Theories on Juvenile Delinquency
No single theoretical orientation can adequately explain the multiple variables and factors that cause delinquent behavior, so criminologists have taken the best parts of different social theories and combined them to explain crime and delinquency.
Before we get into some of the particulars, it might be easy to think of three general theories on juvenile delinquency. The three theories are the anomie theory, the subculture theory, and the differential opportunity theory.
Anomie Theory
Anomie theory was first developed by Robert Merton in the 1940’s. Merton’s theory explains that juvenile delinquency occurs because the juveniles do not have the means to make themselves happy. Given their limited perspective, they often find that their goals are unattainable and so they often resort to unlawful means by which to attain their goals. To illustrate, a juvenile who doesn’t have money wants to get a job and purchase car to get to work…but they don’t have money. As a result, they might decide to steal a car or steal money to purchase a car.
Subculture Theory
In 1955, Albert Cohen developed the subculture theory, which is actually an amalgamation of several of his theories. Subculture theory posits that juveniles who do not “fit” and/or meet conventional social standards may seek validation from a subculture. The subculture group is formed of other juveniles who also do not meet conventional social standards. These groups then engage in behavior that is generally viewed not socially acceptable; and so, they actively rebel against socially acceptable standards.
Put another way, Cohen understands juvenile delinquency to be a product of society. Given this, when juveniles commit crimes, such as stealing, they do so because they are violating a social norm, and in doing so they signal conformity with their subculture.
Differential Opportunity Theory
Differential opportunity theory, developed by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin in 1960, believes that opportunity plays a role in juvenile delinquency. Cloward and Ohlin believe that if juveniles were presented with more opportunities to succeed, they would be less likely to turn to affiliation with subculture groups for validation.
Additionally, differential opportunity theory holds that there may be other circumstances besides social factors that contribute to a juvenile’s delinquency. For example, the theory posits that the juvenile may be successful during school but may fail to find gainful employment. The inability to find gainful employment can lead the juvenile to be delinquent (not simply social factors).
The differential opportunity theory differs from the subculture theory because there are reasons other than social factors that can lead a juvenile to be delinquent. If the juvenile has more opportunities, they will be more willing to succeed than to join a subculture.
Additional Theories
Rational Choice Theory
Classical theory, also called Rational or Choice Theory, is based on the early writings of Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). This explanation assumes that crime results from a rational process in which offenders make decisions and choices, often planning their criminal activity so as to maximize the benefits and avoid the risks (see Cornish & Clarke, 1986, pp. 1–2).
According to classical theory, crime and delinquency are attributed to free will & voluntary choice. People commit a crime and engage in delinquency for the simple reason that they made an individual rational decision to do so. In light of this, it was assumed that because crime was a rational choice, offenders could be deterred by punishment.
Explanations of crime as a rational choice, while supported in some cases, is also disputed by scholars and researchers. In the latter instance, there is concern that the theory does not explain criminal behavior as much as it helps support a legal system that endeavors to justify punishments to “fit” crimes.
Interestingly enough, even though rational choice explanations do not always enjoy support across the board, they remain popular with the public. Likewise, they are widely supported by law enforcement, lawmakers, and even some academic disciplines, like economics, political science, and law (see, e.g., Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Akers, 1990).
Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) developed a version of rational choice theory called routine activity theory to help explain trends and cycles in the crime rate since the 1960s. They concluded that crime is related to the interaction of three variables associated with the “routine activities” of everyday life: the availability of suitable targets of crime; the absence of capable guardians; and the presence of motivated offenders. So for example, when looking at the crime of theft, it is assumed that when more homes are unoccupied due to more persons employed (and fewer neighbors, family members, or relatives looking after them), they are more likely to be targeted by unemployed teens or young adults.
The routine activity approach links delinquency to social conditions that increase opportunities for crime; likewise, they emphasize the role that the victim’s lifestyle and behavior play in the crime process. Felson (1994) described how growth and social changes in cities, neighborhoods, and schools have increased the likelihood of crime occurring.
There is evidence that supports the idea that a lot of juvenile crime reflects rational choices are being made, as crime has a tendency to occur when youth perceive that their chances of being caught are low; even if they are caught, many are aware that the punishment for juvenile crime is often much less than for comparable crimes committed by adults.
Critics of RC Theory
Critics of Rational Choice theory question the degree to which criminal behavior is always a rational, free will process. Ronald Akers (1990) questioned whether offenders really make rational decisions to commit a crime based on knowledge of the law and possible punishments. His research tried to establish whether or not decisions to engage in crime and delinquency were made in the absence of other situational factors that may have influenced them being committed.
Rational choice proponents, I should point out, do not always hold to a strict definition of rationality. Rather, they acknowledge that situational factors do affect individuals’ choices. Given this, efforts have been made to integrate rational choice theory with other theoretical explanations (see, e.g., Felson, 1986; Hirschi, 1986).
Doubtless, there are many crimes that reflect the rational choices of persons. This may especially hold true in cases of white-collar crime, which are committed by persons in the workplace and pose relatively little risk of detection, conviction, or punishment.
Strain Theories
Strain theories of delinquency explain the delinquency of youths as a response to a lack of socially approved opportunities. Simply put, it is a theory that explains delinquency as caused by the “strain” or frustration of not having an equal opportunity or means to achieve commonly idealized goals such as economic or social success. In this manner, we might also think of strain theories as structural theories, given how opportunities are not always evenly distributed and available to everyone, based on how they are situated within social structure.
Strain theorists regard juvenile antisocial behavior as caused by the frustrations of lower class youth when they find themselves unable to achieve the material success expected of the middle class.
Robert Merton (1957) was an eminent social theorist who elaborated strain theory from Emile Durkheim’s concept of “anomie” or “normlessness.” Merton applied Durkheim’s anomie theory as a means to explain how crime might result from the rapidly changing conditions in society; especially in societies where competition for success, wealth, and material goods are highly valued. Social disorganization leads to uncertainty, confusion, and shifting moral values, referred to as anomie or normlessness. Conditions of anomie exist when the rule of law is weakened and becomes powerless to maintain social control.
Given these social conditions, a conflict may result when persons with little formal education and access to economic resources are denied in their efforts to achieve the common goals esteemed in American society. This causes an individual-level conflict and may, furthermore, produce a sense of alienation, hopelessness, and frustration.
Merton claimed this experience of frustration may incentivize persons to engage in alternative/delinquent/criminal means in order that they may attain their socially desired goals.
Strain Theory emphasizes that most people share similar values, goals, and aspirations; but many people do not have equal ability or means to achieve goals, such as economic or social success. The discrepancy between what persons want and their limited opportunities to achieve them produces frustration, or “strain.”
Thus, under conditions of anomie, crime may be considered a “normal” response to the strain of existing social conditions.
Because opportunities for success are more open for the middle and upper classes, strain is experienced most by those in the lower socioeconomic classes, where quality education and employment opportunities are more limited. The strain and frustration resulting from blocked opportunities increase the likelihood that some individuals will use deviant and illegitimate means to achieve their goals.
Strain theory explains why many lower-class youth resort to theft, drug dealing, and other delinquent behavior when they perceive fewer legitimate means and opportunities to achieve their goals. Strain and social disorganization are similar because they emphasize the relationship between social variables such as poverty, economic opportunity, and available goods and services to crime and delinquency. Strain is more common among lower-class poor people, who live in rural as well as inner-city urban areas characterized by increased social problems and crime. Strain theory has been expanded and further developed by other criminologists. The
These opportunity–structure theories (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960) were instrumental to promoting government-funded policies such as “Head Start,” pre-K education, and jobs programs for lower-class youths as a way to enhance educational and employment opportunities and reduce crime and delinquency.
Robert Agnew (1992) extended Merton’s theory of strain and anomie to better explain varieties of delinquent behavior through the general strain theory. Agnew identified three sources of strain:
-
- Strain caused by the failure to achieve positively valued goals, basically the same as Merton’s theory of anomie.
- Strain caused by the removal of positively valued stimuli from the individual. Examples include the loss of a girl/boy friend, death of a loved one, divorce or separation of parents, or leaving friends and moving to a new neighborhood or school.
- Strain as the presentation of negative stimuli, such as child abuse and neglect, physical punishment, family and peer conflict, stressful life conditions, school failure, and criminal victimization (see Agnew, 1992, p. 57).
Agnew’s general strain theory in this regard has made an important contribution to explaining delinquency. Likewise, there is evidence that youth who report being “hassled” by peers, who have bad peer relationships, or experience victimization or similar “negative life events” are also more likely to engage in delinquency (Agnew & White, 1992).
Additional research supports this which finds that strains such as a family breakup, unemployment, moving, feelings of dissatisfaction with friends and school are positively related to delinquency (Paternoster & Mazerolle, 1994).
Simply put, strain theory helps to explain how stressful incidents and sources of strain in the life course influence patterns of offending.
Sociological Theories
Social control and social process theories represent yet another approach to understanding juvenile delinquency and crime. Sociological explanations emphasize social influences on individuals caused by the structure of society, societal change, social disorganization, subcultural differences, and social processes that influence behavior.
Social structure theories
These theories claim that forces such as social disorganization, status frustration, and cultural deviance lead lower-class youths to become involved in delinquent behavior.
Social reaction theories
These theories focus more on how society, social institutions, and government officials react to crime and delinquency than on why offenders commit crime.
Social process (control) theories
Social process explanations of delinquency focus not on societal structures but on social interactions between individuals and environmental influences that may lead to delinquent behavior. These theories argue that all individuals have the potential and opportunity to perpetrate delinquent or criminal offenses, but most refrain from such behavior because of fear and social constraints.
Among social-control theories are social disorganization theory, which relates to the inability of social institutions and communities to adequately socialize and control its youth; social-bonding theory, which holds that a youth’s behavior is significantly related to a social bond that ties a youth to the social order; and containment theory, which focuses on the quality and number of inner and outer containment mechanisms for controlling juveniles’ behavior.
According to control theory, delinquency is more likely among youth who lack social bonds and positive social interactions among parents and peers.
Social process (learning) theories
These theories generally emphasize explanations that explain delinquency on the basis of social interactions between individuals and social group influences that lead to delinquency.
Differential association theory was developed by Edwin Sutherland, who believed that delinquency is learned behavior as youths interact with each other. The theory is founded on a number of propositions (Sutherland & Cressey, 1970, pp. 75–77). Differential association theory holds that delinquency is a learned behavior as youth interact closely with other deviant youth:
-
- Criminal behavior is learned.
- Criminal behavior is a process of communication, learned in interaction with other persons.
- The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
- When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime; and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
- The specific direction of the motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
- A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law – this is the principle of differential association.
- Differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
- The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other type of learning.
- While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
Sutherland’s differential association theory stimulated considerable research on explaining delinquent behavior; it remains an important explanation for juvenile delinquency, as it is difficult to dispute the idea that crime is learned like other behaviors.
This explanation also has a positive appeal as it holds that youth are changeable and can be taught prosocial behavior. Delinquency prevention efforts have proven to be most effective when they are directed at reducing the criminal influence among groups of antisocial youths.
Burgess and Akers (1966) reformulated differential association theory according to operant conditioning principles; Akers (1985) further developed an explanation of deviant behavior according to a social learning approach.
Developmental or life-course theories
explanations attempt to account for differences between offenders who begin offending at an early age and continue offending, and those who begin in adolescence and grow out of it.
Intersectional theories take into account different interpenetrating social dynamics, such as those that involve race, class, and gender.
Ultimately, for juvenile justice researchers and practitioners, the best theory is one that recommends policies, programs, and strategies for effective crime reduction and delinquency prevention.
Discussion Questions
What might Social Learning theories tell us about what happens when juveniles exposed to different social problems (drugs, violence, poverty) are put into a containment facility together?
How might we use Routine Activity Theory to explain a convenience store robbery (remember the 3 variables – available target, the absence of surveillance, and a motivated perpetrator)?
Think of similar situations that you were in, where you decided to commit a crime or not (small or otherwise) for example, maybe you decided to steal something. Why or why not? What made the difference in your decision? What was missing from the three requirements for crime as a “routine activity”?
How might the fact that we live in a violent society that is perpetually at war contribute to the decision-making of youth, who make choices to engage in criminality, delinquency, and violence?
There is a strong emphasis placed on the Social Learning theory as an explanation that explains delinquency on the basis of social interactions between individuals and social group effects that lead to delinquency. If a group of juveniles are placed in the same confinement facility together and are exposed to a variety of social issues, such as drug use, violence, and poverty, we should conduct a more in-depth investigation into the characteristics of not only the offense, but also the social aspects that surround them, such as their community, their family, and their friendships. We should not simply focus on the actions of the offenders; rather, we should concentrate on the reasons why they committed these crimes and the factors that led them to engage in criminal behavior and find ways to help them and their communities. If we accomplish this, we will be able to develop successful measures to help youth steer away from criminal activity at the community level. It is known that we live in a society that enjoys locking up anyone, regardless of the offense or the age, but our society needs to stop just locking juveniles up and delve deeper to comprehend what the living conditions of some of these kids might be like if they choose to engage in criminal behavior that result in them being sent to jail. We cannot just blame these individuals when other circumstances are also to blame.
Without a doubt, there are numerous theories out there that try to explain the existence of crime. However, none of them can be defined as an absolute ruler as to why people get involved in criminal behavior. Nonetheless, the more research there is out there the closer we come to understanding crime as a whole. For example, It is certain that humans are capable of making rational decisions and as Beccaria and Bentham state, an individual commits a crime with the intention of maximizing benefits and avoiding risks. Thus, we can conclude that one way to reduce crime is to deter offenders with certain and swift punishment. However, if we throw strain theory into the mix we can argue that crime is a desperate last resort to an unfairly structured society where the most vulnerable ones are the younger ones who lack educational and economic opportunities. Thus, as strain theory states, it increases the likelihood that some individuals will use illegitimate means to achieve their goals. If we keep strain theory in mind, punishing an individual will most likely not deter them from committing a future crime. If crime is the result of social frustration, punishment does nothing to alleviate this frustration. However, if the most needy are given a legitimate opportunity to achieve their goals, they will most likely refrain from inclining towards committing a crime.
We can use routine activity theory to explain a convenience store robbery by starting with the absence of surveillance. Convenient stores can be robbed due to their surveillance in the eyes of the perpetrator if they are closed, so nobody is inside, or because typically few people and maybe even only one person can be working, so when they are absent then that would be a perfect time to rob. The perpetrator though had to have been motivated to commit this crime, and this motivation could have come from not having money to buy the items stolen or even traits picked up from these seen around in the community on a daily basis. This convenience store could have been the available target because there could not have been other available convenience stores and possibly the area in which the conscience store is and could make it easier to get away with. The reasoning for many violent crimes done can be the reason for rational poor decision making in the youth. When juveniles see violence they grow up thinking this is normal and how everybody acts, so they perform these same actions. The more violent the crimes seen, the more violent crimes performed because instead of thinking of consequences, the idea of fitting in and feeling ‘normal’ takes over.
Social learning theories, as stated in the post, emphasize that delinquency develops depending on social interactions between individuals and other social groups. When juveniles exposed to different social problems, such as drug, violence, and poverty, are put into a containment facility together, Social Learning theories tells us that these interactions between the incarcerated youth and both their parents and peers should be investigated rather than simply just ensuring that these youth are taken off the streets. Juveniles exposed to difficult or struggling habitats often tend to fall on a decline not only having either parents or peers that aren’t positive impacts on their life but also having no choice but to for survival. This process makes it hard on juveniles to create a positive pathway for themselves and, in result, their involvement with drugs and crime becomes more likely and then they land behind bars having no one that truly cares about them. By the time that they realize, they are adults with a criminal record. As the next question states, the fact that we live within a violent society that is perpetually at war contributes to the decision-making of youth, especially the ones who engage in criminality, delinquency, and violence. We pay the government daily to go overseas and use weapons to fight other countries to not only protect the citizens of this county but to uphold our name as one of the most powerful countries in the world. Then we teach about these wars and acts in elementary and middle schools. However, when juveniles participate in the same acts, sometimes to either survive or protect themselves, they are locked away and forced to survive on the inside.
The routine activity theory helps develop the trends and cycles in the crime rates since the 1960. The theory includes three variables. The variables are the availability of suitable targets of crime, the absence of capable guardians, and the presence of motivated offenders. When using the scenario of a convenience store robbery, the routine activity theory can be used to help explain why the robbery was done. Firstly, the availability of the suitable targets either have one person, the clerk, or the robbery would be done at night time when the store is closed. Most likely, robbers know that the money would have been locked away at night so they would do it at a time that has a more suitable target to go against, that being the clerk. Most teens nowadays can go to a convenience store alone without capable guardians. Also if the store was targeted at a later night, the store would be dead compared to earlier in the day. These stores are also often targeted by unemployed teenagers or young adults who have had no business making real money.
Dr. Trappen 1/17/24 Website post #1
To start off this was a very interesting read, and I think that there are so many different factors that go into why delinquents do what they do. And of course, I don’t think we will ever be able to solve the entire issue of that but there definitely must be ways to help fix this issue and lower it. I think that when I committed a crime and stole something or didn’t, two thoughts came into my head, number one, what are the police going to do to me if they catch me, and number two how pissed would my parents be if they caught me stealing. And I believe that is an issue now a days and why we see a lot of delinquents, I feel first that kids are not afraid of the police as much as they should be. And number two I don’t think kids are scared enough of their parents. I think parenting has gotten soft over the past few years, because it’s “abuse” or it’s not good to “discipline” your children. And that is why we have seen such an increase. Regarding the routine activity theory, I think that 2 of those parts are to why we have seen an increase, the absences of capable guardians is one of them, and the Prescence of motivated offenders have gone up, because of the absence of capable guardians.
I think that Juveniles that have been exposed to diffrent social issues are likely to continue down a path of offending if they are kept in an containment facility together because we as humans learn from each other. For a lot of kids I feel like there’s an enviormental conpnet we all have a clique and we all have our own way of choosing whats right and wrong if you are around peole who make it seem like making wrong decisions is right. Until you come into being your own person trying to fit in is what usally happens until you get older and see things for how they are. To explain the robbery parents are not always home watching everything their kids doing I would say it makes it easier to do whatever they want nobody’s watching them so they maybe don’t think about the concequences. When I was in middle school I was friends with the wrong kids who at that age I thought knew more than my parents we would go hang out at rite aid because it was our meeting ground, until the day the girl I was friends with started stealing food and snacks from it I was confused on why she asked to use my bag before we went in the store by the end it made sense as she’s running out of the store the clerk was chasing her now I didnt run because I had no clue what was going on. I eneded up getting in trouble having to call my mom because they wanted to call the cops on us, the girl texted me later beging me not to tell them her name because she couldn’t affored to get into any more trouble. I would not have hung out with her if I knew what she got into. Everything around us is violent. Parents let young boys sit and play shooting games for hours how are we expecting for there to not be violece. Game systems are like a fantasy if you play them for too long which can mess up development in thr brain for growing kids.
Each theory makes a good argument as to why some people choose violence and what factors influence those behaviors. “Rational” or “choice” theory states that people simply make decisions and choices before they choose to commit a crime. Which is not fully accurate. People make choices based off what they have been exposed to, how they were raised. No one just wakes up one day and chooses to commit crimes. For example, when someone is caught shoplifting there not doing it because it is coinvent and they want free stuff most people are doing it so their family can eat. I grew up in a lower class community where I witnessed it often. It was not unusual to be in a grocery store and see someone stealing. I’m not going to label them a criminal because their trying to feed their family. I honestly believe unless your put it in those situations you should not judge someone for what they have to do. Also, it is a scientific fact that your brain does not stop developing until you are 25. Which means a lot of decisions made when crime is involved aren’t rational decisions. Everyone is not always in the best head space as well when it comes to making decisions.
I personally believe that the social learning theory told us that if kids that were around things such as drugs and violence were put into another facility with other kids dealing with the same problems. It could most definitely influence them even know they are in the programs they are still talking about it with other kids and even making friends with people they should and could go on and are more likely to commit another delinquent act. In routine theory, there are 3 elements that go into the robbery. First is their motive for the robbery, second is it a suitable target and the absence of a capable person. So did the person do anything to you, is their cameras in the store, and is there someone that could stop you. I think being in the world now makes you more likely to steal things seeing people running into the WHITE HOUSE really makes you think you can do more than just steal a candy bar. I think you make decisions on your own but your parent and the way you were raised plays a big factor on how you behave.
Routine Activity theory was derived from rational choice theory by Lawrence and Marcus Felson in 1979. The theory is based on three factors, those of which being, “the availability of suitable targets of crime; the absence of capable guardians; and the presence of motivated offenders.” This theory can be used to explain crimes such as burglary. If a family is out of town on vacation, the house is unoccupied. This leaves an easy target. With the homeowners being away, the capable guardians of the house are not there to protect it. An easy target with no one protecting the house essentially leaves all the opportunity for burglary. To take it into a personal level, there has been many times where I would have been able to steal from a store. Whether it be from a clerk not paying attention, or simply no one was there to stop me. The first two parts of routine activity theory where there. However, the last part was not there for me. I had no motivation to steal. The only difference in my decision making was that I did not want to break the law. Decision making of the youth can be heavily influenced by society. From a young age, everyone is trying to find their place in the world. Some youth resort to joining gangs to fulfill their lack of family like security. Others steal due to them being denied access to basic necessities.
We can use the routine activity theory to explain a convenience store robbery. The routine activity theory states crime is related to the interaction of three variables that are associated with the “routine activities” of an individual’s everyday life. The three variables are the availability of a suitable target, the absence of capable guardians, and a motivated offender. When we look at the example of a convenience store robbery; the suitable target is the cashier, there are presumed no other people in the store or at least no police officers in sight, and the individual is motivated to commit the crime for a number of different reasons. Social learning theories can tell us about what happens when juveniles are exposed to different social problems and are then put into a containment facility together. Social learning theories explain that delinquency focuses on social interactions between individuals and environmental influences that lead to delinquent behavior. If an individual is exposed to violence and then is in a containment facility with another individual that has the same social problems, one can teach another how to commit a certain crime. There can be discussion on where the best location that police patrol is limited and where to buy certain drugs, etc. A juvenile can easily learn many different things from a peer or even a parent simply by listening and/or watching their actions. This could ultimately lead them to be involved in a life of crime.
The social learning theories may tell us that when juveniles who are exposed to different social issues then put into a containment facility together, they will learn crimes from what each other have done which can be worse than what they were already exposed to. These juveniles may have only been exposed to minor things in society but now that they are surrounded by other offenders they begin to learn about worse things like drugs and violence. The Routine Activity Theory can explain a convenience store robbery with its three variables. When you go to a convenience store there is usually nobody in there or a minimum of guest in the store this gives the robber an available target the sales clerk. The absence of surveillance can offer an opportunity to the robber to have a motive, the robber may think since he’s living in poverty and struggling that this might be the only way to provide for themselves and knowing there is no surveillance give them motive. When I was younger, I would always go grocery shopping with my dad and at the grocery store they would have big bins of candy with a scooper. Every time I would go into the store, I would take a piece of gum and chew it. At the young age that I was doing this I thought nothing of it. It wasn’t until my dad eventually seen me doing this and explained to me that you can’t do that when I realized it was wrong. I did it because I wanted it and I didn’t know that it was wrong. I didn’t have a target, I just wanted to chew some gum. I’ve never done anything violent but my decision not to is because I have never had the urge or need to be violent.
Social Learning theories may explain crime and delinquency when juveniles that are exposed to different social problems are put into a containment facility together. Going off of these theories, if a juvenile went to a containment facility for a minor drug crime, they would be surrounded by many people who are there for many different crimes. If this person with a minor drug crime is surrounded by all of these people, they will begin to learn how to do different crimes and better ways of doing them. We might be able to use Routine Activity Theory to explain a convenience store robbery by remembering the three variables in this theory. A convenience store is an available target because usually, there is probably only one employee working there at a time. Most convenience stores do not have the funds to have adequate surveillance at the store. Lastly, a motivated perpetrator in this instance might be a young kid that does not have money to buy things, so they decide to steal. In this model, a kid may assume that the chances of being caught are low due to the lack of people and surveillance. The fact that we live in a violent society that is perpetually at war can contribute to the decision-making of youth who engage in criminality. Kids grow up watching violence and crime on television, in video games, and on the news. Society in a sense is obsessed with crime as we see on the news every day. It almost seems rare that the news channels talk about anything happy and/or good. Since kids grow up watching all of these things based on crime and violence, it makes the kids think this is normal and that they can do crime too.
By using the Routine Activity Theory, we could try to explain a convenience store robbery by saying there was an increased opportunity that was created by social conditions, for example, lack of security, availability, and a socially conditioned target. The routine activity theory was developed in a spinoff of the rational choice theory. The three main components of the routine activity theory include the, ” availability of suitable targets of crime; the absence of capable guardians; and the presence of motivated offenders”. Obviously a convenience store would fall under the the first component as a suitable target; because convenience stores are robbed frequently. Convenience stores fall under the second component of the theory as most convenience stores lack security guards because they are small and low key. So there isn’t a presence of “capable guardians”. Since the first two components show convenience stores as vulnerable, thats why theres a presence of motivated offenders which falls under the third component of the theory. The motivated offenders see theres an opportunity to potentially get away with the crime of robbing a convenience store, so they chose it as their suitable target.
Yes. Everything that you point out is true. Add to that the fact that a lot of young kids frequent/hang-out around corner convenience stores. The stores are an easy target because they are familiar turf; they constitute a proving ground of sorts, when kids are trying to impress their friends by stealing, acquiring “respect/street cred,” etc.
Delinquency is often linked to social conditions created by society that increase opportunities for crime according to the routine activity approach. The victims lifestyle and behavior plays a monumental role in the crime process. Along with this there is evidence that supports the idea that most juvenile crime reflects the rational choices being made. This happens because crime occurs more so when youth offenders think that chances of being caught is low. But even if the juvenile offenders are caught they still realize that the punishment is often less since they are juveniles and not adults committing a crime. This is just another version of The Rational Choice Theory which in summary believes that the person committing the crime makes the choice or decision to exhibit criminal behavior/activity. But in doing so the offender decides it’s the rational choice to commit/plan crimes to maximize their own personal benefit and avoid risks at all costs. The concern with this theory is that it doesn’t explain criminal behavior enough but more than ever helps the legal system to justify punishments to such crimes.
Good catch! Yes, rational choice theory can explain some aspects of juvenile offending but not all. Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that the brains of young people do not approach full development until the early 20s. Given this, it is difficult to assign the full weight of blame to young people for their decision-making, as research demonstrates they don’t process risk/reward in the same manner as an adult. More often, they tend to downplay risk in efforts to attain rewards in ways that adults find difficult to understand; their decisions are not always fully rational even if they are willful.
Whenever someone hears about delinquency they often think of the young black kid living in the hood selling drugs, or that is what many white people think of when they think of troubled youth. I know I did for many years until I realized it is much more complicated then race, social status, poverty level, etc. It is not one thing that makes a child delinquent, but rather a combination of elements that researchers think may play a role in the development of their crime related activity. Many researchers have studied poor young African American youth from neighborhoods that have high crime rates and high levels of poverty, while this does give us important data, I wonder how it compares to poor white people. Places like Western PA, West Virginia, Ohio, etc. have extreme amounts of white people living underneath the poverty line, on drugs, little job opportunities, and no growth within their own communities. With that being said the youth of these areas are similarly affected of the youth in the inner cities. There is little to no opportunity for youth to succeed in a declining area. “Because opportunities for success are more open for the middle and upper classes, strain is experienced most by those in the lower socioeconomic classes, where quality education and employment opportunities are more limited. The strain and frustration resulting from blocked opportunities increase the likelihood that some individuals will use deviant and illegitimate means to achieve their goals.” All youth with lack of opportunity will resort to deviant behavior given the lack of resources in society, however we only hear about young black/Hispanic males from low income neighborhoods resorting to this behavior. In my opinion this is absolutely despicable for all youth involved. This creates a lack of resources for all youth and in all communities across the nation only resulting in furthering the problem.
Social learning theories might tell us that when juveniles are exposed to different social problems that are put into a containment facility together that people will learn worse crimes. If someone was put into jail for a minor crime, they would be surrounded by people who committed worse crimes. This in return will expose the person who committed a small crime to learning how to commit worse crimes. We might use Routine Activity Theory to explain a convenience store robbery because there tends to be a little amount of people there so that would make them an available target. Next, there would be an absence of surveillance because it is a small store usually with one cashier. Lastly, a motivated perpetrator might be someone that was let go by the store. Juvenile crime would happen here because there is a low risk of being caught. I have never stolen something from a business but I knew people who did. Their main deciding factor in stealing was a lack of surveillance. The fact that we live in a violent society contributes to the decision-making of the youth because they think that violence is normal depending on where they grow up. Especially with a society that is perpetually at war, it makes the youth think that they can partake in criminal behavior because it is normalized on television on the news.
I personally believe every theory makes a compelling argument for why people either choose to be defiant voluntarily or because other factors lead them to choosing a criminal lifestyle. Having grown up in a lower-middle class family in a lower-middle class neighborhood, I believe strain theory is most accurate regarding why individuals choose a criminal lifestyle because I think that most would choose against such a lifestyle if other opportunities presented themselves. However, I do also agree with the sociological theories primarily because individuals most often times are product of their environment, therefore I believe much of their actions are dictated by the sociological factors that influence them. Examples of sociological factors would include family, peers, schools, and others. These are critical components of an individuals’ character and influence, which ultimately effect mindset and purpose (or lack thereof). Lastly, I do also believe that there are individuals that grow up with strong families, good peer groups, and solid education who end up choosing a criminal lifestyle. I think these are outliers but nevertheless do exist.
I believe whenever it comes to these topics or thoughts I feel as if it made a lot of sense. I feel as if that young people are being Misplaced and/or misguided while growing up. For most kids in my districted were either not properly raised right that did not have two parents in the household, this causes them to not know right from wrong and can result of them being arrest later in life just because they don’t have the knowledge. I believe that being at a young age and having responsibilities is a very huge part of their lives but I can not say that is these children’s fault because they just haven’t learned right from wrong. Younger kids brains are not fully developed which is not the child’s fault but they are just taught that some how. Kids these days wanna have that feeling of living on the edge or “kids just being kids” which is saying they are just being deviant. What should be do, should we sit these kids down lock them up for a night? What can be done to show that these kids are just bored and mischievous? The sad part is that kids just feel that they need to commit these petty crimes and/or deviant children. I just feel as if these children just are not grown up yet and will learn with time.
The two main theories of causes of delinquency that I am most familiar with are strain theory and rational choice theory. Rational choice theory explains that it takes a decision to commit crime, and that offender has a choice whether or not to commit that said crime. Rational choice theory also has many factors that are included, such as the level of guardianship one has, the type of neighborhood they live in, and how bad that area is sustainable to crime. Strain theory also goes off of these topics. Strain theory states that “crime may be considered a “normal” response to the strain of existing social conditions.” These social conditions (stated above) play a big factor on strain theory. Someone may be feeling a strain in their life, causing them to commit crimes such as theft, drug dealing, drug usage and many other crimes, just to cope with the pain. Strain theory can be activated by many different things such as at home life, problems at school, or one’s social life. These things take a big toll on how one will act, and respond to the world and how they perceive it. Social learning theory is also a big factor here. How they spend their time with others influences them in a big way. Also when they get locked up and have to do rehab for the crime they commit, it also matters how they are treated when they are there, and who they are hanging around with at the rehab facility also. The rehab facilities are filled with people just like them, so social influence can be a really bad factor here. Back in the day when I was in high school in my early teen years I wasn’t hanging around the best group of people, and they influenced me to do some bad things. As I grew up a realized that it wasn’t the road that I wanted to keep going down. Using rational choice theory I decided to remove myself from the group and to no include myself in delinquent behavior.
I believe that the theories mentioned in the article post are a great attempt to explain why delinquents behave the way that they do. In reality, social interactions amongst people within a specific social class plays a major role in delinquency. Everyone makes rational and irresponsible decisions, but when the peers you affiliate yourself with on a day to day bases are partaking in deviant behavior, you too then think that behavior is normal. For an example, 3 of my older male cousins grew up into the street life where they sold drugs, stole cars and carried guns. Although they were all academically gifted and talented in basketball and football, the social crowd that they were used to was the “Ghetto Lifestyle”. They lived no more than 2 miles from the nearest housing complex where all of their friends lived and suffered from low economic support in their households. By them constantly hanging out in households where their mothers were the breadwinners and the fathers being locked up in jail or prison, the children were forced to partake in criminalistic/delinquent behaviors to get things they wanted. In most of the African American households, these behaviors are considered to be normal because of the social pressures that society places on us.
Social learning theory tells us that Juveniles who are exposed to drugs poverty are put into a containment facilities together were they can possibly be influenced by an individual or environment to commit a delinquent act. To explain a Convenient store robbery by the routine activity theory, we will have to take in consideration the three variables. First we will see if the convenient store was a suitable place to commit a crime. things I would look for are surveillance, an alarm system, locks on doors etc. Second we will see if the suspect has a suitable living situation. Also a guardian to make sure the suspect had adult supervision watching over them.. Last I would see if there was any accomplices anyone motivating or influencing the delinquent juvenile to commit this crime. When I was young in one of the neighborhoods I lived in we used to live by the sheetz. A couple times after school I would go into the sheetz and still a pack of gum or a bar of chocolate. One of the reasons I would do that is because I didn’t want to bother my mother for money. She was always paying bills by herself, I always felt she didn’t have it so I was just steal it. There were cameras in sheetz, and I did have supervision over me. I think the factor that played the biggest was my older brother. I saw my older brother steal playboy magazines out of sheetz. He was my motivator into doing delinquent acts.
I think when it comes to theories a lot of these do make a lot of sense. In my own opinion i feel like a lot of young people are misguided when they are growing up. They are either not raised properly with the knowledge of knowing what can get them in trouble and possibly result in jail time or they are just ignored and not taught at all. I understand that even at a young age that responsibility is a very important thing and i am not saying that they shouldn’t be the ones to blame because they are the ones making the decisions. However, they are not the only was at fault here. Kids and teens feel the need to be chaotic and not listen and do what they are told. The parents have to draw a fine line between what is okay and what is not okay. The sad thing is that some of these kids aren’t even raised by their parents and are forced into a foster home and even more of a reason to be delinquent and disobey the rules. I feel as if these teens aren’t getting enough attention and maybe that can result in some of this. Regardless of how you look at it, it is a big problem and it somehow needs to be resolved in someway. It can be very sad that some kids feel no other way than to commit crimes or if they have no where else to turn in some scenarios. Either way to raises aloe of unanswered questions that need to be answered. The future of our country needs to be leaders and not put behind bars or restricted.
There are a lot of theories that try to explain why delinquents behave the way that they do. The Rational Choice Theory assumes that crime results from a rational process in which offenders make decisions and choices. The crime that they commit is considered free will and is voluntary and they believe they will not be punished for it. They commit a crime just because they though it was rational to do so. Another theory that I think is important is the strain theory which is when delinquency is caused by the strain or frustration of not having an equal opportunity or means to achieve commonly idealized goals such as economic or social success. Someone will become a delinquent because they feel they are shorted by society and therefore must commit some kind of crime to feel better about themselves. Most people share similar values, goals, and aspirations which can explain why people do certain things. Different theories are explained to try and explain why delinquents are the way they are. There are people in our society who view the world as a bad place and that delinquents will always be delinquents.
Kimmel theorizes that majority of school shooters are white heterosexual males that are usually middle to lower class. He also theorizes that people that act as the perpetrator in a school shooting often wants to make a statement with violence no matter who the victims are. The shooters often demonstrate their hegemonic masculinity through violence. In reflection to what Kimmel theorizes, I believe that all schools should take a closer look at males that seem to be bullied or made to seem less masculine to their peers before it has a possibility of triggering a person to commit such violent actions. I also think that Kimmel’s theory may not include key factors such as possible mistreatment at home for the child.