Adolescent Crime: Brain Development and Teen Delinquency

Introduction: The Adolescent Crime Problem

Virtually no one can deny that there is a definite, tangible link between adolescence and crime. Anyone unfamiliar with this subject would be hard pressed to dispute the statistical data that points to that dangerous connection. In 1990, teenagers were more than 3.5 times more likely to commit an indexed crime than were adults in the United States. Index crimes encompass both violent criminal activity — such as murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — as well as serious property crimes such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson (No author 1990). This point is underscored by the fact that in 2005, approximately 10,000 prisoners in the United States were serving life sentences for actions committed before they turned 18 (Liptak 2005). This proclivity among teenage criminal offenders is also evident overseas. In Australia, for example, "teenagers aged 15 to 19 were more likely to be charged for a crime than any other age group, including adults, and the offending rate was almost four times as much" (Styles 2011). With recidivism rates on par with those for general criminal offenses, the message is clear: teenagers are the population subset most likely to engage, repeatedly, in criminal behavior.

What makes this phenomenon all the more compelling — and in certain cases, tragic — is the very nature of adolescence, which is wedged between the final stages of childhood and the impending hopes of adulthood. In much the same way that several physical aspects of teenagers are undergoing rapid changes, their emotional and mental development is also undergoing significant transformations. To that end, teenagers are far from adults and, as some academics and laypeople argue, should not be judged for their actions as adults are. It is quite possible that the link between teenagers and criminal behavior is an effect of the psychic and emotional metamorphosis they are undergoing, much of which is attributed to the fact that their brains are still forming.

A substantial amount of evidence corroborates this thesis, including the decidedly juvenile and even aberrant nature of some serious crimes committed by adolescents. In 1994, 16-year-old Michael Johnson both allowed and watched two friends stab his grandparents to death (Krueger 2006). In November 1997, 15-year-old Rebecca Falcon and 18-year-old Clifton Gilchrist were responsible for the murder of a taxi driver — a killing that was not a robbery attempt and had little apparent practical motive (Liptak 2005). This murder was one of several instances of teenagers being charged with felony murder, meaning they "participated in a serious crime that led to a killing but" were "not proved to have killed anyone" (Liptak 2005). On Super Bowl Sunday in 1992, 14-year-old Timothy Kane — who had no prior history of violence or involvement with the criminal justice system — was present when two friends murdered a husband and nearly decapitated his wife during a burglary. Kane is currently serving a life sentence for a deed he did not directly commit, and his case is another example of teenagers becoming entangled in inexplicable crimes that shape the rest of their lives (Liptak 2005).

The Developing Teenage Brain

Admittedly, people commit crimes for a variety of reasons, and the fact that teenagers are not fully developed adults does not absolve them of the responsibility of controlling their own actions. However, there is strong evidence suggesting that, due to their ongoing growth and maturation, teenagers are at a significant disadvantage compared to their adult counterparts when it comes to impulsive behavior — the very type that can lead to criminal conduct. The following description illustrates the neurological basis for this disadvantage:

Amygdala: The brain's emotional center, which controls anger, fear, and recklessness, among other reactions. In teens, activity here is in high gear. In adults, it is tempered by a more developed frontal lobe.

Frontal lobe: The brain's executive center, which includes the prefrontal cortex, responsible for anticipating consequences, planning, and controlling impulses. In short, it keeps the amygdala in check. In teens, however, this area is barely functioning and will not be fully developed until age 20 to 25 (Krueger 2006).

This description identifies the specific brain regions that may partly explain rash behavior in teenagers that can lead to criminal activity. It also implies that adolescents have a considerable period ahead of them before their brains are fully functional — possibly as late as age 25. When this neurological information is compared against statistics demonstrating the high rate of adolescent crime, the thesis that young people engage in behavior they themselves may not fully understand becomes increasingly plausible. Adults are able to mitigate the effects of their amygdala through the regulatory processes of the frontal lobe. Teenagers, however, do not yet have this capacity — and the historically high rates of adolescent crime reflect that deficit.

Again, it is nearly impossible to make sweeping generalizations about why any population subset has a proclivity toward criminal behavior. Still, when one examines many of the crimes adolescents commit — particularly index crimes — certain commonalities emerge that attest to a marked absence of reasoned thought, a characteristic of mature, fully functioning adults. The prevalence of these commonalities, and their impact on both adolescents and their victims, was among the reasons the death penalty was revoked for juvenile offenders in 2005. In the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stated that teenagers were different, at least for purposes of the ultimate punishment: they are immature and irresponsible, more susceptible to negative influences including peer pressure, and their personalities are not yet fully formed. "Even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile," Justice Kennedy concluded, is not "evidence of irretrievably depraved character" (Liptak 2005).

Justice Kennedy's reasoning reflects the understanding that adolescents are prone to a range of outside influences — peer pressure and other forms of negativity — that may directly contribute to criminal behavior. When one considers that many adolescents know right from wrong yet are still compelled toward criminal acts, the need to examine causes that are endemic to the state of adolescent development becomes even more urgent.

Peer Pressure, Gang Mentality, and the Need to Belong

The group mentality that appears as an integral component of teenage crime is not limited to the United States. The global prevalence of high adolescent crime rates reinforces the argument that the root of the issue lies with the development of the human mind and body, rather than with the particular circumstances of any individual crime. The role of susceptibility to outside influences is especially relevant. In Western Australia, for instance:

"Youth crime gangs are the greatest emerging threat to law enforcement… These teenagers, who were mostly boys charged with crimes of theft, unlawful entry, and assault, were offending at the highest rate since 1996–97, outstripping adults whose offending rates have been in decline" (Styles 2011).

This observation highlights another key dimension of teenage crime — one firmly related to teens' susceptibility to peer pressure and outside influences. Gang activity plays a substantial role in adolescent criminal behavior. While adult gang members exist in great numbers, most individuals tend to join gangs during their teenage years. Adult members of notorious street gangs such as the Crips and Bloods — which originated in Southern California and have since spread throughout the continental United States — were typically recruited as teenagers and have simply continued their membership into adulthood. Moreover, older gang members often actively seek out younger recruits to preserve the vitality, energy, and ruthlessness of their organizations.

However, adolescents do not need to belong to a formal street gang to feel the pull of a mob-like mentality driven by peer pressure. Even the most well-adjusted teenagers go through a period in which they strive to establish an identity and a sense of both self and public image. This fundamentally human need can contribute to criminal behavior entirely outside of gang contexts. The sociological dimensions of acceptance and identity that factor into adolescent crime are illustrated in the following account of Rebecca Falcon's criminal case:

"But Barney Jones, another juror, said he believed Ms. Falcon shot the gun. 'She was confused,' he said. 'She was probably a typical teenager. She was trying to fit in by being a violent person. The people she hung out with listened to gangster rap, and this was a sort of initiation'" (Liptak 2005).

Despite the allusion to gang culture in this quotation, its most important implication is that the juror believed the defendant was attempting to "fit in," and that this need for acceptance drove her to manifest as a "violent person." Furthermore, it suggests that the defendant's need for acceptance was simply part of being a "typical" adolescent — implying that the craving for social belonging, and the potential for criminal conduct that craving can produce, is an inherent feature of the teenage experience.

Conclusion: Toward Understanding Adolescent Crime

In many ways, all of these aspects of teenage crime can be accounted for by adolescents' developing brain processes, which cause them to experience powerful emotions that are not sufficiently tempered by an underdeveloped frontal lobe and its prefrontal cortex. These physiological conditions create a psychological and emotional environment highly conducive to impulsive, inexplicable acts — the kind that often manifest in adolescent criminal behavior with little or no prior warning. The crux of the issue is that, at present, there appears to be little that can be done to accelerate or alter these physiological processes, since they are a natural and necessary part of human growth. Adolescent brain development follows its own timetable, and no policy intervention can fundamentally change that.

To that end, perhaps greater sociological safeguards — largely in the form of personal, familial nurturing and consistent support — could help adolescents navigate their developing minds and bodies, the former of which may "function in ways that are significantly different from adults" (Reynolds 2007). For all practical purposes, however, implementing such safeguards on a systematic or global basis remains largely utopian. Until meaningful structural supports become a reality, adolescent crime rates may continue at their current levels, leaving policymakers, families, and communities to grapple with a problem whose roots lie in the very nature of human development.

References

Krueger, J.G. (2006). "Brain science offers insight to teen crime." ABQTrib. Retrieved from http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/dec/08/brain-science-offers-insight-teen-crime/

Liptak, A. (2005). "Jailed for life after crimes as teenagers." New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/national/03lifers.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

No author. (1990). "Teenagers have the highest crime rates." Race Matters. Retrieved from

Reynolds, J. (2007). "Crime and the teenage brain." The Monterey County Herald. Retrieved from

Styles, A. (2011). "Fears over the rise of teenage gangs." WA Today. Retrieved from http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/fears-over-the-rise-of-teenage-crime-gangs-20111111-1nbxm.html