The term juvenile offenders, or juvenile delinquents, refers, generally, to youth who commit a legal infraction; however, there are variations across jurisdictions in statutory age limits and the offenses considered legal infractions. Statutory ages defining a juvenile offender generally range between 12 and 18 years. In some jurisdictions, though, youth as young as 6 years can be charged with a criminal offense. Similarly, in some jurisdictions, depending on the crime, a youth under the statutory age limit can be charged as an adult. Types of infractions meriting charging a youth as a criminal offender vary as well. In some cases, status offenses such as truancy or running away are considered criminal acts, whereas in other jurisdictions these are treated outside the juvenile justice system.
To further understand juvenile offenders, this entry begins with a discussion of the evolution of contemporary conceptions of childhood. It then discusses theories and factors associated with juvenile offending as well as implications for prediction, prevention, and treatment. The entry concludes with a discussion of various juvenile justice systems.
Contemporary Conceptions of Childhood
Current attitudes and practices regarding youth who engage in criminal activity have evolved over a long period of time. This evolutional process has roughly paralleled the evolution of attitudes and practices regarding childhood and adolescence. Historians have traced a slow and uneven development of the concept of childhood and ideas about the appropriate treatment of youth. Earlier periods were characterized generally by the absence of a concept of childhood. Childhood was treated simply as a preparation for adulthood; as soon as youth reached some early milestones (e.g., puberty), they were considered part of the adult world. For example, youth as young as 12 years were recruited into the navy, and children as young as 8 years were taken to work in the coal mines. To an extent, this may have been a class and gender issue, but even males from the upper classes were not provided the same type of childhood experienced today.
The evolution of contemporary conceptions of childhood as a distinct phase of the life span emerged slowly during the early 19th and 20th centuries. Much of this evolution was sparked by philosophic and political developments associated with the Enlightenment, social issues arising from increasing urbanization, and developments in religious thought. This shift is also reflected in society’s attitudes and practices regarding juvenile offenders, whereby they are usually (although not always) provided separate treatment in the judicial system.
Analyzing the construct of juvenile offending is complicated by a number of considerations, such as the nature of the offense and pattern of offending. Most crimes committed by youth are relatively minor in nature, including actions such as shoplifting, damaging property, and engaging in minor fights. At the other end of this continuum are acts of serious violence such as murder and sexual assault. Frequency of offending is also relevant. In many cases, the youth offender has committed a single infraction, while in other cases chronic offending is present.
A related distinction is between adolescentlimited and life course–persistent delinquency. The former describes much juvenile crime, whereby a youth with no criminal history engages in some form of law breaking during adolescence. Usually, these crimes are not particularly serious and the youth does not persist in criminal activity. Life course–persistent delinquency, on the other hand, describes the pattern whereby antisocial behavior and conduct disorder appear very early and persist through adolescence and into adulthood. While these two patterns do not describe all patterns exhibited by youth, they do account for a high percentage of cases.
That the construct of juvenile offending can include youth exhibiting a wide range of patterns of criminal activity complicates analyses of the causes of delinquency as well as prediction and treatment strategies. These issues also complicate evaluations of the extent of juvenile crime. Data regarding the incidence of youth crime and percentage of youth engaging in criminal activity are often reported. Sometimes these data are traced over time, indicating, for example, that youth crime has increased or decreased in a particular region over some period of time. Comparisons are sometimes made among jurisdictions as well. However, these data are difficult to interpret because of the ambiguities regarding definitions of the construct just discussed. For example, calculating the percentage of youth in a community convicted for a crime does not convey necessarily specific information as this number may include youth exhibiting a range of infractions (from shoplifting to murder) as well as a range of patterns (from a youth convicted of one offense to a youth with a long history of convictions). Moreover, deficiencies are sometimes present as well in the data on which these comparisons are based, including those derived from official sources.
In spite of these problems, some conclusions related to juvenile offending can be stated with confidence. First, the majority of youth do not engage in serious criminal activity or, at any rate, serious enough to come to the attention of the police. Second, a small number of youth do commit criminal acts serious enough for police and judicial involvement; however, the majority of these crimes are relatively minor, and the youth do not engage in continued criminal activity beyond adolescence. Finally, a very small number of youth engage in serious criminal activity, and in some cases, the criminal activity is chronic. The latter requires close attention in order to effectively predict and prevent juvenile offenders and devise appropriate treatment strategies.
Theory
Theoretical efforts to analyze the causes of juvenile offending have a long history. However, two complications should be noted at the outset. First, analyzing the causes of a complex human behavior such as criminal activity, subject as it is to a wide range of influences, is immensely complicated. Second, as already mentioned, the construct itself is complicated. Is it possible that a single cause can explain the actions of a youth with no criminal history engaging in the theft of a bicycle as well as a youth with a long criminal history engaging in a violent assault? Nevertheless, many have attempted to develop theories related to juvenile delinquency as a whole.
From these studies, four broad categories of theories for juvenile offending can be identified. Neoclassical theories emphasize rational choice as the basis for the criminal offending. Criminal behavior is viewed as willful; people engage in the criminal act because they choose to. A second category implicates biological processes. In some cases, deficits in neurological functioning are hypothesized, while in other cases genetically based determinants of temperament are implicated. Psychological explanations form a third category. This category actually includes a variety of explanatory constructs, ranging from psychoanalytic processes, through social learning, to purely behavioral explanations. Finally, economic or sociological theories locate the causes of criminal behaviors in social or economic contexts. Marxist and anomie theories, for example, posit that criminal activities reflect responses to poverty and economic inequality.
While theories within each of the four categories contribute to the understanding of crime, it is recognized that none alone provides a complete explanation. For this reason, some contemporary scholars have eschewed a purely theoretical analysis and depend on research-based conclusions regarding the factors associated with youth crime. This also has the advantage of providing specific guidance regarding prediction and treatment strategies.
Factors Associated With Juvenile Crime
Considerable progress has been made through empirical research in identifying individual and situational factors associated with youth crime. Some of these factors or conditions are causal in nature. For example, associations with delinquent peers in a gang may contribute directly to the criminal act. In other cases, the factor may reflect a statistical association and indirect link with the criminal activity. For example, while poor school performance is associated with crime, this may reflect frequent absences associated with the criminal activity or may reflect differential treatment of the child in school because he or she has been identified as delinquent.
Whether or not a condition is causal, identifying the condition as significantly associated with criminal activity is important from the point of view of identifying a youth as at risk for criminal activity and for focusing intervention efforts. The presence of a risk factor does not mean that the youth will necessarily commit a delinquent act, but it indicates an increased probability relative to youth not exhibiting the condition. For example, a youth involved in a criminal gang may not engage in criminal activities, but he or she has a higher likelihood to do so than a youth not so engaged.
Scholars have identified eight categories of major risk factors. The first category includes historical factors, such as a history of conduct disorder and criminal activity. Other things being equal, a youth with a history of antisocial behavior is at elevated risk of crime. A second category includes a range of family factors, particularly those relating to parenting. A lack of supervision, inappropriate disciplinary practices, and poor relations between parent and youth are prominent risk factors. Poor school adjustment and achievement have also been linked with youthful criminal activity, as has association with antisocial peers. Drug and alcohol addiction, poor use of leisure time, and a range of personality and behavioral traits (e.g., attention disorders, high levels of hostility and aggression, callous/unemotional perspective) have also been linked with antisocial behaviors. Finally, antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs have demonstrated strong relations with youthful criminal acts. Again, the presence of these factors or conditions does not necessarily mean the youth will engage in criminal behaviors; rather, it increases the probability this will occur. Research also indicates that the greater the number of risk factors exhibited by a youth, the higher the probability of committing a criminal act.
A distinction is made between static and dynamic risk factors. The former are conditions that cannot be changed. These include historical factors such as age at first arrest and a history of criminal activity. Dynamic risk factors (also referred to as needs) constitute risk conditions that can be changed and, if changed, can reduce the likelihood of engaging in criminal activity. Most of the factors or conditions identified in this entry represent dynamic risk factors. While not easy, positive changes can be made in all of the areas except for the historical factors. Parental practices can be improved, youth moved away from negative peer influences, school performance and adjustment improved, drug and alcohol abuse addressed, improvements made in use of leisure time, personality and behavioral problems addressed, and attitudes and values moved in positive directions. Research has demonstrated that positive changes in these areas can reduce the likelihood of engaging in criminal activities.
The discussion to this point has focused on negative traits or conditions associated with criminal activity. However, it is also important to recognize that the youth, or his or her environment, may present strength or protective factors that could help to buffer or counter the effects of the negative factors. An example would be a cooperative and resourceful parent who may serve as a buffer to negative neighborhood influences or a teacher willing to work with the youth on school problems. Characteristics of the youth may play important roles in fostering strength or protective factors: a high level of maturity in the youth, an interest in sports, or a recognition that changes in his or her life may create a positive impact. Identifying strength or protective factors is particularly important for developing effective interventions; thus, to the extent possible, intervention or treatment efforts should be strength based.
Implications for Identification and Prediction
Identifying youth at risk of criminal offending or continued offending is an important exercise since it can guide prevention and treatment strategies. In the present context, this involves identifying risk and need factors for the youth and using those as the basis for predictions about engaging in criminal acts.
A purely clinical approach is sometimes used for identification and prediction. A professional, possibly a probation or youth worker, with experience in the field interviews the youth, reviews any additional information about the youth, and forms judgments, including predictions about the risk of further criminal activity. However, research has shown that clinical assessments of this type are generally not particularly reliable or valid. That research has also shown that structured and standardized assessment procedures yield more valid predictions of future behavior. The preferred approach to forming profiles of risk or needs and predictions of risk of delinquency is based on the use of structured and standardized assessment instruments, such as the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth and Youth Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory 2.0.
Implications for Prevention and Treatment
A common assumption among some professionals, politicians, and members of the public is that punitive sanctions, particularly in the form of incarceration, represent the most effective means for promoting individual and general deterrence. The argument is that the experience of such a sanction or knowledge of the threat of a negative sanction will deter engaging in the criminal activity. However, contemporary research has shown that punitive sanctions are not particularly effective in promoting deterrence. In fact, under some circumstances subjecting a youth to coercive sanctions may actually increase the probability of reoffending. This same program evaluation research also suggests that rehabilitative strategies focusing on the factors placing the youth at risk of criminal activity can be the most effective intervention strategy. This does not mean that the youth should not be held accountable for a transgression, but it does shift the focus from the criminal act to the youth committing the act.
A number of intervention models have been developed to guide this type of strategy. One such framework, the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model, has received empirical support and is used here as an example of best practice in the treatment of the juvenile offender. This model asserts that careful assessments of the risk and need factors exhibited by the youth (assessment principle) help with determining effective interventions. According to the risk principle of the RNR model, the level or intensity of treatment should vary with the level of risk presented by the youth. In other words, intensive interventions should be reserved for the highest risk cases, while lower risk cases can be provided less intensive interventions. Intensive interventions for all at-risk youth would be cost prohibitive, so correlating risk and intervention levels offers a practical approach. Also, research has shown that involvement in the judicial or correctional systems can, under some circumstances, represent a risk factor. Disposition of a youth’s case will always involve judicial considerations (e.g., based on severity of the offense or history of offending), but within those limits, system involvement with the youth should reflect the level of risk presented.
The second principle of the RNR is the need principle, which states that interventions should be directed toward the specific needs of a particular youth. If, for example, a youth exhibits risks related to the home environment, associations with delinquent peers, and drug abuse, then these should be the targets of service. On the other hand, if the risks appear to be associated primarily with adjustment problems in school, poor use of leisure time, and antisocial attitudes, then those can be the objects of intervention.
A third principle of the RNR model, the responsivity principle, suggests that interventions should take into account other factors or conditions that may affect responses to the intervention. This includes negative factors such as conflicts between parents, cultural issues, emotional conditions of the youth, as well as strengths exhibited by the youth or family. Responsivity factors are not necessarily directly related to the criminal activity, but they should be identified in assessments and taken into account in case planning. Other principles within the RNR model stress the use of valid assessment procedures, the use of evidence-based treatments, the use of communitybased interventions where possible, and the careful selection and training of personnel within the judicial or correctional system.
A growing body of empirical research is now providing support for the principles of the RNR model. Additionally, research is showing that systems following the principles of the RNR model present favorable cost/benefit ratios compared with alternatives, particularly those dependent on more punitive approaches such as incarceration. The latter tends to be very expensive and relatively ineffective in deterring criminal activity.
Systems of Juvenile Justice
Juvenile justice systems include police, courts, and correctional subsystems. The latter may comprise community-based intervention programs designed to deter criminal activity, probation services, and custody or other institutional facilities. Sanctions such as fines or community service orders may also be involved. The design of these systems varies widely across national boundaries and even within countries in some cases. For example, while the processing of youth within the courts in the United States is directed to some extent by higher court decisions, the legal processing of juveniles and the range of sanctions employed differs from state to state. The situation in Canada is somewhat different. Legal processing of juveniles and approved sanctions is under the control of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, an act of the federal parliament. However, the application of the act is a provincial responsibility and some variability in application is observed among the provinces.
Differences among systems can be represented in terms of two dimensions, one relating to legal procedures and protections and the other to preferred sanctions. At one extreme are crime control systems in which the focus is on the crime rather than the offender. Here, the youth is processed through a formal legal system, with a heavy dependence on punitive sanctions such as incarceration. In extreme cases in this type of system, the youth may be accorded no legal rights, with the court holding all decision powers. These systems sometimes reflect a parens patriae philosophy, whereby the court is acting in the best interest of the child.
The other extreme is reflected in child welfare systems where the primary focus is on rehabilitating the youth rather than punishing the crime. Here, the youth is not exposed to a formal legal system but is processed through a social welfare or child protection system with the primary focus being rehabilitation instead of punishment.
Many juvenile justice systems fall somewhere between these two extremes. Many possess a separate court system for youth that contains most of the due process protections of the adult system. Although nearly all have a provision for punitive sanctions, many systems also incorporate some rehabilitative treatment programs. However, there are wide differences in the balance of punitive and rehabilitative strategies, particularly across the United States. Wide differences across jurisdictions are also observed in attempts to incorporate principles of best practice as represented in models such as RNR.
While the treatment of juvenile offenders is directed very much by political forces, it is hoped that continuing research on the effectiveness of various strategies for addressing youth crime will contribute to improvements in the future. Efforts to educate the public on the importance of using best practices in the treatment of juvenile offenders are also important.
References:
- Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
- Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Handbook of juvenile forensic psychology and psychiatry. New York, NY: Springer.
- Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2010). Evaluation of risk for violence in juveniles. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Hoge, R. D., Guerra, N. G., & Boxer, P. (2008). Treating the juvenile offender. New York, NY: Guilford.
- Siegel, L. J., & Welsch, B. C. (2012). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.