Available within Connect, SmartBook 2.0 is an adaptive learning solution that provides personalized learning to individual student needs, continually adapting to pinpoint knowledge gaps and focus learning on concepts requiring additional study. SmartBook 2.0 fosters more productive learning, taking the guesswork out of what to study, and helps students better prepare for class. With the ReadAnywhere mobile app, students can now read and complete SmartBook 2.0 assignments both online and off-line. For instructors, SmartBook 2.0 provides more granular control over assignments with content selection now available at the concept level. SmartBook 2.0 also includes advanced reporting features that enable instructors to track student progress with actionable insights that guide teaching strategies and advanced instruction, for a more dynamic class experience. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © 2018, 2015, 2012, 2009 by Oxford University Press © 2005, 2001 by Roxbury Publishing Company For titles covered by Section 112 of the US Higher Education Opportunity Act, please visit www.oup.com/us/he for the latest information about pricing and alternate formats. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data CIP data on file with Library of Congress ISBN: 9780190641610 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed by LSC Communications, Inc. Contents An Important Message for Instructors xvi An Overview of This Book xx Acknowledgments xxii PA R T 1 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency 1 1 What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 3 Juvenile Delinquents Are Viewed Differently than Adult Criminals 4 Juvenile Delinquents Are Treated Differently than Adult Criminals 6 Special Laws for Juveniles: Status Offenses 6 A Special Court for Juveniles: Juvenile Court 7 Special Correctional Programs for Juveniles 9 How Can We Explain the Invention of Juvenile Delinquency? 10 Changing Conception of Children 11 Major Social Changes, Especially the Growth of Urban Slums 11 Gender, Race, and the Invention of Delinquency 13 Our View and Treatment of Juvenile Offenders Continues to Evolve 14 “Getting Tough” with Juvenile Offenders (Late 1980s Through the Early 2000s) 14 Retreating from the Get-Tough Approach (Since the Early 2000s) 17 Summary 20 Teaching Aids 20 Web-Based Exercises 20 Controversial Case 21 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 22 Thought and Discussion Questions 23 Key Terms 23 Endnotes 23 2 How Is Delinquency Measured? 25 Official Statistics—Especially Arrest Data from the Police 26 Problems with Arrest Data 29 Summary 32 iii iv Contents Self-Report Data 33 How Do We Know that Juveniles Are Telling the Truth? 33 Problems with Many Self-Report Surveys 35 Recent Self-Report Surveys Have Made Much Progress in Overcoming the Preceding Problems 37 Victimization Data 38 Problems with Victimization Data 39 Summary 40 Teaching Aids 40 A Challenge 40 Practical Advice: Three Things to Beware of When Others Discuss the Extent of and Trends in Delinquency (and a Challenge) 41 Web-Based Exercise: Measuring the Extent of Rape 42 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 42 Thought and Discussion Questions 43 Key Terms 43 Answers to the Challenge 43 Endnotes 44 3 How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 45 How Much Delinquency Is There? 46 How Many Juveniles Are Arrested, and What Are They Arrested For? 46 How Much Self-Reported Delinquency Is There? 48 How Many Juveniles Are Victimized, and How Many Victimizations Are Committed by Juveniles? 51 Summary 53 Is Juvenile Delinquency Increasing? 53 Are Juvenile Arrests Increasing? 55 Is Self-Reported Delinquency Increasing? 58 Are Victimizations Committed by Juveniles Increasing? 60 Summary 60 How Can We Explain the Dramatic Decline in Serious Crime Since the Mid-1990s? 62 Teaching Aids 64 Exercise: The Extent of and Trends in Campus Crime 64 Web-Based Exercise: Finding the Latest Information on the Extent of and Trends in Crime and Delinquency 64 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 66 Thought and Discussion Questions 66 Key Terms 67 Endnotes 67 4 Who Is Most Likely to Engage in Delinquency? Is Social Class Related to Delinquency? 69 Early Studies Based on Arrest Data 70 Early Self-Report Studies 70 Criticisms of the Early Self-Report Studies 71 68 Contents v The Later Self-Report Studies 74 Summary 76 Are Race and Ethnicity Related to Delinquency? 76 Arrest Data 76 Criticisms of Arrest Data 77 Self-Report Data 77 Victimization Data 78 Is Race Related to Delinquency? 79 Are Race Differences in Serious Delinquency Explained by Social Class? 79 Is Age Related to Delinquency? 80 Is Gender Related to Delinquency? 82 Arrest Data 83 Self-Report Data 84 Summary 85 Are There Different Types of Delinquents? 85 An Overview of the Research on the Different Types of Delinquents 86 What Are the Different Types of Delinquents? 88 Summary 89 Teaching Aids 89 Exercise 1: Perceptions of Race and Crime 89 Exercise 2: Why Do Asian Americans Have Lower Crime Rates? 90 Exercise 3: Explaining the Association Between Gender and Crime 90 Exercise 4: Girls’ Delinquency 91 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 91 Thought and Discussion Questions 92 Key Terms 93 Endnotes 93 PA R T 2 The Causes of Delinquency: Theories 95 5 What Is a Theory and How Do We Test Theories? 97 What Is a Theory? 98 What Are the Basic Parts of a Theory? 98 Why Is It Important to Study Theories of Delinquency? 99 How Do We Test Theories of Delinquency (or Determine Whether Some Factor Causes Delinquency)? 99 The Scientific Method 100 Carefully Define Your Independent and Dependent Variables 100 Decide How to Gather Data to Test Your Belief or Theory 101 Develop Measures of Your Independent and Dependent Variables 103 Select a Sample of Juveniles to Survey 104 Analyze the Data You Have Collected 105 Summary 110 Teaching Aids 110 Some Challenges 110 Web-Based Resources for Your Criminological Research Project 111 vi Contents Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 112 Thought and Discussion Questions 112 Key Terms 113 Answers to the Challenges 113 Endnote 114 6 Strain Theory 7 Social Learning Theory 115 What Are the Major Types of Strain? 117 The Failure to Achieve Your Goals 117 Loss of Positive Stimuli/Presentation of Negative Stimuli 121 What Impact Does Strain Have on the Juvenile? 123 Why Are Some Juveniles More Likely to Cope with Strain Through Delinquency? 125 Summary 126 Teaching Aids 126 Case Studies 126 Web-Based Exercise: Applying Strain Theory 128 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 128 Thought and Discussion Questions 129 Key Terms 129 Endnotes 129 131 Juveniles Learn to Engage in Delinquency from Others 133 The Differential Reinforcement of Delinquency 133 The Frequency, Amount, and Relative Probability of Reinforcement 134 Positive and Negative Reinforcement 134 Punishment 134 The Sources of Reinforcement and Punishment 135 Some Individuals Are More Likely to Be Reinforced for Delinquency than Others 135 Intermittent Reinforcement 137 Discriminative Stimuli 137 Research on the Reinforcement and Punishment of Delinquency 138 Beliefs Favorable to Delinquency 138 Generally Approve of Minor Delinquency 139 Conditionally Approve of Delinquency, Including Some Serious Delinquency 139 General Values Conducive to Delinquency 140 Where Do the Beliefs Favorable to Delinquency Come From? 141 The Imitation of Delinquent Models 141 Summary 144 Teaching Aids 144 Controversial Cases 144 Web-Based Exercise: Learning to Hate 146 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 147 Thought and Discussion Questions 147 Contents vii Key Terms 148 Endnotes 148 8 Control Theory 9 Labeling Theory 149 Why Do Juveniles Conform (and Sometimes Deviate)? 150 How Is Control Theory Similar to and Different from Social Learning Theory? 151 What Are the Major Types of Control (or Restraints to Delinquency)? 152 Direct Control 153 Stake in Conformity 155 Belief 157 Self-Control 159 Summary 160 Teaching Aids 161 Controversial Issue: The Nature of Human Nature 161 Controversial Methods for Increasing Direct Control 162 Web-Based Exercise: Where Do Theories Come From? 163 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 163 Thought and Discussion Questions 164 Key Terms 164 Endnotes 164 166 Background on Labeling Theory 168 How Do Others React to the Juvenile’s Delinquency? 169 Harsh/Rejecting Reaction 169 Failure to Respond to the Juvenile’s Delinquency 171 “Condemn the Delinquency but Accept the Juvenile” Reaction 172 Summary 173 Why Does the Harsh/Rejecting Reaction Lead to Further Delinquency? 173 Reduces Control 173 Increases Strain 174 Increases the Social Learning of Delinquency 174 Creates a Delinquent Self-Concept 175 What Determines Whether Juveniles Experience the Harsh/Rejecting Reaction? 175 Are Some Juveniles More Likely than Others to Respond to the Harsh/Rejecting Reaction with Further Delinquency? 179 The Evidence on Labeling Theory 180 Summary 182 Teaching Aids 183 Controversial Issue #1: Going Too Far? Zero-Tolerance Policies in the Nation’s Schools 183 Controversial Issue #2: Is It Sometimes Best to Ignore Delinquency? 184 Web-Based Exercise: Applying Labeling Theory (Race and Labeling) 184 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 185 viii Contents Thought and Discussion Questions 185 Key Terms 186 Endnotes 186 10 11 The Life Course 187 Why Do Most Individuals Increase Their Levels of Offending During Adolescence? 189 The Biological and Social Changes Associated with Adolescence 189 A Reduction in Control 190 An Increase in the Social Learning for Crime 191 An Increase in Strain 191 Summary 192 Why Do a Small Percentage of Individuals Offend at High Rates over Much of Their Lives? 192 Traits Conducive to Crime 195 Poor Parenting 195 High Rates of Offending over the Life Course 196 Summary 196 Summary 197 Teaching Aids 197 Web-Based Exercise: Comparing Adult and Juvenile Offenders 197 Controversial Issue: An Evolutionary Theory of Adolescence-Limited Offending 197 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 199 Thought and Discussion Questions 199 Key Terms 199 Endnotes 199 Is Delinquency More Likely in Certain Types of Situations? 201 What Types of Situations Are Most Conducive to Delinquency? 202 Strain Theory: Situational Strains 203 Strain Theory: Situational Factors that Increase the Likelihood of Delinquent Coping 204 Social Learning and Control Theories: The Benefits and Costs of Delinquency 205 Attractive Targets 206 The Absence of Capable Guardians 208 The Presence of Delinquent Peers 208 Summary 208 What Factors Influence the Likelihood that Predisposed Offenders Will Encounter Situations Conducive to Delinquency? 209 The Nature of the Individual’s Routine Activities 210 Factors Influencing Routine Activities 211 Summary 212 Summary 212 Teaching Aids 212 Contents ix Applying the Research: Examining the Routine Activities of College Students 212 Web-Based Exercise: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 213 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 213 Thought and Discussion Questions 214 Key Terms 214 Endnotes 214 12 Group Differences in Delinquency 215 Why Are Crime Rates Higher in Some Communities than in Others? 216 What Are the Characteristics of High-Crime Neighborhoods and Cities? 217 Summary 219 Are Communities with Characteristics Conducive to Crime Becoming More Common? 219 Why Are Deprived Communities Higher in Crime? 223 Deprived Communities Are Higher in Strain 223 Deprived Communities Are Lower in Control 225 Deprived Communities Foster the Social Learning of Crime 227 Community Crime Rates Reduce Control, Foster the Social Learning of Crime, and Increase Strain 229 Overview of the Leading Theories of Delinquency 230 Teaching Aids 231 Exercise: Increasing Community Control 231 Exercise: Explaining Other Group Differences in Crime 232 Web-Based Exercise: Societal Differences in Crime and Delinquency 232 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 233 Thought and Discussion Questions 234 Key Terms 234 Endnotes 234 PA R T 3 The Causes of Delinquency: Research 237 13 Individual Traits 241 Are Juveniles with Certain Traits More Likely to Engage in Delinquency? 242 Low Verbal IQ 243 Low Self-Control 243 Irritability 244 Summary 245 Why Are Some Individuals More Likely than Others to Possess These Traits? 245 Biological Influences on Traits 245 Environmental Influences on Traits 248 Is Mental Illness Related to Violence? 250 Summary 252 x Contents Teaching Aids 252 Controversial Issue: Should Delinquents Be Held Responsible for Their Behavior? 252 Web-Based Exercise: Programs for Mentally Ill Offenders 253 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 253 Thought and Discussion Questions 254 Key Terms 254 Endnotes 254 14 The Family 256 15 The School 275 The Effect of the Family on Delinquency 257 Family Structure 258 Are Juveniles from Single-Parent Homes More Delinquent? 258 Does the Mother’s Employment Outside the Home Increase Delinquency? 259 Does Placing Juveniles in Childcare Facilities Increase the Likelihood of Delinquency? 260 Are Teenage Parents More Likely to Have Delinquent Children? 261 Are Juveniles from Large Families More Delinquent? 261 Parental and Sibling Crime/Deviance 262 Are Juveniles with Criminal or Deviant Parents and Siblings More Likely to Be Delinquent? 262 The Quality of Family Relationships 263 Are Juveniles Who Have Warm or Close Relationships with Their Parents Less Delinquent? 263 Parental Socialization 265 What Should Parents Do to Teach Their Children to Avoid Delinquency? 265 What Should Parents Do to Teach Their Children to Engage in Conventional Behavior? 268 Summary 269 Why Do Some Parents Employ Poor Parenting Practices? 269 A Note on Genes, Parenting, and Delinquency 270 Teaching Aids 271 Exercise: Putting Your Knowledge to Use 271 Web-Based Exercise: An Inside Look at a Troubled Family 271 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 271 Thought and Discussion Questions 272 Key Terms 272 Endnotes 273 What School Experiences Contribute to Delinquency? 276 Do School Experiences Cause Delinquency? 277 Why Do Some Juveniles Have Negative School Experiences? 278 School Characteristics and Delinquency 279 How Much Delinquency Occurs at School? 279 How Can We Explain School Differences in Delinquency? 283 Teaching Aids 285 Applying Theories and Research 285 Contents xi Web-Based Exercise: More Information on School Violence, Including Bullying 286 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 286 Thought and Discussion Questions 287 Key Terms 287 Endnotes 287 16 Delinquent Peers and Gangs 17 Other Social Influences 289 What Impact Do Delinquent Peers Have on Delinquency? 290 Under What Conditions Are Delinquent Peers Most Likely to Cause Delinquency? 291 What Are Delinquent Peer Groups Like? 292 Why Are Individuals in Delinquent Groups More Likely to Engage in Delinquency? 293 Why Are Some Juveniles More Likely than Others to Get Involved with Delinquent Peers? 294 What Impact Do Gangs Have on Delinquency? 295 What Is a Street Gang? 295 How Common Are Gangs? 296 Are Gangs Becoming More Common? 296 What Effect Do Gangs Have on Crime and Delinquency? 297 What Are the Characteristics of Gang Members? 299 How Are Gangs Organized or Structured? 300 What Are Female Gangs Like? 300 Why Do Some Juveniles Join Gangs? 301 Why Do Some Communities Develop Gangs? 304 How Can We Explain Long-Term Trends in Gang Activity? 304 Summary 306 Teaching Aids 306 Controversial Issue: What Is a Gang? 306 Web-Based Exercise: An Examination of Two Major Gangs 306 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 307 Thought and Discussion Questions 308 Key Terms 308 Endnotes 308 311 Does Religion Reduce Delinquency? 312 The Evidence 313 Does Work Reduce Delinquency Among Juveniles Attending School? 314 The Evidence 314 Does Mass Media Violence Cause Violence Among Juveniles? 315 TV and Movie Violence 315 Violent Video Games 317 Music with Violent Themes 318 Does Media Violence Affect Some Juveniles More than Others? 319 Summary 319 xii Contents Does Social Media Engagement Increase the Risk of Delinquent Behavior? 321 The Evidence 322 Summary 323 Do Drugs Increase the Likelihood of Delinquency? 324 Reasons that Drugs May Affect Delinquency 324 The Evidence 327 Do Guns Increase the Likelihood of Delinquency? 327 How Common Is Gun Ownership and Possession Among Juveniles? 328 Do Guns Contribute to Delinquency? 330 Do Guns Prevent More Crime than They Contribute To? 332 Summary 333 Teaching Aids 333 Controversial Issue: Should Marijuana Be Legalized? 333 Web-Based Exercise: Guns Across the Globe 335 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 335 Thought and Discussion Questions 336 Endnotes 336 18 Pulling It All Together 339 A Brief Review of the Theories and Research on the Causes of Delinquency 341 Theories 341 Research 342 A General Theory of Delinquency 343 The Major Direct Causes of Delinquency and Why They Cause It 343 How All These Clusters Are Related 344 How Biological Factors and the Larger Social Environment Affect the Clusters 345 Explaining Group Differences In Delinquency 347 Using the General Theory to Explain Why Males Have Higher Rates of Delinquency than Females 347 The Special Role of Sexual Abuse in Explaining Serious Female Offending 349 An Overview of the General Theory of Delinquency 349 Teaching Aids 349 Web-Based Exercise: Applying the General Theory 349 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 350 Thought and Discussion Questions 350 Key Terms 351 Endnotes 351 PA R T 4 The Control and Prevention of Delinquency 353 19 Policies and Programs 357 The Experimental Model for Determining Program Effectiveness 358 The Importance of Doing Randomized Experiments 361 Problems in Doing Randomized Experiments 363 Contents xiii What If One Is Not Able to Do a Randomized Experiment? 364 Why Are Some Programs Ineffective at Reducing Delinquency? 365 Summary 366 Teaching Aids 366 Web-Based Exercise: The Importance (and Sometimes Neglect) of Good Evaluation Research 366 Some Challenges 367 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 367 Thought and Discussion Questions 368 Key Terms 368 Answers to Challenges 368 Endnote 369 20 The Police 21 Juvenile Court and Corrections 370 How Do the Police Operate? 371 Preventive Patrol Is the Major Type of Policing 371 The Police Spend Only a Small Amount of Their Time Dealing with Crime 372 Policing Is Primarily Reactive in Nature 372 When the Police Do Discover or Hear About a Crime, They Usually Do Not Catch the Offender 372 If the Police Do Catch a Suspect, They Usually Do Not Arrest the Person 373 How Effective Is Preventive Patrol? 374 How Can the Police Increase Their Effectiveness? 374 Will Hiring More Police Reduce Delinquency? 374 Will Police Crackdowns Reduce Delinquency? 375 Will Community Policing Reduce Delinquency? 380 Summary 385 Teaching Aids 386 Web-Based Exercises 386 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 387 Thought and Discussion Questions 388 Key Terms 388 Endnotes 388 390 What Happens When Juveniles Are Sent to Juvenile Court? 391 What Are the Major Goals of Juvenile Court? 391 How Many Cases Does Juvenile Court Handle, and What Types Does the Court Deal With? 392 What Are the Major Stages in the Juvenile Court Process? 393 Juvenile Corrections: What Happens to Juveniles Who Receive a Disposition or Sentence from the Court? 401 Formal Probation 401 Intermediate Sanctions 402 A Renewed Focus on Rehabilitation 403 Out-of-Home Placements 404 Aftercare Services 411 xiv Contents An Overview of the Juvenile Justice Process 412 Teaching Aids 413 Controversial Issue 413 Web-Based Resources and Activities 413 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 414 Thought and Discussion Questions 415 Key Terms 415 Endnotes 416 22 The Juvenile Justice System 23 The Strategies of Deterrence and Incapacitation 417 Does the Juvenile Justice System Discriminate Against African Americans? 419 The Extent of Discrimination Varies Across Police Departments and Juvenile Courts 420 The Extent of Discrimination May Vary by Type of Crime 421 Small Amounts of Discrimination at Different Points in the Juvenile Justice Process Can Have a Large Overall Effect 421 Racial Discrimination May Be Direct or Indirect 421 What Can Be Done to Address the Overrepresentation of Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System? 422 Does the Juvenile Justice System Discriminate Against the Poor and Against Males or Females? 425 Summary 426 Teaching Aids 426 Controversial Issue 426 Race and Experiences with the Police 426 Web-Based Exercise: The Disproportionate Minority Contact Initiative 427 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 427 Thought and Discussion Questions 428 Key Terms 428 Endnotes 429 430 Are the Juvenile Court and Correctional System Tough Enough in Dealing with Offenders, Especially Serious Offenders? 432 Efforts to Get Tough with Serious Offenders 433 Some Get-Tough Measures 434 How Effective Are Get-Tough Measures, and What Can Be Done to Increase Their Effectiveness? 436 Deterrence 436 Specific Deterrence 436 General Deterrence 440 Incapacitation: Will Locking Up Delinquents Reduce Delinquency? 443 Summary 449 Teaching Aids 450 Controversial Issue: Life Without Parole for Juvenile Offenders? 450 Web-Based Exercise: Restorative Justice in Practice 451 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 451 Contents xv Thought and Discussion Questions 452 Key Terms 452 Endnotes 453 24 The Strategies of Prevention and Rehabilitation 25 What Should We Do to Reduce Delinquency? 454 A Brief History of Prevention and Rehabilitation 456 How Effective Are Prevention and Rehabilitation Programs? 458 General Characteristics of Effective Prevention and Rehabilitation Programs 458 What Are the Characteristics of Successful Prevention/Rehabilitation Programs in Different Areas? 462 Programs Focusing on the Early Family Environment 462 Parent Training Programs 464 Programs Focusing on School Factors 466 Programs Focusing on Individual Traits 468 Programs Focusing on Delinquent Peers and Gangs 470 Selected Other Prevention and Rehabilitation Programs 473 The Critical Role of Larger Social Forces in Preventing Delinquency 475 Summary 477 Teaching Aids 477 Web-Based Exercise: Finding the Latest Information on Programs and Practices for Reducing Delinquency 477 Exercise: Extend Your Knowledge of Rehabilitation and Prevention Programs 478 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 479 Thought and Discussion Questions 479 Key Terms 480 Endnotes 480 483 We Should Place More Emphasis on Prevention and Rehabilitation 484 We Should Hold Juveniles Accountable for Their Behavior and Protect the Community 486 Teaching Aids 488 Exercise: What Should We Do to Reduce Delinquency? 488 Web-Based Exercise: Interested in a Career in Criminology/Corrections? 488 Test Your Knowledge of This Chapter 488 Thought and Discussion Questions 488 Endnotes 489 References 490 Photo Credits 593 Author Index 594 Subject Index 604 An Important Message for Instructors C riminologists often complain about the limited impact of their discipline on public perceptions and crime control policy. We believe that a major reason for this limited impact lies with our introductory textbooks. Our texts are perhaps the chief way in which we communicate with the larger community. Yet, with a few notable exceptions, they do not provide students with a clear sense of what causes delinquency and what can be done to control it. Rather, our texts tend to overwhelm and confuse students. Students get lost in all the theories of delinquency that are presented; they have trouble drawing conclusions from the discussions of empirical research, since contradictory studies are often described, with little effort to sort them; and they are not provided with a good overview of the most promising approaches to delinquency control and prevention. If the readers of such texts were asked to explain why juveniles engage in delinquency or what should be done to control it, we venture to say that most would respond with blank stares or jumbled answers. This book is very different from most delinquency texts now on the market, and those differences are described next. MORE FOCUSED The book is more focused than current texts. The dominant texts attempt to cover all the major research on delinquency. This text does not attempt to cover all major areas in the field. Rather, it devotes serious attention to what we consider to be the three major questions in the field: What is the nature and extent of delinquency? What are the causes of delinquency? What strategies should we employ to control delinquency? Students reading this text should be able to give reasonable answers to these questions. We are not sure that this is the case with many current texts. At the same time, you may feel that this text does not devote adequate attention to certain topics. But the relatively low cost of this text should make it easy for you to cover whatever additional topics you like with supplemental readings. In fact, we encourage this approach. We believe it is important for students to read articles and other books that describe original research and discuss particular issues in detail. There are many wonderful articles and books on delinquency, like Code of the Street by Anderson (1999) and “The Saints and the Roughnecks” by Chambliss (1973). We think it would be unfortunate for students to take a delinquency course without being exposed to these materials. And we believe that this view is becoming more common, as reflected in the increased number of delinquency readers and “companion” texts being offered by publishers. MORE SYNTHETIC APPROACH TO DELINQUENCY THEORY AND RESEARCH This text differs from most current texts in that it employs a more “synthetic” approach to delinquency theory and research. Most texts spend a great deal of time describing xvi An Important Message for Instructors xvii delinquency theories and research but make little effort to synthesize such theory and research. For example, they describe (often superficially) the four or five different versions of strain theory that now dominate the literature. They also describe the research on each of these versions of strain theory, noting both supportive and nonsupportive studies. They do not, however, attempt to draw on this theory and research in the interest of developing an up-to-date, comprehensive version of strain theory. Students reading such texts get caught up in trying to memorize all the different versions of strain theory (and other theories) and the mixed evidence on each version. They come away confused and overwhelmed. Unlike virtually all other texts, our text does not describe the different versions of all the major delinquency theories. Rather, we attempt to synthesize the best of the current delinquency theories into a set of four “generic” theories: a strain-based theory, a social learning theory, a control-based theory, and a labeling-based theory. Since these generic theories represent a synthesis of the best of current theory and research, our empirical assessments of them are somewhat more optimistic than those found in other textbooks. After presenting the four generic theories, we devote several chapters to the major research on the causes of delinquency, including the research on individual traits, family factors, school experiences, and delinquent peer groups and gangs. We make a special effort to state, in a clear, concise manner, the major conclusions that can be drawn from these different areas of research. At the same time, we make note of problems in the research, and we attempt to sort through contradictory studies where necessary. The final section of the book, Part 4, provides an overview of the police, the juvenile courts, and juvenile corrections. It then discusses four general strategies for controlling delinquency: deterrence, incapacitation, prevention, and rehabilitation. We describe the evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies and discuss ways to increase their effectiveness. While we provide examples of successful programs and policies in these areas, our major focus is on describing the general features of those programs and policies that appear to be the most successful. Many instructors may object to this synthetic approach, especially as it applies to delinquency theories. We do not explicitly discuss certain popular theories. The four theories we present, however, dominate the delinquency literature, and we believe that they capture the essential ideas of most other theories. In particular, our discussion of these four theories presents the major arguments associated with rational choice, routine activities, self-control, life course, social disorganization, subcultural deviance, and certain aspects of conflict and feminist theories. To give a few examples, we describe how these theories explain patterns of offending over the life course, and in doing so we present the essential ideas from the leading theories of crime and the life course. We describe how these theories explain why crime is more likely in some situations than others, and in doing so we present the essential ideas of rational choice and routine activities theories. In addition, we describe how these theories explain why some communities have higher rates of delinquency than others, which allows us to present the essential ideas of social disorganization, subcultural deviance, and macro-strain theories. Like Bernard and Snipes (1996) and others, we believe that there are too many theories in criminology. We think that the essential ideas of most theories can be presented in terms of the four generic theories, making life much simpler for students and researchers and making criminology more useful for policy makers. MORE STUDENT (AND INSTRUCTOR) FRIENDLY We have done several things to make this text more student (and instructor) friendly. Unlike most other texts, this book is organized around questions rather than topics. For example, instead of a long section on “the sociodemographic correlates of delinquency,” xviii An Important Message for Instructors Part 1 of the text is entitled “Who Is Most Likely to Engage in Delinquency?” Students find questions more interesting than topics; questions invite students to become more actively involved in the learning process, and questions better convey what the research process is about—answering questions that researchers feel are interesting and important (see Goldsmid and Wilson, 1980). The subheadings under each question essentially form a sentence outline of the book. Students, then, can gain a quick overview of each chapter and part before reading it, and they can easily review the major points of each chapter/part after reading it. The book also has a common theme: using the four delinquency theories to understand the basic facts about delinquency, to interpret the research on the causes of delinquency, and to evaluate and develop policies for the control of delinquency. For example, we stress that much of the research on delinquency was inspired by the four theories discussed and that all the research is interpretable in terms of these theories. To illustrate, the biopsychological research describes several traits that are conducive to crime, such as impulsivity and irritability. We stress that the effect of these traits on crime can be explained in terms of the four theories: Such traits increase strain, reduce concern for the costs of crime, make crime seem more rewarding, and increase the likelihood of negative labeling. The decision to use the four major delinquency theories as described helps students master the material, since the book comes across as an integrated whole rather than a series of discrete facts. Chapters build on one another, and certain points are re-emphasized throughout the text. The book is written in a more informal, conversational style than is found in most texts. We believe this makes the material more interesting and accessible to students. Further, the book is divided into 25 relatively short chapters, each focusing on a particular topic, which makes it easier for instructors to assign readings. With other texts, instructors frequently end up assigning portions of a chapter (e.g., the four and a half pages that deal with strain theory). Students should also appreciate the fact that the chapters are shorter and generally more coherent than those in many other texts. Although the chapters build on each other, they also can stand alone. This fact, along with the relatively short length and focused nature of the chapters, makes it possible for instructors to adopt the textbook flexibly. Instructors may choose, for example, to assign some, but not necessarily all the chapters. And in most cases, it is reasonable to assign multiple chapters in a single week. (Note: See the sample syllabus included with the instructor resources for this textbook. Be sure to contact your local Oxford sales representative to gain access to the ancillary resource center). Further, in the current edition of the text, “special topics” boxes are presented in most every chapter. The boxes, which cover events from the news, controversies, and case studies related to juvenile delinquency, are designed to stimulate student interest. We believe that students will find the material engaging and thought-provoking, and instructors can use the boxes as vehicles for launching classroom discussion. To this end, each box concludes with at least one discussion question. Finally, each chapter contains a section titled Teaching Aids, including student exercises or controversial cases for students to consider, questions designed to test students’ knowledge of the chapter, a list of key terms, and questions designed to encourage independent thinking and foster further discussion. Many of the teaching aids can form the basis for classroom activities and discussions. (Additional suggestions for class activities and lectures are contained in the Instructor’s Manual that accompanies this text.) Having said all this, we should note that this book does not contain a lot of illustrations or tables. These features are nice, but we avoid them for two reasons. First, we want to keep the cost of the book as low as possible. In our experience, students prefer a cheaper textbook to one with a lot of pictures. Second, many students ignore tables and figures, An Important Message for Instructors xix and many others are overwhelmed by them. Rather than presenting students with a lot of numbers, we prefer to stress the essential points that the numbers are designed to convey. PROMOTES ACTIVE LEARNING Our text attempts to promote active learning, especially the application of text materials. Most notably, students are provided with numerous examples of how one might use the major theories of delinquency to explain the basic facts about delinquency, to understand the research on the causes of delinquency, and to develop and evaluate programs and policies for controlling delinquency. Also, students are frequently asked to engage in such applications themselves. Students are asked, as well, to apply the text materials to their own lives. In particular, we pose questions for students throughout the text. And we do the same at the end of each chapter, in the sections titled Teaching Aids. This emphasis on the application of text materials is crucial in our view: it dramatically increases the students’ understanding of the materials, which are of little use unless students develop the ability to apply them. Further, the text not only describes what criminologists know about delinquency, it also gives students a sense of how criminologists know what they know, that is, how criminologists collect and analyze data. In particular, we spend much time discussing how criminologists measure delinquency, how they test theories—especially how they determine whether one variable causes another—and how they determine whether a program or policy is effective in controlling delinquency. Students, then, are not asked to accept the findings of criminology on faith. They are given a sense of what the research process is like. We frequently apply these materials, pointing to problems in research studies and noting the need for further research in certain areas. Further, we ask the students to apply these materials. NEW TO THIS EDITION • Greater emphasis throughout the textbook on the interplay of risk factors, with examples and illustrations showing how risk factors often work together in producing delinquency. • New coverage of trauma, trauma-informed practice in juvenile justice, and cross-national differences in juvenile justice. • Expanded coverage of police–community relations; “civil citation” diversion p rograms; Supreme Court decisions; children’s exposure to violence; and concentrated poverty, including trends and causes as they relate to delinquency. • Additional special topics boxes that discuss and analyze current events, controversies, and case studies related to juvenile delinquency. Each box concludes with questions designed to stimulate student interest and discussion. • Each chapter has been updated to fully reflect the latest research on juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice, including up-to-date statistical information. WE APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK We are most interested in receiving your impressions of the text, including things that you like and do not like (e.g., topics that we should devote more coverage to, sections that are unclear or too dry, statements that you disagree with, literature that we should have cited). We will consider your comments carefully when revising the text. Please e-mail the second author at [email protected] or write to him at the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3992, Atlanta, GA 30302-3992. An Overview of This Book T he media are regularly filled with reports about juvenile crime. Not long ago, police in Minnesota foiled a teenager’s plot to bring guns and explosives to school and to kill “as many students as he could.” According to the criminal complaint, the 17-year-old had stockpiled handguns, automatic assault rifles, and bomb-making materials. He detailed plans for the school massacre in a 180-page notebook and had intended to carry out the attack on April 20, 2014—the fifteenth anniversary of the infamous shootings at Columbine High School. The date fell on Easter Sunday, however, when the school would be closed, so he decided to wait for another opportunity. Before he could attack, however, a neighbor reported suspicious activity to the police, leading to his arrest. The would-be attacker was reportedly a B student who was quiet and shy. According to a schoolmate, “He seemed like a good kid . . . . You’d never expect it from him” (Muskal, 2014). This case and other incidents have led people throughout the country to ask a number of fundamental questions about juvenile delinquency: How common is juvenile delinquency? Is it increasing? Who is most likely to commit delinquent acts? What are the causes of juvenile delinquency? What can be done to control or prevent delinquency? These are the questions addressed in this book. The book has four main divisions. The four chapters in Part 1 focus on the nature and extent of delinquency. These chapters deal with the “basic facts” about delinquency, such as: What is it? How widespread is it? Is it increasing? And who is most likely to commit delinquent acts? The eight chapters in Part 2 focus on the major theories or explanations of the causes of delinquency. These chapters describe the four leading theories, or explanations, of delinquency, using them to explain why some juveniles are more likely than others to engage in delinquency; why some offenders engage in crime at high rates over much of their lives while others limit their offending to the adolescent years; why delinquency is more likely in some situations than others; and why some groups have higher rates of delinquency than other groups. The six chapters in Part 3 focus on the research dealing with the causes of delinquency, much of which was designed to test the theories described in Part 2. The research examines the extent to which delinquency is caused by individual traits (e.g., low verbal intelligence, low self-control), family factors (e.g., broken homes, poor supervision), school factors, d elinquent peers and gang membership, and a range of other factors, such as mass media violence, social media engagement, religion, drugs, and guns. The concluding chapter of Part 3 draws on this research and the leading delinquency theories to present an integrated or general theory of delinquency. This theory is used to explain many of the basic facts about delinquency presented in Part 1—for example, that some juveniles are more delinquent than others and that males are more delinquent than females. The seven chapters in Part 4, the final section, focus on the control and prevention of delinquency. These chapters describe what the police, juvenile courts, and juvenile xx An Overview of This Book xxi correctional agencies do to control delinquency. In particular, they describe how these agencies operate, how effective they are, what they might do to be more effective, and the extent to which they discriminate against certain groups in their efforts to control delinquency. These chapters then describe four general strategies for controlling delinquency that involve all these agencies as well as other groups: the “get-tough” strategies of deterrence and incapacitation, and the strategies of rehabilitation and prevention. These strategies address many of the causes of delinquency described in Parts 2 and 3. We should note that this book does more than simply describe the major research on juvenile delinquency. It also describes how this research was carried out. That is, it tells how criminologists estimate the extent of delinquency, determine whether some factor causes delinquency, and determine whether some program or policy is effective at reducing delinquency. Not only will this information increase your understanding of the delinquency research, it will better enable you to evaluate the statements you hear about delinquency (and other topics) from friends, family, the media, politicians, and others. Furthermore, this book encourages you to apply the delinquency research. It encourages you, for example, to use the leading theories of delinquency to explain the basic facts about delinquency and to evaluate programs for reducing delinquency. It also encourages you to apply the delinquency research to your own life and to issues in the larger community. We hope you find this book useful, and we are most interested in hearing any comments you might have about it—including suggestions for improving the next edition. You can email the second author at [email protected] or write to him at the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3992, Atlanta, GA 30302-3992. Acknowledgments W e would like to thank several people for their help in preparing this book. They include Ron Akers and Gary Jensen, who encouraged the writing of the first edition and provided much useful feedback. Claude Teweles, who gave the time and freedom necessary to write this type of book. Frank Cullen, a valued friend and colleague, who has taught us much about crime and its control. Everett K. Wilson, whose ideas about teaching have had a tremendous influence on this book. The students in our juvenile delinquency classes. Dozens of individuals who provided valuable comments on all or portions of the book: Charles Amissah, Candice Batton, Thomas J. Bernard, Bonnie Black, Patricia Brennan, Kevin Bryant, Scott Decker, Michael Dindinger, Finn-Aage Esbensen, Joseph R. Franco, William Mark Franks, Stephanie Funk, Hua-Lun Huang, Michele Hussong, Seokjin Jeong, Marvin Krohn, David Mackey, Karen Miner-Romanoff, David L. Myers, Judge Robin Nash, Lois Presser, Dean Rojek, E. Scott Ryan, Joseph Sanborn, Frank Scarpitti, Randall Shelden, Sandra S. Stone, Sherod Thaxton, Charles M. Vivona, and Richard A. Wright. We would also like to thank the following reviewers who provided feedback on the fifth edition: Kevin Bryant, Benedictine College; Matthew Costello, Arkansas State University; George J. Day, Stephen F. Austin State University; Traci Etheridge, Richmond Community College; W. Mark Franks, University of Mississippi; Whitney M. Gass, Southern Arkansas University; Chenelle A. Jones, Ohio Dominican University; J. Scott Lewis, Penn State Harrisburg. Two additional individuals who assisted with the preparation of the current edition: Steve Helba and Beverly Crank. Robert Agnew thanks his wife, Mary, and children Willie and Jenny. Mary provided the support and encouragement necessary to write this book, while Willie and Jenny provided the inspiration. Timothy Brezina thanks his wife, Kellye, for her support and never-ending patience. xxii PAR T 1 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency 1 What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 3 4 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency W hat is delinquency?” is a relatively easy question to answer. Juvenile delinquency refers to violations of the criminal law by minors. In most states, a minor is anyone under the age of 18. In some states, however, minors are defined as anyone under the age of 17 or even 16. So if a minor commits an act that would be a crime when committed by an adult, that minor has engaged in “juvenile delinquency” and may be considered a “juvenile delinquent.” This definition, while correct, might lead you to believe that the only way delinquency differs from adult crime is in terms of age. Delinquent acts are committed by minors while crimes are committed by adults. But juvenile delinquency differs from adult crime in a number of major ways besides the age of the offender. In particular, we tend to view juvenile delinquents d ifferently than adult criminals, and we tend to treat juvenile delinquents differently than adult c riminals— with an important exception, which we will note. This chapter is in four sections. First, we describe how juvenile delinquents are viewed differently than adult criminals. Second, we describe how these different views of delinquents and adult criminals have led us as a society to treat them differently. We note, however, that there has been a trend to view and treat juvenile offenders— especially older, serious offenders—like adult criminals. Third, we discuss the “invention” of juvenile delinquency. People did not always view and treat juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals. For most of history, in fact, juveniles who broke the law were viewed and treated very much like adults who broke the law. We briefly discuss some of the factors that led society to view and treat juvenile delinquents differently. Finally, we discuss how our view and treatment of juvenile offenders continues to evolve. After reading this chapter, you should be able to: “ • Define juvenile delinquency. • Describe the major differences in the way that society views juvenile offenders and adult offenders. • Describe the major differences in the way that society treats juvenile offenders and adult offenders. • List the major ways in which juvenile court differs from adult court, and discuss the reasons for such differences. • Explain what is meant by “the invention of juvenile delinquency.” • Describe how we came to view and treat juvenile offenders differently than adult offenders. JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ARE VIEWED DIFFERENTLY THAN ADULT CRIMINALS On the first day of our juvenile delinquency class, we play a trick on our students. We pass out a description of a crime that has occurred: Someone walks into a bank, points a gun at a teller, and demands money. It is a toy gun, but the teller believes it is real and gives the bank robber several hundred dollars. The robber later spends most of the money on luxury items before being caught. We ask the students what the court should do to this robber. Unbeknownst to the students, the robber is described as a “7-year-old boy” in half of the descriptions and a “32-year-old man” in the other half (the actual crime was committed by a 7-year-old boy). After the students have considered the case for a few minutes, we ask for volunteers to tell us what they think should be done to the “bank robber.” Some of the students describe what might be considered “mild” reactions on the part of the court: The robber should receive counseling, should be closely monitored for a period of time, should perform some community service, or the like. Other students describe what might be considered “tough” What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 5 reactions on the part of the court; most commonly, they state that the robber should be locked up for several years. The students, of course, are confused by the responses of many of their classmates. Those with the 7-year-old robber wonder how some of their classmates could be so coldhearted as to recommend years of imprisonment, while those with the 32-year-old robber think some of their classmates are far too “soft” on crime. We eventually tell the students that they are working with two different case studies and that this age discrepancy is the major reason for their different reactions. We then try to justify the trick we have played by telling the students that their different reactions to the 7- and 32-year-old robbers illustrate a very important point about juvenile delinquency: Our society tends to view juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals. If a juvenile breaks the law, the general public tends to view that person as immature and in need of our guidance and help. There is no precise definition of immaturity, but notions of immaturity usually include one or more of the following: the individuals did not know that what they were doing was wrong; they did not appreciate the harm that their actions might cause; they could not control themselves; and they were easily led astray by others. (Data suggest that juveniles are more likely than adults to possess these traits, although there is no precise age at which individuals become “mature.”1 Rather, individuals mature in a gradual manner and at different rates—although juveniles are less mature on average than adults.) This immaturity partly stems from a lack of experience. Older juveniles are no longer closely supervised by parents, and they must increasingly learn to make decisions on their own. They lack experience at decision making, however, and so it is not surprising that they sometimes show poor judgment in the choices they make (see Zimring, 2005). This immaturity also has biological roots. A colleague of ours at Emory University coedited a book that focuses on the development of the adolescent brain (E. Walker and Romer, 2006). A central message of the book is that the “brain circuitry for pleasure and sensation develops rapidly during adolescence, while the brain circuitry responsible for behavioral control and inhibition lags behind” (C. Clark, 2007:6). As a consequence, adolescents have more trouble exercising self-control and resisting the influence of peers. Given this view of juveniles as immature, most people tend to feel that juveniles do not deserve serious punishment. Rather, they need our help. So when a 7-year-old robs a bank, many students state that the major response of the court should be to provide that person with counseling. But if an adult breaks the law, we generally view that person as someone who is responsible for his or her behavior and deserves to be punished. So most students have no qualms about sending a 32-year-old who robbed a bank to prison for many years. Many students take exception when juveniles are characterized in this way. They state that many juvenile offenders know exactly what they are doing and that these offenders should be punished just as severely as adults. They often describe some horrifying crime committed in the recent past by a juvenile, and they state that this juvenile surely deserves the most serious punishment the law can provide. We realize that many people feel this way. Certain juvenile offenders—especially older juveniles who commit serious crimes—are not viewed as all that different from adult offenders. And in recent decades the justice system has been treating more of these offenders like adult criminals. So when we say that society views juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals, an important exception should be noted. Older, serious juvenile offenders are often viewed like adult offenders. We will talk more about this exception toward the end of this chapter. Aside from this important exception, the general public still tends to view juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals. We provide our students with a few additional examples to illustrate this point. 6 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency There is the case of a 6-year-old girl in Florida who got into a fight with her 7-year-old friend. The 6-year-old girl repeatedly hit her 7-year-old friend with a piece of wood, while an older boy held the 7-year-old’s arms behind her back. The 7-year-old’s nose was damaged and her dress was soaked with blood by the time she arrived home to her mother. Her mother, of course, was outraged and immediately called the police. For legal reasons that we will not describe, there was some discussion of trying the 6-year-old girl as an adult. If tried as an adult, she would face a maximum penalty of fifteen years in prison and a $10,000 fine. This story made the national news, and people were outraged that such a young girl might be so severely penalized. They felt that the 6-year-old did not know what she was doing and that she needed guidance and help much more than punishment. Imagine the reaction, however, if a 30-year-old woman had committed this crime. People would be demanding the severest of penalties. To give another example, a 6-year-old boy in California was charged with savagely beating a month-old baby. He was accused of kicking, punching, and beating the sleeping baby with a stick, possibly causing permanent brain damage. The 6-year-old was said to have done this to seek revenge against the family of the baby for allegedly harassing him. We have asked our own students how the court should respond to this boy. This is a savage crime, but the young age of the boy led many of our students to talk of his immaturity and to argue that he is in desperate need of guidance and help. Again, imagine the difference in reaction if a 30-year-old man were charged with this crime. With the exception of older juveniles who commit serious crimes, our society clearly views juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals. In general, juvenile delinquents are viewed as immature and in need of guidance and help, while adult criminals are viewed as fully responsible for their behavior and deserving of punishment. To illustrate, one national poll found that only 21 percent of the public said that rehabilitation should be the most important sentencing goal for adults, but 50 percent said that it should be the most important sentencing goal for juveniles.2 JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ADULT CRIMINALS The difference in the way that juvenile and adult offenders are viewed has led us to treat juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals (with an important exception, to be noted). In particular, our society has created a special set of laws that apply just to juveniles in order to more closely regulate their lives. We have created a special court for juvenile offenders, a court that places more emphasis on rehabilitation and less on punishment than does adult criminal court. And we have created special correctional programs for juveniles, programs that also focus more on rehabilitation and less on punishment—at least in theory.3 Special Laws for Juveniles: Status Offenses Juveniles are delinquent if they commit any act whose violation by an adult would be a crime—acts like homicide, assault, rape, robbery, burglary, and larceny. However, in most states, juveniles can be arrested and referred to juvenile court for certain acts that are legal for adults. These acts are called status offenses, since they apply only to people with the status of juvenile. The most common status offenses are running away from home, failure to attend school (truancy), refusing to obey parents (incorrigibility), liquor law violations (possession of alcohol, underage drinking), violating curfew, and engaging in certain consensual sexual activities. These activities are illegal for juveniles in all or many areas, but they are legal for adults; for example, it is illegal for juveniles to stop attending school. They can be What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 7 arrested and taken to juvenile court in most states if they do so. It is perfectly legal for you, however, to stop coming to class. The state felt that it was necessary to regulate the lives of juveniles more closely than the lives of adults. Rather than intervening only when juveniles committed a crime, the state felt it necessary to intervene when juveniles gave indications that they might be heading down the “wrong path”—a path that might lead to crime. Status offense laws, then, are directly tied to the view of juveniles as immature and in need of guidance or direction. These status offense laws were taken quite seriously until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Juveniles who committed status offenses were frequently arrested and referred to juvenile court. They were often formally processed by the court, and they could be “adjudicated,” or judged, “delinquent” by juvenile courts in nearly every state. And status offenders were sometimes subject to severe punishments. In particular, about half the juveniles in correctional institutions were there for status offenses like running away and being incorrigible. Status offense laws were especially likely to be enforced against females. Females were (and are) more closely supervised than males, and their sexual behavior, in particular, is more closely regulated. Females who committed status offenses like disobeying parents, running away from home, drinking, and having sex were more likely than boys to be arrested, referred to the court, and sent to institutions for such offenses. There is some evidence that this is still the case today (see Chapter 22 for a fuller discussion). Status offense laws came under heavy criticism during the 1960s and 1970s. They were often vague. What, for example, does it mean to be incorrigible? Virtually all juveniles disobey their parents at some point. Also, these laws often subjected juveniles who had not committed any criminal acts to severe penalties, such as confinement in an institution (where they were exposed to serious offenders and sometimes subject to physical and sexual assault). Further, there was evidence that poor, minority, and female juveniles were more likely to be punished for such offenses. In response to such criticisms, most states developed “diversion” programs designed to divert status offenders from the juvenile court. Rather than being formally processed by the court, most status offenders were dealt with informally by the court or were referred to special programs outside the court. Status offenders who were processed by the juvenile court were no longer classified as “delinquents” in most states. Rather, they were classified as Children in Need of Supervision (CHINS), Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS), or similar labels. This new designation was partly designed to reduce the stigma of a delinquent label. The federal government passed a law in 1974 that strongly encouraged states to stop placing status offenders in institutions. And evidence suggests that this law was largely effective: There has been a dramatic decline in the number of status offenders confined in institutions. Finally, a few states went so far as to decriminalize status offenses. Status offenses could no longer result in arrest and referral to the juvenile court; rather, status offenses were dealt with by social service agencies. Nevertheless, status offenses are still illegal in almost all states. Several hundred thousand status offenders are arrested each year. In 2013, about 109,000 status offenders were formally processed by juvenile courts, over 7,300 were detained during court processing, and 3,800 were placed out-of-home as part of their “disposition” or sentence— most often for the offense of truancy (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). So while status offenses are not treated as severely today as in the past, they are still taken seriously in many cases. A Special Court for Juveniles: Juvenile Court Every state has created special courts for juvenile offenders. Juvenile court differs from adult court in several fundamental ways, with the differences between the two courts 8 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency reflecting our different views of juvenile delinquents and adult criminals. The differences between juvenile court and adult court have diminished in recent years, but they are still substantial. First, the goals of juvenile court are different from those of adult court. Adult court determines whether individuals are guilty of committing specific crimes and then punishes them if they are convicted. Juvenile court was set up not to punish juveniles but rather to guide and help them. The court was supposed to act in “the best interests” of juveniles, providing them with the guidance and help that their parents should have provided. The court, in fact, was supposed to play the role of “superparent,” assisting children whose parents had failed them. Judge Julian Mack, who helped develop the first juvenile court in the United States, said that the juvenile court should treat delinquents like “a wise and merciful father handles his own child” and that the goal of the court is “not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, [and] not to make [the delinquent] a criminal but a worthy citizen” (quoted in S. Singer, 2001:350). The goals of many juvenile courts have changed in recent years, with more courts coming to place an increased emphasis on punishing juveniles—especially older, serious offenders. Nevertheless, the juvenile court still places more emphasis on the goal of rehabilitation than does adult court. (This is not to say that the court always accomplishes or even tries to accomplish the goal of rehabilitation. As discussed later, there is often a large gap between goals and accomplishments.) Second, the juvenile court focuses more on the offender than on the offense. Adult court focuses primarily on the offense(s) that the individual has committed. The punishment that individuals receive is based largely on their current and past offenses. Juvenile court is less concerned about punishing individuals for the specific offenses they have committed. Rather, it seeks to help juveniles. The court therefore focuses on the entire juvenile—not just the offense(s) that brought the juvenile to court. The court seeks to learn all it can about the juvenile, especially any personal, family, school, peer, or other problems the juvenile may have. And the actions that the court takes are supposed to address these problems—not simply respond to the juvenile’s specific offense(s). Again, some changes are taking place in this area, with many juvenile courts putting more emphasis on the specific offenses that juveniles have committed and basing their response to juveniles largely on these offenses. Even so, there is still a substantial difference between juvenile and adult courts in this area. Third, the juvenile court is more informal and less adversarial than adult court. Adult court provides accused individuals with numerous due process rights designed to protect them from being unfairly punished. These rights include the right to be represented by an attorney, the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them, the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to a trial by jury. As a consequence of such rights, adult court is very formal, and it is adversarial in nature—at least in theory. The prosecution and defense attorneys are pitted against one another, arguing their cases before a judge or jury. The juvenile court, however, initially provided juveniles with few due process rights. It was felt that such rights were unnecessary, since the court sought to help rather than punish juveniles. Juveniles, then, did not need protection from unfair punishment. As a consequence, the juvenile court was more informal and less adversarial than adult court. Juveniles, for example, were not represented by attorneys. Often, the judge would simply talk with the juvenile—much like parents having a firm talk with their child. The judge might also question the police, witnesses, and others. This informality has changed since the 1960s. In particular, a series of Supreme Court decisions has granted juveniles most—although not all—of the due process rights available to adults. The Supreme Court essentially argued that the juvenile court What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 9 often fails to help the juveniles it processes and it often does punish them. They are sometimes confined in institutions, for example. They therefore deserve at least some of the due process protections available to adults. So juveniles now have such rights as the right to be represented by an attorney and to confront and cross-examine witnesses (see Chapter 22 for a fuller discussion). Juvenile court is now more formal and adversarial than it once was. But juveniles do not have all the rights available to adults; most notably, they lack the right to a trial by jury. Further, juveniles frequently waive their rights—sometimes with the encouragement of the juvenile court. In many courts, for example, less than half the juveniles are represented by an attorney. So while juvenile court has changed a great deal in recent decades, it is still less formal and adversarial than adult court—a difference that reflects the difference in goals between juvenile and adult court. There are still other differences between juvenile and adult court. There are differences in the terminology employed. In juvenile court, the juvenile is not found “guilty” of a particular offense like robbery or burglary. The word “guilt” implies responsibility. Rather, the juvenile is adjudicated a “delinquent,” regardless of the particular criminal offense(s) he or she committed. (In the case of status offenses, the juvenile is adjudicated a Person in Need of Supervision or whatever the label is for status offenders in that court.) Once a juvenile’s status has been adjudicated, the judge does not announce a “sentence,” which would imply punishment. Rather, the judge renders his or her disposition of the case. Juvenile court hearings are usually closed to the public and the media to protect the juvenile from adverse publicity and stigma. Likewise, juvenile court records are usually unavailable to the public and media. Further, juveniles are often able to “seal,” or erase, their juvenile court records if they stay out of trouble for a certain period of time. These policies are beginning to change; the public and media are being given greater access to juvenile court hearings and records. Nevertheless, the privacy of juvenile offenders receives much more protection than that of adult offenders. Adult court hearings are open to the public, adult court records are available to the public, and adult court records remain permanently available except under certain very special circumstances. The juvenile court tends to view delinquent acts as the mistakes of immature children, and it wants to minimize the damage that might result from such mistakes. One way to do this is to protect the privacy of juvenile offenders and to allow them to “erase” their records in certain cases. There are also differences in the sentences given out by juvenile and adult courts. In particular, juvenile courts cannot impose the death penalty, and there are limits on the length of time for which juvenile courts can confine juveniles. Most juvenile courts cannot confine juveniles beyond their twenty-first birthday. This age limit often angers people because it means that juveniles who commit serious crimes cannot be confined for more than a few years (unless they are transferred to adult court). This age limit, however, has changed somewhat as many states have made it possible for juvenile court judges to confine juveniles for longer periods (and made it easier to try certain juvenile offenders as adults). Nevertheless, the sentences given out by juvenile courts are generally milder than those imposed by adult courts. There are still other differences between juvenile and adult court, and excellent summaries can be found in Bernard and Kurlychek (2010) and H. Snyder and Sickmund (2006). Special Correctional Programs for Juveniles Finally, the view of juveniles as immature beings in need of guidance and help has led us to develop special correctional programs for them. Juvenile correctional institutions protect juveniles from contact with adult criminals, who might exploit and corrupt them. And these institutions are more concerned with rehabilitation than with punishment. 10 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency Unfortunately, juvenile institutions often do not live up to their stated aim of rehabilitation. Again, there is often a large gap between goals and accomplishments. Nevertheless, juvenile institutions place more stress on the goal of rehabilitation than do adult institutions. Juvenile institutions are not called “prisons”; rather, they are called youth development centers or training schools or similar names that reflect their supposed emphasis on rehabilitation. A range of community-based programs designed to rehabilitate juveniles has also been developed. This is not to say that there is no concern with the rehabilitation of adult offenders, but rather that rehabilitation is a greater concern in the juvenile justice system. In summary, the general public and the justice system tend to view most juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals and tend to treat them differently as a result. As noted, however, our view of delinquents—especially older, serious offenders—has changed in recent years. And, related to this, our treatment of delinquents—especially older, serious offenders—has started to resemble our treatment of adult criminals. HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THE INVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY? It may sound strange to speak of the invention of juvenile delinquency. We do not mean to imply that juveniles did not commit delinquent acts in the past. Juveniles have always committed those acts we now label as “delinquent” and “status” offenses. In fact, there is reason to believe that some of these acts, such as fighting, drinking alcohol, and engaging in sex, were much more common at certain points in the past than they are today (see Empey et al., 1999). When we speak of the invention of juvenile delinquency, we are referring to the special way that society views and treats juvenile offenders. As discussed in the preceding pages, the general public tends to view juvenile offenders as immature and in need of guidance and help. And juvenile offenders tend to be treated differently as a result: they are subject to a special set of laws that apply only to juveniles, they are sent to a special court, and they are placed in special correctional programs. Compared to adult criminals, much more emphasis is placed on their rehabilitation and much less on their p unishment. Juvenile offenders have not always been viewed and treated differently than adult criminals, however. Juvenile offenders were viewed and treated very much like adult offenders until the 1800s. There were no separate correctional facilities for juveniles in this country until the early to mid-1800s. The first juvenile court did not appear until 1899, and it was not until 1945 that all states had juvenile courts. Many status offense laws are also of recent origin. Laws requiring school attendance, for example, did not emerge until the late 1800s and early 1900s in most places. Even the word “delinquent” was not used until the 1800s. So the special way that we view and treat juvenile offenders is relatively new, having emerged in the last 100 to 200 years. As one of the first juvenile court judges stated, prior to the 1900s: No matter how young, . . . children [who committed crimes] were indicted, prosecuted, and confined as criminals, in prison, just the same as were adults. . . . The State kept these little ones in police cells and jails among the worst men and women to be found in the vilest parts of the city and town. (quoted in Zimring, 2005:35) Criminologists have recently tried to explain the invention of juvenile d elinquency— that is, why society and the law started to view and treat juvenile offenders differently than adult criminals over the last 100 to 200 years. Space prevents us from providing a full answer to this question, but we will describe the key features of the answer that has emerged from the research.4 What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 11 Changing Conception of Children Part of the answer has to do with our changing conception of children. Children past the age of 6 or 7 were not viewed much differently than adults until a few hundred years ago. The fact that children were viewed as adults is reflected in paintings from the 1600s and earlier, where the children have adult features and are dressed and posed like adults. The children, in fact, look like miniature adults. Children were also treated like adults: They lived and slept in large rooms with adults, drank alcohol, engaged in sexual behavior (willingly and unwillingly), began work at an early age, and were subject to severe punishments if they misbehaved. In fact, children were routinely subjected to treatment that would be classified as abusive today. Children who broke the law were treated very much like adults who broke the law. They were tried in the same courts and given the same punishments, including the death penalty and confinement in the same institutions as adults. Very young children, however, were usually exempted from state punishments, and older children sometimes received lighter punishments than adults. However, people’s view of children began to change in the 1500s and 1600s. Children began to be seen as different from adults—as immature and dependent on adults for guidance and protection. There are a variety of reasons for this change. The decline in the death rate of children is viewed as a major factor. Prior to this time, perhaps as many as two-thirds of all children died before the age of 20. Partly as a consequence, parents did not form strong attachments to their young children—it was emotionally risky to do so, since the children were not likely to live very long. Very young children were viewed with indifference, while older children were viewed as adults. The decline in the death rate, however, made it easier for parents to form close attachments to their children. As they formed such attachments, they were more inclined to view children as different from adults—as less developed and more in need of their special care and protection. Another factor contributing to this new view of children was the extension of education to broader segments of the population. Several factors increased the need for a formal education, including the increase in industry and trade and the invention of the printing press and subsequent spread of printed materials. Formal education also highlighted the immaturity and dependence of children because it widened the gap between what children knew and what adults knew. Still other factors can be listed, but the central point is that the new view of children paved the way for the invention of juvenile delinquency. As people came to view children differently than adults, they were more inclined to view and treat juvenile offenders differently than adult offenders. Major Social Changes, Especially the Growth of Urban Slums The new view of children, however, was not the only factor that led to the invention of juvenile delinquency. Also important were the major social changes that occurred in the United States during the 1800s and early 1900s (and in many other countries at the same or somewhat different times). The United States underwent a radical transformation during this time, moving from a largely rural to a largely urban society. Further, the urban areas that developed were populated by a large number of poor people, including many recent immigrants to the United States, and these areas were plagued by a range of problems, including crime. Before describing how these changes contributed to the invention of juvenile delinquency, let us first provide some more information on the nature of these changes. At the end of the 1700s the United States was largely a rural society. In 1790, only 5.1 percent of the population lived in urban areas. There were only a few cities with populations over 2,500. By 1920, over 50 percent of the population lived in urban areas. Many cities experienced a tremendous increase in population over a very short period of time. 12 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency Chicago, for example, had a population of 5,000 in 1840. By 1890, it had a population of 1 million. This rapid growth in urban populations was largely due to the industrial revolution. Technological advances were improving farming techniques, so fewer people were needed to work the land. Many rural residents then moved to the city, hoping to find work in the newly emerging industries. Likewise, many people came to the United States from abroad, hoping to find work in those industries. In fact, it is estimated that in 1920 about half the residents of major urban areas were immigrants or the children of immigrants. Many of the new urban residents were poor and they were not always able to find work, or at least work that paid a decent wage. As a result, large slums began to appear. These slums suffered from a variety of problems: poor housing, overcrowding, sanitation problems, health problems, and much crime and vice. Many individuals became especially concerned about the children living in slums. These children often spent much time on the streets, frequently stealing things and committing other crimes to survive. Their families and neighborhood residents seemed unable to control them, and there was concern that they were being corrupted by the “unwholesome” environment in which they lived. Some, however, felt that there was hope; they believed that with proper guidance from adults, the children in the slums might be diverted from a life of crime. There are two interpretations, however, about how this concern over poor children contributed to the invention of juvenile delinquency. The first interpretation argues that reformers were genuinely concerned about the plight of poor children growing up in the city. These reformers were primarily middle-class women, many of them involved with charity or social welfare organizations. They felt that slum children needed protection from the evils of city life and should have more guidance and direction than they were receiving. So they lobbied to get special laws passed, laws that would more closely regulate the behavior of these children (e.g., status offense laws like those requiring school attendance). They also lobbied for the creation of a special court and special correctional facilities that would provide these children with the protection and guidance they needed. According to this view, then, the invention of juvenile delinquency sprang from the desire of middle-class reformers to help children, especially poor urban children. A second interpretation argues that many upper-class people were disturbed by the large concentration of poor people—especially immigrants—in the city. They were concerned that people they frequently referred to as the “dangerous classes” might become a disruptive force in society. The upper class wanted to ensure that the poor did not threaten their privileged position, and one way they did this was by exercising greater control over their children. They lobbied for laws requiring slum-dwelling children to attend school so that they would be properly socialized. They lobbied for other laws designed to more closely regulate the children’s behavior. The juvenile court was the institution designed to enforce these laws, even if it meant removing the children from their parents. And juvenile institutions were designed to teach proper discipline and respect for authority. According to this view, the invention of juvenile delinquency resulted from the desire of upper-class people to protect their privileged position in society. Which interpretation is correct? A number of historians and criminologists have examined what is called the “child-saving movement.” That is, they have examined individuals and groups who worked to pass status offense laws and create a separate juvenile court and juvenile correctional institutions. Each state and major city in the United States had its own group of child savers. Researchers have looked at whether the leaders of the child-saving movement were members of the middle or upper class. They have tried to examine the motives of the child savers on the basis of what they said and what they did. For example, do their statements indicate a genuine concern about the plight of children, or do they simply express a desire to control poor children and thereby protect “society”? What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 13 Were these children helped and protected or simply subject to greater control? Studies have examined the child-saving movements in such cities as Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Memphis (see the sources cited in note 7). Different studies reach different conclusions about which interpretation is correct, and there is no clear resolution of the issue yet. But it seems likely that both interpretations have some merit, with the invention of delinquency being partly motivated by a genuine concern for poor children and partly by a desire to control such children because of their perceived threat. (As an analogy, you might think of the response to the homeless in many urban areas today. Many individuals and groups truly care about the homeless and genuinely want to help them. Others, who view the homeless as dangerous and a threat to business activity, are more interested in controlling the homeless. A given city’s response to the homeless is often motivated by both sets of concerns.) Gender, Race, and the Invention of Delinquency While the child-saving movement focused on both genders, there were certain important differences in how males and females were viewed and treated. Most notably, the child savers were more concerned about protecting females and their sexuality from the “evils” of city life. Consequently, females were more likely to be arrested and punished severely for sexual activity and acts that might put them at risk for sexual activity, such as running away from home (see Chavez-Garcia, 2007; Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 2004; Feld, 2008). The sexual activity of male juveniles, however, was often ignored or excused. As discussed in Chapter 22, there is still some evidence for a sexual double standard in the juvenile justice system, with females in many jurisdictions being more likely than males to be arrested and sanctioned for acts such as sexual behavior, running away, and being incorrigible. The efforts of the child savers described in the preceding section focused on white youth. The child savers had little interest in black youth; and the justice system, during the 1800s and first part of the 1900s, was dominated by the racist belief that black offenders were brutish and could not be rehabilitated (Ward, 2012). So during this time, black youth who broke the law were sent to adult prisons, placed in convict-lease programs—where they engaged in forced labor, were subject to corporal punishment and execution, and, in certain cases, were sent to juvenile facilities that held only blacks. The latter facilities were inferior to those that held white youth and placed little emphasis on rehabilitation. Also, black juvenile offenders were excluded from many of the community treatment programs that were being developed, such as probation and apprenticeships. A black childsaving movement developed in response to this racist treatment, with the members of black women’s clubs playing the major role. The black child savers tried to convince state officials to send black youth to the recently created juvenile facilities, but they were often unsuccessful given their limited political power. So the black child savers also worked with churches to create programs to help black juvenile offenders. Eventually, the efforts of the black child savers, along with those in the larger civil rights movement, put an end to the segregated juvenile justice system. But, as discussed in Chapter 22, there is still much work to be done. While there is no longer a “separate and unequal” juvenile justice system for black juvenile offenders, black juveniles are disproportionately involved in the juvenile justice system— even after controlling for race differences in offending (see ChavezGarcia, 2007; and Ward’s, 2012, excellent book, The Black Child Saver: Racial Democracy and Juvenile Justice). In sum, it is important to remember that we did not always view and treat juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals. Juvenile delinquency is a social invention— although there are important differences in how juvenile offenders from different gender and racial groups were (and are) viewed and treated. 14 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency OUR VIEW AND TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS CONTINUES TO EVOLVE How we view and treat juvenile offenders continues to evolve (Bernard and Kurlychek, 2010). In the late 1980s, there was a dramatic shift in our view and treatment of juvenile offenders, especially older juveniles who commit serious crimes. Many argued that such offenders were a major threat, were little different from adult offenders, and should be punished as adults. But in the early 2000s, there was another shift, with many emphasizing the differences between juveniles and adults and the need to retreat from the harsh penalties that were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s. These trends are described next. “Getting Tough” with Juvenile Offenders (Late 1980s Through the Early 2000s) There was a dramatic increase in serious juvenile violence from the late 1980s to the mid1990s. Further, many of the violent crimes committed by juveniles received massive publicity, such as the shootings committed by gang members in certain cities. Many people came to feel that this violence was not the work of “immature” juveniles who needed guidance and direction, but rather the work of “younger criminals” and “stone cold predators.”5 Also, many people came to feel that the juvenile court was not equipped to deal with such violence. In particular, they came to feel that such juveniles should be treated and punished like adults.6 In a 2003 national survey, for example, 59 percent of respondents agreed that “juveniles between the ages of 14 and 17 who commit violent crimes should be treated the same as adults in the criminal justice system” (Pastore and Maguire, 2003). As a consequence, there was a major movement to more severely punish juveniles, especially older juveniles who committed serious crimes. The goals of the juvenile court shifted, with more emphasis placed on holding juveniles accountable for their behavior and imposing punishment. The juvenile court became more likely to confine offenders in residential facilities. The number of confined juveniles increased during the 1980s and 1990s, peaking at 108,802 in 2000, even though juvenile crime started to decline in the mid-1990s (Sickmund, 2010). New methods of punishing juveniles came into wide use. One example is boot camps, which are military-style facilities that place much emphasis on discipline and physical labor. Another example is zero-tolerance policies in school systems, which mandate severe punishments—usually suspension and expulsion—for certain offenses. But perhaps the major thrust of the new get-tough initiatives involved making it easier to try older juveniles who committed serious crimes as adults. By 2000 the large majority of states had passed laws stating that older juveniles who committed certain serious offenses should be automatically sent to adult court (Griffin et al., 2011). Many of these juveniles were subsequently punished with confinement in adult prisons, some receiving sentences of life with no possibility of parole. The get-tough initiatives, it should be noted, disproportionately affected black and Latino youth (see Chapter 22).7 The two cases described in Box 1.1, as well as the two cases that follow the boxed text, illustrate this shift in our view and treatment of juvenile offenders, especially older, serious offenders. Case #1. One evening in 1997, a husband and wife were driving home with their two young children. They stopped at a convenience store in a crime-ridden neighborhood to buy soda. The wife got out of the car to make the purchase, while the husband and children remained in the car with the engine running and lights on. The parking lot adjacent to the store was a popular location for drug sellers. A 13-year-old known in the neighborhood as “Little B” approached the husband and told him to turn off his car lights (which were illuminating the drug market). The husband refused. Little B felt that he had been “disrespected” in front of the older drug dealers. He got a rifle that he had hidden nearby and What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 15 Box 1.1 Child or Monster? Changing Views of Serious Young Offenders Over Time The get-tough initiatives of the late 1980s and 1990s focused on older juveniles, yet there were also some efforts to get tough with younger offenders, although such efforts met with less success. Attempts to “throw the book” at very young offenders tend to provoke public outrage and face important legal obstacles, making it very difficult to treat members of that population like adult criminals. Nevertheless, the cases that follow help illustrate the change in attitudes toward serious juvenile offenders that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. These two cases involve similar offenses that occurred about 25 years apart. In 1971, in the Bay Area of San Francisco, a horrific scene was discovered. The body of a 20-month-old baby boy was found in a neighborhood play area. The baby had suffered a brutal beating—he had been pounced on and hit on the head with a brick— resulting in a ruptured liver, internal bleeding, and death. The police later determined that juveniles in the neighborhood were responsible for the killing, including two brothers, ages 7 and 10. The oldest juvenile claimed that their intent was not to kill or injure the baby. Rather, while they were all playing together, the baby started to cry. The crying would not stop, so the brothers got mad and eventually hit the baby to make it be quiet. From there, he said, things just “got worse” (see transcripts from the FRONTLINE documentary “Little Criminals” at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/little). The public was shocked and saddened by news of the tragic death, but, for the most part, it was thought to be an anomaly, and few people could imagine charging the brothers with murder. This view was shared by one of the detectives involved in the case: [Kids] need supervision, period, and apparently these guys ran amok, and it’s not their fault, really. . . . I think it would be criminal to [incarcerate] a 7-year-old and a 10-year-old. . . . We don’t even do that to animals, for crying out loud. (quoted in Ferdinand, 1997) Even the mother of the deceased infant shared this view. She emphasized that the two juveniles involved were just kids, and she expressed the hope that they would receive proper treatment. A juvenile court judge ruled in favor of therapy, ordering that the two brothers be placed “in a special home, where for two years they received extensive counseling and psychotherapy before being returned to their mother’s custody. Their names were never made public” (Ferdinand, 1997). About 25 years later, in the 1990s, a similar tragedy came to light in the Bay Area. This time, the juvenile believed to be responsible was only 6 years old. He had entered a neighbor’s home with some other boys in search of a toy and came across an infant sleeping in a crib. He was accused of “mercilessly beating” the infant with a stick. Although the beating in this case did not result in death, the infant victim was left bloody, unconscious, and likely suffered permanent brain damage. By the 1990s, the general public had become less patient with juvenile offenders. Reflecting a new get-tough stance toward youth crime, the 6-year-old suspect was informed of his legal rights and interrogated by seasoned detectives. Based on the facts of the case, the prosecutor decided to charge the boy with attempted murder. The prosecutor explained his decision in the following way: “It doesn’t matter whether you’re 6, or you’re 106. If you do something that hurts somebody else, with knowledge of the wrongfulness of it, you’re responsible for it, period.” (Continued) 16 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency (Continued) Although members of the public protested the prosecutor’s decision, the attention of court officials turned to a key legal issue: Was a 6-year-old boy competent to stand trial on an attempted murder charge? Could a 6-year-old understand, for example, the nature of a trial proceeding, such as the role of the judge and the possible outcomes? And what about the 6-year-old in this particular case? After all, he had been described as “mildly retarded” and had repeated kindergarten. To resolve this legal issue, the juvenile court judge appointed several mental health experts. After interviewing the boy, one expert determined that he was indeed competent to stand trial, as he understood the “essentials” of a trial proceeding. The boy understood, for example, why he was being tried and that, “if things didn’t go his way, he might not go home to see his mommy for a very long time.” Furthermore, the expert expressed his opinion that the boy had all the characteristics of a “psychopath in the making.” This novel diagnosis cast doubt on the ability of the boy to change and suggested that he would likely remain a threat to public safety. (Note: In the 1971 case, the outcomes of the juvenile offenders were mixed; the older boy avoided further trouble with the law, while the younger boy did not.) A second expert for the court strongly disagreed. This expert did not believe the boy was competent to stand trial and explained that even a gifted 6-year-old would have difficulty appreciating the magnitude of a trial proceeding. He also criticized the first expert’s diagnosis, especially the implication that the boy could not be helped: “There’s no doubt in my mind but that we can effectively influence the life of any 6-year-old, the most violent 6-year-old included. And to desist from this, to reject that challenge, to turn away from that child is, I believe, very, very abusive.” In the end, the juvenile court judge ruled that the boy was not competent to stand trial. The boy was admitted to a facility for disturbed children where he received intensive therapy (reports suggest that he had been exposed to much violence in his short life, that he may have been abused by his mother’s boyfriends, and that his mother lacked effective parenting skills). The prosecutor in the case, however, said he would “still press charges if the boy were later judged competent.” (For a discussion of a more recent case, see the Teaching Aids section at the end of this chapter.) Questions for Discussion 1. Based on the facts presented here, do you agree with the prosecutor’s decision to charge the 6-year-old with attempted murder, so that the boy could be held responsible for his actions? Or do you agree with the view that, instead, efforts should be focused on the boy’s treatment and rehabilitation? Justify the position you take. 2. In 1971, juvenile arrests in California were on the decline. Throughout the early to mid1990s, juvenile arrests—especially arrests for serious violent crimes—had been increasing and received much coverage in the media. How might larger trends in juvenile crime (whether it was increasing or decreasing at the time) have affected the public’s mood toward the juveniles in the two cases described earlier? fired two shots into the car. The husband was killed in front of his two children. According to witnesses, Little B exclaimed that “This is still New Jack City!” referring to a movie about violent drug gangs. Case #2. Our second case occurred in 1999, one month after two juveniles shot 13 other people to death at Columbine High School. A 15-year-old juvenile entered the commons area at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia. The juvenile was carrying a .22-caliber What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 17 sawed-off rifle, and he started shooting into a crowd of between 150 and 200 students. He hit six of the students, although none died. He ran out of the school. Two of his classmates chased him. He pulled out a .357 Magnum handgun and fired at them but missed both. A letter was later found under the juvenile’s bed. Part of it read: The one big question everybody is probably wondering is, Why? Well, for the sake of my brothers and sisters related to the Trenchcoat Mafia, that will have to remain a mystery to the public eye. I have been planning this for years, but I finally got pissed off enough to really do it. (quoted in Stafford, 1999:C1) [Note: The juveniles who killed 13 people at Columbine High School were said to be part of a group known as the “Trenchcoat Mafia.”] The response to these cases. These two juveniles elicited a different reaction from the community and juvenile justice system than the juvenile offenders described earlier in this chapter. With isolated exceptions, there was little talk of their immaturity and the need to guide and help them. Little B, in fact, was described in the media and by politicians as a “thug” and an “evil” in the city, among other things. Most people were outraged at the horrible crime he had committed and demanded that he be severely punished. Little B was tried as an adult and sentenced to life in prison. He will be eligible for parole after serving 14 years. The second juvenile was also tried as an adult and is now serving a 20-year term in prison; he will be eligible for parole when he is 33 years old. These case studies illustrate an important point about the changing nature of juvenile delinquency: Beginning in the late 1980s, older juveniles who committed serious crimes were viewed and treated less like “traditional” juvenile delinquents and more like adult offenders. Retreating from the Get-Tough Approach (Since the Early 2000s) There is evidence that the way in which we view and treat juvenile offenders is again changing. In particular, the media, policy makers, and others are once again starting to emphasize the differences between juveniles and adults, particularly the immaturity of juveniles. And this difference in view is leading to a retreat from the get-tough approach of the 1980s and 1990s. There are several possible reasons for this change. There has been a dramatic decline in levels of delinquency, including serious delinquency, since the mid 1990s (see Chapter 3). People may feel less threatened by juvenile crime and so are perhaps less likely to embrace punitive or get-tough policies. New evidence on brain development over the life course has reinforced the view that juveniles are less mature than adults. As noted earlier, this evidence indicates that the brain continues to develop through the mid20s, particularly that part of the brain responsible for the control of one’s behavior. Also, evidence indicates that many of the get-tough approaches adopted in the 1980s and 1990s are not effective in reducing delinquency; in fact, they sometimes increase the likelihood of subsequent offending (see Chapter 23). This includes approaches such as trying juveniles as adults, confining them in institutions for long periods, placing them in boot camps, and zero-tolerance policies in the schools. For example, juveniles who are tried and punished as adults are somewhat more likely to offend than comparable juveniles tried in juvenile court (Feld and Bishop, 2012). Further, certain of the get-tough approaches are quite expensive and sometimes lead to the inhumane treatment of juveniles. Juveniles confined in adult prisons, for example, are more likely to be physically and sexually assaulted than those in juvenile facilities (see Mulvey and Schubert, 2012; Parsell, 2012). As a result, our treatment of juvenile offenders has changed somewhat since the early 2000s, with many of the get-tough approaches being scaled back or abandoned. Fewer juveniles are being sent to institutions. The number of confined juveniles declined 18 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency from 108,802 in 2000 to 54,148 in 2013, (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). Many states have abandoned or are phasing out the use of boot camps. The federal government has recommended that certain other punitive measures, such as zero-tolerance policies in the schools, be ended (Hefling, 2014). At the same time, rehabilitative measures are being more widely used in many states (Lee, 2013). Such measures include drug treatment, after-school programs, and restorative justice approaches, which allow offenders to repair the harm they have caused through activities such as community service. We do not have good data on trends in the number of juveniles tried in adult courts (see Griffin et al., 2011). But since 2005 almost half the states have passed laws designed to reduce the likelihood that juveniles will be tried as adults or, if tried and sentenced, confined in adult prisons (Schwartz, 2013). Also, a few states have raised the age at which offenders are treated as adults. For example, Connecticut raised the age from 16 to 18, and New York is considering doing the same. Finally, the Supreme Court issued a series of major decisions stating that it is unconstitutional to impose certain severe sanctions on juveniles on the grounds that they are less mature than adults. These decisions are described next. The juvenile death penalty. In early 2005, twenty states permitted the execution of individuals who committed their crimes when they were 16 or 17 years old. More than 70 such individuals were on death row at this time (see Sharp et al., 2007). Since 1973, 22 individuals who committed their crimes while they were juveniles have been executed. On March 1, 2005, the Supreme Court forbade the execution of individuals who committed their crimes before turning 18. The following comments about the case (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 [2005]) appeared in an article by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times. Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. First, as any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies . . . tend to confirm, “a lack of maturity and an undeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.” The second area of difference is that juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. The third broad difference is that the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed. . . . These differences render suspect any conclusion that a juvenile falls among the worst offenders. Once the diminished culpability of juveniles is recognized, it is evident that the penological justifications for the death penalty apply to them with lesser force than to adults. . . . The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest. (Greenhouse, 2005:A14)8 Life without parole for juveniles. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who commit crimes in which no one dies cannot be sentenced to life with no possibility of parole (Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 [2010]). Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia allowed such sentences (Liptak, 2010). And in 2012, the Supreme Court struck down laws that mandated a sentence of life without parole for murderers who committed their crimes under age 18 (Liptak and Bronner, 2012). More than 2,000 people had been sentenced under such laws. According to the Court, judges cannot impose a sentence of life without possibility of parole on juvenile murderers unless they have considered the defendant’s age, level of maturity, life circumstances, and the nature of the crime (Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 [2012]). In both the 2010 and 2012 decisions, the Supreme Court What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 19 stated that children are less mature than adults and so should be treated differently by the justice system, particularly with respect to the most severe sanctions. So our view and treatment of juvenile offenders continues to evolve. Juveniles are generally seen as less mature than adults and therefore less deserving of punishment, but more in need of guidance and help. But sometimes juvenile offenders, particularly older, more serious offenders, are viewed and treated more like adults. And at other times the differences between juveniles and adults are emphasized, and more effort is devoted to rehabilitating, rather than punishing, juvenile offenders. To learn how juvenile offenders are viewed and treated in other nations, see Box 1.2. Box 1.2 Juvenile Delinquency & Juvenile Justice across the Globe Juvenile delinquency is a global problem (Krohn and Lane, 2015). To get a better sense of this, we briefly summarize juvenile crime trends and juvenile justice practices in two very different countries: Brazil and China. Brazil. In recent decades, Brazilian society has undergone major changes and tranformations. Emerging from a military dictatorship in the 1980s, Brazil experienced extreme inequality, economic instability, and increasing urbanization, with large numbers of people “living in city slums” (Diniz Filho and Lopes, 2015:27-28). These problems were associated with high rates of youth violence as well as violence against street youth committed by “self-appointed vigilante groups made up of offduty policemen.” (Note: The homicide rate in Brazil is about five times higher than in the United States—see Currie, 2016.) These developments prompted significant legal reforms, including laws granting protections to juveniles who commit “infractions” (acts that would be crimes if committed by adults). These protections give priority to rehabilitation and reintegration with family and community, with detention as a last resort. In practice, however, many juveniles are confined in “educational detention facilities” where they remain idle; conditions are poor, and the detainees have been subject to violent abuse by guards. Further, “zero tolerance practices have permeated Brazil’s culture in such a profound way that most citizens tacitly approve of police abuse as a legitimate resource to maintain public safety” (Diniz Filho and Lopes, 2015:35). Youth violence, however, continues to rise. Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs. Certain Brazilian states have launched innovative violence prevention programs that provide incentives for youth to stay in school. These programs also prepare at-risk youth for employment. Evaluations of these programs are ongoing, but there is some evidence they may be helping to reduce crime (Diniz Filho and Lopes, 2015). China. Although we have limited data on crime and delinquency in China, it is believed that China has traditionally been a low-crime country, where Confucian values encouraged people to “uphold the honor of their family, to think of the consequences of their behaviors to the groups to which they belong, and to be loyal to friends and rulers” (Dong, 2015:76). During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, however, traditional customs and values were challenged by social and political reformers and youth were encouraged to struggle against the existing social order. By the 1980s, China experienced a “crime boom.” The government responded with a “hard strike” campaign focused on punishment and deterrence, which included the (Continued) 20 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency (Continued) death penalty. This campaign targeted juvenile gang leaders and serious adult criminals. Although “hard strike” had a short-term deterrent effect, rates of juvenile delinquency continued to rise over the long run (Dong, 2015). In the 1990s major legal reforms were enacted that require the entire society to play a role in the prevention of crime and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders: In practice, “education and rescue teams” are formed around juvenile delinquents, which comprise their parents, relatives, teachers, members of local neighborhood committees, and the police. . . . For different cases, [remedies] include victim-offender reconciliation, heart-to-heart talks between juvenile delinquents and representatives of the “education and rescue team,” group discussion of juvenile delinquents’ problems and offering criticisms and suggestions, and group study of laws and regulations. (Dong, 2015:81) Serious and violent juvenile offenders can be sentenced to reformatories, where they wear uniforms and spend half their waking hours in educational activities and the other half performing labor. Although good crime statistics from China are difficult to obtain, available data indicate that China has a homicide rate that is about five times lower than that of the United States. (For more on international comparisons, see Krohn and Lane, 2015.) Questions for Discussion 1. What lessons, if any, could be learned from these international comparisons, and from the experiences of Brazil and China? 2. It is said that China’s “hard strike” campaign deterred crime for a time, but did not have lasting effects. Why might this be the case? (Note: see Chapter 23 for a discussion of police “crackdowns” in the United States.) SUMMARY You now know what juvenile delinquency is. The term refers to violations of the criminal law (and sometimes status offense laws) by minors. You also know that our society tends to view and treat juvenile delinquents differently than adult criminals—although older juveniles who commit serious crimes are something of an exception. Now that you know what delinquency is, we next want to examine the extent of delinquency and the characteristics of delinquents. Before doing that, however, we must present information on how delinquency is measured—which is the topic of Chapter 2. TEACHING AIDS Web-Based Exercises The invention of delinquency. Watch the YouTube video, “Juvenile Court Documentary” by Shelby County, much of which focuses on the origins of the Memphis Juvenile Court. Relate the video to this chapter’s discussion of the invention of juvenile delinquency. In particular, what forces lead to the creation of the court (e.g., the growth of slums in Memphis, street youth getting into trouble)? Who lobbied for the creation of the court? Was the court created to guide and help juveniles or to exercise greater control over them? Compare the arguments made in the video to those in the article by Randall G. Shelden and Lynn T. Osborne, “‘For Their Own Good?’: Class Interests and the Child Saving What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 21 Movement in Memphis, Tennessee, 1900–1917” (Criminology, vol. 27 [1989], pp. 747–767). Why do you think the video and the article by Shelden and Osborne present such different views on the origin of the court? Do you favor one view over the other? If so, why? The evolving view and treatment of juvenile offenders. Drawing on YouTube or other websites, find a video that criticizes some method of responding to juvenile offenders, argues that we should respond to juvenile offenders differently, or both. This may be a contemporary video (e.g., one that criticizes placing juvenile offenders in adult prisons or argues for the use of some get-tough approaches) or a video from the past (e.g., one that criticizes the death penalty for juveniles). Many such videos can be found by using search terms like “juvenile delinquency,” “juvenile court,” “juvenile prison,” “juvenile death penalty,” and “get-tough juvenile delinquents.” List the reasons why the video is critical of the response described or recommends an alternative response. Does the video support its argument by presenting a particular view of juveniles (e.g., as immature, as “street smart” and dangerous)? If possible, determine who produced or sponsored the video, describe the purpose of this group, and discuss what they may have hoped to accomplish with this video. Controversial Case As indicated in this chapter, there was a movement from the late 1980s to the early 2000s to treat older juveniles accused of having committed serious crimes as adults, trying these suspects in adult courts, and subjecting them to the same punishments as adults. While there has been a retreat from this approach in recent years, it is still the case that large numbers of older, serious juvenile offenders are tried and punished as adults. Even very young offenders still face the possibility of being tried as adults, as discussed shortly. Some individuals argue that we should abandon this practice, while others argue in favor of treating at least some juvenile offenders as adults.9 The case study that follows is designed to get you to think about the extent to which juvenile offenders should be treated like adult offenders. The “Slender Man” case. In the spring of 2014, a 12-year-old girl in Waukesha, Wisconsin, was stabbed 19 times and left for dead. Although the girl survived the attack and went back to school, the community was shocked to learn that the crime had allegedly been hatched by two other girls, friends of the victim. The two friends, who were also 12 years old at the time, told police they had developed an obsession with “Slender Man”—a fictional bogeyman character that appears in various stories and videos on the internet. 22 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency According to the girls, they came to believe that Slender Man “would harm them or their families if they didn’t kill in his name” (Aradillas, 2017:105). Since 2014, both girls have been confined in separate facilities, having been charged with first-degree attempted murder. A newspaper report summarized the situation as follows: Anyone 10 or older charged with first-degree attempted homicide is automatically considered an adult under Wisconsin law. But defense attorneys have argued that the case belongs in juvenile court, saying the adolescents suffer from mental illness and won’t get the treatment they need in the adult prison system. Experts testified that one of the girls has schizophrenia and an oppositional defiant disorder that requires long-term mental health treatment. The other girl has been diagnosed with a delusional disorder and a condition known as schizotypy, which a psychologist testified made her vulnerable to believing in Slender Man. (Associated Press, 2016) In 2016, however, a Wisconsin judge ruled that the two girls should be tried as adults. He pointed to the extreme nature of the violence, the fact that it was planned in advance, and the fact that, if convicted, the juvenile court would have to release the girls at age 18. In contrast, if they are convicted in adult court they could be sentenced to prison for up to 65 years. The girls are now awaiting trial in adult court. Do you think the two girls should be tried as adults or juveniles? If you believe they should be tried as adults, for how long should they be sentenced to prison if convicted? Justify the positions you take. (Note: For more on mental illness and juvenile justice, see Box 13.2 in Chapter 13; you may also have an interest in an HBO documentary on the case titled, Beware of Slenderman.) TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CHAPTER 1. What is juvenile delinquency? 2. Describe the major differences in the way that society views juvenile offenders and adult offenders. 3. What does it mean to say that juveniles are “immature”? 4. Describe the major differences in the way that society treats juvenile offenders and 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. adult offenders. Discuss how these differences reflect our differing views of juvenile and adult offenders. What is a status offense? Name at least five status offenses. What is the rationale, or reason, for having status offenses? What are the major criticisms against status offense laws? How have states responded to these criticisms? List the major ways in which juvenile court differs from adult court. Discuss the reasons for such differences. Describe the ways in which juvenile courts are becoming more like adult courts. Describe how juvenile correctional institutions differ from those for adults. Why are older juveniles who commit serious crimes being viewed and treated more like adult offenders? What do we mean by “the invention of juvenile delinquency”? How can we explain the invention of juvenile delinquency? How has our view or conception of children changed over time? What are some of the reasons for the changes? What Is Delinquency and How Does It Differ from Adult Crime? 23 15. Describe the major social changes that occurred in the United States during 16. 17. 18. 19. the 1800s and early 1900s and how they contributed to the invention of juvenile delinquency. There are two interpretations of how concern over the poor children in slums contributed to the invention of juvenile delinquency. Describe these interpretations. Describe how we might determine which is correct. Describe how our view and treatment of juvenile offenders changed from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. What were the reasons for this change? Describe how our view and treatment of juvenile offenders has changed since the early 2000s. What are the reasons for this change? Why did the Supreme Court strike down laws that imposed the death penalty for juveniles? According to the Supreme Court, is it now permissible to impose a sentence of life with no possibility of parole on individuals who committed their crime(s) while juveniles? If so, under what conditions? THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Do you think status offenses should be illegal? Defend your answer. If status offenses should not be illegal, how should we respond to them, if at all? (It may help to consider each status offense in turn. For example, should running away from home be illegal? If not, how should we respond to juveniles who run away?) 2. Do you think older juveniles who commit serious crimes should be treated like adult offenders? Defend your answer. KEY TERMS Juvenile delinquency ■ Immaturity ■ Status offenses ■ Juvenile court ■ Due process rights ■ Adjudicated ■ Disposition ■ Youth development centers and training schools ■ Invention of juvenile delinquency ■ Child savers ■ ENDNOTES 1. See Feld, 1999; Rutter et al., 1998; E. Scott, 2002; Steinberg and Cauffman, 2000; Zimring, 1998, 2005. 2. See Applegate et al., 2009; Bishop, 2006; Cullen, 2006; Gerber and Engelhardt-Greer, 1996; Mears et al., 2007; A. R. Roberts, 2004; J. Roberts, 2004; also see Bernard and Kurlychek, 2010; Empey et al., 1999; Feld, 1999; Howell, 1997a; M. Moon et al., 2000; Roberts and Stalans, 1997; Tanenhaus, 2012; Triplett, 1996; Zimring, 1998. 3. See Bernard, 1992; Butts and Mitchell, 2000; Empey et al., 1999; Feld, 1998, 1999; Howell, 1997a, 2003a; Krisberg, 2005; Kupchik, 2006; Puzzanchera and Hockenberry, 2013; A. R. R oberts, 2004; J. Roberts, 2004; Rosenheim et al., 2002; H. Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; Tanenhaus, 2012; Zimring, 1998. 4. Also see Butts and Mitchell, 2000; Cullen, 2006; Feld, 1999; Howell, 2003a; Krisberg, 2005; Kupchik, 2006; H. Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; Tanenhaus, 2012; Zimring, 2005. 5. For excellent overviews of this topic, see Bernard and Kurlychek, 2010; Chavez-Garcia, 2007; Empey et al., 1999; Feld, 1999; Howell, 1997a; also see Aries, 1962; DeMause, 1974; Finestone, 24 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency 1976; Platt, 1969; Salerno, 1991; Schlossman, 1977; Shelden and Osborne, 1989; Sutton, 1988; Tanenhaus, 2012; Ward, 2012. 6. See Cullen, 2006; Howell, 2003a; Tanenhaus, 2012; Zimring, 1998. 7. See Applegate et al., 2009; Cullen, 2006; Mears et al., 2007; Moon et al., 2000; Pastore and Maguire, 2003; Robert and Stalans, 1997; J. Roberts, 2004; Tanenhaus, 2012; Triplett, 1996; Zimring, 2005. 8. See Butts and Mitchell, 2000; Feld, 1999; Howell, 2003a; M. Jackson and Knepper, 2003; Ward, 2012. 9. For further information on juveniles and the death penalty, see Chapter 23 of this text; Bohm, 2003; Cothern, 2000; Feld, 1999:236–238; Howell, 2003a:37–39; Zimring, 2005. 2 How Is Delinquency Measured? 25 26 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency N ow that you know what delinquency is, we want to answer two basic questions about it: How much delinquency is there in the United States, and is delinquency increasing? But before we can answer these questions (Chapter 3), we first have to discuss the different ways of measuring delinquency. As you will see, the way in which delinquency is measured often has a major impact on the conclusions that are drawn about the extent of delinquency and trends in delinquency. You might be groaning a bit right now, thinking, “Oh no, I don’t want to read some technical discussion about how to measure delinquency!” But bear with us; this information is important. A lot of what you hear about the extent of delinquency and trends in delinquency is wrong or misleading. This section will help you understand why. There are three major ways of measuring the extent of and trends in delinquency: (1) “official” statistics from the police, juvenile court, and juvenile correctional agencies; (2) “self-report” data from juveniles, with juveniles being asked about the offenses they have committed; and (3) “victimization” data, with people being asked whether they have been the victims of various crimes. This chapter describes each of these methods and their advantages and disadvantages.1 After reading this chapter, you should be able to: • Describe the three major ways to estimate the extent of delinquency and trends in delinquency. • Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each method. • Indicate how these strengths and weaknesses impact estimates of the extent of and trends in delinquency. • Explain why reports of the extent of delinquency or trends in delinquency are often misleading. OFFICIAL STATISTICS—ESPECIALLY ARREST DATA FROM THE POLICE Official statistics include data from the police, the courts, and juvenile correctional agencies, that is, data from the “official agencies” responsible for dealing with juvenile offenders. The most commonly used official statistics are arrest data from the police. Because only some of the juveniles arrested by the police are referred to juvenile court, and only some of the people referred to juvenile court are sent to juvenile correctional agencies, arrest data provide a more accurate indication of the extent of delinquency. We, therefore, focus on arrest data in this discussion (data from juvenile courts and correctional agencies are described in Chapter 21). Each year the FBI collects data from the police and publishes these data in a report called Crime in the United States: The Uniform Crime Reports. The reports are available on the FBI’s website at http://www.fbi.gov. Each report is divided into several sections. The first section contains information on the number of crimes known to the police. As the name implies, these are crimes that the police know about, both crimes that have been reported to the police and crimes that the police have discovered on their own. The second section contains information on the number of crimes that have been “cleared” or solved by arrest. Contrary to the impression you might get from the media, most crimes are not cleared by arrest. In 2015, less than half (46 percent) of the violent crimes known to the police were cleared by arrest, and only 19 percent of the property crimes known to police were cleared by arrest (see Box 2.1). The third section contains information on the number of arrests and the characteristics of the people who were arrested, including the most serious offense they were arrested for and the individuals’ age, sex, and race. Note that the number of crimes cleared by arrest is not equal to the number of arrests. Sometimes How Is Delinquency Measured? 27 Box 2.1 Do the Crime, Avoid the Time? The Apprehension of Offenders as the Weak Link in the Juvenile Justice Process Viewers of television crime shows, such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, may be surprised to learn that, in the real world, most crimes that come to the attention of the police go unsolved. Despite recent advances in forensic and other crime-fighting technologies, the arrest and punishment of offenders remains far from certain. Few may appreciate this fact more than the offenders themselves. In one study, researchers examined young people who self-reported a very high rate of serious offending over a two-year period (specifically, these youths reported 20 or more serious “index” offenses, such as aggravated assaults, burglaries, and auto thefts). It turned out that only 4 percent of these youth had been arrested for an index offense during the period under study (an additional 18 percent had been arrested for something other than an index offense). Apparently, police were unable to solve these index crimes, or perhaps the crimes were never reported to the police to begin with. The more crime an individual commits, the greater the odds of arrest; however, researchers estimate that the “likelihood of arrest is close to zero” until one reports in excess of 20 index offenses (Dunford and Elliott, 1984:81). (In the next chapter, we examine these data more closely.) It appears that many young offenders come to appreciate the uncertainty of arrest or apprehension, and this is true even among those offenders who have been arrested (Continued) 28 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency (Continued) and punished in the past. In a large survey of incarcerated juveniles, respondents were asked to estimate the likelihood that they would be arrested again should they reoffend. A sizable percentage (39 percent) believed they would not be arrested. (However, most believed that, if they were caught, they would be punished, and punished more severely than in the past). As the authors of the survey observe: Perhaps these youth feel they will be better at eluding law enforcement in the future, or perhaps they recognize the considerable challenge that officers face in solving crime and apprehending those responsible. Whatever their reasoning, youth’s answers [in the survey referred to] suggest that arrest or apprehension is the weakest link in the sanctioning process. (Sedlak and Bruce, 2010:9) If offenders believe that the overall odds of apprehension are low, then this fact may help explain their attraction to delinquency. Moreover, getting away with delinquency and outwitting the authorities may be rewarding and may increase the likelihood of repeat offending. In the words of one offender: The worst thing that can happen to a kid, or a guy—is to go out and do something [a crime] and be successful the first time out. I got a proposition to drive a car in a bank job, so I went. Everything went off good. . . . I was just going to drive a [getaway] car once; I’d give it a try. And it worked out so good, so, like I say, if you’re a success, it feels good. So we kept going. (quoted in Laub and Sampson, 2003:181–182) Furthermore, some offenders may work to develop their apprehension-avoidance skills, as illustrated by the following young man, who was not incarcerated but remained active on the streets at the time of the interview): A lot of people look at me, or look at criminals, and we’re depicted as dumb folks. . . . But I ain’t no dummy, by far, OK? Criminals these days are smarter, man, a lot smarter. Because the more cops come up with the different things, like these cameras on the street corner, there’s a lot more challenges you got to get up to. [The offender then described how he reads Popular Mechanics and other magazines to stay ahead of new car alarm systems and other crime control technologies.] (quoted in Brezina and Topalli, 2009) Questions for Discussion 1. What impressions have you or your classmates received from watching television crime shows, such as CSI? Have you been under the impression that most crimes in the real world are “solved,” with the persons responsible being arrested? Do you think the average viewer is able to separate fact from fiction? 2. Much crime-control legislation has focused on increasing the severity of punishment, with heavier fines, jail time, or longer prison sentences for various offenses. Do you think these punishments can deter crime if offenders perceive a low likelihood of arrest or apprehension? multiple crimes might be cleared by a single arrest. For example, an individual may be arrested for several burglaries. And sometimes a single crime is cleared by the arrest of many people. For example, several people may be arrested for a single burglary. Juveniles usually commit their crimes in groups, and it is often the case that several juveniles are arrested for a single crime (see Chapter 16 for further discussion). How Is Delinquency Measured? 29 Information on the extent of delinquency and trends in delinquency comes from the clearance and arrest data. These data (unlike the “crimes known to the police” data) contain information on the age of the offender. So they allow us to estimate such things as the number of crimes committed by juveniles, the number of arrests that involve juveniles, the most serious offense these juveniles were arrested for, and whether juvenile arrests are increasing or decreasing. Most media reports regarding the extent of and trends in delinquency are based on these clearance and arrest data. The FBI Crime Reports focus on what are known as “Part I,” or “index,” offenses and “Part II” offenses. The Part I, or index, offenses are eight relatively serious violent and property crimes: criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. (Note: Recently, the FBI added human trafficking crimes to the Part I offenses. Because data on these crimes remain limited, we do not focus on them in this chapter.) The FBI reports both “crimes known to the police” and clearance/arrest data on these offenses. The top half of Table 2.1 provides a definition of each of these offenses. Read these definitions and then try to answer the following multiple-choice question: Your roommate steals your TV from the living room of your apartment while you are attending class. Is this a: a. burglary b. larceny-theft c. robbery d. all of the above The Part II offenses consist of 20 additional offenses as well as a category for “all other offenses.” These offenses are listed in the bottom part of Table 2.1. Note that this list includes one status offense: curfew violation. Also, liquor law violations often i nvolve the status offense of drinking under age. Arrests for all other status offenses are included in the “all other offenses” category. The FBI reports arrest data for the Part II offenses only. The data from the FBI have several advantages. They are collected from police departments representing approximately 95 percent of the U.S. population. They have been collected since 1930, so they provide long-term information on trends in crime. And certain evidence suggests that the “crimes known to the police” data provide a moderately accurate measure of the extent of and trends in certain types of serious crime, particularly homicide and serious instances of certain other crimes like robbery, burglary, and motor vehicle theft (see Gove et al., 1985). But at the same time, a number of problems are associated with the FBI data, particularly the arrest data. Problems with Arrest Data Arrest data greatly underestimate the extent of most forms of delinquency and may sometimes provide misleading information about trends in delinquency. There are several reasons for this underestimation, including the following. Most delinquent acts do not become known to the police. There are three reasons for this. First, the police usually find out about a crime when someone else—usually the crime victim—reports it to them. But surveys of crime victims indicate that only about 40 percent of all crime victimizations are reported to the police. Not surprisingly, serious crimes are more likely to be reported to the police than minor crimes. Serious crimes include those where a weapon is used, the victim is injured, and/or there is a significant financial loss. Crimes involving strangers are also more likely to be reported to the police. And crimes against adults are more likely to be reported to the police than crimes against 30 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency TABLE 2.1 Part I and Part II Offenses Part I or Index Offenses 1. Criminal Homicide: (a) Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. Deaths caused by negligence, attempts to kill, assaults to kill, suicides, and accidental deaths are excluded. Justifiable homicides are also excluded. (b) Manslaughter by negligence: the killing of another person through gross negligence. Deaths of persons due to their own negligence, accidental deaths not resulting from gross negligence, and traffic fatalities are not included in the category manslaughter by negligence. 2. Rape: The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. 3. Robbery: The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear. 4. Aggravated assault: An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Simple assaults are excluded. 5. Burglary: The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft. Attempted forcible entry is included. 6. Larceny-theft: The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another. Examples are thefts of bicycles, motor vehicle parts and accessories, shoplifting, pocket-picking, or the stealing of any property or article that is not taken by force and violence or by fraud. Attempted larcenies are included. Embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, check fraud, etc., are excluded. 7. Motor vehicle theft: The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is selfpropelled and runs on land surface and not on rails. 8. Arson: The willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc. Part II Offenses Other assaults Forgery and counterfeiting Fraud Embezzlement Stolen property: buying, receiving, possessing Vandalism Weapons: carrying, possessing, etc. Prostitution and commercialized vice Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) Drug abuse violations Gambling Offenses against family and children Driving under the influence Liquor laws Drunkenness Disorderly conduct Vagrancy All other offenses Suspicion Curfew and loitering law violations SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016. How Is Delinquency Measured? 31 juveniles (see Finkelhor and Ormond, 1999; Watkins, 2005). Second, crimes like drug use and gambling do not have a “victim” in the usual sense of the word—that is, someone who feels that he or she has been injured. It is unlikely that the participants in these crimes will notify the police. And third, it is physically difficult for the police to detect most crimes on their own. Obviously they cannot detect crimes that occur in private, but they also have trouble detecting crimes that occur in public. The police in a patrol car may pass a given spot on their beat once or twice a day, if that often, so they are unlikely to come upon crimes in progress. The police therefore do not even know about the large majority of crimes that occur, especially the less serious crimes. As a result, even the “crimes known to the police” data greatly underestimate the extent of crime, with the exception of homicide and serious instances of a few other crimes. Even when crimes become known to the police, the police do not catch the offender in most cases. As we discuss further in Chapter 20, the police are unlikely to catch the offender unless they discover the offender at the scene of the crime, or unless someone can identify the offender to them; this is one reason why police are more likely to catch offenders who commit violent crimes than those who commit property crimes. Most violent crimes involve people who know one another, so the victim can often identify the offender (or the police have a good idea of who the offender might be). But for n onviolent crimes, which constitute the vast majority of crimes, the police usually do not catch the offender. The police do not arrest most of the suspected offenders they catch. As you will learn in Chapter 20, the police have a lot of discretion over whether to arrest suspected offenders. They exercise that discretion by releasing most of the suspected offenders they encounter. Several factors influence whether the police make an arrest; the seriousness of the offense is most important. But other factors also have an impact. The attitude of the victim or complainant is quite important. Does the victim press for arrest? If so, the police will usually make an arrest. If the victim argues against arrest, the police will usually let the offender go. As discussed in Chapter 22, the characteristics of the offender—including race, class, and sex—often influence the likelihood of arrest. The characteristics of the police department may also be important. Some police departments encourage officers to informally resolve criminal matters, while others encourage officers to make arrests.2 Also, police departments occasionally crack down on certain offenses, like drug crimes, prostitution, curfew violation, and truancy. The police are more likely to search for and arrest individuals committing such crimes during a crackdown. For example, the transit police in the city of Atlanta instituted a crackdown against truancy, and as a result the number of juveniles apprehended for truancy increased by almost 200 percent over a twoyear period. Research has shown that only about 20 percent of the crimes known to the police are cleared by arrest. (As indicated earlier, this percentage varies by type of crime. In 2015, 62 percent of all murders and 54 percent of all aggravated or serious assaults were cleared by arrest, versus 13 percent of all burglaries and 13 percent of all motor vehicle thefts.) Police data reported to the FBI are sometimes inaccurate. On top of all this, the police sometimes report inaccurate data to the FBI. Sometimes these inaccurate reports are the result of unintentional errors on the part of the police, and sometimes the police deliberately distort crime data in an effort to make themselves look good—for example, by “unfounding” crime reports. The police usually investigate crime reports by citizens to determine whether a crime has occurred and what type of crime has occurred, if any. If they feel that a crime has not occurred, they “unfound” the crime report. And that “crime” does not become part of the “crimes known to the police” data reported to the FBI. Some 32 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency police departments have lowered their crime rates by unfounding a large percentage of the crimes reported to them. The police in our hometown of Atlanta were accused of wrongly unfounding a large number of crimes in 1996. An external audit found some support for this accusation. For example, Atlanta reported 392 rapes to the FBI in 1996. This represented an 11 percent decrease in rapes compared to 1995. The external audit, however, concluded that the Atlanta police wrongly unfounded 56 rapes in 1996. If these 56 rapes had been reported to the FBI along with the other rapes, the number of rapes in Atlanta would have increased 2 percent from 1995 (Martz, 1999). Another common way in which the police distort crime data involves reclassifying crimes from more to less serious categories. For example, police officials may reclassify aggravated assaults as simple assaults or burglaries as larcenies. A report in the New York Times stated that about one-quarter of the felonies or serious crimes recorded in a New York City precinct in 2002 were improperly downgraded to misdemeanors or minor crimes. As a result of this downgrading, the precinct reported a 7.4 percent drop in serious crime compared to 2001. But when the improperly downgraded crimes were reclassified as felonies, the precinct had a 15 percent increase in serious crime. According to the news report, precinct commanders in New York City were under much pressure to keep crime rates down, and some claim that this occasionally led certain officials to “shave numbers” (Rashbaum, 2003). The FBI arrest data report only the most serious offense for which the person is arrested. For example, suppose a juvenile robs someone while under the influence of an illicit drug. The juvenile may be arrested for both robbery and drug abuse, but only the robbery arrest will be shown in the FBI data. The FBI data on drug abuse arrests indicate only the number of arrests for which drug abuse is the most serious charge. Many additional drug abuse arrests may have been made, but these arrests are not reported by the FBI because drug abuse is not the most serious charge. (Note: The National IncidentBased R eporting System [NIBRS] was designed to provide more complete data on juvenile arrests, but not enough states participate in the program at this time to permit generalizations to the United States as a whole [see Bierie, 2015].) Summary Arrest data, then, vastly underestimate the extent of delinquency. This underestimation is especially true for minor delinquency, which is less likely to become known to the police and is less likely to result in arrest. Further, arrest data may provide misleading information on trends in delinquency. Suppose, for example, that arrest data show an increase in juvenile delinquency over time. This increase could be due to a number of factors. Perhaps victims have become more likely to report crimes to the police (e.g., the percentage of violent crimes reported to the police increased from 43 percent in 1993 to 49 percent in 2009—see Truman and Rand, 2010). Perhaps complainants have become more likely to press for arrest (e.g., stores have become more likely to press for arrest in shoplifting cases). Perhaps police departments have become more likely to encourage officers to make arrests (e.g., some police departments have adopted zero-tolerance policing, where even minor violations of the law may result in arrest). Perhaps the police have cracked down on certain types of crime, like drug use or gun-related crimes. Perhaps the police are turning in more accurate crime reports (data suggest that crime reports have become more accurate in recent decades). Or perhaps juvenile delinquency really is increasing. It is sometimes the case that we cannot tell which factor or factors are responsible for a change in arrest rates. How Is Delinquency Measured? 33 SELF-REPORT DATA Given the problems with arrest data, criminologists have tried to develop alternative ways to measure the extent of delinquency. The major alternative they have developed is selfreport data. Self-report data are obtained by asking juveniles about the extent of their delinquency. Sometimes the juveniles are interviewed, and sometimes they fill out questionnaires. Most self-report surveys focus on delinquency committed during the previous year, to minimize problems with memory. In almost all cases, self-report surveys are anonymous, or respondents are assured that their answers are confidential. A popular self-report measure of delinquency is shown in Table 2.2. Take a few minutes to answer the questions in this measure (although you should not record the answers in this book in case it is lost or borrowed). Self-report surveys of delinquency did not come into wide use until the 1960s, but they are now the major method criminologists use to measure delinquency. The major advantage of self-report data is that they provide an estimate of all delinquency committed by juveniles, regardless of whether that delinquency is known to the police or has resulted in arrest. As a consequence, self-report data indicate that delinquency is far more extensive than arrest data suggest. But before we continue our discussion of self-report data, let us address a question that we know is on your mind. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT JUVENILES ARE TELLING THE TRUTH? Most people have the same reaction to self-report surveys: How do researchers know that juveniles are telling the truth? They are asking juveniles whether they have engaged in a range of illegal behaviors, some of which are strongly condemned and subject to severe punishment. It is reasonable to think that many juveniles will underreport their delinquency. Researchers have tried to estimate the accuracy of self-report data in several ways. None of these ways are perfect, but taken together they provide a rough estimate of the accuracy of self-report data (see Thornberry and Krohn, 2000, for an excellent overview of this issue). 1. Official record comparisons. Most commonly, researchers compare the selfreported delinquent acts of respondents with their police or court records. They determine whether respondents report the offenses for which they have been arrested or convicted. 3 The failure of respondents to report such offenses suggests that selfreport data are inaccurate. Reporting such offenses suggests that self-report data may be accurate. It does not, of course, prove that self-report data are accurate. People may admit to offenses for which they have been arrested or convicted but fail to report other offenses. 2. Comparisons with peer, family, or school reports. Certain researchers have estimated the accuracy of self-reports by determining whether respondents report the delinquent acts that their friends, parents, and/or teachers attribute to them (e.g., Gold, 1966). Failure to do this suggests that self-report data are inaccurate. If respondents do report acts mentioned by others, that suggests that self-report data may be accurate. 3. Lie-detector tests. Certain researchers have used lie-detector tests or the threat of lie-detector tests to estimate the accuracy of self-report data (e.g., Clark and Tift, 1966; Hindelang et al., 1981). For example, juveniles in one study were interviewed about the extent of their delinquency. They were then interviewed again, but this time they were 34 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency TABLE 2.2 A Popular Self-Report Measure of Delinquency How many times in the last year have you 1. Purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to your parents or other family members? 2. Purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to a school? 3. Purposely damaged or destroyed other property that did not belong to you (not counting family or school property)? 4. Stolen (or tried to steal) a motor vehicle, such as a car or motorcycle? 5. Stolen (or tried to steal) something worth more than $50? 6. Knowingly bought, sold, or held stolen goods (or tried to do any of these things)? 7. Thrown objects (such as rocks, snowballs, or bottles) at cars or people? 8. Run away from home? 9. Lied about your age to gain entrance or to purchase something (lied about your age to buy liquor or get into a movie)? 10. Carried a hidden weapon other than a plain pocketknife? 11. Stolen (or tried to steal) things worth $5 or less? 12. Attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing him/her? 13. Been paid for having sexual relations with someone? 14. Had sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex other than your wife/husband? 15. Been involved in gang fights? 16. Sold marijuana or hashish (“pot,” “grass,” “hash”)? 17. Cheated on school tests? 18. Hitchhiked where it was illegal to do so? 19. Stolen money or other things from your parents or other members of your family? 20. Hit (or threatened to hit) a teacher or other adult at school? 21. Hit (or threatened to hit) one of your parents? 22. Hit (or threatened to hit) other students? 23. Been loud, rowdy, or unruly in a public place (disorderly conduct)? 24. Sold hard drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD? 25. Taken a vehicle for a ride (drive) without the owner’s permission? 26. Bought or provided liquor for a minor? 27. Had (or tried to have) sexual relations with someone against their will? 28. Used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or things from other students? 29. Used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or things from a teacher or other adult at school? 30. Used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or things from other people (not students or teachers)? 31. Avoided paying for such things as movies, bus or subway rides, and food? 32. Been drunk in a public place? 33. Stolen (or tried to steal) things worth between $5 and $50? 34. Stolen (or tried to steal) something at school, such as someone’s coat from a classroom, locker, or cafeteria, or a book from a library? 35. Broken into a building or vehicle (or tried to break in) to steal something or just to look around? 36. Begged for money or things from strangers? 37. Skipped classes without an excuse? 38. Failed to return extra change that a cashier gave you by mistake? 39. Been suspended from school? 40. Made obscene telephone calls (calling someone and saying dirty things)? How often in the last year have you used: 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and hard liquor)? Marijuana or hashish (“grass,” “pot,” “hash”)? Hallucinogens (“LSD,” “mescaline,” “peyote,” “acid”)? Amphetamines (“uppers,” “speed,” “whites”)? Barbiturates (“downers,” “reds”)? Heroin (“horse,” “smack”)? Cocaine (“coke”)? SOURCE: Elliott and Ageton, 1980. How Is Delinquency Measured? 35 told that their answers would be evaluated using a “psychological stress evaluator” that detects dishonest responses. They were then asked a variety of questions, including the same questions they had previously been asked about the extent of their delinquency. The researchers then determined whether the juveniles changed their answers in the second interview. 4. Comparisons with drug tests. Researchers have estimated the accuracy of selfreports of drug use by comparing such reports to estimates of drug use obtained from analyses of urine, saliva, or blood (e.g., Akers et al., 1983). 5. Comparisons between groups known to differ in their level of delinquency. Researchers have also estimated the accuracy of self-reports by comparing the self-reported delinquency of groups known to differ in their level of delinquency. For example, they have compared the self-reported delinquency of institutionalized delinquents to that of high school students (e.g., James Short and Nye, 1958). If there is little difference in self-reported delinquency between these groups, that suggests that self-report data are inaccurate. If the institutionalized delinquents have a higher level of self-reported delinquency, that suggests that self-report data may be accurate. Again, none of these methods is perfect, but taken together they allow researchers to form a rough estimate of the accuracy of self-report data. Overall, they suggest that selfreport data provide a moderately accurate estimate of the extent of delinquency. Most juveniles are reasonably honest in their responses, although there is some underreporting (and even a little overreporting) of delinquency. Data suggest that this underreporting is greatest for serious offenses. That is, juveniles are more likely to conceal serious offenses than minor ones. Underreporting may be especially likely to occur among individuals who possess low self-control or various cognitive limitations (e.g., forgetfulness or inability to concentrate). For example, one recent study finds that underreporting is more common among young people who suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD (Sibley et al., 2010). Other individuals may be uneasy about revealing personal information, or they may worry about the possibility of contributing to racial or ethnic stereotypes. Certain data suggest that black males are more likely to underreport the extent of their delinquency, although findings here are somewhat mixed.4 Problems with Many Self-Report Surveys While self-report surveys appear to provide a moderately accurate estimate of the extent of delinquency, they do have some problems (see Thornberry and Krohn, 2000, for a full discussion). One problem is that there are very few long-term, nationwide self-report surveys of delinquency. While the federal government collects data from police departments on an annual basis, the government has no comparable program for the collection of self-report data. Most self-report surveys are administered by university professors (who may receive government funding for their research). Their surveys usually focus on the extent of self-reported delinquency in a single city or region at one point in time. Only a few national self-report surveys have been done. As a result, estimates of the extent of self-reported delinquency in the United States and trends in such delinquency are somewhat limited. A second problem is that many self-report surveys underestimate the extent of serious delinquency. One reason for this has already been indicated: data suggest that respondents sometimes underreport serious delinquent acts. Three additional reasons for the underestimation of serious delinquency are described next. (Some of the more recent self-report surveys, however, have taken significant steps to obtain better estimates of serious delinquency. These steps are described in the following section.) 36 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency Many self-report surveys employ measures of delinquency that focus on minor offenses and employ vague response categories. The early self-report surveys and some recent self-report surveys employ questions identical or similar to the ones in Table 2.3. Take a moment to examine these questions. You will immediately notice that the questions focus on minor forms of delinquency. There is a reason for this. Most self-report surveys, especially the early surveys, examine samples of only a few hundred juveniles. Serious delinquent acts, like serious assaults and rapes, are not common, so only a small number of juveniles will report such acts in a sample of a few hundred. As a consequence, there are too few instances of these acts to allow for any meaningful analyses. Many self-report researchers therefore focus on the more frequently occurring minor offenses. Further, notice the response categories for each delinquency question (“no,” “once or twice,” “several times,” “very often”). Respondents who commit an act 10 times will probably select “very often,” but so will respondents who commit an act 100 times. The response categories do not distinguish offenders who commit an act a few times from those who commit an act scores or even hundreds of times. This lack of precision is a serious problem. Recent data indicate that there is a small group of high-rate offenders, each of whom commits hundreds of delinquent acts per year. These offenders account for a majority of all delinquent acts in some studies. But the response categories used in the survey shown in Table 2.3 do not provide an accurate count of the number of delinquent acts committed by these offenders. So not only do some self-report surveys focus on minor delinquency, but they often also provide an imprecise estimate of the extent of delinquency. Juveniles often report trivial acts on self-report surveys—acts that would p robably not be considered delinquent by law enforcement officials. Examples of trivial acts would be sipping a little wine at the dinner table with your parents’ permission or playfully shoving one of your siblings. While juveniles might report these as underage drinking and minor assault, it is quite unlikely that law enforcement officials would see them as such. Trivial events are most likely to be reported in response to questions about minor delinquent acts. In one study, over 75 percent of the minor assault reports were classified by the researcher as trivial (Elliott et al., 1989:15). Trivial events, however, are sometimes reported when respondents are questioned about serious delinquent acts like aggravated assault. TABLE 2.3 An Early Self-Report Measure of Delinquency Have you ever: 1. Driven a car without a driver’s license or permit? No ________ Once or twice ________ Several times ________ Very often ________ 2. Skipped school without a legitimate excuse? (Same response categories as above.) 3. Defied your parents’ authority (to their face)? 4. Taken little things (worth less than $2) that did not belong to you? 5. Bought or drunk beer, wine, or liquor (include drinking at home)? 6. Purposely damaged or destroyed public or private property that did not belong to you? 7. Had sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex? SOURCE: Nye, 1958. How Is Delinquency Measured? 37 Most self-report surveys tend to undersample the most serious delinquents. Self-report surveys are usually based on school or household samples. For example, a researcher might try to survey a sample of students from several schools in a city. Or a researcher might try to survey juveniles from a sample of households in a city. The researcher first selects the juveniles to survey and then tries to obtain their permission to conduct the interview or to elicit their agreement to complete the questionnaire. It is usually necessary to obtain the permission of their parents or guardians as well. These strategies have the advantage of reaching broad samples of juveniles—both those who have been arrested and those who have not. These strategies, however, tend to undersample the most serious delinquents, including those who commit the most offenses and those who commit very serious offenses. If you sample school students, you miss students who have dropped out of school, are suspended, or are truant. These students tend to be the more serious offenders. This undersampling is a less serious problem if the researchers sample households; but even here they are likely to miss juveniles who live on the street or spend a lot of time on the street. Such juveniles tend to be more serious offenders (see Hagan and McCarthy, 1997a, 1997b). Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the more serious offenders (and their parents) are less likely to agree to participate in the survey (Brame and Piquero, 2003). In fact, it is often the case that 30 percent or more of the juveniles who are selected in the initial sample refuse to participate in the survey or cannot be reached. As a consequence, data suggest that most self-report surveys undersample serious delinquents (see Cernkovich et al., 1985). In sum, there is reason to believe that many self-report surveys underestimate the extent of serious delinquency. This underestimation occurs because (1) serious offenses are more likely to be underreported, (2) measures of delinquency often focus on minor offenses and employ vague response categories, (3) respondents often report trivial acts, and (4) most self-report surveys tend to undersample serious offenders. Recent Self-Report Surveys Have Made Much Progress in Overcoming the Preceding Problems Criminologists have made much progress in overcoming the preceding problems. As a consequence, contemporary self-report surveys often provide much more accurate information about the extent of delinquency, including serious delinquency (see Thornberry and Krohn, 2000, 2003). Criminologists have overcome the preceding problems in several ways. New methods of administering self-report surveys have been developed, methods that appear to substantially reduce the amount of underreporting. One of the most promising of these methods is the audio computer-assisted self-administered interview. This rather long name basically refers to a technique whereby juveniles are interviewed by a personal computer. The computer screen presents the juveniles with questions, including questions about the extent of their delinquency. They also hear these questions over a headset at the same time they are presented on the screen. The juveniles then respond to each question by striking the appropriate key on the computer. As Thornberry and Krohn (2000:62–63) point out, this approach has several advantages. Among other things, it overcomes the reading problems that sometimes arise when a respondent is asked to fill out a questionnaire. Also, “the respondent does not have to reveal potentially embarrassing behavior directly to another person,” as happens in interviews (also see C. Turner et al., 1998). Another promising method involves the use of a life event calendar. Before reporting any delinquent offenses, survey respondents are first asked to plot important life events and circumstances on a calendar that covers, for example, the previous year. For instance, the respondent may indicate where they were living during various time periods or where 38 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency they went to school. They then fill in the calendar by recalling specific life events, such as a birthday celebration, a concert or sporting event, meeting a new friend, or working at a new job. In the end, the calendar provides a framework for the respondent’s memories and experiences, thereby enhancing the recall of delinquent behavior, such as involvement in a fight or illicit drug use at a party (see N. Morris and Slocum, 2010). Many recent self-report surveys also employ better measures of delinquency. In particular, they obtain accurate counts of the number of delinquent acts committed. Further, they focus on both minor and serious offenses (such surveys collect larger samples of juveniles, which allows them to examine the less frequently occurring serious offenses). The self-report delinquency measure in Table 2.2 is an example of a measure that focuses on both minor and serious delinquency and that tries to accurately measure the number of times delinquent acts have been committed. This measure was developed by Elliott and associates and has served as a model for measures in many recent self-report studies (see Elliott and Ageton, 1980). Further, certain of these recent surveys make an effort to eliminate trivial acts from their delinquency counts. Researchers ask respondents a series of follow-up questions about the delinquent acts they report, which allows them to classify such acts as trivial or nontrivial. The trivial acts are then excluded from the estimates of delinquency. Finally, certain of these surveys make a special effort to include serious offenders in their samples. For example, they oversample juveniles in neighborhoods that have high delinquency rates. Also, they screen juveniles before including them in the survey, making a special effort to detect and recruit serious offenders in their survey (see Thornberry et al., 1995; Thornberry and Krohn, 2003). These recent self-report studies are not free of problems. For example, researchers still encounter some difficulty in recruiting the most serious offenders, and there may still be some underreporting of delinquency. Nevertheless, these surveys represent a major improvement over earlier self-report surveys, and there is good reason to believe that they provide reasonably accurate estimates of the extent of delinquency—serious and minor— in most groups. VICTIMIZATION DATA The problems with police data have also motivated criminologists to develop another way of estimating the extent of crime and delinquency: victimization data. Victimization data are obtained by asking people to report on their experiences as crime victims. Several victimization surveys were conducted in the 1960s, and the federal government started compiling victimization data on an annual basis in the early 1970s through the administration of the National Crime Victimization Survey. Each year people ages 12 and older in approximately 90,000 households throughout the United States are asked about their experiences as crime victims. These households are selected so as to be representative of all households in the United States. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey allow researchers to estimate the total amount of crime and delinquency in the United States. These victimization data are published annually in a report titled Criminal Victimization (see Truman and Morgan, 2016; also look for victimization data on the website of the Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.bjs.gov). The respondents in the victimization survey are asked if they have been the victims of crime, including aggravated assault, simple assault, rape/sexual assault, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny. (They are not, of course, asked if they have been the victims of homicide.) If they reply that they have been the victim of one of these crimes, they are asked a number of questions about this victimization. For example, they are asked How Is Delinquency Measured? 39 whether they reported the victimization to the police, and if not, why not. In 2015, less than half of all victimizations were reported to the police (47 percent of violent crime victimizations and 35 percent of property crime victimizations). Prior research indicates that the most common reason for not reporting is that the victimization is a private or personal matter. Respondents are also asked if they saw the person(s) who victimized them. If so, they are asked about the age, sex, and race of this person(s), among other things. On the basis of their responses, researchers can estimate the number of people who have been victimized by young people and trends in such victimization over time. Like self-report data, victimization data provide information on both crimes that have come to the attention of the police and crimes that have not. They also provide much information on the experiences and characteristics of crime victims. Problems with Victimization Data There are, however, problems with using victimization data to estimate the extent of delinquency (see Cantor and Lynch, 2000, for an excellent overview). 1. Victimization data focus on only a few violent and property crimes committed against individuals ages 12 and older. They do not provide any information on crimes such as drug use and on status offenses. They do not provide any information on crimes committed against businesses—like shoplifting at department stores. And they do not provide any information on crimes committed against people younger than 12 years of age. 2. Certain groups with high rates of criminal victimization are undersampled, such as homeless people, transients, and institutionalized persons. 3. There is evidence that many crime victims do not report their victimizations to the interviewers. There are a variety of reasons for this nonreporting, including memory loss and embarrassment. Data suggest that victimizations by family members, friends, and acquaintances are often not reported to the interviewer. There have been some attempts to increase reporting; for example, the wording of the survey has been changed to better prompt respondents to report certain kinds of victimization. To illustrate, r espondents are now encouraged to report crimes by friends and family members with the following prompt: People don’t often think of incidents committed by someone they know. Did you have something stolen from you OR were you attacked or threatened by (a) someone at work or school, (b) a neighbor or friend, (c) a relative or family member, or (d) any other person you’ve met or known? Such prompts and other changes have substantially reduced the extent of underreporting, but there is reason to believe that much underreporting still occurs for certain crimes (see Cantor and Lynch, 2000; Mosher et al., 2002). 4. The victim often does not see the offender and so cannot estimate the offender’s age. This is especially likely for property crimes. One study found that the victim saw the offender in only 6 percent of all burglaries and motor vehicle thefts and in 4 percent of all household larcenies (Hindelang, 1981). The victim, of course, does see the offender in most violent crimes. The victim, however, can only make a rough estimate of the offender’s age. In particular, it is often hard to distinguish older juveniles from young adults. For these reasons, victimization data are somewhat limited in the information they provide about the extent of and trends in delinquency. The discussion in Chapter 3 therefore draws primarily on arrest and self-report data. However, we will note certain relevant findings from victimization data. And we will also briefly discuss the extent to which juveniles are crime victims, as well as offenders. 40 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency SUMMARY There are three major ways to measure the extent of delinquency and trends in d elinquency: arrest, self-report, and victimization data. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. With the exception of homicide, arrest data vastly underestimate the extent of delinquency and may provide misleading information on trends in delinquency. Arrest data are especially likely to provide misleading information on minor crimes, since these crimes are the least likely to be reported to the police and the least likely to result in arrest. Self-report data provide a better estimate of the extent of delinquency since they focus on all offenses, both those that have come to the attention of the police and those that have not. Many selfreport surveys, however, tend to focus on minor offenses committed in the general population. Such surveys provide less accurate estimates of the extent of serious delinquency. Several recent self-report surveys, however, likely provide reasonably accurate estimates of both minor and serious delinquency. Victimization data also attempt to measure both crimes that have come to the attention of the police and those that have not. But victimization data suffer from several problems; most notably, they focus on a small number of crimes, and victims usually have not seen the offenders who committed the crime—with the exception of violent crimes. As you can see, measuring delinquency is not a simple matter. It is easy to produce estimates of the extent of delinquency and trends in delinquency, and we are exposed to such estimates on a regular basis in the media. Most estimates, however, are problematic for the reasons indicated here. The situation is not as bad as it might appear, however. We can often use our knowledge of these data sources to judge which provides the best estimate of the extent of delinquency or trends in delinquency in a particular situation. And it is sometimes the case that the three data sources agree with one another. We can, of course, be more confident in the conclusions we draw when this is the case. TEACHING AIDS A Challenge A criminologist is asked to estimate the extent of delinquency in City X. The criminologist decides to interview all the high school students in the city, asking them the questions shown in Table 2.4. Eighty percent of the high school students and their parents agree to participate in the interviews (returning consent forms to the criminologist). The interviews are conducted during school hours on a certain day. Ninety percent of those who agreed to participate in the survey are in school that day and complete the interviews. Based on their responses to the questions in Table 2.4, the criminologist produces TABLE 2.4 A Self-Report Measure of Delinquency Respondents are asked whether they engaged in the following offenses in the prior year, with the response categories for each offense ranging from “never” to “five or more” times. 1. Taken something not belonging to you worth under $50? 2. Taken something not belonging to you worth over $50? 3. Got something by telling a person something bad would happen to them if you did not get what you wanted? 4. Got into a fight? 5. Used marijuana? 6. Consumed alcohol? 7. Skipped a day of school without a real excuse? SOURCE: Adapted from Gold, 1966. How Is Delinquency Measured? 41 an estimate of the extent of delinquency in City X. Is this estimate accurate? If not, list all of the reasons why accuracy has not been achieved. (These reasons are listed after the Key Terms for this chapter.) Practical Advice: Three Things to Beware of When Others Discuss the Extent of and Trends in Delinquency (and a Challenge) We often hear a lot about delinquency from family members, friends, the news media, and politicians. Unfortunately, a lot of the information that is presented is misleading or wrong. The following is a list of three things you should be wary of when others are discussing delinquency. These are not the only things you should be wary of, but they are among the more common ways that misleading information is conveyed about the extent of and trends in delinquency. Your challenge: Draw on this chapter and the next three chapters to expand this list (also see Mosher et al., 2002). 1. The sensational case. The news media, politicians, and others will often focus on a sensational crime, such as a crime committed by a famous person, a gruesome crime, and/or a crime with many victims. There will be much discussion of this crime, and the impression will be given that this type of crime (or crime in general) is more extensive or is increasing faster than is actually the case. School shootings represent a well-known example. The media devoted major attention to school shootings from the 1990s to the present, often implicitly or explicitly suggesting that school violence was common and that it was increasing. But as we discuss in Chapter 15, school violence, especially of a serious nature, is quite uncommon. Further, such violence has been decreasing. This is not, of course, to claim that all media reports focusing on sensational crimes are misleading. Rather, it is to suggest that you should be cautious in generalizing from one or a few crimes to crime. If possible, examine what official, self-report, and victimization data say about the type of crime being discussed. 2. The reliance on one data source. Reports on crime are usually based on a single data source, often official statistics from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. But, as indicated in this chapter, each data source has some major disadvantages (and advantages). We should therefore be cautious when we hear a report based on a single source. In particular, we should keep the advantages and disadvantages of that source in mind. We should also ask what other data sources say about the same issue. If the different data sources are in agreement, we can be more confident about the information presented. If the data sources disagree, we need to delve into the possible sources of this disagreement. Mosher et al. (2002:1–2) present a good example of this point. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports that were released in 2001 indicated that crime rates had increased for the first time in many years. The news media reported headlines such as “Decade-Long Crime Drop Ends,” and commentators were trying to make sense of the increase. Two weeks later, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey were released, and they indicated that the crime rate had decreased by 15 percent. A subsequent headline read “Crime Is: Up? Down? Who Knows?” 3. Percentage changes based on a small number of cases. Others will sometimes report that there has been a large percentage increase or decrease in crime. So, for example, drawing on the Emory Campus Annual Security Report, someone might report that there was a 63 percent increase in drug law arrests from 2013 to 2014. This might lead you to think that drug abuse had become much more common on the Emory University campus in the space of a year. In fact, the number of drug law arrests increased from eight in 2013 to thirteen in 2014. When you are dealing with a small number of cases, a small change in raw numbers can produce a large change in percentages. This, in turn, can convey a misleading impression about trends in crime. It’s quite unlikely that there was actually a 42 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency 63 percent increase in drug abuse on the Emory campus from 2013 to 2014. So be sure to look at the raw numbers involved when you hear others talk about what percentage crime increased or decreased. (Note: This illustration also shows the dangers of relying on one data source. Arrest data are clearly a poor way to estimate the extent of or changes in drug use in this case. Most drug abuse incidents do not result in arrest, and the number of drug arrests may be influenced by many factors in addition to the actual extent of drug abuse. Can you list several such factors?) Web-Based Exercise: Measuring the Extent of Rape As noted in this chapter, the National Crime Victimization Survey generally reports more crime than the police data presented by the FBI, since the Victimization Survey picks up many crimes not reported to the police. But this should not be taken to mean that the Victimization Survey provides an accurate measure of all crime. Most notably, it has been charged that the Victimization Survey greatly underestimates the extent of rape. For a discussion of why this may be the case, see the article by Emily Bazelon (2013) titled “We’ve Been Measuring Rape All Wrong” at http://www.slate.com. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which oversees the Victimization Survey, is now examining ways to more accurately measure the extent of rape and sexual assault. For a brief description of what they are doing, along with their publications on rape and sexual assault, visit their information webpage at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317. Alternately, visit the BJS website, at http://www.bjs.gov. Click on “Crime Type,” hold the cursor over “Violent Crime,” and click on “Rape and Sexual Assault.” TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CHAPTER 1. What are the three major ways of estimating the extent of and trends in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. delinquency? Why is it important to know something about these methods, including their advantages and disadvantages? What are “official statistics”? Why are arrest data the main source of official data on the extent of and trends in delinquency? What are the major types of information you would find in the FBI’s report in Crime in the United States: The Uniform Crime Reports? List the eight Part I, or index, offenses. List any four Part II offenses. Why is it that the number of crimes “cleared” by the arrest of juveniles usually does not equal the number of arrests that involve juveniles? What are the major advantages and disadvantages of arrest data? Why do arrest data vastly underestimate the extent of delinquency? How have researchers tried to estimate the accuracy of self-reports of delinquency (i.e., how do they estimate whether juveniles are telling the truth on self-report surveys)? What conclusions do researchers draw about the accuracy of self-report surveys? Many self-report surveys suffer from a number of problems that cause them to underestimate the extent of serious delinquency. What are these problems? How have researchers tried to overcome these problems? What are the major advantages and problems with victimization data? How Is Delinquency Measured? 43 THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. City X experienced a 30 percent increase in the juvenile arrest rate. List all the ossible reasons for this increase other than a real increase in the rate of delinquency p (e.g., the arrest rate may have increased because crime victims have become more likely to report crimes to the police). 2. We state that none of the methods for estimating the accuracy of self-reports is perfect. Is it possible to develop a method that would precisely estimate the accuracy of self-reports of delinquency? If not, why not? 3. Describe how you might best estimate the extent of delinquency or crime on your campus (indicate the method or methods of data collection you would use and the steps you would take in employing these methods). KEY TERMS Official statistics Crime in the United States: The Uniform Crime Reports ■ Crimes known to the police ■ Crimes cleared by arrest ■ Part I, or index, offenses ■ ■ Criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larcenytheft, motor vehicle theft, and arson ■ Part II offenses ■ Unfounding crime reports ■ Self-report data ■ Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Administered Interview ■ Life event calendar ■ Victimization data ■ National Crime Victimization Survey ■ ANSWERS TO THE CHALLENGE The criminologist would not produce an accurate estimate of the extent of delinquency in City X because: 1. Only high school students were interviewed, so the delinquency of juveniles not in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. high school (e.g., high school dropouts, middle school students) is not estimated. Twenty percent of the high school students did not agree to participate in the survey, so their delinquency is not estimated. The more serious delinquents may be more likely to be in this missing group. Ten percent of the students who agreed to participate in the survey were not present on the day of the interviews, perhaps because they were truant or cutting class, so their delinquency is not estimated. Again, the more serious delinquents may be more likely to be in this missing group. Many juveniles may underreport their level of offending, especially serious offending, since a face-to-face interview is used (versus a technique like the Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Administered Interview). The measure of delinquency in Table 2.4 tends to focus on minor offenses and employs vague response categories. No effort was made to distinguish trivial from nontrivial acts and to eliminate the trivial acts from the delinquency count. 44 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency ENDNOTES 1. For fuller discussions, see Bernard, 1999; Cantor and Lynch, 2000; Cernkovich et al., 1985; Elliott, 1982; Elliott and Ageton, 1980; Elliott et al., 1989; Farrington et al., 1996; Gove et al., 1985; Hindelang et al., 1979, 1981; Huizinga and Elliott, 1986; Patrick Jackson, 1990; Maxfield, 1999; Mosher et al., 2002; O’Brien, 2000; Reiss and Roth, 1993; Rutter et al., 1998; Sullivan and McGloin, 2014; Thornberry and Krohn, 2000, 2003; Weis, 1986; E. Wells and Rankin, 1995. 2. See David Smith, 1984; J. Wilson, 1976; also see Chappel et al., 2006. 3. See Farrington et al., 1996; Hindelang et al., 1981; Huizinga and Elliott, 1986; Paschall et al., 2001; Piquero et al., 2014; Thornberry and Krohn, 2000. 4. See Farrington et al., 1996; Hindelang et al., 1981; Huizinga and Elliott, 1986; Mosher et al., 2002; Piquero et al., 2014; Thornberry and Krohn, 2000; Weis, 1986. 3 How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 45 46 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency T his chapter focuses on the two simple questions asked in the title: How much delinquency is there in the United States? Is delinquency increasing? Simple questions, however, often have complex answers. This complexity can be frustrating at times, but you will have a much fuller understanding of the extent of and trends in delinquency after reading this chapter. We first focus on the extent of delinquency in the United States, presenting estimates from arrest, self-report, and victimization data. We then focus on trends in delinquency, again presenting estimates from arrest, self-report, and victimization data. These data sources do not always agree with one another, but we think there are some conclusions that can be safely drawn about the extent of and trends in delinquency. One such conclusion is that there has been a dramatic decrease in serious delinquency in recent years, and we end this chapter by discussing some possible reasons for this decrease. We should warn you that any discussion in this area is going to contain a lot of n umbers. We try to keep the numbers to a minimum, and we encourage you to focus on the central points that are being made and to avoid getting caught up in the specific numbers. Much of the information that follows comes from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Statistical Briefing Book (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb). It is a good place to look if you ever want to know anything about the extent of delinquency, trends in delinquency, the characteristics of delinquents, or a range of other topics. After reading this chapter, you should be able to: • Describe the extent of delinquency using arrest data and self-report data. • Identify the characteristics of those most likely to be victims of crime. • Describe trends in delinquency using arrest data, self-report data, and victimization data. • Explain why there are no simple answers to questions of how much delinquency there is or how much it is changing over time. • Offer explanations for the dramatic decline in serious crime since the mid-1990s. HOW MUCH DELINQUENCY IS THERE? How Many Juveniles Are Arrested, and What Are They Arrested For? As you know, arrest data vastly underestimate the extent of delinquency. Most delinquent acts do not come to the attention of the police, and acts that do come to the attention of the police usually do not result in arrest. This is especially true for minor crimes. Nevertheless, many juveniles are arrested each year. Table 3.1 shows the estimated number of juvenile arrests in 2014 broken down by type of crime. The top part of the table focuses on Part I, or index, crimes, while the bottom part focuses on Part II crimes. Overall, there were about 1 million juvenile arrests. That number does not mean that 1 million different juveniles were arrested. Many juveniles were arrested more than once. About 288,000 of these arrests were for Part I crimes. Note that arrests for property crimes are much more common than arrests for violent crimes. In fact, well over half of all Part I arrests are for larceny-theft. Larceny-theft, in fact, is the crime with the highest number of arrests. About 736,000 arrests were for Part II offenses, with the most arrests being for “other assaults,” disorderly conduct, drug abuse violations, liquor law violations, curfew violations, and vandalism. Overall, note that the number of arrests tends to be higher for minor crimes than for serious crimes. For example, 800 juvenile arrests were for homicide and 3,300 were for rape. About 178,000 juvenile arrests were for larceny-theft, however. How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 47 TABLE 3.1 Estimated Number of Juvenile Arrests, 2014 Total 1,024,000 Part I (Index) Offenses Criminal homicide (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter) Rape Robbery 800 3,300 19,400 Aggravated assault 30,100 Burglary 40,300 Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft Arson 178,000 12,700 3,200 Part II Offenses Other assaults 139,100 Forgery and counterfeiting 1,200 Fraud 4,300 Embezzlement 500 Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 10,400 Vandalism 45,200 Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 20,700 Prostitution and commercialized vice Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution) Drug abuse violations Gambling Offenses against the family and children Driving under the influence Liquor law violations Drunkenness Disorderly conduct Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) Curfew and loitering 700 9,400 112,600 600 3,400 7,000 53,300 6,500 80,800 900 186,000 53,700 SOURCE: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Statistical Briefing Book (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb). These data, while useful, may be a little difficult to interpret. One way to help interpret them is to look at arrest rates. Arrest rates show the number of juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10 to 17 in the population (very few juveniles under age 10 are arrested). Arrest rates are useful because they give us an idea of the probability that a juvenile will be arrested. The overall juvenile arrest rate was about 3,000 per 100,000 juveniles. In other words, there were about 3,000 juvenile arrests for every 100,000 juveniles ages 10 to 17 in the population (or about 3 arrests per 100 juveniles). The arrest rate for Part I violent crimes was about 158 per 100,000 juveniles (or about 0.2 arrest per 100 juveniles). The arrest rate for Part I property crimes was about 693 per 100,000 juveniles (or about 0.7 arrest per 100 juveniles). 48 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency We want to add a note of caution: The fact that there were nearly 1 million juvenile arrests does not mean that juveniles committed 1 million crimes. We earlier stated that juveniles usually commit their crimes in groups. As a consequence, several juveniles are often arrested for a single crime. For example, several juveniles might be arrested for a single act of vandalism. To estimate the number of crimes committed by juveniles, it is best to look at the number of crimes cleared by the arrest of juveniles. Clearance data allow us to estimate the number of Part I crimes committed by juveniles (clearance data are not reported for Part II crimes). While about 288,000 juveniles were arrested in 2014 for Part I crimes, only about 183,000 Part I crimes were cleared by the arrest of juveniles. You know that arrest data vastly underestimate the extent of delinquency. Self-report data, discussed in the following section, provide a more accurate estimate of the extent of delinquency. How Much Self-Reported Delinquency Is There? We have the students in our juvenile delinquency courses fill out a short survey on the first day of class. Among other things, the survey asks whether they ever committed any of 14 different delinquent acts as juveniles. Some of these acts are status offenses, like running away and truancy. Some are minor crimes, like petty larceny and trespassing. And some are more serious crimes, like burglary and robbery. The students are always shocked by the results. We typically find that anywhere from 90 to 100 percent of the students have committed at least one of the delinquent acts. And it is often the case that about half the class has committed at least 7 of the 14 delinquent acts. Keep in mind that most of our students have done quite well in school and are pursuing a college degree. A certain percentage of them will go on to become doctors, lawyers, business managers, and leaders in their communities. (Look at the self-report survey in Table 2.2 again. How many of the delinquent acts have you committed?) Self-report surveys typically find that 90 percent or more of all juveniles have engaged in at least some forms of delinquency—usually minor delinquency but often a few instances of more serious delinquency as well. We do not, however, want you to think that we are picking on juveniles. Two criminologists conducted a self-report survey of crime among criminologists (M. Robinson and Zaitzow, 1999). They describe their motivation for doing such a survey by stating, “We were in an airplane on our way back from a recent American Society of Criminology meeting [and] we overheard from the seats directly in front of us two criminologists discussing what they had taken (i.e., stolen) from the conference hotel.” They began to wonder just how common crime was among criminologists. So they surveyed 522 criminologists from throughout the United States, most of whom had doctoral degrees and half of whom were faculty members at colleges and universities. The large majority of these criminologists had engaged in one or more crimes at some point in their lives. For example, 55 percent had committed theft, 22 percent had committed burglary, 60 percent had used illicit drugs, and 25 percent had physically attacked another person. Self-report data, then, indicate that delinquency (and crime) is common, even among students like yourselves and the faculty who teach you. Keep this in mind when we are examining topics like the causes of delinquency. To some extent, we are examining your (and our) behavior. As indicated earlier, not many self-report surveys have been administered to juveniles throughout the United States. But a few such surveys exist. The most recent is the 2014 Monitoring the Future survey. The Monitoring the Future survey is administered to a sample of about 2,500 high school seniors throughout the United States each year. While the survey provides national data on the extent of self-reported delinquency, it does have certain problems. It focuses on high school seniors, thereby missing dropouts and students who were suspended or truant when the survey was administered. As indicated How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 49 earlier, such juveniles are more likely to be serious offenders. It does not examine many delinquent offenses, especially serious offenses like homicide and rape. And it employs vague response categories. In particular, it uses the response category “five or more times,” so that researchers cannot distinguish someone who committed an act 5 times from someone who committed the same act 100 times. Nevertheless, the data in Table 3.2 provide an idea of the extent of delinquency in this group. Note that certain forms of delinquency are quite common, particularly status offenses and minor forms of delinquency. For example, the large majority of high school seniors have drunk alcohol and have argued or fought with their parents in the past year (the status offense of “incorrigibility”). And a substantial percentage of students have engaged in petty theft and fighting. More serious forms of delinquency are less frequent but not uncommon. For example, about 8 percent of high school seniors reported that they “hurt someone badly enough to need bandages or a doctor” in 2014. The best self-report survey conducted on a national level is the National Youth Survey (see Elliott et al., 1985). This survey was administered to a sample of 1,725 adolescents ages 11 through 17 throughout the United States in 1977. These adolescents were asked about the extent of their delinquency in 1976. The same group of adolescents was surveyed several additional times through the 1990s, but they, of course, turned from adolescents into adults as the surveys progressed. Elliott and his associates looked at a total of 47 delinquent acts, including status offenses, minor crimes, and serious crimes (see Table 2.2 for a list of these acts). They took care to precisely measure the number of times each act was committed, avoiding the use of vague response categories. They found that the average number of delinquent acts committed by a juvenile in 1976 was 52 (there is reason to believe this number is similar today, as indicated by the trend data presented in the next section). So while FBI data indicate that there are 3 arrests per 100 juveniles, self-report data indicate that there are at least 5,200 self-reports of delinquency per 100 juveniles (52 × 100). And while arrest data indicate that there were about 1 million juvenile arrests in 2014, selfreport data suggest that the 33 million juveniles between ages 10 and 17 in the United States engaged in hundreds of millions of delinquent acts in 2014. Again, self-report data indicate that most of these delinquent acts are status offenses and minor crimes. More serious crimes are less frequent, although they are not uncommon, particularly in certain subgroups. For example, Elliott (1994) found that 36 percent of 17-year-old African American males and 25 percent of 17-year-old white males committed at least one serious act of violence over the course of a year. Serious acts of violence include aggravated assaults, robberies, and rapes; all involve some injury or the use of a weapon. The large discrepancy between arrest data and self-report data highlights the fact that most delinquent acts do not come to the attention of the police or result in arrest. Dunford and Elliott (1984) used the National Youth Survey to explore the relationship between self-reported delinquency and arrest data. They classified youth according to the number of delinquent acts they self-reported in a two-year period and then examined the percentage of youth in each group who had been arrested at least once during the same two-year period. They found that the probability of arrest was quite low, even among youths who had committed a large number of offenses. For example, only 7 percent of the youths who self-reported between 101 and 200 delinquent acts were arrested. Only 19 p ercent of the youths who self-reported over 200 delinquent acts were arrested. Overall, the probability that a youth will be arrested for a given delinquent act is well under 1 percent. The probability of arrest is low even for those who commit serious offenses. For example, Elliott (1995) estimated that the probability of arrest for a serious violent offense (aggravated assault, rape, robbery) is about 2 in 100 (also see Farrington et al., 2007). The Extent of Self-Reported Delinquency Among High School Seniors, 2014. Not at All (%) Once (%) Twice (%) 3 or 4 Times (%) 5 or More Times (%) Rate (# Acts per 100 Juveniles) 1. Argued or had a fight with either of your parents? 15.1 12.0 15.3 24.0 33.6 282.6 2. Hit an instructor or supervisor? 97.3 1.5 .7 .3 .3 5.3 3. Gotten into a serious fight in school or at work? 90.4 5.6 2.1 1.1 .8 17.1 4. Taken part in a fight where a group of your friends were against another group? 86.7 7.6 2.9 2.0 .8 23.4 5. Hurt someone badly enough to need bandages or a doctor? 91.8 4.3 2.1 1.0 .8 15.5 6. Used a knife or gun or some other thing (like a club) to get something from a person? 97.6 1.1 .8 .2 .4 5.3 7. Taken something not belonging to you worth under $50? 79.3 9.3 5.2 3.3 3.0 44.6 8. Taken something not belonging to you worth over $50? 93.0 3.4 1.5 1.2 .9 14.5 9. Taken something from a store without paying for it? 78.9 9.0 4.5 3.7 3.9 48.6 10. Taken a car that didn’t belong to someone in your family without permission of the owner? 96.1 1.9 1.0 .3 .7 8.3 During the Last 12 Months How Often Have You 11. Taken part of a car without permission of the owner? 97.4 1.3 .6 .1 .6 5.8 12. Gone into some house or building when you weren’t supposed to be there? 77.8 9.3 6.3 3.5 3.1 47.9 13. Set fire to someone’s property on purpose? 98.2 1.0 .3 .1 .4 3.9 14. Damaged school property on purpose? 93.8 2.9 1.7 .5 1.1 13.3 15. Damaged property at work on purpose? 98.0 1.0 .4 .2 .3 3.9 16. Used alcohol at least once in 2014? 60.2 17. Used marijuana at least once in 2014? 35.1 SOURCE: Monitoring the Future survey (http://www.monitoringthefuture.org). 50 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency TABLE 3.2 How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 51 What can we conclude about the extent of delinquency according to self-report data? Delinquency is far more common than arrest data suggest. Most juveniles engage in delinquency. They generally commit status offenses and minor crimes, but serious crimes are not uncommon. We have focused on self-reported delinquency in the United States, but a large international survey allows us to place these self-report data in cross-national context. Between 2005 and 2007, self-report data were collected from young people (ages 12–15) in the United States and 30 other nations, mostly in Europe. The findings indicate that the percentage of youth involved in serious violent delinquency is highest in the United States, Ireland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Young people in the United States and other prosperous nations also have some of highest levels of participation in serious property offenses (for a discussion of factors that may help to explain the high rate of serious delinquency in the United States, see Chapters 17 and 24). Further, the findings suggest that cross-national differences in relatively minor delinquencies, such as shoplifting, partly reflect differences in opportunity. Participation in shoplifting tends to be most common in prosperous nations such as the United States. The lowest rate of shoplifting “can be found in Armenia where consumer goods are rare” (Enzmann et al., 2010:165). How Many Juveniles Are Victimized, and How Many Victimizations Are Committed by Juveniles? Victimization data provide another alternative to arrest data. As indicated earlier, victimization data tell us a lot about crime victims. Such data have somewhat less to say about the number of victimizations committed by juveniles, largely because crime victims usually do not see the person who victimized them. Nevertheless, victimization data do provide some information about the number of violent crimes committed by juveniles. Table 3.3 shows the number of victimizations experienced by U.S. residents age 12 or older in 2014, as estimated by the National Crime Victimization Survey. About 21 million victimizations were reported in 2014, including 5.4 million violent victimizations and 15.3 million property victimizations. That amounts to about 2 violent victimizations for every 100 people age 12 or older and 12 property victimizations for every 100 households. As you can see, people are most often the victims of larceny-theft. V ictimization data, like arrest and self-report data, indicate that property crimes are more common than violent crimes, and minor crimes are more common than serious crimes. TABLE 3.3 Number and Rate of Victimizations, 2014 Number All crimes Rate 20,648,040 Rape/sexual assault 284,350 1.1 Robbery 664,210 2.5 Aggravated assault 1,092,090 4.1 Simple assault 3,318,920 12.4 Household burglary 2,993,480 23.1 Motor vehicle theft Theft 534,370 4.1 11,760,620 90.8 SOURCE: Truman and Langton, 2015. Note: Rate of victimization is per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, or per 1,000 households. 52 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency Who is most likely to be victimized? Who do you think is most likely to be victimized by crime: young or old, male or female, white or African American, Hispanic or nonHispanic, poor or rich? Young people have higher rates of victimization than older people for violent crimes (data for property crimes are reported for households rather than for individuals). Rates of violent victimization are highest for those between 12 and 17 years old. Rates of victimization generally decline with age and are lowest among those 65 or older. To illustrate, about 3 out of every 100 people ages 12 to 17 were the victims of violence in 2014, a rate about 10 times higher than those ages 65 and over. As dramatic as this difference is, there are data suggesting that the National Crime Victimization Survey substantially underestimates the extent of victimization against young people. Data from other surveys suggest that at least 50 of every 100 adolescents are the victims of violence each year and that more than 25 of every 100 are the victims of theft (Finkelhor et al., 2005, 2009). Males have higher rates of victimization than females for violent crimes, with the exception of serious intimate partner violence (which includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault committed by the victim’s spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend). About 2.1 of every 100 males were the victims of violence in 2014, versus about 1.9 of every 100 females. Data from previous years, however, indicates that females are about 4 times more likely than males to be the victims of serious intimate partner violence. About 1.6 acts of serious intimate partner violence per 1,000 females were reported in 2011 (S. Catalano, 2013). These estimates, however, should be viewed with much caution. Data suggest that the National Crime Victimization Survey substantially underestimates the amount of rape and other violence against women. In particular, other data suggest that 15 to 20 percent of all females will be the victims of a completed or attempted rape at some point in their lives, with at least half of these rapes occurring before the age of 18 (Black et al., 2011; Tjaden and Thoennes, 1999, 2006; also see Fisher and Cullen, 2000). Based on data from the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, an estimated 1.3 million women were raped in the 12 months prior to the survey (too few males in the survey reported rape to provide a reliable 12-month estimate). Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.5%) have been raped at some point in their lives, compared to 1 in 71 men (1.4%). For females, more than half (51.1%) of these rapes were committed by intimate partners (current and former spouses, cohabiting partners, and dates or boyfriends). As indicated by Gove et al. (1985), intimate partner violence is much less likely to be reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey than is violence committed by strangers (for more on intimate partner violence, see Box 7.2 in Chapter 7). African Americans are somewhat more likely than whites to be victims of violence. About 2.3 of every 100 African Americans were victims of violence in 2014, versus about 2 of every 100 whites. The rate of violent victimization among Hispanics (1.6 per 100) was lower than that of white non-Hispanics (2.0) and African American non-Hispanics (2.3). (“Hispanics” are defined as persons of Spanish-speaking origin; they may identify themselves as white, African American, or members of other racial groups.) Data from previous years indicate that people with lower incomes are generally more likely to be victims of violence. In 2005, for example, about 4.1 of every 100 people in households with incomes of less than $7,500 were victims of violence, versus about 1.7 of every 100 people in households with incomes of $75,000 or more. The relationship between household income and property crime is somewhat mixed. In 2008, about 5.7 of every 100 households with incomes lower than $7,500 were burglarized, versus 1.6 of every 100 households with incomes of at least $75,000. The differences How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 53 in property crime between lower- and higher-income households are much smaller for theft, however. In sum, the victims of violence tend to be young, male (except for rape/sexual assault), African American, and poor. The relationship between household income and property crime is somewhat mixed, but lower-income households are more likely to be burglarized. How many victimizations are committed by juveniles? What do victimization data tell us about the number of crimes committed by juveniles? As indicated, crime victims are asked whether they saw the person(s) who victimized them. They rarely see the offender(s) in property crimes like larceny and burglary, but they almost always see the offender in violent crimes like assault, rape, and robbery. Victims who saw the offender(s) are asked to estimate the offender’s age. The information that victimization data provide about the extent of juvenile delinquency, therefore, is largely limited to violent crimes (although see Hindelang, 1981, regarding property crime). Data from 2014 indicate that juveniles ages 12 to 17 committed about 174,000 serious violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault), or about 6.9 serious violent crimes per 1,000 juveniles ages 12 to 17 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2016). These estimates exceed by several times those provided by FBI arrest and clearance data (e.g., about 53,000 juveniles under age 18 were arrested for these crimes in 2014). So victimization data show that violent crime among juveniles is far more extensive than arrest data indicate, although not as extensive as indicated by self-report data. Summary You have been presented with a lot of numbers and may be feeling a little overwhelmed right now. Again, try not to get too caught up in all the numbers. Focus on the basic points being made by these numbers. These points include the following: 1. Arrest, self-report, and victimization data provide different estimates of the extent of delinquency in the United States. Arrest data provide the lowest estimates, and self-report data provide the highest. You should be able to explain why this is the case, drawing on the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each type of data (see Chapter 2). 2. Self-report data probably provide the most accurate estimate of the extent of delinquency. At least 90 percent of all adolescents engage in delinquency at some point, and, on average, each juvenile commits about 52 delinquent acts per year. 3. All three data sources indicate that minor offenses are more common than serious offenses and that property crime is more common than violent crime, although minor or simple assault is common. IS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY INCREASING? As Bernard (1992) points out, most people think that juvenile delinquency is worse now than in the past. In fact, they often think of the past as the “good old days,” a time when it was safe to walk the streets and juveniles almost never committed serious crimes like murder and rape. It is easy to understand why people feel this way. The media regularly report on the horrible crimes committed by juveniles (see Box 3.1). But what do the data show? Is delinquency increasing, decreasing, or staying the same? Once more, we must examine arrest, self-report, and victimization data. As you will see, they sometimes disagree with one another regarding trends in delinquency. Nevertheless, an examination of these data sources will allow us to draw some tentative conclusions about trends in delinquency. Our focus is on trends in delinquency since the early 1980s. 54 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency Box 3.1 Are Today’s Youth More Violent than Previous Generations? Sorting Fact from Fiction [In earlier times] it was a rare day when you saw a man under 25 up for a felony. Today it’s the rule. And today when one of these kids robs a bank he doesn’t rush for a businesslike getaway. He stays around and shoots up a couple of clerks. Not long ago I asked such a boy why, and he said: “I get a kick out of it when I see blood running.” [In earlier times] juvenile delinquency, in general, meant such things as truancy, minor vandalism and petty theft. Today, the term includes armed robbery, assault and even murder. Do these quotations reflect your own sentiments about young offenders today, and perhaps that of your friends and family members? Would you be surprised to learn that these quotations are over 50 years old? The first quotation is from a New York City judge in 1954—a time period that many people associate with social order and stability. The second quotation is from the head of the FBI in 1964 (quoted in Bernard, 1992:33). Similar concerns about a rising tide of out-of-control, violent youth can be traced back to the 1940s, 1930s, and 1920s. Further, historians have uncovered complaints about “rotten” and inconsiderate youth dating back hundreds and even thousands of years. As summarized by author Frank Donovan, it seems that “every generation since the dawn of time has denounced the rising generation as being inferior in terms of manners and morals, ethics and honesty” (quoted in Bernard, 1992:31). It is not difficult to see how adults would form a negative impression of the younger generation. As mentioned earlier, the media regularly report on the horrible crimes committed by young people. In such reports, we often hear claims that a certain type of delinquency is increasing. “Expert” commentators may even offer explanations for the alleged increase, and viewers are left with the impression that serious juvenile offending was less common in earlier times. If you pay close attention to such reports, however—and we encourage you to do so in the future—you may find that claims about juvenile crime are frequently exaggerated and lack supporting data (or are inconsistent with the major data sources described in this book). A dramatic example involves the “superpredator” myth. During the mid-1990s, following a real increase in the rate of serious juvenile crime, some expert commentators jumped to conclusions. Not only did they predict that the problem would grow worse, but they attributed the rise in youth crime to a new and remorseless breed of young offenders: that is, to a new group of “superpredators.” As the authors of a 1996 book titled Body Count described: America is now home to thickening ranks of superpredators—radically impulsive, brutally remorseless youngsters, including ever more preteenage boys, who murder, assault, rape, rob, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, join gun toting gangs, and create serious communal disorders. . . . [H]ere come the superpredators. (quoted in Brownstein, 2000:120) Although other experts dismissed the superpredator story as “hogwash,” it was picked up by the national press with such headlines as “Teenage Time Bombs: Violent Juvenile Crime Is Soaring and It’s Going to Get Worse” (Brownstein, 2000:121). There was one major problem with the superpredator story, however. The predicted juvenile crime wave failed to materialize. In fact, as we describe later in this chapter, the rate (Continued) How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 55 (Continued) of serious juvenile offending has declined dramatically since the publication of Body Count. Although the juvenile crime rate has fluctuated in recent years, it remains far below the level of the early to mid-1990s (when some of your professors may have come of age). Today’s youth, then, are not more violent than the previous generation. Nevertheless, alarmist reports of a rising juvenile crime wave tend to be repeated every decade (Bernard, 1992). In fact, the same experts who promoted the superpredator story in the 1990s did not hesitate to warn of another possible juvenile crime wave in the following decade. In a book published in 2001 titled The Will to Kill, the authors write: “Over the next 6 years, the number of teens, ages 14 to 17, will swell by about 15 percent, which may indeed bring increased problems of . . . drug abuse, joblessness, and, of course, violence” (J. Fox and Levin, 2001:87). Questions for Discussion 1. Why do you think media reports of a juvenile crime wave are repeated every decade, regardless of the facts? 2. After reading this chapter, try to answer the following question: Did the 2001 prediction of a possible juvenile crime wave come to pass? Are Juvenile Arrests Increasing? When examining trends in juvenile arrests, it is best to look at arrest rates rather than the number of arrests. Arrest rates are usually presented as the number of arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10 to 17 in the population. Arrest rates have the advantage of controlling for changes in the size of the juvenile population. If there is an increase in the number of juveniles, then the number of juvenile arrests will likely increase because there are more juveniles to be arrested. This will occur even if the typical juvenile is no more or less delinquent than before. For example, there was a dramatic increase in the number of juvenile arrests during the 1960s and early 1970s. But part of this increase was because there were more juveniles to be arrested. As a result of the post–World War II baby boom, the number of juveniles between 10 and 17 years of age increased from about 25 million in 1960 to over 33 million in 1975. The arrest rate is not influenced by changes in the size of the juvenile population, since it shows the number of arrests per 100,000 juveniles. Changes in the arrest rate, then, provide a better indication of whether juveniles are becoming more or less delinquent. The two graphs in Figure 3.1 show changes in the juvenile arrest rate for Part I violent crimes (homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape) and Part I property crimes (burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson). Take a moment to look at these graphs; some of their ramifications are suggested in the paragraphs that follow. Property crime. The rate of property crime was reasonably stable from the early 1980s to 1994, with perhaps a modest increase in rates during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The rate has been declining since the mid-1990s, dropping from over 2,500 arrests per 100,000 juveniles in 1994 to less than 1,300 arrests per 100,000 juveniles in 2006. By 2006, the rate of juvenile property crime dropped to its lowest level since the 1960s. This downward trend was interrupted between 2006 and 2008, when the overall rate of juvenile property crime began to increase again by a modest amount (though it remained far below the rates recorded in the early to mid-1990s). Beginning in 2010, the downward trend continued, reaching a historic low by 2014 (about 693 arrests per 100,000 juveniles). In fact, the 2014 juvenile arrest rate for property crime was lower than at any point in the past 30 years. 56 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17, 1980–2014 600 Violent Crime Index 500 400 300 200 100 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2010 2015 Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17, 1980–2014 3,000 Property Crime index 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 FIGURE 3.1 Trends in the Juvenile Arrest Rate for Part 1 Violent and Property Crimes SOURCE: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Statistical Briefing Book, 2017. It should be noted that trends for particular types of property crime sometimes differ from the overall trend shown in Figure 3.1. For example, the modest increase in the property crime rate in recent years (2006–2008) was due mainly to an increase in juvenile arrests for larceny-theft. In contrast, the rate of juvenile arrests for arson and motor vehicle theft continued a steady downward trend. Violent crime. The rate of violent crime arrests was reasonably stable from 1980 to 1988. It then increased by more than 60 percent between 1988 and 1994. This increase did much to draw attention to the juvenile crime problem, with the media running numerous stories about juvenile violence during this time. Violent crime arrests then declined from 1994 How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 57 through the early 2000s. Between 2004 and 2006, violent crime rates increased again but remained well below their levels in the early to mid-1990s. This increase led to some discussion over whether the dramatic drop in violence since the mid-1990s had come to an end (see Butts and Snyder, 2006; Zimring, 2007). But then the juvenile violent crime rate decreased once again between 2006 and 2014. In fact, by 2014, the juvenile arrest rate for violent crime was at its lowest level in more than three decades. As with property crime, trends for particular types of violent crime sometimes differ from the overall trend. Much of the latest decrease in violent crime is due to a lower rate of juvenile arrest for aggravated assault. The juvenile arrest rate for robbery, however, increased slightly between 2006 and 2008. Trends in murder rates. We want to draw special attention to the crime of murder, since trends in the arrest rate for murder have been the subject of much discussion in the media and in the criminology literature.1 The juvenile arrest rate for murder more than doubled between 1987 and 1993. This increase was especially dramatic because the arrest rate for murder among those over 25 declined during this period. Further, the increase in the juvenile arrest rate for murder was entirely due to an increase in gun-related murders. The juvenile arrest rate for nongun murders was stable (see Blumstein and Wallman, 2006; Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 1998; Snyder, 2003). There has been much discussion about why the juvenile arrest rate for gun-related murders increased so dramatically during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Among other things, some evidence suggests that the increase was due to the spread of crack cocaine during the mid- to late 1980s. Juveniles became heavily involved in the crack trade, and they often armed themselves for protection (you are unlikely to call the police for protection if you are a crack dealer). So guns became more common among certain juveniles. This led other juveniles to feel that they had to carry guns for protection. The end result was that guns spread throughout the juvenile population, and disputes that used to be settled with fists or knives came to be settled with bullets (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 1998; Blumstein and Wallman, 2006; Cork, 1999). The increase in juvenile homicides (and serious violence more generally) has also been linked to certain social changes that led to an increase in gangs (see Braga, 2003; Greenwood, 2002). These changes include a decline in manufacturing jobs, especially in innercity neighborhoods; an increase in single-parent families; and tensions involving recent immigrants to the United States (see Chapter 16 for further discussion). Such changes likely contributed to the dramatic growth in gangs during the 1980s and early to mid1990s (W. Miller, 2001). As discussed in Chapter 16, gang members are more likely than nonmembers to possess and use guns. The juvenile arrest rate for murder declined sharply from 1994 to 2004, with the decline more than erasing the previous increase in arrest rates for murder. There has also been much discussion about the reasons for this decline and the more general decline in violent and property crimes—a topic that we address shortly. Beginning in 2005, the arrest rate for juvenile murder increased again by a modest amount, but this increase was interrupted by another drop from 2008 to 2014. Despite some fluctuation in recent years, the arrest rate for juvenile murder remains well below its levels in the early to mid-1990s. To illustrate, the rate peaked in 1993, with 12.8 juveniles per 100,000 being arrested for murder. The arrest rate for juvenile murder in 2014 was 2.2 per 100,000, about one-sixth of the 1993 rate. Overall, arrest data suggest the following about trends in delinquency since the early 1980s: (1) rates of property crime were fairly stable from the early 1980s to 1994, with perhaps a modest increase in the late 1980s and early 1990s, then rates declined sharply after 1994, and have since continued a general downward trend, despite some year-to-year 58 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency fluctuations; (2) rates of violent crime were stable through the late 1980s, increased sharply from 1988 to 1994, then declined sharply until 2004, and have since continued a general downward trend despite some year-to-year fluctuations in the mid-2000s. We have focused on Part I crimes. We should note that trends in Part II crimes are somewhat varied, although arrests for most such crimes have declined in recent years. Perhaps the most striking trends in arrests for Part II crimes involve drug abuse and curfew/loitering violations. There was a dramatic increase in the arrest rates for drug abuse and curfew/loitering violations in the mid-1990s—followed by decreases in the arrest rates for these crimes in the later 1990s and 2000s. (There is good reason to believe that much of the increase in curfew/loitering arrests reflects changes in the law and police practices. Many cities, for example, responded to the increase in juvenile violence by instituting curfews for juveniles or more strictly enforcing existing curfew laws.) Is Self-Reported Delinquency Increasing? The Monitoring the Future survey described earlier provides information on trends in self-reported delinquency. Again, these data focus on high school seniors. They do not contain information on certain serious crimes, like murder and rape. Rather, they tend to focus on minor offenses or minor instances of more serious offenses (for reasons indicated in Chapter 2). Also, their use of the response category “5 or more times” means that they underestimate the extent of delinquency. Nevertheless, these data provide some indication of trends in delinquency—especially minor delinquency—among high school seniors throughout the United States.2 The graph in Figure 3.2 shows trends in the rate of self-reported property crime and violent crime from 1980 to 2014. In particular, it shows the number of property and violent crimes reported each year per 100 high school seniors. We focus on four property crimes: larceny under $50, larceny over $50, shoplifting, and auto theft (there is no good 225 200 175 Rate 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 Property Crime 2000 2005 2010 Violent Crime FIGURE 3.2 Trends in the Rate of Self-Reported Delinquency of High School Seniors (Rate = Number of Acts per 100 Seniors) SOURCE: Monitoring the Future survey (http://www.monitoringthefuture.org) 2015 How Much Delinquency Is There, and Is Delinquency Increasing? 59 measure of burglary in the survey). And we focus on three violent crimes: serious assault, group fights, and robbery. Take a moment to examine the graph in Figure 3.2. Focus on long-term trends, rather than short-term or year-to-year fluctuations in the delinquency rate. These short-term fluctuations may be due to chance, but substantial changes in the crime rate that last for several years likely reflect real changes.3 Property crime. The rate of property crime was generally stable during the early to mid-1980s, increased by a modest amount during the late 1980s and 1990s, then declined by a modest amount during the 2000s. To illustrate, the average rate of property crime each year from 1980 to 1986 was 159.6 property crimes per 100 high school seniors. The average rate of property crime per year from 1987 to 2002 was 188.2 property crimes per 100 seniors. The average rate from 2003 to 2014 was 148.9 per 100 seniors. These data are somewhat at odds with arrest data. While arrest data also show a modest increase in rates of property crime during the late 1980s, arrest data show a more dramatic decline in rates of property crime since the mid-1990s. Violent crime. It is more difficult to discern clear patterns in the rate of self-reported violence. Rates of violence were fairly stable during much of the 1980s but then increased somewhat during the late 1980s and 1990s. To illustrate, the average rate of violence each year from 1980 to 1988 was 59.6 violent acts per 100 high school seniors. The average rate of violence each year from 1989 to 1998 was 76.3 violent acts per 100 seniors. There has been a slight decrease in the rate of violence since 1998, with the average rate of violence from 1999 to 2014 being 63.7 acts per 100 seniors. These data are also somewhat at odds with arrest data. Arrest data show a larger increase in violence in the late 1980s. Also, arrest data show a larger decline in violence beginning in the mid-1990s. Drug use. Figure 3.3 shows trends in drug use, using data from the Monitoring the Future study of high school seniors. In particular, Figure 3.3 shows the percentage of high school seniors who used an illicit drug in the last 30 days. Illicit drugs include marijuana, LSD and other hallucinogens, crack and other forms of cocaine, heroin and other narcotics, amphetamines, barbiturates, and tranquilizers (not under a doctor’s orders). As can be seen, there was a dramatic decrease in illicit drug use from the early 1980s to 1992. Illicit drug use then increased a good deal during the 1990s, with the percentage of high school seniors reporting illicit drug use almost doubling. This increase attracted much attention in the media and was a major issue in the 1996 presidential campaign. A major antidrug initiative was launched by the federal government in response to this increase (see Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1999, 2007). And illicit drug use did in fact decrease beginning in the early 2000s. Since 2006, however, data indicate that the proportion of illicit drug users began to creep up again, although it remains far below that observed during the early 1980s. (Note: Other data on illicit drug use, including data on younger juveniles, largely confirm these trends; see Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2016. We should note, however, that trends in the use of particular drugs sometimes differ from the general trends in illicit drug use just described.) In sum, self-report data suggest the following about trends in delinquency: (1) The rate of property crime was generally stable during the early to mid-1980s, increased by a modest amount during the late 1980s and 1990s, then declined by a modest amount during the 2000s; (2) the rate of violent crime was stable during much of the 1980s, increased during the late 1980s and generally remained high during much of the 1990s, then decreased slightly since 1998; and (3) the rate of illicit drug use decreased during the 1980s and early 1990s, increased during the 1990s, decreased during the early 2000s, and increased again by a modest amount in recent years. Percentage 60 The Nature and Extent of Delinquency 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 FIGURE 3.3 Percentage of High School Seniors Reporting Various Victimization Experiences at School during the Previous 12 Months |
Juvenile justice 6th edition pdf free
Related Posts
Copyright © 2024 muatrau Inc.
