case study of youth crime

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Seven juvenile delinquents - case studies, additional details.

1200 19th Street, NW , Washington , DC 20203 , United States

P. O. Box 190 , Arlington , VA 22210 , United States

Box 6000, Dept F , Rockville , MD 20849 , United States

Availability

Related topics.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

From Youth Justice Involvement to Young Adult Offending

Scholars and laypeople alike debate what causes young people to commit crimes. Although most states mark the legal transition from adolescence to adulthood at age 18, researchers question whether the human brain is fully mature at that age. As part of the NIJ Study Group on the Transition from Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime, several scholars examined the differences between juveniles who persist in offending and those who do not, and also looked at early adult-onset offending.

On this page find:

The Age-Crime Curve

Persistence, desistance and onset, special categories of offenders, preventive actions for known delinquents, financial benefits and costs of interventions, research and policy recommendations, study group reports.

The prevalence of offending tends to increase from late childhood, peak in the teenage years (from 15 to 19) and then decline in the early 20s. This bell-shaped age trend, called the age-crime curve, is universal in Western populations (see Figure 1). [1]

However, specific versions of the curve vary in significant ways. The curve for violence tends to peak later than that for property crimes. [2] Girls peak earlier than boys. [3] The curve is higher and wider for young males (especially minorities) growing up in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. [4]

Continuity of offending from the juvenile into the adult years is higher for people who start offending at an early age, chronic delinquents, and young people who commit violent offenses. The Pittsburgh Youth Study found that 52 to 57 percent of justice-involved youth continue to offend up to age 25. This number dropped by two-thirds — to 16 to 19 percent — in the next five years. [5] However, there are large individual differences at play. Juveniles who start offending before age 12 are more likely to continue offending into early adulthood. [6]

Not all offense types have the same persistence. One study showed that drug dealing and possession of weapons had the highest likelihood of duration and persistence into early adulthood, while gang membership had a shorter duration. Marijuana use had the longest duration, two to four times longer than theft and violence. [7]

The median age of termination of offending was highest for drug trafficking (age 21.6). Minor offenses such as shoplifting and vandalism usually stop before age 18. [8]

The annual frequency of offending is higher for nonviolent crimes than for violence. The frequency usually peaks around ages 17-19 and remains stable over time only for a small number of individuals. [9]

Studies agree that 40 to 60 percent of justice-involved youth stop offending by early adulthood. For those who do persist, the transition from adolescence to adulthood is a period of increasing severity of offenses and an increase in lethal violence. [10] Most of the violence is directed at victims of the same age, and the age period of 16-24 is a high-risk time for violent victimization. [11] Many young people who offend at ages 18-20, which brings them into the adult justice system, would have been likely to desist naturally in the next few years. [12] Justice system processing may make them worse, rather than better. Somewhere between 10 percent and 30 percent of individuals start offending during early adulthood. [13]

Developmental studies of late adolescence and early adulthood do not support the notion that there is any naturally occurring break in the prevalence of offending at age 18.

The average age of onset is earliest for gang membership (average age of 15.9), followed by marijuana use (16.5), drug dealing (17.0), gun carrying (17.3) and hard drug use (17.5). [14] Although drug dealing is rare, drug use is widespread among these individuals. Criminals report higher rates of substance use, and substance users report higher rates of offending compared with nonusers. [15] Of all offenses, dealing drugs and illegally carrying guns have the highest persistence from adolescence into adulthood.

Joining a gang increases the rate of offending, but gang involvement is often transient. One study found that most youths who join gangs do so at very early ages, typically between 11 and 15; ages 14-16 are the peak for gang involvement. [16] In contrast, most homicides are single events committed in the 19-24 age range. However, gang killings take place mostly during adolescence.

The studies looked at risk and protective factors. There is strong evidence that, for males, getting married and holding a stable job foster desistance from offending and that unstructured activities with peers are associated with persistence. [17]

The sparse research on adult-onset offending provides little information about why some people who were not delinquent during adolescence become adults who commit offenses. However, there is evidence that some factors inhibit offending during adolescence but not during adulthood. One study found that characteristics such as nervousness, anxiousness, social isolation and social inhibition were associated with adult-onset offending. [18]

There is good evidence that early interventions in childhood, such as home visits by nurses, preschool intellectual enrichment programs and parent management training, are effective in preventing delinquency. For example, an evaluation of the Elmira (N.Y.) Nurse-Family Partnership program found that at age 15, children of the higher-risk mothers who received home visits had significantly fewer arrests than controls. Another follow-up when the children were 19 showed that the daughters (but not the sons) of mothers who received home visits had significantly fewer arrests and convictions. [19]

Programs that target individuals can reduce offending in the early adult years. For example, the Seattle Social Development Project combined parent training, teacher training and skills training for children beginning at age 6. [20] At age 27, the intervention group scored significantly better on educational and economic attainment, mental health, and sexual health, but not on substance abuse or offending. [21]

Some interventions with older justice-involved youth (ages 14-17) have been successful. One long-term follow-up found that Multisystemic Therapy (MST) participants had lower recidivism rates (50 percent versus 81 percent), including lower rates of rearrest for violent offenses (14 percent compared with 30 percent). MST participants also spent 57 percent fewer days confined in adult detention facilities. [22]

The financial benefits of intervention programs often outweigh the costs. One review found that this was true of multidimensional treatment foster care (MTFC) ($8 saved per $1 expended), functional family therapy ($10 saved per $1 expended), MST ($3 saved per $1 expended), vocational education in prison ($12 saved per $1 expended), cognitive-behavioral therapy in prison ($22 saved per $1 expended), drug treatment in prison ($6 saved per $1 expended) and employment training in the community ($12 saved per $1 expended). [23]

The Study Group concluded that there are significant gaps in knowledge about the development of offending careers between ages 15 and 29. Researchers know surprisingly little about how many juveniles persist into adult offending and what factors predict persistence. More needs to be known about factors that may influence offending between ages 15 and 29.

The researchers concluded that young adults ages 18-24 are more similar to juveniles than to adults with respect to their offending, maturation and life circumstances.

Changes in legislation to deal with large numbers of juvenile becoming adult criminals should be considered. One possibility is to raise the minimum age for referral to the adult court to 21 or 24, so that fewer individuals would be dealt with in the adult system.

Alternatively, special courts for young persons ages 18-24 could be established on an experimental basis, building on the experience of the United Kingdom. Several European countries, including Sweden, Germany and Austria, have long had separate young adult sentencing options and separate institutions for individuals ages 18-21. Special facilities for young adults already exist in some states, such as Pennsylvania.

Beyond that, there could be an “immaturity discount” for young adults that would involve a decrease in the severity of penalties, taking into account a young person’s lower maturity and culpability.

Bulletin 1: From Juvenile Delinquency to Young Adult Offending (Study Group on the Transition from Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime) . Final technical report by Rolf Loeber, David P. Farrington and David Petechuk. NCJ 242931.

Bulletin 2: Criminal Career Patterns (Study Group on the Transition from Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime) . Final technical report by Alex R. Piquero, J. David Hawkins, Lila Kazemian and David Petechuk. NCJ 242932. Read a summary of this report: Criminal Career Patterns (pdf, 2 pages)

Bulletin 3: Explanations for Offending (Study Group on the Transition from Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime) . Final technical report by Terence P. Thornberry, Peggy C. Giordano, Christopher Uggen, Mauri Matsuda, Ann S. Masten, Erik Bulten, Andrea G. Donker and David Petechuk. NCJ 242933.

Bulletin 4: Prediction and Risk/Needs Assessment (Study Group on the Transition from Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime) . Final technical report by Robert D. Hoge, Gina Vincent and Laura Guy. NCJ 242934. Read a summary of this report: Prediction and Risk/Needs Assessment (pdf, 2 pages)

Bulletin 5: Young Offenders and an Effective Response in the Juvenile and Adult Justice Systems: What Happens, What Should Happen, and What We Need to Know (Study Group on the Transition from Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime) Final technical report by James C. Howell, Barry C. Feld, Daniel P. Mears, David P. Farrington, Rolf Loeber and David Petechuk. NCJ 242935. Read a summary of this report: Young Offenders: What Happens and What Should Happen (pdf, 3 pages) .

Bulletin 6: Changing Lives: Prevention and Intervention to Reduce Serious Offending (Study Group on the Transition from Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime) . Final technical report by Brandon C. Welsh, Mark W. Lipsey, Frederick P. Rivara, J. David Hawkins, Steve Aos, Meghan E. Peel and David Petechuk. NCJ 242936. Read a summary of this report: Changing Lives: Prevention and Intervention to Reduce Serious Offending (pdf, 8 pages) .

[note 1] Farrington, David P., “Age and Crime,” in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research , vol. 7, eds. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1986: 189-250; Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein, Key Issues in Criminal Career Research: New Analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development , Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

[note 2] Blokland, Arjan A.J., and Hanneke Palmen, “Criminal Career Patterns,” in Persisters and Desisters in Crime From Adolescence Into Adulthood: Explanation, Prevention and Punishment , eds. Rolf Loeber, Machteld Hoeve, N. Wim Slot, and Peter H. van der Laan, Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2012: 13-50; Piquero, Alex R., J. David Hawkins, and Lila Kazemian, “Criminal Career Patterns,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 14-46.

[note 3] Blokland, Arjan A.J., and Hanneke Palmen, “Criminal Career Patterns,” in Persisters and Desisters in Crime From Adolescence Into Adulthood: Explanation, Prevention and Punishment , eds. Rolf Loeber, Machteld Hoeve, N. Wim Slot, and Peter H. van der Laan,Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2012: 13-50; Farrington, David P., “Age and Crime,” in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research , vol. 7, eds. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1986: 189-250; Elliott, Delbert S., Fred Pampel, and David Huizinga, Youth Violence: Continuity and Desistance. A Supplemental Report to Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General , Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavior Science, University of Colorado, 2004.

[note 4] Fabio, Anthony, Li-Chuan Tu, Rolf Loeber, and Jacqueline Cohen, “Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and the Shape of the Age-Crime Curve,” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1) (July 2011): S325-332; Elliott, Delbert S., Fred Pampel, and David Huizinga, Youth Violence: Continuity and Desistance. A Supplemental Report to Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General , Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavior Science, University of Colorado, 2004.

[note 5] Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda, “Persistence and Desistance in Offending” (unpublished report, Pittsburgh, Pa.: Life History Research Program, University of Pittsburgh, 2010).

[note 6] Loeber, Rolf, and David P. Farrington, Young Homicide Offenders and Victims: Risk Factors, Prediction, and Prevention From Childhood, New York: Springer, 2011.

[note 7] Rosenfeld, Richard, Helene R. White, and Finn-Aage Esbensen, “Special Categories of Serious and Violent Offenders: Drug Dealers, Gang Members, Homicide Offenders, and Sex Offenders,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 118-149.

[note 8] Le Blanc, Marc, and Marcel Fréchette, Male Criminal Activity From Childhood Through Youth: Multilevel Developmental Perspectives , Research in Criminology, New York: Springer, 1989.

[note 9] Piquero, Alex R., J. David Hawkins, and Lila Kazemian, “Criminal Career Patterns,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 14-46.

[note 10] See, e.g., Farrington, David P., “Key Results From the First Forty Years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development,” in Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Findings From Contemporary Longitudinal Studies , Longitudinal Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Series, eds. Terrence P. Thornberry and Marvin D. Krohn, New York: Kluwer-Plenum, 2003: 137-183; Le Blanc, Marc, and Marcel Fréchette, Male Criminal Activity From Childhood Through Youth: Multilevel Developmental Perspectives , Research in Criminology, New York: Springer, 1989; Loeber, Rolf, and David P. Farrington, eds., Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions , Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998.

[note 11] See, e.g., Kershaw, Chris, Sian Nicholas, and Alison Walker, Crime in England and Wales 2007/08 (pdf, 238 pages) , London: Home Office, 2008; Truman, Jennifer L., and Michael R. Rand, Criminal Victimization, 2009 (pdf, 16 pages) ,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2010, NCJ 231327.

[note 12] See, e.g., Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda, “Persistence and Desistance in Offending” (unpublished report, Pittsburgh, Pa.: Life History Research Program, University of Pittsburgh, 2010); Le Blanc, Marc, and Marcel Fréchette, Male Criminal Activity From Childhood Through Youth: Multilevel Developmental Perspectives , Research in Criminology, New York: Springer, 1989.

[note 13] Piquero, Alex R., J. David Hawkins, and Lila Kazemian, “Criminal Career Patterns,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 14-46.

[note 14] Rosenfeld, Richard, Helene R. White, and Finn-Aage Esbensen, “Special Categories of Serious and Violent Offenders: Drug Dealers, Gang Members, Homicide Offenders, and Sex Offenders,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 118-149.

[note 15] Rosenfeld, Richard, Helene R. White, and Finn-Aage Esbensen, “Special Categories of Serious and Violent Offenders: Drug Dealers, Gang Members, Homicide Offenders, and Sex Offenders,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 118-149.

[note 16] Howell, James C., Gangs in America’s Communities , Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2011.

[note 17] Horney, Julie, Patrick Tolan, and David Weisburd, “Contextual Influences,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 86-117.

[note 18] Zara, Georgia, and David P. Farrington, “Childhood and Adolescent Predictors of Late Onset Criminal Careers,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38 (3) (March 2009): 287-300.

[note 19] Welsh, Brandon C., Mark W. Lipsey, Frederick P. Rivara, J. David Hawkins, Steve Aos, and Meghan E. Hollis-Peel, “Promoting Change, Changing Lives: Effective Prevention and Intervention to Reduce Serious Offending,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 245-277.

[note 20] Welsh, Brandon C., Mark W. Lipsey, Frederick P. Rivara, J. David Hawkins, Steve Aos, and Meghan E. Hollis-Peel, “Promoting Change, Changing Lives: Effective Prevention and Intervention to Reduce Serious Offending,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 245-277.

[note 21] Hawkins, J. David, Eric C. Brown, Sabrina Oesterle, Michael W. Arthur, Robert D. Abbott, and Richard F. Catalano, “Early Effects of Communities That Care on Targeted Risks and Initiation of Delinquent Behavior and Substance Use,” Journal of Adolescent Health 43 (2008): 15-22.

[note 22] Schaeffer, Cindy M., and Charles M. Borduin, “Long-Term Follow-Up to a Randomized Clinical Trial of Multisystemic Therapy With Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73 (3) (June 2005): 445-453.

[note 23] Welsh, Brandon C., Mark W. Lipsey, Frederick P. Rivara, J. David Hawkins, Steve Aos, and Meghan E. Hollis-Peel, “Promoting Change, Changing Lives: Effective Prevention and Intervention to Reduce Serious Offending,” in From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention , eds. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 245-277.

Cite this Article

Read more about:, related publications.

• Bulletin 1: From Juvenile Delinquency to Young Adult Offending (Study Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime)
• Bulletin 2: Criminal Career Patterns (Study Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime)
• Bulletin 3: Explanations for Offending (Study Group on the Transitions between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime)
• Bulletin 4: Prediction and Risk/Needs Assessment (Study Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime)
• Bulletin 5: Young Offenders and an Effective Response in the Juvenile and Adult Justice Systems: What Happens, What Should Happen, and What We Need to Know (Study Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime)
• Bulletin 6: Changing Lives: Prevention and Intervention to Reduce Serious Offending (Study Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime)

Related Awards

• Study Group on Violence and Serious Offending in Late Adolescence and Young Adulthood

Young people case studies

Case studies are an important way of gaining insight into individual young people’s experiences of custody and resettlement.

Theme: Transition to community

Adisa found it difficult to adjust to life outside after he was sentenced to custody when he was 16

Daniel had served a number of previous prison sentences. He talks about dealing with ‘freedom’

James’s project worker met him on his day of release to ease his anxieties about being in unfamiliar places and using public transport

Michael spent his 21st birthday on remand in prison. After being released straight from court, it took him some time to get used to a different routine

Theme: Trauma

Ash was referred to the vulnerable prisoner unit due to ongoing investigation into historic head injuries, following episodes of impulsive and erratic behaviour

Theme: Family

Curtis and his partner Emma both have experience of custody and drug dependence. Emma’s mum helps them look after their children

When Lance was younger, his family were supported by his local youth offending service (YOS). As an adult under probation, this no longer happens

Lee’s mum is under pressure to stop visiting him. He’s about to lose what family he has. Lee doesn’t know that yet

Shelley wouldn’t call her ex-friends a gang but some might see it like that. She had no family to speak of. As a care leaver, social services were supposed to support her – Shelley’s case worker showed her how to ask for what she needed

Tyler’s mum was scared of her son and the dangers he brought into their home. Tyler and a number of his associates were arrested for attacking another young man. The fall-out brought the situation to a head

Theme: Gangs

Rory was always fighting at school, which led to his exclusion. He felt more confident in a gang of peers

When Kaden was in a gang, he was respected and had money to spare. He’s now crime-free and aspires to be ‘a normal fella’. He could readily find a quick and easy way to ‘make ends meet’, but has so far resisted

On release from prison, Jordan required education or employment, housing outside of gang territory and support to comply with his licence agreement

Due to gang affiliation, Daniel was forbidden to return to his home area. His project worker introduced him to his new home town and helped him to establish tentative roots

While serving a custodial sentence, Aidan resolved to change his behaviour and “get out of the gang”. Once released, a resettlement project supported his choice

Theme: Diversity

Andrew has benefited from culturally appropriate counselling, advocacy and support and a multi-agency approach to his resettlement needs

Jason, from the Travellers’ community, arrived at HMP Ford unable to read and write. A culturally competent intervention helped him to keep in touch with his family

In prison, Faarooq met Muslims who, like him, had “trouble with the idea of citizenship”. Support in the community has shown Faarooq that he can “be a Muslim and a British Citizen and be proud of both”

Kwame, a Muslim of West Indian heritage, was offered a choice of resettlement projects; one reflected his interest in sport and fitness. When out jogging in the park with his case worker, Kwame opened up about his life, experiences, and hopes for the future

Peter is Black British, but never felt that he ‘fitted in’ or belonged. By the time he was 23, he had spent seven years of his life in custody. Peter has not been reconvicted in almost two years, and attributes much of his progress to his mentor

Lisa’s desire to use her time in custody positively and take part in education enabled her to secure employment upon release. Her relationship with prison staff and positive attitude led her to be deemed suitable for release on temporary licence (ROTL) that helped secure her qualifications and employment

Concerns about the high risk of harm relating to Jon’s gang-affiliation meant that he needed to be relocated upon release.

After being relocated upon release from prison because of his gang-association, Aaron felt lonely and isolated. He needed through the gate support to help him through this challenging time.

Would Jake fall back on his previous bad ways while living in a hostel?

“The first two weeks is the test. [It] proves whether someone is going to re-offend or not.”

How Kayleigh overcame her uncomfortable feelings after being released from custody

Theme: Young women and girls

After being released on temprorary license, Linda knew what she wanted – she just didn’t know how to achieve her goal. Linda’s mentor helped her make the necessary practical steps to achieve her dream of going to univeristy.

Sarah was shy and found it hard to trust people after having been let down frequently in the past. After her release from prison, a mentor slowly gained her trust by attending dance classes with her, and helped her with job and grant applications. Sara has since had a number of interviews.

After being granted release on temporary licence from her prison sentence, Dina used the opportunity to meet with her mentor and work to create personal goals which have helped turn her life around.

Adam has ADHD. His home life had been particularly difficult and traumatic. When he was released from Youth Offenders he needed a high level of support and encouragement in order to turn his life around.

Ches had an emotionally traumatic upbringing. His offending behaviour began when he was 13 years old. He has ADHD and has found it difficult to resist peer pressure

Darren grew up in an environment where committing crime was something to aspire to. The local Police classed him as a Priority Prolific Offender or PPO. With time and effort he managed to completely change the way that he led his life and is now working full-time and is crime free.

Jack’s persistent offending was connected to his misuse of drugs and the lifestyle that accompanied him on a modern housing estate. He is trying to make a break with his past and find full-time training and employment.

Jason witnessed drug-taking by his parents from an early age. On release from custody he had a restrictive curfew in addition to high intensive supervision at the YOT. He faced problems with finding a place to live and his paranoia and poor mental health didn’t make it easy for him to live in a hostel-type environment in the meantime.

Katy’s troubled home life led her to develop a significant drug habit which quickly developed into an addiction. Katy witnessed the violent death of her boyfriend. She began to get more and more involved in criminal activity in order to buy the drugs she needed to block out the emotional hurt and associated bad memories.

Martin formed a bond with the YIF resettlement team which was helped by them bringing him some lunch on the day of his release from YOI. He tried hard to engage in the programme of activities that was provided. Progress was gradual, however he managed to deal with some of the issues which had previously been a problem in his life.

Matthew had an extensive criminal history when he was referred to the YIF project via Probation. He had a history of mental problems which included self-harm. He admits that his crimes were often committed under the influence of alcohol, although accessing the support services that he needed was often the biggest problem that he faced in terms of not reoffending.

When Petey was seven years old his substance misusing father used to give him amphetamines which made it difficult for him to concentrate at school. As he got older, Petey spent time living in care and later on he spent time in custody for violent offences. Eventually he became homeless whilst also suffering from psychiatric illness.

Sean drifted into criminal behaviour with a group of his friends. After he left school he was dealing drugs and he thought that he wouldn’t get caught. After serving a custodial sentence he became involved with the YIF project and within a year was a peer mentor and role model for others.

Steven was considered to be at medium risk of reoffending when he was released from his first custodial sentence. Without a strong network of family and friends, he found resettlement quite difficult. In addition, Steven struggled with substance misuse and mental health problems.

Wayne came out of YOI and went straight into a job that had been organised for him by the YOT. After this particular work had dried up Wayne was able to get involved with a bike project which led to his participation in the Coast to Coast race for charity. He has not reoffended and has become involved with some peer mentoring.

• Trauma (19)
• Young women and girls (15)
• Transition to community (15)
• Engaging young people (11)
• Family (11)
• Diversity (9)
• Participatory approaches (4)
• Privacy & cookies
• Terms of use
• Facts & figures
• Accessibility

Resettlement of young offenders: informing practice, improving outcomes

Cookie notice

This website uses anonymous statistics tracking. No personal information is processed. Our privacy and cookies. .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Youth crime is down, but media often casts a different narrative

Violent crimes committed by juveniles is on the decline but it might not always seem that way. Professor Vincent Schiraldi tells NPR's Michel Martin that's partly to do with how media coverscrime.

Copyright © 2022 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice (2001)

Chapter: introduction, introduction.

Juvenile crime is one of the nation's serious problems. Concern about it is widely shared by federal, state, and local government officials and by the public. In recent years, this concern has grown with the dramatic rise in juvenile violence that began in the mid-1980s and peaked in the early 1990s. Although juvenile crime rates appear to have fallen since the mid-1990s, this decrease has not alleviated the concern. Many states began taking a tougher legislative stance toward juveniles in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period during which juvenile crime rates were stable or falling slightly, and federal reformers were urging prevention and less punitive measures. Some of the dissonance between the federal agenda and what was happening in the states at that time may have been caused by significant changes in legal procedures that made juvenile court processes more similar—though not identical—to those in criminal (adult) court. The main response to the most recent spike in violent juvenile crime has been enactment of laws that further blur distinctions between juvenile courts and adult courts. States continued to toughen their juvenile crime laws in recent years, making sentencing more punitive, expanding allowable transfers to criminal (adult) court, or doing away with some of the confidentiality safeguards of juvenile court. Many such changes were enacted after the juvenile violent crime rate had already begun to fall. The rehabilitative model embodied in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, focusing on the needs of the young offender, has lost ever more ground over the past 20 years to punitive models that focus mainly on the offense committed. These puni-

tive policies have had a disproportionate impact on some minority groups, particularly black youngsters, an important issue that is explored in depth in Chapter 6 .

Crime policies in the United States have been moving in the direction of treating juveniles as adults, even though many young people continue to grow up in settings that “fail to provide the resources, the supports, and the opportunities essential to a healthy development and reasonable preparation for productive adulthood” (National Research Council, 1993a:2)—settings that put young people at high risk for delinquency. In 1997, 40 percent of all those living below the poverty level in the United States were under the age of 18 (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). Structural changes in society, including fewer two-parent homes and more maternal employment, have contributed to a lack of resources for the supervision of children's and adolescents' free time.

Government policy on juvenile delinquency must often struggle with the appropriate balance of concern over the healthy development of children and adolescents who violate the law and a public desire to punish criminals. This tension between rehabilitation and punishment when dealing with children and adolescents who commit crimes results in an ambivalent orientation toward young offenders. Criminal acts must be suppressed, condemned, and punished. Nevertheless, children and adolescents who commit criminal acts must be educated and supported in a growth process that should be the objective of government policy for all young people, including young offenders.

A number of cognitive and social features of childhood and adolescence influence the content of juvenile crime policy. Historically, children under the age of seven have been considered below the age of reason, and therefore unable to formulate the criminal intent necessary to be held accountable for criminal offenses. In practice, children younger than age 10 are rarely involved in the juvenile justice system. Arrests of those younger than 10 years old account for less than 2 percent of all juvenile arrests. By the age of 16 or 17, most adolescents are deemed to have sufficient cognitive capacity and life experience to be held accountable for intended wrongful acts. How to deal appropriately with those who commit crimes between the ages of 10 and 17 is the issue faced in juvenile crime policy. Adolescence is a period of dating, driving, and expanding social networks—all choices that can produce positive or negative consequences for the adolescent and the community. Public policies in the areas of education, medical care, alcoholic beverage control, and juvenile crime reflect beliefs that adolescents have not acquired the abilities or capacities necessary for adult status. Creating the appropriate public policy for a period of semiautonomy is no small task (Zimring, 1982). To

further complicate the matter, crime rates peak in mid- to late adolescence, making policy toward young offenders of special importance.

To best answer the questions of how to deal with young offenders requires knowledge of factors in the individual, family, social settings, and community that influence the development of delinquent behavior; of the types of offenses committed by young people; and of the types of interventions that can most efficiently and effectively prevent offending in the first place or prevent its recurrence. This study reviews literature in all of these areas to provide an objective view of juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system in the United States.

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT: NOT JUST LITTLE ADULTS

What is often missing from discussions of juvenile crime today is recognition that children and adolescents are not just little adults, nor is the world in which they live the world of adults. Physical, emotional, and cognitive development continue throughout adolescence. Although young people can approach decisions in a manner similar to adults under some circumstances, many decisions that children and adolescents make are under precisely the conditions that are hardest for adults—unfamiliar tasks, choices with uncertain outcomes, and ambiguous situations (see, for example, Beyth-Marom and Fischhoff, 1997; Cohn et al., 1995). Further complicating the matter for children and adolescents is that they often face deciding whether or not to engage in a risky behavior, such as taking drugs, shoplifting, or getting into a fight, in situations involving emotions, stress, peer pressure, and little time for reflection.

Young people are liable to overestimate their own understanding of a situation, underestimate the probability of negative outcomes, and make judgments based on incorrect or incomplete information (Quadrel et al., 1993). Although adults are also prone to the same misperceptions, children's and adolescents' lack of experience increases their vulnerability. Quadrel et al. (1993) found that high-risk adolescents (with legal and substance abuse problems, recruited from group homes) were more likely than middle-class youngsters to have incorrect information about risks, while being extremely confident in their information.

Emotions can affect decision making for both adolescents and adults. When people are experiencing positive emotions, such as excitement, happiness, love (as adolescents often do when with groups of their peers), they tend to underestimate the possibility of negative consequences to their actions. When experiencing negative emotions, such as anger, jealousy, sadness, people tend to focus on the near term and lose sight of

the big picture. This is particularly relevant for adolescents, who have been found to experience wider and more rapid mood swings than adults (Larson et al., 1980; Larson and Lampman-Petraitis, 1989; Larson and Richards, 1994).

Studies of young people's understanding of legal processing and the consequences of various legal choices, such as forfeiting the right to remain silent or to have an attorney, show differences between those younger and older than about 15 years (Grisso, 1997). Those under age 15 often misunderstand the concept of a right, in general, and of Miranda rights, in particular. They foresee fewer alternative courses of action in legal proceedings and tend to concentrate on short-term rather than long-term consequences (Grisso, 1980; 1981). For example, younger youth often misconstrue the right to remain silent, believing it means they should be quiet until they are told to talk. Nor do they completely understand the right to have an attorney present, without charge, before they talk (Abramovitch et al., 1995; Grisso, 1981). These misunderstandings raise concerns about children's and young adolescents' competence to stand trial in adult court. Children and adolescents from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and those with low IQs fare worse in understanding the legal process and their rights than do other children and adolescents of comparable ages (Grisso, 1997). Furthermore, experience with the justice system does not ensure that young people fully understand the process, their rights, or the implications of the decisions they make. Both Grisso (1981) and Lawrence (1983) have found that adolescent delinquents had much poorer understanding of their rights than did adult defendants.

Emerging research using magnetic resonance imaging of the brain demonstrates the cognitive and emotional differences between adolescents and adults. Children and adolescents process emotionally charged information in the part of the brain responsible for instinct and gut reactions. Adults process such information in the “rational” frontal section of the brain (Baird et al., 1999). Children and adolescents may be physiologically less capable than adults of reasoning logically in the face of particularly strong emotions. In a recent study, Thompson et al. (2000) found that the brain continues to develop and change through at least midadolescence, with the most active parts of the brain changing during development. These new insights on brain development may have implications for holding children and adolescents criminally responsible in the same way as adults and raise concerns about initiatives to transfer younger and younger defendants to adult courts.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 1

Looking at the policies of other countries provides some perspective on criminal justice in the United States. An international study of 15 countries—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, and Switzerland—notes that all have special provisions for young criminals in their justice systems, although some (such as Denmark, Russia, and Sweden) have no special courts for juveniles. Table 1-1 depicts some of the differences among countries, showing the range in variability for the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the age at which full responsibility as an adult can be assumed, the type of court that handles young people committing crimes, whether such young people can be tried in courts that also try adults, the maximum length of sentencing for a juvenile, and policies regarding incarcerating juveniles with adults.

The United States was not alone in seeing a dramatic increase in violent crime by juveniles in the 1980s and early 1990s. Many European countries and Canada experienced increases in their rates of violent crime, particularly among juveniles (Hagan and Foster, 2000; Pfeiffer, 1998). It is difficult to compare rates across countries, because legal definitions of crime vary from country to country. For example, in Germany, assault is counted as a violent crime only if a weapon is used during the commission of the crime, whereas in England and Wales, the degree of injury to the victim determines whether or not an assault counts as a violent crime. Crime is also measured differently in each country. For example, the United States commonly relies on numbers of arrests to measure crime. In Germany, Austria, and Italy, among other countries, crime is measured by the number of cases solved by police (even if the offender has been apprehended) (Pfeiffer, 1998). Nevertheless, trends in juvenile violent crime appeared similar in many developed countries in the 1980s and early 1990s, 2 although the rates were different.

The United States has a high violent crime rate—particularly for homicide—in comparison to other countries, although property crime rates, particularly burglary, are higher than U.S. rates in Canada, England and Wales, and The Netherlands (Hagan and Foster, 2000; Mayhew and White, 1997). In 1994, the violent crime arrest rate (includes homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape) for 13- to 17-year-olds in the United

TABLE 1-1 International Comparisons of Juvenile Justice Systems

States was nearly 800 per 100,000 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995). In England and Wales, about 600 per 100,000 14- to 16-year-olds were convicted or cautioned by the police for violent crimes (homicide, assault, robbery, and rape) in 1994. In Germany, 650 per 100,000 14- to 17-year-olds and in The Netherlands 450 per 100,000 12- to 17-year-olds were suspects of violent crime in 1994 (Pfeiffer, 1998).

Comparing how different countries deal with juvenile offenders is equally challenging. Countries differ in the ages of young people considered legal juveniles, in how juvenile courts are organized, and in the types of institution used to sanction juvenile offenders. As Table 1-1 shows, the minimum age for being considered criminally responsible varies from 7 years (in Switzerland and the Australian state of Tasmania) to 16 (in Belgium and Russia). The age of full criminal responsibility (i.e., the age at which an offender is automatically handled as an adult) is 18 in most of the countries studied by Weitekamp et al. (1999), but is as low as 16 in some Australian states and is 20 in Japan. In the United States, both minimum and maximum ages of juvenile court jurisdiction vary by state, with most states having no minimum age (although in practice, children younger than 10 are seldom seen in juvenile courts). The maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is younger in many U.S. states than in the other countries studied, with 3 states having a maximum age of 15, 10 of 16, and the remaining states having a maximum age of 17.

At the same time that states and the federal government in the United States have been moving toward treating juvenile offenders more like adult criminals, many other countries retain a strong rehabilitative stance. The 1988 Youth Court Law of Austria, for example, describes juvenile offending as a normal step in development for which restorative justice, not punishment, is the appropriate response. The Belgium Youth Court Protection Act specifies that the only measures that can be imposed on a juvenile are for his or her care, protection, and education. In New Zealand, since 1989, Family Group Conferences have been used to replace or supplement youth courts for most of the serious criminal cases. In the early 1980s, England and Wales moved toward community-based sanctions for young offenders and away from institutional placements. This trend was reversed in the 1990s, however, when England and Wales reacted to the upswing in juvenile violence in a manner similar to the United States, focusing on the offense, rather than the offender. The U.K. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 made it easier to place offenders younger than 15 years in juvenile correctional facilities and extended the maximum length of allowable sentences. The U.K. Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 moved the English juvenile justice system even further toward a punitive, offense-based model.

Neither Sweden nor Denmark uses a separate juvenile court, but youthful immaturity is considered a mitigating factor in deciding their criminal responsibility. In Denmark, maximum punishments well below those available for adults are specified in law for juveniles 15 and older; juveniles under the age of 15 may not be punished, but may be referred to a social welfare agency. In Sweden, imprisonment may only be imposed on juveniles under exceptional circumstances, and even then, the sentences imposed are shorter than for adults.

The United States has a very high overall rate of incarceration. At 645 per 100,000, the U.S. incarceration rate is second only to that of Russia at 685 per 100,000 (Walmsley, 1999). Although adequate juvenile incarceration figures do not exist in the United States, the incarceration rate for homicides committed by juveniles is illustrative of the difference in incarceration rates. In 1992, 12.5 people per 100,000 were incarcerated in the United States for homicides committed as juveniles. Comparable numbers in other countries are 2.3 per 100,000 in The Netherlands, 1.6 per 100,000 in Italy, and 1.3 per 100,000 in Germany (Pfeiffer, 1998). Some of the differences in juvenile homicide incarceration rates are likely to be due to differences in homicide commission rates. In none of the 15 countries surveyed by Weitekamp et al. (1999) can a juvenile who commits a crime be executed, whereas this practice is allowed in the United States.

CHARGE TO THE PANEL

The Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control was asked to identify and analyze the full range of research studies and datasets that bear on the nature of juvenile crime, highlighting key issues and data sources that can provide evidence of prevalence and seriousness; race, gender, and class bias; and impacts of deterrence, punishment, and prevention strategies. The panel was further asked to analyze the factors that contribute to delinquent behavior, including a review of the knowledge on child and adolescent development and its implications for prevention and control; to assess the current practices of the juvenile justice system, including the implementation of constitutional safeguards; to examine adjudication, detention and waiver practices; to explore the role of community and institutional settings; to assess the quality of data sources on the clients of both public and private juvenile justice facilities; and to assess the impact of the deinstitutionalization mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 on delinquency and community safety.

To meet this charge, the study panel and staff gathered information in a number of ways. Relevant research studies were identified through

targeted searches of UnCover, Medline, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and the National Criminal Justice Research Service (NCJRS). The panel met six times between June 1998 and October 1999 to discuss data availability and research findings, identify critical issues, analyze the data and issues, seek additional information on specific concerns, formulate conclusions and recommendations, and develop this report. Four of these meetings were preceded by workshops at which experts presented information on selected topics and engaged in discussions with panel members. Workshops were held on education and delinquency, juvenile justice system issues, developmental issues relevant to delinquency, and racial disparity in the juvenile justice system. (See Appendix E for workshop agendas.) In addition to the workshops, Howard Snyder, research director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice, spent part of one meeting discussing relevant datasets with the panel members. The panel commissioned three papers: “International Comparison of Juvenile Justice Systems ” by Elmar Weitekamp, Hans-Juergen Kerner, and Gernot Trueg; “Police Encounters with Juvenile Suspects” by Robert Worden and Stephanie Myers; and “The Indeterminancy of Forecasts of Crime Rates and Juvenile Offenses ” by Kenneth Land and Patricia McCall. Several members of the panel made site visits to juvenile detention and correctional facilities in Texas and New York. Study panel members and staff also consulted informally with various experts between meetings.

The charge to the panel was extremely broad, covering many topics that merit books unto themselves, and indeed some of the areas have been the subject of more than one recent book. The panel chose to provide a broad overview of juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system, touching on all the topics in its charge, but going into various levels of depth depending on the amount and quality of data available. In organizing its plan for the study, the panel focused on answering several questions:

What have been the major trends in juvenile crime over the past 20 to 30 years, and what can be predicted about future trends?

What is the role of developmental factors in delinquent behavior and how do families, peers, communities, and social influences contribute to or inhibit that behavior?

What responses are in place to deal with juvenile crime today, are they developmentally appropriate, and do they work?

This report reviews the data and research available to answer these questions, suggests areas that require additional research, and makes recommendations about policies for dealing with child and adolescent offenders.

DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

The terms juvenile and delinquency (or delinquent ) have specific legal meanings in state and federal law. In this report, however, the panel uses the term juvenile 3 in its general sense, referring to anyone under the age of 18, unless otherwise specified. The terms young person, youngster, youth, and child and adolescent are used synonymously with juvenile. For many of the analyses of crime trends in Chapter 2 , juvenile refers to those between the ages of 10 and 17, because those under the age of 10 are seldom arrested. We use the term adolescent to refer specifically to young people between the ages of 13 and 17.

The term delinquency 4 in this report refers to acts by a juvenile that would be considered a crime if committed by an adult, as well as to actions that are illegal only because of the age of the offender. The report uses the term criminal delinquency to refer specifically to the former and status delinquency to refer specifically to the latter. Criminal delinquency offenses include, for example, homicide, robbery, assault, burglary, and theft. The term juvenile crime is used synonymously with criminal delinquency. Status delinquency offenses include truancy, running away from home, incorrigibility (i.e., habitually disobeying reasonable and lawful commands of a parent, guardian, or custodian; also referred to in various statutes as unruly, uncontrollable, or ungovernable behavior), and liquor law violations. In some states, status delinquents are referred to the child welfare or social service systems, while in others status delinquents are dealt with in the juvenile justice system.

PLAN OF THE REPORT

Following this introduction, Chapter 2 discusses the datasets commonly used to measure juvenile crime rates, examining the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. The chapter then discusses the trends in juvenile crime rates over the past several decades and how trends differ depending on the dataset employed. Differences in crime rates and

types of offense by sex and race are noted. The chapter ends with a discussion of forecasting juvenile crime rates.

Chapter 3 examines factors related to the development of antisocial behavior and delinquency. Several other recent reports (Loeber et al., 1998; Rutter et al., 1998) have extensively reviewed the research on many of these factors, particularly as they relate to the development of serious, violent offending. In this report we have attempted to supplement these other reports rather than duplicate their literature reviews. In addition, this report does not confine its discussion to serious, violent offending.

Chapters 4 and 5 cover responses to the problem of youth crime. Chapter 4 focuses on preventive interventions aimed at individuals, peer groups, and families, interventions delivered in schools, and community-based interventions. Chapter 5 describes the juvenile justice system process in the United States and discusses treatment and intervention programs delivered through the juvenile justice system.

Chapter 6 examines the issue of racial disparity in the juvenile justice system, discussing explanations that have been put forth to explain that disparity and the research support for those explanations.

The panel's conclusions and recommendations for research and policy can be found at the end of each chapter.

Even though youth crime rates have fallen since the mid-1990s, public fear and political rhetoric over the issue have heightened. The Columbine shootings and other sensational incidents add to the furor. Often overlooked are the underlying problems of child poverty, social disadvantage, and the pitfalls inherent to adolescent decisionmaking that contribute to youth crime. From a policy standpoint, adolescent offenders are caught in the crossfire between nurturance of youth and punishment of criminals, between rehabilitation and "get tough" pronouncements. In the midst of this emotional debate, the National Research Council's Panel on Juvenile Crime steps forward with an authoritative review of the best available data and analysis. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice presents recommendations for addressing the many aspects of America's youth crime problem.

This timely release discusses patterns and trends in crimes by children and adolescents—trends revealed by arrest data, victim reports, and other sources; youth crime within general crime; and race and sex disparities. The book explores desistance—the probability that delinquency or criminal activities decrease with age—and evaluates different approaches to predicting future crime rates.

Why do young people turn to delinquency? Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice presents what we know and what we urgently need to find out about contributing factors, ranging from prenatal care, differences in temperament, and family influences to the role of peer relationships, the impact of the school policies toward delinquency, and the broader influences of the neighborhood and community. Equally important, this book examines a range of solutions:

• Prevention and intervention efforts directed to individuals, peer groups, and families, as well as day care-, school- and community-based initiatives.
• Intervention within the juvenile justice system.
• Role of the police.
• Processing and detention of youth offenders.
• Transferring youths to the adult judicial system.
• Residential placement of juveniles.

The book includes background on the American juvenile court system, useful comparisons with the juvenile justice systems of other nations, and other important information for assessing this problem.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Six teenagers charged with murder and the age of criminal responsibility in Australia

Contributor.

Six teenagers have been charged with murder following the death of a 16-year-old boy in Doonside last week.

The boy died after allegedly being brutally bashed by 6 teenagers in a housing commission residence in the area of Doonside in Western Sydney.

The police allege that the offenders each had their turn stomping, jumping and punching him.

The assault was recorded on mobile phones and displayed all over social media, however was later taken down due to its graphic nature.

The boy was found unresponsive on August 4, and died 3 days later in Westmead Hospital.

According to Police, he sustained injuries and blunt force trauma to his head, chest and body, as well as swelling on the brain and collapsed lungs.

It was alleged that the assault began due to the child's postcode gang affiliation and a pair of earphones that went missing from the home of 19 year old woman, who was one of the participants in the assault.

The other offenders were two 13-year-old boys, a 14-year-old boy, a 15-year-old boy, and a 15-year-old girl.

Each of them have been charged with murder.

The four boys and the 15-year-old girl were also charged with the offences of causing grievous bodily harm to a person with intent and detaining in company with intent to get advantage occasioning actual bodily harm.

All children appeared in the children's court but were refused bail.

What is the age of Criminal Responsibility in Australia?

The accused teenagers, all except for the 19 year old woman, are under the age of 18 and therefore will be treated under the law as children.

Children are subject to different charges and sentences to adults for criminal matters.

In all Australian jurisdictions, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.

This means that no child below the age of 10 can be arrested, summonsed or found guilty of a criminal offence.

All teenagers convicted for the assault of the 16-year-old boy are above the age of 10, therefore are able to be found guilty of any type of criminal offence.

What is the law that governs the Age of Criminal Responsibility in Australia?

Australia's age of criminal responsibility is governed by section 5 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 .

This contains the rule pertaining to the age of criminal responsibility in all Australian jurisdictions, being stipulated as 10 years of age.

This statutory presumption is irrebuttable and cannot be challenged.

Doli incapax

This age is derived from the long-standing common-law doctrine of ' Doli incapax' which presumes that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 cannot commit a crime because he or she does not understand the difference between right and wrong.

However, unlike the statutory presumption, the common law presumption is not absolute, and can therefore be reputed.

R v CRH (1996) is the leading case in NSW which affirms the common law existence of Doli incapax. Newman J sets out the test for rebutting doli incapax, relying on the House of Lords L Decision C v DPP [1995] which provides the five elements of this test:

• The prosecution must rebut the presumption of doli incapax as an element of the prosecution case.
• The child knew the act was seriously wrong as opposed to naughty.
• The evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be strong and clear beyond all doubt or contradiction.
• The evidence to prove the accused's guilty knowledge, as defined above, must not be the mere proof of doing the act charged, however, horrifying or obviously wrong the act may be.
• The older the child is, the easier it will be for the prosecution to prove guilty knowledge.

Origins of the Age of Criminal Responsibility in Australia

Due to Australia's colonisation in 1788, the English common law in existence at the time was applicable to the colony of New South Wales.

As a result, the age of criminal responsibility in English common law became the law in Australian colonies.

The formation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 meant that laws relating to the age of criminal responsibility can now be determined by each state and territory.

All states, however, follow the same age of criminal responsibility, which is as conferred upon by statute.

The UK position is currently that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years of age, and prior to 1998, the doli incapax doctrine also existed in England.

However, it was the Bulgar case, involving the brutal bashing and murder of a 2-year-old boy, James Bulgar , by two ten-year-old boys that lead to the abolition of doli incapax in England.

Although doli incapax had not yet been abolished, both boys were deemed to know right from wrong and were therefore prosecuted.

Whilst the boys were still sentenced to imprisonment for the murder of Bulgar, psychiatrists assessing the boys contended that they were at a "less mature psychological or emotional age" to be completely aware of the seriousness of the crime they committed.

England has removed doli incapax, meaning that the prosecution is not able to dispute the age of criminal responsibility, despite being able to prove that the accused child was able to distinguish between right from wrong.

In Australia however, the doli incapax doctrine still exists and the right to rebuttal is affirmed by common law principles.

Why does Australia prefer a low age of criminal responsibility?

In keeping the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years of age, some are of the view that Australia's development of specialized institutions and processes for dealing with young offenders is focused on rehabilitative measures such as child welfare and reform policies on retributive concerns.

The Australian Institute of Criminology has continually published quarterly statistics on numbers and rates of juveniles in corrective institutions .

Australian Criminologists Carlos Carcach and Glenn Muscat assert that the criminal justice system has been primarily focused on rehabilitation and prevention of further offending, rather than simple punishment.

They also believe that a low age of criminal responsibility means that young child offenders, especially of serious crimes, can be punished adequately as they will be held legally accountable.

Criticism of Raising Australia's age of criminal liability by International Organizations

Australia's age of criminal responsibility has gained much international controversy and considerable criticism by the United Nations Committee, who are critical of jurisdictions in which the minimum age is less than 12 years old.

In other countries such as Japan, Portugal and Spain, it is 16 years old, whilst in Austria, Germany and many other European countries, it is 14 years old.

In Scotland however, virtually no child below 16 years of age who has committed an offence has been prosecuted in criminal courts.

In other countries, the children charged for the assault of the 16-year-old boy in Doonside would have just reached the age of criminal responsibility, meaning they would be able to be convicted for murder.

However, because they were just above the age of criminal responsibility in these other jurisdictions, such as across Europe, where the age is 14, the courts would be much more lenient than in Australian jurisdictions.

Very recently, during Australia's United Nations Universal Periodic Review, the UN Committee, in support of 31 other UN member states, urged Australia to increase the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years of age.

Amnesty International have also campaigned for this, expressing that children imprisoned at a formative age will suffer great emotional harm and this will inflict lasting damage upon the wellbeing of a child.

Child Development experts from the University of New South Wales conducted a report into the effects of incarceration on young offenders, finding that imprisonment crucially affects their development.

The Researchers found that it increases children's risks of depression, suicide and self-harm, leads to poor emotional development and results in poor education outcomes.

In 2019, the Council of the Attorney's General (CAG) established a review into this issue, but currently no reforms have been made.

In February 2020, the Australian Human Rights Commission also made recommendations for Australia to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years of age.

The AHRC reports that most child offenders have disadvantaged backgrounds and complex needs, that younger cohorts commit less serious offences, and that detention has had an adverse impact on children.

They also concluded that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children especially are overrepresented in the younger youth justice and that in order to comply with our international human rights obligations,

Australia's age of criminal responsibility should be in line with other countries.

Australia still remains one of the only nations left with one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world.

Whilst currently all states and territories in Australia follow the Commonwealth legal age of criminal responsibility, there has been a demand for states to adopt their own age of criminal responsibility.

In the above matter which involved the murder of the 16 year old boy by six other teenage children, these children were not able to escape legal accountability despite being youth offenders.

Australia has been pressured by international organisations, especially the United Nations who believe that Australia, being signatory to the CROC, have a legal implication to raise the age of criminal liability.

Since the 2019 inquiry into this made by the Attorney General, there have still not been changes made but this may change in the future.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Criminal Law

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Why young people commit crime and how moral education could help – new research

Senior lecturer in Criminology, Anglia Ruskin University

Disclosure statement

Dr Neema Trivedi-Bateman received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to carry out this work.

Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

There is a significant link between moral emotions and offending behaviour in young people. Moral emotions are learnt – and more attention needs to be given to the teaching of morals in childhood to address this link between morality and crime.

My research has proved that young people are more likely to carry out violent acts if they have weak empathy, shame and guilt, and if they do not feel violence is wrong. On the surface, this may seem obvious, but the research provides a new, evidence-based clarity about the decisions that lead to crime. It was previously thought that other personal factors – such as lack of self-control or social disadvantage – or external factors like the opportunity to commit crime were at the root of why crime occurs.

Having poor morals doesn’t mean that a young person is inherently bad. Morality is learnt in childhood. It is the people that we spend time with that teach us morals . It follows that if someone’s moral development is insufficient, they shouldn’t be immediately labelled as “bad” but that they have had inadequate or misguided teaching from the important people in their life.

Moral development programmes should be developed and taught to children to reduce the likelihood of them growing up to believe that criminal behaviour could be seen as morally acceptable. Moral education should be considered to be as crucial as nutrition, health, and formal education for our future generations to thrive.

Moral emotions

I carried out in-depth interviews with 50 young and prolific violent offenders, looking at the role of moral emotions in the decision to commit violence. I asked them about their most recent act of violence. In some cases, this had occurred the day before the interview itself.

My findings provided evidence that empathy, shame and guilt were lacking. For example, when asked “did you feel ashamed or guilty when others found out?” one person responded that “there’s not much guilt involved in the whole situation to be honest”.

My findings are backed up by the results of a groundbreaking study carried out at the University of Cambridge. I worked with the study team for eight years and led the research team during some of the interview phases.

The Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development study (PADS+) tracked the lives of a large, representative sample of young people for ten years, a unique and thorough approach to discovering how and why we behave in certain ways.

Around 4% of the study sample – roughly only 35 young people – were responsible for almost half of all total crimes reported by approximately 700 people across a ten-year period from the age of 12 until they reached 22.

This small handful of individuals reported weak moral emotions: empathy, shame and guilt. We found that the individuals who reported the weakest moral emotions admitted to involvement in, on average, 71 crimes. By contrast, those reporting the strongest sense of moral emotion only admitted involvement in one crime.

Peer influence

Young people tend to spend most of their time with parents or primary caregivers, teachers and their peer groups. If a child’s peers or parents don’t think it’s wrong to commit a crime, or lack empathy or guilty feelings towards the people affected by that crime, then this a likely to affect how the young person feels as well. Research shows that lack of guilt for rule-breaking behaviour can be displayed from as young as three .

It is very likely that the primary and critical time windows for morality development begin in early childhood, and extend to later childhood and adolescence. It appears that major life events – such as having stable relationships with family members or a partner, or a job, or having a child – can reinforce one’s moral code and reduce the likelihood of offending behaviour.

This partially explains the dip in the age-crime curve , which is a general and widely reported trend: young people peak in terms of offending in middle to late adolescence and reduce offending substantially by their early twenties.

Moral education

Research shows that spending time with people who provide examples of strong morals can lead to law-abiding behaviour. If a child does not successfully experience early bonding experiences and develop moral and emotional commitments to others, the development of empathy may be prevented or blocked .

Students absorb positive moral behaviours when surrounded with just and fair role models, rules, and interactions . Schools that foster a sense of community and hold discussions about morality can provide this environment. But if environments that foster moral development are not prolonged and sustained across several years, the effect on moral behaviour may be shortlived .

• Young people

Service Centre Senior Consultant

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

Teenagers found guilty of stabbing murder of 16-year-old Declan Cutler in Reservoir

Topic: Courts and Trials

Bryan Beattie embraced prosecutors after four teenagers were found guilty of his son's murder. ( AAP: James Ross )

Bryan Beattie's relief was etched across his face as he tightly hugged the prosecutors who secured justice for his murdered son.

"Yes, yes," he said, before thumping his chest and pointing to the sky.

"Thank you so much."

Mr Beattie and the family of Declan Cutler have been through hell over the last two years, sitting through court hearings for the eight gang members involved in the stabbing attack that claimed his life.

Emotions ran high outside court after Declan Cutler's killers were found guilty of murder. ( AAP: James Ross )

Today, four of the teenagers who were involved in the fatal attack were found guilty of murder.

After a judge-only trial, Supreme Court Justice Rita Incerti ruled it was beyond reasonable doubt that the four were guilty of the offence when they targeted Declan on a Reservoir street in March 2022.

The teenagers, who were all underage at the time, can only be identified as SA, DM, QDM and SY for legal reasons.

Declan Cutler was murdered at Reservoir in March 2022. ( Supplied )

In total, seven gang members have now been jailed over the attack, with the only one to walk free being a boy who was 13 at the time of the killing.

In an incident that highlighted Melbourne's ongoing knife crime and youth gang problems, Declan was stabbed dozens of times in a frenzied two-minute murder that was captured on CCTV.

Declan was alone and unarmed, and caught in the middle of a gang feud he had no involvement with.

Security vision showed figures in hooded jumpers dragging Declan to the ground and repeatedly stabbing and kicking him.

The teenagers then drove off, leaving Declan to die on the footpath.

"The footage emits no sound but screams of horror," Justice Incerti said.

"The autopsy results reveal the sustained and ferocious nature of the attack."

Declan Cutler's family followed the trial in court. ( ABC News )

On Friday, Declan's mother Samantha burst into tears when Justice Incerti announced the guilty verdict.

"At the moment we're happy with what we got," she said outside court.

The guilty teens, who were surrounded by about 10 security guards, showed no emotion during the brief judgement hearing.

"Damn, bro," one was heard saying, as he was taken out of the courtroom.

They will be sentenced at a later date.

Murder highlights deadly knife crime

The offenders, who belonged to a teen gang from Melbourne's west, drove across town in a stolen car to confront a rival group, having been tipped off that they were at the party.

When they arrived, partygoers fled through the streets in the dark, but Declan was unable to escape.

In September last year, three gang members admitted their involvement and pleaded guilty.

One was sentenced to 15 years in jail for murder, while another was jailed for four years for manslaughter.

The third was handed a three-and-a-half year term for intentionally causing injury.

Another boy, who had just turned 13 at the time of the killing, was found not guilty of murder, with Justice Incerti determining he did not realise his actions were "seriously wrong in a moral sense".

The Cutler case is among several fatal knife crimes involving teenagers in Melbourne in recent years.

In January, Doncaster doctor Ash Gordon was killed on the street in an alleged stabbing attack carried out by two teenagers, who are now facing murder charges.

In 2023, 16-year-old schoolboy Pasawm Lyhym suffered fatal stab wounds after being chased down by offenders carrying machetes.

Three years earlier, a teenager who wanted to impress other gang members stabbed 15-year-old Solomone Taufeulungaki when he was set upon outside a library.

Kids driven to crime by family violence, disadvantage

The number of people arriving at Victorian hospitals with knife injuries has increased since before the pandemic , including those aged between 15 and 19.

David Murray, a general manager with Jesuit Social Services, said knife crime was not "a generalised problem" but conceded current trends were a cause for concern.

"Engagement with child protection, family violence, disadvantage, disengagement from school … we know these are the kinds of things that drive young people towards offending behaviour," he said.

This week, the Victorian government introduced laws into parliament to increase police search powers and to ban the sale of machetes to any person under 18.

Melissa Hardham, the chief executive of community legal centre WEstjustice, said creating a more positive environment for young people would be a more successful longer-term approach to tackling youth crime.

"You really do need to look at much more effective solutions than just changing the law or increasing policing numbers," she said.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Criminal Behavior - The Underlyings, and Contemporary Applications

Criminal Behavior and Youth Crime: A Juvenile Delinquency Perspective on Adverse Childhood Experience

Submitted: 01 February 2023 Reviewed: 26 February 2023 Published: 11 August 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1001888

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Criminal Behavior - The Underlyings, and Contemporary Applications

Sevgi Güney

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

397 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Overall attention for this chapters

The chapter aims to explore whether the various forms of early adversity are risk factors for criminal behavior among young adults leading to youth crime and juvenile delinquency. The objective of this study is to take into consideration adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in understanding youth crime and juvenile delinquency from a criminal behavior perspective among the youths. Through secondary qualitative data, this study demonstrates numerous risk factors associated with a youth’s probability of joining a gang, revealing that the process of entering a gang begins in childhood and progresses through district development stages. Negative life events and fear or experiences of victimization have been linked to joining a gang. Certain family circumstances have been shown to significantly predict gang involvement, including a lack of health insurance, the jailing or imprisonment of a household member, and foster care placement—all of which are considered ACEs. The results of this study suggest that a focused effort on early identification of ACEs, and intervention for ACEs to improve youth life circumstances and prevent criminal behavior, may reduce the likelihood of and costs related to juvenile criminal activities. Primary prevention efforts should be tailored to meet the needs of parents, teachers, health professionals, and law enforcement.

• adverse childhood experiences
• criminal behavior
• environment
• juvenile delinquency
• youth crime

Author Information

Samuel fikiri cinini *.

• Department of Criminology and Forensic Studies, School of Applied Human Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Howard College Campus, Durban, South Africa

Sazelo Michael Mkhize

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Adolescents’ criminal behavior is a substantial social problem worldwide with negative physical and mental health effects on both victims and offenders [ 1 ]. Familial and peer criminal behavior are considered to be important risk factors for the development of adolescents’ criminal behavior [ 2 ]. Because family is the most enduring and central setting of child development [ 3 ], points out that similarities between family members’ levels of criminal behavior have often been reported. However, Farrington [ 4 ], suggests that social learning mechanisms are assumed to play an important role in these similarities. According to social learning theory, criminal behavior is learned and maintained by observing criminal behaviors and the social consequences attached to those behaviors [ 5 , 6 ]. The learning and acquisition of antisocial behavior are substantially more likely to occur during early development stages, particularly if the observed behavior is committed by people who are part of the individual’s intimate social circle [ 6 ].

It can be stated that early adversity is particularly detrimental when it occurs within the family unit, suffice it to note that family members are the leading role models during child development. Children may view dysfunctional and violent experiences as effective coping mechanisms for difficulties, especially if the people who engaged in the violent behavior were never brought to justice or, worse still, if the violence was supported by other family members [ 5 ]. It has been shown that children who have been around violence or who have gone through traumatic events like physical or sexual abuse are more prone to commit violent crimes as adults. Research suggests that children who are exposed to abuse, neglect, or a chaotic home environment during childhood are at a greater risk of serious, violent, or chronic delinquency. It is also reported that they are involved in the juvenile justice system and criminal persistence during early adulthood, compared with youth who did not experience ACEs [ 7 , 8 ].

Several studies suggest that severe adversity during childhood is linked to the development of psychopathic traits and it is a known risk factor for the development of antisocial personality disorder during adulthood. In fact, from a psychological perspective, children continuously facing dangerous environments, such as persistent physical or sexual abuse, may develop a low responsibility to stress to adapt to persistent severe stress [ 9 ].

Negative experiences such as anger, rage, and sensation of entrapment can also be generated from physical and sexual abuse, creating the desire for retaliation and revenge increasing the likelihood of delinquent behavior among the youth as a coping mechanism [ 10 ]. Also, children, when abused by perpetrated who appear to be meaningful role models may learn those behaviors as acceptable ways to respond to the similar situation later in life [ 5 ]. According to Boullier and Blair [ 11 ], the three types of ACEs included abuse: physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; neglect: physical, and emotional; household dysfunction: mental illness, mother-treated violently, divorce, incarcerated relative, and substance abuse.

1.1 Significance of the study

Adolescence is undeniably a time of transition. It is a period when the self, basic personality is still enduring a transformation and is vulnerable to a host of external determinants as well as internal physiological changes. During this time, many young people are subject to emotional instability, experiencing stress, shame, and mood swings. They go through a phase of biological development that happens far more quickly than at any other point in their life, except for infancy. Their weight, height, and sexual preferences all significantly alter within a short period [ 12 ].

Youths may go through a life crisis in late adolescence (between the ages of 16 and 18) known as the conflict between ego identification and role dissemination, as described by renowned psychologist Erik Erikson. Youths build their ego identities when they have a complete sense of who they are, which combines how they see themselves and how they fit in with other people. Role diffusion happens when individuals experience personal insecurity, overextend themselves, and depend on others to provide them with an identity they are unable to create for themselves [ 13 ]. Additionally, according to psychologists, the desire for independence from parental dominance predominates in late adolescence [ 14 ].

It is not surprising that the teenage years are a time of disobedience and conflict with authority at home, in school, and in the community given this explosive combination of biological change and yearning for autonomy [ 12 ]. Hence the need to formulate effective strategies that demand a solid understanding of delinquency’s causes and prevention. Nevertheless, this study stands for the view that youth are still lacking some mental capacity to measure the benefits of crime and its consequences. The notion of free will cannot be applied to youth offenders, on the contrary, we can consider referring to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) as a concept that might well explain criminal behavior among youth and how it ends in youth committing crimes.

1.2 Youth and modern society

The problems of youth in modern society are a major national concern especially when they are linked to juvenile delinquency or criminal behavior committed by minors. About 750,000 youths are now arrested each year for crimes ranging in seriousness from loitering to murder. While this number seems high, juvenile arrests have been in decline; more than a million youths were arrested annually just a few years ago [ 12 ]. Some young offenders are extremely dangerous and violent despite the utmost juvenile law violation is minor. Egley Jr et al. [ 15 ] report that about 850,000 youths belong to more than 30,000 gangs in the United States. Therefore, it can be agreed that violent street gangs and groups can put fear into an entire city.

Youths who commit multiple significant crimes are increasingly understood to be serious social problems. They are known as lifestyle, repeat, or chronic delinquent offenders. Along with addressing a variety of other social issues like child abuse and neglect, school crime and vandalism, family conflicts, and drug misuse, state juvenile authorities also have to deal with these criminals. ACEs are described as “potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood (0–17 years)” by Felitti et al. [ 16 ]. One can endure “sexual, physical, and emotional abuse; physical and emotional neglect; witnessing violence at home; living with someone who has a mental illness; parental separation or divorce; parental incarceration; and household alcohol or illicit drug problems” as examples of these unfavorable events. ACEs have been linked to a higher probability of future criminal behavior [ 8 ].

Children who are exposed to domestic abuse and who reside in impoverished nations or in nations where victims of domestic violence receive less social assistance may feel more negative emotions and be more vulnerable to victimization [ 17 ]. These unfavorable feelings, such as wrath, helplessness, and extreme suffering, might lead to an increase in aggressive and externalizing behavior [ 10 ]. Sexual abuse, physical abuse, and physical neglect appear to be important drivers for perpetuating the cycle of violence. Youths who are dabbling in various forms of dangerous conduct such as drug abuse, alcohol use, and precocious sexuality are those considered at risk. Because of the economic, health, or social problems they are living in, their families are unable to provide adequate care and discipline. Siegel and Welsh [ 12 ], concede that those living in a single-parent, female-headed household are expressively more likely to suffer poverty than those in two-parent families.

Mary et al. [ 18 ] point out that child poverty can have negative effects on mental achievement, instructive attainment, sustenance, physical and mental health, as well as social behavior in the long run. In addition, Mary et al. [ 18 ], concede that educational achievement scores between children in affluent and low-income families have broadened over the years, and the earnings and wealth of families have become gradually important determinants of adolescents’ high school graduation, college attendance, and college perseverance and completion.

In particular, studies have found that ACEs increase the likelihood of youth substance use and other delinquent acts [ 19 , 20 ]. ACEs have been linked to a variety of externalizing behavioral issues, including bullying, physical violence, dating violence, property-related crimes, and carrying a weapon [ 19 , 20 ] as well as internalizing behaviors, like depression, anxiety, and self-mutilation [ 21 ].

According to Walters [ 22 ], qualitative research involves the collection and interpretation of subjective data that often is shaped by social, cultural, and political realities that are evident at the time of data collection. According to Johnston [ 23 ], secondary analysis is an empirical activity that uses the same fundamental research tenets as studies that use primary data and has similar processes to be followed as with any other research methodology. Large secondary data sets are a good substitute for original data gathering because they frequently give the researcher access to more information than primary data sets do [ 24 ]. Although secondary data presents many opportunities for researchers, there are still good reasons for using primary data. One of the problems with using secondary data is the lack of control over the framing a wording of survey items [ 24 ]. Through a systematic process, a qualitative secondary data approach was utilized to gather information for this study.

This study used a qualitative technique to address the study’s research questions since this type of research focuses on how individuals learn about and make sense of themselves and others, as well as how they organize and provide meaning to their daily lives. This could imply that crucial questions for your study are not covered by the data. According to [ 25 ], the greatest drawback of secondary data is also the major benefit—the data have already been gathered. This study used secondary data from accredited journals and books by the institution for which this research will be conducted, the University of KwaZulu-Natal. The objective of this study is to take into consideration ACEs in understanding youth crime and juvenile delinquency leading to criminal behaviors among the youths. To ascertain the triggering factors of criminal behavior and delinquency among the youth, by exploring the impact of adverse childhood consequences on the youth and to describe possible interventions that can reduce crime among the youth. This study seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What are the triggering factors of criminal behavior and delinquency among the youth? (2) What is the impact of adverse childhood consequences on youth? (3) What are the possible interventions to reduce crime among the youth?

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate different triggering factors of youth crime from an adverse childhood consequences point of view that influence criminal behaviors among youth leading to juvenile delinquency. In addition, the chapter seeks to assess the effectiveness of law enforcement, court, and correctional agencies designed to treat youthful offenders who fall into the arms of the law—known collectively as the juvenile justice system, by suggesting more intensive and effective measures to treat and prevent future criminal behaviors among the youths. The study focuses on social issues associated with delinquent behavior, including substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, education, and peer relations.

According to the objectives of the study, a total of 53 studies were subjected to the analysis. These included published studies on ACEs, youth crime, and juvenile delinquency.

2.2 Procedure

The inclusion criteria were the studies conducted between the years 1995 and 2020 with the following keywords Adverse childhood experiences, Criminal Behavior, Environment, Family, Juvenile Delinquency, and Youth Crime.

The following methods were used to locate studies for inclusion of publish studies; computerized search of the following journals: American Journal of Psychiatry ; Psychology of Men & Masculinities ; Columbia University Press ; Crime and Public Policy; Routledge; Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression; Journal of Criminal Justice; Child Abuse & Neglect; Child Maltreatment; Roxbury Publishing Company, Los Angeles, California; Pediatrics and Child Health; Cengage Learning; Psychology Today; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; American Journal of Preventive Medicine; Journal of Adolescent Health; Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal; Pediatrics; The Journal of Early Adolescence; Child Abuse & Neglect; Australian Journal of Social Issues; Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries; Oxford University Press; American Psychological Association; Child Abuse & Neglect; Journal of Juvenile Justice; American Journal of Preventive Medicine; Pediatrics; Justice Quarterly; Journal of Family Psychology; Developmental Psychology; Social Science Quarterly; Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry; Aggression and Violent Behavior; An International Journal of Theory & Practice; Journal of Criminal Justice; Child Abuse & Neglect; Crime & Delinquency; Child Abuse & Neglect; Criminology; Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine; Journal of Family Psychology; Duke University Press; Child Abuse & Neglect; JAMA Pediatrics; Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice; Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice; Journal of Crime and Justice. To find the above journals, a computerized search was done via google scholar and Jstor search engines.

Through the use of Google Scholar, Jstor.org , as well as some official websites, the researcher developed a search strategy to gain access to the data. This allowed for the collection of potentially relevant articles, books, and other web-based resources from which secondary data were extracted to address the goal of this study. Articles that protect human subjects in their analysis were described while taking ethical procedures into account. Before the secondary data analysis could be done, such data had to be identified.

To summarize the reached studies and to constitute the potential moderator variables for future meta-analytic research, the studies were coded under the four main headings as Adverse childhood consequences and Youth Crime; Violent and Juvenile Offenders; Moral Insanity and Crime among Child; and Common crimes committed by Youth. These codes are described deeply in the discussion session of this chapter.

It is found that sexual abuse, physical abuse, and physical neglect appear to be important drivers for perpetuating the cycle of violence from 53 studies. After carefully having analyzed different articles read for this study, it can be argued that childhood adverse events are related to youth delinquent behavior. Indeed, the findings of this study demonstrate that both childhood neglect and exposure to family violence are recognized as important predictors of later involvement in criminogenic behaviors across the life course of the youth.

The analysis points out that the accumulation of ACEs during childhood can be linked to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, criminal behavior, as well as abusive and conflict-ridden adult intimate relationships. The findings show that the family represents the best environment for the development of the personality of the individual. It is the foundation of the community, thus contributing to laying the basis of a well-structured society where each individual can enjoy a safe and sound atmosphere. The analysis demonstrates that between family and society, an inseparable and interdependent relationship is created that should be assured, in a positive way, by generally promoting human values. The findings go on to state that society and family transformations give birth to challenges that the individual has to face.

In addition to the above, this study shows that within the psycho-behavioral construction of the individual, education embodies the dialectic function, as the family offers the first guiding marks on life, with all its patterns. The analysis points out that the living environment is the one that influences the individual since childhood when we learn how to live and how to adapt to society, and to immunize against it, as it is in a permanent change, imposing stereotype patterns of thinking and action. This study adds significantly to the literature linking physical and sexual abuse neglect to criminal behavior. The findings further demonstrate that early exposure to ACEs is significantly related to a greater risk of serious or violent offending as well as later involvement in the juvenile justice system. The analysis concludes that unless the factors that control the onset and termination of a delinquent career are studied in an orderly and scientific manner, developing effective prevention and control efforts will be difficult.

4. Discussion

The objective of this study is to take into consideration ACEs in understanding youth crime and juvenile delinquency from a criminal behavior perspective among the youths. Emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, violent treatment toward mother, household substance abuse, household mental illness, parental separation or divorce, and having an incarcerated household member were identified as risk factors for chronic disease in adulthood by researchers [ 26 ]. They were first described in 1998 in the seminal study “Relationship of childhood abuse and dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study” [ 16 ].

Empirical evaluation has shown that ACEs are common, highly interrelated, ad exert a powerful cumulative effect on human development [ 27 ]. High ACEs score has been linked to several sexually risky behaviors, such as having 50 or more sexual partners, having intercourse before age 15 and getting pregnant while still in high school [ 28 ]. According to research by Bellis et al. [ 29 ], individuals with higher cumulative ACE scores are more likely to smoke, drink excessively, be locked up, be morbidly obese, have poor educational and career results, and have recently engaged in violent behavior.

In the field of criminology, we are aware that, even after controlling for prior delinquent behavior, experiencing physical abuse as a child and other types of maltreatment are associated with higher rates of self-reported total offending, violent offending, and property offending among offenders [ 30 ]. The strong correlation between parental divorce and criminality has also been widely established, with meta-analyses on the subject revealing moderate impact sizes [ 31 ].

Using adoptive and biological families, [ 32 ] were able to show that the connection with delinquency was driven by the experience of parental divorce rather than mediated by common genes. Delinquency and other maladaptive behaviors have been linked to exposure to parental incarceration, according to research by Geller [ 33 ]. Murray and Farrington [ 34 ] found that parental imprisonment, above and beyond other types of separation, predicted antisocial and delinquent outcomes, even after controlling for other childhood risk variables, up to age 32, by looking at 411 males in a longitudinal study. According to the results, exposure to domestic violence was a predictor of referral to a juvenile court. These findings support prior research, including meta-analyses, indicating that exposure to domestic violence leads to a range of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems [ 35 ].

Criminologists and psychologists have found that individuals who commit serious violent crimes tend to have high rates of trauma, abuse, and other harmful experiences in childhood, even when controlling for other environmental and biological factors [ 36 ]. Increased traumatic exposure and childhood maltreatment have been demonstrated to be associated with a higher likelihood of substance use and substance use disorder. Additional literature has indicated that ACE exposure increases the risk of drug and alcohol use/abuse among juveniles and adults.

4.1 Adverse childhood consequences and youth crime

ACEs are proposed to children stressors affecting health and well-being across the lifespan [ 16 ]. ACEs include abuse and household dysfunction in childhood, family mental health, domestic violence, and family criminal behavior [ 16 ]. Leban and Gibson [ 37 ] concede that high exposure to ACEs in childhood is related to “health-risk behaviors,” including drug use, alcoholism, violence, and crime. A study conducted by Mersky et al. [ 38 ] conducted a study aiming to examine the relationship between ACEs and substance use in a sample of minority Chicago youth and found that higher ACE scores were associated with increased substance use (tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use), worse mental health, and overall health in adulthood [ 37 ].

Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction have demonstrated implications for adolescent development ranging from negative consequences for neurological development and self-regulation deficits to exponentially increasing the likelihood of suicidal behavior, substance use [ 39 ], human trafficking victimization, and antisocial and criminal behavior. That youth in already disadvantaged neighborhoods are differentially exposed to such childhood maltreatment [ 40 ] is entirely relevant. Deficiency of access to physical and mental health services as well as social services are widespread in areas such as socioeconomically disadvantaged and are at an amplified exposure to community violence, which worsens the insinuations of traumatic exposure and limits the probability of youth who are exposed to receive the help that boosts their resilience.

4.2 Violent and juvenile offenders

One of the most significant and recurring findings in the literature is that Serious, Violence, and Chronic (SVC) juvenile offenders are unreasonably victims of trauma, abuse, neglect, and maltreatment during childhood, as compared to the less severe or non-offending juvenile population [ 41 ]. According to research, 90% of juvenile offenders in the United States had some type of traumatic event as children, and up to 30% of justice-involved American juveniles fit the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of childhood trauma [ 41 ].

Additional research has demonstrated that those who experienced abuse or neglect as children are far more prone to engage in violent behavior than people who did not [ 42 ]. Even after gender, ethnicity, financial level, and family structure were taken into account in the Rochester Youth Development Study, maltreated children had a considerably higher risk of committing violence between the ages of 14 and 18 [ 43 ]. The ground-breaking studies on child abuse by Maxfield and Widom [ 44 ] also discovered that exposure to trauma and abuse as a kid raised the likelihood of juvenile aggressive conduct by more than 200% [ 41 ]. Similarly, Howes et al. [ 45 ], are of the view that abusive families also have difficulty regulating anger in their children. Fox et al. [ 41 ], are of the view that “these effects can produce dramatic changes in the emotional development of the child and may be connected to higher levels of externalizing violent behavior.” Geller et al. [ 33 ], concede that the experience of parental imprisonment is also linked to delinquency and other maladaptive behaviors.

4.3 Moral insanity and crime among children

When adults possess the following impetuous passions of children, psychiatrists call them moral madmen, and we call them born criminals. The desire for revenge: The child frequently shows a desire for revenge. Even at the age of 7 or 8 months, a child may scratch his nurse when she withdraws her breast and return the slaps he receives. Children who become jealous through love or possessiveness react violently. Most children prefer breaking a toy and giving it to someone else.

Lying: According to Montaigne, children’s bodies expand in proportion to how obstinate and lies people are. Bourdin claims that “all children are liars, particularly foundlings, who lie for fun” in a similar vein. Children may tell lies to get something that is forbidden or to get away with something bad. Sometimes they tell lies to get more candy by saying they have not eaten it yet or to appear to be in a lot of pain when they fall. For instance, if they do not want to go somewhere, they may lie about being sick [ 46 ]. Children start to lie when they are 3 or 4 years old because of a fear of punishment brought on by the way we question them and wait for their response. And frequently, they just lie for amusement or to appease their vanity [ 46 ].

Children’s impulsivity and an underdeveloped or imperfect sense of the truth are two factors that contribute to lying. They dissimulate in ways that we would not think were feasible among more mature people, easily altering the truth like savages and criminals. In addition, during their first few months or even their first year of life, children lack any moral sensibility. Whatever their parents allow or forbid is good or bad in their eyes. They are incapable of recognizing wrongdoing on their own; they only begin to develop a sense of justice and ownership after being punished and informed of their transgressions [ 46 ].

Children also do not have any natural affection. They are drawn to attractive people or pleasurable objects, particularly small creatures that can be tortured, and they are put off by strange or violent things. Although children can forget a mother they seemed to admire even at the age of 7, they do not experience affection. Nevertheless, one of the most prevalent traits of kids is harshness. As Broussais has noted, there are very few boys who do not bully others who are weaker. Children typically prefer bad to good. He feels tremendous emotions and feels he has boundless power; thus, he is crueler than gentle. Intellectual laziness is another trait that both children and born criminals share. Children avoid monotonous tasks and anything that does not appeal to them. When they wet their mattresses rather than get out of bed, for example, their actual bodily laziness might sometimes make their cerebral laziness worse. Gambling, obscenities, and alcoholism. People from higher social classes are unaware of children’s fervor for booze. Children are also known to have a propensity for gambling, but it is not necessary to focus on this. Despite the insufficient development of their sexual organs, toddlers aged three to four do not lack obscene tendencies.

Anomalous and monstrous sexual tendencies, like criminal behavior, begin in childhood. Because moral insanity is both a trait of children and the equivalent of criminality, we can see why great criminals reveal their tendencies at an early age.

4.4 Common crimes committed by youth

According to earlier research [ 7 ], children who experience abuse, neglect, and/or a chaotic home environment as children are more likely to engage in serious, violent, or chronic delinquency, as well as involvement in the juvenile justice system and criminal persistence during early adulthood.

A growing body of research has examined the effects of ACEs on life outcomes across the life course and has concluded that early ACE exposure is linked to a variety of health, psychiatric, and behavioral issues in adolescence and adulthood [ 16 ,  47 ]. Felitti et al. define ACEs as potentially traumatic incidents that happen to kids between the ages of 0 and 17. One can encounter “sexual, physical, and emotional abuse; physical and emotional neglect; witnessing violence at home; living with someone who has a mental illness; parental separation or divorce; parental incarceration; and household alcohol or illicit drug problems” as examples of these unfavorable events. Researchers have discovered that ACEs are widespread, with 25% of adult samples showing exposure to three or more different types of ACEs and nearly two-thirds of samples reporting exposure to at least one [ 48 ]. Sociologists and criminologists have recently utilized ACEs as an organizing research framework and show that ACEs are associated with delinquency, violence, and more chronic/severe criminal careers [ 49 ]. Indeed, recent studies consistently show that early exposure to ACEs is significantly related to a greater risk of serious or violent offending as well as later involvement in the juvenile justice system [ 7 ].

Prior research has found numerous risk factors associated with a youth’s probability of joining a gang, revealing that the process of entering a gang begins in childhood and progresses through district development stages [ 50 ]. From the peer domain, low prosocial peer association/commitment and early initiation into delinquent behavior were consistent predictors of joining a gang [ 50 ]. More generally, negative life events and fear or experiences of victimization have been linked to joining a gang [ 51 ]. Certain family circumstances have been shown to significantly predict gang involvement, including a lack of health insurance, the jailing or imprisonment of a household member, and foster care placement—all of which are considered “adverse childhood experiences” [ 52 ].

5. Conclusion

Childhood adverse events are related to youth delinquent behavior as suggested by previous literature. Indeed, both childhood neglect and exposure to family violence have been recognized as important predictors of later involvement in criminogenic behaviors across the life course. The accumulation of ACEs during childhood has also been linked to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, criminal behavior, as well as abusive and conflict-ridden adult intimate relationships. Family represents the best environment for the development of the personality of the individual. It serves as the community’s cornerstone and lays the groundwork for a well-organized society where everyone can live in safety and security. An unbreakable and interdependent bond is formed between the family and society, and this link should be ensured positively by generally supporting human values. Changes in society and families create difficulties that each person must overcome.

As the family provides the earliest guiding markings on life, with all its patterns, education embodies the dialectic role within the psycho-behavioral formation of the individual. Since we learn how to survive, how to adapt to society, and how to immunize against it as it is constantly changing, the living environment is the one that has the most influence on an individual, even from an early age. It imposes stereotyped ways of thinking and doing. This study adds significantly to the literature linking physical and sexual abuse neglect to criminal behavior. Sexual abuse, physical abuse, and physical neglect appear to be important drivers for perpetuating the cycle of violence. Early exposure to ACEs is significantly related to a greater risk of serious or violent offending as well as later involvement in the juvenile justice system. Unless the factors that control the onset and termination of a delinquent career are studied in an orderly and scientific manner, developing effective prevention and control efforts will be difficult.

ACEs not only increase the chances of involvement in the juvenile justice system but also increase the risk of re-offense. A focused effort on early identification of ACEs, and intervention for ACEs to improve youth life circumstances and prevent criminal behavior, may reduce the likelihood of and costs related to juvenile criminal activities. The needs of parents, teachers, health professionals and law enforcement must be personalized as the primary prevention efforts. For parents, an effort can be to improve public awareness of adult behaviors, which can optimize or hamper children’s brain development. Parenting skills and early childhood brain development have to be emphasized during the prenatal period and well-child checkups after birth. Successful interventions in childhood have the potential to stop the intergenerational risks of ACEs, thereby multiplying cost savings. Early childhood intervention programs addressing ACEs have demonstrated significant benefit-cost ratios. Youth development programs for children, parents, and teachers should integrate activities that build resilience and address ACEs so that children develop confidence, self-control, and responsibility. Very little research has examined the link between ACE scores and criminal behavior. By understanding the impact that trauma and adversity in childhood have on the increased risk of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offending, a more proactive stance on the prevention and reduction of childhood abuse and SVC offenders should be developed.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this chapter.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

• 1. McGue M, Iacono WG. The association of early adolescent problem behaviour with adult psychopathology. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 2005; 162 (6):1118-1124
• 2. Walker A, Lyall K, Silva D, Craigie G, Mayshak R, Costa B, et al. Male victims of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence, help-seeking, and reporting behaviours: A qualitative study. Psychology of Men & Masculinities. 2020; 21 (2):213
• 3. Brotherton D, Kretsedemas P. Keeping Out the Other: A Critical Introduction to Immigration Enforcement Today. New York: Columbia University Press; 2008
• 4. Farrington DP. Families and crime. Crime and Public Policy. 2011:130-157
• 5. Akers RL. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Routledge; 2017
• 6. Felson RB, Lane KJ. Social learning, sexual and physical abuse, and adult crime. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression. 2009; 35 (6):489-501
• 7. Baglivio MT, Wolff KT, Piquero AR, Epps N. The relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACE) and juvenile offending trajectories in a juvenile offender sample. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2015; 43 (3):229-241
• 8. Basto-Pereira M, Gouveia-Pereira M, Pereira CR, Barrett EL, Lawler S, Newton N, et al. The global impact of adverse childhood experiences on criminal behaviour: A cross-continental study. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2022; 124 :105459
• 9. Young-Southward G, Svelnys C, Gajwani R, Bosquet Enlow M, Minnis H. Child maltreatment, autonomic nervous system responsivity, and psychopathology: Current state of the literature and future directions. Child Maltreatment. 2020; 25 (1):3-19
• 10. Agnew R. Pressured Into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. 1st ed. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company; 2006
• 11. Boullier M, Blair M. Adverse childhood experiences. Paediatrics and Child Health. 2018; 28 (3):132-137
• 12. Siegel LJ, Welsh BC. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. United State of America: Cengage Learning; 2014
• 13. Eriksson E. Childhood and Society. New York: NOIrt On; 1963
• 14. Gould R. Adult life stages: Growth toward self-tolerance. Psychology Today. 1975; 8 (9):74-78
• 15. Egley A Jr, Howell JC, Harris M. Highlights of the 2012 National Youth Gang Survey. Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2014
• 16. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998; 14 (4):245-258
• 17. Peterman A, Bleck J, Palermo T. Age and intimate partner violence: An analysis of global trends among women experiencing victimization in 30 developing countries. The Journal of Adolescent Health. 2015; 57 (6):624-630
• 18. Mary J, Calhoun M, Tejada J, Jenson JM. Perceptions of academic achievement and educational opportunities among Black and African American youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2018; 35 (5):499-509
• 19. Duke NN, Pettingell SL, McMorris BJ, Borowsky IW. Adolescent violence perpetration: Associations with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Paediatrics. 2010; 125 (4):e778-e786
• 20. Garrido EF, Weiler LM, Taussig HN. Adverse childhood experiences and health-risk behaviours in vulnerable early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2018; 38 (5):661-680
• 21. Basto-Pereira M, Miranda A, Ribeiro S, Maia Â. Growing up with adversity: From juvenile justice involvement to criminal persistence and psychosocial problems in young adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2016; 62 :63-75
• 22. Walters P. Qualitative archiving: Engaging with epistemological misgivings. Australian Journal of Social Issues. 2009; 44 (3):309-320
• 23. Johnston MP. Secondary data analysis: A method by which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries. 2017; 3 (3):619-626
• 24. Vartanian TP. Secondary Data Analysis. United State of America: Oxford University Press; 2010
• 25. Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan M, Lucas RE. Secondary Data Analysis: An Introduction for Psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011
• 26. Baglivio MT, Epps N, Swartz K, Huq MS, Sheer A, Hardt NS. The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice. 2014; 3 (2):1-17
• 27. Anda RF, Butchart A, Felitti VJ, Brown DW. Building a framework for global surveillance of the public health implications of adverse childhood experiences. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010; 39 (1):93-98
• 28. Hillis SD, Anda RF, Dube SR, Felitti VJ, March banks PA, Marks JS. The association between adverse childhood experiences and adolescent pregnancy, long-term psychosocial consequences, and fatal death. Paediatrics. 2004; 113 (2):320-327
• 29. Bellis MA, Lowey H, Leckenby N, Hughes K, Harrison D. Adverse Childhood Experiences: Retrospective Study to Determine Their Impact on Adult Health Behaviours and Health Outcomes in a UK Population. Journal of public health. 2014; 36 (1):81-91
• 30. Teague R, Mazerolle P, Legosz M, Sanderson J. Linking childhood exposure to physical abuse and adult offending: Examining mediating factors and gendered relationships. Justice Quarterly. 2008; 25 (2):313-348
• 31. Amato PR. Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001; 15 (3):355
• 32. Burt SA, Barnes AR, McGue M, Iacono WG. Parental divorce and adolescent delinquency: Ruling out the impact of common genes. Developmental Psychology. 2008; 44 (6):1668
• 33. Geller A, Garfinkel I, Cooper CE, Mincy RB. Parental incarceration and child well-being: Implications for urban families. Social Science Quarterly. 2009; 90 (5):1186-1202
• 34. Murray J, Farrington DP. Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2005; 46 (12):1269-1278
• 35. Evans SE, Davies C, DiLillo D. Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behaviour. 2008; 13 (2):131-140
• 36. Farrington DP. Childhood origins of antisocial behaviour. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice. 2005; 12 (3):177-190
• 37. Leban L, Gibson CL. The role of gender in the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and delinquency and substance use in adolescence. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2020; 66 :101637
• 38. Mersky JP, Topitzes J, Reynolds A. Impacts of adverse childhood experiences on health, mental health, and substance use in early adulthood: A cohort study of an urban, minority sample in the US. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2013; 37 (11):917-925
• 39. Dube SR, Felitti VJ, Dong M, Chapman DP, Giles WH, Anda RF. Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: The adverse childhood experiences study. Paediatrics. 2003; 111 (3):564-572
• 40. Baglivio MT, Wolff KT, Epps N, Nelson R. Predicting adverse childhood experiences: The importance of neighbourhood context in youth trauma among delinquent youth. Crime & Delinquency. 2017; 63 (2):166-188
• 41. Fox BH, Perez N, Cass E, Baglivio MT, Epps N. Trauma changes everything: Examining the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2015; 46 :163-173
• 42. Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science. 1990; 250 (4988):1678-1683
• 43. Smith C, Thornberry TP. The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology. 1995; 33 (4):451-481
• 44. Maxfield MG, Widom CS. The cycle of violence: Revisited 6 years later. Archives of Paediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 1996; 150 (4):390-395
• 45. Howes PW, Cicchetti D, Toth SL, Rogosch FA. Affective, organizational, and relational characteristics of maltreating families: A system’s perspective. Journal of Family Psychology. 2000; 14 (1):95
• 46. Lombroso C. Criminal Man. Durham and London: Duke University Press; 2006
• 47. Dong M, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Dube SR, Williamson DF, Thompson TJ, et al. The interrelatedness of multiple forms of childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2004; 28 (7):771-784
• 48. Merrick MT, Ford DC, Ports KA, Guinn AS. Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences from the 2011-2014 behavioural risk factor surveillance system in 23 states. JAMA Paediatrics. 2018; 172 (11):1038-1144
• 49. Baglivio MT, Epps N. The interrelatedness of adverse childhood experiences among high-risk juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2016; 14 (3):179-198
• 50. Wolff KT, Baglivio MT, Klein HJ, Piquero AR, DeLisi M, Howell JC. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and gang involvement among juvenile offenders: Assessing the mediation effects of substance use and temperament deficits. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2020; 18 (1):24-53
• 51. Melde C, Taylor TJ, Esbensen FA. “I got your back”: An examination of the protective function of gang membership in adolescence. Criminology. 2009; 47 (2):565-594
• 52. Howell JC, Braun MJ, Bellatty P. The practical utility of a life-course gang theory for intervention. Journal of Crime and Justice. 2017; 40 (3):358-375

© The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Criminal behavior.

Edited by Sevgi Güney

Published: 13 December 2023

By Kingsley Chigbu

83 downloads

By Ali Açıkgöz

143 downloads

By Jon Reiersen

74 downloads

IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BJPsych Bull
• v.41(1); 2017 Feb

Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: a global perspective

Susan young.

1 Imperial College London, London, UK

2 Broadmoor Hospital, Crowthorne, UK

Richard Church

3 South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

This review considers juvenile delinquency and justice from an international perspective. Youth crime is a growing concern. Many young offenders are also victims with complex needs, leading to a public health approach that requires a balance of welfare and justice models. However, around the world there are variable and inadequate legal frameworks and a lack of a specialist workforce. The UK and other high-income countries worldwide have established forensic child and adolescent psychiatry, a multifaceted discipline incorporating legal, psychiatric and developmental fields. Its adoption of an evidence-based therapeutic intervention philosophy has been associated with greater reductions in recidivism compared with punitive approaches prevalent in some countries worldwide, and it is therefore a superior approach to dealing with the problem of juvenile delinquency.

Recent years have seen sustained public and academic interest in criminality and mental health, with attention often focused on antisocial behaviour by children and adolescents. The scale of the problem of juvenile delinquency has provoked mixed responses from governments and the media across the world, with calls for improved rehabilitation and support for juvenile offenders competing with voices advocating more punitive approaches. 1 Meanwhile, decades of rigorous academic scrutiny have shed light on the complex and diverse needs of children who come into conflict with the law. 2 – 5 Much of the growing body of literature on juvenile offenders shows considerable overlap between criminological, social and biomedical research, with a consensus emerging around the significance of a developmental understanding of the emergence of juvenile delinquency.

Importantly, juvenile offenders have consistently been identified as a population that suffers from a markedly elevated prevalence and severity of mental disorder compared with the general juvenile population. 6 , 7 Meeting the needs of these young offenders presents practical and ethical challenges concerning treatment and management, including liaison with other agencies.

What is juvenile delinquency?

Who counts as juvenile.

Juvenile delinquency is a term commonly used in academic literature for referring to a young person who has committed a criminal offence, although its precise definition can vary according to the local jurisdiction. The specific reasons underlying these differences are unclear, but they may arise from the lack of an agreed international standard. 8

A ‘juvenile’ in this context refers to an individual who is legally able to commit a criminal offence owing to being over the minimum age of criminal responsibility, but who is under the age of criminal majority, when a person is legally considered an adult. The minimum age of criminal responsibility varies internationally between 6 and 18 years, but the age of criminal majority is usually 18 years.

In some cases individuals older than 18 years may be heard in a juvenile court, and therefore will still be considered juveniles; indeed, the United Nations (UN) defines ‘youth’ as between 15 and 24 years of age. The term ‘child delinquents’ has been used in reference to children below the age of 13 who have committed a delinquent act, 9 although elsewhere ‘children’ are often defined as being under 18 years of age. The term ‘young offenders’ is broad, and can refer to offenders aged under 18 years or include young adults up to their mid-20s.

What is a crime?

A ‘delinquent’ is an individual who has committed a criminal offence. Delinquency therefore encompasses an enormous range of behaviours which are subject to legislation differing from one jurisdiction to another, and are subject to changes in law over time. Whereas acts of theft and serious interpersonal violence are commonly considered to constitute criminal offences, other acts including alcohol consumption and sexual behaviour in young people are tolerated to very differing degrees across the world. Sometimes these differences arise as a consequence of historical or cultural factors, and they may be underpinned by traditional religious laws, such as in some Middle Eastern countries. Some offences may be shared between jurisdictions but be enforced to differing standards – for instance, ‘unlawful assembly’, often used to prevent riots, is applied in Singapore to young people meeting in public in groups of five or more as part of police efforts to tackle youth gangs. Furthermore, ‘status offences’ – acts that would be permissible in adults but criminalised in children, such as consumption of alcohol or truancy – not only vary between jurisdictions, but contribute to discontinuity when comparing juvenile delinquency with adult populations in the same jurisdiction.

Lack of clarity can also arise in jurisdictions where a young offender is processed via a welfare system rather than a youth justice process. Countries with a high minimum age of criminal responsibility may not technically criminalise young people for behaviour that would normally be prosecuted and therefore classed as ‘delinquent’ elsewhere.

Not all incarcerated juveniles are ‘delinquent’, since some may be detained pre-trial and may not be convicted of an offence. Even if convicted, it would be wrong to assume that every ‘juvenile delinquent’ meets criteria for a diagnosis of conduct disorder; offences vary considerably and may not be associated with a broad repertoire of offending behaviour. Also, most ‘juvenile delinquents’ do not pose an immediate risk of violence to others, and the vast majority of convicted juveniles serve their sentences in the community.

To meet the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder requires evidence of a persistent pattern of dissocial or aggressive conduct, such that it defies age-appropriate social expectations. Behaviours may include cruelty to people or animals, truancy, frequent and severe temper tantrums, excessive fighting or bullying and fire-setting; diagnosis of conduct disorder can be made in the marked presence of one of these behaviours. 10

Overall, the term ‘juvenile delinquent’ is used extensively in academic literature, but requires some care. It can be a potentially problematic term, and in some contexts can strike a pejorative tone with misleading negative assumptions. For several years the UN has used the phrase ‘children in conflict with the law’ to describe the breadth of the heterogeneous group of individuals under the age of 18 who have broken the law or are at risk of doing so.

General principles of juvenile justice

Welfare v. justice models.

The sentencing of an individual convicted of a criminal offence is largely driven by three key considerations: retribution (punishment), deterrence and rehabilitation. In the case of juvenile offenders the principle of rehabilitation is often assigned the greatest weight. 11

Special consideration for juveniles within the criminal justice system is not a new concept. In Roman law, the principle of doli incapax protected young children from prosecution owing to the presumption of a lack of capacity and understanding required to be guilty of a criminal offence. Most countries have some provision for special treatment of children who come into conflict with the law, however, the degree to which this is provided varies across the world. 1 , 12 In some countries a ‘welfare’ model prevails, which focuses on the needs of the child, diagnosis, treatment and more informal procedures, whereas other countries favour a ‘justice’ model, which emphasises accountability, punishment and procedural formality.

Belgium is frequently cited as an example of a country with a strong welfare process, supported by a high minimum age of criminal responsibility of 18 years. Similarly, France built a strong welfare reputation by placing education and rehabilitation at the centre of youth justice reforms in the 1940s. New Zealand in 1989 established the widely praised system of Family Group Conferencing as an integral part of youth justice, with a focus on restoration of relationships and reduction of incarceration that would be considered part of a welfare approach. In contrast, the UK and the USA have traditionally been associated with a justice model and low age of criminal responsibility – 10 years in England and Wales, and as low as 6 years in several US states.

Within welfare or justice models, a young person may at some point be ‘deprived of liberty’ – defined as any form of detention under official authorities in a public or private location which the child is not permitted to leave. Locations in which children may be deprived of liberty include police stations, detention centres, juvenile or adult prisons, secure remand homes, work or boot camps, penitentiary colonies, locked specialised schools, educational or rehabilitation establishments, military camps and prisons, immigration detention centres, secure youth hostels and hospitals. 13

Between the less and more punitive systems

The UN supports the development of specialised systems for managing children in conflict with the law. When the first children's courts were set up in the USA in the 1930s, they were widely praised as a progressive system for serving the best interests of the child. Although informality was championed as a particular benefit, in the 1960s substantial concerns arose about due process and the protection of the legal rights of minors. The subsequent development of formal juvenile courts occurred in the context of a continuing ethos of rehabilitation of young people, with a move away from incarceration of juveniles in the 1970s, especially in Massachusetts and California. However, following a marked peak in juvenile offending statistics during the 1980s and 1990s, public and political opinion swung firmly in a more punitive direction. This was accompanied by legal reforms that increased the severity of penalties available to juvenile courts and lowered the age threshold for juveniles to be tried in adult criminal courts.

When the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child entered into force in 1990, the USA was not a signatory owing to 22 states permitting capital punishment of individuals who had committed their crimes as juveniles. It is reported that 19 juvenile offenders were executed in the USA between 1990 and 2005. Although this number may represent a small percentage of the total who faced the death penalty in the USA during that period, the practice was widely criticised by international bodies and organisations. 14 A landmark ruling in the US Supreme Court 15 outlawed the execution of juvenile offenders in the USA, but to date a small number of countries worldwide still implement this practice, sometimes as a result of religious laws.

However, it would be wrong to assume that welfare systems are automatically preferable to a juvenile justice approach, since welfare arrangements can be equally coercive in terms of deprivation of liberty of juveniles. They may lack due process, safeguards for obtaining reliable evidence from young people, processes for testing evidence, and procedures for scrutiny or appeal following disposal.

Trends in youth crime

The USA witnessed a dramatic increase in arrest rates of young people for homicide and other violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s, sometimes referred to as the ‘violence epidemic’. 16 The ensuing moral panic led to harsh and punitive policy changes in juvenile justice and, although official statistics document a subsequent fall of 20% in court case-loads between 1997 and 2009, victimisation surveys have indicated a degree of continuity in high levels of offending, consistent with a reported increase in juvenile offending between 2000 and 2006. 17

In common with the USA and several other high-income countries, the UK also experienced a rise in juvenile offending in the 1980s and 1990s, but figures from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales appear to indicate a general improvement in recent years. Between 2009/2010 and 2014/2015 a 67% reduction has been observed in the number of young people entering the juvenile justice system for the first time, a 65% reduction in the number of young people receiving a caution or court disposal and a 57% reduction in the number of young people in custody. 18 These figures support an overall decrease in juvenile offending noted since the early 1990s. 19

Youth crime figures from Australia have documented a 4% reduction in the overall number of young offenders in 2013/2014, 20 although the number of violent offences committed by young people in the urbanised and densely populated region of Victoria has increased by 75% between 2000 and 2010. 21

The Nordic countries have witnessed an increase in the number of law-abiding youths from 1994 and 2008. 22 In Sweden, both objective levels of juvenile crime 23 and self-reported involvement in juvenile crime 24 have fallen between 1995 and 2005. Similarly in Finland, where, despite fluctuating trends in juvenile drug use, juvenile property and violent crime is reported to have decreased between 1992 and 2013. 25

To summarise, whereas regional and annual trends in juvenile offending are observed and expected, a global trend characterised by decreased juvenile offending appears to have emerged in recent years. Indeed, UN data from a sample of 40 countries lend support to this conclusion, indicating a decrease in the proportion of juveniles suspected (10.9% to 9.2%) and convicted (7.5% to 6%) of crime between 2004 and 2012, respectively. 26

Juvenile gang membership

Influence on crime involvement.

One of the features of urbanisation across the world has been the rise of youth gangs, groups of young people often defined by geographical area, ethnic identity or ideology; recent reports indicate a rise in groups with extremist views. Explanatory models for the rise in youth gangs include factors such as economic migration, loss of extended family networks, reduced supervision of children, globalisation and exposure to inaccessible lifestyle ‘ideals’ portrayed in modern media.

Authorities in Japan attributed a surge in serious youth crime in the 1990s primarily to juvenile bike gangs known as ‘bosozoku’, who were deemed responsible for over 80% of serious offences perpetrated by juveniles, putatively bolstered by a crackdown on yakuza organised crime syndicates. 27 Although difficult to quantify, gang involvement appears to feature in a large proportion of juvenile offences, and there is evidence that gang membership has a facilitating effect on perpetration of the most serious violence including homicide. 28

Mental health

Compared with general and juvenile offender populations, juvenile gang members exhibit significantly higher rates of mental health problems such as conduct disorder/antisocial personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 29 Gang members, compared with non-violent men who do not belong to a gang, are far more likely to utilise mental health services and display significantly higher levels of psychiatric morbidity, most notably antisocial personality disorder, psychosis and anxiety disorders. 30 Gang membership has also been positively correlated with an increased incidence of depressed mood and suicidal ideation among younger gang members. 31 Prevalence of ADHD is significantly greater in incarcerated youth populations (30.1%) than in general youth population estimates (3–7%), 32 therefore it may be reasonable to expect a similarly increased prevalence in juvenile gang members. ADHD has also been associated with a significantly increased risk of comorbid mood/affective disorder. 33

Forensic child and adolescent psychiatric services

Increased awareness of constitutional and environmental factors that contribute to juvenile offending has strengthened a public health perspective towards the problem, and in the UK entry into the youth justice system has been adopted as an indicator of general public health. 34

Dictionaries frequently define ‘forensic’ as meaning ‘legal’, implying a relationship with any court of law. Indeed, many forensic psychiatrists, particularly in child and adolescent services, undertake roles that encompass multiple legal domains relevant to mental health, including criminal law, family and child custody proceedings, special educational tribunals, and immigration or extradition matters.

Specialist forensic psychiatric services vary considerably between countries, 35 but usually forensic psychiatrists assess and treat individuals in secure psychiatric hospitals, prisons, law courts, police stations and in the community under various levels of security, supervision and support. In some countries there has been a trend towards forensic psychiatrists working almost exclusively with courts of law, providing independent specialist opinion to assist the court.

In the UK, forensic child and adolescent psychiatry has emerged as a clinical subspecialty. Some services are based in specialist secure hospitals for young people and cater for the relatively small number of high-risk young offenders with the most severe mental disorders. In the absence of such specialist resources, young people may be managed in suboptimal environments such as juvenile prisons, secure residential placements or secure mental health wards for adults, or even fail to receive treatment at all.

In light of growing evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders within a public health framework, 36 the role of child and family mental health services may increase over time. Aside from direct clinical roles, practitioners in forensic child and adolescent psychiatry are also well placed to work with a wide range of partner agencies on the planning and delivery of broader interventions for the primary and secondary prevention of juvenile delinquency.

Prevalence of mental health problems among juvenile offenders

Rates of mental health problems among juvenile offenders are significantly higher than in their non-offender peers, with two-thirds of male juvenile offenders in the USA suggested as meeting criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder. 37 One in five juvenile offenders is estimated to suffer severe functional impairment as a result of their mental health problems. 38 Paradoxically, these needs are often unmet, 39 , 40 despite evidence of increased contact with mental health services, particularly among first-time juvenile offenders. 41 , 42 Of additional concern are the reported associations between mental health problems and mortality in incarcerated juveniles, 43 including an elevated suicide rate for males. 44 Mental health problems must be a target in interventions for juvenile offenders; however, treatments which focus solely on clinical problems are unlikely to result in benefit for criminogenic outcomes. 45 There is therefore a clear need for effective interventions which address both the clinical and criminogenic needs of these individuals.

Evidence-based treatments for mental health problems

Treatment of ptsd.

Estimates regarding the prevalence of PTSD among juvenile offenders suggest that 20 to 23% meet the clinical criteria, 46 , 47 with prevalence rates significantly higher among females than males (40% v . 17%). 46 Moreover, with 62% experiencing trauma within the first 5 years of life 47 and up to 93% experiencing at least one traumatic event during childhood or adolescence, 48 this should be a target for intervention.

Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is regarded as the most effective intervention for adults with PTSD 49 and also has demonstrated efficacy for juvenile non-offenders. 50 , 51 There is limited evidence suggesting a significant reduction in self-reported symptoms of PTSD following group-based CBT in male juvenile offenders, 52 and of an adapted version of CBT, cognitive processing therapy, 53 also resulting in a significant reduction in self-reported symptoms of PTSD and depression compared with waitlist controls. 54

A trauma-focused emotion regulation intervention (TARGET) has received preliminary empirical support for use in this population. TARGET resulted in nearly twice as much reduction in PTSD symptom severity as treatment as usual (TAU), 55 in addition to significant reductions in depression, behavioural disturbances and increased optimism. 56

Mood/anxiety disorders and self-harm

Juvenile offenders in the UK present with a high prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders (67% of females, 41% of males), self-harm (11% of females, 7% of males) and history of suicide attempts (33% of females, 20% of males). 57 Similarly high prevalence has also been observed cross-culturally, namely in the USA, 37 , 58 Switzerland 59 and Finland. 60

Despite such high prevalence, there appears to be a paucity of high-quality evaluations regarding the effectiveness of interventions for juvenile offenders with mood and/or anxiety disorders, or problems with self-harm. However, the limited evidence that is available suggests that group-based CBT may aid symptom reduction. 61 Recovery rates for major depressive disorder following group-based CBT are over double those for a life skills tutoring intervention (39% v . 19%, respectively), although no significant difference was noted at 6- or 12-month follow-up. CBT also resulted in significantly greater improvements in self- and observer-reported symptoms of depression and social functioning. 62

However, group-based CBT is not reported to be significantly different from TAU in reduction of self-harm, 63 whereas individual CBT is not significantly different from TAU in outcomes for depression, anxiety, conduct disorder or PTSD. 64 Yet recruitment to and retention in intervention seems good, suggesting that CBT is feasible to implement in juvenile offender populations. 64

Evaluations of alternative interventions have posited muscle relaxation as effective in improving juvenile offenders' tolerance of frustration. 65 Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) has also been reported to significantly reduce incidences of physical aggression in a juvenile offender population 66 and among juvenile non-offenders expressing suicidal ideation. 67 It significantly reduced serious behavioural problems and staff punitive actions among juvenile offenders within a mental health unit, although no similar significant reductions were observed for those without mental health problems. 68

Evidence-based treatments for conduct disorder: family approaches

Relationships with family and peers are recognised as key factors in the criminogenic profile of juvenile offenders. 69 Multisystemic therapy (MST) is a family-focused intervention targeting characteristics related to antisocial behaviour, including family relationships and peer associations, 70 with evidence from US and UK studies suggesting MST is a beneficial intervention for juvenile offenders. When compared with conventional services offered by juvenile offending services, MST was associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of reoffending, 71 maintained 2 and 4 years post-treatment. 72 , 73 Offenders engaging in MST are reported to be significantly less likely to become involved in serious and violent offending. 73 , 74 Significant improvements have also been observed in both self- and parent-reported delinquency, 74 family relations and interactions, 73 and home, school, community and emotional functioning. 71 A cost offset analysis of MST among UK juvenile offenders suggested that combining MST and conventional services provides greater cost savings than conventional services alone, as a result of its positive effects on recidivism. 75 Qualitative impressions of MST from juvenile offenders and their parents indicate that key components of a successful delivery of MST include the quality of the therapeutic relationship and ability to re-engage the offender with educational systems. 76

Some evidence also exists regarding the efficacy of MST when delivered to non-offender antisocial juvenile populations outside the USA and the UK. Compared with TAU, MST resulted in a significantly greater increase in social competence and caregiver satisfaction, and a significant reduction in referrals for out-of-home placements, in Norwegian juveniles exhibiting serious behavioural problems. 77 However, no significant difference between MST and TAU was reported in outcomes for antisocial behaviour and psychiatric symptoms in Swedish juvenile offenders. 78 MST was also found to have no significant benefit over TAU in outcomes including recidivism in a sample of Canadian juvenile offenders. 79 These differing outcomes have been posited as the result of barriers in transferring MST from US and UK populations owing to differing approaches to juvenile justice between countries (i.e. a welfare v . justice approach). 78 The heterogeneous nature of studies concerning MST in juvenile offender populations prevent a firm conclusion being drawn as to its superiority over alternative interventions, although this does not diminish the positive outcomes which have been observed. 80

Substance misuse

Motivational interviewing represents a promising approach for juvenile offenders, particularly as a treatment for substance misuse. 81 Group-based motivational interviewing has received positive feedback from participants when implemented with first-time juvenile alcohol or drug offenders, 82 and compared with TAU, juvenile offenders in receipt of motivational interviewing have greater satisfaction and display lower, though not statistically significant, rates of recidivism at 12-months post-motivational interviewing. 83 There is therefore preliminary evidence for the acceptability and feasibility of motivational interviewing for substance-misusing juvenile offenders, but future research regarding long-term outcomes is warranted. To date, motivational interviewing for difficulties faced by juvenile offenders beyond that of substance misuse does not appear to have received much research attention. Juvenile offenders are known for their difficulty to engage in rehabilitative services, therefore further investigation of the effectiveness of motivational interviewing in encouraging engagement is warranted.

Preliminary investigations have also developed a conceptual framework for the delivery of mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) to incarcerated substance-misusing juveniles, with qualitative impressions suggesting this is a potentially feasible and efficacious intervention. 84 Although literature regarding the effectiveness of MBI in juvenile offenders is scarce, qualitative feedback has indicated positive reception of this style of intervention, with particular improvements in subjective well-being reported by juvenile participants. 85

Employment and education

Engaging juvenile offenders with education and skills-based training is an important component of successful rehabilitation, with positive engagement in meaningful activities associated with improvements in areas such as self-belief 86 and protection against future participation in criminal activities. 87 It is concerning therefore that an evaluation of the use of leisure time over a 1-week period by probationary juvenile offenders in Australia indicated only 10% of this time was spent engaging in productive activities, such as employment or education, with 57% used for passive leisure activities, a level 30% higher than that of their non-offender peers. 88

Efforts to engage juvenile offenders in vocational and/or occupational activities have shown benefits in a number of areas. A specialised vocational and employment training programme (CRAFT) emphasising practical skills was evaluated against conventional education provision to juvenile offenders in the USA. Over a 30-month follow-up period, those engaged in CRAFT were significantly more likely to be in employment, to have attended an educational diploma programme and to have attended for a significantly longer period of time. 89 Benefits have also been reported with regard to risk of reoffending, with an after-school programme in the USA incorporating practical community projects, educational sessions and family therapy resulting in a significant reduction in recidivism at 1-year follow-up. 90

Qualitative investigations of US juvenile offenders suggest there is not a lack of interest in pursuing education among this population, but rather a disconnection with educational systems when education providers are perceived not to care about students' progress. 91 Ensuring education providers are perceived as proactive and caring in this regard may therefore be an important consideration for efforts to engage juvenile offenders with educational systems. Significant barriers to engagement include difficulties in obtaining accurate information regarding the offender's educational history, in addition to identifying community-based education providers willing to accept previously incarcerated juveniles on their release. 92

Language and communication

Difficulties with language and communication skills appear to be prevalent among juvenile offenders, with estimates of those falling into the poor or very poor categories ranging from 46 to 67%; overall, up to 90% of juvenile offenders demonstrated language skills below average. 93 Specifically, high rates of illiteracy are reported in this population, 94 with evidence to suggest that an awareness of such problems among juvenile offenders themselves is associated with dissatisfaction and poor self-esteem. 95 These difficulties may act as barriers to engagement in therapeutic interventions, particularly those delivered in group settings, as well as re-engagement with educational systems. Awareness of the challenges these young people face with regard to confidence and ability to communicate is important, and potential involvement of a speech and language therapist could be considered. Preventing deficits in language and communication through effective schooling and appropriate support in the early years of life may serve as an aid to effective engagement in rehabilitative interventions, and may also mitigate the risk of engagement in criminal activities in the first instance.

Delivery of therapeutic services

Common challenges to a therapeutic youth justice pathway.

There are common obstacles to smooth care pathways between different parts of systems, such as in transitions between secure settings and the community, between prisons and secure psychiatric settings, and between child and adult services. In some jurisdictions individuals can only be treated pharmacologically against their will in a hospital setting, a safeguard which limits the extent to which individuals can be treated in prison, but there is still great scope for intervention by prison mental health teams in juvenile prisons.

Factors associated with good outcomes

A meta-analysis has revealed three primary factors associated with effective interventions for juvenile offenders: a ‘therapeutic’ intervention philosophy, serving high-risk offenders, and quality of implementation. 96 These findings are consistent with factors posited as correlating with good outcome in residential centres for troubled adolescents and juvenile offenders: good staff-adolescent relations, perception of staff as pro-social role models, positive peer pressure, an individualised therapeutic programme approach, developmentally appropriate programmes and activities, clear expectations and boundaries, and placement locations which allow for continued family contact. 97 , 98

In the community, coercive styles of engagement have been found to be less successful at achieving adherence among juvenile offenders than a client-centred approach. 99

Factors associated with poor outcomes

‘Scared Straight’ programmes expose juveniles who have begun to commit offences to inmates of high-security prisons, yet these approaches have been discredited due to evidence that risk of recidivism may in fact increase following such exposure. 100 Similarly poor outcomes have been observed in programmes modelled on military boot camps, in which harsh discipline is considered to be of therapeutic benefit, 101 and initiatives such as curfew, probation and hearing juvenile cases in adult court were also shown to be ineffective in reducing recidivism. 13

Over recent years it has been repeatedly demonstrated that exposure to juvenile court itself appears to have a detrimental effect on juvenile offending. 102 – 104 This may be partially explained by effects of labelling, stigma and negative self-image associated with a criminal conviction, but also the practical consequences of sentences, including assortment of delinquent peers in community or prison sentences. Incarceration presents several additional harms, including disturbance of care and pro-social relationships, discontinuity in education, association with delinquent peers, and exposure to violence. Half of detained young offenders in the UK reported victimisation during their current prison term, 57 while 12% of incarcerated youth in the USA reported sexual victimisation in the previous year. 105 International agreements state that deprivation of liberty (such as juvenile prison) should be used as a last resort and for the shortest time necessary, so should be reserved for the highest-risk offenders. The cost of juvenile antisocial behaviour is known to be high, and to fall on many agencies. 106 The current climate of austerity in public services demands that any interventions should be not only effective, but also cost-effective, raising a clear challenge – and opportunity – for the implementation of interventions for this population of vulnerable young people. For example, parenting programmes have demonstrated sustained benefits for this population, 107 , 108 with economic analysis indicating gross savings of £9288 per child over a 25 year period. 109 Considered together with wider costs of crime, these gross savings exceed the average cost of parenting programmes (£1177) by a factor of approximately 8 to 1.

Conclusions

Many argue that we have a long way to go before arriving at ‘child friendly’ juvenile justice. 110 Around the world there are variable and inadequate legal frameworks that are not age-appropriate, there is a lack of age-appropriate services and establishments, and a lack of a specialist workforce, leading to challenges around training and supervision to work with this vulnerable population. In the UK and other high-income countries worldwide, forensic child and adolescent psychiatry is a multifaceted discipline incorporating legal, psychiatric and developmental fields. This approach has navigated clinical and ethical challenges and made an important contribution to welfare and justice needs by its adoption of an evidence-based therapeutic intervention philosophy.

Declaration of interests S.Y. has received honoraria for consultancy, travel, educational talks and/or research from Janssen, Eli Lilly, Shire, Novartis, HB Pharma and Flynn Pharma.

ACAP LEARNING RESOURCES

JALE3904 Youth Justice

• Introduction
• Recommended Text
• Key Journals
• Web Resources
• Writing & Referencing
• More Assistance

Case Study 2024, T1

• Ebook Central
• Taylor & Francis

Note: R (Stands for Rex/Regina/The Crown) or The Queen in the party names. This indicates that it is a  criminal case. DPP, CDPP or Director of Public Prosecutions - may also indicate that it is a criminal case. Children's names are not published. Their initials are used instead.

• Court Judgments NSW Click on the link above > Select Children's Court from the check boxes in the lower section of the page and type the word criminal in the free-text box.
• Children's Court of QLD Look for R (Stands for Rex/Regina/The Crown) or The Queen in the party names. These indicate criminal cases. Note: Children's names are not published. Their initials are used instead.
• Children's Court of Victoria Click on the link above > Select criminal division > Browse for cases. Note: Children's names are not published. Their initials are used instead.
• Children's Court of WA
• TSM (A Child) [2019] WASCA 79 Anyone referred to by their initials was underage at the time of this offence.
• PRM (a child) [2019] WASC 139
• News from Google Click on the link above > Search for the following: - After a life of neglect, he was the youngest Australian charged with murder.
• Report: Doing Time - Time for Doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system. House Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. (2011). Doing Time - Time for Doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system. Parliament of Australia
• Keyword Searching on Ebook Central Click on the link above > Log in using your ACAP student portal log in details > Try the following keyword searches: - Juvenile Justice: Youth and Crime in Australia (see ch. 2 & 10) - Crime and Justice: A Guide to Criminology (see chapter on youth and crime) - Crime, Criminality and Criminal Justice eBook (ch. 19) - Australia's Children's Courts Today and Tomorrow - Youth, Crime, and Justice : Learning through Cases (contains lots of case study examples - see table of contents (read to see how they have structured/presented these cases)). Click on the book title and then click on read online to open a book. When you open the book, if the table contents are messy, click on the iii lying on the side (above the star - upper left) to reset the table of contents.
• Articles on AustLII Click on the link above > Search for the following article (a few articles should appear for this search): - "three dogmas of juvenile justice" Try the following keyword search on AustLII: "youth justice" AND rehabilitation AND Australia
• Keyword Searching on SAGE Click on the link above > Log in using your ACAP student portal Login details > Ensure the 'Only content to which I have full access' button is selected > Try the following keyword search: sentencing juveniles AND Australia juvenile justice AND Australia
• Australian Institute of Criminology Click on the link above > Try the following keyword search: sentencing juveniles juveniles AND indictable Search for the following article on the AIC website: - What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders
• Keyword Searching on Taylor & Francis Click on the link above and log in using your ACAP Student Portal login details > Try the following keyword searches: "juvenile detention" Australia juveniles sentencing Australia youth sentencing "foetal alcohol" youth justice principles Australia "youth justice" rehabilitation Australia After the results have loaded, click on the 'Only show content I have full access to' box on the left and wait for the results to reload. Search for the following article: - Principles in diversion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people from the criminal jurisdiction
• AIHW: Children and crime Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022, February 25). Australia's children: Children and crime.
• AIHW: Youth Justice
• AIC: Juvenile offenders
• Report: Doing Time - Time for Doing_ Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system House Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. (2011). Doing Time - Time for Doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system. Parliament of Australia
• << Previous: Recommended Text
• Next: Essay >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 3:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.navitas.com/JALE3904

• Financial Information
• Our History
• Our Leadership
• The Casey Philanthropies
• Workforce Composition
• Child Welfare
• Community Change
• Economic Opportunity
• Equity and Inclusion
• Evidence-Based Practice
• Impact Investments
• Juvenile Justice
• KIDS COUNT and Policy Reform
• Leadership Development
• Research and Evidence
• Child Poverty
• Foster Care
• Juvenile Probation
• Kinship Care
• Racial Equity and Inclusion
• Two-Generation Approaches
• See All Other Topics
• Publications
• KIDS COUNT Data Book
• KIDS COUNT Data Center

Case Studies Show Positive Youth Development Empowers Young Workers

A new Child Trends series explores how employ­ers can use pos­i­tive youth devel­op­ment prac­tices to bet­ter sup­port young workers.

Com­prised of three case stud­ies, the series details promis­ing prac­tices for ensur­ing young peo­ple suc­ceed in the work­place . They draw on insights from focus groups at Gen­er­a­tion Work sites in Chica­go, Illi­nois, and Birm­ing­ham, Alaba­ma, as well as inter­views with work­force devel­op­ment practitioners.

“ Young adults are an inte­gral part of America’s work­force, and employ­ers play an impor­tant role in their suc­cess,” said Rani­ta Jain , a senior asso­ciate with the Annie E. Casey Foun­da­tion. ​ “ Using direct input from employ­ers and young adults, Child Trends has shared valu­able rec­om­men­da­tions for cre­at­ing work­places where young peo­ple can learn, grow and thrive.”

Child Trends is a key part­ner in the Foundation’s Gen­er­a­tion Work ini­tia­tive , which part­ners with employ­ers to con­nect young adults — espe­cial­ly young peo­ple of col­or and those from low-income fam­i­lies — with sta­ble jobs.

Young Adult Work­ers’ Pro­fes­sion­al Development

Promis­ing Prac­tices for Incor­po­rat­ing Pos­i­tive Youth Devel­op­ment Into Young Adult Work­ers’ Pro­fes­sion­al Devel­op­ment rec­om­mends four pro­fes­sion­al devel­op­ment strate­gies that incor­po­rate pos­i­tive youth devel­op­ment principles.

• Cre­ate a struc­tured, sup­port­ive and safe envi­ron­ment. By cre­at­ing work­places where young adults can ask ques­tions and take respon­si­bil­i­ty for their train­ing and work, employ­ers fos­ter a sense of belong­ing and commitment.
• Ensure man­agers and young adults work togeth­er toward shared goals. This includes hav­ing man­agers set clear pro­fes­sion­al goals with their young employ­ees and ensur­ing man­agers meet with them through­out the year to help them accom­plish those goals.
• Pro­vide young work­ers with inter­nal and exter­nal train­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties. Inter­nal­ly, employ­ers can con­nect young peo­ple to on-the-job train­ing and work­shops that help them build impor­tant skills and gain valu­able expe­ri­ence. Exter­nal train­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties from a third par­ty or post­sec­ondary insti­tu­tion help mold young peo­ple into valu­able long-term employees.
• Estab­lish clear path­ways and process­es for pro­mo­tion. Employ­ers with trans­par­ent and well-defined poli­cies for advance­ment cre­ate trust and moti­va­tion among their young employees.

Young Adult Work­er Voice

Promis­ing Prac­tices for Incor­po­rat­ing Pos­i­tive Youth Devel­op­ment Into Young Adult Work­er Voice Ini­tia­tives out­lines three ways employ­ers can seek out and incor­po­rate young adults’ feedback.

• Nor­mal­ize col­lect­ing feed­back as a part of day-to-day oper­a­tions. Solic­it thoughts from each team mem­ber — includ­ing staff who are just begin­ning their careers — and ensure feed­back is col­lect­ed at des­ig­nat­ed inter­vals dur­ing projects.
• Rec­og­nize young work­ers for their con­tri­bu­tions. Pub­licly acknowl­edge and reward good ideas or help­ful suggestions.
• Posi­tion lead­er­ship and man­age­ment to pro­vide feed­back to work­ers ear­ly in their careers. This empow­ers young work­ers to speak out when issues arise and pro­vides them with coach­ing and men­tor­ing that will ben­e­fit their careers in the long term.

Young Adult Work­er Supervision

Promis­ing Prac­tices for Incor­po­rat­ing Pos­i­tive Youth Devel­op­ment Into Super­vi­sion of Young Adult Work­ers urges work­force prac­ti­tion­ers to lever­age their unique under­stand­ing of super­vi­sion struc­tures to encour­age employ­ers to adopt prac­tices that build on young adults’ strengths. This case study high­lights four employ­er super­vi­sion prac­tices that can enrich young work­ers’ expe­ri­ences on the job.

• Set clear expec­ta­tions for young work­ers. Out­line expec­ta­tions as ear­ly as the first job inter­view and ini­tial onboard­ing to devel­op a shared under­stand­ing of work respon­si­bil­i­ties. When employ­ers find that young work­ers are strug­gling with work-relat­ed duties, they can iden­ti­fy ways to sup­port workers.
• Get to know younger employ­ees as peo­ple. Under­stand young peo­ple’s goals, inter­ests, strengths and per­son­al­i­ties and treat them as val­ued team members.
• Equip man­agers with what they need to be good man­agers. Employ­ers can pro­vide for­mal man­age­ment train­ing on top­ics rang­ing from racial equi­ty and inclu­sion to goal set­ting. Train man­agers to cre­ate envi­ron­ments where young work­ers feel comfortable.
• Encour­age pro­fes­sion­al rela­tion­ships with man­age­ment-lev­el staff. By estab­lish­ing rela­tion­ships between young work­ers and mul­ti­ple man­agers or men­tors, employ­ers can ensure young team mem­bers are heard and sup­port­ed. In turn, man­agers bet­ter under­stand the needs of younger employees.

Learn more about pos­i­tive youth devel­op­ment approaches

This post is related to:

• Frontline Practice
• Generation Z
• Positive Youth Development
• Workforce Development
• Youth and Young Adult Employment

Popular Posts

View all blog posts    |    Browse Topics

blog   |   January 12, 2021

What Are the Core Characteristics of Generation Z?

blog   |   June 3, 2021

Defining LGBTQ Terms and Concepts

blog   |   August 1, 2022

Child Well-Being in Single-Parent Families

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our data, reports and news in your inbox.