nd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
  74. Ryan, G., Lane, S. (Eds.). (1997). Juvenile Sexual Offending: Causes consequences and correction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  75. Longo, R. E., Prescott, D. S. (2006). Introduction: A brief history of treating youth with sexual behavior problems. Current perspectives: Working with sexually aggressive youth and youth with sexual behavior problems, (pp. 31-43). Massachusetts: NEARI Press.
  76. Booth, Marilyn. 2002. "Arab adolescents facing the future". pp. 232 in Brown et. al., (eds.) The World's Youth: Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052180910X
  77. "FBI — Uniform Crime Reporting". FBI. Archived from the original on 2004-10-24.
  78. Hunter, J. (December 1999). "The Center for Sex Offender Management. Understanding juvenile sex offending behavior: Emerging research, treatment approaches, and management practices". Archived from the original on December 21, 2009. Retrieved October 11, 2009.
  79. Snyder, H. M. (November 2008). "Juvenile arrests 2006" (PDF). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 8, 2009. Retrieved October 15, 2009.
  80. LaFree, Gary (August 1999). "DECLINING VIOLENT CRIME RATES IN THE 1990S: Predicting Crime Booms and Busts". Annual Review of Sociology. 25 (1): 145–168. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.145. ISSN 0360-0572.
  81. Righthand, S.; Welch, C. (2004). "Characteristics of youth who sexually offend". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 13 (3): 15–32. doi:10.1300/J070v13n03_02. PMID 15914388. S2CID 23452835.
  82. Wijkman, Miriam; Bijleveld, Catrien; Hendriks, Jan (2014). "Juvenile female sex offenders: Offender and offence characteristics". European Journal of Criminology. 11: 23–38. doi:10.1177/1477370813479077. S2CID 145779900.
  83. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-08-07.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.