Causes of Juvenile Delinquency in America - Essay Example

Affects of Juvenile Delinquency on America’s Future The future of America lies within the hands of today’s youngsters, but there are some serious concerns regarding where these youngsters might take us. More than simply taking a look at the political scene, which has traditionally been a mess, the rise in juvenile delinquency over the past decade could have a profound impact upon the future quality of life for people living in this country as thousands of untrained, unethical or unqualified and uneducated children begin to step into the roles vacated by the retiring older generations. Doctors and lawyers, experiencing the same lack of work ethic learned by the rest of their generation, will be unable to properly diagnose and treat illness or to adequately prepare for a court case. Psychologists and service professionals will be less aware of how to reach out an empathic hand to their patients or service the needs of the community in a timely manner as has come to be expected as they focus more on their own pursuits outside of the workplace. To understand the extent to which the current acceptance of juvenile delinquency might affect the future of the nation, it is necessary to understand the factors that contribute to these alarming numbers. These include such lifestyle trends as the decaying family structure, children growing up in impoverished conditions and the rise of the gang as surrogate family and employer. Only when these factors are understood and their impact realized can effective change be implemented in an attempt to counteract the corrosive long-term results not only for the individuals involved, but for the greater society as well. One of the most difficult factors to control contributing to the delinquency of minors is the effects suffered as a result of domestic violence. Domestic violence in the U.S. is extensive and takes place within all social and economic groups. Contrary to popular belief, studies indicate that 53-70 percent of men who abuse their wives tended to also abuse their children (Straus & Gelles, 1990, p. 97). Other studies have confirmed this finding, adding that women who have been physically abused were nearly twice as likely to abuse a child as well, further adding to the violence in this innocent child’s life (Child Welfare Partnership, 1995, p. 4). These studies have proven that children are 15 times more likely to have been abused or neglected in home where domestic violence has been reported against the wives than children in single parent homes or homes in which the parents do not inflict violence upon each other. Research that has been conducted regarding how the prevalence of family violence affects the lives of children suggests that this phenomenon is a critical public health concern. In 1992, state agencies across the U.S. reported over 200,000 incidents of child abuse and half that number of child sexual abuse cases. “It has been estimated that about 1 in 5 female children and 1 in 10 male children may experience sexual molestation. At least 1,200 children died as a result of maltreatment” (Regier & Cowdry, 1995, p. 2). Incidences of domestic violence, a growing problem in the U.S., affect the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral development of children, produces disharmony in the family unit and instigates harmful lifetime problems for all concerned. When exposed to threatening or brutal emotional and/or physical treatment, children experience traumatic stress disorders that require exceptional coping skills. Instances of domestic violence are usually unanticipated and uncontrollable which serve to devastate a child’s sense of wellbeing and security. Negative effects that could damage a child’s psyche for a lifetime may result from a one-time occurrence and worsens from prolonged exposure to traumatic experiences involving family violence. If the child develops Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), they can suffer from severe social, academic and occupational problems (Meichenbaum, 1994, p. 25). Since these conditions general last a lifetime, the impact on the social order as these children grow up only serves to lessen the available professional pool. The majority of children studied who are living in domestic violence shelters indicate quantifiably high levels of PTSD. These children are at considerably higher risk than others to act out in a delinquent manner, abuse drugs, drop-out of school, and experience difficulties in relationships with family and friends. All of these dynamics combine to disrupt the family unit. Children of differing ages exhibit a broad range of responses from exposure to violence within their family. Children of preschool and kindergarten age seldom understand why they are being abused. They usually tend to think that they have done something wrong and this self-blame can advance feelings of worry, guilt and apprehension. Younger children in general do not have the intellectual or emotional capability to sufficiently articulate their opinions verbally. Because of this, the expressions of these emotions are often behavioral in nature. Children of pre-adolescent age, unlike younger children, typically have greater ability to verbalize negative sentiments. Victims within this age group, in addition to symptoms commonly associated with anxiety such as nightmares and sleeping and eating disorders, may exhibit a low self esteem. This generally results in a social withdrawal, avoiding contact with others and displaying a rebellious, disobedient behavior in school. Pre-teens of abusive situations have an increased propensity for temper tantrums, are often involved in fights fighting, abuse animals and act in threatening manners. This violent behavior mirrors what they see at home and is an attempt to gain attention. Teenagers of abusive house-holds are at much greater risk than those who are not to drop-out of school and abuse drugs. Research has suggested that a history of family violence is the most noteworthy reason that separates antisocial and ‘normal’ youths. According to a study report authored by Dr. Terence P. Thornberry, children with histories of violence in their families report a 24 percent increase in the level of violent behavior they participate in as compared with their peers living in non-violent homes. “Other analyses of these data indicate that maltreatment is also a significant risk factor for official delinquency and other forms of self-reported delinquency; for the prevalence and frequency of delinquency; and for all these indicators when gender, race/ethnicity, family structure; and social class are held constant” (Thornberry, 1994). In addition to living in abusive situations, there are several other early factors that can predispose children to become juvenile offenders. Children facing more than two of these risk factors have been shown to have a significantly higher risk of participation in adolescent violence and criminal behavior. Poverty is one of the more significant of these factors. According to studies conducted by the Children’s Defense Fund, approximately one fifth of all children aged 18 and under lived beneath the poverty line in American cities. “Poor neighborhoods, especially ‘inner-city war zones’, generally have relatively high crime rates, unsatisfactory schools and unhealthy living conditions. They provide a child with few resources, negatively affect development and increase the chances a child will become violent” (“Pathways to Youth Violence”, 2000, p. 15). Inner city war zones, which have developed in many of the nation’s small to medium-sized cities as well as the larger urban areas of major cities, are described as those areas in which every child over the age of 14 has attended the funeral of at least one playmate who was killed through unnatural causes and where two-thirds of the children have witnessed at least one shooting (Garbarino, 1999, p. 40). Observers of preschool classrooms are also likely to witness children playing games such as ‘funeral’ or demonstrate a prostitute/pimp relationship between dolls. Because individuals living in these poor neighborhoods are frequently ostracized from the greater society through their inability to afford the types of material goods or education that would provide them with the means to escape, many of these children grow up under an umbrella of resentment, anger and open disrespect of the rules and regulations of this greater society that has rejected them. This makes it easier for them to justify their own behaviors that are considered deviant as they are simply doing what they deem necessary in order to give themselves the chances they were never provided elsewhere. This perception of rejection by the larger society also implants an attitude of hopelessness and despair in children who are already suffering from other adverse conditions, giving them the impression that life will always be this difficult, painful, empty and lonely. Rather than being encouraged to find the education and professions that would provide them with a brighter future, these children find it easier to find ways of manipulating or otherwise working against the existing system to take what they need. Instead of giving back to society for having received nothing, they choose to take from the system by whatever means necessary. Impoverished conditions can also severely decrease the level of family cohesion and educational achievements. Parents in these conditions frequently spend long hours at work trying to earn the money necessary to break out of the cycle, yet are eternally frustrated in their efforts to advance thanks to their own lack of educational or career advancement opportunities. Children are left to fend for themselves in the violent streets of their neighborhoods or are placed in childcare centers that have been largely deemed inadequate in terms of quality of care and in introducing developmentally appropriate education for their small students. As early as possible, these children are removed from childcare as a means of reducing household expenses. Homes in these neighborhoods are often severely lacking in appropriately stimulating activities, leaving many children to lock themselves up inside their homes for lonely afternoons spent idly staring at a television screen for their only company and entertainment, at the same time instilling in them a strong desire to break out of their dark environments to find excitement and adventure. For many, the only place this is available is in the street itself, where they then come into contact with the social unit that confirms their perceived placement in society as a leech rather than a contributing member. Youth gangs, along with the problems associated with them, are growing in many American cities. By the time they have reached their adolescent years, children experiencing family violence, poverty, and other risk factors find themselves joining gangs as one of the few options they see available to them. Children growing up in substandard neighborhoods often perceive that the only protection they have from gang activity is by joining one, an instinctual decision based on self-preservation. Growing up with several of the risk factors already identified creates not only a need to find a sense of safety and security that has thus far not been experienced in the home, but also a need for acceptance and sense of belonging that has also not been provided. The social relationships of gangs provide teenagers with the means of meeting some of these needs in a substandard, but still better than what was previously offered, manner. In addition, young teenagers are actively recruited or intimidated into joining gangs and have little choice of options to escape these forces. “A few [teens] are virtually born into gangs as a result of neighborhood traditions and their parents’ earlier and perhaps continuing gang participation or involvement in criminal activity” (Moore, 1978, p. 19). Street gangs can be classified in various broadly-based categories depending upon their component demographics, type of activity, size or other characteristics. However, the many variations and shifting dynamics inherent in these social arrangements make precise classifications difficult at best. The term ‘gang’ has many connotations and refers to many levels of group involvements. It can be used to refer to groups of adolescents that cluster together in shopping malls. These types of gangs typically participate in small crimes such as shoplifting and vandalism. The term can also be applied to small groups of friends who participate together in crimes such as felony thefts and the distribution of stolen merchandise. A third major classification is used to refer to adult organizations which engage in criminal activity on a substantial range (Gordon, 1994, p. 3). Even these three broad definitions cannot be easily distinguished as various gangs may involve several characteristics and differing levels within one organization. Despite the fact that gangs generally fall into a spectrum of activity, there exists little consensus on what exactly defines a youth gang. A large number of experts have suggested gangs are social structures that are comprised of a specialized group of individuals who partner in the commission of predatory crimes or dealing drugs, but many cities remain unsure of how to recognize them. While some deny the existence of gangs within their borders, others tend to overreact and incorrectly classify smaller types of teenage crime as gang activity. It seems as if communities are prone to brand disorderly adolescent groups as gangs if the public believes them to be behaving in a delinquent manner. Although the definitions of youth gangs differ, most generally comprise this definition: “a self-formed group, united by mutual interests that controls a particular territory, facility, or enterprise; uses symbols in communications; and is collectively involved in crime” (Miller, 1992, p. 2). One of the major factors in determining whether a group of adolescents comprises a gang or an innocent social group is seen in the way in which each group relates to the larger community. Street gangs struggle continuously to establish bonds to their communities. This behavior is seen to have three predominant factors: the acquisition of a ‘safe haven’, the ability to recruit new members and the need to fulfill some of the emptiness they experienced in their early lives. That these connections are indeed made can be seen in the attitudes of these ‘safe havens’ toward the gang members, which are typically of the turn-the-other-cheek sort of reaction. While the gangs are not actively supported, they are not actively discouraged as the adults recognize their children’s need, sometimes because of their own early involvement or even current involvement in the gang. Personal interests, such as an agreement with gang members that there is too much police brutality present or fear of gang reprisals if an objection is voiced, also play a part in the community’s reaction to the development of gang activity in the neighborhood. In addition, gangs will often work to help members of the depressed community, becoming powerful and respected in their own rights. This humanitarianism toward their own group is often balanced with a brutality toward outsiders as well as members who step outside the rules of the gang and a lack of regard for the value of human life. However, because of this acceptance within their safe haven community, gang members are finding it unnecessary to depart from their criminal lifestyle, a lifestyle that ultimately damages society, in order to pursue more beneficial careers that provide them with even more opportunity to realize their humanitarian goals. Their assistance within the community has led to an apathetic response on the part of the community in assisting law enforcement in their deterrent efforts. This has further contributed to a lack of interest in conducting appropriate research and intervention attempts. Despite this, surveys have been completed to determine the prevalence of gang activity within the nation’s cities. In 1996, 3,000 law enforcement agencies were surveyed by the National Youth Gang Center. The results indicated that approximately two-thirds of the cities with populations greater than 25,000 had some kind of perceived gang activity, including 25 percent of the rural counties who responded. Many of these indicated that this gang activity had only been noticed in the mid-1990s, indicating that youth gangs are a large and growing problem within all aspects of American society (Moore & Terret, 1997, p. 89). This alarming trend has made it apparent more research is needed, but a growing fear among communities regarding the presence of gangs has led to a number of misconceptions that will make determining the actual scope and impact of youth gangs on society difficult to determine. Children typically join a gang young, often when they are only 12 or 13 years old. Although the demographics of gang members remain somewhat skewed toward the male gender, a number of girls have opted for membership in the gangs as well. At the younger end of the spectrum, gang membership between girls and boys is relatively equal, but this begins to thin out with age. Gangs are typically comprised of members between the ages of 12 and 24, with the average age remaining fairly steady at around 17 or 18 years old. In larger cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles, though, where the gangs have been active for a number of years, this average drifts toward the older side of the spectrum (Curry & Decker, 1998, p. 37). While the numbers of younger gang members are growing, the average age of members is also increasing. Gangs are progressively becoming proportionately older as they increase in total size throughout the country. Gangs also differ in size depending on the types of criminal activity associated with the gang. “Traditional (large, enduring, territorial) gangs average about 180 members, whereas specialty (e.g., drug trafficking) gangs average only about 25 members. In large cities, some gangs number in the thousands and even tens of thousands” (Block & Block, 1993, p. 40). The aging aspect of gang members is where the impact of today’s juvenile delinquency on the future quality of life in America can most be traced. Another factor contributing to the number of individuals choosing to remain within the gang even past age 24 remains the recent developments occurring in the U.S. economy. The switch from a production economy to a consumption economy has left a vast number of the populace in the have-nots side of the fence, contributing to the feelings of inadequacy among those who live in impoverished areas and exclusionist perceptions among the elite, including the politicians. The result of this switch has been a rash of public policy that works to support and secure the wealthy while providing little help or incentive for the unskilled worker that is unqualified to meet the new service oriented employment positions (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 31). Rather than choosing to starve on unskilled labor wages, typically at or below the minimum wage through such short-cuts as contract work and temporary employment, many gang members are choosing to remain members as a permanent lifestyle choice, effectively making the gang itself a major ghetto employer and the process of climbing the company ladder one of increasingly violent, dangerous and/or illegal activities (Hagedom, 2001, p. 157). Youngsters coming into this gang atmosphere see the success and prestige of their older members and are encouraged to follow in this same path as an alternative to the impoverished and isolated form of existence they experienced with their parents and their parents experienced all their lives. Participation in gangs also provides a great number of individuals with the education and ability for tremendous violence within the community if they so choose. Examples of this include Yasser Arafat, who reportedly learned his guerrilla warfare techniques as a street gang member when he was a boy in Cairo in the 1940s (Aburish, 1998, p. 9). The much-feared Italian Mafia, an organization that saw its beginnings as a rural rebel group in 19th-century Sicily, successfully made the transfer into American cities and provided already existing gangs with the knowledge and support necessary to wrest their own power out of the community (Hobsbawm, 1969, p. 40). Even prisons, designed to reduce the amount of crime and violence on American streets, are doing their part to increase the growth and spread of the modern gang. Individuals arrested and sent to prison are provided with a convenient gathering place for others who share their interests, leading to the formation of gangs both within and without the prison system, as these members are released back into general society. America’s War on Terror agenda, with its zero tolerance policy and mandatory minimum sentencing that requires prison time spent rather than any form of alternative rehabilitation efforts, has only exacerbated the problem. Through this system, young members of the community are introduced to the elements of society most likely to entice them into gang membership on their first offense when alternative methods of intervention might have worked to persuade the youth to follow a more beneficial path. The trends are clear to see as juvenile delinquency evolves into its modern and future forms. Children are no longer waiting until they’ve reached adulthood to commit their strongest crimes. They carry guns to school and exact revenge upon those they feel have wronged them with the slightest provocation. Although Columbine made front page news across the country, similar shootings in other schools have gained newspaper attention only when the newspaper is the hometown edition. This behavior is tracked into the working world as employees who have suffered too much humiliation or not received the raise or promotion they wanted suddenly show up to work with guns of their own, shooting just as indiscriminately as the kids in an effort to purge their anger. Children struggling through this confusing mix of influences are less likely to obtain sufficient high school education to progress to college, or even to believe collage is a viable option for them. Instead, they remain trained only for the lowest earning occupations available and must compete with an ever-increasing pool of workers for an ever-shrinking pool of available positions. The increasing numbers of juvenile delinquents results in a reduction of available college-trained graduates ready to step into the necessary service and other roles that will need to be filled as the older generations move toward retirement. This occurs even as the number of adults incarcerated in the nation’s prison system rises, creating a further drain on the nation’s resources. As it becomes impossible for the tax base to continue supporting the incarceration of these criminals and as the criminals become more and more adept at circumventing the law, the shift becomes one of an anarchic society in which the prevalent gangs of a given region, operating outside of the authority of the state, usurp the state’s authority. The future of America is indeed bleak if nothing is done to help turn the growth of the crime-oriented gang into a more positive influence on the community. Given little hope, little love, little acceptance and little opportunity, children experiencing significant risk factors such as family violence, poverty and alienation from the rest of society frequently can find no other options to fulfilling their basic human needs than joining the inner-city gangs. Because of the prevalence of these types of conditions, the gang phenomenon has now spread through the large cities out to the suburbs and even into rural areas. Studies have indicated that children experiencing two or more risk factors are at least twice as likely to participate in violent behavior, so the most logical approach to reducing violent crime would seem to be in efforts to intervene in these types of situations. The inherent need of children and adolescents to be included as valued members of society, as evidenced in their intense concentration on creating bonds with their communities, can be used to help lead them into more productive fields that will not only benefit them as individuals, but can work to benefit society as a whole as well. While they work to create these bonds and better their own living situations, intervention techniques that provide them with adequate primary education can be followed up with information about how they can obtain secondary education, giving them both hope for a better future out of the ghetto as well as the sense of importance and value they crave following their negative childhood experiences. At the same time, these types of efforts can lead to the education and training of tomorrow’s needed professionals. References Block, R. & Block, C.R. (1993). Street Gang Crime in Chicago. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 144782. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market. New York: New Press. Child Welfare Partnership. (1995). Domestic Violence Summary: The Intersection of Child Abuse and Domestic Violence. Portland, Ore.: Portland State University. Curry, G.D. & Decker, S.H. (1998). Confronting Gangs: Crime and Community. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Garbarino, James. (1999). Lost Boys: Why our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them. New York: The Free Press. Gordon, R.M. (1994). Incarcerating Gang Members in British Columbia: A Preliminary Study. Unpublished study. Victoria, BC: Ministry of the Attorney General. Hagedorn, J.M. (2001). “Gangs and the Informal Economy.” Gangs in America III. R. Huff (Ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hobsbawm, E. (1969). Bandits. New York: Pantheon. Miller, W.B. (1992, Revised from 1982). Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. NCJ 156221. Moore, J.P. & Terrett, C.P. (1997). Highlights of the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Moore, J.W. (1978). Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs and Prison in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Regier, D.A., & Cowdry, R.W. (1995). Research on Violence and Traumatic Stress (program announcement, PA 95-068). National Institute of Mental Health. Rosado, Lourdes M. (Ed.). (June 2000). The Pathways to Youth Violence: How Child Maltreatment and Other Risk Factors Lead Children to Chronically Aggressive Behavior. American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1990). Physical Violence in American Families. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, pp. 95-112. Thornberry, Terence P. (December 1994). “Violent Families and Youth Violence.” Albany, New York: School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Albany. Retrieved July 2006 from < http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fs-9421.txt.> “The Pathways to Youth Violence: How Child Maltreatment and Other Risk Factors Lead Children to Chronically Aggressive Behavior.” (September 2000). Understanding Adolescents: A Juvenile Court-Training Curriculum. Washington, D.C.: National Juvenile Defender Center. Read More