CRI1103 Essay Assessment - Youth Offending in Australia PDF

Preview

Summary

CRI1103 Essay Assessment - Youth Offending in Australia...

Description

Youth offenders are individuals between 10 and 19 years of age, who were proceeded against by police (Australia Bureau of Statistics, 2015). In Australia, between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014 there were 88,613 youth offenders (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015). They made up 22% of the total offender population in Australia during this time; however, they represented 14% of the total Australian Estimated Resident Population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Criminological theories assist in explaining the reasons and motivations for offending. Three of these theories, Rational Choice, General Strain and Self-Control can be applied to youth offending in an effort to determine what motivates youths to offend, which can later assist in the prevention of youth crime.

Rational Choice Theory, developed by Clarke and Cornish in 1985 (De Haan, 2003 p. 31), suggests that all human actions are based on rational decisions (Akers, 1990, p. 654). All individuals, including offenders, are seen as reasoning decision makers who carry out a costs/benefits examination when making a judgement (Akers, 1990, p. 663; De Haan, 2003, p. 31). It suggests that individuals will participate in crime when the anticipated value from the crime is greater than the expected value from not committing the crime. The costs of crime include official restrictions, such as arrest, conviction or imprisonment (Matsueda, p. 101), whereas opportunity costs include the costs of arrest and opportunity costs sacrificed to participate in crime (Matsueda, p. 101). For adolescents, opportunity costs include education and employment (Matsueda, p. 101). This theory suggests that adolescents who are attentive in school or performing well will be less likely to participate in crime as they see education as a path to future prestige and profits, such as income (Matsueda, p. 101). This is also suggested to occur in relation to adolescents who are pursuing employment, as they will be less likely to endanger their genuine future earnings by offending (Matsueda, p. 101). The return of crime is generally income; however for youth offenders who are incapable of

gaining rank in society through orthodox means, it offers an alternate path for status in the eyes of the individual’s peers (Matsueda, p. 101). This theory can be associated with youth offenders, as some adolescents who are incapable of gaining status through the conventional path of schooling and education, may turn to crime in a gang in an effort to be able to receive the status that they could have through education.

General Strain Theory, developed by Robert Agnew in 1992, is an expansion from the concept of classical Strain Theory (Moon, Hays & Blurton, 2009, p. 98). Agnew defined strain as “Relationships in which others are not treating the individual as he or she would like to be treated” (Moon et al, 2009, p. 98), and that there were three broad classifications of strain: (1) Loss of positive stimuli, such as the breakup of a relationship, (2) Existence of negative stimuli, such as child abuse, and (3) Failure to attain positively valued goals, such as status or respect (Baron, 2004, p. 458; Baron & Agnew, p. 118). The presence of strain in one’s life leads to negative feelings, such as anger and frustration, which creates a need in the individual for counteractive action (Baron & Agnew, p. 118; Baron, 2004, p. 458). GST suggests that adolescents are more likely to participate in criminal coping as they lack the experience of coping, as well as not having access to orthodox societal support and resources that can assist coping, such as power and money, and being exposed to peers who inspire criminal coping (Agnew & Baron, p. 120 –122). Traditional problem solving is limited for adolescents, making criminal coping approaches attractive to them (Baron, 2004, p. 461). When adolescents are unable to accomplish their goals through valid means, they become frustrated and turn to unlawful means of goal attainment, such as crime (Agnew, 1985, p. 151). Research also shows that more serious types of strain, such as severe juvenile strains, including child abuse, can lead to criminal coping behaviours (Baron, 2004, p. 460; Baron & Agnew, p. 123) This is due to the fact that abuse threatens a child’s goals, beliefs and needs

and may be seen to the individual as unfair and unmerited (Baron & Agnew, p. 123; Baron, 2004, p. 460). Agnew also suggests that strains that are severe or extensive affect an individual’s capacity to manage in a noncriminal way, by reducing the supposed costs of crime and increasing the likelihood of them participating in criminal coping (Baron, 2004, p. 460), and when a strain has these features criminal behaviour is more likely to result (Agnew & Baron, p. 118). Punitive physical punishment, verbal abuse, emotional and physical mistreatment can all be seen as strains that are high in magnitude (Baron & Agnew, p. 123). Data was collected by the Australian Institute of Criminology, where 46% of the youth offenders in the study revealed that of the abuses reviewed (violent, emotional and neglect), at least one of these types had occurred in their lifetime (Prichard & Payne, 2006, p. 4). This corresponds with studies which show that emotionally abused children can become unreceptive and antagonistic, and view the world as a hostile environment (Baron, 2004, p. 462). Agnew also suggested that crime can reduce the mental toll of strain on adolescents, by allowing them a means to escape the strain, recompense for the negative effects of strain and fulfil a need for retribution (Baron, 2004, p. 460).

Self-Control Theory, developed in 1990 by Gottfredson and Hirschi (Wright & Beaver, 2005, p. 1169), suggests that self-control in children is developed by their parents, by either nurturing or preventing it from developing (Wright et al, 2005, p. 1169). They suggested that it was an outcome of unsuccessful child raising (Mears, p. 448), as well as a reluctance or incapacity to contribute to the duties essential to parenting (DeLisi, 2008, p. 141-142), and that self-control developed within the first ten years of life (Baron, 2003, p. 404; DeLisi, 2008, p. 141). Two studies in 1997 and 2000, carried out by Evans and Gibson respectively, found that self-control could be connected to inadequate family relationships (DeLisi, 2008, p. 143; DeLisis & Berg, 2006, p. 154). This theory suggests that self-control

assists in predicting crime and deviant behaviour (DeLisi & Berg, 2006, p. 153). They suggested that individuals with high levels of self-control were more likely to exercise good judgement, thrive, make sacrifices for more long-term goals and never seem to be out of control (DeLisi & Berg, 2006, p. 154), which led to them being considerably less likely to participate in criminal acts (Mears, p. 449). This differed in comparison to that of individuals with low self-control who were seen to be impetuous, indifferent, action-orientated, adversely tempered risk-takers who were more likely to perform poorly or fail to meet the responsibilities of school and family (Baron, 2003, p. 403-403; DeLisi, 2008, p. 151). Individuals with low self-control were also said to engage in greater amounts of crime, deviance, and irresponsible behaviours compared to those with high self-control ( DeLisi, 2008, p. 151). It suggests that individuals with low self-control still evaluate the costs of their actions, like individuals with high self-control, and that they may abstain from offending after carrying out a costs-benefits analysis, but that they were less able to evaluate the negative consequences of a criminal act (Mears, p. 449), they essentially do not consider the full variety of costs to their actions (DeLisi, 2008, p. 142). Self-Control Theory also suggests that low self-control influences an adolescents association with deviant peers (Baron, 2003, p. 403-405). Criminal links were also found to encourage people with low self-control to identify opportunities for crime and see certain crimes as worth following (Baron, 2003, p. 417). Studies throughout the world have linked levels of low self-control with deviant behaviours, for both male and females, in five diverse age groups of adolescents in four nations (DeLisi, 2008, p. 142-143). Another study in America which was carried out over five years on self-control theory, with a sample of 965 youths from six different cities, found that offenders exhibited less self-control, more impulsivity and greater risk taking than nonoffenders (DeLisi, 2008, p. 143).

Criminological theories have been developed to explain the reasons why individuals commit crime. They can also be used to explain specific queries relating to crime, such as the difference in offending between genders and ages. By understanding the reasons why individuals commit crime, we will be better equipped to address the issue of crime and prevention of it.

References Akers, R. (1990). Rational Choice, Deterrence and Social Learning Theory in Criminology: The Path Not Taken. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(3), 653-676.

De Haan, W., & Vos, J. (2003). A Crying Shame: The Over-Rationalized Conception of Man in the Rational Choice Perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 7(1), 29-54.

Moon, B., Hays, K., & Blurton, D. (2009). General Strain Theory, Key Strains and Deviance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 98-106.

Prichard, J., & Payne, J. (2005). Key Findings from the Drug Use Careers of Juvenile Offenders Study. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Wright, J., & Beaver, K. (2005). Do Parents matter in creating Self-Control in their Children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control. Criminology, 43(4), 1169-1202.

*Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Australian National Accounts (Cat. No. 5206). Retrieced from http://www.abs.gov.au...