Child or Adult?

vixen1004

chapter5.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help > Child or Adult?

127

5 Relationships Between Age and Crime Across the Life Course

Gallo Images/Contributor/Gallo Images Editorial/Getty Images

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Explain differences between a juvenile and an adult and between juvenile delinquency and crime.

• Analyze the connection between age and criminal victimization among the elderly.

• Apply psychological and biological theories to help explain connections between age and crime.

• Critically analyze how and why age influences juvenile delinquency.

• Differentiate between juvenile justice and criminal justice.

128

In March 2011, 12-year-old Cristian Fernandez killed his 2-year-old half brother, David, in Jacksonville, Florida. Cristian and David were reportedly fighting, and Cristian pushed David into a bookcase. David was hospitalized with a fractured skull and brain hemorrhaging, and he remained unconscious until his death. When questioned by police, Cristian admitted to beating his brother, and police also discovered that Cristian had broken David’s leg in January 2011 as they wrestled.

Their 25-year-old mother, Biannela Susana, originally lied to law enforcement about the inci- dent, claiming she had been home during the fight even though she was not present. Cristian originally told her that David had fallen off his bunk bed, and even though David remained unconscious, almost 8 hours passed before Susana took him to the hospital.

During their investigation, police found that on the day of the incident, Susana did not call 911 but instead searched the Internet for “when someone gets knocked out.” Susana then checked her bank account and downloaded music to her computer before searching for the hospital address. Doctors believed that if Susana had taken David to the hospital immediately, he would still be alive.

The case made national and international news when the state prosecutor decided to try Cris- tian as an adult, making him the youngest person ever in the state to be charged as an adult. Susana eventually pleaded guilty to aggravated manslaughter for her role in David’s death and faces 13 to 30 years in prison.

Various media outlets have reported that Cristian, like his mother before him, was in and out of foster care. His grandmother was reportedly a drug addict. Reports indicated that Cristian had been physically, emotionally, and sexually abused by his parents (Brumley, 2011). In a shocking twist, Cristian admitted to sexually abusing a 5-year-old half brother and will be tried separately for this crime.

Given the history of trauma, is Cristian a cold-blooded killer or a victim of a horrible upbring- ing incapable of sound judgment? Should Cristian have been tried as an adult, or should his case have been handled in the juvenile justice system, where the focus would have been on the best interests of the child, rather than punishment?

This chapter explores relationships between age and crime, including the impact of age on criminality as well as criminal victimization. The case of Cristian Fernandez is examined in further detail throughout the chapter.

129

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course At some point during our lives, we all violate rules and even break the law. Studies show that most of us commit crimes only occasionally, usually beginning in our teenage years (adoles- cence). Most people who commit crimes during adolescence do not continue to do so into adulthood; they are called adolescent-limited offenders because their criminality is limited to adolescence. Another term for people who commit crimes in adolescence is late starters, since they do not commit criminal acts as children (in most states any age prior to one’s 18th birthday). Some people start committing criminal acts much earlier—in childhood—and thus are known as early starters. Late and early starters who persist in regularly committing crimes into adulthood are called life-course-persistent offenders (Alltucker et al., 2006; Moffitt, 1993, 1997).

The life course is a term used by criminologists to describe the entire life span of a person, from birth until death (Laub & Sampson, 2006; Sampson & Laub, 1995). Studies show there are significant differences between early and late starters as well as between adolescent- limited and life-course-persistent offenders. These differences are discussed later in this chapter as they relate to the issue of age and crime.

Cristian Fernandez’s guilty plea classifies him as a juvenile who began his deviant behavior early. Studies suggest people like Cristian will generally continue to commit crimes into adult- hood unless they receive proper intervention. It is for this reason that Cristian’s fate in the criminal justice system was such an important issue for society.

Juveniles Versus Adults Legally speaking, there is a major difference between criminal acts committed by kids or ado- lescents and those committed by adults. Juveniles are people who have not yet reached the age of adulthood and thus are not usually tried as adults in court. An adult is a person who has reached a certain age at which they are presumed to be responsible for their behavior. The age of adulthood varies by state but is usually 18 years. At this age, people can generally drive, vote, join the military, become a police officer, and enjoy many other privileges of adulthood.

Historically, juveniles were processed in a separate system of justice called the juvenile justice system, which deals with three major kinds of cases. These include delinquency cases (when a young person is suspected of a violation of the criminal law), dependency cases (when a family is unable to care for a child and thus the child is placed in the custody of the juvenile court), and neglect or abuse cases (when a family member or caregiver is accused of either not prop- erly caring for or physically harming a child). Juvenile courts still handle dependency, neglect, and abuse cases, yet kids who are accused of violating the criminal law are now increasingly being processed in the adult criminal justice system, as in the case of Cristian Fernandez from the beginning of the chapter.

130

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Juvenile Delinquency Technically, juveniles do not commit crimes. When a juvenile violates the law, it is referred to as an act of delinquency. Delinquency is an act committed by a young person that would be a crime if the person was an adult (Siegel & Welsh, 2011). When a person is alleged to have violated the criminal law, state law dictates whether the offender is treated as a juvenile or as an adult. In most states and at the federal level, people are automatically handled as adults when they are 18 years old. In other states a juvenile is someone aged 17 and under, whereas in others it is someone aged 16 and under.

Criminologists rely on various measures of data to establish the amount of delinquency in society. These include the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the National Incident-Based Reporting System, and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and Supplementary Homicide Reports. Table 5.1 shows some of the findings from these data.

Web Field Trip: Four Kids, Four Crimes

Efforts in recent years to “get tough on crime” have not excluded children. In the 1990s almost every single state passed laws making it easier to try juveniles in adult criminal courts. In most states no minimum age is stipulated for a juvenile’s transfer to criminal court. Of those states that do, only two set a minimum age of higher than 14. Up until 2018 California had five criteria that had to be considered to certify a child up to the adult system for trial: previous delinquent history, the level of the offender’s criminal sophistication, whether they can be rehabilitated in the time the court has to work with them, the success of prior rehabilitation attempts, and the seriousness or gravity of the crime. The state has since changed its law, now barring any child under age 16 from being transferred to adult court or facing a life sentence, regardless of the severity of the crime.

Four kids, four crimes: Two were sent to adult court, and two were treated as juveniles. Did the court make the right decision? Read their stories and decide for yourself:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Do you agree with the punishments of Manny, Shawn, Marquese, and José? 2. Do you think that because Shawn is White and from an affluent background, he received

a more lenient punishment than he otherwise would have? 3. Do you think any kid ever belongs in adult court? 4. Can juvenile criminals be rehabilitated instead of locked up? How?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile

131

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Table 5.1: Estimated number of juvenile arrests, 2018

Most serious offense Number of juvenile arrests

All offenses 728,280

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 920

Robbery 17,290

Aggravated assault 27,940

Burglary 22,250

Larceny-theft 92,630

Motor vehicle theft 14,780

Arson 1,850

Simple assault 125,030

Forgery and counterfeiting 1,040

Fraud 4,710

Embezzlement 580

Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 9,320

Vandalism 30,600

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 17,170

Prostitution and commercialized vice 260

Drug abuse violations 90,670

Gambling 180

Offenses against the family and children 3,340

Driving under the influence 5,450

Liquor laws 26,350

Drunkenness 3,270

Disorderly conduct 57,760

Vagrancy 680

All other offenses (except traffic) 140,500

Curfew and loitering 22,030

Property Crime Index 131,500

Violent crimes* 46,140

Note. The Property Crime Index includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. * The violent crimes category includes the offenses of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault and is presented as an alternative to the Violent Crime Index, which is not available as a result of the change to the definition of rape in 2013. In any given year prior to the change in the rape definition, these three offenses accounted for more than 95% of arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses. Source: From Law Enforcement & Juvenile Crime, by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2019 (https:// www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp?qaDate=2018&text=yes).

132

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Specifically, these data show the number of juveniles arrested in 2018 for various crimes. This should be seen as a very conservative estimate of the number of delinquent acts committed by juveniles. Indeed, most delinquent acts do not lead to arrests, because victims and wit- nesses do not come forward. Still, the data show us that property crimes, violations of the law that lead to property loss, are far more common among juveniles than violent crimes and that nonviolent crimes are far more common than violent crimes. Violent crimes are viola- tions of the law intended to produce physical harm to a victim.

In 2018 there were 73.4 million people younger than 18 in the United States (OJJDP, 2019a), and only 131,500 juvenile arrests were made for acts of serious delinquency against property and 46,140 for acts of serious violent delinquency, meaning that fewer than 1% of juveniles in the United States were arrested for serious delinquent acts. This shows how rare serious juvenile delinquency is in society.

Demographic Factors of Delinquency Data from the FBI’s Crime in the United States 2018 report show that in 2018 the following groups were more heavily involved in acts of delinquency: males, juveniles ages 15–17, and minorities (FBI, 2019a, 2019b; OJJDP, 2019b). Figure 5.1 shows that the rate of male delin- quency is much higher than the rate of female delinquency. In fact, in 2017, 73% of delin- quency cases in courts were of male juveniles (Hockenberry, 2019).

Figure 5.1: Juvenile arrest rates by gender, 1980–2018

The rate of delinquency is consistently higher for males than females.

From Law Enforcement & Juvenile Crime, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2019 (https://www.ojjdp.gov /ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05230&selOffenses=1).

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 ‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 ‘02 ‘04 ‘06 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘16 ‘18

R a

Male Female

133

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

The issue of gender is relevant for a chapter on age, because young males pose the greatest risk of serious acts of delinquency. Figure 5.2 shows that as young people move from age 10 to 17, their risk of delinquency involvement rises for property offenses, public order offenses, offenses against other persons, and drug offenses. The term initiation defines when a person begins committing delinquent behaviors. Its implications for behavior are discussed later in this chapter.

Figure 5.2: Delinquency rates by age

The risk of delinquent behavior rises from ages 10 to 17 years.

Based on data from Juvenile Court Statistics 2008, by C. Puzzanchera, B. Adams, and M. Sickmund, 2011, National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/jcs2008.pdf ).

0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Property

Person

Drugs

Public order

134

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Figure 5.3: Juvenile arrest rates by race, 1980–2018

Rates of juvenile arrest are highest for Black Americans.

From Juvenile Arrest Rate Trends, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2019 (https://www.ojjdp.gov /ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05260&selOffenses=1).

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 ‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 ‘02 ‘04 ‘06 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘16 ‘18

R a

White Minority Black American Indian Asian

Finally, Figure 5.3 shows involvement in delinquency by race. According to OJJDP (2019b) statistics, Black youths are the most involved in delinquency, followed by American Indians, Whites, and Asians. This is similar to statistics from police, courts, and corrections about the relationship between race and adult criminality. Yet there are at least two important caveats to these data. First, because there are more White juveniles in the population, they actually commit more acts of delinquency than any other racial group. However, the rate of offending is higher for Blacks because they commit a disproportionate amount of delinquency based on overall population. For example, the rate of delinquency for Black juveniles in 2018 was 4,618.3 per 100,000, versus 2,251.2 for American Indian juveniles, 1,792.7 for White juve- niles, and 457.6 for Asian juveniles (OJJDP, 2019b). Second, these data pertain to processing of delinquency in juvenile courts, meaning they may not accurately reflect who actually com- mits delinquency but instead who is arrested and processed through the system.

135

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Serious Crimes Committed by Juveniles Homicide is the most serious crime in America and occurs when one person kills another person in a way that violates the criminal law. Figure 5.4 illustrates trends in homicides (i.e., murder) committed by juveniles from 1980 through 2016. The data show that juvenile mur- ders rose in the 1980s but then fell in the 1990s. Over the past decade, juvenile murders have been relatively constant. These trends are consistent with adult homicide trends as well.

The largest portion of juvenile murders are committed by adolescents aged 16 and 17, as shown in Figure 5.4. Generally speaking, the likelihood of committing a murder rises through adolescence but then sharply declines thereafter, a reality of crime referred to as the age– crime curve, which will be addressed later in the chapter. From 1984 to 1994, homicide arrest rates for all juvenile age groups increased; the most significant was among youths aged 15 to 17, with an average increase of 199%. From 1994 to 2016, however, arrest rates declined for all juvenile age groups, with rates dropping an average of 69% for youths aged 15 to 17.

Figure 5.4: Homicides committed by juveniles by age, 1980–2016

The likelihood of homicide increases during adolescence.

From Offending by Juveniles, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2018 (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb /offenders/qa03104.asp?qaDate=2016).

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

600

400

200

0 ‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 ‘02 ‘04 ‘06 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘16

Under 14 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17

136

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Further, nearly all juvenile murderers are male. Female murderers have remained largely sta- ble (and extremely rare) for decades, whereas male homicides increased dramatically in the 1980s and then fell in the 1990s.

In terms of race, data show that Black youths are accused of murder more frequently than are White juveniles. Figure 5.5 shows that the number of homicides committed by Black youths was much higher than the number committed by White youths in the early 1990s, but since then the difference between the races has declined. From 2002 to 2007 the number of homicides by Black youths increased about 65%, and the number of homicides committed by White youths during this time remained fairly stable. Yet from 2007 to 2016, the rate of Black youth killings dropped about 35%.

Figure 5.5: Known juvenile homicide offenders by race, 1980–2016

The likelihood of committing homicide is highest for Black Americans.

From Offending by Juveniles, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2018 (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb /offenders/qa03101.asp?qaDate=2016).

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

600

400

200

0 ‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 ‘02 ‘04 ‘06 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘16

White Black Other

137

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Keep in mind that there are far more White juveniles in American society than Black juveniles. According to the OJJDP (2019a), 52.5% of people aged 0 to 17 years were White in 2018, fol- lowed by 25.5% Hispanic, 15.1% Black, 5.9% Asian, and 1% American Indian. Thus, Black youths are disproportionately involved in serious delinquency such as murder, and their rates of murder are thus significantly higher. Possible reasons for this are addressed later in the chapter, with special attention to how this relates to age.

In terms of how juveniles commit murders, guns are the predominant weapon of choice for juvenile murderers, just as with adult murderers. Most murders by juveniles in 2016 involved guns (about 80% of murders; OJJDP, 2019c). Data show that juvenile murderers usually kill people they know, either an acquaintance or a family member (OJJDP, 2019d). Yet Figure 5.6 shows juveniles also kill a large number of strangers; in 2016, 22% of juvenile murder victims were strangers, versus 39% who were acquaintances. Later in the chapter, potential explana- tions for why juveniles kill are addressed, and the link between age and use of guns is made explicit. Further, the interaction between age, race, and guns is an important issue that will be revisited later in the chapter.

Juveniles are often involved in serious crimes other than murder. Data from the OJJDP (2019f ) show that, on average, juveniles are involved in 20% of all serious violent crime in the country.

Figure 5.6: Homicides committed by juveniles by relationship, 1980–2016

Most juvenile homicides are committed by people who know each other.

From Offending by Juveniles, by by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2018 (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb /offenders/qa03107.asp?qaDate=2016).

1,000

1,500

500

0 ‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 ‘02 ‘04 ‘06 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘16

Family Acquaintance Stranger

138

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Drug Use Many young people also experiment with drug use. There are two primary sources of data on youth drug use. First, Monitoring the Future presents data from an annual survey of young people in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades. Second, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) presents data from a national household survey of people to determine the preva- lence of drug use among people age 12 and older. Both Monitoring the Future and the NSDUH measure current use (i.e., any drug use in the past month), past-year use, and lifetime use so that we can learn the percentage of Americans who have used drugs in the past month, past year, and ever.

In the Field: An Expert Weighs In on Youths and Gun Violence

Joshua Gryniewicz

How does changing the environments in which shoot- ings and killings occur influence youths in communities impacted? How might working with youths prevent shoot- ings and killings before intervention is necessary?

CeaseFire focuses primarily on changing the thinking. While we put effort into changing conditions, mediat- ing conflicts, and providing support, the bottom line is that unless we can shift the thinking of the individual and the social norms around violence, a community will not make much progress. In a lot of ways this is why so many community redevelopment projects fail to take off in the way that they are initially posed, because the social norms around violence are still a large part of daily life. When our workers resolve a conflict or when they work one-on-one with a client, the effort isn’t limited to just the intervention but with a longer term strategy for actually changing the thinking, getting the participants to consider alternatives to conflict resolution without resorting to violence.

There are so many “prevention-based” programs that do great work with an after-school approach: art programs, social service programs, etc., but the program participants CeaseFire works with are often beyond the scope of these offerings. They are the “highest risk” for vio- lence and more often than not have exhausted conventional and even most unconventional social support systems. They are often no longer in school, averse to social services, and would not participate in a conventional model. So their next encounter with the system is probably going to be prison. Again, we are talking about a small subset of the population in our target communities, but by far the most volatile. So while prevention programs make an exceptional contribution to changing the overall social norms, they are incapable of reaching those youths most likely to be involved in the most dangerous behaviors. I should add the influence Cease- Fire workers have on these youths is astounding: When the U.S. Department of Justice evalu- ation was released in 2008, it found 99% of participants interviewed rated their CeaseFire Outreach worker as the second most important person in their life besides their parents.

Courtesy of Joshua Gryniewicz Joshua Gryniewicz, former communication director for CeaseFire in Chicago, Illinois.

139

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

From these data sources, we know that about half of all Americans admit to having tried some illicit drug at least once by the 12th grade. Most of these people try only marijuana, and few ever move on to any other substance. Further, most people do not continue using illegal drugs into adulthood or become “current users” (i.e., do not report any drug use in the past month).

Most high school students are not current users of drugs. Among those who do use illicit drugs, drug use typically rises from 8th to 10th to 12th grades. The drug most likely used by students is alcohol, followed by marijuana and then cigarettes. There is almost no use of what scholars commonly refer to as “hard drugs” like cocaine and heroin (0.6% of students are cur- rent users of heroin; Johnston et al., 2020).

The data show that drug use among young people fell starting in the late 1970s, started ris- ing again in the early 1990s, then began leveling off and even declining in the late 1990s into the early 2000s. Over the past few years, youth drug use has again been rising. Just as with delinquency and criminal behavior, data from the NSDUH show that the risk of drug use rises in the teenage years, peaks at ages 18–20 years, then declines thereafter.

Web Field Trip: Juveniles and Vaping

A fairly recent trend among juveniles is “vaping” tobacco and other chemicals. Vaping is the use of an e-cigarette or similar device to inhale an aerosol version of liquids containing nicotine, flavorings, and other chemicals into one’s lungs. E-cigarettes can look like normal cigarettes, while other vaping devices can look like common, everyday objects like pens or USB flash drives (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). The health risks associated with these products and their effect on young users are just beginning to come into focus. Currently, all states restrict youth access to e-cigarettes (Public Health Law Center, 2020); however, 36.7% of students surveyed reported having vaped at some point (versus 41.5% for alcohol, 37.8% for marijuana, and 15.3% for cigarettes; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2020).

Visit https://youtu.be/755Vmwgl0ZI to watch a video from the National Institute on Drug Abuse discussing the latest Monitoring the Future results on vaping.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Do you think restricting juveniles’ access to vaping devices will help prevent them from

vaping nicotine and other chemicals? 2. Given the potential impacts of vaping on juveniles, what should be the minimum age for

access to such products?

https://youtu.be/755Vmwgl0ZI

140

Section 5.1 Criminality Across the Life Course

Figure 5.7 demonstrates the types of drugs being used by juveniles aged 12 to 17. The main drug of choice is marijuana, followed by illegal use of psychotherapeutics (prescription drugs like pain relievers, stimulants, and sedatives or tranquilizers). Illegal prescription drugs pose a relatively new challenge to policy makers as well as law enforcement, because these sub- stances are utilized for legitimate medical purposes and are thus widely available, even in most American homes.

Figure 5.7: Monthly drug use by youths aged 12–17 years

Although marijuana is still the most widely reported drug used by young people, usage of all types of drugs has been declining among juveniles aged 12 to 17.

Based on data from Results From the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm#2.1); Results From the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables Prevalence Estimates, Standard Errors, p Values, and Sample Sizes, by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019 (https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report /2018-nsduh-detailed-tables).

0 2002 2010 2018

Illicit drugs Marijuana Psychotherapeutics Inhalants Hallucinogens

P e

rc e

n ta

g e

u s

in g

i n

l a

s t

m o

n th

141

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Status Offenses In addition to acts of delinquency, juveniles can also be held responsible for offenses that are unique to the status of juveniles—acts such as running away from home, being truant to school, being “incorrigible,” violating curfews, and so forth. These acts are called status offenses because they are unique to people with the status of juvenile, meaning adults can- not be charged with them (Act for Juvenile Justice, 2012). Status offenses are not viewed or treated as seriously as acts of delinquency, but status offense cases can be quite disruptive to families because they often lead to juvenile justice system intervention.

Data from the National Center for Juvenile Justice show that juvenile courts dealt with 87,900 status offense cases in 2017, down 48% since 2005 (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2019). The breakdown of status offense cases and how they have changed over time is depicted in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Status offenses handled by juvenile courts, 2005 and 2017

Most serious offense 2005 2017

Runaway 11% 9%

Truancy 37% 61%

Curfew 9% 5%

Ungovernability 12% 9%

Liquor 21% 11%

Miscellaneous 10% 5%

Based on data from Juvenile Court Statistics 2017, by S. Hockenberry and C. Puzzanchera, 2019, National Center for Juvenile Statistics (http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/JCS2017report.pdf )

5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course Though most everyone will be victimized by some form of crime over the course of their lives, fortunately, most are victimized by relatively minor crimes such as theft (as opposed to more traumatic crimes like assault, rape, or murder).

Odds of criminal victimization vary significantly across the life course based on simple oppor- tunity as well as other factors. For example, juveniles are actually more likely than adults to fall victim to certain types of crimes. Juveniles are more likely to be victimized by violent crimes than property crimes for the simple reason that they generally do not own property until they reach adulthood. Yet as young people increasingly have access to small electronic items such as cell phones, they are increasingly being victimized by crimes such as theft (Fel- son & Boba, 2009).

One example of criminal victimization unique to childhood is child abuse. Children are also the most likely to be victims of neglect. Both of these forms of victimization are addressed in the following section, along with the crimes of kidnapping, sex trafficking, and gang recruitment.

142

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Abuse and Neglect According to the Administration for Children and Families, more than 3.5 million children were reported as abused or neglected in 2018 (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020). More than half of all perpetrators were women (53.8%), and the majority (77.5%) of perpetrators were parents. A much smaller percentage (6.4%) were relatives other than parents.

Emotional abuse is being sworn at or insulted often or sometimes, or being put down or threatened with physical violence. Physical abuse is being pushed, grabbed, or slapped sometimes, often, or very often; being hit with a thrown object; or being hit so hard that it leaves marks or produces an injury. Child sexual abuse is sexual touch or fondling by a per- son at least 5 years older than the victim. It includes the victim having to touch the abuser. Sexual abuse also includes oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with a minor.

The third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect found that girls were 3 times as likely as boys to be sexually abused but that boys had a greater chance of being emotionally neglected and experiencing serious injury than girls (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996). Emotional neglect is the lack of the kind of emotional support that makes children feel that they are spe- cial or loved; it can also entail coming from a family that is not a source of strength, support, and protection. Physical neglect is not having enough to eat or clean clothes to wear, the absence of a parent who will facilitate doctor’s appointments, and/or the excessive drinking of alcohol by a parent that interferes with a child’s care. Neglect is the most common type of maltreatment; of all victims reported in 2018, 60.8% experienced neglect only, 10.7% expe- rienced physical abuse only, and 7% experienced sexual abuse only. However, 15.5% of all victims experienced two or more types of maltreatment (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020).

The third National Incidence Study also found that some family dynamics increase the odds of victimization. Examples include single-parent families (which greatly increased the odds of being harmed and seriously harmed by physical abuse and neglect), large families (which greatly increased the odds of physical neglect), and poverty (which greatly increased the like- lihood of child maltreatment, sexual abuse, educational neglect, and serious child harm; Sed- lak & Broadhurst, 1996). Why these factors matter for victimization is discussed later in the chapter.

Results from the fourth National Incidence Study found that race plays a major role in child maltreatment; Black children were significantly more likely than White and Hispanic children to be victims of abuse and neglect. Finally, family factors such as unemployment and living in a home with one biological parent and a cohabiting partner increased the odds of child mal- treatment greatly (Sedlak et al., 2010).

143

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Consequences of Abuse The consequences of abuse are many. Not only are children injured physically and emotion- ally—and in some cases killed—but children of abuse are far more likely to suffer from psy- chological disorders. They are also less likely as teenagers to practice safe sex and are thus more likely to experience teenage pregnancy as well as contract STDs. Children of abuse also appear to be more likely to be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for crimes. Finally, sub- stantiated cases of nonfatal child abuse cost American society more than $428 billion (in both tangible and intangible costs) every year (Children’s Bureau, 2019).

Most criminal victimization of young people occurs by people they know. This may be sur- prising, given stories in the news media about child abuse. People often fear strangers, when in fact familiar people have a much greater opportunity to commit offenses against children since they hold positions of authority and trust.

One clear thing about child abuse is that it occurs in a cycle in which the victim is more likely to become an abuser, and then their victim is more likely to become an abuser. This is com- monly referred to as the cycle of violence, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. Fur- ther, studies consistently show that parents who were victims of child abuse are more likely than nonabused parents to go on to be violent toward their children (e.g., abuse or spanking) and also to suffer future victimization themselves in the context of abusive relationships, such as assault or rape (Fehon, 2007; Gagne et al., 2007; Goez, 2011).

In the Field: An Expert Weighs In on Child Abuse and Neglect

Laura Christofferson

How does helping a child who has been the victim of domes- tic violence differ from helping an adult who has been the victim of domestic violence?

One main difference is the involvement of Child Welfare Services (CWS). If CWS is not already involved, I need to report suspected abuse. In some cases the children remain in the home, so I am constantly assessing for safety: Is the child safe? Does the child have a safety plan, or is any abus- ing continuing to occur? In other cases the children are removed from their home, either temporarily or perma- nently. They might be placed in a residential facility, a rela- tive’s home, or a foster home. This adds to the complexity. Not only has the child experienced the trauma, but now he or she is living in a new place, living with new people who are sometimes strangers, new rules, and possibly a new school. It’s a lot for a child to handle.

Courtesy of Laura Christofferson Laura Christofferson, licensed clinical social worker and registered play therapist in San Diego, California.

144

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Recall the case of Cristian Fernandez from the beginning of the chapter. Cristian had long suf- fered from various forms of abuse and neglect as a child, as did his mother before him. Given what is known about the cycle of violence in families, young Cristian’s actions—while inex- cusable—can be better understood.

Missing Children, Kidnapping, and Sexual Trafficking By the end of 2018, juveniles under age 18 accounted for 35% of the National Crime Infor- mation Center’s 85,459 active missing persons records (FBI, 2019c). That number increased to 45% when juveniles were defined as under 21 years old. According to the OJJDP (2002), somewhere around 1.1% of children go missing in any given year; the vast majority of these are not kidnapped but instead run away. This amounts to about 800,000 missing children annually, and of those only about 69,000 are abducted. Kidnapping is a crime usually com- mitted against children whereby they are taken by force or by trickery.

While media portrayals of kidnapping tend to suggest that the threat to children is from strangers, in fact, family members commit at least 80% of abductions every year, and only about 6% are committed by strangers. Of those children kidnapped by strangers in a stereo- typical fashion, in which a child is “snatched” from a public place like a park or road, about 40% are killed, and more than 70% are killed by strangers. Typical stranger abductors are males around age 30, and typical victims are females. Perhaps surprisingly, the highest risk age group for kidnapping is teenagers.

Related to kids who go missing is the nefarious industry known as sex trafficking, in which people are illegally recruited, harbored, transported, or obtained for purposes of sex work. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO, 2017), an estimated 3.8 million adults and 1 million children were victims of sex trafficking in 2016. About 4% of those were people trafficked in North and South America (ILO, 2017). Victims of sex trafficking are recruited for purposes of sex or prostitution, either by force or fraud—for example, being tricked into sex work through false promises of other types of work. Once a child or teenager has been lured or forced into sex trafficking, perpetrators keep victims from leaving through physical means such as beatings and rapes, emotional means such as psychological abuse, or other means such as getting them hooked on drugs or threatening to do harm to their family members.

In spite of the widespread nature of these crimes, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that only 1,923 cases of human trafficking were investigated in the United States in fis- cal year 2015. Even more alarming, that figure was a 41% increase from the number of people referred for prosecution in 2011 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018b). These cases matter for relationships between age and crime because a large number of victims are children and adolescents. Because of their young age, juveniles are much more likely to be kidnapped and trafficked for purposes of sexual activity because of booming worldwide demand by people willing to pay for sex with underage, unwilling participants.

145

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Gang Recruitment A gang is a group of people—usually young people—who develop close bonds of friendship and engage in delinquent and criminal behavior. Gangs are most common in urban areas and especially in inner cities. Young people living in these areas are most vulnerable to recruit- ment by older gang members into lives of crime, and the gangs can become surrogate families for children. In places where stable, law-abiding male role models are absent, gangs may step in and serve as a major source of socialization for juveniles. Socialization is a process whereby people learn behavior in close, intimate groups. Children who hang out with gang members are more likely to learn that antisocial and criminal behaviors are normal. Gangs celebrate these antisocial behaviors with praise and reward, and they are an expected part of member- ship (Taylor, 2009).

Criminologists have shown since at least the 1960s that gangs flourish in areas where oppor- tunities to succeed through legal means such as school and work are lacking. Further, criminal gangs are more likely to emerge when opportunities for crime are widespread. Juveniles are at risk for gang membership in places where gangs are present, especially when older gang mem- bers play the part of fathers for children who come from families where fathers are absent.

Web Field Trip: Predators Snare Children Using the Web

A very small percentage of child assault and kidnapping is perpetrated by strangers on the street. Kids know better than to take candy from strangers, but do they know better than to talk to them online? Advances in social networks, webcams, smartphones, and online games provide more opportunities for sexual predators, pornographers, and prostitution rings to engage with children. The popularity of status updates or “checking-in” places can provide predators with a victim’s whereabouts and personal information. Children are unlikely to feel threatened online and even less likely to report anything suspicious to their parents for fear of getting privileges taken away. The Internet gives predators an opportunity to befriend chil- dren without supervision and perhaps convince them to meet in person—with devastating consequences.

Children of all ages play with strangers in online video games, which often include audio or text communication. Read about an agreement between video game companies and the New York State attorney general’s office that resulted in the closing of more than 3,500 reg- istered sex offenders’ online accounts: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nyregion /video-game-systems-close-sex-offenders-online-accounts.html.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Does preventing registered sex offenders from playing video games online violate their

rights? 2. Do you think prohibiting sexual predators from online gaming sites will help prevent

them from contacting children, or will they just find another way to do this? 3. To minimize this concern, should there be a minimum age for online video games or

social media networks?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nyregion/video-game-systems-close-sex-offenders-online-accounts.html

146

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Estimates on the number of gangs in the country vary. According to the National Gang Center (n.d.), there are at least 33,000 gangs in the United States, consisting of around 850,000 mem- bers. Every state in the country has active gangs. Gangs are found mostly in major urban areas, but some suburban and rural areas also house gangs. About 9% of students aged 12 to 18 say there are active street gangs at their schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019a).

Many active gangs are “sophisticated and well organized,” and they “all use violence” to con- trol neighborhoods and earn money through crimes like drug dealing, gun sales, robbery, extortion, fraud, and prostitution (FBI, 2011a). Most serious gangsters also use violence to control drug distribution activities. Indeed, gangs sell a wide variety of drugs, including cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, PCP, and MDMA, or ecstasy (National Drug Intelligence Center, 2011). Violence is also a part of initiating new members, enforcing codes of conduct, and challenging rival gang members in disputes over territory. Some authorities claim that gangs are responsible for most of the serious violent crime in the major cities of the United States, including assault, burglary, drive-by shootings, extortion, homicide, identity fraud, money laundering, prostitution, robbery, sale of stolen property, and weapons trafficking.

Using the Sociological Lens: Why Do Juveniles Join Gangs?

What makes gang life so appealing to today’s youth?

Gangs pose a growing threat to America’s citizens, and especially its youth. The FBI’s 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment (2012a) reports there are about 1.4 million gang members who count themselves part of more than 33,000 different gangs. Many of these gang members are juveniles. The National Gang Center reports that more than 40% of all known gang members are under age 18, and many gang members older than 18 are in their late teens or early 20s (OJJDP, 2009).

Juveniles join gangs for numerous reasons. Many cite protection from people in their crime-ridden neighbor- hoods as a primary reason, because gang membership affords them a safety net not offered by the police, their families, or other protective bodies. Wealth and power motivate others who dream of getting rich quickly from street deals. For some youth, gangs have a cultural appeal. The Central American gang Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, for example, attracts recently immigrated Latino youth seeking a sense of belonging in the United States. Cambodian boys, on the other hand, might be drawn to the Tiny Rascals Gang or the Crazy Brother Clan, two Asian gangs active in Los Angeles. Gang violence is often committed along racial and ethnic lines, and in recent years stories abound of Hispanic gangs participating in so-called ethnic cleansings of African Americans on their turf (Archibold, 2007; Watson, 2007). These are among the many cultural, social, and economic reasons that some youth join gangs, and more are detailed in the following perspectives.

(continued on next page)

Associated Press Juveniles join gangs for a number of reasons, including protection and power.

147

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Using the Sociological Lens: Why Do Juveniles Join Gangs? (continued)

“We Take Care of Our Set” To write the following perspective, reporter Joe Killian interviewed more than 40 active gang members, many of whom are teenagers. His discussions with them revealed multiple reasons why they joined gangs, often as young as 14 years. Some gang members sought a sense of belonging and camaraderie they failed to get from their biological families; others craved money and power, both of which are hard to come by in their impoverished, dangerous neighborhoods.

In addition to social reasons like respect, status, belonging, and material gain, there may be a genetic explanation for why some people join gangs. Researchers at Florida State University have linked a defect in a gene that codes for an enzyme called monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) to antisocial and violent behavior. Low levels of activity on the MAO-A gene, suggest research- ers, cause the fast breakdown of serotonin, which is responsible for feelings of happiness and calmness. The result is that people with low-level MAO-A activity are more likely to react vio- lently or aggressively to fear, intimidation, or threats.

Researchers examined the behavior and DNA of nearly 2,500 adolescents and found that a statistically significant number of males with low levels of MAO-A activity had joined a gang within the previous year. Males who had less-active MAO-A genes were almost twice as likely as those with a highly active gene to join a gang. These males had other significant character- istics too, such as being almost twice as likely to brandish a weapon during a fight. Research- ers concluded that a genetic predisposition to violence, coupled with a violent or gang-prone environment like the one described by Killian, probably makes some boys more likely than others to join gangs and be violently active within them. “What all these risk gene studies show us is that genes do an important job in loading the gun,” explains Joshua Buckholtz, an MAO-A expert at Vanderbilt University’s Brain Institute and Department of Psychology (as cited in Kingsbury, 2009).

“Why Do Kids Join Gangs?,” by J. Killian, News & -Record, August 25, 2007 (https://www .greensboro.com/news/why-do-kids-join-gangs/article_35620f11-7552-5422-a2ad-6edf 85e32e15.html).

“They Seemed to Me Like a Family” Gang membership was thought to be a primarily male problem until 2003, when the FBI began to notice a sharp increase in the number and types of crimes committed by girls over the previous decade. The National Council on Crime & Delinquency investigated the issue and by 2009 was reporting that girls constitute as many as 32% of all gang members nationally. In some particularly gang-infested cities and states, female gang membership is even higher. In California, for example, girls make up 38% of gang members; in the city of Oakland (east of San Francisco), girls make up more than half of all gang members (51%; Glesmann et al., 2009).

Girl gang members typically join gangs for the same reasons as their male counterparts. Some seek protection in their rough neighborhoods; others crave power or respect from people in their community. Many of them are attracted to the intense loyalty they perceive between gang members. “I wanted to belong to something,” says BooBoo, a former member of the Los Angeles–based gang the Playboys. “I was, what, 12 years old? And I see a bunch of girls hanging together. I figured, yeah, I want to kick back with them” (as cited in Del Barco, 2011).

(continued on next page)

https://www.greensboro.com/news/why-do-kids-join-gangs/article_35620f11-7552-5422-a2ad-6edf85e32e15.html

148

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Adults and Victimization Although some adults are in gangs, and trafficking of adults for purposes of sex or forced labor does occur, most adults are unlikely to be victimized by serious crimes. The most useful data on criminal victimization come from the NCVS. These data show that serious criminal victimization is actually quite rare in the United States.

Table 5.3 shows the number of victimizations estimated nationwide from the 2018 NCVS. Note that since these data come from a national survey of crime victims, they do not include data on murder. Murder data are obtained from the UCR. UCR data from 2018 show there were 16,214 murders that year (FBI, 2019d).

Using the Sociological Lens: Why Do Juveniles Join Gangs? (continued)

Although their reasons for joining are the same, girls’ experiences as gang members can be different. For example, sexual abuse is a defining feature of a girl gang member’s life. To be initiated into a gang, a girl must often have sex with male gang members, either consensually or via rape or gang rape. Some girls are forced to have sex with someone who is HIV-positive. “Once involved with the gang, girls continue to experience sexual abuse at the hands of the gang” write Angela Wolf and Livier Gutierrez (2012, p. 3) of the National Council on Crime & Delinquency, who report that male gang members are sometimes recruited on the promise that they will get to have sex with the girls in the gang. Pregnancy, disease, and posttraumatic stress are therefore among the many negative outcomes of female gang membership.

In the following perspective, a female gang member describes what motivated her to join a gang, her experience of being initiated into one, and what crimes she was forced to commit as a gang member.

“I Want Out of My Gang ‘Family,’” Represent, 107, Winter 2012 (https://www.huffpost.com /entry/youth-violence-i-want-out_n_1190312).

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. For what social reasons do young people typically join gangs? For what social reasons

do they typically want to leave gangs? 2. Where along the life course do most gang members fall? What does this say about

offenders’ criminality, in your opinion? 3. Are there certain sectors of society that are most susceptible to gang membership? Are

there certain groups that are least susceptible to gang membership? 4. What do you think is the most appropriate way to punish people arrested for gang-

related crimes? Should they be sent to prison, be rehabilitated, or both? 5. Discuss the significance of gang infiltration into areas like the U.S. military, prisons, and

white-collar criminal activity.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/youth-violence-i-want-out_n_1190312

149

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

These data show that more than 19 million victimizations occurred in the United States in 2018 (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019). Of those incidents, 4,636,730 involved victims of what the NCVS labels “serious crime” (crimes for which the offender is generally charged with a felony offense). Since the population of the United States was about 328 million people in 2018 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020), only about 1.4% of the population suffered a serious crim- inal victimization during that year. Further, the great bulk of these “serious” criminal victim- izations were from property crimes, especially burglary. Among violent crime victims, only 26% suffered any injury in 2018 (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019).

Consistent with data introduced earlier, crimi- nal victimization is trending downward in the United States. For example, the NCVS shows that serious property crime started declining in the early 1970s, and serious violent crime started falling in the early 1990s. Figure 5.8 shows the percentage of serious violent criminal victimization from 1993 through 2018.

Table 5.3: Criminal victimization in the United States, 2018

Property crime 13,502,840

Theft 10,329,210

Burglary 1,724,720

Motor vehicle theft 534,010

Violent crime 6,385,520

Assault 5,077,790

Robbery 573,100

Rape/sexual assault 734,630

All crime 19,888,360

Source: Criminal Victimization, 2018, by R. E. Morgan & B. A. Oudekerk, 2019, Bureau of Justice Statistics (https:// www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf ).

Figure 5.8: Serious violent crime victims in the United States, 1993–2018

All serious violent crime has declined since the 1990s.

From Criminal Victimization, 2018, by R. E. Morgan and B. A. Oudekerk, 2019, Bureau of Justice Statistics (https://www.bjs.gov /content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf ).

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0% ‘93 ‘95 ‘00 ‘05 ‘10 ‘15 ‘18

150

Section 5.2 Victimization Across the Life Course

Just as with juveniles, the majority of serious criminal victimization occurs between people who know each other. For example, only 39% of violent crime victimizations were labeled as “stranger violence” (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019).

Like juvenile victimization, adult criminal victimization also varies by demographic character- istics, specifically in street crimes, which are usually violent criminal activities that occur in a public place. There are seen as the most serious types of crime because they are thought to be the most harmful, frequently occurring, and geographically widespread crimes. The risk of victimization for serious street crimes is highest for males, people of color, and young people. For example, in 2018 the rate of violent victimization was higher for females than males (24.3 versus 22.1 per 1,000). It was also higher for Whites (24.7 per 1,000) than Blacks (20.4 per 1,000), Hispanics (18.6 per 1,000), and Asians (16.2 per 1,000; Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019).

As for age, the rate of violent victimization peaks at 18–24 years (35.9 per 1,000) then declines every year thereafter so that people aged 50 to 64 have a violence victimization rate of only 18.3 per 1,000, and people over age 65 have a rate of only 6.5 per 1,000.

Elderly Victimization As noted earlier, data from victimization surveys show that the elderly are generally less likely than teenagers, young adults, or people in middle age to be victimized by most forms of crime. Yet data also show that they are in some cases much more likely to suffer fear of crime, defined as a negative and distressful emotional response emanating from a belief that one will be victimized by crime (Pain, 1995; Tseloni & Zarafonitou, 2008). This is likely due to the misconception that they are more prone to victimization due to age, isolation, and declining health. However, the elderly are most often victimized by fraud and elder abuse. As defined earlier, fraud is the crime of theft committed through trickery, meaning someone is deceived out of their money. Elder abuse includes acts of violence as well as neglect of basic needs such as nutrition, shelter, companionship, and medical care.

According to the report Financial Fraud and Fraud Susceptibility in the United States, Ameri- cans 65 and older are more than 30% more likely than individuals in their 40s to lose money to financial fraud (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2017). Some reasons the elderly often fall victim to fraud include being in greater financial need during retirement, being home- bound, and suffering from declining cognitive skills and memory. These conditions increase the odds that a person will fall for questionable home repair and lawn care schemes as well as “get rich quick” scams. Often, the elderly are less informed about the latest technology, and those who use it may find themselves more at risk of becoming victims of online fraud.

Table 5.4 shows the types of crimes that sometimes impact the elderly, according to the National Center on Elder Abuse.

151

Section 5.3 Explanations for Criminality and Age

A recent review of elderly victimization data found that the violent victimization rate for per- sons aged 65 and older fell 24% from 1995 (6.8 per 1,000 individuals) to 2015 (5.2 per 1,000 individuals; National Center for Victims of Crime, 2017). The review also found that about 10% of people in the United States will experience some form of victimization after age 65. However, it is difficult to determine actual rates of elderly victimization, as older adults with degenerative diseases or cognitive impairments or those living in hospitals or nursing homes often cannot or do not report abuse. In fact, the National Center on Elder Abuse suggests that less than 5% of elderly victimizations are reported to police (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2017).

5.3 Explanations for Criminality and Age This chapter has discussed criminality and its impact on society and identified groups of peo- ple. For most people, the types of antisocial behavior that society views as most serious peak in adolescence and then decline significantly thereafter. Other individuals start earlier than adolescence and generally persist in antisocial behavior longer. Further, research shows that some types of victimization are mostly isolated to people of certain statuses, including chil- dren and the elderly, who are more prone to abuse and neglect.

Table 5.4: Types of criminal victimization among the elderly

Type Description Examples

Physical abuse Use of physical force against an older adult that may result in bodily injury, physical pain, or impairment

Striking with an object, hitting, push- ing, shoving, etc.

Sexual abuse Nonconsensual sexual contact of any kind with an older adult

Unwanted touching, rape, sodomy, coerced nudity, etc.

Psychological abuse Infliction of anguish, pain, or distress on an older adult through verbal or nonverbal acts

Verbal assaults, insults, threats, intim- idation, humiliation, and harassment

Financial exploitation Illegal or improper use of an older adult’s funds, property, or assets

Cashing an older adult’s checks with- out authorization, forging an older adult’s signature, misusing or stealing an older adult’s money or possessions

Neglect Refusal or failure to fulfill any part of a person’s obligation or duties to an older adult

Refusing or failing to provide an older adult with necessities such as food, water, clothing, shelter, personal hygiene, medicine, comfort, personal safety, and other essentials

Source: Elder Justice, by Government Accountability Office, 2011 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11208.pdf ).

152

Section 5.3 Explanations for Criminality and Age

As it turns out, explanations offered by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and criminolo- gists vary. This section offers potential explanations to the following questions.

• Why is criminality most pronounced among males, the young, the poor, and minorities?

• What are the patterns of criminal victimization, and how can they be better addressed as a society moving forward?

• Why does antisocial behavior peak in adolescence and then decline significantly thereafter?

• Why do some individuals start committing antisocial behavior earlier than adoles- cence and generally persist in antisocial behavior longer?

• Why are children and the elderly more prone to abuse and neglect?

Previous chapters have addressed how gender, class, and race influence criminality and crim- inal victimization. Numerous theories attempt to explain differences among genders, classes, and racial and ethnic groups. Some of these theories focus on individual biological and psy- chological reasons, while others focus on different experiences in families, communities, and society. The following sections discuss several examples of psychological, biological, and soci- ological factors that help us understand differences in criminality and victimization by age.

Before turning to some of these factors, it is important to point out that significant overlap occurs in crime and victimization outcomes by gender, age, class, and race (Barak et al., 2010). Given this, theories that attempt to take into account all of these factors will be the most able to explain why crime and victimization vary across groups.

Unfortunately, most theories come from unique academic disciplines, and thus rarely do they integrate factors outside of their own discipline (Robinson & Beaver, 2009). Some of these approaches will be discussed.

Psychological Theories Psychological theories figure prominently in explanations for the causes of criminality and its cessation. They locate causes of offending behavior within the individual’s mind, brain, or psyche (Hollin, 2011). As one example, psychologists say that due to experiences unique to each individual, people develop personalities in childhood that often persist throughout their lives. Some of these personality types (e.g., antisocial personality) make some people more prone to engage in antisocial behavior in childhood and adulthood.

Psychological explanations for the onset and cessation of offending also sometimes rely on the power of emotional and cognitive maturation. There is much support for the idea that deviant behavior is a natural part of “teenage rebelliousness” and that the drop-off in crimi- nality is part of “growing up.” The assertion is that one way young people learn the rules as well as become independent is to break the rules and challenge authority. As they age, these behaviors become less common in part because people learn through punishment and other negative consequences that rule breaking and challenging authority can lead to bad outcomes (Rathus, 2010).

153

Section 5.3 Explanations for Criminality and Age

Related to this idea, offending is supposedly linked to age-related changes in moral reason- ing. People pass through three stages of moral development: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Preconventional persons are concerned primarily with themselves and have little understanding of the law but obey it due to a fear of punishment. This is the level of development of children, some adolescents, and many criminals. Conventional persons obey laws purely because they have accepted the message of right and wrong as found in criminal laws but also often because laws themselves deserve obedience as a source of social stability. People in this stage tend to be adolescents and adults. Postconventional individuals obey the law not necessarily out of a desire to adhere to it but instead because the law conforms with their own higher moral principles. Only a minority reach the postconventional level, usually in or after the 20s (Kohlberg, 1981). If true, this would suggest that incomplete moral reason- ing may explain higher antisocial behavior in adolescence (Gilligan, 2003).

Biological Theories Biological theories tend to focus on issues within individuals, such as hormone levels (e.g., testosterone) and brain development across the life course (Walsh & Beaver, 2008). Testos- terone rises in the teenage male are associated with increases in aggressive behavior. As for the brain, it develops in the womb, but most of its growth occurs after birth. Those areas responsible for emotion and aggression develop before those areas responsible for rational- ity and self-control. The development of self-control as well as moral development are heavily dependent on the development of the brain over the life course.

Self-control is the ability to control one’s own behavior, and scientists now believe that self- control does not fully develop in most people until they are in their 20s. Since low self-control is a major source of all kinds of criminality, underdevelopment of the brain might be a signifi- cant reason for the age–crime curve, or the relationship between age and crime indicating that criminality is most prevalent in mid- to late adolescence and decreases thereafter (Mor- ris et al., 2011). That is, one major reason why young people are so much more involved in street crime is that their ability to control their behavior is not yet fully developed. And by the same logic, the development of self-control as people age helps us understand the aging- out phenomenon, in which people commit less street crime as they get older. Studies show that both self-control and degree of moral development matter greatly in explaining criminal behavior (Wikstrom & Svennson, 2010).

Social Learning and Opportunity In the presence of immense opportunities for crime, wherein young people spend a lot of time in social settings with friends in the absence of adult supervision, criminality is a likely result. This lies at the heart of one of the major sociological theories of criminality—social learning theory, introduced in Chapter 1. Since young people often socialize in unsupervised settings, social learning plays a major role in criminality. That is, people learn from those they spend time with. Even though parents typically teach their kids right from wrong and spend years making sure their kids understand the consequences of their actions, these lessons are often forgotten in the context of peer interactions.

154

Section 5.3 Explanations for Criminality and Age

According to sociological theories such as routine activity theory, opportunity plays a major role in all crimes. Routine activity theory suggests that crime occurs due to the conver- gence of three things: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardian- ship (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Young people are motivated to commit street crime due to their biology (e.g., high levels of testosterone in juvenile males) as well as their social interactions (e.g., associations with deviant peers) and because they have not yet fully arrived at the post- conventional level of morality or developed self-control. Plus, suitable targets for offending are widely available to them, and because parental attachment tends to wane as adolescents age, teenagers often are not being supervised by capable guardians. It is in this environment that criminality will be most likely to happen, according to routine activity theory (Henson et al., 2010).

The same can be said for white-collar and corporate crime (illegal acts by corporations against either other corporations or consumers). One major reason why older people are more likely to engage in these crimes is because they have more opportunity to commit them in the course of their careers. Low self-control is probably not the culprit here, since most white-collar and corporate offenders are more likely to have fully developed self-control as they have aged. Instead, sociologists have suggested that white-collar and corporate crimes have become normal, accepted, and even rewarded in business today. If true, this means social learning is important for these types of crimes as well (Robinson & Murphy, 2009).

Certain lifestyles influence opportunities for crime. One’s lifestyle consists of daily activities, including obligations such as school and work as well as recreational activities. An enormous amount of evidence shows that lifestyle increases or decreases the odds of criminal victim- ization, which is in line with predictions made by lifestyle exposure theory (Hindelang et al., 1978). This reality helps us understand why young people are more prone to criminal victim- ization than older people are. Stated simply, young people are more likely to put themselves in situations in which crime is likely to occur. This is because they spend more time in risky places (e.g., parties) at risky times (e.g., after dark) and with risky people (e.g., deviant peers; McIntyre & Widom, 2011).

One of the most effective ways to prevent crime is to avoid risky situations. Unfortunately, young people often have to learn this lesson the hard way through personal experience. Older people, having learned these lessons and altered their lifestyles, are generally less likely to be victimized by serious street crime.

155

Section 5.3 Explanations for Criminality and Age

Social Arrangements The sociological factors that affect crime and victimization are broad and diverse, including some of those already discussed. Anything that influences integration into broad institutional realms like the family, economy, political system, employment, and religion impacts one’s risk of criminality and victimization. A short list of such factors would include effects of schooling, employment and occupational opportunities, family obligations, and networks of affiliation.

With these types of social arrangements, adults have greater stakes in social conformity, sta- tus, and economic security—all reasons why they should be less involved in criminality. A stake in conformity is simply a reason to conform to the law, or something valuable that a person can lose if they break the law (Rankin & Wells, 2011).

Research shows that strong ties to work and family encourage offenders to move away from crime. Individuals who have entered into stable marriages and steady employment are likely over time to stop committing crime. According to life course theory, marriage and work act as turning points in the lives of offenders. Turning points are events that change a person’s tra- jectory away from crime and toward conformity. Having a fulfilling marriage and a meaning- ful job gives people strong reasons to abide by the law and also tends to change peer associa- tions as people make new friends and have less desire to socialize with deviant peers (Laub et al., 2008). Ultimately, such connections to people or social bonds help produce desistance from crime, which occurs when people stop committing it (Forrest & Hay, 2011). As people age, they are more likely to be impacted by these turning points, thereby reducing their risks of criminality.

In the Field: An Expert Weighs In on Crime Analysis and Theory

Noah Fritz

Can you explain how crime analysis uses criminology theo- ries and criminal justice practices?

Environmental criminology addresses not only routine activity and crime patterns but also starts to determine perspectives or paradigms about that type of crime. For example, what type of offender we have. Is the offender a marauder or a commuter? A commuter is an offender who will commute to a location, for various reasons, to commit a crime. A marauder is someone who commits crimes close to home. These are usually teenagers. The crime-prone years are between the ages of 14 and 21, particularly street crime. These kids tend to be poor and to not have their own transportation, so they’re not going far to commit their crimes. Yet these individuals are smart enough to know that they shouldn’t commit a crime within a block or two of where they live because people in that area know them. It’s a rational choice. Crooks aren’t necessarily the smartest people but still commit crimes based on this rational process.

Courtesy of Noah Fritz Noah Fritz, police analysis & administrative manager at the Tempe Police Department in Tempe, Arizona.

156

Section 5.3 Explanations for Criminality and Age

Early Starters Versus Late Starters Careful research has shown that early starters to delinquency are different in important ways from late starters to delinquency. Stated simply, late starters (those who begin delinquent behavior in adolescence and quickly mature out of it) are seen as more “normal,” and since their behavior is limited to adolescence, they have even been referred to as adolescent-limited offenders (Moffitt, 1993, 1997). These offenders are much more susceptible to peer influ- ences, which is consistent with expectations of social learning theories introduced in Chap- ter 1 (Simons et al., 2001).

Early starters are viewed as less influenced by peers and more susceptible to physical and psychological abnormalities. These children have often been exposed to numerous risk fac- tors that increase the odds of antisocial behavior. The risk factors for early onset of offending are widely known, and include the following characteristics.

• Kids with lower intelligence and subsequent problems in school are more prone to early initiation into antisocial behavior, as are children with certain personality traits such as attention deficit and hyperactivity.

• Youths who are not properly supervised or consistently disciplined by their parents are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior at earlier ages.

• Children who hang out with deviant peers early in life are also more likely to initiate into delinquent behavior early, as are kids who live in poor and high-crime neigh- borhoods, where opportunities for crime are more prevalent (Center for Adoption Research, 2012).

Scores of studies now show that early starters are more likely to continue committing crimes well into adulthood; therefore, they are often referred to as life-course-persistent offenders. They also are found to commit a disproportionate amount of crime. These offenders are more likely characterized by personality traits such as anxiety, anger, irritability, impulsivity, and selfishness (Caspi et al., 1994). These early starters generally emerge from social conditions that promote criminality early in life. Factors such as single-parent families, broken homes, large families, child maltreatment, poverty, and unemployment all place great strain or stress on people as well as reduce the opportunities for parents to supervise their children, notice and correct antisocial behavior, or reward positive behaviors.

Why Antisocial Behavior Peaks in Adolescence, Then Declines That antisocial behavior peaks in adolescence and then declines consistently afterward sug- gests that age might be the second most powerful explanatory factor of criminality behind sex or gender. In fact, age is a strong predictor of both who offends and who becomes a victim. Criminologists often refer to street crime as a “young male phenomenon” since most perpe- trators are young males.

It is probably obvious that juveniles are not involved in white-collar and corporate crimes, because these are typically linked to jobs and especially professional careers—that is, there is virtually no opportunity for young people to commit these types of crimes. Because of this, adults tend to commit white-collar and corporate crimes, and the most common offenders are probably those in the middle-age years as well as older businesspersons. Since these offend- ers are also overwhelmingly male, sex or gender is probably a stronger predictor of criminal- ity than age, but age is a close second.

157

Section 5.3 Explanations for Criminality and Age

The age–crime curve is the term used to capture how criminality increases in the teenage years and then falls thereafter. As noted earlier, this is referred to as the aging-out phenomenon in the criminology literature. Figure 5.9 illustrates what this looks like for data from 1982, 1994, 2006, and 2018. Notice that the trends generally look the same but that the sharper peak in the 1994 data was due to higher arrests associated with more crime in society at the time. A graph of arrests by age for almost any industrialized country during the past 100 years will have a similar shape, suggesting that this is a pretty widespread reality among many societies.

Figure 5.9: Arrest rates by age

The risk of arrest for criminal behavior peaks at about age 18 and declines thereafter.

From Trends in Arrest Rates by Age Group for All Offenses, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2019 (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=1).

18,000

14,000

16,000

10,000

12,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2,000

0 0 to 14 15 to 17 18 to 20 21 to 24 25 and older

A rr

e s

ts p

e r

10 0

,0 0

0 i

n a

g e

g ro

u p

1982

1994

2006

2018

Age group

So what is it about adolescence that explains the higher involvement in antisocial behavior? Adolescence is a period characterized by rapid change—biologically, psychologically, emo- tionally, and socially. A person’s body grows from a child’s body into an adult’s body over a short time. There are profound changes in hormones, height, voice, and emotions, as well as within peer groups and families. The influence of parents generally wanes during this time as the influence of friends simultaneously increases (Santrok, 2011; Steinberg, 2010). As a result, there are explanations for antisocial behavior within each of the academic disciplines already mentioned. Thus, due to a combination of biological and psychological conditions, social conditions such as learning in peer groups and reduced parental supervision, and increased opportunities for crime that come with increased freedom associated with greater autonomy, criminality is more likely in the teenage and young adult years.

158

Section 5.4 Responses to Delinquency and Crime

Why Children and the Elderly Are More Prone to Abuse and Neglect A review of studies of elder abuse by the Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2011) sug- gests that numerous factors put the elderly more at risk for victimization of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. These include physical impairment, cognitive impairment, other mental health issues, and less access to social support.

First, physical impairment renders the elderly less capable of defending themselves. It also means that some elderly may come to be dependent on their abuser for care. Second, cogni- tive impairment is associated with abuse because people with dementia are less able to rec- ognize abuse and to report it. Third, mental health problems such as depression of the abuser and the victim make abuse more likely. Fourth, lower social ties increase the odds of abuse because there is less capable guardianship available to protect potential victims. Thus, lower levels of friendships, family bonds, and participation in religious and other community activi- ties are associated with higher risks of victimization. This is consistent with predictions made by social control theories, introduced in Chapter 1.

Children are more likely to be victimized for some of these same reasons. Generally speaking, children lack the cognitive and emotional capabilities to recognize abuse and neglect and are powerless to stop it. They are also generally trusting of adults and smaller in size and stature, making them easier victims of adult perpetrators.

5.4 Responses to Delinquency and Crime As noted at the outset of the chapter, juvenile delinquency was historically processed through the juvenile justice system, while criminality was processed through the criminal justice sys- tem. The two systems have separate and distinct processes that use different strategies to achieve specific goals.

The criminal justice system aims to protect society from crime by apprehending people sus- pected of crimes, determining their legal guilt through processes such as criminal trials, sen- tencing the legally guilty to punishment for their crimes, and carrying out these sentences in correctional facilities such as jails and prisons. Crime is thought to be reduced through two primary means. First, criminals are incapacitated, meaning their freedom is restricted, mak- ing further crimes either impossible or at least more difficult. Second, criminals are deterred from future crimes because their experience in the criminal justice system makes them more likely to fear the potential punishment.

The criminal justice system mostly deals with adult lawbreakers (Schmalleger, 2011). The juvenile justice system aims to rehabilitate young people who have gotten in trouble with the law so that they can avoid future acts of criminality and lead more productive lives (Hess & Drowns, 2012). Rehabilitation is largely no longer a stated or assumed goal of American criminal justice.

159

Section 5.4 Responses to Delinquency and Crime

Over the past 3 decades, some juvenile cases, such as that of Cristian Fernandez, have been handled in the criminal justice system rather than the juvenile justice system. Every state has mechanisms to handle juvenile cases in the criminal justice system. One such measure is the judicial waiver, in which prosecutors ask judges to move a case from the juvenile courts to the adult courts. This is done in especially heinous crimes, such as the ones committed by Cristian Fernandez.

Society considers various issues in determining if this process of handling juvenile cases is productive. For some, the issue comes down to the nature of the offense. They argue that if a young person commits an adult crime, they should do the adult time. For others, the issue comes down to age and maturity. They assert that juveniles are generally not developed enough biologically, psychologically, emotionally, or morally to be tried as adults. For now, the former argument appears to be winning, because judicial waivers of juvenile cases to adult courts have become increasingly popular. Even so, it is also true that we are increasingly con- cerned with issues of culpability in juveniles when it comes to severe criminal sanctions. Two examples are the juvenile death penalty and life sentences for juveniles.

Web Field Trip: Going to Court: Juvenile Versus Adult

Determining whether to try a child in the juvenile or the criminal justice system will have an impact on every step of their experience. Although the exact laws and practices of the sys- tems vary from state to state, broad underlying beliefs differentiate the two systems. While the juvenile system is often thought to be more lenient in its punishments, there are often stricter regulations throughout the process. In the juvenile system a child may not have a right to a jury trial or bail. Juvenile records are not open to public access like criminal records, and parole is very different between the two systems. When the defendant is considered a child, the courts act as more of a parent attempting to punish but also protect.

Differences between juvenile and adult criminal justice systems exist every step of the way. Follow how each system handles bail, parole, and other aspects of the process here: http:// www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/juvvsadult.html.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What are the main similarities and differences in the juvenile and adult criminal justice

systems? 2. How should society address the need for corrective actions that could allow juveniles to

lead productive lives versus the need to keep society safe from criminals? 3. For which crimes would it be better to transfer and process a juvenile in the adult crimi-

nal justice system? Which crimes should never result in a transfer of a juvenile to adult criminal court?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/juvvsadult.html

160

Section 5.4 Responses to Delinquency and Crime

Life Sentences and the Death Penalty for Juveniles The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include penalties that are excessive, or out of propor- tion to the offense committed. In determining which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual, it established in Trop v. Dulles (1958) the importance of analyzing “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Since 1988 the court has barred execution of those 15 and younger (Thompson v. Oklahoma). The death penalty as applied to juvenile offenders made national news in 2005 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that 16- and 17-year-olds cannot be executed. In a 5–4 deci- sion, the justices held that execution of an individual under age 18 at the time of the offense was cruel and unusual punishment (Scott, 2005).

In 1993 Christopher Simmons, a 17-year-old high school junior, and two younger teenagers burglarized a house. A woman inside the house had been a witness to a previous car crash involving Simmons and recognized him. Fearing that she would identify him, he decided to kill her. He abducted, bound, and threw her off a bridge into a creek to drown. Bragging of the crime to classmates, he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death.

In spite of the heinous nature of the crime, the court held that Simmons could not be executed due to his age. The court cited three general differences between offenders under age 18 and adults that suggested juveniles should not be considered among the worst offenders. First, juveniles are less mature and responsible than adults. Second, juveniles are more vulnerable to negative influences such as peer pressure. Third, a juvenile’s moral character is not fully formed (Scott, 2005).

The court’s majority opinion noted that among psychologists there is no consensus on whether the depravity of an adolescent that would lead to murder is a permanent feature of personal- ity or the result of immaturity and likely to change. The American Psychological Association (APA) in its amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief argued that 16- and 17-year-olds lack the decision-making skills of adults. Late adolescents are less likely to consider alternative courses of action, understand the perspective of others, or restrain impulses. Heightened risk taking is common and a mark of adolescent identity rather than evidence of a fully formed personality. The APA argued that because adolescents often lack an adult ability to control impulses and anticipate the consequences of their actions, predicting character deficits and danger to society in adulthood during capital sentencing is inherently prone to error.

The Simmons ruling overturned juvenile death penalty statutes in 20 states, and the 72 young people living on death row in those states no longer faced execution. In Texas 29 juveniles were resentenced. The next two states with the greatest number of juveniles sentenced to death were Alabama, with 15, and Mississippi, with 5 (Scott, 2005).

A similar ruling was made with regard to life prison sentences for juveniles. In 2009, 37 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government had laws allowing life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses. In Graham v. Florida (2010), the Supreme Court ruled those laws amounted to cruel and unusual punishment; consequently, they were held to be unconstitutional.

161

Chapter Summary

Terrence Graham received a sentence of life in prison for participating in a home-invasion robbery while on probation. His first offense, when he was 16, was attempting to rob a res- taurant with three juvenile accomplices. As part of a plea bargain, he promised to turn his life around and received 3 years’ probation. A year later, however, his home invasion and proba- tion violation allowed a judge to sentence him for the earlier crime. The Florida Department of Corrections recommended a maximum of 4 years. The judge sentenced him to life in prison, admonishing him, “The only thing I can do now is to try and protect the community from your actions.” With no option in Florida for parole, Graham faced life in prison.

Graham was one of 129 youths who were serving nonhomicide life-without-parole sentences, 77 of whom were held in Florida prisons. In this case, the 5–4 majority held that the possibil- ity that juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes would never again experience freedom lacked “any legitimate penological justification” (Graham v. Florida, 2010, p. 20). Furthermore, despite 37 states with laws allowing for life without parole for nonhomicide convictions, only 11 had youths serving those sentences, evidence for the majority that the punishment was unusual and contravened standards of decency.

However, after the Roper and Graham decisions, there were still roughly 2,500 juveniles serving life-without-parole sentences for homicide-related cases in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles violated the Eighth Amend- ment of the U.S. Constitution because “such a scheme prevents those meting out punishment from considering a juvenile’s ‘lessened culpability’ and greater ‘capacity for change,’ . . . and runs afoul of our cases’ requirement of individualized sentencing for defendants facing the most serious penalties” (Miller v. Alabama & Jackson v. Hobbs, 2012, p. 465).

Chapter Summary When juveniles break the law, it is called delinquency. When adults break the law, it is called crime. Juveniles and adults are significantly different in biology, psychology, emotion, maturity, and reasoning ability. These differences help us understand why they have histori- cally been processed separately in the juvenile justice system and criminal justice system, respectively.

Because of these differences, along with differences in lifestyle and opportunity, their involvement in illegal and antisocial behaviors varies greatly. In fact, each person is more or less likely to experience crime due to his or her age. In terms of victimization, children and the elderly are more likely to experience crimes such as abuse and neglect, and children are especially prone to kidnapping, sex trafficking, and gang recruitment.

Across the life course, criminal behavior at the street level peaks in late adolescence and early adulthood and then declines significantly thereafter. Yet some crimes such as white- collar and corporate crimes are much more common in the middle-age years and even later. This is a function of simple opportunity, since juveniles do not have the opportunity to engage in these crimes.

162

Chapter Summary

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. At what age do you think a person should be tried as an adult for minor crimes?

What about for serious crimes? Explain your reasoning. 2. In reading this chapter, what, if anything, surprised you about juvenile drug use? 3. What do you think are the primary reasons why juvenile and adult crime rates

peaked in the mid-1990s and have been trending downward since? 4. The illegal use of prescription drugs poses challenges to policy makers and law

enforcement alike. Why? What policies or legal actions might improve the problem? 5. Why, in your opinion, do white-collar criminals tend to be middle-aged and older? 6. Provide examples of the three components of the routine activity theory. 7. Describe family dynamics that may increase the odds of abuse or neglect. 8. Which theories do you think best explain criminality: psychological, biological, or

sociological?

Key Terms adolescent-limited offenders People who commit crimes only occasionally, usually in their teenage years.

adult A person who has reached a certain age at which they are presumed to be responsible for thier behavior.

age–crime curve The relationship between age and crime indicating that criminality is most prevalent in mid- to late adolescence and decreases thereafter.

aging-out phenomenon A phenomenon in which people commit less street crime as they get older due to reasons such as developing self-control.

child sexual abuse The act of sexual touching or fondling by a person at least 5 years older than the victim. It includes the victim having to touch the abuser. Child sexual abuse also includes oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with a minor.

corporate crime Illegal acts by corporations against either other corporations or consumers.

delinquency An act committed by a young person that would be a crime if they were an adult.

desistance The point at which people stop committing crime.

early starters People who start committing criminal acts in childhood.

emotional abuse A situation in which one is sworn at or insulted often or sometimes or is put down or threatened with physical violence.

emotional neglect A lack of the kind of emotional support that makes children feel special or loved; it can also entail coming from a family that is not a source of strength, support, and protection.

fear of crime A negative and distressful emotional response emanating from a belief that one will be victimized by crime.

gang A group of people—usually young people—who develop close bonds of friendship and engage in delinquent and criminal behavior.

homicide The most serious crime in America; occurs when one person kills another person in a way that violates the criminal law.

163

Chapter Summary

judicial waiver A request made by prosecutors to judges, asking them to move a case from the juvenile courts to the adult courts.

juvenile A person who has not yet reached the age of adulthood and who is not usually tried as an adult when suspected of violating the criminal law.

kidnapping A crime usually committed against children whereby they are removed either by force or by trickery by a person who does not have the right to move them and take them away from their family.

late starters People who do not begin committing criminal acts until adolescence.

life course The entire life span of a person, from birth until death.

life-course-persistent offenders People who begin committing criminal acts in either childhood or adolescence and persist in criminality into adulthood.

lifestyle The activities an individual generally engages in during the day and night, including things they have to do (e.g., school, work) as well as things they choose to do for fun (e.g., recreation).

physical abuse A situation in which one is pushed, grabbed or slapped sometimes, often, or very often; hit with a thrown object; or hit so hard that it leaves marks or produces an injury.

physical neglect A situation in which one experiences not having enough to eat or clean clothes to wear, the absence of a parent who will facilitate doctor’s appointments, and/or the excessive drinking of alcohol by a parent that interferes with a child’s care.

property crimes Violations of the law that lead to property loss.

routine activity theory An opportunity theory of crime that says crime occurs due to the convergence of three things: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardianship.

self-control The ability to control one’s own behavior.

sex trafficking A subset of human trafficking in which people are recruited, harbored, transported, or obtained for purposes of sex work.

stake in conformity A reason to conform to the law, or something valuable that a person can lose if they break the law.

street crime Criminal activity, usually violent, that occurs in a public place.

turning points Events that change a person’s trajectory away from crime and toward conformity (e.g., work and marriage).

violent crimes Violations of the law intended to produce physical harm to a victim.