Rational choice theory and juvenile delinquency

c h a p t e r 3

Individual Views of Delinquency: Choice and Trait CHAPTER OUTLINE

CHOICE THEORY

THE RATIONAL DELINQUENT Choosing Delinquent Acts Lifestyle and Delinquency Routine Activities Focus on Delinquency: Does Delinquency Pay?

CHOICE THEORY AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION General Deterrence What Does This Mean to Me? Does Punishment Work? Specific Deterrence Situational Crime Prevention Do Delinquents Choose Crime?

TRAIT THEORIES: BIOSOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEWS The Origins of Trait Theory Contemporary Trait Theory

BIOSOCIAL THEORIES OF DELINQUENCY Biochemical Factors Focus on Delinquency: Are You What You Eat? Neurological Dysfunction Focus on Delinquency: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Genetic Influences

PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF DELINQUENCY Psychodynamic Theory Behavioral Theory Cognitive Theory Focus on Delinquency: The Media and Delinquency

Personality and Delinquency Intelligence and Delinquency

CRITIQUING TRAIT THEORY VIEWS

TRAIT THEORY AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter you should:

1. Know the difference between choice and trait theories.

2. Understand the concept of criminal choice.

3. Be familiar with the concept of routine activities.

4. Be able to discuss the pros and cons of general deterrence.

5. Recognize what is meant by the term specific deterrence.

6. Understand the concept of situational crime prevention.

7. Know the biochemical, neurological, and genetic factors linked to delinquency.

8. Understand the psychodynamic model of delinquency.

9. Understand why, according to the behavioral perspective, watching violent media causes violent behaviors.

10. Be familiar with the term psychopath.

11. Recognize the issues linking intelligence to delinquency.

47

Co ur

te sy

o f C

N N

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

48 C H A P T E R 3

The Parsons case illustrates the view that many youthful offenders are not irrational or angry, but clever, intelligent, and calculating. Some delinquency experts believe that the decision to commit an illegal act is a product of an individual decision- making process that may be shaped by the personal characteristics of the decision maker. They reject the notion that delinquents are a “product of their environment.” But if social and economic factors alone determine behavior, how is it that many youths residing in dangerous neighborhoods live law-abiding lives? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than thirty-four million Americans live in poverty yet the vast majority do not become delinquents and criminals.1 Research indicates that relatively few youths in any population, even the most economically disadvantaged, actually become hard-core, chronic delinquents.2 The quality of neighborhood and family life may have little impact on the choices individuals make.3

Considering these data, some delinquency experts believe that the root cause of juvenile misbehavior must be found on the individual, and not the social, level.

Views of delinquency that focus on the individual can be divided into two cate- gories. One position, referred to as choice theory, suggests that offenders are rational decision makers who choose to engage in antisocial activity because they believe their actions will be beneficial. Whether they join a gang, steal cars, or sell drugs, their delinquent acts are motivated by the belief that crime can be a relatively risk- free way to better their situation, make money, have fun. They have little fear of getting caught. Some have fantasies of riches, and others may enjoy the excitement produced by criminal acts such as beating up someone or stealing a car.

The second view, referred to as trait theory, suggests that delinquent acts, espe- cially violent ones, are not rational choices but uncontrollable, irrational behaviors. Many forms of delinquency, such as substance abuse and violence, appear more impulsive than rational, and these behaviors may be inspired by aberrant physical or

In 2003, a Minnesota high school stu-

dent, Jeffrey Lee Parsons, was charged

in connection with spreading a version

of the “Blaster” virus. The virus targeted

a flaw in Microsoft’s Windows XP and

2000 operating systems, and infected

an estimated four hundred thousand

computers worldwide. In a twelve-page

complaint filed in federal court, Parsons

was charged with one count of “inten-

tionally causing and attempting to cause

damage to a protected computer.”

Described in the media as a heavy-

set loner who was depressed and angry,

Parsons refuted those assumptions dur-

ing a Today Show interview (accessible

on http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078578/):

Today: In cases like this, there are a lot of

quick, simple characterizations of the

accused given to the media—for exam-

ple, he was a loner, he didn’t have

friends, he was reckless, and so on.

How would you describe yourself?

Parsons: I’m the complete opposite of

the way I’ve been portrayed in the

press. I’m not a loner. I have a very

supportive close group of friends. I’m

not reckless, I don’t do drugs, smoke,

or drink. This is the first time I have

ever had a run-in with the law. It’s

hurtful to see the accounts of me. I’m

not depressed, embarrassed about my

weight, or a misfit.

VIEW THE CNN VIDEO CLIP OF THIS

STORY AND ANSWER RELATED CRITICAL

THINKING QUESTIONS ON YOUR JUVENILE

DELINQUENCY: THE CORE 2E CD.

choice theory Holds that youths will engage in delinquent and criminal behavior after weighing the consequences and benefits of their actions; delinquent behavior is a rational choice made by a motivated offender who perceives that the chances of gain outweigh any possible punishment or loss.

trait theory Holds that youths engage in delin- quent or criminal behavior due to aberrant physical or psychological traits that govern behavioral choices; delinquent actions are impulsive or instinctual rather than rational choices.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

psychological traits. Although some youths may choose to commit crime because they desire conventional luxuries and power, others may be driven by abnormalities such as hyperactivity, low intelligence, biochemical imbalance, or genetic defects.

Choice and trait theories are linked because they both focus on an individual’s mental processes and behavioral reactions. They suggest that each person reacts to environmental and social circumstances in a unique fashion. Faced with the same set of conditions, one person will live a law-abiding life while another will use antisocial or violent behavior to satisfy his or her needs. Choice theorists suggest that the delin- quent freely chooses antisocial behaviors to satisfy needs, while trait theorists argue that the choice of antisocial behavior is shaped by mental and physical traits.

CHOICE THEORY The first formal explanations of crime held that human behavior is a matter of choice. It was assumed that people had free will to choose their behavior and that those who violated the law were motivated by greed, revenge, survival, or hedonism. More than two hundred years ago, utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham argued that people weigh the consequences of their actions before deciding on a course of behavior.4 Their writings formed the core of what used to be called classical criminology and is now referred to as rational choice theory (or more simply choice theory).

Choice theory holds that the decision to violate the law comes after a careful weighing of the benefits and costs of criminal behaviors. Most potential law violators would cease their actions if the pain associated with a behavior outweighed the gain; conversely, law-violating behavior seems attractive if the rewards seem greater than the punishment.5

According to the choice view, youths who decide to become drug dealers compare the benefits, such as cash to buy cars and other luxury items, with the penalties, such as arrest followed by a long stay in a juvenile facility. If they believe that drug dealers are rarely caught, and even when caught avoid severe punishments, they are more likely to choose to become dealers than if they believe dealers are almost always caught and punished by lengthy prison terms. They may know or hear about crimi- nals who make a significant income from their illegal activities and want to follow in their footsteps.6 Put simply, to prevent crime, the pain of punishment must outweigh the benefit of illegal gain.7

THE RATIONAL DELINQUENT The view that delinquents choose to violate the law remains a popular approach to the study of delinquency. According to this view, delinquency is not merely a func- tion of social ills, such as lack of economic opportunity or family dysfunction. In reality, many youths from affluent families choose to break the law, and most indi- gent adolescents are law abiding. For example, at first glance drug abuse appears to be a senseless act motivated by grinding poverty and a sense of desperation. How- ever, economic hopelessness cannot be the motivating force behind the substance abuse of millions of middle-class users, many of whom plan to finish high school and go on to college. These kids are more likely to be motivated by the desire for physical gratification, peer group acceptance, and other social benefits. They choose to break the law because, despite the inherent risks, they believe that taking drugs and drinking provide more pleasure than pain. Their entry into substance abuse is facilitated by their perception that valued friends and family members endorse and encourage drug use and abuse substances themselves.8 Subscribers to the rational choice model believe the decision to commit a specific type of crime is a matter of personal decision making; hence, the term rational choice.

I N D I V I D U A L V I E W S O F D E L I N Q U E N C Y : C H O I C E A N D T R A I T 49

To read a selection from Cesare Beccaria’s On Crime and Punishment, click on Web Links under the Chapter Re- sources at http://cj.wadsworth. com/siegel_ jdcore2e.ht

tp :

To learn more about the causes of alcoholism, go to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Depen- dence, Inc. (NCADD), a group that advocates prevention, intervention, research, and treatment of alcoholism and other drug addictions, by clicking on Web Links under the Chapter Resources at http://cj.wadsworth.com/ siegel_jdcore2e.

ht tp

:

free will The view that youths are in charge of their own destinies and are free to make personal behavior choices unencumbered by environmental factors.

utilitarians Those who believe that people weigh the benefits and conse- quences of their future actions before deciding on a course of behavior.

classical criminology Holds that decisions to violate the law are weighed against possible punishments and to deter crime the pain of punishment must outweigh the benefit of illegal gain; led to graduated punishments based on seriousness of the crime (let the punishment fit the crime).

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

Choosing Delinquent Acts The focus of choice theory is on the act, not on the offender. The concepts of delin- quent and delinquency are considered separate: delinquents are youth who maintain the propensity to commit delinquent acts; delinquency is an event during which someone violates the criminal law.9 Even if youths have a delinquent propensity and are motivated to commit crimes, they may not do so if the opportunity to is restricted or absent. For example, they may want to break into a home but are fright- ened off by a security system, guard dog, or gun-toting owner. In contrast, the least- motivated adolescent may turn to crime if the rewards are very attractive, the chance of apprehension small, and the punishment tolerable. Why a child has the propensity to commit delinquent acts is an issue quite distinct from the reasons a delinquent decides to break into a particular house one day or to sell narcotics the next.

The decision to “choose” delinquency occurs when an offender decides to take the chance of violating the law after considering his or her situation (that is, need for money, opportunities for conventional success), values (conscience, need for peer approval), and situational factors (the likelihood of getting caught, the punishment if apprehended). Conversely, the decision to forgo law-violating behavior may be based on the perception that the benefits are no longer good or the probability of successfully completing a crime is less than the chance of being caught. For example, aging out may occur because as delinquents mature they begin to realize that the risks of crime are greater than the potential profits. The solution to crime, therefore, may be formulating policies that will cause potential delinquents to choose conven- tional behaviors.10 The fact that delinquency can provide benefits to adolescents— and what to do about this—is the subject of the following Focus on Delinquency feature.

Lifestyle and Delinquency Lifestyle also affects the decision to engage in delinquency. For example, adolescents who are granted a lot of time socializing with peers are more likely to engage in de- viant behaviors, especially if their parents are not around to supervise or control their behavior.11 Teenage boys may have the highest crime rates because they, rather than girls, have the freedom to engage in unsupervised socialization.12 Girls who are physically mature and have more freedom without parental supervision are the ones most likely to have the opportunity to engage in antisocial acts.13

If lifestyle influences choice, can providing kids with “character-building” activi- ties—such as a part-time job after school—reduce their involvement in delinquency? Research shows that adolescent work experience may actually increase antisocial activity rather than limit its occurrence. Kids who get jobs may be looking for an easy opportunity to acquire cash to buy drugs and alcohol; after-school jobs may attract teens who are more impulsive than ambitious.14 At work, the opportunity to socialize with deviant peers combined with lack of parental supervision increases criminal motivation.15 While some adults may think that providing teens with a job will reduce their criminal activity (“idle hands are the devil’s workshop”) many qual- ities of the work experience—autonomy, increased social status among peers, and increased income—may neutralize the positive effects of working. If providing jobs is to have any positive influence on kids, the jobs must in turn provide a learning experience and support academic achievement.16

Gangs and Choice The emergence of gangs, and their involvement in the drug trade shows how lifestyle can influence choice. Gang members are well-armed entre- preneurs seeking to cash in on a lucrative, albeit illegal, “business enterprise.” Gang leaders are surely “rational decision makers,” constantly processing information: Who are my enemies? What are the chances of getting caught? Where can I find a good lawyer?17 Gang members have been found to act like employers, providing

50 C H A P T E R 3

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

their associates with security and the know-how to conduct “business deals.” When Steven Levitt and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh studied the financial rewards of being in a drug gang, they found that despite enormous risks to their health, life, and freedom, the average gang members earned slightly more than what they could in the legiti- mate labor market (about $6 to $11 per hour).18 Why did they stay in the gang? They believed that there was a strong potential for future riches if they stayed in the drug business and earned a “management” position (gang leaders earned a lot more than the rank-and-file members). Being in a teenage drug gang was based on the perception of the potential for future gain versus the reality of conventional alterna- tives and opportunities.19 Teen gangs will be discussed further in chapter 8.

Routine Activities If the motivation to commit delinquent acts is a constant, why do delinquency rates rise and fall? Why are some areas more delinquency-ridden than others? To answer these questions, some choice theorists believe that attention must be paid to the opportunity to commit delinquent acts.20

According to routine activities theory, developed by Lawrence Cohen and Mar- cus Felson, the volume and distribution of predatory crimes (violent crimes against persons and crimes in which an offender attempts to steal an object directly from its holder) in a particular area and at a particular time is influenced by the interaction of three variables: the availability of suitable targets (such as homes containing easily saleable goods), the absence of capable guardians (such as homeowners, police, and security guards), and the presence of motivated offenders (such as unemployed teenagers)21 (see Figure 3.1 on page 54).

This approach gives equal weight to opportunity and propensity: the decision to violate the law is influenced by opportunity and the greater the opportunity, the greater the likelihood of delinquency.22

Lack of Capable Guardians Kids will commit crimes when they believe their actions will go undetected by guardians such as police, security guards, neigh- bors, teachers, or homeowners. They choose what they consider safe places to commit crimes and to buy and sell drugs.23

I N D I V I D U A L V I E W S O F D E L I N Q U E N C Y : C H O I C E A N D T R A I T 51

According to choice theory, juvenile offenders are rational decision makers who choose to engage in antisocial activity. Whether they join a gang, steal cars, or smoke pot, as the kids here are doing, their delinquent acts are motivated by the belief that crime can be a relatively risk-free way to better their situation, make money, and have fun.

© B

ill A

ro n/

Ph ot

oE di

t

routine activities theory The view that crime is a “normal” function of the routine activities of modern living; offenses can be expected if there is a motivated offender and a suitable target that is not protected by capable guardians.

predatory crimes Violent crimes against persons and crimes in which an offender attempts to steal an object directly from its holder.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

Research does show that crime levels are relatively low in neighborhoods where residents keep a watchful eye on their neighbors’ property.24 Delinquency rates trend upward as the number of adult caretakers (guardians) who are at home during the day decreases. With mothers at work and children in day care, homes are left un- guarded, becoming vulnerable targets. In our highly transient society, the traditional neighborhood, in which streets are monitored by familiar guardians such as family members, neighbors, and friends, has been vanishing and replaced by anonymous housing developments.25 Potential thieves look for these unguarded neighborhoods in order to plan their break-ins and burglaries.26

Suitable Targets The availability of suitable targets, such as DVD and CD players, cell phones, digital cameras, jewelry, and cash, will increase crime rates. Research has generally supported the fact that the more wealth a home contains, the more likely it is to be a crime target.

52 C H A P T E R 3

Does Delinquency Pay? The delinquent lifestyle fits well with people who organize their life around risk taking and partying. Delinquent acts provide money for drugs and are an ideal mechanism for displaying courage and fearlessness to one’s running mates. What could be a better way for kids to show how tough they are than being able to get into a gang fight with their bud- dies? Rather than creating overwhelming social problems, a delinquent way of life may be extremely beneficial to some kids, helping them overcome the problems and stresses they face in their daily lives.

According to sociologist Timothy Brezina, crime and delinquency help some achieve a sense of control or mastery over their environment. Adolescents in particular may find themselves feeling “out of control” because society limits their opportunities and resources. Antisocial behavior gives them the opportunity to exert control over their own lives and des- tinies by helping them to avoid situations they find uncom- fortable or repellant (for example, cutting school, running away from an abusive home) or obtain resources for desired activities and commodities (for example, stealing or selling drugs to buy stylish outfits).

Delinquent acts may help them boost their self-esteem by attacking, symbolically or otherwise, perceived enemies (for example, they vandalize the property of an adult who has given them grief). Drinking and drug taking may allow some people to ward off depression and compensate for a lack of positive experiences; they learn how to self-medicate themselves. Some who are angry at their mistreatment may turn to violence to satisfy a desire for revenge or retaliation.

Brezina found a great deal of evidence that people en- gage in antisocial acts in order to solve problems. The litera- ture on drug and alcohol abuse is replete with examples of research showing how people turn to substance abuse to increase their sense of personal power, to become more assertive, and to reduce tension and anxiety. Some kids em- brace deviant lifestyles, such as joining a gang, in order to

offend conventional society while at the same time compen- sating for their feelings of powerlessness or ordinariness. Engaging in risky behavior helps them feel alive and compe- tent. There is also evidence that antisocial acts can provide positive solutions to problems. Violent kids, for example, may have learned that being aggressive with others is a good means to control the situation and get what they want; counterattacks may be one means of controlling people who are treating them poorly.

Why do adolescents age out of crime? Although crime as a short-run problem-solving solution may be appealing to adolescents, it becomes less attractive as they mature and begin to appreciate the dangers of doing so. Going to a drunken frat party may sound appealing to sophomores who want to im- prove their social life, but the risks involved to safety and reputation make them off-limits to older grads. As people mature their thinking extends further into the future, and risky behavior becomes a threat to long-range plans.

CRITICAL THINKING According to Brezina, as people mature their thinking extends further into the future and risky behavior threatens long- range plans. Does this vision adequately explain the aging- out process? If so, why do some people continue to commit crime in their adulthood?

INFOTRAC COLLEGE EDITION RESEARCH Use “rational choice theory” as a key term on InfoTrac

College Edition in order to learn more about how kids might use planning to commit delinquent acts.

How do people learn to solve problems? To find out, go to InfoTrac College Edition and use “problem solving” as a subject guide.

Sources: Timothy Brezina, “Delinquent Problem Solving: An Interpre- tive Framework for Criminological Theory and Research,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:3–30 (2000); Andy Hochstetler, “Opportunities and Decisions: Interactional Dynamics in Robbery and Burglary Groups,” Criminology 39:737–763 (2001).

Focus on Delinquency

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

Delinquents do not like to travel to commit crimes, and look for suitable targets close to their homes.27 Familiarity with an area gives kids a ready knowledge of es- cape routes; this is referred to as their “awareness space.”

Motivated Offenders Routine activities theory also links delinquency rates to the number of kids in the population who are highly motivated to commit crime. If social forces increase the motivated population, then delinquency rates may rise. For example, if the number of teenagers in a given population exceeds the number of available part-time and after-school jobs, the supply of motivated offenders may increase.28 As the “crack epidemic” of the 1980s waned the delinquency rate dropped, because crack addicts are highly motivated offenders.

CHOICE THEORY AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION If delinquency is a rational choice and a routine activity, then delinquency preven- tion is a matter of convincing potential delinquents that they will be punished for committing delinquent acts, punishing them so severely that they never again com- mit crimes, or making it so difficult to commit crimes that the potential gain is not worth the risk. The first of these strategies is called general deterrence, the second specific deterrence, and the third situational crime prevention. Let’s look at each of these strategies in more detail.

General Deterrence The general deterrence concept holds that the choice to commit delinquent acts can be controlled by the threat of punishment. If people believe illegal behavior will result in severe sanctions, they will choose not to commit crimes.29 If kids believed that their illegal behavior would result in apprehension and punishment, then only the truly irrational would commit crime.30

A guiding principle of deterrence theory is that the more severe, certain, and swift the punishment, the greater the deterrent effect.31 Even if a particular delinquent act carries a very severe punishment, there will be relatively little deterrent effect if most people do not believe they will be caught. Conversely, even a mild sanction may deter

I N D I V I D U A L V I E W S O F D E L I N Q U E N C Y : C H O I C E A N D T R A I T 53

Why are some areas more crime ridden than others? It may be because of variations in the opportunity to commit crimes. Places that are unguarded may be more vulnerable to criminal activities. Crime may occur not only because a criminal decides to break the law, but also be- cause victims place themselves at risk and no one is around to protect them from harm.

© N

ic k

La cy

/S to

ck , B

os to

n

general deterrence Crime control policies that depend on the fear of criminal penalties, such as long prison sentences for violent crimes; the aim is to con- vince law violators that the pain outweighs the benefit of criminal activity.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

crime if people believe punishment is certain.32 So if the justice system can con- vince would-be delinquents that they will be caught—for example, by putting more police officers on the street—these youths may decide that delinquency simply does not pay.33

Deterrence and Delinquency Traditionally, juvenile justice authorities have been reluctant to incorporate deterrence-based punishments on the ground that they interfere with the parens patriae philosophy. Children are punished less severely than adults, limiting the power of the law to deter juvenile crime. However, during the 1990s the increase in teenage violence, gang activity, and drug abuse prompted a reevaluation of deterrence strategies. Some juvenile courts have shifted from an emphasis on treatment to an emphasis on public safety.34 Police began to focus on particular problems in their jurisdiction rather than to react after a crime occurred.35 They began to use aggressive tactics to deter membership in drug- trafficking gangs.36 Some police officers were sent into high schools undercover to identify and arrest student drug dealers.37

Some juvenile court judges became more willing to waive youths to adult courts.38 The number of offenders under age eighteen admitted to state prison more than doubled from thirty-four hundred in 1985 to seventy-four hundred in 1997, about 2 percent of new admissions in each of the thirteen years.39 In addition, legisla- tors have passed more restrictive juvenile codes, and the number of incarcerated juve- niles continues to increase. Adolescents are not even spared capital punishment; the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the use of the death penalty for youths sixteen years of age.40 These efforts seemed to have a beneficial effect: the overall delinquency rate declined as the threat of punishment increased.

Can Delinquency Be Deterred? On the surface, deterrence appears to have benefit, but there is reason to believe that the benefit is limited. Though delin- quency rates have declined during a period when deterrence measures are in vogue,

54 C H A P T E R 3

Figure 3.1 Routine Activities Theory Posits the Interaction of Three Factors

Lack of capable guardians • Police officers • Homeowners • Security systems

Motivated offenders • Teenage boys • Unemployed • Addict population

Suitable targets • Unlocked homes • Expensive cars • Easily transportable goods

Delinquency

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

that does not necessarily mean that kids were deterred from crime. As you may re- call, other social factors in play during the same period may have explained the drop, including lower rates of drug abuse, reduced teen pregnancy, and a strong economy.

Because deterrence strategies are based on the idea of a “rational” offender, they may not be effective when applied to young people. It is possible that punish- ment may bring defiance rather than deterrence in a teen population not known for its reasonableness. Minors tend to be less capable of making mature judgments, and many younger offenders are unaware of the content of juvenile legal codes. A deterrence policy (for example, mandatory waiver to the adult court for violent crimes) will have little effect on delinquency rates of kids who are not even aware these statutes exist.41 It seems futile, therefore, to try to deter delinquency through fear of legal punishment. Teens seem more fearful of being punished by their par- ents or of being the target of disapproval from their friends than they are of the police.42

It is also possible that for the highest-risk group of young offenders—teens living in economically depressed neighborhoods—the deterrent threat of formal sanctions may be irrelevant. Inner-city youngsters may not have internalized the norms that hold that getting arrested is wrong. They have less to lose if arrested; they have a lim- ited stake in society and are not worried about their future. They also may not con- nect their illegal behavior with punishment because they see many people committing crimes and not getting caught or being punished.

Research also shows that many juvenile offenders are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, a condition that might impair their decision-making ability.43

Similarly, juveniles often commit crimes in groups, a process called co-offending, and peer pressure can outweigh the deterrent effect of the law.

In summary, deterring delinquency through the fear of punishment seems to have worked during the past decade but it is also possible that the reduction in the delinquency rate was the result of other social factors. Deterrence may be of limited value in controlling delinquency because children may neither fully comprehend the seriousness of their acts nor appreciate their consequences.44

I N D I V I D U A L V I E W S O F D E L I N Q U E N C Y : C H O I C E A N D T R A I T 55

Can delinquency and drug abuse be deterred when so many teens consider it fun and socially acceptable? High school student Cathy, left, parties with other rave fans at an abandoned warehouse in Portland, Oregon. Oregon’s rave scene is an es- cape for teens, a worry for par- ents, and a worrisome challenge to law enforcement officials.

© 2

00 0

AP /W

id e

W or

ld P

ho to

s

co-offending Committing criminal acts in groups.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

Specific Deterrence It stands to reason that if delinquents truly are ratio- nal and commit crimes because they see them as ben- eficial, they will stop offending if they are caught and severely punished. What rational person would recidi- vate after being exposed to an arrest, court appear- ance, and incarceration in an unpleasant detention facility, with the promise of more to come? According to the concept of specific deterrence, if young offend- ers are punished severely the experience will convince them not to repeat their illegal acts. Juveniles are pun- ished by state authorities with the understanding that their ordeal will deter future misbehavior.

Although the association between punishment and desistance seems logical, there is little evidence that punitive measures alone deter future delin- quency. There are research studies that show that arrest and conviction may under some circum- stances lower the frequency of reoffending, a finding that supports specific deterrence.45 However, other studies indicate that punishment has little real effect on reoffending and in some instances may actually increase the likelihood that first-time offenders will commit new crimes (recidivate).46 Kids who are placed in a juvenile justice facility are just as likely to become adult criminals as those treated with greater leniency.47 In fact, a history of prior arrests, convic- tions, and punishments has proven to be the best predictor of rearrest among young offenders released from correctional institutions. Rather than deterring future offending, punishment may encourage it.48

Why does punishment encourage rather than reduce delinquency? According to some experts, institutionalization cuts youths off from prosocial supports in the community, making them more reliant on deviant peers. Incarceration may also diminish chances for successful employment, reducing access to legitimate opportu- nities. This might help explain why delinquency rates are increasing at the same time that incarceration rates are at an all-time high.

The experience of punishment itself may motivate some adolescents to reoffend. For example, the use of mandatory sentences for some crimes means that all youths who are found to have committed those crimes must be institutionalized; first of- fenders may then be treated the same as chronic recidivists. These novice offenders may be packed into overcrowded facilities with experienced violent juveniles and consequently suffer significant and irrevocable harm from their experience.

Punishment strategies may stigmatize kids and help lock offenders into a delin- quent career. Kids who are punished may also believe that the likelihood of getting caught twice for the same type of crime is remote: “Lightning never strikes twice in the same spot,” they may reason; no one is that unlucky.49

Although some researchers have found that punishment may reduce the fre- quency of future offending, the weight of the evidence suggests that time served has little impact on recidivism.50

Situational Crime Prevention According to choice theory, rational offenders weigh the potential gains of delin- quent acts and balance them with the potential losses (getting arrested, getting pun- ished). It stands to reason that if we can convince these rational decision makers that

56 C H A P T E R 3

What Does This Mean to Me?

Does Punishment Work? To some experts and pundits, if delinquency is punished severely kids will not risk committing delinquent acts. Con- sider this statement by Texas congressman Lamar Smith, an advocate of sending juveniles to adult court:

It is commonsense public policy when states pass laws that allow or require violent juveniles to be transferred to adult courts. I strongly believe that we can no longer tolerate young people who commit violent crimes simply because of their age. Young people have the ability to decide between right and wrong, as the vast majority of us do every day. But those youths who choose to prey on other juveniles, senior citizens, merchants, or homeowners will be held responsible. If that choice results in confinement in an adult prison system, perhaps youths who have a propensity to commit violent crimes will think twice before acting.

1. Do you think that sending kids to adult prisons will really deter others from committing crimes?

2. What do you recommend be done to stop or deter delinquency?

3. Do you think kids who commit crime really have the capacity to “think twice” before they act?

4. Can you remember ever being in a situation where you felt forced to break the law because of peer pressure, when being afraid of the consequences had no real effect on your behavior?

Source: Lamar Smith, “Sentencing Youths to Adult Correctional Facili- ties Increases Public Safety,” Corrections Today 65:20 (April 2003).

specific deterrence Sending convicted offenders to secure incarceration facilities so that punishment is severe enough to convince them not to repeat their criminal activity.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

their illegal activities are risky, the potential gain is minimal, and the opportunity for success is limited, then they will choose not to commit crime. This is the logic behind the measures that have become known collectively as situational crime pre- vention. These strategies are designed to make it so difficult to commit delinquent acts that would-be offenders will be convinced the risks are greater than the re- wards.51 Rather than deterring or punishing individuals, they aim to reduce opportunities to commit delinquent acts. This can be accomplished by:

■ Increasing the effort to commit delinquent acts ■ Increasing the risks of delinquent activity ■ Reducing the rewards attached to delinquent acts ■ Increasing the shame of committing a delinquent act

Increasing the effort of delinquency might involve target-hardening techniques, such as placing unbreakable glass on storefronts. Some successful target-hardening efforts include installing a locking device on cars that prevents drunken drivers from starting the vehicle (the Breath Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device).52 Access can be controlled by locking gates and fencing yards.53 Facilitators of crime can be controlled by banning the sale of spray paint to adolescents in an effort to cut down on graffiti, or putting ID photos on credit cards to reduce their value if stolen.

Increasing the risks of delinquency might involve improving lighting, creating neighborhood watch programs, controlling building exits, installing security systems, or increasing the number of security officers and police patrols. The installation of street lights may convince would-be burglars that their entries will be seen and reported.54

Closed-circuit TV cameras have been shown to reduce the amount of car theft from parking lots while also reducing the need for higher-cost security personnel.55

Reducing the rewards of delinquency could include strategies such as making car radios removable so they can be kept in the home at night, marking property so it is more difficult to sell when stolen, and having gender-neutral phone listings to dis- courage obscene phone calls. Tracking systems help police locate and return stolen vehicles. Increasing shame might include efforts to publish the names of some offenders in the local papers.

Hot Spots and Crackdowns One type of situational crime prevention effort targets locales that are known to be the scene of repeated delinquent activity. By focusing on a hot spot—for example, a shopping mall, public park, or housing project—law enforcement efforts can be used to crack down on persistent youth crime. For example, a police task force might target gang members who are street- level drug dealers by using undercover agents and surveillance cameras in known drug-dealing locales. Unfortunately, these efforts have not often proven to be suc- cessful mechanisms for lowering crime and delinquency rates.56 Crackdowns seem to be an effective short-term strategy, but their effect begins to decay once the initial shock effect wears off.57 Crackdowns also may displace illegal activity to areas where there are fewer police.

Although these results are discouraging, delinquency rates seem to be reduced when police officers combine the use of aggressive problem solving with community improvement techniques (increased lighting, cleaned vacant lots) to fight particular crimes in selected places.58 For example, a recent initiative by the Dallas Police De- partment to aggressively pursue truancy and curfew enforcement resulted in lower rates of gang violence.59

These three methods of delinquency prevention and control are summarized in Concept Summary 3.1.

Do Delinquents Choose Crime? Though the logic of choice theory seems plausible, before we can accept its proposi- tions several important questions need to be addressed. First, why do some poor and

I N D I V I D U A L V I E W S O F D E L I N Q U E N C Y : C H O I C E A N D T R A I T 57

situational crime prevention A crime prevention method that relies on reducing the opportunity to commit criminal acts by making them more difficult to perform, reducing their reward, and increas- ing their risks.

hot spot A particular location or address that is the site of repeated and frequent criminal activity.

crackdown A law enforcement operation that is designed to reduce or eliminate a particular criminal activity through the application of aggres- sive police tactics, usually involv- ing a larger than usual contingent of police officers.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

desperate kids choose to break the law whereas others who live in the same neigh- borhoods manage to live law-abiding lives? Conversely, why do affluent suburban youths choose to break the law when they have everything to lose and little to gain?

Choice theorists also have difficulty explaining seemingly irrational crimes such as vandalism, arson, and even drug abuse. To say a teenager painted swastikas on a synagogue after making a “rational choice” seems inadequate. Is it possible that vio- lent adolescents—such as Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, who on April 20, 1999, killed thirteen and wounded twenty-one classmates at Columbine High School— were “rational” decision makers, or was their behavior the product of twisted minds? To assume they made a “rational choice” to kill their classmates seems ill advised.

In summary, choice theory helps us understand criminal events and victim pat- terns. However, the question remains, why are some adolescents motivated to com- mit crime whereas others in similar circumstances remain law abiding? Why do some kids choose crime over legal activities? The remaining sections of this chapter present some possible explanations.

TRAIT THEORIES: BIOSOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEWS Choice theorists would have us believe that young people select crime after weighing the benefits of delinquent over legal behavior. For example, teens may decide to commit a robbery if they believe they will make a good profit, have a good chance of getting away, and even if caught, stand little chance of being severely punished. Conversely, they will forgo criminal activities if they see a lot of cops around and come to the conclusion they will get caught and punished. Their choice is both rational and logical.

But a number of experts think this model is incomplete. They believe it is sim- plistic to infer that all youths choose crime simply because the advantages outweigh the risks. If that were the case, how could profitless crimes such as violence or van- dalism be explained? These experts argue that behavioral choices are a function of an individual’s mental and physical makeup. Most law-abiding youths have traits that keep them within conventional society. In contrast, youths who choose to engage in antisocial behavior manifest abnormal mental and physical traits that influence their choices. When they commit crime, their behavior is shaped by these uncontrollable mental and physical traits.

The source of behavioral control, therefore, is one of the main differences be- tween trait and choice theories. Although both views focus on the individual, the choice theorist views delinquents as rational and self-serving decision makers. The trait theorist views their “decisions” as a by-product of uncontrollable personal traits. To a choice theorist, reducing the benefits of crime by increasing the likelihood of

✔ Checkpoints

58 C H A P T E R 3

Delinquency Prevention Methods

Method Central Premise Technique General deterrence Kids will avoid delinquency Make punishment swift,

if they fear punishment. severe, and certain.

Specific deterrence Delinquents who are punished Use harsh punishments, severely will not repeat their such as a stay in secure offenses. detention.

Situational crime Make delinquency more Harden targets, use prevention difficult and less profitable. surveillance, street lighting.

Concept Summary 3.1

To get detailed information on the Columbine tragedy, click on Web Links under the Chapter Resources at http:// cj.wadsworth.com/siegel_ jdcore2e.ht

tp :

Checkpoints ✔ Choice theory maintains that

delinquency is rational and can be prevented by punishment that is sufficiently severe and certain.

✔ Delinquents who choose crime must evaluate the characteristics of a target to determine its suitability.

✔ Routine activities theory suggests that delinquent acts are a function of motivated offenders, lack of capable guardians, and availability of suitable targets.

✔ General deterrence models are based on the fear of punishment. If punishments are severe, swift, and certain, then would-be delinquents would choose not to risk breaking the law.

✔ Specific deterrence aims at reduc- ing crime through the application of severe punishments. Once offend- ers experience these punishments they will be unwilling to repeat their delinquent activities.

✔ Situational crime prevention efforts are designed to reduce or redirect crime by making it more difficult to profit from illegal acts.

To quiz yourself on this material, go to questions 3.1–3.10 on the Juvenile

Delinquency: The Core 2e Web site.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

punishment will lower the crime rate. Because trait theorists question whether delin- quents are rational decision makers, they focus more on the treatment of abnormal mental and physical conditions as a method of delinquency reduction. In the next sections, the primary components of trait theory are reviewed.

The Origins of Trait Theory The first attempts to discover why criminal tendencies develop focused on biological traits present at birth. This school of thought is generally believed to have originated with the Italian physician Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909).60 Known as the father of criminology, Lombroso developed the theory of criminal atavism.61 He found that delinquents manifest physical anomalies that make them similar to our primitive ancestors. These individuals are throwbacks to an earlier stage of human evolution. Because of this link, the “born criminal” has such traits as enormous jaws, strong canines, a flattened nose, and supernumerary teeth (double rows, as in snakes). Lom- broso made statements such as: “[I]t was easy to understand why the span of the arms in criminals so often exceeds the height, for this is a characteristic of apes, whose forelimbs are used in walking and climbing.”62

Contemporaries of Lombroso refined the notion of a physical basis of crime. Raf- faele Garofalo (1851–1934) shared Lombroso’s belief that certain physical characteristics indicate a criminal nature.63 Enrico Ferri (1856–1929), a student of Lombroso, accepted the biological approach to explaining criminal activity, but he attempted to interweave social factors into his explanation.64 The English criminologist Charles Goring (1870–1919) challenged the validity of Lombroso’s research and claimed instead that delinquent behaviors bore a significant relationship to “defective intelligence.”65 Conse- quently, he advocated that criminality could best be controlled by regulating the repro- duction of families exhibiting abnormal traits such as “feeblemindedness.”66

The early views that portrayed delinquent behavior as a function of a single biological trait had a significant impact on American criminology; biocriminolo- gists helped develop a science of “criminal anthropology.”67 Eventually, these views evoked criticism for their unsound methodology. Many trait studies used captive offender populations and failed to compare experimental subjects with control groups.68 These methodological flaws make it impossible to determine if biological

I N D I V I D U A L V I E W S O F D E L I N Q U E N C Y : C H O I C E A N D T R A I T 59

Though choice theory seems logical, it leaves a number of questions unanswered: Why do some poor and desperate kids choose to break the law when others manage to live law- abiding lives? Conversely, why do affluent suburban youths, such as those shown here, choose to break the law when they have everything to lose and little to gain?

© To

ny F

re em

an /P

ho to

Ed it

For a complete list of the crime-producing physical traits identified by Lombroso, click on Web Links under the Chapter Resources at http:// cj.wadsworth.com/siegel_ jdcore2e.ht

tp :

criminal atavism The idea that delinquents manifest physical anomalies that make them biologically and physiologically similar to our primitive ancestors, savage throwbacks to an earlier stage of human evolution.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

traits produce delinquency. It is equally plausible that police are more likely to arrest the mentally and physically abnormal. By the middle of the twentieth century, bio- logical theories had fallen out of favor.

Contemporary Trait Theory For most of the twentieth century, most delinquency research focused on social fac- tors such as poverty and family life. However, a small group of researchers kept alive the biological approach.69 Some embraced sociobiology, a perspective suggesting that behavior will adapt to the environment in which it evolved.70 Creatures of all species are influenced by their innate need to survive and dominate others. Sociobiology revived interest in a biological basis for crime. If biological (genetic) and psychologi- cal (mental) makeup controls all human behavior, it follows that a person’s genes should determine whether he or she chooses law-violating or conventional behavior.71

Trait theorists argue that a combination of personal traits and environmental influences produce individual behavior patterns. People with pathological traits, such as abnormal personality or a low IQ, may have a heightened risk for crime over the life course.72 This risk is elevated by environmental stresses such as poor family life, educational failure, and exposure to delinquent peers. The reverse may also apply: a supportive environment may counteract adverse biological and psychologi- cal traits.73

According to contemporary trait theorists, by themselves individual deficits do not cause delinquency. However, possessing suspect individual traits may make a child more susceptible to the delinquency-producing factors in the environment. For example, an adolescent suffering from a learning disability may have an increased risk of school failure; those who fail at school are at risk to commit delinquent acts. Learning disabilities alone, therefore, are not a cause of delinquency and only present a problem when they produce school failure. Programs to help learning-disabled kids achieve in school will prevent later delinquent involvements.

Today trait theory can be divided into two separate branches: the first, most often called biosocial theory, assumes that the cause of delinquency can be found in a child’s physical or biological makeup, and the second points the finger at psycho- logical traits and characteristics.

BIOSOCIAL THEORIES OF DELINQUENCY The first branch of trait theory—biosocial theory—focuses on the association be- tween biological makeup, environmental conditions, and antisocial behaviors. Most research efforts are concentrated in three areas: biochemical factors, neurological dysfunction, and genetic influences.

Biochemical Factors This area of research concerns the suspected relationship between antisocial behavior and biochemical makeup.74 One view is that body chemistry can govern behavior and personality, including levels of aggression and depression.75 For example, exposure to lead in the environment and subsequent lead ingestion has been linked to antisocial behaviors.76 Exposure to the now banned PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls), a chemi- cal once used in insulation materials, has been shown to negatively influence brain functioning and intelligence levels.77

There is evidence that a child’s diet may influence his or her behavior through its impact on body chemistry. For example, research shows that persistent abnormality in the way the brain metabolizes glucose can be linked to later involvement with substance abuse.78 The association between diet and crime is the subject of the fol- lowing Focus on Delinquency.

60 C H A P T E R 3

biosocial theory The view that both thought and behavior have biological and social bases.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

Hormonal Levels Antisocial behavior allegedly peaks in the teenage years because hormonal activity is then at its greatest level. It is possible that increased levels of testosterone are responsible for excessive violence among teenage boys. Ado- lescents who experience more intense moods, anxiety, and restlessness also have the highest crime rates.79 Research has shown that hormonal sensitivity may begin very early in life if the fetus is exposed to abnormally high levels of testosterone. This may

I N D I V I D U A L V I E W S O F D E L I N Q U E N C Y : C H O I C E A N D T R A I T 61

Are You What You Eat? Stephen Schoenthaler has conducted a number of studies that indicate a significant association between diet and ag- gressive behavior patterns. In some cases, the relationship is direct; in others, a poor diet may compromise individual functioning, which in turn produces aggressive behavior responses. For example, a poor diet may inhibit school per- formance, and children who fail at school are at risk for delinquent behavior and criminality.