Juvenile Delinquency 1

Correlates of Crime

sex-males overrepresented, robbery most gendered

age- strongest correlate, 15-19 for larceny, 20-24 for agg assault

poverty- social class associate with serious and street crime only

race/ethnicity- white most likely to be arrested, Blacks overrepresented

3 Criterion for Causality

1. association

2. temporal/causal ordering (what came first)

3. nonsupuriousness (did not occur by chance)

Consensus Model

law=expression of shared values

we all agree on what is right and wrong

Control theories

Assumptions of Control Theories

single moral order (we all agree on what is right and wrong)

law reflects this

behavior is not relative

del is natural, not motivated

del=lack of control over impulses to deviate

Social Control, Strain/anomie theory

Social Control Theory

Hirschi- why dont we deviate?

weakened bonds=free to commit del

pop bottle- society=cap and constraint, if it gets weakened del happens

Inadequate socialization +weak bonds= del

Elements of Social Control/ Elements of Bonds

1. attachment 

2. commitment

3. involvement

4. belief in single moral order

Attachment to Others (social control)

sources: parents, teachers, peers

close and supportive relationships= decrease del

reactions of others to del is always negative

doesn’t matter if source of attachment is a criminal or not

most criminals cant form close relationships

Supervision and early attachment is important

rely on internalization of attachment t

attachment to peers does not always decrease del, but attachment to family does decrease  del

Commitment (social control)

investment of time and activity in conventional pursuits

ex. jobs, sports, education, religion, etc

del will jeopardize these investments 

research shows it works 

Involvement (social control)

keeping busy=less time for del

does not work (involvement without commitment does not work)

Belief in Single Moral Order (social control)

you believe the law and agree with what is right and wrong

variation in strength 

Subcultures and Social Control

do not exist bc of single moral order

cant form relationships to make a subculture

Policy Implications for Social Control

fostering commitment to jobs, sports, school ,ect

teaching parenting skills

Critiques of Social Control

single moral order

says delinquents are not normal kids and they are incapable of forming close bonds (not true)

Culture Conflict Model

groups disagree about what is right and wrong

law=outcome of political process

DAT

Self Control Theory

Labeling Theory

Assumptions of Culture Conflict Model

conflict over right and wrong

law reflects conflict

Behavior is relative

del=motivated

Differential Association Theory

Sutherland- del is learned through interactions with primary groups

3 necessary  conditions: definitions, techniques, opportunities

Definitions of DAT

motivations, rationalizations, attitudes that define behaviors

favorable: reasons to commit del (pro del)

unfavorable: reasons to not (anti del)

we learn both

Frequency, duration, priority, and intensity matter

can be specific or general

Techniques of DAT

skills necessary for del

individual or group roles

learned in interactions with primary groups

Opportunities of DAT

objective- what people think of, everyone sees

subjective- not everyone sees (learned)

Techniques of Rationalizations (DAT)

1. Denial of responsibility 

2. denial of injury (no harm done)

3. denial of the victim (they deserved it)

4. Condemning the condemners (cheating the gov but the gov doesnt care about me)

5. appeal to higher loyalties (something more important than law, gangs, cults,etc)

Policy Implications of DAT

mentoring programs (Big Brother Big Sister)

Parenting courses and programs

reduce influence of del peers or chance the orientation of a peer group (detached gang worker programs, conflict resolution programs0

Critiques of DAT

society is not in disagreement over law

measuring definitions is hard

offenders as too passive (free will?) (people too easily influenced by others)

Self Control Theory

Gottfrdson and Hirschi

low self control= del

looked at del behavior then infer characteristics of del people

Del is… (self control)

1. immediate gratification of desires (impulsive)

2. short sighted, affects long term commitments

3. thrilling, risky, min physical skills 

4. little skill/planning

5. causes pain/suffering

People with Low Self Control Are..

impulsive, physical, risk seeking, shameless, nonverbal, short sighted, etc

people who have these= more likely to commit del

Generality of Deviance for Self Control

low self control= engage in other immediate pleasures like drugs, eating, impulsive spending, cheating, gambling, divorce, etc

low self control=analogous behaviors 

Stability of Self Control

self control is identified early at 8-10 and does not change

self control is stable over life course

other theories say its possible to change

high self control are always unlikely to be deviant

Roots of Self Control

1.parents: parents identify deviance and punish

people with low self control will be bad at this

Attachment, supervision, recognition, and punishment

2.school/ teachers:low self control is hard to change in institutions

parent cooperation is needed

Subcultures and Self Control

cant exist bc single moral order

criminals lack social skills so cant form organized groups

Research on Self Control

Associations between low self control and del

as people age our bonds reduce del, regardless of self control

Policy Implications on Self Control

improve early childrearing

parents and schools work together

Critiques of Self Control

ignores racism, poverty, ecology

no evidence that criminals can be distinguished from non criminals based on personality 

self control may vary with age

ignores moral beliefs

Tautological 

Family Structure

1. family disruption (1 or 2 parents) (single mom households)

uses police data which is biased

meta analysis say family structure has small effect

2. family size and birth order

larger families=more del risk

middle child=more risk for del (less supervision, forgotten)

Family Process

1. relationship between child and parent

2. divorce and parental conflict

3. child abuse and neglect

Relationship between child and parents

attachment= predictor

supervision: watching/direct= younger kids and networks (other parents)=older kids

discipline=problem when inconsistent, overly harsh, or overly lenient, or coercive

Inductive discipline: parents explain why something is wrong (works good)

coercive discipline: threaten kid, physical punishments, extreme control without explaining the problem  (bad)

Divorce and Parental Conflict

divorce= less supervision and time with kids

some kids experience more negative effects than a death of a parent

after 5 years, 1/3 kids worse off than before divorce

relationship between parent and child is key

extreme conflict between parents can be worse than divorce

Child Abuse and Neglect

abuse: avert physical aggression

neglect: passive acts of cruelty/ failure to take care of kid

use official data, self report, surverys, etc

but lots of surveys wont ask about abuse and most do not get reported

hard to know true prevalence 

Consequences of physical abuse: harm, learn violence, attachment problems

Physical Punishment- Stausu’s Research

in short run= leads to conformity

in long run=leads to increased del and family violence

Visiting Nurse Program

for 1st time mothers who are young and vulnerable 

teach them how to take care of baby, help with home life, education, nutrition, future, etc.

research shows that it helps

mothers and babies had less physical problems compared to those who did have program

Individual Level Strain Theory

Agnew- consensus model

negative relationships lead to strain (mostly anger) (cause must be there)

Sources of Strain

failure to get positive stimuli

loss of positive stimuli (friends, school, sport)

presence of negative stimuli (bullying, abuse)

negative stimuli leads to: escape physically, seek revenge, escape using drugs

problem: everyone experiences  stressors so missing legal coping skills

Legal Coping Skills

alternative behavior

outlets, social supports, anti del attitudes , etc

help to deal with stressors

Policy Implications for Strain Theory

reduce repeated exposure to stressors

give kids legal coping skills

Evaluation of Strain Theory

anger and emotion is important

coping skills determine who will commit del. and that is also in other theories (social supports, identities, attitudes)

Del and Temperament

Temperament: natural mood disposition

our international styles lead to env responses

feedback loop= children’s  characteristic’s and response from parents and others are in a loop

can lead to negative trajectories 

3 Temperament Types

1. Emotionality- stoic to intense

2. activity- lethargy to high energy

3. sociability- withdrawn to intense

difficult children= high energy and intense emotionality 

Sociability does not matter

difficult children increase chance of violent del

Patterson and Difficult Children

causes: parents dont know how to deal with difficult children

parents with difficult children lead to: ignore kids, rage at kid, punish kid when frustrated rather than when the behavior was problematic

Patterson: Kids React in Pattern

1st time- non compliant at home

later, can be physically abusive to parent

over time, family conflict escalates and flows outside of family (impact school and peer env)

Patterson and Antisocial Behavior

extreme antisocial behavior + problems and coercive family process= increase failure in school, peer rejection, and depressed mood

cyclical= all makes antisocial behavior/ del worse

Warr- Companions in Crime

in adolescence= importance of peers is huge

fear of ridicule= fear of rejection

Loyalty is important

status in peer group is important

Peer Influence

Adolescent groups innovate moral codes (different ideas about right and wrong)

concerns with acceptance =accepting alternative  morals

consistent with DAT

2 Constructs most Studied for Peers

1. attachment to peers (emotional relationship)

2. del friends/peers

Does Attachment to Peers Effect Del

Hirschi- close relationships should reduce del. (peer attachment decreases del)

others say peer attachment increases del

Do Friends Cause Del

DAT- yes bc learning techniques

Social Control Theories- no, bc del is natural and in us

Strain- del is motivated by negative emotions 

Tannenbuam’s Dramatization of Evil

labeling theory

normal kid behavior- viewed as a problem- attitude of community hardens- label kid as deviant- internalize label- isolated from community- associate with other deviant kids- innovate own norms- more del

Lemerts Labeling Perspective

deviance amplification

Original cause- primary deviance- society reacts- develop del identity- increase chances of secondary del 

self fulfilling prophecy

Evidence for Labeling Theory

official CJ system labeling leads to negative impact on identity (works best for first time offenders)

informal labeling by parents/peers/teachers also has big impact

Policy Implications for Labeling Theory

Lemert- diversion programs, first offender programs, keeps people out of system 

ex. community service, required counseling, washing cars

what happens: diversion leads to labeling

effect: more people exposed to a label

Critiques of Labeling Theory

limitations- extreme position on relativism (no original cause), too deterministic (passive actors with no free will), outcomes vary across type of offenders

Dropping out and Del

Statistically significant association- dropouts are more likely to commit del

dropout rates vary by race, ethnicity, and SES

Highest rate is for American Indian/Alaskan Native, lowest is Asian

minorities have highest dropout rate and more likely to live in poverty

Elliots and Voss Classical Study: Dropout by SES

lower SES dropouts=lower del. (bc they’re working)

higher SES dropouts=high del.

alternative: lower SES=higher del in school bc they’re not committed to something

Academic Ability and Del (Hirsch & Hindelang)

academic ability is cause of del. 

measure of academic ability- poor school performance- alienation from school-rejection of school authority-del

Academic Ability and Del (Menard & Morse)

IQ is important bc used as a label

academic ability- academic performance- negative label- del peers-del

alienation from school does not explain del

Tracking and Del.

college track coursed correlated with: higher grades, commitment to education, involvement in activities, lower drop out, and lower del.

kids in non college track courses have higher del, regardless of being the same race, SES and grades

being assigned to lower reading/lower performance= due to pass label

Explanations of Tracking and Del

stigma, labeling

self fulfilling prophecy 

student subculture and peer influence 

commitment to school

different teaching motivations

Criticisms of Tracking

class and race bias

tracks tend to be too permanent

labeling effects and hurts self image

Factors Associated with Crime in Schools

crime in the neighborhood

school size and structure (larger=more crime)

school governance

clear disciplinary policies

student commitment to education

Policy Recommendations for Crime in Schools

bullying prevention

foster culture of nonviolence

regulate kid’s access to guns

Suspension and Expulsion 

concern for safety leads to more suspensions for trivial matters

school suspension rates not related to actual crime rates

zero tolerance polices created out of concern over high profile school shooting cases (increased police, metal detectors)

kids who get suspended= more likely to leave school permanently and land in CJ system