Juveniles and Crime the Interaction

¶ … Juveniles and Crime

The Interaction of Biological and Social Learning Theory as the Cause of Juvenile Delinquency

Although most individuals typically have a concept of conventional moral behavior, the presence of deviant behavior and criminal acts are represented in every society and culture. One concept of crime that has gained increased attention from researchers and media outlets in modern time is the distinction of juvenile delinquency, which refers to criminal acts or offenses performed by children, adolescents, or individuals below the age at which ordinary criminal prosecution is possible. Risk factors such as socioeconomic class, family environment, and peer influence have emerged to highlight the increased probability a youth individual will commit criminal acts. From these risk factors, theories have been developed to address the cause of juvenile delinquency. Some theories are designed to explain specific aspects of deviants, others broadly describe risk factors as causes of delinquency, but no theory has been capable of defining all features of juvenile delinquency. The combination of the biology theory and the social learning theory of juvenile deviance allows for both theories to be explored as a collective cause of delinquency. Genetic inheritance and chemical imbalance in addition to learned behavior traits are contributors to the causal complex of juvenile delinquency.

Ever since the construction of the first civil society, behavioral rules distinguishing what is acceptable and what is criminal have existed. Even though individuals typically have a concept of conventional moral behavior, the presence of deviant conduct and criminal acts are represented in every society and culture. Criminal deviance is not a novel construct, and has long been the intrigue of researchers to determine criminal motivation and understand the relationship of crime and society. One concept of crime that has gained increased attention from researchers and media outlets in modern time is the distinction of juvenile delinquency. Juvenile delinquency refers to criminal acts or offenses performed by children, adolescents, or individuals below the age at which ordinary criminal prosecution is possible (Juvenile delinquency, 2003). In the wake of juvenile delinquency, risk factors and influences have been compiled to establish a type of profile for juvenile offenders. Risk factors cover individual, family, school, peer group, and community domains to address factors ranging from economic class and family environment, to peer influence. Theories explaining the causes of juvenile delinquency emerge from these risk factors and are explored by varying research disciplines: economical, psychological, sociopolitical, biological, and sociological sources. Each discipline aims to define the causes of juvenile criminal deviance in the context of their field, wherein lies the problem -- not all of these singular fields can be correct. The overall cause of juvenile delinquency cannot be reduced to only one theory of one discipline, and must consider a collection of influences to be considered valid and relevant. The root of juvenile delinquency is a combination of two theories, the biological theory and the social learning theory, which together encompasses genetic predisposition and social contributions as causes of criminality.

Every society and every culture hosts a set of laws, written or unwritten, that conveys notions of unacceptable and unlawful behaviors. These rules, whether formal or informal, are expected to be obeyed by members of the community. Even further than legal rules, cultures incorporate a broad set of regulations and expectations that explain proper behavior for children. The expectations for children often exceed legal jurisdiction, as children and adolescents are continuously being taught to distinguish between "good" behavior and "bad" behavior in all aspects of their lives (Binder, Geis, & Bruce, 2000, p. 1). Each culture can be divided into subcultures, such as school and work culture, in which children are being educated on moral behaviors in different contexts. The smallest subunit in culture is the family culture, in which family rules are unique to each household (Binder, Geis, & Bruce, 2000, p. 1). The subunits within a subculture, within a singular culture, represent layers of regulations to promote accepted behavior, and each layer inherently creates potential for deviant action.

Juvenile delinquency is a criminal concept that is easily defined as criminal or illegal behaviors and acts committed by members of the youth population (Urziceanu, 2006, p. 262-63). As young people transition from childhood to adulthood, they have to navigate between emotions and changing social scenarios in order to better understand the complexities of the world. Challenging emotions and other social factors lead to children and adolescent individuals to "act out." It is inevitable that every child is going to "act out" or express opposition at some point, whether it is refusal to eat dinner, go to bed, or another action that seems as harmless. These episodes are typical as anger, frustration, and defiance are all aspects of the human spectrum of emotion (Sampson, & Laub, 1993, p. 86-88). Since all children will eventually exude a sense of deviant behavior, what triggers these behaviors to transition from "harmless" to criminal? Why do some adolescent individuals commit crime and illegal acts, while others do not? Although the concept of juvenile delinquency is easy to define, determining the actual cause of criminality in young persons presents a much more intricate problem.

Determining the cause of juvenile delinquency first requires one to make the distinction of criminals choosing to break the law, versus criminals choosing to commit a particular crime. Acts of juvenile delinquency share a great deal of overlap with criminal acts committed by adult offenders, which only adds to the intrigue of researchers and hysteria generated by media outlets (Cicourel, 1995). Acts of crime committed regardless of age group range from shoplifting, to rape and murder. Each of these crimes is different in their own right, but share the common thread that is breaking the law (Lahey, 2003, p. 122). To better understand the cause of juvenile delinquency, one cannot question why the offender chose to shoplift, rape, vandalize, or whatever the case may be, one must understand why the juvenile delinquent chose to break the law. Questioning the cause of juvenile delinquency also requires the avoidance of questioning why an act is considered a crime. Identifying the cause of juvenile delinquency involves removing sociological and ethical questions into what societies consider crime, why one chooses a certain crime, or to morally justify if a particular criminal act is right or wrong (Lahey, 2003, p. 123). Each of the mentioned aspects arising from criminal behavior deserve their own attention, however it only distracts from determining the central causes of delinquency. Defining the cause of juvenile delinquency includes isolating the individual into components of biology and motivation, in the absence of other social constructs.

Researchers inquiring into causes of juvenile delinquency have expended much energy on developing theoretical models to describe the relationship between specific variables and their outcomes. The variables outlined by researchers are commonly known as risk factors. Although researchers seem to agree there is no single route to delinquency, each theory bases its model from their respective risk factors (Shader, 2002). For example, a psychological model focuses only on behavioral risk factors, while a biological model focuses primarily on genetic and inherited risk factors. Distinguishing the cause of juvenile delinquency entails exploring risk factors that span across various theories, and ultimately integrating different theories to establish the most relevant understanding of delinquency.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within the U.S. Department of Justice broadly describes risk factors as "those characteristics, variables, or hazards that, if present for a given individual, make it more likely that this individual, rather than someone selected from general population, will develop a disorder" (Shader, 2002). The basic concept of a juvenile delinquency risk factor is the prediction of an increased probability for offending. The problem associated with risk factors is they are not definite, and there can be confusion between risk factors and their impact. For example, psychological dysfunctions share an unclear relationship with risk factors as one risk factor is rarely associated with only one disorder. Other concerns about risk factors include how their impact varies with the developmental state of the individual and that exposure to several risk factors creates a cumulative effect (Shader, 2002). It is important to note that risk factors do not imply certainty; they only indicate an increased probability for criminal offense. One statistic shows that out of the minors that commit crimes, only 20% of them are employees or students (Urziceanu, 2006). This statistic alone shows that it is a risk factor for delinquency if a juvenile is unemployed or not attending school, however it does not suffice to say that all juvenile offenders are non-students or unemployed.

Researchers rely on risk factors to detect the chance of certain outcomes, however there are many in the youth population harboring multiple risk factors and never commit delinquent acts (Shader, 2002). Although these individuals exist, it is not enough to ignore risk factors as indicators of juvenile delinquency. One report states that a 10-year-old exposed to six or more risk factors is 10 times more likely to commit a violent act by age 18, as opposed to a 10-year-old who is exposed to only one risk factor (Shader, 2002). As theories claim certain risk factors and ignore others, it is critical to evaluate the most common risk factors despite their discipline fields. There are five broad domains for risk factors: Individual, family, school, peer group, and community. Another key component to understanding risk factors is the age of onset, in which early onset is considered age 6-11, and late onset is considered age 12-14 (Shader, 2002). Each of the risk factor domains are also coupled with protective factors, such as high IQ and parental monitoring, that subtract from the probability of risk factors blossoming into delinquency. Risk factors of juvenile delinquency can be grouped together in a variety of ways, and the five domains of individual, family, school, peer group, and community can be distilled further into: individual, social, and community categories. The three categories also branch into sub-categories, for example, the social category includes both family and peer group domains.

The individual domain of risk factors for juvenile delinquency includes constructs that are only relevant to, or initiated by, the individual. Individual risk factors include being male, low IQ, antisocial behavior, substance use, and aggression (Shader, 2002). Aggression is only considered a risk factor in males and it is often regarded as a biological consequence. Male aggression can be attributed to male hormones, and is not necessarily a result of a singular emotional trigger (Binder, Geis, & Bruce, 2000, p. 55). Substance abuse, and most commonly alcohol abuse, in the youth population is a significant risk factor for juvenile delinquency. Alcohol abuse in underage persons is already an illegal offense and has the potential to nurture the development of criminal action. Alcohol can intensify childhood antisocial behavior, which is another individual risk factor. The correlation between crime and alcohol use in the youth population is high among juvenile offenders (Sampson, & Laub, 1993, p. 3-4). The relation between substance abuse and antisocial behavior displays an instance where risk factors are difficult to separate and create a cumulative effect. Protective factors against individual risk factors for delinquency include being female, positive social orientation, and high IQ (Shader, 2002). The individual protective factors are described as behaviors that are more resistant to delinquency. Although these protective factors reduce the probability of delinquency, they are not antidotes to juvenile criminal acts.

The social category of risk factors includes the school, peer group, and family domains of influence. The school domain involves such risk factors as poor attitude and poor academic performance or failure. The protective factors in the school domain are commitment to school and recognition for involvement in conventional activities (Shader, 2002). Risk factors in the peer group domain include having weak social ties, having antisocial peers, and gang membership. The most profound protective factor against peer influence is the interactions with friends who engage in conventional behavior (Shader, 2002). Social interaction in the school environment and consequently peer interaction (or its lacking), set a strong social tone in the adolescent's life (Sampson, & Laub, 1993, p. 100). These interactions provide a background for the adolescent and generally establish a social pattern. Strong antisocial behavior and having deviant friendships or gang affiliation introduce strong risk factors for juvenile delinquency.

The family domain of risk factors have a remarkable influence on juvenile delinquency, and is one of the most scrutinized categories aiming to link social influence and criminality. The family category also touches on a range of research disciplines, including economic impacts, psychological, and social impacts (Murry, Willaims, & Salekin, 2005). Risk factors stemming from the family domain include: low socioeconomic status/poverty, antisocial parents, harsh, lax, or inconsistent discipline, abusive parents, neglect, and poor parent-child relationship (Shader, 2002). The family represents the smallest subunit of any culture, and provides its own dimension of structure to any adolescent's life. The structure experienced in the family can be strict or nonexistent, and both extremes are capable of producing delinquent risk factors. Not only is the family an opportunity to nurture structure and moral balance, the family is also a platform for social interaction. The complexities presented by the family make it a dynamic contributor to risk factors of juvenile delinquency.

An additional risk factor arising from the family domain is the presence of criminality in a family, and the idea that crime "runs" in a family. Criminal and antisocial parents tends to have children who are also delinquent and antisocial (Farrington, 2002). The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development surveyed 400 males ranging from age 8 to 48, and found that 63% of males with convicted fathers were themselves convicted (Farrington, 2002, p. 204). It was found that the most important relative was the father in regards to impact on risk for juvenile delinquency. The parent-child relationship and ensuing child-rearing methods also portrays a complex web of risk factors. The various extremes of child-rearing and the context of the parent-child relationship create the potential for juvenile delinquency, including modes of child supervision, discipline, reinforcement, warmth or coldness of emotional relationship, and parental involvement (Farrington, 2002, p. 207). Poor parental supervision is one of the strongest predictors of delinquency as it refers to the low extent of monitoring by parents of the child's activities. Children who are allowed to "roam the streets" unsupervised from an early age, and parents who do not know where there children are, are at greater risk of committing criminal acts (Farrington, 2002, p. 207).

Another key family risk factor is parental discipline, and the types of punishment given for a child's improper behavior. Harsh discipline, including physical punishment, is a predictor of juvenile delinquency. One study of 700 Nottingham (UK) children found physical punishment at ages 7 and 11 predicted later convictions, and that 40% of offenders had been smacked or beaten as children (Farrington, 2002, p. 208). The intricate nature of parent-child relationships and its tie to emotional needs produces a vehicle for a range of risk factors for delinquency despite economic class, race, or education. Even beyond the role of "parents," studies have been performed to capture the influence of the maternal relationship vs. The paternal relationship. One such study was a 30-year examination observing the impact of child rearing influences on the outcome of male criminals. The results of the study suggested maternal behavior had influence on juvenile delinquency and later adult criminality, and paternal interaction with the family had the greater impact on probably of adult criminal behavior (McCord, 1991).

The impact of family relationships on juvenile delinquency is significant, and the protective factors developed from parent-sibling-child relationships can be just as profound in terms of behavioral influence. Protective factors arising from the family unit comprises warm, supportive relationships with parents or other adults, a parent's positive evaluation of peers, and balanced parental monitoring (Shader, 2002). The timing of protective factors is also critical, and it is important to have positively developed bonds during the youth's most impressionable ages. Good maternal care and good maternal health for children under the age of 5 years, and good parental supervision at ages 11 years and 15 years have been considered the strongest protective factors for juvenile delinquency (Farrington, 2002, p. 215).

The last domain of risk factors is community, and is a domain that researchers have increasingly been examining as a contributor to juvenile delinquency within the last few decades. The basis of the community domain understands that the environment in which youth are raised can influence the probability of delinquency. Similar to family interaction, children and adolescents also encounter their community every day, and the community has the potential to promote delinquency (Roucek, 1958). One community within the child's and adolescent's life is the school community and consequent school policies. School policies regarding when to hold back an adolescent for another school year, suspension and expulsion, and school tracking of delinquency can have negative impacts for at-risk youth and affect minorities in disproportional rates (Shader, 2002). Suspension and expulsion tactics are common policy in the majority of school systems, however they do not appear to lower the presence of undesirable behavior (Shader, 2002). The other major community influence on delinquency is the concept of neighborhood. The existence of neighborhood crime, drugs, and neighborhood disorganization are all risk factors for youth especially in the late onset ages of 12 to 14 years. Although a community cannot dictate an individual's personal choice, a neighborhood with high abundance of poverty and crime increases the risk for youth to become involved in criminal activity (Shader, 2002). Protective factors do not typically stem from the community sector. Living in a neighborhood that does not have high poverty and crime rates can reduce the risk, however those living in an economically poor, criminally rich neighborhood does not generally have access to services to protect its youth.

The presence of risk factors suggests a higher probability for the potential of a juvenile to commit delinquent acts, but does not address the actual cause of juvenile delinquency. Risk factors try to highlight the likelihood of criminal activity and do not describe the source of deviant behavior. From the identification of risk factors, theorists have developed theories and models to portray the cause of delinquency. Theories surrounding juvenile delinquency, and even broader theories on criminality, range from historical theoretical models and ancient explanations, superstition, to intricate modern models and theories developed on basic conclusions. Theoretical conditions include: early theories, classical school, biological, psychological, sociological, and critical theory models (Martin, 2005, p. 63). Early theories described delinquency as forces of nature and the result of spirits, the devil, or demonic creatures. Classical theories described the source of deviance as a rational personal choice and a consequence of free will. Critical theory focuses on societal inequities, group conflict, capitalism, racism, repression, and is an impractical model for policy making to reduce the rate of delinquency. The remaining theories consider such concepts of social interaction, personality, and heredity (Martin, 2005).

Over the years many theories have been developed to explain the origins of juvenile delinquency. Some theories are designed to explain specific aspects of deviants, others broadly describe risk factors as causes of delinquency, but no theory has been capable of defining all features of juvenile delinquency. The reason no singular theory can explain delinquency is because no singular research discipline can encompass all influences on criminality such as gender, race, socioeconomic class, regional and cultural relevance (Martin, 2005). To better understand the causal complex of delinquency is to examine the concept from multiple standpoints (Grusendorf, 1961). Determining the cause of juvenile delinquency is not a matter of developing a single theory, but to combine existing theories to encapsulate the multi-faceted causes of delinquent behavior. The combination of the biology theory and the social learning theory of juvenile deviance allows for both theories to be explored as a collective cause of delinquency.

The biological theory of juvenile delinquency acknowledges the genetically inherited traits of human behavior (Martin, 2005). This theory conveys human beings are genetically predisposed to commit crime. In the later part of the 19th century, Cesare Lombroso implied that criminals were missteps in the evolutionary order (Sims, & Preston, 2006, p. 79). Lombroso's biology theory even went as far to argue a criminal can be identified by physical characteristics, such as the shape of their ears, nose, mouth, and cheekbones. Modern day biocriminologists focus on linking genetics and biochemistry to expressions of criminal behavior. Modern biology theory is relevant to adult and juvenile offenders, and search for certain traits that are correlated to criminal activity and not socialization (Sims, & Preston, 2006, p. 79). The genetic component of the biology theory is that some personality traits are genetically inherited from parent to offspring. Genetic information and DNA cannot be altered, and the cause of juvenile delinquency cannot deny the contribution made by DNA to influence behavior. As previously mentioned, studies have shown how crime "runs" in a family. This concept is not necessarily social in nature, but it greatly attributed to biological features. Parent criminality influences delinquent behavior, and it is more likely that children of criminal parents will become offenders than the children of conventional parents (Sigel, & Welsh, 2009, p. 87). Antisocial personality traits can be genetically inherited, and cannot be disregarded as a cause for juvenile delinquency.

Additional biological contributors to delinquency include diet, blood chemistry, and hormone imbalance (Sims, & Preston, 2006, p. 79). Chemical imbalances in the brain have been linked to antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. Hormone levels, blood chemistry, and brain chemistry have the power to affect mood, behavior, conduct, and performance. Lower levels of the serotonin neurotransmitter have been linked to violent behavior, and varying levels of dopamine are linked to the abuse of drugs and alcohol (Sims, & Preston, 2006, p. 79). Other studies have been performed to link damage to the frontal lobe of the brain to juvenile delinquency. Whether the damage is caused by severe blows to the frontal lobe, or if the brain is deprived of oxygen in utero or during the birthing process, could be linked to delinquency (Sims, & Preston, 2006, p. 80).

Human beings are first and foremost biological entities. Genetic information and DNA are responsible for determining characteristics ranging from eye color to body type. Like all living organisms, the human body is an on-going chemical reaction. The body is continuously reacting with gases in the air, absorbing nutrients, breaking down chemicals, subduing infections, and is constantly searching for proper chemical balance to sustain life (Sigel, & Welsh, 2009, p. 87-90). Just as an individual would attribute their parent for having a sense of humor or athletic ability, the same reasoning can be applied to juvenile delinquency. Although not every comedian breeds comedians, or every athlete breeds athletes, there is an inherited component to behavior and personality. The biological theory is not the sole contributor to juvenile delinquency, but it plays an integral role in causing antisocial behavior, deviance, and ultimately delinquency.

The second theory that accurately acknowledges the cause of juvenile delinquency is the social learning theory. The sociologist viewpoint historically studies the role of people and groups within a society, and consequently the effect society has on people (Martin, 2005, p. 85). The social component of every day life has a profound influence on how individuals interact and react as members of society. The social learning theory is based upon how an individual conforms and accepts rules, laws, and expectations of society. Learning and social experiences in addition to personal values and expectations determine behavior (Sigel, & Welsh, 2009, p. 95). In relation to children, the social learning model explains children will form their behavioral practices according to the reactions they receive from others. The socially learned behavior model demonstrates how children will mimic behaviors, positive or negative, as portrayed by the adult in which they are closest to, their friends, and behavior observed from film and television (Sigel, & Welsh, 2009, p. 95). For example, a child who witnesses aggressive behavior from a parent, such as slapping or punching someone during an argument, and it is conveyed as an approved (or unchallenged) action, the child is likely to socially learn that violent reactions are acceptable reactions. This model implies that children who are raised in a situation where violence is a common way of life, and is a common reaction, will learn to believe this behavior is expected and rewarded.