Juvenile Delinquency and the Rule Breaking It

Juvenile delinquency is the participation of illegal behaviour by minors.

Juvenile delinquent is a person, who is considered as minor by the law (usually below 18), and 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 and of which law governs, it is possible for persons under 18 to be charged and tried as adults.

Juveniles can be transferred into adult court if the law that governs the case allows such to happen. State statutes creating juvenile courts and providing methods for dealing with juvenile delinquency have generally been upheld by courts as an acceptable extension of state police power to ensure the safety and welfare of children. The doctrine of parens patriae authorizes the state to legislate for the protection, care, custody, and maintenance of children within its jurisdiction.

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 approaches: biological, psychological, and sociological approach. Among these three, sociological approach is widely used. One known theory under sociological approach is the social learning theory, which is based upon how an individual conforms and accepts the rules, laws, and mores of society. The behaviour of the individual that may be developed when there are positive role models within the home and community and when there is violence. The individual learns that violence is

the only available way of coping with frustrations. In sum, the environment is deeply related to the way individuals will develop their ways in dealing with society of whether they become conformist or delinquents.

The sociological theories of juvenile delinquency include the strain theory, labelling 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.

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. The second one is a commitment, meaning that a lack of commitment towards mores and social laws can lead to delinquent behaviour. 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 commit criminal acts. 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.

The Juvenile Justice System: Past and Present

The juvenile court and its philosophy of treating minors who violate the criminal law differently than adults are barely a century old. Historically, juvenile criminals were treated the same as adult criminals. The Philippine Revised Penal Code provided for the exemption of minors from incurring criminal liability. The provision under this code has undergone amendments and as of 2006, RA 9344 has become the law that guides the criminal justice system in handling criminal cases involving children in the Philippines.

The enactment of the Revised Penal Code is based on American Laws. In the past, 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 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 was created when the 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.
4

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 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
5

they raised questions about the effect on juveniles of the lack of due process procedures and protection of individual rights. (DEWEY G. CORNELL, 2002).

Labelling and Conflict Approaches to Delinquency

Despite this similarity, labelling theory and conflict theory are vastly different. The latter 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.

Labelling theory, on the other hand, stems from the work of W.I. Thomas who, in 1928, wrote, "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". Labelling 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.

The labelling theory focuses on defining an individual as a criminal or noncriminal. When a person is labelled 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 labelling theory is that individuals will look for the types of

reactions that their behaviour receives from others. Once an individual has been labelled, s/he becomes a social outcast and begins to rebel, in order to live up to his/her identifying label (Labelling, 2005). By applying labels to people, and in the process creating categories of deviance, these people are reinforcing the power structure of society.

Many of the rules that define deviance and the contexts in which deviant behaviour is labelled 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 peoples trees, climbing into other peoples 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.

On the other hand, 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)

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 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
10

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 behaviours. 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 behaviours 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 %11 of the changes of juvenile delinquency is P 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

11

and its result can help researchers in leading more studies on this ground (Bijan Khajehnoori, 2013).

Works Cited
Criminal Theory: Conflict Theory. (2005, November 22). Retrieved March 4, 2014, from Criminology Florida State University: http://criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/conflict.htm Bijan Khajehnoori, S. K. (2013). Study of the Effect of Individualistic Tendencies on Juvenile Delinquency . Journal of Basic and Applied , 699. 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/juvenilejustice-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/theoriesjuvenile-delinquency-214245.html

12