JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Juvenile delinquency is said to be an antisocial behavior exhibited by minors. (Quay, 1987) In the USA, most states would consider a juvenile to be between the ages of ten and eighteen, while a few others consider up to sixteen years of age as the limit. When crimes are committed by persons under these age range, they are commonly tried as a juvenile and not as an adult, which poses much difference from normal court proceedings.
Juvenile tried cases are mediated by judges instead of the usual trial by a jury of the peers. Moreover, unlike an adult case, juveniles re only said to commit “juvenile acts: in lieu of “crimes”. However, these differences may not be recognized and implemented today if it were not for the establishment of juvenile courts.
The reason for such an establishment was mainly because of the deemed possibility surrounding harsh treatments, which may be experienced by juveniles when tried in the traditional judicial systems (Morphy, 1926). A juvenile court has one main goal which is to initiate reform among delinquent minors instead of inflicting punishments (Morphy, 1926). This is also why they are only tried by judges instead of their peers. Courts invoke the principle of parens patriae, wherein the judges act as parents and guardians to young offenders (Morphy, 1926). The first juvenile court established was in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois (Clarke, 1961).
Juvenile courts distinguish two major groups of juvenile offender, which are: (1) delinquent offender, and (2) states offender (Clarke, 1961). By definition, the former is a crime for adults that are under the federal state or local law while the latter is not considered a crime per se but only as illegal acts committed by juveniles. Status offenses can take the form of disobedience to parents, escaping from home and/or school, and engagement in behaviors unbecoming of minors, such as alcohol consumption and substance abuse.
The causes of such delinquent acts by juveniles have been the topic of most research regarding juvenile delinquency. It is believed that once these causes are understood and realized, there may be great chances that these acts can be prevented. According to Lening and Jianhong, of the various causes that were tallied, there are four major risk factors that contribute to the cause of juvenile delinquency (2007). The risk factors include: (1) family, (2) mental health, (3) individual personality, and (4) substance abuse. They have found out that, compared to the average minors, juveniles or those who may later possess the ability to commit juvenile acts are likely to be exposed to these risk factors at a greater percentage.
Of the four risk factors, the most influential must be the family since they are the first group in contact with these minors. Some juvenile acts are being committed as a result of the ff. family related reasons: (1) lack of parental guidance, (2) neglect, and (3) presence of feud within the family. (Lening & Jianhong, 2007) Because parents have the innate responsibility to their children, some people believe that parents should also be held liable for any criminal acts committed by these minors. Parental responsibility laws states that parents should be knowledgeable on the actions of their children. Parents may also be charged if they have, in any way, contributed to the juvenile crimes of their offspring. Be that as it may, however, these laws still do not take into consideration the possibility that these minors may be accompanied instead by their guardians or foster parents, and as such should also be held responsible for their crimes.
Families, whether held responsible or not, do not all contribute to the delinquent behavior of juveniles. There were many theories proposed which were believed to influence such delinquent acts. As early as the 1930s, Gordon has already introduced three general categories in which these theories fall. They are: (1) biological, (2) psychological, (3) sociological. (Gordon, 1939)
Gordon believed that juvenile behavior or committing crimes are a result of one’s personal choice and not at all related to one’s genetic composition or natural physique. He argued that if this were the case, prisons will be full of a particular type of physique instead of being diverse. The same is true with getting involved in criminal acts. (Gordon, 1939) While Gordon believed in the psychological and sociological theory of juvenile delinquency, Musick (1995) expressed his belief in the biological theory, saying it provides the best insight into understanding juvenile delinquency. He claims that minors acquire certain biochemical and genetic factors making them predisposed to criminal and delinquent acts. Moreover, unlike Gordon, Musick observed that most criminals belong to a certain type of physical feature (Musick, 1995).
Although Gordon’s and Musick’s observations are contradicting, it cannot be simply said that one of the two’s claims are true while the other false by judgment and commonality of occurrence alone. The reason these three categories were included is because all have, to a certain extent, the probability to influence a minor’s behavior, may it be minute or great. For instance, families, if observed, can contribute to all three categories with varying extent, and either directly or indirectly. The greatest and most direct would be biological.
While it may be difficult to prove exactly, science does justify the belief that there are a great number of traits that can be passed down from parent to offspring. These include behavioral traits. An example of which is the way people usually identify similarities between parents and children both in their physical appearance and their behaviors. This concept can be applied to the delinquency probability.
However, minors are not only exposed to their familial genes. They are also capable of communication and social function. As such, sociological theories and the environment have as much influence to minors as genetic factors have. What is significant is these two factors sometimes contradict each other. When this happens, the minor’s capability of choice, as what Gordon claims, comes into play. Choice, however, is such a big responsibility to be expected of minors, specifically those who have just reached adolescence. It all circumvents again to the parents and guardians responsible for these minors.
With these causes and theories in mind, many health professionals propose that preventive measures be imposed that address specific causes applicable to the juvenile offender. For instance, Bruggen (1977) proposed in his article that a juvenile offender must be in an environment with less probability of temptations related to imitating or committing violent and criminal behaviors. Gao (1986), on the other hand, stated that the most effective method tested was the mentorship and counseling of juvenile teenagers by former reformed juvenile teens to provide hands on advise and to relate more with the juvenile offenders. Another effective method (second) is by having social hall events designed to preoccupy teenagers and minors so they do not get involved with crimes.
Juvenile delinquency can be said to be acts committed by minors, which are unlawful or otherwise unbecoming of the same. There are many possible causes of such delinquent acts, which is largely influenced by four risk factors, greatest of which is the role of the family. With the combination of familial genes, social environment and the individual’s choice, minors are predisposed to committing criminal acts. When such crimes are committed, juveniles are tried in juvenile courts instead of traditional judicial courts for fear of harsh treatment. It is, however, better that juvenile crimes are prevented instead of resolved, which may involve a change in the juvenile’s environment, interaction with positive peers, and preoccupied minds.
REFERENCE
Bruggen, P., (June 01, 1977). Juvenile Delinquents and the General Practitioner. The Practitioner, 218, (1308) 828-833.
Clarke, J. (January 01, 1961). The Precipitation of Juvenile Delinquency. The Journal of Mental Science, 107 (23), 1033-4.
Gao, S. (September 06, 1986). Social Causes of Juvenile Delinquency. Chinese Education, 19 (2) 3-7.
Gordon, A. (January 01, 1939). Psychiatric Aspect of Crime-Causes and Management of Juvenile Delinquents. Journal of the National Medical Association, 31, (1) 22-6.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51 (5) 541-554.
Lapp, T. E., Cooper, F. E., Dawson, J. P., & University of Michigan. (January 01, 1937). The administration of family law in Michigan: Annual Report of the Judicial Council of Michigan, 23.
Lening, Z., & Jianhong, L. (January 01, 2007). China's Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Law.
Morphy, A. G. (January 01, 1926). Juvenile Courts. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 16 (8), 963-4.
Musick, D. (1995). An Introduction to the Sociology of Juvenile Delinquency. Albany: State
Quay, H. C. (1987). Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Wiley.
