Juvenile Delinquency, Crime and Social Marginalization

Miguel Basto Pereira, Ângela da Costa Maia

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781787436336
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book examines the psychosocial, legal, and familial factors at play in the persistencein crime and social marginalization in adults with a history of juvenile delinquency, setting out the political and social implications, and delineating new lines of research.
Presenting, for the first time, a summary of the main findings and conclusions of ThePortuguese Study on Delinquency and Social Marginalization (PSDSM), this studyaddresses the following topics: the role of youth psychosocial factors on desistancefrom crime during adulthood in individuals with a history of juvenile delinquency;the relationship between serious adverse childhood experiences (e.g., having livedwith a person with mental illness, physical abuse, emotional neglect) and juvenilejustice involvement, persistence in crime, and psychosocial problems; the mechanismsinvolved in the link between serious childhood adversity and delinquency; the role ofthe juvenile justice system on psychosocial problems and persistence in crime duringyoung adulthood; and finally the relation between adult psychosocial problems andcriminal indicators in individuals with official record of juvenile criminal offenses.
Findings from PSDSM have resulted in an extensive list of political and social recommendations for child protection services, justice system, mental health services, schools and universities. This timely title explores these findings and recommendations.

CHAPTER 1

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, CRIME AND SOCIAL MARGINALIZATION: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

Juvenile delinquency is a prevalent and concerning problem. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s (UNODC) most recent data from 50 countries showed that 232,041 juveniles were convicted for juvenile criminal acts in 2015 alone (UNODC, 2017). Moreover, evidence strongly suggests that the majority of individuals with adult criminal patterns had a past of juvenile delinquency (Farrington, 2003; Stouthamer-Loeber, Wei, Loeber, & Masten, 2004). However, juvenile delinquency has not only criminal implications but also relevant economic and social costs. Besides persistence in crime, several studies have shown a relationship between juvenile delinquency and school dropout (e.g., Sweeten, 2006), mental health problems (Rijo et al., 2016), drugs and alcohol misuse (Bennett, Holloway, & Farrington, 2008; Bouchery, Harwood, Sacks, Simon, & Brewer, 2011), and unemployment (Verbruggen, Blokland, & Van der Geest, 2012).

Legally, juvenile delinquency is broadly characterized as the committing of illegal acts by minors (Moeller, 2001; Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2011). Despite this legal definition of being dependent on cultural and political backgrounds (e.g., national laws), the age of adult criminal responsibility usually ranges between 16 and 18 years in Western countries, and the majority of serious, medium, or even low-seriousness antisocial behaviors (e.g., homicide, robbery, theft, domestic violence, aggression) are criminalized worldwide (Junger-Tas & Dünkel, 2009), creating a common background for international scientific-based evidence and policies.

Criminal life careers imply an economic burden for society in general. As shown by McCollister, French, and Fang (2010) and Welsh et al. (2008), crime causes a wide range of losses affecting victims (e.g., stolen items, medical treatments, trauma), taxpayers (e.g., police, courts, prisons), and insurance companies (e.g., value-ensured stolen items, medical treatments, or mental health services costs). In addition, the criminal careers themselves have a huge long-term economic impact on the offender and society as a whole, including a higher risk of drug misuse (Bennett et al., 2008), the replacement of productive and socially relevant activities for an illegal lifestyle (McCollister et al., 2010), and a higher risk of intergenerational perpetuation of a criminal lifestyle (e.g., Day, Bevc, Theodor, Rosenthal, & Duchesne, 2008). Cohen (1998) calculated that criminal careers of juveniles aged between 14 and 17 years cost from $83,000 to $335,000 for each juvenile offender, with an additional $1.4 million being added when the juvenile criminal career persists into adulthood. More recently, Welsh et al. (2008), using the Pittsburg Cohort, estimated that the average victim cost per juvenile chronic offender, aged between 7 and 17 years, ranged from $793,000 to $861,000.

Therefore, due to the tremendous tangible and intangible costs of crime, preventing and stopping juvenile delinquency and adult criminal careers and promoting social inclusion are major scientific and political aims. One of the best ways to promote these ends is using evidence-based programs and politics. However, building programs to prevent recidivism and promote social inclusion implies a deep knowledge about the mechanisms leading to juvenile delinquency and cyclically promoting criminal behavior. However, as shown by Lipsey’s (2009) meta-analysis, the intervention strategies range from being harmful (e.g., deterrence) to moderately effective in reducing recidivism (e.g., counseling). In Lipsey’s (2009) meta-analysis, the most effective intervention for reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders was counseling, indicating a reduction of 13% for programs with this type of intervention. Despite the fact that a reduction of 13% implies a tremendous saving on social and economic costs and even human lives, this small percentage of reduction in recidivism suggests that the majority of mechanisms promoting recidivism are not being targeted in any of the current interventions, because the mechanisms responsible are unknown or unreachable.

1.2. FACTORS PREDICTING DESISTANCE FROM CRIME IN JUVENILE OFFENDERS: SCIENTIFIC GAPS AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Over the last two decades, important long-term longitudinal studies have been conducted to evaluate the risk factors of crime desistance in adults with a history of juvenile delinquency. The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development is one of the best-known cohorts and followed 411 males, aged from 8 to 48, living in a working-class environment in South London (Farrington, Ttofi, & Coid, 2009). Out of the 411 males, 161 were convicted before the age of 20. The predictors of desistance from crime for young people between the ages of 8 and 18 were evaluated, and among several tens of variables evaluated, only hyperactivity, heavy drinking, low popularity, and harsh parental discipline negatively predicted desistance from crime in young offenders.

Likewise, the Pittsburgh Youth Study cohort followed a large sample of 850 boys from grades one, four, and seven, of whom approximately 500 were followed and evaluated at 6-month intervals (Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Farrington, 1991). After 15 years, Loeber, Pardini, Stouthamer-Loeber, and Raine (2007) conducted a study analyzing risk and promotive factors of desistance from crime during late adolescence and young adulthood (17–20 years of age). Among a large range of different factors evaluated from different sources, only high interpersonal callousness, high peer delinquency, and high tobacco use negatively predicted desistance from crime and factors positively promoting desistance from crime were not found.

In addition, Moffitt (1993, 2006) theorized two typologies of youths to explain desistance from crime in juvenile delinquents: life-course-persistent trajectories versus adolescent limited. Individuals with life-course-persistent trajectories are characterized by a set of high-risk behaviors during childhood, including neuropsychological variations (e.g., cognitive deficits, hyperactivity), social and interpersonal problems (e.g., poverty, poor relations with people), and family dysfunctionality (e.g., disrupted family bounds, inadequate parenting). Those youths tend to have marginal lives, extended at least until the middle of adulthood and affecting several domains, including criminal and addictive behavior, family violence perpetration, and problems with employment.

In contrast, adolescent-limited trajectories should be more prevalent, resulting from a “maturity gap,” characterized by the youngster who wants to win autonomy from their parents and take a role as an adult. Those youths are more vulnerable to mimicking their peers’ delinquent lifestyle and adopting delinquent behaviors during adolescence. On entering adulthood, they usually adopt a conventional lifestyle desisting from crime. The Dunedin longitudinal study, a New Zealand cohort following 1037 boys and girls from the age of 3 until adulthood, tested this hypothesis. Twenty-three percent of the participants were classified as adolescent limited during childhood while 7% of the sample were classified as life course persistent in crime (Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). The study was conducted by Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, and Milne (2002) when the sample reached the age of 26, and they found that children characterized as life-course persistent have higher levels of criminal convictions, including violent criminal convictions, mental health problems, substance dependence, and work problems. The analysis conducted with the Dunedin longitudinal study supports Moffitt’s (2006) hypothesis to some extent, showing the relevance of this topology in explaining different trajectories. Nonetheless, it did not explain completely the phenomenon of desistance from crime as a whole, for two main reasons: (1) A significant percentage of youths classified as nondelinquent or adolescent limited also have criminal convictions and a marginal lifestyle through life; and (2) some adults classified as life-course persistent during childhood did not persist with crime or with a marginal lifestyle during adulthood.

In contrast to Terrie Moffitt, Laub and Sampson (2001) described desistance as a: “variety of complex processes — developmental, psychological, and sociological — and thus there are several factors associated with it” (p. 3), and both Kazemian (2007) and Laub and Sampson (2001) argued that, instead of a topological preselection of different trajectories, the study of desistance should include a vision of desistance as a process occurring during the lifetime, not only because the majority of criminals stop their criminal activity during their forties but also because a set of psychosocial variables during adulthood are relevant in explaining those changes in criminal careers (Sampson & Laub, 2003). In fact, while several factors are consistent in explaining juvenile delinquency (Braga, Gonçalves, Basto-Pereira, & Maia, 2017; Hawkins et al., 2000), such as abuse, neglect, drug misuse, and antisocial peers, few predictors explain desistance from crime in juvenile delinquents. In this regard, Loeber et al. (2007) concluded that both persisters and desisters were similar in a large set of psychosocial problems, including educational, employment, and substance use problems.

Nonetheless, Terrie Moffitt’s work is of tremendous relevance, showing the importance of genetic and environmental factors during childhood and their predictive ability regarding persistence in crime and social marginalization. In fact, Sampson and Laub (2005) did not reject the importance of childhood experiences and characteristics on criminal behavior. Their work, using an update of Glueck’s longitudinal study, with a cohort composed of 52 juvenile delinquents aged from 7 to 17 and up to 70 years, found that childhood and adolescent variables (e.g., extroversion, adventurousness, egocentricity, or violent temper tantrums) are predictors of adult crime through life. To sum up, works of Laub and Sampson (2001) and Sampson and Laub (2005) appear to suggest that childhood and adolescent factors seem to be the first step, but never the only or the last path, in understanding the process of desistance from crime.

1.3. PREVALENCE OF EARLY ADVERSE EXPERIENCES AND ASSOCIATIONS WITH PSYCHOSOCIAL DYSFUNCTION AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

In 1998, Felitti et al. (1998) published one of the first studies to address the prevalence and correlates of childhood adverse experiences. The study, conducted in a large sample (N = 9508), using the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Questionnaire, addressed not only maltreatment but also a set of household dysfunctional experiences (e.g., member imprisoned, parental substance use). More than half of the participants were victims of at least one serious adverse experience and 11.1% were victims of abuse (physical and/or sexual and/or emotional abuse) in the first 18 years of life. Childhood adverse experiences were interrelated and strongly related to a set of psychosocial problems, including alcoholism, drug use, psychopathology, and adult risk behavior. Those concerning results created a new line of research and in the last 18 years a set of studies have been conducted in order to explore the prevalence and the effects of serious abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. One of the most complete and comprehensive studies was conducted by Kessler et al. (2010) and included data from 21 countries in 5 continents (N = 51,945). The World Mental Health Survey was used to evaluate 12 childhood or adolescent adverse experiences. In terms of serious household dysfunction, the prevalences of parental mental illness (6.2%), parental substance disorder (4.0%), parental criminal behavior (2.9%), family violence (6.5%), parental death (12.5%), parental divorce (6.6%), other parental loss (5.1%), physical illness (3.1%), and economic adversity (3.4%) were presented. Maltreatment was also evaluated, with the most prevalent category being physical abuse (8.0%), followed by neglect (4.4%) and sexual abuse (1.6%). This study also showed that childhood adversities were strongly interrelated and associated with all classes of mental disorders during the lifetime.

More recently, the Stockholm study (Björkenstam et al., 2016) supported these findings and particularly highlighted the relevance of adversity beyond maltreatment. The study explored the role of household dysfunction in a large community sample (N = 96,399). Fifty-one percent of the sample were victims of at least one serious household dysfunction, and the cumulative exposure to childhood adversity was related to the level of utilization of psychiatric care. Likewise, Dube et al. (2003), in a study conducted in California, USA (N = 8613), found a relationship between drug initiation and a cumulative exposure to early adverse experiences. The prevalence of childhood adverse experiences in this sample was very high (67.3%). Moreover, more than a quarter of the sample reported having been victims of three or more serious early adverse experiences before the age of 18 (26.3%).

In Portugal, three important studies explored the prevalence and correlates of childhood adverse experiences (limited to abuse or neglect). The first study evaluated parental reports of physical and emotional abuse (Machado, Gonçalves, Matos, & Dias, 2007) in a sample of 2391 parents, with the commitment of physical abusive acts being reported by 12.3% of the parents, while 22.4% of the parents reported having been perpetrators of emotional abusive acts. Another relevant Portuguese study was conducted by Figueiredo et al. (2004) in a sample of 1000 parents. About 81.6% of parents self-reported having been victims of physical abuse and 2.6% of sexual abuse during childhood or adolescence, and this study highlighted the particularly important intergenerational role of maltreatment. In the last few years, the study conducted in Portugal by Pinto and Maia (2013) in a sample of youths with documented maltreatment found positive associations between the level of childhood adverse experiences and a set of health problems including psychopathology, physical complaints, and health risk behaviors. In addition, the study conducted by Ribeiro, Basto-Pereira, and Maia (2016) showed that youths with parents identified by the Child Protective Services (CPS) as mentally ill have almost double the prevalence of psychopathological symptoms five years later than other youths with only documented maltreatment.

In line with previous findings regarding victimization experiences (see Mesquita, Basto-Pereira, & Maia, 2017; Pinto, Correia, & Maia, 2014), the prevalence of the presence and type of childhood adverse experiences ranges from study to study, for various reasons, including differences between official documents and self-reported information, longitudinal and retrospective design, the types of surveys, and cultural differences between countries, among others. Nonetheless, the majority of studies coincide regarding the high prevalence of adverse experiences during childhood and adolescence, as well as the association between the cumulative effects of these experiences and serious long-term mental health problems.

A growing body of evidence related to adverse experiences and delinquency has been published in the last few years, particularly with regard to maltreatment. A meta-analysis conducted in 2016 by Braga et al. (2017) included 33 prospective longitudinal studies (N = 23,973 youths). This study showed maltreatment globally, and each type of ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Chapter 1 Juvenile Delinquency, Crime and Social Marginalization: Theoretical Background
• Chapter 2 Portuguese Study on Delinquency and Social Marginalization: Major Topics and Research Questions
• Chapter 3 Methods
• Chapter 4 Juvenile Delinquency, Crime and Social Marginalization: Main Findings
• Chapter 5 Recommendation for Policies, Interventions, and Future Directions
• Chapter 6 Overall Conclusions
• References
• Appendix
• About the Authors
• Index