Introduction
Criminological research produced a reliable link between an individual’s criminal attitudes and criminal behavior. Research showed individuals’ attitudes toward crime may herald their criminal behavior, in agreement with criminological theories such as control theory, learning theory and psychological theories like the theory of reasoned action. Alternatively, juvenile delinquency may reflect defense mechanisms whereby adolescents try to conceal their factual motivations and emotions by providing logical or self-justifying explanations for unfounded or unacceptable behavior of their prior criminal behavior. This is clear in social psychological theories as self-perception theory. Finally, criminal attitudes and behavior may be reciprocally related such that each exerts an independent influence on the other (Rebellon & Manasse 2007).
Despite all theories contributed significantly to explaining how young individuals involve in delinquent activities, none specifically accounted for why some young people deliberately choose to become involved in at-risk and criminal-related activities to pursue and subsequently establish a nonconforming reputation. To fulfill that, an alternative explanation that integrates goal-setting and reputation-enhancement theories or multifaceted theoretical approaches are needed (Cullen et al 2003).
Since there are many theories for juvenile delinquency, this paper will focus on the developmental theory and the labeling theory explaining its limitations.
Developmental Theory of Juvenile Delinquency
Developmental Theories of Delinquency focus on two themes:
- the timing of delinquency initiation and
- the progression along developmental pathways of involvement in increasingly serious delinquent behaviors.
The developmental theories of delinquency offer a dimension lacking in some other prominent theories because they explain patterns of offending over the course of an individual’s life. They also address why some individuals are more likely to engage in delinquency than are others and why some groups have higher rates of delinquency than do others.
According to developmental researchers, trajectories, pathways, and transitions should be incorporated into theories of crime. Researchers proposed that during adolescence, delinquent behavior is carried out mainly by two distinct groups: juvenile-limited delinquents and life-course enduring delinquents. A third group known as abstainers, that is those with no more than one recorded antisocial problem from age 5 through to 18 years, was also identified.
To categorize the disproportionate number of adolescent-limited offenders compared with life-course persistent offenders, Moffitt, 1993 (after Carroll et al 2009) developed a Developmental Taxonomy. Within this taxonomy, the critical distinction between these two groups of offenders is grounded in different trajectories. That is, antisocial behavior begins early in life and is life-course persistent, as against antisocial behavior beginning in adolescence and likely remaining limited to this period.
Adolescent-limited offenders begin engaging in delinquent acts to mimic the behaviors of their life-course persistent peers, because these behaviors allow access to desirable resources and mature status, which entail power and privilege. Desistence occurs when the costs of delinquency become higher than the benefits of more prosocial actions. With reference to adolescent-limited offenders, these individuals engage in delinquent behaviors only during adolescence, and offending develops as a result of social mimicry and peer influence (Carroll et al, 2009).
Life-course persistent offenders, on the other hand, may develop antisocial and aggressive behaviors caused by neuropathologic impairments sustained during prenatal, perinatal, and/or early postnatal phases, sometimes in combination with family and neighborhood adversity. These neuropsychological problems are thought to result in two main types of neuropsychological deficits in childhood: deficits in verbal functioning and deficits in executive functioning. Life-course persistent offenders also consist of a second distinct group of early-onset offending individuals with no neurodevelopmental pathology. These offenders are often termed psychopaths in adult life and pursue a lifelong evolutionary adaptive strategy of defection, manipulation, dominance, coercion, and aggression (Sampson and Laub 2005).
Although these young people are biologically capable of and interested in adult behaviors (e.g., autonomous decision making), society denies them such privileges and so a solution is found by imitating the behavior of antisocial peers – peers who appear to have surmounted the maturity gap with behavior that symbolizes independence and autonomy such as drinking, smoking, and other risk-taking behaviors (Piquero et al 2005).
It is important to note at this juncture that whereas the developmental theory alludes to the existence of and possible importance of social identities and reputations to individuals; it did not specifically address their importance in the context of young individuals at risk of delinquency. Furthermore, that young people make choices through which to develop their reputations requires self-regulated goal directedness (Carroll 2009).
Labeling Theory of Juvenile Delinquency
Labeling theory centers on the impression that certain human behavior is socially defined as deviant and that it predominantly affects individuals on the margin of society. Once labeled as deviant, marginalized individuals accept the label and get seriously involved in a career of deviance. Both labeling theory and the conflict theory focus on who is defined as deviant, and the costs of being deviant. The theory provides potential incentives for the application of these definitions (Shoemaker 2009).
Edwin Lemert (1951) (after Shoemaker 2009) categorized deviance into primary deviance, involving in a delinquent behavior, and secondary deviance, where an individual changes the definition of self to fit the social label of deviant. Lemert emphasized that secondary deviance is the most problematic since only some of those involved in primary deviance reach the secondary new self-definition phase.
Ten years later, Howard Becker, 1963 (after Shoemaker 2009) highlighted the concept of career deviance, which expanded to the perception of sustained secondary deviance. According to Becker, after the redefinition of self in secondary deviance, the individual passes to a stage where the private and public identity is that of a deviant. Finally, once a juvenile accepts the label of deviant on the individual and public levels, a delinquent juvenile then starts on linking with deviant groups.
Labeling theory over-emphasizes the influence of socially applied labels over individuals’ subsequent behavior. Critics suggest that labeling theorists tend to view actors as rather passive, simply accepting the labels others place upon them and adopting the behavior associated with those negative classifications. Critics have also suggested that labeling theorists have been rather inconsistent in applying their understanding of deviance as a social construct.
On the one hand researchers hold that behavior only becomes deviant after it has been publicly labeled as such. Yet on the other hand, they deploy notions such as primary deviance and secret deviance, suggesting that acts can in fact be deviant prior to their public labeling. This being the case, the claim that deviance is purely a quality conferred by societal reactions appears to be contradicted by labeling theorists themselves. Such criticisms notwithstanding, labeling perspectives have made a vital contribution to the understanding of crime and deviance as the product of social processes, and continue to provide a valuable counterpoint to positivist criminology (O’ Brien and Yar 2008). As Shoemaker (2009) states:
Labeling theory has an interest in the understanding of how laws are made and enforced. In particular, this perspective on crime and delinquency assumes that laws reflect the interests of some, especially the more powerful in society, and that the enforcement of laws is also based on these influences. In addition, labeling theory addresses the important issues of the impact of being labeled a delinquent on one’s self-concept and behavior.
Conclusion
Juvenile delinquency is one form of deviance that is deviation from the societal norms and values. As many institutions establish and enforce these norms (family, school, juvenile justice systems…), juvenile delinquency is affected (as a behavior) by many factors. This may explicate the many theories accounting for this behavior. The developmental theories explain patterns of delinquency over the course of individual’s life and address why some individuals are more likely to engage in delinquency than are others. The labeling theory on the other hand (as Shoemaker stated in his book) focuses on the understanding of how laws are made and enforced.
References
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Durkin, K., and Hattie, J. A. (2009). Adolescent Reputations and Risk: Developmental Trajectories to Delinquency. New York: Springer.
Cullen, F. T., Paul Wright, J., Gendreau, P., and Andrews, D. A (2003). What Correctional Treatment Can Tell Us About Criminological Theory: Implications for Social Learning Theory? In Akers, R. L., and Jensen, G. F (Ed.), Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime: A Guide for the New Century. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
O’ Brien, M., and Yar, M (2008). Criminology: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge.
Piquero, A. R., Berzina, T., and Turner, M. G (2005). Testing Moffitt’s account of Delinquency abstention. J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(1), 27-54.
Rebellon, C. J., and Manasse, M. E (2007). Tautology, Reasoned Action, or Rationalization? Specifying the Nature of the Correlation between Criminal Attitudes and Criminal Behavior. In Froeling, K., T. (Ed.), Criminology Research Focus (Chapter 13). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Sampson, R. J., and Laub, J. H. (2005). A Life-Course View of the Development of Crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602(1), 12-45.
Shoemaker, D. J (2009). Juvenile delinquency. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.