Youth crime free essay sample

This essay will critically examine the strengths and weaknesses of the theory that young people offend because of their upbringing. The term ‘upbringing’ means the care and teaching received by the child from the parent throughout their childhood. There has been extensive research and controversial debate into upbringing being the root cause of youth crime and this essay will examine evidence to support this claim and evidence to dispute it. Although it is quite subjective as to whether a bad childhood is the cause of youth crime, the fact remains that a quarter of all reported crime is committed by young offenders between the ages of ten to seventeen. Home Office statistics show more than a half of all recorded robberies (51%), a third of burglaries (32%) and a third of vehicle crimes (31%) were the result of young offenders. (Home Office, 2012) Shockingly England and Wales has more young people in custody than any other European country. We will write a custom essay sample on Youth crime or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Content There are two patterns of youth offending behaviour, ‘adolescent-limited’ and ‘life course-persistent’. Adolescent-limited offending is often a result of young teenage people being influenced by their peers that they are mixing with. Teenagers are particularly vulnerable at this stage because the ability to moderate risk-taking and thrill-seeking does not fully develop until their late teens. Life course-persistent is when anti-social behaviour manifests itself earlier on and is linked to risk factors that can operate much earlier on in a child’s life, like poor parenting, abuse and neglect, and medical conditions like ADHD (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). What this information suggests is that relatively few young people who commit crime when they are in their teens go on to become prolific offenders for the rest of their life. (Moffitt, 1993) Criminal behaviour in adolescence is relatively common due to peer pressure and thrill seeking. Forty percent of offences are committed by people under sixteen about half of males and a third of females, report having committed at least one offence before the age of eighteen. (Newburn, 2002) However, offending declines rapidly after adolescence and many youth offenders do not remain offenders in adulthood. (Sutherland 1938) Strengths Many family factors have been shown to predict young offending, particularly relating to bad parenting such as harsh discipline, poor supervision and low parental involvement with the child. Evidence shows that a destructive upbringing can be damaging to the child resulting in impulsivity, attention problems, low school attainment and behavioural problems. (Farrington, 2007) A shocking statistic of twenty five percent of boys and forty percent of girls in custody say they have experienced violence at home. In July 2012 Jessica Jacobson and Amy Kirby from the Home Office published a report on the causes to youth crime. What was identified as the primary cause was poor parenting and lack of discipline from parents, schools and society; this meant that children were growing up with no respect for authority and no understanding that their actions have consequences. (Home Office, 2012) The most significant factor that influences character formation is the upbringing a child receives. Studies show that children brought up with good parents, grow up to be well rounded, responsible adults. Children surrounded by criminal family or friends during their developing years are more likely to become criminals because they build up anti-authority attitudes and the belief that offending is justified. (Farrington, 1994) Sutherland (1942) argues that criminal behaviour is socially learned behaviour. If a child is brought up within a criminal upbringing, they associate to crime and learn techniques to commit crime. Wells and Rankin’s (1991) found that delinquency was ten to fifteen percent higher among children from broken homes than those from intact homes, the range of offences were vast like underage drinking, truancy, running away from home, burglary, theft, robbery and assault. Rodgers and Pryor (1998) conducted the same experiment again seven years later and found the research findings had changed dramatically; children from broken homes were double the number at risk of delinquency than children from intact families. The theory that upbringing can cause offending is not a new phenomenon, Walter Miller in (1958) identified four reasons for over conformity to focal concerns that lead to delinquency. One reason was that boys that have fatherless or female dominated homes become delinquent because of insecurity due to unstable or broken homes and overcompensating for the lack of male role models by being masculine themselves, engaging in street fights and anti-social behaviour. Social control theory is another example of how upbringing can lead to young offending. Travis Hirschi believes that young people that commit crime and use drugs do so because they lack self-control. He suggests that lack of self-control is the result of poor parenting and families that are unable or unwilling to monitor their childrens behaviour. (Hirschi, 1969) Weaknesses Parents could be getting the blame for youth crime in a bid to avoid taking responsibility and escape punishment or sentencing. During the London riots in August 2011, David Cameron stated that parenting was to blame, but many young offenders stated that they knew what they were doing and hoped that their mothers did not find out. Research showed that rioters were going against their upbringings due to factors of boredom, opportunism and economic deprivation. In this case upbringing was not a factor it was that public services like youth clubs were cut in the area because of the austerity policy. The austerity policy is the Government cutting public services and benefits in a bid to pay back debts but this was causing crime. Poverty and social disadvantage are closely related to youth offending. It was no wonder trainer and mobile phone shops were being looted because people could afford luxury items due to deprivation, high youth unemployment, benefits cuts and child allowance being stopped. This all meant that families were struggling to survive in this double dip recession. The root cause of crime here was economic deprivation not upbringing. Another example of how upbringing is irrelevant is in Jack Katz (1988) ‘seduction of crime theory’ he argues that the real cause of juvenile delinquency is simply because they enjoy offending. He also thinks that a large portion of crime is committed because young people are addicted to it. Katzs (1988), states that at the moment of the crime, there is a transition that takes place from the choice to commit crimes rationally to a compulsion to do so. He describes how offenders are seduced by the compulsion to commit crime. Travis Hirschi (1969) social control theory states that there are several genes that are hypothesized to have an influence on the development of antisocial behaviour and conduct disorders. There has been slow progress in identifying these genes. Now, it seems that certain serotonin pathway genes may be associated with impulsiveness, antisocial, aggressiveness and violent behaviour that can lead to criminality. Conclusion It was extremely important in this essay to identify the two different types of young offending by criminologist Moffitt (1993). This is because it shows two different types of behaviour patterns and two different root causes. It confirms that some people offend because of their upbringing and others are motivated by other factors like peer pressure, economic deprivation, boredom. What this shows is that offenders are motivated by different factors. The case studies in this field carried out by criminologists like Farrington and others have only investigated the cause of youth crime from a boy’s perspective and found that upbringing is a risk factor for delinquency. With the release of youth crime figures from the Home Office (May 2012) that showed one hundred and sixty thousand crimes were committed by girls, research into the cause of female offending needs to be examined because the cause of female youth crime could be different to boys. In the 21st century society has a growing problem with girl gangs and female delinquency and the cause might not be upbringing but biology, genetics and hormones or another factor completely. Research shows that victims that suffer bad upbringings and endure physical, mental and sexual abuse can transition from victim to perpetrator. This is due to a number of factors like learnt behaviour and the perpetuating cycle of abuse. A bad childhood does not excuse serious crime but a report from the Youth Offending Team consisting of opinions from young offenders stated that unresolved problems or feelings from their childhood propelled them into offending. However some offenders use a bad childhood to blame parents, to avoid taking responsibility and a way of getting a more lenient sentence or punishment. (Ministry of Justice, 2012) Primary socialisation states that part of family life is to instil the values of right and wrong but there is not only one way to learn right from wrong. If a person receives bad instructions or advice from their parents or no advice at all, there is always secondary socialisation where they can learn a good moral compass from school, religion and society as a whole. Hirschi (1969) Stated if young people are attached to school and religion then that brings a greater level of social control. Residential instability which includes the disruption of family life and parental controls and the erosion of community solidarity for example neighbours twenty years ago were an extension of the family and maintaining social order. All this leads to social disorganisation which is the breakdown of social controls that allows crime and delinquency to flourish. On the 8th of January 2013 it was reported that a record number of parents were getting a criminal record as a punishment for letting their children play truant from school. Ten thousand parents a year are being found guilty of letting their sons or daughter miss school lessons. (Ministry of Justice)This is another example of how parents are being held responsible for young people offending. Parents will receive on the spot financial fines of sixty pounds; if they do not pay it is doubled to one hundred and twenty pounds. If parents go to court they could pay up to two and a half thousand pounds. References Youth crime free essay sample Juvenile delinquency, also known as juvenile offending, or youth crime, is participation in illegal behavior by minors? (juveniles) (individuals younger than the statutory? age of majority? ). [1] Most legal systems? prescribe specific procedures for dealing with juveniles, such as juvenile detention centers? , and courts?. A juvenile delinquent is a person who is typically under the age of 18 and commits an act that otherwise would have been charged as a crime if they were an adult. Depending on the type and severity of the offense committed, it is possible for persons under 18 to be charged and tried as adults. In recent years in the US the average age for first arrest? has dropped significantly, and younger boys and girls are committing crimes. Between 60–80% percent of adolescents? , and pre-adolescents engage in some form of juvenile offense. [2] These can range from status offenses? (such as underage smoking), to property crimes? and violent crimes?. The percent of teens who offend is so high that it would seem to be a cause for worry. We will write a custom essay sample on Youth crime or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page However, juvenile offending can be considered normative adolescent behavior. [2]This is because most teens tend to offend by committing non-violent crimes, only once or a few times, and only during adolescence. It is when adolescents offend repeatedly or violently that their offending is likely to continue beyond adolescence, and become increasingly violent. It is also likely that if this is the case, they began offending and displaying antisocial behavior even before reaching adolescence. [3] Contents [hide? ] 1 Types? 1. 1 Sex differences? 1. 2 Racial differences? 2 Risk factors? 2. 1 Individual risk factors? 2. 2 Family environment and peer influence? 3 Crime Theories Applicable to Juvenile Delinquency? 3. 1 Rational choice? 3. 2 Social disorganization? 3. 3 Strain? 3. 4 Differential association? 3. 5 Labeling? 3. 6 Social control? 4 Juvenile delinquents diagnosed with mental/conduct disorders? 5 Prevention? 6 Critique of risk factor research? 7 Juvenile sex crimes? 7. 1 Prevalence data? 7. 2 Official record data? 7. 3 Males who commit sexual crimes? 8 See also? 9 References? 10 Further reading? 11 External links? Types[edit? ] Juvenile delinquency, or offending, can be separated into three categories: delinquency, crimes committed by minors which are dealt with by the juvenile courts? and justice system; criminal behavior, crimes? dealt with by the criminal justice system? ; status offenses? , offenses which are only classified as such because one is a minor, such as truancy? , also dealt with by the juvenile courts. [4] According to the developmental research of Moffitt (2006),[2] there are two different types of offenders that emerge in adolescence. One is the repeat offender, referred to as the life-course-persistent offender, who begins offending or showing antisocial/aggressive behavior in adolescence (or even childhood? ) and continues into adulthood? ; and the age specific offender, referred to as the adolescence-limited offender, for whom juvenile offending or delinquency begins and ends during their period of adolescence. [3] Because most teenagers tend to show some form of antisocial, aggressive or delinquent behavior during adolescence, it is important to account for these behaviors in childhood in order to determine whether they will be life-course-persistent offenders or adolescence-limited offenders. [3] Although adolescence-limited offenders tend to drop all criminal activity once they enter adulthood and show less pathology than life-course-persistent offenders, they still show more mental health, substance abuse, and finance problems, both in adolescence and adulthood, than those who were never delinquent. [5] Sex differences[edit? ] Juvenile offending is disproportionately[6] committed by young men?. Feminist? theorists and others have examined why this is the case. [7] One suggestion is that ideas of masculinity? may make young men more likely to offend. Being tough, powerful? , aggressive? , daring and competitive? becomes a way for young men to assert and express their masculinity. [8] Acting out these ideals may make young men more likely to engage in antisocial? and criminal behavior. [9] Also, the way young men are treated by others, because of their masculinity, may reinforce aggressive traits and behaviors, and make them more susceptible to offending. [9] Alternatively, young men may actually be naturally more aggressive, daring and prone to risk-taking. According to a study led by Florida State University? criminologist Kevin M. Beaver, adolescent males who possess a certain type of variation in a specific gene? are more likely to flock to delinquent peers. The study, which appears in the September 2008 issue of the Journal of Genetic Psychology, is the first to establish a statistically significant association between an affinity for antisocial peer groups and a particular variation (called the 10-repeat allele) of the dopamine? transporter gene (DAT1). [10] In recent years however, there has also been a bridging of the gap between sex differences concerning juvenile delinquency. While it is still more common for males to offend than females, the ratio of arrests by sex is one third of what it was 20 years ago (at 2. 5 to 1 today). [11] This is most likely due to the combined effects of more females being arrested (for offenses which did not get them arrested before), and a drop in male offenses. [12] Racial differences[edit? ] This article reads like an editorial or opinion piece?. Please help improve this article? by rewriting it in anencyclopedic style? to make it neutral? in tone. See WP:No original research? and WP:NOTOPINION? for further details. There is also a significant skew in the racial statistics for juvenile offenders. When considering these statistics, which state that black and Hispanic teens are more likely to commit juvenile offenses it is important to keep the following in mind,from poverty to low parental monitoring, harsh parenting, and association with gangs, all of which are in turn associated with juvenile offending. The majority of adolescents who live in poverty are young black men, and for me its sad to even have to say that its not fair to anyone but why we have to put black men in this category. We as adults or our own community need to be more involved with our youths keep them off the streets offer more after school programs, the streets is were it all starts they see their fathers or older brothers making quick money so they want to follow but it only gets you in prison or dead. I see this first hand in my city. The most recent was an RTA driver got shot by some teenagers they quoted you have to kill a polar bear to be a full gang member, well the driver was a white man and he was shot three times and lived. hapter=Developmental criminology and risk-focused prevention |editor1-first=M. |editor1-last=Maguire |editor2-last=et al. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Criminology |edition=3rd |location=Oxford |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0199256098 }} Also, minorities who offend, even as adolescents, are more likely to be arrested and punished more harshly by the law if caught. [13] Particularly concerning a non-violent crime and when compared to white adolescents. While poor minorities are more likely to commit violent crimes, one third of affluent teens report committing violent crimes. [2] Ethnic minority status has been included as a risk factor of psychosocial maladaptation in several studies (e. g. , Gutman et al. 2003; Sameroff et al. 1993; Dallaire et al. 2008), and represents a relative social disadvantage placed on these individuals. Though the relation between delinquency and race is complex and may be explained by other contextual risk variables (see, for example, Holmes et al. 2009), the total arrest rate for black juveniles aged 10–17 is more than twice that as of white juveniles (National Center for Juvenile Justice 2008)(p. 1474). [14] This does not seem to be the case for the minority group of East Asian background. [citation needed] Risk factors[edit? ] The two largest predictors of juvenile delinquency are parenting style? , with the two styles most likely to predict delinquency being permissive parenting, characterized by a lack of consequence-based discipline and encompassing two subtypes known as neglectful parenting, characterized by a lack of monitoring and thus of knowledge of the childs activities, and indulgent parenting, characterized by affirmative enablement? of misbehavior authoritarian parenting, characterized by harsh discipline and refusal to justify discipline on any basis other than because I said so; peer group association? , particularly with antisocial peer groups, as is more likely when adolescents are left unsupervised. [2] Other factors that may lead a teenager into juvenile delinquency include poor or low socioeconomic status? , poor school readiness/performance and/or failure, peer rejection, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)?. There may also be biological factors, such as high levels of serotonin? , giving them a difficult temper and poor self-regulation, and a lower resting heart rate, which may lead to fearlessness. Most of these tend to be influenced by a mix of both genetic and environmental factors. [2] Individual risk factors[edit? ] Individual psychological or behavioural? risk factors that may make offending more likely include low intelligence? , impulsiveness? or the inability to delaygratification? , aggression? , lack of empathy? , and restlessness?. [15] Other risk factors which may be evident during childhood and adolescence include, aggressive or troublesome behavior, language delays or impairments, lack of emotional control (learning to control ones anger), and cruelty to animals. [16] Children with low intelligence? are more likely to do badly in school?. This may increase the chances of offending because low educational attainment, a low attachment to school, and low educational aspirations are all risk factors for offending in themselves. [9][17][18] Children who perform poorly at school are also more likely to be truant? , and the status offense of truancy is linked to further offending. [15] Impulsiveness is seen by some as the key aspect of a childspersonality? that predicts offending. [15] However, it is not clear whether these aspects of personality are a result of â€Å"deficits in the executive functions of the brain? †[15] or a result of parental influences or other social factors. [19] In any event, studies of adolescent development show that teenagers are more prone to risk-taking? , which may explain the high disproportionate rate of offending among adolescents. [2] Family environment and peer influence[edit? ] Family factors which may have an influence on offending include: the level of parental supervision? , the way parents discipline? a child, particularly harshpunishment? , parental conflict or separation? , criminal parents or siblings, parental abuse or neglect? , and the quality of the parent-child relationship. [19] Some have suggested that having a lifelong partner leads to less offending. [citation needed] Children brought up by lone parents? are more likely to start offending than those who live with two natural parents. It is also more likely that children of single parents may live in poverty, which is strongly associated with juvenile delinquency. [2] However once the attachment a child feels towards their parent(s) and the level of parental supervision are taken into account, children in single parent families are no more likely to offend than others. [19] Conflict between a childs parents is also much more closely linked to offending than being raised by a lone parent. [9] If a child has low parental supervision they are much more likely to offend. [19] Many studies have found a strong correlation between a lack of supervision and offending, and it appears to be the most important family influence on offending. [15][19] When parents commonly do not know where their children are, what their activities are, or who their friends are, children are more likely to truant from school and have delinquent friends, each of which are linked to offending. [19]A lack of supervision is also connected to poor relationships between children and parents. Children who are often in conflict with their parents may be less willing to discuss their activities with them. [19] Adolescents with criminal siblings? are only more likely to be influenced by their siblings, and also become delinquent, if the sibling is older, of the same sex/gender, and warm. [16] Cases where a younger criminal sibling influences an older one are rare. An aggressive, non-loving/warm sibling is less likely to influence a younger sibling in the direction of delinquency, if anything, the more strained the relationship between the siblings, the less they will want to be like, and/or influence each other. [16] Peer rejection? in childhood is also a large predictor of juvenile delinquency. Although children are rejected by peers for many reasons, it is often the case that they are rejected due to violent or aggressive behavior. This rejections affects the childs ability to be socialized? properly, which can reduce their aggressive tendencies, and often leads them to gravitate towards anti-social peer groups. [16] This association often leads to the promotion of violent, aggressive and deviant behavior. The impact of deviant peer group influences on the crystallization of an antisocial developmental trajectory has been solidly documented. [16] Aggressive adolescents who have been rejected by peers are also more likely to have a hostile attribution bias which leads people to interpret the actions of others (whether they be hostile or not) as purposefully hostile and aggressive towards them. This often leads to an impulsive and aggressive reaction. [20] Hostile attribution bias however, can appear at any age during development and often lasts throughout a persons life. Children resulting from unintended pregnancies? are more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior. [21] They also have lower mother-child relationship quality. [22] Crime Theories Applicable to Juvenile Delinquency[edit? ] There are a multitude of different theories on the causes of crime? , most if not all of are applicable to the causes of juvenile delinquency. Rational choice[edit? ] Classical criminology stresses that causes of crime lie within the individual? offender, rather than in their external environment. For classicists, offenders are motivated by rational? self-interest? , and the importance of free will? and personal responsibility? is emphasized. [7] Rational choice theory? is the clearest example of this idea. Delinquency is one of the major factors motivated by rational choice. Social disorganization[edit? ] Current positivist approaches? generally focus on the culture?. A type of criminological theory attributing variation in crime and delinquency over time and among territories to the absence or breakdown of communal institutions (e. g. family, school, church and social groups. ) and communal relationships that traditionally encouraged cooperative relationships among people. Strain[edit? ] Strain theory? is associated mainly with the work of Robert Merton?. He felt that there are institutionalized? paths to success in society?. Strain theory holds that crime is caused by the difficulty those in poverty? have in achieving socially valued goals by legitimate means. [7] As those with, for instance, poor educational attainment have difficulty achieving wealth and status by securing well paid employment, they are more likely to use criminal means to obtain these goals. [23] Mertons suggests five adaptations to this dilemma: 1 Innovation: individuals who accept socially approved goals, but not necessarily the socially approved means. 2 Retreatism: those who reject socially approved goals and the means for acquiring them. 3 Ritualism: those who buy into a system of socially approved means, but lose sight of the goals. Merton believed that drug users are in this category. 4 Conformity: those who conform to the systems means and goals. 5 Rebellion: people who negate socially approved goals and means by creating a new system of acceptable goals and means. A difficulty with strain theory is that it does not explore why children of low-income families would have poor educational attainment in the first place. More importantly is the fact that much youth crime does not have an economic motivation. Strain theory fails to explain violent crime? , the type of youth crime which causes most anxiety to the public. Differential association[edit? ] The theory of Differential association? also deals with young people in a group context, and looks at how peer pressure and the existence of gangs could lead them into crime. It suggests young people are motivated to commit crimes by delinquent peers, and learn criminal skills from them. The diminished influence of peers after men marry? has also been cited as a factor in desisting from offending. There is strong evidence that young people with criminal friends are more likely to commit crimes themselves . However it may be the case that offenders prefer to associate with one another, rather than delinquent peers causing someone to start offending. Furthermore there is the question of how the delinquent peer group became delinquent initially. Labeling[edit? ] Labeling theory? is a concept within Criminology that aims to explain deviant behavior from the social context rather than looking at the individual themselves. It is part of Interactionism criminology that states that once young people have been labeled as criminal they are more likely to offend. [7] The idea is that once labelled as deviant a young person may accept that role? , and be more likely to associate with others who have been similarly labelled. [7] Labelling theorists say that male children from poor families are more likely to be labelled deviant, and that this may partially explain why there are more working class? young male offenders. [9] Social control[edit? ] Social control theory? proposes that exploiting the process of socialization? and social learning builds self-control? and can reduce the inclination to indulge in behavior recognized as antisocial. The four types of control can help prevent juvenile delinquency are: Direct: by which punishment is threatened or applied for wrongful behavior, and compliance is rewarded by parents, family, and authority figures. Internal: by which a youth refrains from delinquency through the conscience or superego. Indirect: by identification with those who influence behavior, say because his or her delinquent act might cause pain and disappointment to parents and others with whom he or she has close relationships. Control through needs satisfaction, i. e. if all an individuals needs are met, there is no point in criminal activity. Juvenile delinquents diagnosed with mental/conduct disorders[edit? ] Juvenile delinquents are often diagnosed different disorders. Around six to sixteen percent of male teens and two to nine percent of female teens have a conduct disorder. These can vary from oppositional-defiant disorder, which is not necessarily aggressive, to antisocial personality disorder, often diagnosed among psychopaths. [24] A conduct disorder? can develop during childhood and then manifest itself during adolescence. [25] Juvenile delinquents who have recurring encounters with the criminal justice system, or in other words those who are life-course-persistent offenders, are sometimes diagnosed with conduct disorders? because they show a continuous disregard for their own and others safety and/or property. Once the juvenile continues to exhibit the same behavioral patterns and turns eighteen he is then at risk of being diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder? and much more prone to become a serious criminal offender. [26] One of the main components used in diagnosing an adult with antisocial personality disorder consists of presenting documented history of conduct disorder before the age of 15. These two personality disorders are analogous in their erratic and aggressive behavior. This is why habitual juvenile offenders diagnosed with conduct disorder are likely to exhibit signs of antisocial personality disorder early in life and then as they mature. Some times these juveniles reach maturation and they develop into career criminals, or life-course-persistent offenders. Career criminals begin committing antisocial behavior before entering grade school and are versatile in that they engage in an array of destructive behaviors, offend at exceedingly high rates, and are less likely to quit committing crime as they age. [26] Quantitative research was completed on 9,945 juvenile male offenders between the ages of 10 and 18 in the 1970s. [where? ] The longitudinal birth cohort was used to examine a trend among a small percentage of career criminals who accounted for the largest percentage of crime activity. [27] The trend exhibited a new phenomenon amongst habitual offenders. The phenomenon indicated that only 6% of the youth qualified under their definition of a habitual offender (known today as life-course persistent offenders, or career criminals) and yet were responsible for 52% of the delinquency within the entire study. [27] The same 6% of chronic offenders accounted for 71% of the murders and 69% of the aggravated assaults. [27] This phenomenon was later researched among an adult population in 1977 and resulted in similar findings. S. A. Mednick did a birth cohort of 30,000 males and found that 1% of the males were responsible for more than half of the criminal activity. [28] The habitual crime behavior found amongst juveniles is similar to that of adults. As stated before most life-course persistent offenders begin exhibiting antisocial, violent, and/or delinquent behavior, prior to adolescence. Therefore, while there is a high rate of juvenile delinquency, it is the small percentage of life-course persistent, career criminals that are responsible for most of the violent crimes. Prevention[edit? ] Delinquency prevention is the broad term for all efforts aimed at preventing youth from becoming involved in criminal, or other antisocial, activity. Because the development of delinquency in youth is influenced by numerous factors, prevention efforts need to be comprehensive in scope. Prevention services may include activities such as substance abuse education and treatment, family counseling, youth mentoring, parenting education, educational support, and youth sheltering. Increasing availability and use of family planning? services, including education and contraceptives? helps to reduce unintended pregnancy? and unwanted births, which are risk factors for delinquency. It has been noted that often interventions may leave at-risk children worse off then if there had never been an intervention. [29] This is due primarily to the fact that placing large groups of at risk children together only propagates delinquent or violent behavior. Bad teens get together to talk about the bad things theyve done, and it is received by their peers in a positive reinforcing light, promoting the behavior among them. [29] As mentioned before, peer groups, particularly an association with antisocial peer groups, is one of the biggest predictors of delinquency, and of life-course-persistent delinquency. The most efficient interventions are those that not only separate at-risk teens from anti-social peers, and place them instead with pro-social ones, but also simultaneously improve their home environment by training parents with appropriate parenting styles,[29] parenting style being the other large predictor of juvenile delinquency. Critique of risk factor research[edit? ] Two UK academics, Stephen Case and Kevin Haines, among others, criticized risk factor research in their academic papers and a comprehensive polemic text,Understanding Youth Offending: Risk Factor Research, Policy and Practice. The robustness and validity of much risk factor research is criticized for: Reductionism? e. g. over-simplfying complex experiences and circumstances by converting them to simple quantities, relying on a psychosocial focus whilst neglecting potential socio-structural and political influences; Determinism? e. g. characterising young people as passive victims of risk experiences with no ability to construct, negotiate or resist risk; Imputation? e. g. assuming that risk factors and definitions of offending are homogenous across countries and cultures, assuming that statistical correlations between risk factors and offending actually represent causal relationships, assuming that risk factors apply to individuals on the basis of aggregated data. Juvenile sex crimes[edit? ] The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with USA and do not represent a worldwide view? of the subject. Please improve this article? and discuss the issue on the talk page?. (July 2010) Juveniles? who commit sexual crimes refer to individuals adjudicated in a criminal court? for a sexual crime. [30] Sex crimes are defined as sexually abusive behavior committed by a person under the age of 18 that is perpetrated â€Å"against the victim’s will, without consent, and in an aggressive, exploitative, manipulative, or threatening manner†. [31] It is important to utilize appropriate terminology for juvenile sex offenders. Harsh and inappropriate expressions include terms such as â€Å"pedophile? , child molester? , predator? , perpetrator? , and mini-perp†[32] These terms have often been associated with this group, regardless of the youth’s age, diagnosis? , cognitive abilities? , or developmental stage?. [32] Using appropriate expressions can facilitate a more accurate depiction of juvenile sex offenders and may decrease the subsequent aversive psychological affects from using such labels. [32] In the Arab Gulf states? [sic], homosexual acts? are classified as an offense, and constitute one of the primary crimes for which juvenile males are charged. [33] Prevalence data[edit? ] Examining prevalence data and the characteristics of juvenile? sex offenders? is a fundamental component to obtain a precise understanding of this heterogeneous group. With mandatory reporting laws in place, it became a necessity for providers to report any incidents of disclosed sexual abuse. Longo and Prescott indicate that juveniles commit approximately 30-60% of all child sexual abuse. [32] The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports indicate that in 2008 youth under the age of 18 accounted for 16. 7% of forcible rapes and 20. 61% of other sexual offenses. [34] Center for Sex Offender Management indicates that approximately one-fifth of all rapes? and one-half of all sexual child molestation can be accounted for by juveniles. [35] Official record data[edit? ] The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention indicates that 15% of juvenile arrests? occurred for rape in 2006, and 12% were clearance (resolved by an arrest). [36] The total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for forcible rape was 3,610 with 2% being female and 36% being under the age of 15 years old. [36]This trend has declined throughout the years with forcible rape from 1997–2006 being ? 30% and from 2005-2006 being ? 10%. [36] The OJJDP reports that the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape increased from the early 1980s through the 1990s and at that time it fell again. [36] All types of crime rates fell in the 1990s. [citation needed] The OJJDP also reported that the total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for sex offenses (other than forcible rape) was 15,900 with 10% being female and 47% being under the age of 15. [36] There was again a decrease with the trend throughout the years with sex offenses from 1997–2006 being ? 16% and from 2005-2006 being ? 9%. [36] Males who commit sexual crimes[edit? ] Barbaree and Marshall indicate that juvenile males contribute to the majority of sex crimes, with 2–4% of adolescent males having reported committing sexually assaultive behavior, and 20% of all rapes and 30–50% of all child molestation? are perpetrated by adolescent males. [30] It is clear that males are over-represented in this population. This is consistent with Ryan and Lane’s research indicating that males account for 91-93% of the reported juvenile sex offenses. [31] Righthand and Welch reported that females account for an estimated 2–11% of incidents of sexual offending. [37] In addition, it reported by The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that in the juvenile arrests during 2006, African American male youth were disproportionately arrested (34%) for forcible rape. [36] See also[edit? ] ? Law portal? Young offender? Adolescence? Antisocial personality disorder? Deviance (sociology)? Juvenile delinquency in the United States? Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention? Person in need of supervision? Status offense? Teen courts? Victimology? Youth court? Anti-Social Behaviour Order? Conduct Disorder? Kazan phenomenon? References[edit? ] 6 Jump up^? Siegel, Larry J. ; Welsh, Brandon (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core (4th ed. ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/cengage Learning. ISBN? 0534519326?. 7 ^ Jump up to:a? b? c? d? e? f? g? h? Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescence(8th ed. ). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ISBN? 9780073405483?. 8 ^ Jump up to:a? b? c? Moffitt (2006). Life course persistent versus adolescent limited antisocial behavior. In Cicchetti, D. ; Cohen, D. Developmental Psychopathy (2nd ed. ). New York: Wiley. 9 Jump up^? Woolard; Scott (2009). The legal regulation of adolescence. In Lerner, R. ; Steinberg, L. Handbook of Adolescent psychology 2 (3rd ed. ). New York: Wiley. pp. 345–371. ISBN? 9780470149225?. 10 Jump up^? Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, 2000 11 Jump up^? Violence by Teenage Girls: Trends and Context? , Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice 12 ^ Jump up to:a? b? c? d? e? Eadie, T. ; Morley, R. (2003). Crime, Justice and Punishment. In Baldock, J. ; et al. Social Policy (3rd ed. ). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN? 0199258945?. 13 Jump up^? Brown, S. (1998) Understanding Youth and Crime (Listening to youth? ), Buckingham: Open University Press. Page 109 14 ^ Jump up to:a? b? c? d? e? Walklate, S (2003). Understanding Criminology – Current Theoretical Debates, 2nd edition, Maidenhead: Open University Press. 15 Jump up^? Study Reveals Specific Gene in Adolescent Men with Delinquent Peers? Newswise, Retrieved on October 1, 2008. 16 Jump up^? Steffensmeier; Schawrtz; Zhong; Ackerman (2005). An assessment of recent trend in girls violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is gender gap closing? . Criminology 43 (2): 355–406. doi? :10. 1111/j. 0011-1348. 2005. 00011. x?. 17 Jump up^? Cauffman; et al. (2008). Bad boys or poor parents: Relations to female juvenile delinquency. Journal on Research on Adolescence 18 (4): 119–142. doi? :10. 1111/j. 1532-7795. 2008. 00577. x?. 18 Jump up^? Cauffman; Piquero; Kimonis; Steinberg; Chassin (2007). Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior 31 (6): 519–535. doi? :10. 1007/s10979-006-9076-2?. 19 Jump up^? Aaron, L. ; Dallaire, D. H. (2010). Parental Incarceration and Multiple Risk Experiences: Effect on Family Dynamics and Childrens Delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39 (12): 1471–1484. doi? :10. 1007/s10964-009-9458-0?. 20 ^ Jump up to:a? b? c? d? e? Farrington, D. P. (2002). Developmental criminology and risk-focused prevention.

If theres one thing Ive learned †Book Review

If theres one thing Ive learned – Book Review Free Online Research Papers If there’s one thing I’ve learned Book Review If there’s one thing I’ve learned Book Review by James Green We can all learn something from the people around us. And with that in mind, author James Green posed one broad question-If you could go back and change anything in your life, what would you do differently? That single question and its varied answers take readers on a journey into the lives of 87 people from all walks of life. Each has a true story to share. The stories are well written and capture the naked truth behind people’s regrets and triumphs. By dividing the stories categorically, the reader benefits from stories about dreams, the one who got away, careers, relationships, friends family, money, education, kindness, perspective and time. Each story is told in first person, which really helps connect the reader and story teller. Green does an excellent job of peering into other people’s reality and offering the reader wisdom, advice and important life lessons by simply allowing the person to speak openly. While the author doesn’t pass judgment on any of the storytellers, he does manage to share a few personal stories of his own, throughout the book, all of which give the reader a chance to learn the author is a pilot and someone who was once fearful, but now takes life by the horns. It’s rare that a book moves me the way in which this one did. I found myself deeply touched by a father openly regretful about breaking a promise to his young son. Years later, he and his son barely speak and as the story closes the father says, â€Å"You wanted to know if there was anything in my life I wish I could have done differently. Well, I wish I had gotten out of bed and gone fishing with my son.† Then there’s the lighthearted story of Mary, a retired school teacher who loved her career. She feels fulfilled and glad she selected a vocation that suited her. â€Å"The idea is to choose something you can be passionate about. If you can do that, then your job becomes a part of you. If you can do that, you’ll never really have a job.† Curtis, retired Commander in the U.S. Navy gives readers an eye opening reality check as he tells of a trip he spent years planning with his wife,but kept putting off. In an ironic twist of fate the trip is abruptly cancelled when his wife learns she has cancer and has only a month to live and can’t travel. Curtis honors his wife in death, by drastically changing the way he and his kids live. He says, â€Å"If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that you’re not guaranteed a tomorrow. With that in mind, I’ve done some things I never would have done before. It felt good to do them too. You know, life is just too short.† I highly recommend this book for anyone. I believe it will meet you where you’re at in life. For the graduate ready to conquer the world, it offers a fair amount of practical advice and for the person who’s spent years just existing, a chance to prove it’s never too late for change. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that we truly can learn from the experience of others-good and bad. Research Papers on If there’s one thing I’ve learned - Book ReviewMind TravelBook Review on The Autobiography of Malcolm XTrailblazing by Eric AndersonThe Masque of the Red Death Room meaningsHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows EssayHonest Iagos Truth through DeceptionStandardized TestingHip-Hop is ArtEffects of Television Violence on Children19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided Era

Risk Management - research technique Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Risk Management - research technique - Essay Example As a result, this demands a clear statement of the problem (Patton, M. Q., 2002). It is never an aimless search for something nonspecific with the hopes of coming across an incidental solution, rather it demands a clear objective and plan. Research will always underpin the current knowledge on the field with critical weightage on both the positive and negative findings, and the researcher consequently must have enough openness and reasonable flexibility to identify and analyse the true colours of the data. To be able to do this, the researcher would aim towards systematic collection and analysis of the collected data to answer the original research objectives (Babbie, E. 2004), and this is where the methodology is to be carefully selected depending on the question. This work will attempt to explore the application of methodology in researches in risk management. Over the last two decades, different authors have voiced some serious concerns about effectiveness of using the prevailing positivism that states that only authentic knowledge arising from strict scientific methods affirming theories is acceptable. Epistemology is theory of knowledge that studies a concept or a question that belongs to both truth and belief by justification through a methodical study considering that fact that there would always be limitations in any concept to arrive at the truth, so that new questions will arise. In the general sense in our specific area, this is a general term indicating knowledge from any source that can be analyzed and corroborated, questioned, authenticated, or discarded. Ontology, on the other hand, describes the basic categories of existence to define and categories of entity. This, therefore, can study conceptions of reality. An example would make these definitions clear. In the field of risk management, a search for what and how, the recognition of risk, its assessment, is epistemology. Whereas, when one desires to develop strategies to manage a given risk in order to mitigate it using managerial resources, it calls for study of the conceptions of reality so that the nature of the kn owable things are explicit, and a methodology further calibrates distinct entities that are measurable. Research grows and develops within the intellectual climate of the times. Within the last 50 years or so, there has been a gradual but notable drift from qualitative research based on conceptions of reality towards quantitative research based on logical positivist model, then a critique of the positivist model, and then a greater acceptance of qualitative research (Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. 1990). There had invariably been debate between the two schools of approaches, as to which method is the most suitable in terms of technical feasibility to arrive at the truth or reality and more importantly, these were framed in terms of epistemology: what is the best way to comprehend the world. No wonder, there is still continuing debate regarding this across the line of division since notions of epistemology rest within ontology, what is the nature of the world one wishes to know about. Quantitative Research Quantitative