Introduction
Many believe that juvenile violence is on the increase and that in years gone by the problem was less significant than it is today. There is also a popular but mistaken belief that a reduction in the youth respect for the older generation and for authority in general is a root cause of the problem. This research paper investigates the history and examines and discusses juvenile violence statistics. It also looks at society’s perceived views of the causes of juvenile violence, including factors such as the child’s family background and upbringing, their environment and possible effects of exposure to / use of the media.
The Research
The History of Juvenile Violence. The first important thing to recognize, understand and accept is that there has always been a problem of juvenile violence. One of the reasons we are more aware of it today is that we live in a “24-hour news” society. And because bad news attracts more interest and natural curiosity than good news, topics such as youth violence will always find a media outlet.
“There is a widespread belief that antisocial behaviour among children and young people has reached a historically unprecedented high” (Wills 2009). She is quoting a recent Cambridge University article, that referred to public fears throughout the UK about “the decline in mutual respect and social cohesion, the dominance of anti-social behaviour)”. According to Wills, that same article referred to the prevalence of “hoodies” and the gang problem, as well as mentioning the various measures implemented by the authorities to combat the problems. But is the problem new? Is it worse than ever before? Wills refers to a quotation by Geoffrey Pearson – a historian – attributed to Charlotte Kirkman, a lady of 60 years, who had been speaking about the young people of the time and their low standards of behavior and had said: “I think morals are getting much worse There were no such girls in my time as there are now. When I was four or five and twenty my mother would have knocked me down if I had spoken improperly to her”. Although that sounds just like a comment you might hear today, Kirkman made that statement in 1843 – 170 years ago! According to the article, Lord Ashley, addressing the House of Commons also in1843, said that “the morals of the children are tenfold worse than formerly.” The point being made by Wills is that there is an ongoing tendency to convince ourselves that today’s youth exhibit worse behavior than in times past. She repeats Pearson’s view that this tendency is in reality a way for adult society to express each succeeding generation’s fears and uncertainties linked to social and cultural change.
But if there is a recorded increase in youth violence and related antisocial activity, is it in part because all crime is recorded these days on our myriad of computer systems? Because in bygone eras crime reporting was not only less likely but was implemented using a paper-based system, real comparisons are virtually impossible, unless they are restricted to only the most recent decades. The current tendency to deal formally with minor crimes of violence that would previously have been resolved by parents and/or school authorities also adds to the weight of crime statistics. Wills quotes a recent incident in the UK where a schoolboy, during an argument in the playground with a girl, threw a fork at her. The outcome was that this 12-years old boy was “arrested, DNA-tested, fingerprinted and formally reprimanded”.
There are also the effects of the media to consider, particularly – as Wills calls them – “the new forms of media” like the worldwide web. One prime example is the fairly recent phenomenon called “happy slapping”, in which youths randomly select passersby and assault them, while their friends film the attack on mobile phones, then distribute the video over the internet. Originating in the UK, this mindless form of bullying soon spread to other European countries. However, as Wills points out, although that activity made the youth violence more visible, it does not necessarily follow that the youth are behaving any worse than previously. She adds that even when crime rate statistics show an overall reduction, our fear and concern about the antisocial behavior of our youth does not diminish.
According to Wills, a problem caused by erroneously remembering a time when youth were better behaved is that it causes a deterioration of the general relationship between adults and young people, which serves only to increase mutual fear and/or suspicion. Because current youth culture is represented by an “increasingly independent, confident and commercialised” generation of youngsters, there is a need to improve / modify our perceptions of the youth of today. She also comments adversely on the increasing tendency to fear and regard as sinister any public gatherings of youths, whether innocent or not, and the approach to juvenile justice that sees more and more being treated in much the same way as adult offenders.
Overall, Wills concludes that history can teach us these lessons:
- Each generation believes that youth misbehavior is worse than ever before. We should realise that our ancestors felt exactly the same.
- Increasing crime rate statistics since World War II are the result of a number of factors and do not necessarily reflect an overall worsening of juvenile behavior.
- The way young offenders are dealt with today is harsher than before. That has not brought about a reduction in our fear of juvenile crime; it is actually causing more mistrust across the generations.
Factors Affecting Youth Violence. Seifert (2012) provides a great deal of detailed and informative data on youth violence in the US in her book Youth Violence: Theory, Prevention and Intervention. In the Preface, Seifert states that the book investigates the current practices “for assessment, prevention, and intervention with youth at risk for violent behaviors and shows ways that programs for such youth can improve.” Mentioning young people that have been severely affected by neglect and/or abuse, she claims that almost all of them “can rise above their beginnings” – in other words they are not lost causes. She insists that youth violence is in fact “a public health problem.” The Preface also contains an outline of the content of the book’s chapters. For example that Chapter 1 covers youth violence prevalence issues and trends, and provides some staggering statistics such as that gun violence in the US incurs an annual cost to the nation of $100 billion. Also that the United States not only has a high position in the global league table of violent crime rates (excluding third-world nations), but also imprisons more people than most other developed countries. Serious violent crimes on school property equate to four per thousand, and double that outside school domains. One third of all school students declared as having been victims of bullying in school. Another unenviable statistic is that the US has around one million members of gangs, and that there are gangs in all the country’s States.
Still in the Preface, Seifert indicates that Chapter 2 of her book covers demographic factors impacting violence among the youth. These include – predictably – “gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.” Continuing the outline of the book’s chapters, Seifert uses Chapter 3 to describe how the violence can be classified, as follows:
- “Hot violence” can arise from “an extreme or ongoing stressor.”
- “Relationship violence” occurs between people such as partners in a relationship, school friends, siblings, and adults (parents or guardians).
- “Predatory violence” is violence that Seifert categorizes as “cold” but is thankfully uncommon.
- “Instrumental violence” is a type of violence used to gain something (“an object, position, sex, or power”). Seifert notes that those who perpetrate this type of violence have the belief that it is justified in order to achieve the objective.
Chapter 4 in Seifert’s book provides the location for discussion of the theoretical views of the causes of youth violence. One such theory is that there are two distinct groups of youth; one that exhibit serious aggression at a very young age (say between 3 and 12 years old) and a second group that only begin to show major aggression in their teens. According to that theory, the first group is likely to retain that aggressive behavior for much of their adult life, unless they receive appropriate treatment. In contrast, the second group tends to lose their violent attitudes once they reach the age of around 25. If that theory is valid, those in the first group need to have preventative treatment from a very young age.
Other theories covered in Chapter 4 of Seifert’s book mainly involve factors of social origin, such as learning violent behavior from violent parents. There is also discussion of theories of greater complexity, summarized by Seifert as “interactions among a person’s biology, development, psychological makeup, social environment, physical environment, strengths, and stressors.” In Chapter 5, Seifert describes those individual factors, such as those of physiological and cognitive nature and of psychological makeup. She also notes that each of these factors can be further sub-divided in terms of risk and resilience elements. Taking an example, being psychologically untroubled can be considered as indicating resilience, whereas a history of previous trauma would represent risk. All these factors can affect an individual’s ability to develop normally. Chapter 6 discusses other factors such as the impact of peers of the school and/or community environment and of effects of the media. Seifert claims that in each individual case a unique combination of these factors will determine the likelihood of that person becoming one more violent youth or a normal (non-violent) youngster. In this area Seifert refers to the prevalence of bullying, which she claims can lead to the victims becoming depressed, even suicidal, to bullying others and/or to problems with school studies. The remaining chapters (7 to 12) deal with matters outside the scope of this research paper.
Going into more detail in Seifert’s book, Chapter 1 provides some useful statistical information concerning youth violence. Summarizing some of that data:
- Taking into account all age groups, teenagers and young adults are the most likely victims of crimes of violence.
- CDC data indicates that in 2007, an average of 16 young people (10-24) were murdered every day; a total over the year of 5,764.
- Also in that year, death by homicide for children aged 1-14 represented the fourth highest cause in that age group, and the second highest for the age group 15-24.
- In the year 2008, not only were more than one in every ten murder victims aged under 18, but over a third of the juvenile victims were below the age of 5.
In terms of the statistics relating to juveniles as the perpetrators of homicides, the numbers of juveniles (10-17) arrested for murder in 2008 was 3.8 per 100,000. According to Puzzanchera (2009) the percentage of homicides committed by juveniles has fluctuated narrowly between just 5 and 6. However, Seifert reports that the arrest rate for juveniles in respect of murder rose sharply in the middle of the 1980’s and reached a peak in 1993, then declined until 2004, when it rose again until 2008. The decline was attributed to a number of factors, including more effective law enforcement and various crime prevention programs. Comparing US youth homicide rates with other countries, the US rate of circa 11 per 100,000 is fairly high – although countries such as Colombia (84 per 100,000) and Puerto Rico (41 per 100,000) are much higher. However, the UK, France, Germany, and Japan are all below 1 per 100,000.
Incidences of school violence, especially high profile gun crimes, are “relatively rare” according to Seifert. Quoting some 2010 National Center for Education statistics:
- Between 2008 and 2009 there were in total 38 violent deaths, of which 28 were homicides and 14 suicides (subjects aged between 5 and 18).
- For the school year 2007-8, in the same age group there were 1701 homicides.
- In 2007 (January to December), that same age group featured 1231 suicides.
Seifert notes that the perpetrators of those homicides were highly likely to have been on the receiving end of bullying and to have exhibited suicidal tendencies previously. In addition, over half of all such events in the years 1992 to 1999 followed some earlier indication in the form of threats or warning notes or even diary entries, showing premeditation. Seifert also provides data concerning the more frequently occurring non-fatal violence in schools in the 2007-2009 period, based on statistics published in 2010:
- Some 1.2 million crimes of a non-fatal nature (theft plus violence) were perpetrated against students between 12 and 18 in the year 2008.
- Violence of a serious nature at 4 per 1,000 students was half the rate of similar crimes away from the school (students 12-18).
- In 2009, eight grades 9 to 12 students in every 100 reported threats or actual injury from a weapon while at school.
- In 2007-8, gang activity was reported in 20 percent of public schools.
Seifert provides more statistical data along similar lines, including noting that a significant number of students either carry weapons or have had weapons used against them, and that bullying is a serious problem, particularly “cyberbullying” – a recent variant made possible by the widespread ownership and use of cellphones, which according to Seifert affects up to a third of students. Bullying is also often directed specifically against those who are either gay, lesbian or have other non-heterosexual inclinations. In extreme cases, bullying can lead to the subject committing suicide; a figure of approximately 2,000 students committing suicide each year is mentioned in the article, making it the third most likely cause of death among young people.
And what does all this youth violence cost? According to Seifert, the direct and indirect costs equate to the nation (United States) up to $425 billion, or $221 per victim.
A major factor thought to contribute to youth violence is socioeconomic status (SES). Youngsters brought up in an environment of poverty are much more likely to become involved in crime including violent crime. According to Seifert, the following related factors also add to that likelihood:
- A poor housing neighborhood with the presence of gangs, crime and drugs.
- Adult neighbors involved in drugs, crime and guns
- Being exposed to violence and racial discrimination and prejudice.
Agreement with those views of the environmental causes of youth violence are found in “Youth Violence” (2001), a Report produced by the Surgeon General, which includes a discussion of risk factors that – although not actually proven to be causes – can contribute to or lead to violent behavior in the affected youth (Chapter 4). The Report categorizes those risk factors into five “domains”, which are: the individual him/herself, their immediate family, their friends (“peer group”), their school environment, and their neighborhood and surroundings. The Report points out that biological factors are not thought to be overly significant and that most of the identified risk factors are more associated with social causes. For example a child of violent parents is more likely to have learned violent behavior from them, rather than to have inherited it. Similarly, because society expects boys to have a naturally more aggressive behavior than girls, those expectations can be learned by the young people themselves. The Report also states that where more than one risk factor is present, the likelihood of violent behavior increases disproportionately. For example, “a 10-year-old exposed to 6 or more risk factors is 10 times as likely to be violent by age 18 as a 10-year-old exposed to only one factor.” The Report also notes that different risk factors have lesser or greater probabilities of resulting in youth violence, dependent on the timing of their occurrence. For example, it is thought that substance abuse as a child has more probability of causing violence when the adolescent reached 15 to 18 years than does (say) parental abuse. The importance of identifying and assessing these various risk factors is not only in predicting youth violence, but in helping to design effective prevention programs.
This theme is echoed by Guerra and Smith (Eds.) (2005) in their book Preventing Youth Violence in a Multicultural Society. Their book also stresses the importance of such preventative interventions taking due account of cultural and ethnicity factors for the different and diverse elements of the population.
Youth Violence: Prevention, Intervention and Social Policy edited by Flannery and Huff (Eds.) (1999), suggests that when considering intervention programs to deter violent behavior, “multicomponent” programs are likely to be most effective, but also that addressing what the book calls “family processes” is likely to bring about the greatest success. Those programs attempt to modify / improve parenting techniques and enhance communication within the family. In other words by training the parents, the risk of their children becoming involved in youth violence will be decreased. School-based programs can also make a positive contribution.
Conclusions
That is not to say that youth violence is not a serious problem in today’s society – it is. Seifert’s book provided a good insight into the extent and range of youth violence in the nation, including the homicides and suicides representing the most extreme outcomes of it. Although the US does not have the highest rates of youth violence among the developed nations, those rates are considerably higher than many other countries such as the UK, and there is certainly a need for making drastic reductions, which is why identifying and tackling the causes is vital.
Works studied appear to be in general agreement that the causes are more socioeconomic in nature, than biological. So family background, poverty, the neighborhood, availability of drugs and weapons; these are all risk factors that increase the probability of youth turning to crime, including crimes of violence. Peer pressure is also a factor, particularly with the increasing prevalence of the gang culture, both within and outside the school environment.
In terms of preventing youth becoming involved in violent behavior, Guerra & Smith (Eds.) stress the need for intervention programs to take due account of cultural and ethnicity factors, while Flannery & Huff (Eds.) suggest an approach that addresses training of parents of at risk youngsters, as well as school-based programs in support.
References
Flannery, Daniel, J. and Huff, C., Ronald (Eds.). (1999). Youth Violence: Prevention, Intervention and Social Policy. ISBN: 0-88048-809-3. American Psychiatric Press Inc. Washington, DC. Print.
Guerra, Nancy, G. & Smith, Emilie, P. (Eds.). (2005). Preventing Youth Violence in a Multicultural Society. ISBN: 978-1-59147-327-5. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4316064.aspx
Seifert, Kathryn. (2012). Youth Violence: Theory, Prevention and Intervention. Springer Publishing Company LLC, New York. Print.
Wills, Abigail. (2009). “Youth culture and crime: what can we learn from history?” BBC History Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyextra.com/feature/youth-culture-and-crime-what-can-we-learn-history
“Youth Violence.” (2001). A Report of the Surgeon General. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44294/
