Stealing and drug addiction
Why do young people get involved in crimes like stealing and drug addiction?
It seems difficult to encircle all the causes and motives of crimes like stealing and drug addiction in a brief discussion due to its broad aspects and technical nature. This paper is a brief overview of the topic and describes factors that cause crime, and the issues that could make young people more likely to become involved in crimes like stealing and drug addiction than some others. In this essay the biological, psychological and sociological issues are described that discuss chromosome and genetic composition, home life and family, education and school performance, intelligence factors, poverty and unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse. It also enlightens various features that turn some neighborhoods, towns, and cities more crime-prone than other areas. Some criminologists are of the view that there have been no real causes of crime; at least as the word 'cause' is generally understood. Eventually the information presented in this essay is inclined to make the issues very easy to comprehend. To have a deeper understanding of indulgence and causation of crimes, here is provided a detailed explanation of the causes throughout the essay. What is meant when it is suggested that some factor is a 'cause' of crime. By the meaning of cause the majority assume that, if any happening or situation ‘causes' some effect, then the effect consistently follows the happening or situation. This picture of causation is unhelpful when dealing with crimes like stealing and drug addiction in young people. The reasons or factors which criminologists regard as causing criminal behaviour do not consistently result in it but to a greater or lesser extent, they affect the risk of criminal behaviour. Accordingly if an individual has more risk factors then there is more probability of his involvement in crime. The word crime means that crime is a commission of an act or act of omission that violates the law and is liable to be punished by the state. Crimes are considered harmful to society or the community or state.
Human life is an organic ever varying phenomenon. Every person in this world is subject to go by the incidents and challenges of his time. In the existing circumstances and problematic issues, the utilization of young people and their training towards greater end of their abilities is the greatest social embarrassment. Most of the young people commit crimes because there is no sense of community anymore. Outside their schools and colleges, there is not as much opportunity for the young people to communicate among several parts of the society and most of them fix to the group they live through. The young people who have talented genetic relations and intellectual surpass others because of primarily their training. The youngsters whether indulge into right from wrong or wrong from rights reflects its personal history to it, upbringings, family and parental-childhood relationship. The youth, who in their childhood prong to ruthless and abusive environment in the initial age of their learning, in grown-up age comes like an imbalanced characters and abhorrence to society.
Criminal motivation factors can not be stated perfectly under one caption because they are numerous and varied in nature therefore no system of classification can explain the contemporary theories of crime causation with complete exactness but by these theories it gets easy to put forward crime causation in youth. Nevertheless, in broad view these theories may be considered in one of the subsequent three classes:
(1) Theories ascribing criminal deportment to biological or inherited shortcomings of the delinquent,
(2) Theories attributing crime to psychological elements or mental syndrome, and
(3) Theories attributing crime to psychological elements or mental syndrome, and
Majority of criminologists have recommended theories of multiple causation involving factors from more than one of these classes.
I. Biological Theories of Crime
There are two different classes of biological or, more exactly, biosocial hypotheses exist. One set of hypotheses highlights hereditary aspects—that is, the qualities communicated from parents to children. Other researches underline abnormalities in neurological growth that might damage certain self-controls that impede criminality. These abnormalities may arise in the construction of the brain or in the chemical structure of the brain.
A. GENETIC FACTORS
The verification for a link between hereditary structure and criminality comes from experimental researches of identical twins (who have the same hereditary structure) and adopted kids (who are hereditarily different from other family members). These researches focus to demonstrate that biological inheritance influences the tendency towards criminal behaviour autonomously of or in composition with the social surroundings.
These researches of the interconnection between the criminal inclinations of parents and offspring have discovered that offspring whose parents are engaged in crime are more probably to involve in criminality than offspring whose parents were law abiding. This discovery is expected because of a number of sociological aspects that affect the offspring. Researches of twins present somewhat more believable proof.
Observers have evaluated identical twins to fraternal twins (who share no more genetic qualities than siblings who are not twins). In most researches of twins, the level of steadiness between the criminal behaviour of identical twins is almost double that of fraternal twins. While this proof is more credible than family researches, it is still feasible that identical twins may be dealt more equally in social surroundings than fraternal twins. Researches of identical and fraternal twins reared apart would give more exact signs of the associated involvements of biology and socialization. On the other hand, such instances are very exceptional and only scattered case studies of this class have been conducted.
In the nineteen-seventies (1970s) it was found that some males had an extra Y (XYY) in their chromosome structure, there were recommendations that males with the additional Y chromosome could be tremendously violent. Academic analysis of this proof at the time would not hold this concept though. This began a heated discussion within the subject of psychology, though no variation between those males with the additional Y chromosome was discovered in connection to arrests for aggressive crime. This aspect then has little bearing to the comprehension of the origin of crime.
Eventually, evaluations have been made between the criminal engagement of parents and their adoptive kids and that of the children's genetic parents. In most situations criminal behaviour of the genetic parent is a better interpreter of the child's criminal contribution than the criminal behaviour of the adoptive parents.
The proof for a connection between biological structure and a tendency to criminal behaviour remains indecisive. Modern technologies to map DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) may recognize particular gene models that are related with tendency toward delinquency.
B. NEUROLOGIC ABNORMALITIES
Irregularities influencing violence may happen in the makeup of the brain. Observers have found an optimistic connection between violent behavior, containing violent crime and a destruction of the frontal lobe of the brain's cerebrum. This means that when scientists look for one aspect, either irregularity or violent behavior, they often discover the other aspect as well.
Another kind of abnormality that may be associated to violence is chemical disproportions in the brain. Human thinking, attitude, and feelings depend upon the communication of electrical impulses within the central nervous system. The spaces between cells in the nervous system are called synapses and the chemicals that cause the current of electrical impulses across the synapses are called neurotransmitters. Researchers consider that dysfunction low levels of neurotransmitters disrupt the current of electronic impulses, thus short-circuiting feelings such as compassion or understanding that can restrain criminality. Scientists have discovered a connection between levels of particular neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, and certain antisocial attitudes, containing aggression.
II. Psychological Theories of Crime
Personality hypotheses suppose a set of continuing perceptions and tendencies that every person develops through early socialization. These scholars suggest that certain tendencies or personality traits, such as spontaneity or extroversion, raise the possibilities of criminality.
A. MORAL DEVELOPMENT FACTOR
Jean Piaget stated children grow through four levels of cognitive growth. From birth to age 2, children observe the world merely through their senses and motor capabilities and have a very instant, experience-based awareness of the world. Between 2 and 7 years of age children learn to consider and realize objects using thinking that are autonomous of instant experience. In this stage kids are self-centered that is, they suppose that others experience the same fact that they do. From age 7 to teens the child learns to think rationally and to categorize and organize objects. Beginning in puberty, the child evolves the capability to think rationally about the future and to realize theoretical notions. Scholars associate these levels of cognitive growth to stages of ethical growth. At first, rules are provided by influential others. Afterward, children recognize that they can formulate and change rules. Eventually, humans recognize the ultimate significance of abstract rules.
Affected by Piaget's hypothesis that development advances in levels, in the mid-nineteen-sixties (1960s) psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg suggested a multistage hypothesis of ethical development. In the initial stage of development, children struggle to maximize contentment and avoid punishment. Children at this stage think the demands of others only to the level that meeting those requirements will assist the child satisfy his or her own requirements. During the next stage, which is attributed by compliance to social rules, the child exhibits respect for and responsibility to authority. The child also wants to avoid displeasure from that authority. As the child grown up, his or her ethical assessment is motivated by reverence for officially established rules and an awareness that these rules exist to help all. Finally, general rules are internalized. These rules, such as freedom and fairness, may even transcend factors of the current legal system.
Ethical development procedure may or may not be done, and persons who remain incapable to know right from wrong will be more probably to involve in wrong, deviant, or even criminality.
B. SOCIAL LEARNING FACTOR
Social learning hypotheses suggest that persons internalize ethical codes more through the procedure of socialization—learning attitudes through communication with others—rather than through a step-by-step development procedure. Particularly, social learning scholars maintain a teenager learns how to act based on how elders (mainly parent) react to the person's breaches of and conformity with principles. Rewards for ethical behavior and penalties for wrongdoings show what right behavior is.
Repeated examples of reward and penalties also head to the internalization of these norms. Over time the wrongdoing becomes related with the penalty, and it generates stress even when no one is present to order penalties. Through this procedure children start to administer themselves in a way coherent with ethical and legal codes.
Social learning hypotheses of criminal drive and behavior have considerable experimental support. A variety of researches prove that criminals were dealt with in a different way by their parents than youths with no record of criminal behavior. The socialization of criminals is marked by negligent and inconsistent discipline or by excessively harsh discipline, such as physical penalty. These researches do not explain in detail what useful socialization should be, but they do propose that social learning is associated to criminal behaviour. Such researches also prove that social learning hypothesis is an undertaking approach to understanding criminal drive and attitude.
C. PERSONALITY FACTOR
Personality hypotheses try to explain how persons obtain tendencies toward certain behavior. These tendencies are sometimes debated in terms of character traits, such as spontaneity and stubbornness, or personality kinds, such as introvert and extrovert. All other objects being similar, people will constantly show behaviors that they are inclined toward. Accordingly, some social researchers consider that certain tendencies or personality kinds may be related with criminal predispositions or activities.
Austrian doctor Sigmund Freud explained emotional development as the procedure of acquiring a balance between contradictory desires. Freud declares, humans must resolve the tension between their merely egoistic predispositions, which he termed the id, and the reigns of these forces by the blend of conscience and ethical behaviours, which Freud termed the superego. This procedure starts in childhood, at which time the id controls without clash.
As the child grows up, quarrels arise between the id and superego, which are finally resolved by the ego—the sense of self. This procedure results in an individual who strikes equilibrium between egoism and community, between pleasure-seeking and oppression of his or her needs. According to Freud, when this development procedure goes incorrect any number of personality confusions can occur, containing a predisposition toward criminality.
III. Environmental and Social Theories of Crime
A. SOCIAL CAUSES
One of the first hypotheses describing the impact of social aspects on crime came from French sociologist Gabriel Tarde who claimed that the origins of crime are mostly social.
He believed that persons inclined to crime are attracted to criminal behaviour by the model of other offenders. He also felt that the particular crimes committed and the techniques of committing those felonies are the results of simulation. The tendency to felony, while in part reflecting several aspects, is described primarily by the offender's social surroundings, significantly the surroundings of his teenage. Tarde was also one of the first to explore the professional offender. He observed that some criminals follow profession of crime. These professional offenders may involve in periods of apprenticeship that are alike to those that characterize training for entry into other careers.
Another French social scholar of key significance to contemporary criminology was Emile Durkheim, who supposed that the origins of crime are present in the very nature of community. According to Emile Durkheim, whose most important works were written in the eighteen-nineties (1890s), crime is associated to the lack of social solidity. Emile Durkheim used the word anomie to explain the emotions of disaffection and confusion related with the failure of social connections. According to Emile Durkheim, persons in the contemporary period tend to sense less related to a society than did their ancestors, and therefore their behaviour is less affected by group standards.
1. SOCIAL - STRUCTURAL FACTOR
The social-structural method highlights the impacts of a person's status in community and the limits that the individual's position puts on his or her insights and behavior. According to this example, all members of community subscribe to the similar ethical code but some persons because of their status in community are more competent than others to pursue that code. Social-structural scholars claim that crime is an adaptation to the restrictions that social status places on person behavior.
Social-structural scholars focus their concentration on socioeconomic position or social group and the stress that hypothesis developed by Robert Merton in the late nineteen-thirties (1930s), persons who desire to the cultural standard of monetary success but are denied the education, wealth, or other means to meet those ends will endure stress. There are three feasible reactions to this stress. First, the individual may try what Merton calls modernism. Although the person persists to accept the cultural value of achievement, he or she will use illegal ways, such as stealing or theft, to get money because legal ways to get this end are not accessible. Another feasible reaction is what Merton called retreatism. The individual gives up the follow of financial gains and involves in self- damaging activities, such as drug abuse. Eventually, Merton recognized the reaction of uprising, wherein the individual leaves the culturally dictated objective of financial success and involves in rebellious behaviour or in attempts to change the system.
Edwin Sutherland, Richard Cloward, and Lloyd Ohlin have stressed learning that to become an offender, an individual must not only be disposed toward illegitimate action, and he or she must also learn how to engage in criminal activities. The theory of differential association of Sutherland's contends that persons whose surroundings provide the chance to engage with offenders will learn these skills and will become offenders in reaction to strain. If the essential learning structures are not present, they will not.
Another kind of structural hypothesis of felony is the ecological hypothesis, which concentrates on the offender's connection to the social surroundings. These hypotheses underline migration and urbanization as causes of criminal adaptation and try to describe the geographic distribution of felony and offenders. Ecological hypotheses often give certain emphasis to developed areas.
In the nineteen-forties (1940s), scholars Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay hypothesized that as people shifted from rural areas or from other countries into developed areas, their poverty compelled them into regions that were on the edge of industrial areas. These zones of first settlement were distinguished by high levels of social ineffectiveness that is, the populace of these zones hardly ever interacted or communicated with each other.
Shaw and McKay also discovered the shortage of interaction in such zones was in part the consequence of the range of language and culture among settler groups, in addition to the fact that people shifted on after a short time. Therefore it was hard to form lasting connections and to discuss an agreed-upon code of behavior. Moreover, because informal social control was vulnerable and people did not share common standards, crime rates and arrests were high. When settlers left these zones their risk of involving in or being the victim of criminality decreased. Others, shifting into these disorganized zones, suffered from increased engagement in criminal activity.
2. SUBCULTURAL FACTOR
Sub-cultural hypotheses suppose that such groups have values quite different from those of the rest of community. Furthermore, these distinctions are lasting. People of these groups will be excessively engaged in crime because they obtained and pursue the values of their group. According to the sub-cultural model, crime does not arise because people have been poorly socialized; it appears because they have been socialized in an abnormal group and obtained its values. Some sub-cultural scholars maintain there is a so-called lower-class culture that highlights hardiness, enthusiasm, fortune, and independence. According to these scholars, trying to perform in a way consistent with these values excessively engages lower-class people in criminal activities. For instance, people from a sub-culture that puts great stress on toughness and person respect may react with aggression to an insult that most persons would think trivial.
Social-control theory, developed by American criminologist Travis Hirschi in the late 1960s, assumes that everyone has a predisposition toward criminal behavior. Whether or not a person acts on those predispositions depends on whether he or she has ties to groups that impart values opposing crime, such as the family, school, the community, and volunteer organizations. People with such attachments initially hold certain values because they fear sanction from these groups. Gradually, however, the values are internalized and followed because of a belief that to do otherwise would be morally wrong. People without these attachments are not deterred by threat of group sanction nor do they ultimately internalize legitimate norms, and thus they are more likely to engage in criminal activity.
B. ECONOMIC STATUS
Some experts believe that poverty leads people to commit acts of violence and crime. Anger, desperation, and the need for money for food, shelter, and other necessities may all contribute to criminal behavior among the poor. Other experts caution that the link of cause and effect between poverty and crime is unclear. In some cases, poverty undoubtedly motivates people to commit crimes, although it may not be the only factor involved. Other problems associated with poverty are often linked to crime. For example, to obtain money some poor people commit the crime of selling illegal drugs; others may steal to obtain the money to buy drugs on which they are dependent.
Studies concerning the influence of economic factors on criminal behavior have attempted to link economic deprivation to increased motivation to commit crimes (especially property crimes). Such studies assume that when economic conditions worsen more people experience deprivation and turn to crime to reduce that deprivation. These same theories have been used to explain why people of lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately represented among known criminals.
Other studies attempt to relate the disproportionate involvement of poor people in crime to the distribution of power in society. The assumption in these studies is that criminal law is a tool used by the social group with higher economic status to advance its class interests. Studies of the relationship between unemployment and crime have yielded conflicting results.
The Classical School Of Criminology
The classical school of criminology seeks to assess the nature, the causes and the extent of crime and further monitor the response to it. Eminent criminologists Eugene McLaughlin and John Muncie define classicism as: “an approach to the study of crime and criminality which is underpinned by the notion of rational action and free will”.
Classicism as a theory grew in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth-century after the French Revolution.
The main proponents of this school of thought were English utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) and Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria (1798 - 1794). The pair argued that human problems, namely on crime, ought to be tackled by the application of reason, rather than tradition, religion or bogus superstition. Classicists valued reason and intelligence as a means of understanding crime and as a means of tackling crime.
McLaughlin and Muncie point out that one of the central features of classical criminology is an emphasis upon voluntarism and hedonism. Classicism stress that a person's own self-interests are put at the forefront as to why people commit crime and how they should be punished. So for example, if a person decides to rob someone else, classicists would argue that it was a decision motivated purely by self-interests. This being so, classicism posits that punishment can be a deterrent for crime, so long as the punishment is proportional, fits the crime, and is carried out promptly.
Classicism argues that laws and punishment need to be predictable, non-discriminatory and applied to everyone and most importantly be humane and effective. With a strong focus on the nature of crime and how crime can be prevented, classicism argues that all human beings are essentially rational. Beccaria for example, argues that were people left to their own devices, they will follow their own self-interests and this he affirmed is the root cause of all crimes, big or “small”.
In addition, individuals will always seek to ensure that the rewards from the crime far outweigh the punishment. Thus classicists would argue that monstrous crimes such as genocide or anything similar can be controlled by ensuring that the punishment outweighs the crime. This could typically involve ensuring that a crime such as genocide is answerable to strict international law.
Although the ideas of classicism today are very influential in law and in Criminal Justice Policy, criticisms have been levelled at the theory. Criminological authors C. Coleman and C. Norris point out that the assumption that all people are equal before the law and able to make equally rational choices is flawed. For example, young children, the mentally ill, as well as those who are unable to form logical, free willed, rational choices are unable to make equally rational choices in a way similar to the demotic man or woman.
The classicist doctrine of freewill and rationality as a means of explaining the causes of crime seeks to understand why crime occurs as well as its nature. Criticisms exist as aforementioned, however, eminent criminologist Jock Young highlights that classicism as a theory has the largest history of any criminological theory and still continues to be a source of many conceptions and ideas today.
According to criminological theories, several explanations exist regarding the rationale for the commission of crime(s). On a fundamental level, three things must exist: 1) a victim, 2) an opportunity and, 3) lack of a supervisory presence (witnesses). There are other possible explanations such as labeling theory, social learning theory, etc.
Classical criminology stresses that causes of crime lie within the individual offender, rather than in their external environment. For classicists, offenders are motivated by rational self-interest, and the importance of free will and personal responsibility is emphasised. Rational choice theory is the clearest example of this idea.
Current positivist approaches generally focus on the culture. A type of criminological theory attributing variation in crime and delinquency over time and among territories to the absence or breakdown of communal institutions (e.g. family, school, church and local government) and communal relationships that traditionally encouraged cooperative relationships among people.
Strain theory is associated mainly with the work of Robert Merton. He felt that there are institutionalized paths to success in society. Strain theory holds that crime is caused by the difficulty those in poverty have in achieving socially valued goals by legitimate means. As those with, for instance, poor educational attainment have difficulty achieving wealth and status by securing well paid employment, they are more likely to use criminal means to obtain these goals. Merton's suggests five adaptations to this dilemma:
1. Innovation: individuals who accept socially approved goals, but not necessarily the socially approved means.
2. Retreatism: those who reject socially approved goals and the means for acquiring them.
3. Ritualism: those who buy into a system of socially approved means, but lose sight of the goals. Merton believed that drug users are in this category.
4. Conformity: those who conform to the system's means and goals.
5. Rebellion: people who negate socially approved goals and means by creating a new system of acceptable goals and means.
A difficulty with strain theory is that it does not explore why children of low-income families would have poor educational attainment in the first place. More importantly is the fact that much youth crime does not have an economic motivation. Strain theory fails to explain violent crime, the type of youth crime which causes most anxiety to the public.
The theory of Differential association also deals with young people in a group context, and looks at how peer pressure and the existence of gangs could lead them into crime. It suggests young people are motivated to commit crimes by delinquent peers, and learn criminal skills from them. The diminished influence of peers after men marry has also been cited as a factor in desisting from offending. There is strong evidence that young people with criminal friends are more likely to commit crimes themselves. However it may be the case that offenders prefer to associate with one another, rather than delinquent peers causing someone to start offending. Furthermore there is the question of how the delinquent peer group became delinquent initially.
Crime and Delinquency Subculture
Crime and delinquency subculture reflects on culture patterns surrounding crime and youngster delinquency. It is created not only by individuals, but as one culture, the American culture. Subculture is derivative of, but different from some larger referential cultures. This term is used to share systems of norms, values, individual, groups and the cultural system itself. Criminal or delinquent subcultures indicate systems of norms, values, or interest that support criminal or delinquent behavior. That's why many young people are linked to the same criminal acts as adult. They tend to follow a pattern that is expected in their age group, like stealing. Young people experience their opportunity as being blocked out. They engage in collective actions and adapt pro crime values that reinforce their delinquency.
In a book by cloward and Lloyd they state that "The youngster who is motivated by a sense of injustice generally commits his first act of deviance in a crime of uncertainty and fear of disapproval". This statement sounds like appreciation among delinquents is required to sustain satisfaction in their subcultures.
In criminal subculture the young drug dealers selling drugs was a way to be somebody, to get a head in life and to acquire things like jewelry, clothing, and cars, the symbols of wealth, power and respect. All the things delinquents want at a young age. Crime becomes meaningful to young men and women when they interact with one another and when they participate in youth culture. Youth violence is considered to be a serious contemporary problem, yet many delinquents are treated as an adult if the crime is function as an adult act. I find this interesting because may delinquents share the same formality of values and norms that make up there culture. Every young male or female will have experienced some kind of influential crime. What one has done so will the other, that's how I put it.
Labeling theory states that once young people have been labeled as criminal they are more likely to offend. The idea is that once labelled as deviant a young person may accept that role, and be more likely to associate with others who have been similarly labelled. Labelling theorists say that male children from poor families are more likely to be labelled deviant, and that this may partially explain why there are more lower-class young male offenders.
Youth crime is disproportionately committed by young men. Feminist theorists and others have examined why this is the case. One suggestion is that ideas of masculinity may make young men more likely to offend. Being tough, powerful, aggressive, daring and competitive may be a way young men attempt to express their masculinity. Acting out these ideals may make young men more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behaviour. Alternatively, rather than young men acting as they do because of societal pressure to conform to masculine ideals; young men may actually be naturally more aggressive, daring etc. As well as biological or psychological factors, the way young men are treated by their parents may make them more susceptible to offending. According to a study led by Florida State University criminologist Kevin M. Beaver, adolescent males who possess a certain type of variation in a specific gene are more likely to flock to delinquent peers. The study, which appears in the September 2008 issue of the Journal of Genetic Psychology, is the first to establish a statistically significant association between an affinity for antisocial peer groups and a particular variation (called the 10-repeat allele) of the dopamine transporter gene.
Heredity and brain activity
Searching for the origins of antisocial personality disorders and their influence over crime led to studies of twins and adopted children in the 1980s. Identical twins have the exact same genetic makeup. Researchers found that identical twins were twice more likely to have similar criminal behavior than fraternal twins who have similar but not identical genes, just like any two siblings. Other research indicated that adopted children had greater similarities of crime rates to their biological parents than to their adoptive parents. These studies suggested a genetic basis for some criminal behavior.
Prisoner in California being prepared for a lobotomy in 1961. At the time, many psychiatrists believed that criminal behavior was lodged in certain parts of the brain, and lobotomies were frequently done on prisoners.
With new advances in medical technology, the search for biological causes of criminal behavior became more sophisticated. In 1986 psychologist Robert Hare identified a connection between certain brain activity and antisocial behavior. He found that criminals experienced less brain reaction to dangerous situations than most people. Such a brain function, he believed, could lead to greater risk-taking in life, with some criminals not fearing punishment as much as others.
Studies related to brain activity and crime continued into the early twenty-first century. Testing with advanced instruments probed the inner workings of the brain. With techniques called computerized tomography (CT scans), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET), researchers searched for links between brain activity and a tendency to commit crime. Each of these tests can reveal brain activity.
Research on brain activity investigated the role of neurochemicals, substances the brain releases to trigger body activity, and hormones in influencing criminal behavior. Studies indicated that increased levels of some neurochemicals, such as serotonin, decreases aggression. Serotonin is a substance produced by the central nervous system that has broad sweeping effects on the emotional state of the individual. In contrast higher levels of others, such as dopamine, increased aggression. Dopamine is produced by the brain and affects heart rate and blood pressure. Researchers expected to find that persons who committed violent crimes have reduced levels of serotonin and higher levels of dopamine. This condition would have led to periods of greater activity including aggression if the person is prone towards aggression.
In the early twenty-first century researchers continued investigating the relationship between neurochemicals and antisocial behavior, yet connections proved complicated. Studies showed, for example, that even body size could influence the effects of neurochemicals and behavior.
Addiction is a complex disorder characterized by compulsive drug use. People who are addicted feel an overwhelming, uncontrollable need for drugs or alcohol, even in the face of negative consequences. This self-destructive behavior can be hard to understand. Why continue doing something that's hurting you? Why is it so hard to stop?
The answer lies in the brain. Repeated drug use alters the brain—causing long-lasting changes to the way it looks and functions. These brain changes interfere with your ability to think clearly, exercise good judgment, control your behavior, and feel normal without drugs. These changes are also responsible, in large part, for the drug cravings and compulsion to use that make addiction so powerful.
Hormones are bodily substances that affect how organs in the body function. Researchers also looked at the relationship between hormones, such as testosterone and cortisol, and criminal behavior. Testosterone is a sex hormone produced by male sexual organs that cause development of masculine body traits. Cortisol is a hormone produced by adrenal glands located next to the kidneys that effects how quickly food is processed by the digestive system. Higher cortisol levels leads to more glucose to the brain for greater energy, such as in times of stress or danger. Animal studies showed a strong link between high levels of testosterone and aggressive behavior. Testosterone measurements in prison populations also showed relatively high levels in the inmates as compared to the U.S. adult male population in general.
Studies of sex offenders in Germany showed that those who were treated to remove testosterone as part of their sentencing became repeat offenders only 3 percent of the time. This rate was in stark contrast to the usual 46 percent repeat rate. These and similar studies indicate testosterone can have a strong bearing on criminal behavior.
Cortisol is another hormone linked to criminal behavior. Research suggested that when the cortisol level is high a person's attention is sharp and he or she is physically active. In contrast, researchers found low levels of cortisol were associated with short attention spans, lower activity levels, and often linked to antisocial behavior including crime. Studies of violent adults have shown lower levels of cortisol; some believe this low level serves to numb an offender to the usual fear associated with committing a crime and possibly getting caught.
It is difficult to isolate brain activity from social and psychological factors, as well as the effects of substance abuse, parental relations, and education. Yet since some criminals are driven by factors largely out of their control, punishment will not be an effective deterrent but help and treatments become the primary responses.
These are some of the major risk factors that increase the chances of young people committing crimes:
* Troubled home life
* Poor attainment at school, truancy and school exclusion
* Drug or alcohol misuse and mental illness
* Deprivation such as poor housing or homelessness
* Peer group pressure
Troubled home life
Children who are neglected or abused are more likely to commit crimes later in life than others. Similarly, sexual abuse in childhood often leads these victims to become sexual predators as adults. Many inmates on death row have histories of some kind of severe abuse. The neglect and abuse of children often progresses through several generations. Cleckley's ideas on sociopathy were adopted in the 1980s to describe a "cycle of violence" or pattern found in family histories. A "cycle of violence" is where people who grow up with abuse or antisocial behavior in the home will be much more likely to mistreat their own children, who in turn will often follow the same pattern.
The cycle of abuse, crime, and sociopathy, keeps repeating itself. Children who are neglected or abused commit substantially more crimes later in life than others.
The cycle of violence concept, based on the quality of early life relationships, has its positive counterpart. Supportive and loving parents who respond to the basic needs of their child instill self-confidence and an interest in social environments. These children are generally well-adjusted in relating to others and are far less likely to commit crimes.
Family factors which may have an influence on offending include; the level of parental supervision, the way parents discipline a child, parental conflict or separation, criminal parents or siblings, parental abuse or neglect, and the quality of the parent-child relationship. Children brought up by lone parents are more likely to start offending than those who live with two natural parents, however once the attachment a child feels towards their parent(s) and the level of parental supervision are taken into account, children in single parent families are no more likely to offend than others. Conflict between a child's parents is also much more closely linked to offending than being raised by a lone parent. If a child has low parental supervision they are much more likely to offend. Many studies have found a strong correlation between a lack of supervision and offending, and it appears to be the most important family influence on offending. When parents commonly do not know where their children are, what their activities are, or who their friends are, children are more likely to truant from school and have delinquent friends, each of which are linked to offending. A lack of supervision is connected to poor relationships between children and parents, as children who are often in conflict with their parents may be less willing to discuss their activities with them. Children with a weak attachment to their parents are more likely to offend.
Poor attainment at school, truancy and school exclusion
Conforming to Merton's earlier sociological theories, a survey of inmates in state prisons in the late 1990s showed very low education levels. Many could not read or write above elementary school levels, if at all. The most common crimes committed by these inmates were robbery, burglary, automobile theft, drug trafficking, and shoplifting. Because of their poor educational backgrounds, their employment histories consisted of mostly low wage jobs with frequent periods of unemployment.
Employment at minimum wage or below living wage does not help deter criminal activity. Even with government social services, such as public housing, food stamps, and medical care, the income of a minimum wage household still falls short of providing basic needs. People must make a choice between continued long-term low income and the prospect of profitable crime. Gaining further education, of course, is another option, but classes can be expensive and time consuming. While education can provide the chance to get a better job, it does not always overcome the effects of abuse, poverty, or other limiting factors. Lack of Education Contributes to Crime.
It is a statistical fact that the crime rate is inversely proportional to the education level of the culprit. Kids who grow up in families that do not stress the importance of getting an education are more likely to be living out on the streets, doing drugs, joining gangs, or ending up in prison.
Sometimes parents who raise such kids were raised in similar conditions when they were youngsters. Nothing has changed. An education should be foremost on parents' minds when rearing their kids. In fact, an education is the key out of poverty. As the old saying goes, "The way out of the gutter is with a book and not a basketball."
Kids who do not have a good education in school are more likely to have difficulty with finding jobs, getting into college, or staying out of trouble with the law. Many times they have family issues that are attributed to the loss of a parent at a young age due to a death or an incarceration.
Kids from single-parent homes run that risk of growing up as an "at-risk" child. This is due to the fact that the parent must work to provide food and shelter for the child, and the absence of the other parent fails to provide leadership and guidance for a growing mind. A parent who is incarcerated will definitely not be around to guide the child to getting good grades in school.
Is it okay to skip school and join a gang like their daddy once did? The truth of the matter is that kids who drop out of school will face hardship in their lives as they grow older. Lack of education on their part means lack of money to support a family. Lack of money translates into robbing a bank or convenience store. We hear in the news every day a robbery that occurs in our city or elsewhere. Or perhaps a shooting on the part of the perpetrator that caused an innocent life come to an abrupt halt.
Drug or alcohol misuse and mental illness
Some social factors pose an especially strong influence over a person's ability to make choices. Drug and alcohol abuse is one such factor. The urge to commit crime to support a drug habit definitely influences the decision process. Both drugs and alcohol impair judgment and reduce inhibitions (socially defined rules of behavior), giving a person greater courage to commit a crime. Deterrents such as long prison sentences have little meaning when a person is high or drunk.
Substance abuse, commonly involving alcohol, triggers "stranger violence," a crime in which the victim has no relationship whatsoever with his or her attacker. Such an occurrence could involve a confrontation in a bar or some other public place where the attacker and victim happen to be at the same time. Criminologists estimate that alcohol or drug use by the attacker is behind 30 to 50 percent of violent crime, such as murder, sexual assault, and robbery. In addition drugs or alcohol may make the victim a more vulnerable target for a criminal by being less attentive to activities around and perhaps visiting a poorly lighted or secluded area not normally frequented perhaps to purchase drugs.
The idea that drug and alcohol abuse can be a major factor in a person's life is why there are numerous treatment programs for young people addicted to these substances. Treatment focuses on positive support to influence a person's future decision making and to reduce the tendency for antisocial and criminal behavior.
Just why individuals who are mentally ill are so prone to abuse alcohol and other drugs is a matter of controversy. Some researchers believe that substance abuse may precipitate mental illness in vulnerable individuals, while others believe that people with psychiatric disorders use alcohol and other drugs in a misguided attempt to alleviate symptoms of their illnesses or side effects from their medications. The evidence is most consistent with a more complex explanation in which well-known risk factors - such as poor cognitive function, anxiety, deficient interpersonal skills, social isolation, poverty, and lack of structured activities - combine to render people with mental illnesses particularly vulnerable to alcohol and drug abuse.
One further point about vulnerability is clear. People with an established mental disorder - probably because they already have one form of brain disorder - appear to be extremely sensitive to the effects of alcohol and other drugs. For example, moderate doses of alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine can induce psychotic symptoms in a person with schizophrenia, and small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, or other drugs can precipitate prolonged psychotic relapses. Accordingly, researchers often recommend abstinence from alcohol and other drugs for people with severe mental illness.
Substance abuse also appears to worsen health and social problems by contributing to poor nutrition, unstable relationships, inability to manage finances, disruptive behavior, and unstable housing. Substance abuse interferes with treatment as well. People with dual diagnoses (severe mental illness and substance disorder) are likely to deny alcohol and drug problems; to be non-compliant with prescribed medications, and to avoid treatment and rehabilitation in general. Perhaps due to their poor treatment compliance and psychosocial instability, people with both mental illness and substance abuse are highly vulnerable to homelessness, hospitalization, and incarceration.
The problems related to combined substance abuse and mental illness pose a substantial burden to the families of people with dual disorders. Surveys show that family members identify substance abuse and its attendant secretiveness, disruptive behavior, and violence as among the behaviors that are most disturbing. Even though relationships are strained by problems related to dual diagnoses, our research shows that families expend a great deal of time and money helping out in a variety of areas, from providing direct care to attempting to structure leisure time and increase participation in treatment. Furthermore, they are often unaware that their relative is abusing drugs or confused about how to respond to substance abuse, so education is greatly needed.
This section of the paper briefly presents the various kinds of links between drugs and crime that may explain the coincidence of these two behaviours. The types of crime associated with the legal status of certain drugs are discussed, including possession, production and purchase of illegal drugs - all of which are indictable offences. Three theoretical models, originally proposed by Goldstein to explain the drugs-violence nexus in the United States, are then examined; these models have since served as a framework to analyze the relationship between drugs and crime. The first model suggests that crime is linked to the psychopharmacological effects of certain drugs; in other words, it refers to intoxication by drugs which are recognized as undermining judgment and self-control, causing paranoid thoughts or distorting inhibitions and perceptions. The second model refers to economic-compulsive crime and suggests that drug users commit crimes in order to get money to buy drugs. Thirdly, the systemic model suggests that crime among illegal drug users is linked to the drug market. Goldstein acknowledged that this tripartite conceptual framework represents possible relationships between drugs and violence and that many other factors may contribute to a person's drug use and criminal activity.
Drugs is intended to be taken or administered for the purpose of altering, sustaining or controlling the one's physical, mental or emotional state. Many drugs are used socially or because of peer pressure. People enjoy the feeling that drug produce. They used drugs like alcohol & tranquillizers to try control stress, or to relieve other uncomfortable feelings, and some use them purely for pleasure. While many drugs are used for beneficial reason; but the society is concerned about the harm that drug use can cause to: (1) Personal Health that deals with accidents, overdose, diseases caused by or related to use withdrawals, death dependence, anxiety, depression and mental illness; (2) Relationships that occur to mental conflicts, tense, family life, sexual difficulties, separations, physical or verbal violence, child abuse and divorce. (3) Social function that cause dangerous behavior, financial or employment difficulties, disrupted friendship, legal or accommodation problems.
There have been studies undertaken into whether a person can have inherited a gene for addiction. There may not be an actual gene but there are aspects of a person's genetic makeup which make them more vulnerable to drug addiction. Their brain may be hard wired in a particular way which makes them susceptible to certain substances such as alcohol.
People do assume that if several members of a family have an addiction, for example to drugs then they have inherited a gene for this addiction which will be passed down to their children.
This is incorrect and is more likely to be a combination of factors such as susceptibility to addictive behaviour, environment, lifestyle, economic background and so on. So if someone is poor, lives in a deprived area, are friendly with people who smoke, drink or use drugs and is psychologically vulnerable then this can increase the chance of addiction. If a young person is from that type of background then they are vulnerable to developing a dependency but this is by no means a given right.
It may not be due to any genetic tendencies but more a case of socialisation in that the young person has grown up with smoking, drinking or drug use in their family and sees it as acceptable behaviour.
Teenagers are very susceptible to the power of advertising and are a target consumer group by various companies who understand the attraction to this age group. Both film and television present lifestyles which often include these substances and in a certain way which makes them ‘cool' or desirable to teenagers. Fashion and music magazines, the Internet and other forms of advertising focus upon celebrity lifestyles which also include substance abuse and these can appeal to impressionable teenagers.
Many young people aspire to the celebrity lifestyle and if this includes drinking, smoking or taking drugs then they may do the same as part of the desire to have that lifestyle.
Deprivation such as poor housing or homelessness
As more and more low-income families move into neighborhoods that once catered to the middle or upper class, one must be on the lookout for his own personal safety and report any criminal activity going on in their surroundings. Crime is everywhere in these neighborhoods where kids find too much time on their hands after school hours or after the school year lets out.
What also contributes to the crime rate in such places? Is it just the lack of money for low income families? Sometimes, crime can be attributed to the lack of education on the part of the perpetrator or their families.
The desire for material gain (money or expensive belongings) leads to property crimes such as robberies, burglaries, white-collar crimes, and auto thefts. The desire for control, revenge, or power leads to violent crimes such as murders, assaults, and rapes. These violent crimes usually occur on impulse or the spur of the moment when emotions run high.
Peer group pressure
Young people are attracted to caffeine, hard drugs, alcohol and smoking for any number of reasons. But one of the most common reasons is that of peer pressure.
Peer pressure Young people are obsessed with being part of the group and trying to ‘fit in'. This means wearing the same clothes, speaking the same language and doing the same things. If the group they wish to be part of does drugs then it is very difficult not to do the same. In some cases they feel as if they have to take drugs to be accepted into the group.
Another reason is taking drugs or drinking alcohol as part of a ‘dare' or trying to show their maturity. The teenage years are a difficult time in that a young person is no longer a child but is not quite an adult and is trying to assert their individualism and identity at that time. But friendships and being part of a group are immensely important at this time and it a young person would rather adapt their behaviour to that of the group rather than risk rejection.
There is also the fact that smoking, drinking alcohol or taking drugs are seen as acts of rebellion. Young people know that these potentially harmful substances are bad for them which make them even more attractive. Plus the thought of doing something that is both risky and frowned upon by adults only adds to the excitement. It is tempting to indulge in this behaviour when part of a group as many young people don't believe that it will lead to an addiction or even damage their health in the long run.
A person's peer group strongly influences a decision to commit crime. For example, young boys and girls who do not fit into expected standards of academic achievement or participate in sports or social programs can sometimes become Crack cocaine pipe displayed by police. Drugs and alcohol impair judgment and reduce inhibitions, giving a person greater courage to commit a crime. lost in the competition. Children of families who cannot afford adequate clothing or school supplies can also fall into the same trap. Researchers believe these youth may abandon schoolmates in favor of criminal gangs, since membership in a gang earns respect and status in a different manner. In gangs, antisocial behavior and criminal activity earns respect and street credibility.
Like society in general, criminal gangs are usually focused on material gain. Gangs, however, resort to extortion, fraud, and theft as a means of achieving it.
Peer pressure is a very real issue that affects many of the teenagers of the world today. Society offers many misleading advertisements that seem to lead teens in all the wrong directions. If the youth of today are more educated, the future of our world will be a lot better off. There are all sorts of pressures that children face today. Drinking, smoking, staying out past curfew, having sex when you are not ready- whatever it may be, sometimes others put the pressure on you to participate in something you might not want to do. Peer pressure is stress of strain you feel from friends and school mates to act, behave, think and look a certain way. This kind of pressure can cover everything from fashion through sex and dating. If you are very worried about peer pressure it is important to find someone who you can talk to.
Peers can pressure you to join a club or team, to do an after-school activity or pressure you to NOT try something you want to do- like alcohol, drugs or sex. There are ways to get out of sticky situations and overcome peer pressure. Teens who get involved in activities- like sports or church youth groups or academic clubs- experience interacting with others on a positive level. There needs to be a relinquishing of the stereotype of peers as a uniformly negative influence on youth. It needs to be made aware that peers can prove to have a very positive influence on each other. Dealing with Peer Pressure isn't easy. Although peer pressure can be extremely strong and hard to resist, there are ways to fight it. You actually lessen your exposure to peer pressure if you're involved with other teens who possess the same boundaries, ethics, and interests as you do. Sometimes these decisions are negative ones, including using drugs or alcohol, sex, violence or just a desire to fit in. Educators and parents need to help teenagers pursue and maintain positive peer relationships. Studies have shown how peer pressure alone can change one's mind from what they know is right to making the wrong decision. But hopefully, by having a plan, teens will be prepared to hold to their boundaries. Also, it has been said that all it takes for someone to stand their ground on what they know is right is for one other peer to agree with them. nsions that can have an impact on the decisions they make.
They adolescent knows that they shouldn?t be smoking, but they do it anyway despite their morals. For example, if an adolescent sees a peer ( peer: a child or adolescent who is about the same age or maturity level) smoking a cigarette, they may feel inclined to do the same because they think it will make them ?cool?. In doing this, the parent could save their child from a lot of trouble and hardship in their adolescence. In a time of uncertainty (adolescence) a child will do almost anything to feel acceptance. In this paper I will study adolescents and peer pressure. Adolescents are more vulnerable to this because they are young and impressionable. Unlike negative peer pressure ( negative peer pressure: peer pressure that makes the child want to do bad or negative things). It is, for example, when a peer tries to get you to go to church, or join an activity. re is "when people your own age encourage you to do something or to keep from doing something else, no matter if you personally want to or not". This is a prime example of peer pressure. Positive Peer Pressure: Positive peer pressure is when the peer pressure is for the better. A parent could help their adolescent recognize the difference between positive and negative peer pressure.
Why do people take drugs? Probably because they think drugs will make them better. Young people are often introduced to drug-talking by their friends. When a friend offers you a chance to have some “fun” with drugs, and you points out that everyone is doing it, it is natural for you to wonder what it is like. Your friends may you feel be full of stories as to how wonder what is drugs will make you feel. What they wont be telling you is how addictive the drugs are, and how many young people do lasting damage to their bodies, or eventually from continuous drug abuse each year. Many users take drugs to escape from a life which may seem too difficult to bear. Some may believe that drugs are the only answer, but they are not the answer at all. They simply make the matter worse.
When criminologists first recognised the significance of the family, a number of criminologists disputed that the delinquent peer had any control, had little or no power on encouraging participation in crime. The case of having a relationship with delinquent peers and being entangled in crime was said to be a case of 'birds of a feather flocking together'.
This paper reviewed a number of studies dealing with the relationship between illegal drug use and crime in an effort to illustrate the complexity of the connection between drug use and crime.
After examining the link between the legal status of certain drugs and crime, the paper discussed three theoretical models which endeavour to explain the relationship between drug use and crime: the psychopharmacological link; the economic-compulsive link; and the systemic link. A study on regular cannabis users was then presented.
The evidence demonstrated that the closest link between drug use and crime occurs in drug users who are dependent on expensive drugs but cannot afford to buy them. Even then, the relationship is not automatic, because crime is not an inevitable consequence of drug use, even for users who are addicted to drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Involvement in crime also varies depending on the economic, cultural and social context. Finally, some users simply choose to stop using drugs rather than commit crimes (with or without the support of organizations which help drug addicts).
As well, the mere fact that crimes are committed by drug users is not enough to say that drug use does cause crime or vice versa. It is more likely that drug use intensifies and perpetuates the commission of criminal offences. Drug use is only one factor among a group of variables that may account for criminal behaviour; other variables include physiological, psychological and behavioural, family, cultural, social, economic and situational factors. The research does confirm that a number of links can be established between illegal drug use and crime but that those links are not necessarily causal in nature and more closely resemble variables in the complex relationship between drugs and crime. As Brochu wrote:
The relationship between drugs and crime is not as easy to understand as some claim. The triangular relationship between a person, a product and behaviour is complex and cannot be defined in a simple formula no matter how appealing. Care must be taken to avoid the tendency to reduce reality to simplifications that distort it.
The consequences of this observation for drug intervention and policy development are considerable. An approach that would fail to treat all factors contributing to drug use and crime or that would attribute a causal role exclusively to drug use would inevitably result in the implementation of ineffective policies. As suggested by this brief literature review, the whole concept of “drug-related crime” which features in most of the policy documents and research in this area needs to be re-thought.
To eradicate this menace of youth crime, we have to put all our efforts to popularise enlightenment, education, merit, equity, and equal opportunities of chance to everyone. Parents should be imparted values and education to teach and transfer it to children and so we would succeed in producing healthy and compatible youth.
What are kids doing nowadays? How can we prevent our own kids from becoming troubled kids? For one, a parent must be a good role model and stress the importance of a good education. That means the parents must take an active role in their child's education by monitoring how much television the child is allowed to watch and taking charge of knowing the kinds of friends that his child associates with. Furthermore, this means maintaining communication with his teachers at school and looking over his report card regularly.
A child with poor academic performance may indicate something wrong at school. Perhaps he does not like school due to external influences; i.e. bullying, difficult teachers, taunting by other students, or peer pressure. It is better to catch the child's problem as early as possible before it comes to the point that the child is truant from school, or worse, acts out his frustration that is reflected in another Virginia Tech-like massacre.
A child should like his studies and should show interest in his schoolwork. He should be taught that good grades will help him get a good education so that he can get a good paying job and be a productive member of society after he graduates. Teach your child that involvement in gangs, violence, drugs, and/or extortion will not get him anywhere but prison. Once a person ends up doing life in prison, there IS no second chance. There is no freedom for him. There is no TV, no video games, no music, nothing! Not even a chance to get an education behind bars. If there is school in prison, the education is very limited.
If you are raising a child, question your child as to what is going on in school if he/she displays academic difficulty. Spend some quality time with him/her. Help them with their homework if possible. Remember, you are not just his/her friend, you are their parents. You are the first role model that a child looks toward from infancy. So be a good one and teach him/her what is right by staying in school.
There is a story in Austin, Texas a few years ago. It involved a troubled 17-year-old kid, Manuel Cortez, a high school dropout, who went out with his friends in a stolen car one sunny afternoon, and shot another student, Christopher Briseno, whom he did not even know because Briseno allegedly was teasing the sister of Manuel's friend. Manuel Cortez is now serving life in prison because he made a stupid decision. Now families of the victim and the perpetrator are suffering two losses from society. All for what? Because Mr. Cortez chose to drop out of school and associate with gangs and/or violence? He chose to give up the possibility of an education so that he can run around gang banging? Or did he not have the proper support and guidance from his parents?
The purpose of punishment is to discourage a person from committing a crime. Punishment is supposed to make criminal behavior less attractive and more risky. Imprisonment and loss of income is a major hardship to many people. Another way of influencing choice is to make crime more difficult or to reduce the opportunities. This can be made by better lighting, locking bars on auto steering wheels, the presence of guard dogs, or high technology improvements such as security systems and photographs on credit cards, by increasing the number of police officers on the streets. A change in a city's police force, however, is usually tied to its economic health. Normally as unemployment rises, city revenues decrease because fewer people are paying taxes. This causes cutbacks in city services including the police force. So a rise in criminal activity may not be due to fewer police, but rather rising unemployment.
Another means of discouraging people from choosing criminal activity is the length of imprisonment. The research in this sphere showed, that a sentence that is longer than 2 years can have contra-effective results. Coming out after too many years being locked has proven to be more difficult to re-integrate in the society and more easy to resort back to crime.
The only way to decrease criminal activity is reformation- remodeling the system (educational, economic, jurisdiction...) that breeds criminals is a core necessity. There is a saying telling that if you want to change others, start by changing yourself. Everything is related and we all are in a way responsible for the way our world is. By transforming the causes (one of which is the system) we can both prevent and reduce crime.
Why do people commit crimes? What are the causes of crime? Moreover, what are the motivational factors central to the occurrence of crime?
One theory which attempts to answer such questions is the theory of classicism which was first proposed by Italian social contract theorist Cesare Beccaria and English utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
Youth crime has always been an alarming affair in societies around the world. People attempt to find out the causes to which these issues stem from. This is an essay on the question, "Why do young people get involved in crimes like stealing and drug addiction?" There have been described some contemporary theories simply to elaborate the causes of involvement of young people in crimes. These three groups of theories attribute criminal behavior to biological or inherited shortcomings of the delinquent, ascribe crime to psychological elements or mental syndrome, and relate crime to psychological elements or mental syndrome. These theories described in this essay help to examine the factors that contribute to criminality.
If we examine intensely, delinquency is extremely prevalent among youth from different walks of life. Troubled home life, Poor attainment at school, truancy and school exclusion, drug or alcohol misuse and mental illness, deprivation such as poor housing or homelessness, peer group pressure seem to be driving forces that urge these young people to involve in such crimes.
It is very usual these days to hear news about young people or high school students taking part in stealing, robbery, and drug addiction. However, in my opinion youth crimes are not restricted to such forms. According to the facts bullying, for instance, occur everyday in almost every school in UK. The very fact that stealing and drug addiction are becoming more widespread in our time is adequate reason for us to find and realize the key factors behind such criminality.
The environment where a person grows up plays a major factor in his/her participation with violence. I believe that a young man or woman can be directly influenced to do violent acts if he/she has witnessed or experienced it on a personal level. If a child grows up in an environment where violence seems to be a normal part of daily life, then it is almost certain that the child will adapt the same tendency to engage in violent acts.
The content behind modern media and entertainment can also be a major cause of youth violence today. Parents may be able to discipline and guide their kids at home, but when these same kids open the television, they can watch the news where people are being murdered, folks are hurting each other and crimes are being committed everyday. In many television shows and movies, brutal acts of murder and torture are shown as if they are a normal part of daily life. Other films teach young people the value of revenge, and portray violence as the righteous way to vindicate the characters. The fearful thing is that these acts of violence can be watched by children and teenagers unrestricted.
Your homesituation and upbringing
If you think to a bad homesituation, you automatically think to things like: physical/mental abuse, teenmothers, alcohol/drugs use of the father/mother, divorce and/or the lack of attention because of to many children.
When this kind a problems occur in raising the child, it can go wrong.A childs gets also a lot of moral values.You also have to learn how to interact with other people and how to behave. When children aren't raised properly they can get a lot of problems with themselves and they can express that in criminal behaviour.
Read more in Issues
« Why Religious Symbols Ought to be Kept Private
Schools Have Become Back Up Parents »
Group behaviour and friends
If a child get's ‘wrong' friends he copies the bad behaviour. especially in group behaviour he feels stronger and dares more.When they are bored they can molestate someone or someting more quickly.
How can education lead to youth crime? if the problem child gets in contact with other problem children at school, then it can lead to dangerous situations.It can also lead to truancy, this leads to no certificate. when they don't have a certificate it can lead to crime quicklier.
By mental problems you can think of emotional neglect, depression, alcohol and drugs abuse. youth crime begins often after a lot of disasters.
Many theories, at both the macro and micro level, have been proposed to explain juvenile crime. Some prominent theories include Social Disorganization theory, Differential Social Organization theory, Social Control theory, and Differential Association theory. When determining which theories are more valid, the question must be explored whether people deviate because of what they learn or from how they are controlled? Mercer L. Sullivan's book, “Getting Paid” Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City clearly suggests that the learning theories both at the macro level, Differential social organization, and micro level, Differential association theory, are the more accurate of the two types of theory.