Introduction
Before moving into the aspects of measurement of actions of juvenile delinquents, it is necessary to define and know what a juvenile delinquent is, and what actions fall within the ambit of juvenile delinquency. Generally speaking, it is seen that young people between the “ages of 7-16 years” who commit an act which could be considered as a criminal act, if indulged by an adult, could constitute juvenile delinquency (Frequently asked questions, n.d.).
Persistent and patterned criminal behavior constitutes juvenile delinquency
A stray incident of violence or unrest cannot be termed as JD. There are characteristics of juvenile behavior which envisage that the actions are not random, or off and on, but follow a consistent pattern of negative and violent behavior including truancy, defiance, indulgence in regular violent behavior and destruction of private and public properties. In extreme cases, juvenile delinquency could also end up in major crimes like murder and deliberate manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, exasperated assaults, burglary, larceny and property stealing including automobiles, etc.
There are no set patterns by which measurements of juvenile delinquency could take place, and much would augur from the surroundings and the facts and circumstances governing specific cases of juvenile delinquency. For the purpose of this essay, it is proposed to take up certain standard methods for considering measurement of juvenile delinquency. However, juvenile courts need to take a case to case study to determine which kind of action could be most appropriate under the circumstances.
Deterministic Studies – Cohort Studie
The first aspect is known as cohort studies. As the term implies, it deals with the group behavioral studies of juvenile delinquents and the ways and means by which such delinquent acts are carried out. During earlier times, the juveniles who regularly carried out delinquent activities were not registered as school going youngsters. But nowadays, even such youngsters indulge in delinquent behavior, often directed at other students, and carry out within the school premises.
Thus, the cohort studies carried out in large schools housing juveniles could be a significant place, where measurements through interactions with school governing community and administrators could take place. “In order to reduce delinquency, the educational institution has become more sophisticated in identifying and assisting in the organizing of programs for potential and active delinquent students (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Polk & Schafer, 1972).” (Willie,1996, para.2).
Self Reporting
Self reporting is also a major form of measurement of juvenile delinquency (Thornberry, & Krohn, 2009, p.43). It is seen that unlike taking recourse to legal or police records, self reporting entails descriptions of the crimes by their own perpetrators, which, surprisingly is seen to be very detailed and comprehensive indeed when compared to other forms of measurement. Self reporting, by encouraging the respondents to talk about themselves, instills a sense of independence and candor to talk about their criminal activities. Thus it is believed that this would be a more appropriate and responsive system (Criminology class, fall 1999 200 word summaries of lecture and class discussions, 1999).
One of the primary reasons may be because crime records from secondary sources would not report all the facts, but may restrict to the salient features. But the perpetrators themselves would be in a better position to narrate the full incidents and offer better materials for research. “During this period of time researchers began to recognize the true potential of the self-report methodology. By including questions concerning other aspects of an adolescent’s life as well as a delinquency scale on the same questionnaire, researchers could explore a host of etiological issues.” (Measurement problems in criminal justice research: workshop summary, 2009).
The next method of measurement would be through victimization surveys, in other words, the data and information received from the victims themselves. It is seen that while juvenile delinquents do not outnumber the victims, why is it that the former command more attention than the latter (Finkelhor, 2008).
It may be possible in terms of the fact that delinquents need to be treated in order to stop being a threat to society, and perhaps for their own protection and welfare. Just as the interests of delinquents themselves are being compromised, the victims themselves may be in a constant state of fear and trepidation, and have lowered levels of compromised security. Thus, it is quite evident that one of the major measurements of juvenile delinquency could be gathered from the victims themselves.
Uniform Crime Reporting Under the Aegis of Federal Bureau of Investigation
Perhaps, one of the most significant methods of measuring actions of juvenile delinquency is provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation through its Uniform Crime Reporting systems. UCR is an authoritative and upgraded measurement source of juvenile delinquency. It had pioneered the definition of seven types of crimes viz. “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assaults, burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle thefts.” (Musick, 1995, p.49). Of the above, the first four are listed as “crimes against persons” while the last three are listed under “crimes against property” and constitute Part I offenses of the list. The crimes that cannot appear in this list form part of Part II offenses.
Corporate crimes and other crimes fall in this section (Musick, 1995, p.49).
Coming to the actual statistics, it is seen that through the period 1985 -1997, the number of delinquency cases handled climbed steadily (61%) and from 1997 through 2005, the delinquency caseload dropped 9%. Juvenile courts handled 46% more cases in 2005 than in 1985.” Thus the measurements could be seen that it has increased, decreased and then leveled during the end of the 20th century. The graphic representation shows the curves and dips as follows:
(Sickmund, 2009, p.1). However, while uniform reporting systems have their benefits, they are also voluntary in nature and would depend upon the disposition of the juveniles to answer. Again, due to the technical nature of reporting, it is possible that the facts and figures offered may fall well short of the actual number of crimes committed.
Clearance by Arrest Method
It is next necessary to consider clearance by arrest method of juvenile delinquency measure. Arrests, by far, provide quantitative and qualitative measures of JD to the police and law enforcement officers. Thus, under this system only the crimes occurred and reported form part of the UCR. Specific information may not be available, especially the number of youth involved in the crime but not arrested, etc. As evident, this deals with JD that does get reported and not really what has really occurred. It fails to provide a clear and comprehensive data of full extent of JD. Thus, statistics may be of a retrospective effect and may serve academic interests well. “Thus, UCR data reports arrest prevalence rather than offence prevalence.” (P. 120: (Burfeind, & Bartusch, 2005, p.120).
Indext Offences
It is observed that juvenile crimes are differentiated into two types – juvenile offences which are wrong, ab-initio, irrespective of the age of the offenders and secondly, delinquency status offenses, which are only applicable for JD, relating to truancy, absconding or other juvenile crimes, typical of their age and nature, and not carried out by adult criminals. It is seen that although there may be different charges framed against juvenile delinquents, the case indexed may only be one. Referrals to juvenile courts are made by law enforcement agencies, social workers, schools, educational institutions, parents, guardians, probation officers or even the victims of the JD. If need be and according to the demands of the occasion, the JD may be placed in detention centers during the currency of proceedings in order to prevent harm to the community, the delinquent himself or both.
It is observed that “Between 1985 and 2000 the number of adjudicated delinquency cases resulting in formal probation rose 108 percent, those resulting in residential placement rose 49 percent, and those resulting in other sanctions, such as community service or restitution, rose by 84 percent. The number of cases dismissed (about 3 percent of the total) remained about the same for the entire time period.” (Juvenile crime- the crimes- court statistics, 2009, Case processing, para.4).
Thus, from the above it could be deduced that adjudication of juvenile delinquency cases is indeed effective and efficiently carried out.
Conclusions
Different sources of data provide different images, and it would be presumptuous to place too much reliance on matters of dubious reliability. However, offenses dealing with juvenile delinquency are of two types – serious crimes and not so serious crimes, dealing both with property and human life. The fact remains that so serious crimes may not always be reported, and would thus fail to meet thresholds of this study. However, serious crimes do lead to detentions, arrests and convictions which attract official recording. More often than not, crimes of serious nature and violence are well documented, and arrests and detentions provide valid and accurate results.
Moreover, it is also seen that property crimes relating to juvenile delinquents are far more recurrent than violent crimes committed. Throughout the final decades of the 20th century, juvenile property crimes like thefts, larceny, auto thefts etc were on the rise while major crimes like rape, murder, homicide were less in number, thus not really creating avenues for better data assimilation and management for juvenile delinquencies of all genres and intents.
References
Burfeind, J W., & Bartusch, D J. (2005). Juvenile delinquency: an integrated approach. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Criminology class, fall 1999 200 word summaries of lecture and class discussions: Measuring crime: how much crime is there. (1999). California State University, Dominguez Hills. Web.
Finkelhor, D. (2008). Childhood victimization: violence, crime, and abuse in the lives of young people. Oxford University Press US.
Frequently asked questions. (n.d.). About Juvenile Delinquents: What ever Parent needs to Known. Web.
Juvenile crime- the crimes- court statistics: case processing. (2009). Web.
Measurement problems in criminal justice research: workshop summary. (2009). Web.
Musick, D. (1995). An introduction to the sociology of juvenile delinquency: Chapter 3: Measuring delinquency: Uniform crime report. SUNY Press. 49.
Sickmund, M. (2009). Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 2005. OJJDP Fact Sheet. Web.
Thornberry, T P., & Krohn, M D. ( 2009). Measurement problems in criminal justice research: workshop summary: Comparison of self- report and official data for measuring crime. The National Academies Press. Web.
Willie, J W. (1996). A measurement of delinquency differences between a delinquent and nondelinquent sample: what are the implications. Access My Library: Search Information that Libraries Test. Web.