Growing Crime Problem of Juvenile Delinquency - Essay Example

Juvenile Delinquency: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow As long as there have been children, there have been juvenile delinquents. It is a child's nature to rebel, misbehave, and make errors of social judgment. However, throughout history society has viewed the special position of children differently with respect to the crimes they commit. The types of crimes that children commit have evolved over the decades and have become of critical importance in recent years with the increased prevalence of drugs and violence. In an effort to understand the special relationship that childhood crime has with our society, it's important to look at delinquency in the past as well as its current status. We can then make a speculation on the future and offer recommendations to confront this unique challenge. In the last 200 years in the United States, children have held a special status within the framework of the law. However, the age at which they were considered juveniles has been subject to change over the years. In the early 1800s, most children that we consider to be juveniles today were treated as adults under the law. As late as 1827, a child at the age of 10 was considered to be of age to accept full adult criminal responsibility under the law in Illinois (Ferro 2003 p.3). In fact, the term 'delinquency' did not appear in US law until the turn of the twentieth century as social upheaval transformed our urban areas and juvenile crime became more prevalent and problematic. During this period, industrialization had brought people together in large urban areas from all over the country and the world seeking employment in the newly established factories in cities such as Chicago, New York, and Detroit. Social pressures and poverty fueled rising crime in the general population. This rise in crime among adults was mirrored in the juvenile population. States have often held great authority over the handling of juvenile crime. Delinquents would often be relegated to poorhouses, county farms, or reform schools. But by the 1920s, America was more cognizant of juvenile crime and its effect on the established social order. The move to the Sun Belt during the 1930s and 1940s magnified the problem in cities such as Los Angeles and Phoenix. Crime statistics from this period are largely fragmented and anecdotal. However, there was a concern among the population about the growing juvenile delinquency problem. President Herbert Hoover created the Wickersham Commission to investigate the rising crime rate. The report issued in 1931 found that, "...turf wars were being waged in America's large cities by rival criminal groups fighting for control of bootleg liquor distribution" (Ferro 2003 p.4). Gang crime and their influence on juveniles continues to dominate the juvenile delinquency issue. The post World War II era saw a beginning of the rise in adult crime that was echoed by juvenile delinquency. Access to media, technology, and mobility has contributed to the problem. Beginning in 1960, there was an increase in juvenile delinquency that peaked in the early 1990s (Ferro 2003 p.4). However, beginning in 1980 there was also a rapid escalation in the violence of juvenile crime and the reported incidents of gang activity and guns. Between 1978 and 1993 violent crime by juveniles rose 79% and the murders committed by juveniles soared by 177% (Levitt 1998 p.1156). Though the overall juvenile crime rate has gone down in recent years, the rates of more serious and violent crimes have not seen as dramatic of a decline. According to statistics complied by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2001-2005 the total violent crime rate among juveniles has dropped, but forcible rape has not experienced the same decline (Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2006). Much of the prevalence of violent juvenile crime has come as a result of, or can be attributed to, gang activity (Ferro 2003 p.5). Juveniles in contact with gang members, whether peers or family members, may emulate their activity even though they may not be a member of a gang. In modern times, juvenile crime has been segregated into two distinct statuses. There is 'delinquency' which is a crime that would also be a crime if committed by an adult. This includes assault, robbery, or vandalism. There are also 'status crimes' which if the same action was taken by an adult would not be illegal. Status crimes include possession of alcohol, use of tobacco, or running away from home. To combat the rising rates of juvenile delinquency the government created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in 1974. Its mission is to offer resources and funding to communities and the juvenile justice system to assure that, "...it protects public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of juveniles and their families" (OJJDP n.d.). In addition, the OJJDP has acted as a clearinghouse to compile more complete statistics on juvenile crime and present a more clear national view of the problem. Juvenile crime statistics can be a difficult variable to analyze. Juvenile crime are often dismissed out of hand or settled locally without the intervention of official sanctioning institutions. Crimes such as assault by a juvenile on another juvenile may go unreported. Vandalism may be viewed as deviant behavior that does not enter criminality. There is the additional difficulty of interpreting the existing statistics. While there has been a marked increase in drug arrests among juveniles in the past few years, Snyder and Sickmund (2006) point out that the rise in rates may be due to society's lower tolerance and greater enforcement efforts as indicated by self-reporting surveys that show the rate of drug use has actually dropped (p.64). This effect may also be mirrored in other statistics such as the increased sensitivity and reporting of rape among juveniles. The overall goal of juvenile enforcement is to protect society and their property and to rehabilitate the juvenile. The concept of a separate juvenile court system is a relatively new concept and has been utilized to address the unique concerns of juveniles. Drug rehabilitation and education, early intervention, and addressing family issues are made possible by the separate court system. A study by Leve and Chamberlain (2004) found that the rising rate of delinquency among girls reported that, "Family environmental and child characteristics played a strong role in predicting which girls would be arrested at an earlier age" (p.439). It is in this light that the courts have attempted to confront juvenile delinquency as a social problem outside the criminal system. Drug courts and alternative sentencing have shown some success. While punitive measures for drug arrests have been unsuccessful, research has shown that violators that participate in alternative treatments are, "...less likely to be arrested, have fewer subsequent arrests, and have lower rates of substance abuse than offenders in comparison groups" (Rodriguez & Webb 2004 p.294). The future of combating juvenile delinquency is a challenging task and will require the continued efforts of both private and public institutions to effect a continued decline. The rise and fall of delinquency rates may be due to the ebbing and waning of social ills and pressures. The media has been blamed for the violence among teens and 50 years ago a congressional investigation blamed delinquency on, "... comic books and other types of printed matter; the radio, television, and motion pictures" (Committee on the Judiciary 1954 p.1). Today we blame video games and the Internet. Yet, the roots of delinquency lie in the social fabric that exists for the child. Delinquency has often been correlated with poverty and drugs, though it is more likely that the social pressures of poverty expose the child to greater opportunities for delinquency. Growing up in an impoverished neighborhood offers more exposure to drugs, crime, and deviance. Research by Sutherland in the 1930s found that, "...youths learn and practice delinquent behavior by associating with small, intimate peer groups that promote pro-criminal attitudes and beliefs" (Vander Ven 2003 p.45). This belief was echoed 10 years ago by Dr. Peter Greenwood (1996) the director of the Criminal Justice Program at the RAND Corporation (p.77). Parents who work outside the home and have limited opportunity for close supervision of their children may facilitate the child's access to delinquent peers. The economic pressures of a two-income family may be making it difficult to segregate the juvenile from the influences of their delinquent peers. Going forward, more research is needed to verify the effectiveness of alternative sentencing programs for juveniles. Early intervention into childhood delinquency has shown to be effective. Segregation of offenders from delinquent peers may reduce the associative influence that normalizes the child into deviant behavior. More importantly, the criminal justice system needs to address the social issues that may underlie the causes of delinquency. Family issues such as substance abuse or lack of supervision may be resolved to reduce or eliminate delinquency. As long as there are juveniles there will be juvenile delinquents. However, with increased attention and research the US can make progress toward combating this social ill and save the country's youth from a life of crime and incarceration. References Committee on the Judiciary. (1954). Comic Books and Juvenile Delinquency. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/kefauver.html Ferro, J. (2003). Juvenile Crime: Library in a Book. New York: Facts on File. Greenwood, P. W. (1996). Responding to juvenile crime: Lessons learned. The Juvenile Court, 6(3), 75-85. Leve, L. D., & Chaberlain, P. (2004). Female juvenile offenders: Defining an early onset pathway to delinquency [Electronic version]. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(4), 439-452. Levitt, S. D. (1998). Juvenile crime and punishment [Electronic version]. The Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1156-1185. from JSTOR. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2003). Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/index.html Rodriguez, N., & Webb, V. J. (2004). Multiple measures of juvenile drug court effectiveness: Results of a quasi-experimental design [Electronic version]. Crime & Delinquency, 50(2), 292-314. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/chapter3.pdf Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics (3rd ed.). (2006). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/index.html Vander Ven, T. (2003). Working Mothers and Juvenile Delinquency. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Read More