Juvenile Delinquency

1

Juvenile delinquency is the participation of illegal behavior by minors. A Juvenile
delinquent is a person, who is considered as minor (usually below 18), has found to
have committed a crime and may not be sentenced as an adult. However, Depending
on the type and severity of the offense committed, it is possible for persons under 18 to
be charged and tried as adults.
It may be a simple task to define “Juvenile Delinquency”, but explaining which causes it
is one that needs deeper thinking and studies. There are different theories that have
contributed towards the understanding of juvenile delinquency. These theories may be
categorized into three: biological, psychological, and sociological theories.
Biological theories revolve around the idea that individuals are predisposed to commit
crime. Under this grouping is the Positivism proposed by Cesare Lambroso. Positivism
stated that individuals inherited certain biochemical and genetic factors that led them to
commit crimes. Furthermore, the theory stated that criminals tend to have certain
physical features that are considered a predisposition to commit crimes (Jones, 2007).
Another biological theory is the XYY theory, which states that genetic abnormalities
within the chromosomes can lead to violent and criminal behavior. However, this
behavior is rare and may not be sufficient when predicting criminal behavior in
individuals (Jones, 2007).
Psychological theories focus on the individuals conditioning processes. There are two
major types of psychological theories: psychoanalytic theory and the social learning
theory. The psychoanalytic theory is based on Freud's components: id, ego, and
superego, where the id is the drive for immediate gratification and can explain
delinquency acts such as shoplifting. Likewise, the traumatic experiences during early
childhood can prevent the ego and superego from developing properly (Jones, 2007).
On the other hand, the social learning theory is based upon how an individual conforms
and accepts the rules, laws, and mores of society. The behavior of the individual may
be When there are positive role models within the home and community, the individual
is able to learn positive ways of achieving goals. When there is violence in the home,
the individual learns that violence is the only available way of coping with frustrations.
This means that the more positive the environment a child is placed in, the more likely
s/he is able to conform to society and become a nondelinquent (Champion, 2004).
2


The sociological theories of juvenile delinquency include the strain theory, labeling
theory, and social control theory. While there are other forms of sociological theory,
these have proven to be the most convincing. The strain theory states that when an
individual has goals but is unable to achieve the goals set before them in a legitimate
way, the individual will find illegitimate ways of achieving his/her goals (TTU, 2005).
There are five modes of adaptation that people may show, when dealing with the strain
theory:
1. Conformity - person accepts the goals and means to achieve the goals set by society.
2. Innovation - individual accepts the goal but uses illegitimate means to achieve goal.
3. Ritualism - individual that rejects goals but will work towards lower standard goals
that have been approved.
4. Retreatism - person who rejects both the goals and the means.
5. Rebellion - person who, in a sense, creates his/her own society (Merton, 2005).
The labeling theory focuses on defining an individual as a criminal or non-criminal.
When a person is labeled a criminal by the justice system, that person begins to believe
that s/he really is a criminal and identifies her/himself with that identity. Another driving
factor of the labeling theory is that individuals will look for the types of reactions that
their behavior receives from others. Once an individual has been labeled, s/he becomes
a social outcast and begins to rebel, in order to live up to his/her identifying label
(Labeling, 2005).
The social bond theory, also known as social control theory, was devised by Travis
Hirschi in the 1960s. There are several different bonds that an individual must make that
will determine whether or not s/he will commit criminal offenses. The first one is an
attachment, meaning that the socialization of an individual depends on an individual's
interest in another human being (Hirschi, 2005). The second one is a commitment,
meaning that a lack of commitment towards mores and social laws can lead to
delinquent behavior. The third bond that must be made is involvement. Hirschi believed
that an individual who participated in positive activities would not have the time to
3

commit criminal acts (Hirschi, 2005). The fourth and final bond that must be made is
belief. When a person does not live in an area that holds the same values or when s/he
believes the law is unfair, one tends to rebel and commit criminal acts (Hirschi, 2005).
There is not one set answer for why juveniles commit crime. There must be an
understanding from the biological, psychological, and sociological approaches. Once
these theories are examined and applied, an answer can be provided to each juvenile
delinquent as each case is unique.
The juvenile court and its philosophy of treating minors who violate the criminal law
differently than adults is barely a century old. Historically, juvenile criminals were treated
the same as adult criminals.
The Law Prior to the Creation of the Juvenile Court
Punishment was the central criminal law philosophy in English common law. A
conclusive presumption that children under seven could not form criminal intent
eliminated the youngest from the criminal justice system. Children between the ages of
seven and fourteen were presumed incompetent to form the requisite criminal intent; the
prosecutor, however, could rebut that presumption by demonstrating that the child knew
the difference between right and wrong. Children over age fourteen were presumed to
have the capacity to form criminal intent. There were no special courts for children, and
they were treated as adult criminals. Minors were arrested, held in custody, and tried
and sentenced by a court that had discretion to order the child imprisoned in the same
jail as adult criminals. Although children received the same punishment as adults, they
were not provided with many of the due process protections accorded adult criminals.
For instance, minors did not have a right to "bail, indictment by grand jury, [and] right to
a public trial" (Conward, p. 41).
Although the early American colonies adopted the English common laws regarding child
criminals, from 1825 until 1899 several reform movements initiated significant changes
both in philosophy and in treatment of juvenile delinquents. Quaker reformers spurred
the New York Legislature in 1824 to pass legislation creating a House of Refuge, which
separated poor children and juvenile delinquents from adult criminals. The goal of the
House of Refuge movement was both to prevent predelinquents from becoming
criminals and to reform those who had already committed crimes. The judge had
4

discretion to determine which juvenile delinquents might properly benefit from the
House of Refuge; child criminals unlikely to reform were maintained in adult prisons.
The First Juvenile Court
Progressive reformers in Illinois persuaded the legislature to pass the 1899 Illinois
Juvenile Court Act creating America's first juvenile court. The act adopted the early
English common law parens patriae philosophy in providing that "the care, custody and
discipline of a child shall approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given
by its parents." Several unique features characterized the early juvenile court. First,
because reformation was the goal, the system focused more on the individual child
rather than on the nature of the criminal offense. Second, because the time within which
reformation could be accomplished varied with the child, indeterminate sentences often
exceeded the determinate sentences that adult criminals received for committing the
identical criminal act. Third, juvenile delinquents were separated from adult criminals
because they were different in kind. Adult criminals were morally blameworthy; children
were merely the products of their environment and therefore retributive punishment was
not warranted. Fourth, because juvenile court proceedings were not criminal, children
were not entitled to the full panoply of due process protections accorded adult criminals.
Informality permitted the court to consider all facts relevant to determining the child's
reformation plan. Petitions replaced criminal complaints, summons replaced warrants,
custody replaced arrest, detention replaced confinement, initial hearings replaced
arraignments, and delinquency replaced conviction. Fifth, juvenile courts had broad
discretion to fashion innovative rehabilitation programs not always available in adult
courts, such as release upon informal voluntary probation conditions. Sixth, technical
evidentiary rules were inapplicable in juvenile court because they impeded the judge
from determining all facts necessary to determine the individualized treatment
necessary to rehabilitate the minor.
Although the goals of the juvenile court were laudable, many historians have bemoaned
the system's realities. In 1970 the harshest critic, Sanford Fox, termed the reformers'
legislation "a colossal failure" (p. 1224). It became apparent that the informal
procedures and almost unbridled discretion of juvenile court judges often supplied
minors with less-fair procedures and treatment than adults received. In a famous 1839
Pennsylvania case, Ex parte Crouse, the court expressed the general view of American
courts that because the goal of juvenile justice is rehabilitation, not punishment, the due
5

process protections afforded adult criminals need not be provided to juveniles: "The
House of Refuge is not a prison, but a school. Where reformation, and not punishment
is the end" the formalities of the criminal court are not required. In addition, the juvenile
court's goal of individualized treatment often lacked objective criteria and conflicted with
notions of justice. By the 1960s critics spoke of the demise of the juvenile court, and
they raised questions about the effect on juveniles of the lack of due process
procedures and protection of individual rights. (DEWEY G. CORNELL, 2002).
Despite this similarity, conflict theory and labeling theory are vastly different. The former
maintains that a small number of wealthy and powerful individuals control a
disproportionate share of society's resources and control the institutions that reinforce
their own power and wealth. This causes marginalized groups that are denied access to
such resources to turn to crime seeing no route of conventional access to upward
mobility.

Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and
criminal behavior. It stems from the work of W.I. Thomas who, in 1928, wrote, "If men
define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."
Labeling theory begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal.
Definitions of criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of
laws and the interpretation of those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions.
Deviance is therefore not a set of characteristics of individuals or groups, but rather it is
a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants and the context in which
criminality is being interpreted.
In order to understand the nature of deviance itself, we must first understand why some
people are tagged with a deviant label and others are not. Those who represent forces
of law and order and those who enforce the boundaries of proper behavior, such as the
police, court officials, experts, and school authorities, provide the main source of
labeling. By applying labels to people, and in the process creating categories of
deviance, these people are reinforcing the power structure of society.

6

Many of the rules that define deviance and the contexts in which deviant behavior is
labeled as deviant are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older
people for younger people, and by ethnic minorities for minority groups. In other words,
the more powerful and dominant groups in society create and apply deviant labels to the
subordinate groups. For example, many children engage in activities such as breaking
windows, stealing fruit from other people‟s trees, climbing into other people‟s yards, or
playing hooky from school. In affluent neighborhoods, these acts may be regarded by
parents, teachers, and police as innocent aspects of the process of growing up. In poor
areas, on the other hand, these same activities might be seen as tendencies towards
juvenile delinquency.

Once a person is labeled as deviant, it is extremely difficult to remove that label. The
deviant person becomes stigmatized as a criminal or deviant and is likely to be
considered, and treated, as untrustworthy by others. The deviant individual is then likely
to accept the label that has been attached, seeing himself or herself as deviant, and act
in a way that fulfills the expectations of that label. Even if the labeled individual does not
commit any further deviant acts than the one that caused them to be labeled, getting rid
of that label can be very hard and time-consuming. For example, it is usually very
difficult for a convicted criminal to find employment after release from prison because of
their label as ex-criminal. They have been formally and publicly labeled a wrongdoer
and are treated with suspicion likely for the remainder of their lives.

Critiques of Labeling Theory

One critique of labeling theory is that is emphasizes the interactive process of labeling
and ignores the processes that lead to the deviant acts. Such processes might include
differences in socialization, attitudes, and opportunities.

7

A second critique of labeling theory is that it is still not clear whether or not labeling
actually has the effect of increasing deviant behavior. Delinquent behavior tends to
increase following conviction, but is this the result of labeling itself as the theory
suggests? It is very difficult to say, since many other factors may be involved, including
increased interaction with other delinquents and learning new criminal opportunities.
In contrast, labeling theory maintains that most efforts to control crime actually increase
crime. This is because individuals who are arrested, prosecuted, and punished are
labeled as criminals. As one sociologist explains, "Other then view and treat these
people as criminals, and this increases the likelihood of subsequent crime" for a number
of reasons like employers being unwilling to hire a "criminal" (Crime, 2009, p. 1)
(Crossman).

Conflict theory is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the
social and economic forces operating within society. The criminal justice system and
criminal law are thought to be operating on behalf of rich and powerful social elites, with
resulting policies aimed at controlling the poor. The criminal justice establishment aims
at imposing standards of morality and good behavior created by the powerful on the
whole of society. Focus is on separating the powerful from have nots who would steal
from others and protecting themselves from physical attacks. In the process the legal
rights of poor folks might be ignored. The middle class are also co-opted; they side with
the elites rather the poor, thinking they might themselves rise to the top by supporting
the status quo.
Thus, street crimes, even minor monetary ones are routinely punished quite severely,
while large scale financial and business crimes are treated much more leniently. Theft
of a television might receive a longer sentence than stealing millions through illegal
business practices. William Chambliss, in a classic essay. The Saints and the
Roughnecks,� compared the outcomes for two groups of adolescent misbehavers. The
first, a lower class group of boys, was hounded by the local police and labeled by
teachers as delinquents and future criminals, while the upper-middle class boys were
equally deviant, but their actions were written off as youthful indiscretions and learning
experiences. (Criminal Theory: Conflict Theory, 2005)
8

CASE STUDIES of JUVENILE DELINGQUENCY No. 1:
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN LEBANON
Among the many paradoxes that exit today in post-war Lebanon is that, despite rapid
growth and development, huge sectors of Lebanese society suffer indescribable
poverty. (It should be noted in this respect that about one-third or 30 percent of the
residents in Lebanon are living below the poverty level, and 7.25 percent of all
Lebanese are living in utter and total destitution. The majority of these poor individuals
tend to be part of the working class and employees of the public sector, as well as small
farmers and those made homeless by the 1975-1990 civil war). One direct result of this
dreary reality is the increasing number of “children of the streets”, who eventually
become juvenile delinquents.
According to the Lebanese Union for the Protection of Juvenile Delinquents,
2,995 minors were accused of criminal offenses in 1997. Of the 1,086 convictions,
almost 400 children were sent to prison or reform schools. 250 to 300 are in custody at
any one time. (Major problems include low age of criminal responsibility, existence and
length of pre-trial custody, non-availability of legal assistance and lack of health and
education facilities for young detainees. The juvenile judiciary system suffers from lack
of magistrates specialized in juvenile matters. Also, there is lack of coordination
between judges, lawyers and social workers, preventive delinquency measures and
inadequate follow-up procedures).
Among the many factors driving children into the streets are the following:
• The absence of mandatory, free education at the elementary and secondary
levels. With school fees so high, families with very limited income cannot afford a formal
education for their children, or even afford to send them to vocational trade schools.
Thus, there are few options remaining for the youth, and the street is one such option.
Studies show that 63 percent of juvenile delinquents can neither read nor write and 37
percent of them have only elementary level academic abilities.
• In the poorer sectors of society, families sometimes abandon their role of
providing direction and guidance to their children because the burden of sheer survival
outweighs all other concerns. The children are forced to find work and in turn become
9

economically self reliant, thereby finding it unnecessary to heed any direction their
families may attempt to provide for them. Instead of gaining moral values from their
families, such misguided youth instead turn to movies on television and in the cinema,
which are saturated with crime, violence, drugs, and sex and exhibit a total disregard for
any and all social and familial values and responsibilities.
• Frequent relocation seems to be yet another cause for instability in the lives of
the youth who end up on the streets of Lebanon, especially when their families move
from the rural communities to the bigger cities, suddenly exposing their children to the
dazzling and sometimes overwhelming life of the city.
• The Lebanese war (1975-1990) gave birth to a unique psychological state of
mind, one that is immersed in anger and resentment toward society and nation. The
children of the streets found, in the many years of war, an outlet for expressing their
frustration, and they revolted against all accepted social standards. By going out into the
streets, they felt, for the first time, in charge of their destiny, especially the youth who
used the chaos of the war to rob and loot and who were able to amass sizeable fortunes
were able to amass sizeable fortunes which could be spent freely and without much
thought. (Dr. Elias M. Choueiri, 2004).
CASE STUDIES of JUVENILE DELINGQUENCY No. 2:
A Case Study of the Effect of Individualistic Tendencies on Juvenile Delinquency
made on Male and Female Students of Shiraz was done to explore the correlation
between individualistic tendencies and the rate of delinquency among the female and
male students of four high schools in Shiraz. The data for this research was collected by
survey method and the questionnaire designed by the researcher. The results show that
there is a significant positive correlation between individualistic tendencies and juvenile
delinquency; that is the higher the level of individualistic values and attitudes in the
juvenile, the more he is likely to commit deviant behaviors. One of the primary and
negative aspects of individualism is the exclusive concentration of the individual on
personal needs and feeling no attachment towards others. This leads to a kind of
selfishness, which can instigate deviant behaviors in the juveniles (Sweeney, 2011).
Other studies are in line with these results (Ngo and Lee, 2007; Sweeny 2011, Rothwell
and Hawdon, 2008, Thao and Stockdale, 2005). In addition, the regression shows that
10

%11 of the changes of juvenile delinquency are explained by the variable of
individualistic tendencies. Since few studies have been done in relation to the subject of
individualistic attitudes and its effect on social deviances, it is hoped that this research
and its result can help researchers in leading more studies on this ground (Bijan
Khajehnoori, 2013).
Crimes Related To Economy and Economic Activities
Crimes related to economy and economic activities pertain to illegal acts in which
offenders' principal motivation appears to be economic gains or financial returns. Some
examples of which are Tax Evasion, Smuggling and Money Laundering.
Tax evasion is using illegal means to avoid paying taxes or reduce the
payment of taxes legitimately owed. Typically, tax evasion schemes involve an
individual or corporation misrepresenting their income to the Internal Revenue
Service. Misrepresentation may take the form either of underreporting income,
inflating deductions, or hiding money and its interest altogether in offshore
accounts.
Individuals involved in illegal enterprises often engage in tax evasion because
reporting their true personal incomes would serve as an admission of guilt and
could result in criminal charges. Individuals who try to report these earnings as
coming from a legitimate source can face money laundering charges.
Proof of the crime requires first proving the attendant circumstance that an
unpaid tax liability exists. Second, the prosecution must prove some
affirmative act by the defendant to evade or attempt to evade a tax. Third,
prosecutors most show that the defendant possessed the specific intent to
evade a known legal duty to pay. To convict, the jury must find the defendant
guilty of each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Smuggling is the illegal transportation of goods or people, such as out of a
building, into a prison, or across an international border, in violation of
applicable laws or other regulations.
11

There are various motivations to smuggle. These include the participation in
illegal trade, such as in the drug trade, in illegal immigration or illegal
emigration, tax evasion, providing contraband to a prison inmate, or the theft
of the items being smuggled. Examples of non-financial motivations include
bringing banned items past a security checkpoint (such as airline security) or
the removal of classified documents from a government or corporate office.
In smuggling, concealment can involve concealing the smuggled goods, or go as
far as hiding the whole transport. Avoiding border checks, such as by small ships,
private airplanes, through overland smuggling routes, smuggling tunnels and even small
submersibles. This also applies for illegally passing a border oneself, for illegal
immigration or illegal emigration. In many parts of the world, particularly the Gulf of
Mexico, the smuggling vessel of choice is the go-fast boat.
Submitting to border checks with the goods or people hidden in a vehicle or between
(other) merchandise, or the goods hidden in luggage, in or under clothes, inside the
body (see body cavity search, balloon swallower and mule), etc. Many smugglers fly on
regularly scheduled airlines. A large number of suspected smugglers are caught each
year by customs worldwide. Goods and people are also smuggled across seas hidden
in containers, and overland hidden in cars, trucks, and trains. A related topic is illegally
passing a border oneself as a stowaway. The high level of duty levied on alcohol and
tobacco in Britain has led to large-scale smuggling from France to the UK through the
Channel Tunnel. The combination of acknowledged corruption at the border and high
import tariffs led smugglers in the 1970s and „80s to fly electronic equipment such as
stereos and televisions in cargo planes from one country to clandestine landing strips in
another, thereby circumventing encounters at the frontier between countries.
For illegally passing a border oneself, another method is with a false passport
(completely fake, or illegally changed, or the passport of a lookalike).
Money Laundering
The process of taking the proceeds of criminal activity and making them appear legal.
Laundering allows criminals to transform illegally obtained gain into seemingly legitimate
funds. It is a worldwide problem, with approximately $300 billion going through the
12

process annually in the United States. The sale of illegal narcotics accounts for much of
this money. Those who commit the underlying criminal activity may attempt to launder
the money themselves, but increasingly a new class of criminals provides laundering
services to Organized Crime. This new class consists of lawyers, bankers, and
accountants.
Criminals want their illegal funds laundered because they can then move their money
through society freely, without fear that the funds will be traced to their criminal deeds.
In addition, laundering prevents the funds from being confiscated by the police.

Works Cited
Bijan Khajehnoori, S. K. (2013). Study of the Effect of Individualistic Tendencies on Juvenile
Delinquency . Journal of Basic and Applied , 699.
Criminal Theory: Conflict Theory. (2005, November 22). Retrieved March 4, 2014, from
Criminology - Florida State University: http://criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/conflict.htm
Crossman, A. (n.d.). Labeling Theory. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from About.com Sociology:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociological-Theory/a/Labeling-Theory.htm
DEWEY G. CORNELL, D. C. (2002). Gale Encyclopedia of Education: Juvenile Justice System:
History of Juvenile Courts. Retrieved March 2014, from answers:
http://www.answers.com/topic/juvenile-justice-system-history-of-juvenile-courts
Dr. Elias M. Choueiri, D. B. (2004). Juvenile Delinquency – An International Case Study . The
Correctional Trainer Winter 2004 , 3-4.
Jones, K. (2007, Feb 27). Theories of Juvenile Delinquency "Why Young People Commit Crimes".
Retrieved March 4, 2014, from Why Young People Commit Crimes:
http://voices.yahoo.com/theories-juvenile-delinquency-214245.html



13



Although the results of criminal offences are the same, some would argue that the
problem is much more complicated and demands more consideration that adult
criminals. That is, the nature and circumstances of juvenile delinquency raise into
discussion several main inherent moral and ethical dilemmas:
First, since children and adolescences are much more responsive to environmental
pressure, one should carefully consider the motives of a young criminal. For example, a
child who cannot afford a status symbol (e.g. fashion brands) would be prone to theft,
as he perceives the product as a critical (i.e. a need rather than a want) social barrier.
The same holds true for other types of criminal offence such as drug abuse and
violence.
Second, minors are typically less experienced; therefore, their perception about good
and bad differ from adults, and they are much more sensitive to manipulations.
Referring to the defenses in perception between minors and adults, Justice Kennedy
noted that “the same characteristics that render juveniles less culpable than adults
suggest as well that juveniles will be less susceptible to deterrence.” (2005)
Third, one must weigh the benefits of punishment and isolation of a criminal against the
effects of imprisonment on a teenager, who would, most probably, integrate in a society
with a developed criminal culture. It is thus a sound assumption that many of the young
prisoners are growing up into a life of crime.
All those factors and others imply that the juvenile justice system should be coherently
different from the adult criminal justice system.
The rationale for behind giving special handling with young offenders is the idea of
parens patriae (the state as parent). This doctrine suggests that it is the responsibility of
the state to protect and nurture children when their parents fail to do so. Therefore,
when a minor commits a crime, he should receive a treatment rather than a punishment,
and the legislator must make sure that the justice system considers the well—being of
the specific offender more deeply than the seriousness of the offence. This approach
14

aims to alter one‟s course of criminal behavior and to turn his into a productive citizen in
the future.
The first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1899. Until then, minors above
seven years of age were brought to trial in a regular criminal court, although many
countries have already operated designated prisons for juvenile offenders. Throughout
the following 50 years, the courts have evolved to a significantly different form from the
rest of the system. Most importantly was the multidimensional approach towards the
child, tailoring rehabilitation programs which best fit his specific situation. In some
cases, however, young offenders were tried in criminal courts, as some still happens
today.
However, this approach did not prove itself as an effective solution for the rising crime
rates among youth. As a result, the contemporary juvenile justice system is similar in
many ways to criminal courts. Snyder & Sickmund provide an overview the most
important changes, which have brought about the current situation of the system: (2006)
The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 and the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, both stress the importance of separation
between noncriminal (status) offenders and those who are accused with criminal
offences in terms of legal treatment. In addition, the Acts call for deinstitutionalization of
those “light” offenders and demand that convicted juvenile will be removed from adult
jails and prisons.
Further changes in legislation defined a strict line towards young offenders. This
approach involved, among others, reduced confidentiality for trial hearings (which
characterized the traditional juvenile justice system) and contextual-based referral for
criminal courts and adult correctional sanctioning (in sharp contrast to the 1974 Act).
That is, age alone is no longer the only parameter for the type of court and the
subsequent procedures and punishment methods.
These changes and others, which took place during the 1990s, have positively affected
the number of crimes committed by youth and reduced the number of juvenile
murderers. Since the mid-1990s, which is considered as all-time period of juvenile
imprisonment, the number of inmates under 18 years of age has dropped in incremental
15

rate, in terms of both new admissions and proportion of the general inmates‟ population
(Hartney, 2006).
Nonetheless, despite the positive results of the punitive policies during the last decade,
other findings may imply that this line may worsen the situation in the long run. Most of
the criticism refers to the tendency to handle juvenile cases in the adult criminal justice
and lockup systems, which may lead to increased criminal activities rather than
reducing it.
One major indicator for the effectiveness of the policy is its ability to reduce violent
offences, which accounts for 62% of all juvenile convictions (Hartney, 2006).
Summarizing the view of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, McGowan
et al. indicate several findings, which warn that “transferring juveniles to the adult justice
system generally increases, rather than decreases, rates of violence among transferred
youth” (2007).
In conclusion, although attitudes toward offenders are ambivalent, it seems that the
general approach is still supportive towards retaining the punitive policies of the 1990s
(Benekos & Merlo, 2008). Nevertheless, we should rethink and adjust the policies in
reference to empirical evidence, in order to achieve the highest effectiveness of
preventing juvenile offenders to lifetime criminals.