Assuming that everyone in their life is capable of committing crime, but also that crime is not an innate human characteristic you have no other option but to accept that criminal behaviour is something that is learned through processes of social interactions with others. This process goes on indefinitely, it can happen at any time, someone could watch a crime program and just decide to go out and rob a bank. But this process starts at an early age and with the uk youth crime rate rising can we prevent the spread of youth crime by identifying some of its key factors?
When you define risk, in terms of young offenders the obvious focus is that of reducing crime. The intentions is on improving the lives of children and young people to some extent using practical community based prevention programmes.
Gender is also a factor, genetic influences and biological mediators are also in question. Although genetics are unchanged during a childs development, it is possible for these factors to contribute to the identification of that child in terms of their risk status.
Other risk factors for youth offending are that of substance abuse, the use of drugs and alcohol also overlap with those of educational performance. Underachievers in school are more likely to go on to offend and do drugs and vice versa. This can also lead to young parenthood and mental health problems for some adolescents.
Relative actions taken to prevent these risk factors and protect children from drugs and crime are there to make sure children are steered away from negative outcomes such as these.
Since alcohol and substance abuse are so closely linked with antisocial behaviour, programmes to prevent young people from abusing substances secure reductions in criminal and antisocial behaviour in the youth community.
Some of the major risk factors for youth crime are:
- low income and poor housing
- living in deteriorated inner city areas
- a high degree of impulsiveness and hyperactivity
- low intelligence and low school attainment
- poor parental supervision and harsh and erratic discipline
- parental conflict and broken families
Howard Kaplan’s self-derogation theory of delinquency states; that when adolescents are ridiculed they suffer a loss of self-esteem and their self-worth decreases and then they consequently abandon the motivation to conform. Individuals displaying antisocial behaviour developed in a family exhibiting "deviant behaviour," in an "adverse home environment," can be the root cause of such problems, the child can be grouped with their deviant family and thus labelled deviant by his/her peers resulting in a self fulfilling prophecy.
Many that are cited causes of adolescent anti-social behaviour include; abuse, neglect, socioeconomic status, parental antisocial behaviour, etc. On the other hand there is no evidence that social factors, like these can cause antisocial behaviour without accompanying other biological factors.
According to Terrie Moffitt, there are two different types of juvenile delinquents; Adolescent-Limited offends, offenders who conduct deviant behaviour as a result of the transitional state their bodies and minds are undergoing, thus this delinquency is grown out of, and is temporary. The other type of delinquent is the Life-Course-Persistent offender this is a child who may have neurological complications or a poor home life that result in permanent damage to their social identity thus forging a lifelong anti-social nature.
Moffit explains that there are three etiological hypotheses for the cause of adolescent-limited offenders. The first is adolescence-limited, this is simply the body adjusting to the chemical and biological changes as well as the formation of a social identity.
The second is learned from antisocial models that are easily mimicked. Edwin Sutherland suggests that crime is learned through a process of differential association when adolescents are socialized by those that see criminal activity as a norm. In a nut shell possibility that these criminal activities are taught to these adolescents by their families or by peers shows that crime is not that much different from other learned activities, so in this circumstance because of this transition period norms aren’t yet established crime can become a norm depending on who the adolescent is learning their values from.
Following on from this the third is these deviant behaviours are sustained through reinforcement. Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers (1966) suggests that humans learn to define behaviours that are rewarded as positive the same learning process produces both conforming and deviant behaviour, basically you learn crime in the same way you learn anything, so the production of criminality is something that comes from the norms of the people around you. Someone naive who knows nothing of morality is rewarded for committing a crime they naturally assume that action should be repeated to attain more reward.
A person’s class or location is also a major determinant of how that person is socialized and what that person will learn. If you go to prison the only people to teach you are other more experienced criminals and all they will have to teach you is better more sophisticated crimes, in the same way a poor family may resort to crime simply to survive in that sort of situation crime becomes a necessity.
The Life-Course-Persistent offender is a result of brain abnormalities and a deviant home life. According to multiple studies, a correlation was found between birth defects in the brain resulting from child birth and later antisocial behaviour. Children exhibiting antisocial behaviour early in life, often carry this behaviour into later life.
Moffitt (1955) writes, "Minor physical anomalies, which are thought to be observable markers for hidden anomalies in neural development, have been found at elevated rates among violent offenders and subjects with antisocial personality traits." This could just be circumstantial or could result in social exclusion as they do not conform to ideas of attractiveness, they don’t necessarily have to reflect neurological disorders, and Moffit goes on to to say that these problems could be caused by maternal drug abuse.
Edwin Sutherland (1950) theorised that criminality was learned by associating with criminal elements through a process of differential association. He suggests that crime is not so different from other learned activities; it is learned in the same way.
This learning process of criminal behaviour occurs usually within intimate personal groups and usually entails learning techniques of committing the crime and why those crimes are committed, for what purpose and possibly some sort of rationale or justifications of said action to take away ownership and responsibility away from the crime.
A person becomes delinquent because they are fed various anti law beliefs from the people around them and those outweigh the pro law beliefs of society or school or religion that may also be prevalent.
Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers (1966) Added to this the concept of reinforcement to the theory of differential association, it basically outlines that humans learn to define behaviors that are rewarded as positive or draw attention as negative, so if a wrong actions rewarded or results in them receiving a lot of attention positive or otherwise the action then repeated. This same learning process produces both conformist and non-conformist behaviour
Akers goes on to say the person location in a social structure is pivotal in how that person is socialized thus effecting what that person will learn, so for example if a person is in a prison the only thing to be learned by their surroundings is more crime as they are more than likely surrounded by career criminals.
Daniel Glaser developed the Differential Identification Theory in which a person pursues a criminal behaviour to mimic a person real or fictional he identifies with/wants to be like. Dependant on who the person identifies, the resultant behaviour is transitory, so for instance if a person identifies with Al Capone he may want to start bootlegging alcohol or something along those lines.
The main point is if a person identifies with someone whose perspective is that criminal behaviour is acceptable and possibly justifies the behaviour or receives rewards for said behaviour, the behaviour becomes something to be imitated.
What can if anything can be done about youth crime in the uk? The British government set up many programs to point youths who have been in trouble with the law or are suspecting to be associated in criminal activities. But these programs are more or less voluntary and can do nothing to protect children from poverty or a poor home life. The only real lasting solution to prevent youth crime in the UK is increased living conditions and access to jobs. The frustration of poverty and poor living conditions can create reliance on substance abuse and crime and vice versa. To prevent these problems we need to increase social mobility and prospects for young people supporting them with funds to gain access to education where they can learn skills to create a successful career.
Bibliography;
Cohen, S. (2002) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers
Cohen, Stanley, from Garlend, D and Young, P (1983) Social Control talk: Telling stories about correctional change.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1996), Understanding and preventing youth crime
Foucault, M (1975) Discipline and Punish
Nozick, Robert. (1974) Justice and Entitlement
Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminology today: An integrative introduction (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
