Juvenile Criminality and Environmental Criminology

Juvenile Criminality and Environmental Criminology Jessica Turner April, 2013 MSCR604 Final Paper  Abstract An examination of Environmental Criminology, and its connection to juvenile criminality. Along with a full overview of Environmental Criminology and its subtheories, Routine Activities Theory, Rational Choice Theory, and Crime Pattern Analysis, is a specific breakdown of some of the prevalent issues among today’s at-risk youth. These issues can be studied and addressed using the Environmental theories, both to explain how it threads into criminal behavior, and how to effectively work to prevent delinquency.  Juvenile Criminality and Environmental Criminology Environmental Criminology Environmental criminology has its foundation in three perspective theories, routine activities theory, rational choice theory, and crime pattern theory. Environmental criminology places special focus on the geographical and spatial aspects of crime, along with the criminal event. The roots of environmental criminology can be found as early as the 1800’s, when Guerry in 1833 and Quetelet in 1842 researched the early crime statistics in France, relating to property crimes and violent crimes on the department level (Fritz, 1997). More recently, the advancements in technology have led to the incorporation of such tools and Geographical Information’s systems, creating a whole new way to look at the geographical mapping of criminal activity and movements of criminals. This has greatly enhanced academic understanding of the theories, as there are much more detailed visualization and proof of the correlates. The sub-theories of environmental criminology, however, have a wide range of applications. Routine Activities Theory Three point structure/application Routing activities theory is perhaps one of the more popular theories today, with many programs, studies, and articles written using its general thesis as a base. Routing Activities Theory is made of a three point structure, creating the principals of the theory. First, it states there must be an accessible target. Second, the absence of capable guardians who might intervene. And thirdly the presence of a motivated offender. (NSW Attourney General, 2011) And accessible target may be a person, an object, or a location. This might be a woman walking home alone at night, an overpass just begging to be tagged by a gang, or a purse or wallet left on a chair in a restaurant as its owner leaves to use the bathroom. The target is an easy one, one that would not be difficult for the motivated offender to approach. There are two acronyms that have been coined to refer to the accessible target; VIVA – Value, Inertia, Visibility, Access. Secondly, CRAVED – Concealable, Removable, Available, Valuable, Enjoyable, Disposable (NSW Attourney General, 2011). A lack of a capable guardian is often the determining factor in making a target “accessible.” A guardian is a human element, just as offender is, and may play their role by being a guard, bouncer, or owner of a target, or the guardian of a motivated offender, especially if the motivated offender is a juvenile. Their presence deter the offender from the act of offending by making it impossible, or at least very risky. They may be police patrols, security guards, doorstaff, employees or co-workers, friends, or neighbors. This team effort of crime prevention ranges from the formal, to the informal. They are the deterrent. The presence of a motivated offender is the key element of crime, without whom there would be no need to be concerned with crime. When the motivated offender is added, it creates the triangle of crime, the three elements that essentially make a crime. Rational Choice Theory Rational Choice Theory is another faucet of Environmental Criminology that offers the explanation that offenders select targets and commit crimes in a manner that can be explained. The first fundamental of this theory is that the human are actors of rationality, meaning that they normally rationalize to themselves their decisions. Secondly, that the rationality involves a calculation of ends and means. Third, that people freely choose their behavior – both conforming and deviant, unless they psychologically incompetent. Fourth, that the central element of that calculation involves the benefit of the cost, and a calculation of the hedonistic pleasure vs. potential pain. Fifth, Choice is naturally directed towards the most pleasurable or beneficial when all other conditions are equal – accessible target, lack of guardian. Six, Choice can be controlled through the perception and the understanding of the potential consequences for choice, and any potential pain or punishment for the violation of the social contract. Seven, that the state is responsible for maintaining order in preserving the common good through a system of laws. This system is the embodiment of the social contract. Eight, the swiftness, severity, and certainty of the punishment it the key element in understanding the law’s ability to control human behavior (Gul, 2009). Crime Pattern Identification This theory suggests that the interaction of offenders with their physical and social environments dictates their choice in targets. This has long been suggested by the impact of the environment around the victim – which will be further elaborated upon in this essay – but a brief mention is earned by the new technological advances in this field. Global Information Systems, or GIS, mapping has allowed law enforcement and criminologists to determine the geographical patterns of crime, demographics, and any recordable data as to the conditions of the area (Fritz, 1997). When trying to understand the impact of a specific neighborhood on the resident juveniles, GIS mapping created a multi-level map that charts gang activity, known drug-homes, hot-spots for criminal activity, and the number of children in the neighborhood, or even arrest records. Utilizing census data, they can also chart the resident’s ages, and race. This will allow researchers to seek out any correlative data from the patterns. This could aid in the understanding underlying issues, knowing where increased patrols are needed, or which areas house youths at the highest risk, and may be in need of resources in their area. Earliest Exposure; Family Structure Family structure and home environment plays into the juvenile – and later the adult – development of behavioral patterns. In environmental criminology the significance of capable guardians – parents or other supervision, the development of human behavior dictation patterns in choice, and the impact of the home environment is not lost. First, an examination of the conditions, and then the application of theory. Much of the following data could also greatly fall under the examination of strain theory – that behavior is greatly shaped by the structural environments of home and society or culture (Schmalleger, 2009) – but the use of Environmental Criminology, and the sub-theories to locate it, and treat it, are the focus in this paper. The roots of crime are taken early. Seeds are planted as early as infancy, as the function of the infant brain – through mirror neurons – is to mimic their environment. This begins at birth, continuing about the 12th year. These reactors are made to learn from and emulate the environment around them, and within three hours of birth, infants can copy such simple things as blinking and sticking out their tongue. They are a key in the development of social response, empathy, and mannerism. In addition, empathy and conformed behavior can be destroyed by the lack of a secure base. The Anterior Cingulate Cortex, for instance, responds to rejection or physical pain. When the infant and later the child is exposed to “social rejection,” such as a lack of response from his mother when he cries for food, a clean diaper, or even just to be held, the ACC slowly becomes damaged, and can even create the sensation of physical pain. While infants are extremely needy, a lack of response to his cries can lead to long term damage. Cortisol is built up within the system, leading anxious avoidant disorder or adversely, to separation anxiety (Goleman, 2006). They may also develop other psychological malfunctions. Perhaps the most disturbing find, was that infants who were lacked the secure base, and response from the “social environment” (parents or guardians), went on to lack the response the ACC would normally create when their own children cried later on. So what does this mean for a criminological perspective? Not only does it create a danger for the infants not responded to, but a lack of empathy – the ability to understand, respect, even have a brief moment of guilt or feeling for the victims is a major factor in controlling and avoiding criminal tendencies. This is a brutal blow, a major defining factor in anti-social behavior and deviance. As children in high-risk homes, or homes that are unstable, this creates a deadly combination. In federal prisons in 1999 over half of the inmates – 721,500 – were parents, and these parents had a cumulative 1,498,800 children under the age of 18. As many as 25% of female inmates were reported pregnant at intake, or having given birth during the year before incarnation (Eddy & Reid, 2001). When Eddy and Reid conducted an examination of the effects incarceration of parents has on juveniles they found some very interesting factors. First, it did not matter which parent themselves had antisocial tendencies, and second, that problematic behavior and acting out was more common in adolescents than in young children. These children are also exposed to the high-stress of adolescence, peer-pressure, and emulating more adult actions. This influence and lack of stability can throw the youth over the edge, erupting with antisocial and delinquent behaviors. Another major factor is the familial structure that creates strain, not only on the budget, but on the stability and security of the emotional needs in the home. In single households, they also may lack discipline, supervision, and the security of a stable home environment. In addition, children in single parent homes, sadly even more so in a home headed by single others, children and juveniles have a much greater likelihood of becoming victimized in some way, and dating or bringing strangers into the home can be a major issue here. Income and location are additional factors, but youth are victimized, especially of sexual assault and abuse, in any class or economic status. According to more recent research, children – minors under 18 – in single parent-headed homes consistently prove to be more likely to be delinquent, or participate in delinquency. The evidence from samples taken suggested that single parent homes – particularly those headed by mother – expected less of their children, spend less time monitoring their activities, and use ineffective discipline techniques (Fry, 2010). Single parents, notes Fry, find it difficult to balance their children’s needs above other demands of daily life. This includes work, socializing, and in some cases, study. Even in two parent homes there was an impact to be found of mothers in the workforce, where children were less supervised and had attachment and aggression issues at a higher rate than did those with a parental figure at home, but this could likely be as easily remedied by a father being at home as a mother. This plays into the idea of the lack of a capable guardian being present as a side of the crime triangle in routine activities theory, alongside the factors of motivation, and accessible target. And finally is the impact of an abusive home environment. Children in homes where violence, neglect, or drug use are present are not only victimized but will so often become perpetrators of various aspects of crime or deviance that they are exposed to, such as abusing drugs. Children who are being abused by family members, or by strangers within the home – parents boyfriends or girlfriends, family acquaintances, even those brought in by the parents for the purpose of abusing the children for monetary gain, are likely to be runaways, or in compromised situations at an early age. 1000 children who were victims of violent crime within their own home were abused by a non-stranger more than twice as often in a single parent home than in a two parent home, and females were the most likely to be victims of known offenders, while young males were in violent altercations with people outside the realm of family and friends more often (Lauritsen, 2003). Social Structure, Economical Factors Of these same 1000 children and youth, the ten percent who lived in poverty and disadvantaged communities had the highest risk of violent victimization (Lauritsen, 2003). Poverty also impacted the family structure, as they have greater rates of children born to single mothers who have little support from the father, children in homes from multiple partners, or are in homes with divorce. In addition, there are frequently a greater number of children per household. This increases the likelihood of a victimization in the household, particularly in a disadvantaged neighborhood, by quite a lot. Poverty, unemployment, and social disadvantage create an ever-spreading problem for families in these neighborhoods especially. Just as Wilson and Kelling suggested that the degradation of a neighborhood leads to poverty as the middle class and working class residents move to thriving neighborhoods, leaving neighborhoods in both a state of unattended decay leads to poverty. When families must struggle to make ends meet, a cumulative effect of parental absence and a breakdown of community controls. The stable neighborhood families who care for their own homes and each other’s children begin to dissipate, and children are often left unattended and without the positive influence of a stable familial structure. “Single parents who are poor often have less contact with neighbors and are less likely to monitor the activities and associations of their children (Bennet Jr. & Fraser, 2000) .” Single parents carry a heavy financial burden, and are often out of the home. Children are often left to fend for themselves after school hours, and lacking the stable family unit, seek out family bonds. The patterns of family disruption to violence are similar in both black and white children, and are most prevalent in homes lacking a father figure. (Bennet Jr. & Fraser, 2000) A Cambridge study revealed same patterns among English delinquents. It is also noted that juveniles with strong family bonds who strive to achieve the approved social arrangements and education seldom turn to violence. (Schmalleger, 2009) This desire for social bonds, particularly in neighborhoods with a high incidence of violence and gangs, lead children to build relationships with the gangs, which provide a pseudo family unit, and create gangs as delinquent peers band together. While individual risk factors include poor coping mechanisms, and impulsivity, these social pressures to assimilate with the environment around them greatly affect behavior. Poor family life, and especially poor parental supervision, exacerbates delinquency and drug use; affiliation with gangs and illegal gun ownership are both predictive of delinquency; living in a bad neighborhood doubles the risk for delinquency… (Schmalleger, 2009) Because peers who were delinquent or use drugs have such a great impact on other youth, the question remains, how can this pattern that which is only worsened by the degradation of neighborhoods, be broken? Clearly, the breakdown of community standards, family structure, and peer pressure – the normalizing of crime – are a vicious circle. They are both caused by each other, and feed a continuation of each other. Because the risk for incarceration is drastically affected by the incarceration of a father, mother, or immediate family member (Schmalleger, 2009), it is imperative to break such a cycle. The most effective approach to crime prevention and reduction is to rebuild deteriorating communities; offer aid and positive influence to broken family units, and address the needs of offenders as individually designed as possible. Without treatment, these looping factors will only worsen and grow. Connecting Environmental Criminology to High-Risk Juveniles Rational Choice Theory remarks upon the ways in which individuals will make decisions. The factors discussed above impact not only the choices that juveniles are faced with on a day-to-day basis, but also the ways in which their decisions making and empathic properties are developed. Juveniles raised in these high-risk environments will still be subjected to the precepts of rational thinking, but will often develop a rationality and means to an end thought pattern that reflects the environment, peer-influence, and localized society in which they are taught. Therefore, the application of Rational Choice Theory to the situation would be to create a situation that offers not only an understanding of the offence and its consequences, but more importantly, to instruct those at highest risk in socially acceptable decision-making. After all, fear is not a good long-term motivator. Instead, to mold their rationalization into a positive, and contributing member to society. When the perception of greater gain or pleasure is to do what is considered good or just by society and what is permissible by law – such as a better chance at a bright future, an education, and a respectable career – then they will be more likely to select the legal and productive choice when presented with the option to do the societal ruled “right or wrong.” The trick will be to first, make opportunities available, particularly for inner-city children who do not often have these chances readily accessible. Secondly, to make these opportunities something that is appealing to juveniles who would otherwise be unaccustomed to the environment, or who have even been told it is pointless or less desirable than a life of crime. This will be the challenge that requires preventive programs, which will be discussed further. Routine Activities Theory can be applied to the situations which the children are faced with these scenarios on a daily basis. Understanding the targets, the areas lacking supervision, and the motivators driving the would be offenders in the area - young or old – allows law enforcement and researchers to designate the right programs and patrols, as well as understanding what juveniles in the area need the most counselling in. Parents often out of the home, or an unstable, neglectful home environment? A series or programs, supplemented education, or other methods of encouraging good behavior, self-control, and a distaste for deviance. Accessible targets in abundance? Increased patrols, neighborhood watch, and encouragement for neighbors, parents and other youth to get involved with fighting crime. Build a rapport and sense of teamwork between the community and the efforts of law enforcement to prevent crime for the neighborhoods sake. This, of course is an over-simplified and idyllic answer, as any neighborhood with hostility between the local police efforts – or law in general - and community will not give easily to the idea of working together and respecting one another. Trust is needed, and particularly if police brutality, crooked practices, bribery, or ill-treatment of citizens results in a greater backlash. This can create a vicious cycle. This is also why it is most important to not only uphold strict standards of policing with harsh punishments for abuse of power, but also to work an effort to make any amends for abuse. Also, this is a major part of the reasoning behind approaching crime prevention as a proactive measure, and building a trust and respect between both parties, and a respect and pride in the community, while the at-risk juveniles in unstable or disadvantaged areas are still young, and relatively new to the hatred or mistrust that may be present, and could perceivably be repaired. Crime Pattern Analysis and Crime Pattern Theory comes into play while threading these factors together to determine when and where these proactive programs, increased patrols, or other needs will need to be met. This is precisely the method by which the Midnight Basketball League first brainstormed – when it was noted by town manager Glen Arden that most of the crimes committed were between 10:00 PM and 2:00 AM approximately and were committed by young offenders between the ages of 17 and 25. (Arden, 2012) Considering the development of the motivated offender, it is not only the home that shapes the thinking and decision making skills of the at-risk juvenile. Perhaps the most disturbing and unfortunate aspect of the juvenile justice system is the effect juvenile facilities and prisons have of young offenders. They refer to the imprisonment of offenders as isolation, an isolation from society, but in terms of incarceration, isolation is not the correct term. Prisons contain a culture unique unto themselves. They have their own language, laws, and social structure. Races separate into their own groups spontaneously. Inmates do not receive all the meals and treatments that they are funded to receive. Prisoners are as likely to be punished be each other for bad conduct as they are by guards. An enormous concern is on this integration into prison culture, is the effect on juvenile and young offenders, those who are non-violent, or first-time offenders. Kids come in here thinking “Oh, it’s so cool, I’m a member of my gang.” They think it’s cool, they think it gives them street cred. They establish connections with other criminals and they learn about other aspects of crime that they might not have been familiar with. They got in for possessing drugs, and they learn how to jack a car, or make a fake ID, or steal credit cards. A lot of things. A lot of young people think it’s good to get the title of felon, because they’re told that they’re graduates from their street. (Inmate “James,” Personal Communication, November 26, 2012) He went on to explain that juvenile facilities were, in many inmates’ opinions, “Baby Gladiator Camps,” and useless, because he felt they always ended up in the prisons later. His insight into inmate conduct in a prison, and how ones thought process had to change to fit a fight or flight, violent environment changes a person for life. They leave effects that do not wear off, such as violent response to normal situations, and animosity towards law enforcement. The recidivism rates confirm this. In many cases, it may not be the right option for an offender, particularly the young and impressionable, and the non-violent who will be forced into violence to survive, and first time offenders, who learn the “right way” to commit their crimes “next time.” James was incarcerated his second time, for a violent offence. His fist crime was a non-violent drug charge. It was less than two years before he was arrested a second time. This “isolation” is the wrong kind of education for many offenders, and should be reserved for those that are a continuing danger to society. These are the violent, repeat offenders. Many studies are leaning to agree with this wizened inmate, who had wished he himself had done many things differently. Indeed, the numbers do show that the rate of offence for males spikes in the early to mid-twenties and begin to decline as they enter into their thirties and forties, and by their sixties, it degrades into nearly nil (Schmalleger, 2009). Indeed, this spike is typically after their first offence and incarceration, and their recidivism rates are high. Prevention As this paper has examined, a major factor in the inner-city crime problem driving the youth is a lack of supervision, of a capable guardian. They have long periods of time with little to do – or at least little motivation or enforcement to do something constructive – and will often find mischief to get into outside the home, and not infrequently, with gangs that offer them a surrogate family. This, clearly, introduces them into a life of crime and creates more motivated offenders seeking targets. An optimal way to combat this problem, and a model that has been utilized with some success, is the implementation of after school activates, youth homes, and community groups. The idea is to provide them with not only a place to be that gives them physically engaging, productive activities to participate in, when they could otherwise be exposed to accessible targets, motivators, and unsupervised locations. A previously mentioned example of this was the Midnight Basketball League, designed specifically to Memphis’ particular needs. In fact, many after school sports programs offer a high-energy, competitive, and aggressive activity to appeal to those that would benefit from letting off steam, per se, in a more constructive way. In addition they may open more opportunities for impoverished youth, such as sports scholarships and recognition in athletic programs. An added bonus, will be the positive role models that could have a powerful influence where it may be desperately needed. Particularly considering the above discussion regarding the high rate of criminality and victimization in low income, single-parent homes headed by mothers, a male role model for young men could be crucial, as it is young males who are the most frequent offenders. There may be a connection between a mothers natural habit to coddle her sons and a lack of a disciplinarian, strong figure of the father to the correlation of young males from single mother homes, at least in part. Another very important option for youth, young men and women alike, is youth homes and shelters. All too often high-risk youth are victims before they are offenders, and may live in homes so unstable that time in a shelter or days – some nights even - spent a safe haven that offers a family environment much more positive than they could receive in a gang family. These homes has also aided homeless or at-risk youth with obtaining legal, paid employment that not only increases their chances at maintaining employment in the future – as adults – but creates an independence and stability that may relieve much of the need-based motivation behind crime. A third and very beneficial option are youth clubs, which not only provide supervision, role models, and engaging activities, but also may work to benefit the community. Following the precepts of the Broken Windows Theory (Willson & Kelling, 1999), these groups can be utilized in building community pride, repairing damage to run-down areas, caring for those in need – even while being cared for themselves – and improving the state of their own neighborhoods. Improvement of the crime rate to follow, and an added bonus is that the children in their neighborhood will have greater success moving in to make a change than will other, outsider organizations, or even law enforcement. One major hindrance to these types of programs, however, is that they are only truly effective with very young persons, often who have no record, or have minimal exposure to the delinquent culture. This is also true of Big Brothers, Big Sisters. Very positive program meeting the needs of children to prevent crime pro-actively, but most effective when exposure is still a minimum. Perhaps in part because mirror neurons, that which causes imitation and absorption of information and behavior surrounding them, have ended their function by 12 (Goleman, 2006). In any event, this is the most proactive model of prevention. The Global Perspective Globally, young person’s face many of the same challenges as the do here in the US. Gang activity, urbanization, victimization, and unstable neighborhoods and home environments. Juvenile delinquency is a worldwide problem, whether it is voluntary or coerced – such as the children being treated as armed forces in warfare in some hostile countries. Both in Eastern Europe and Western Europe saw a distinct rise in juvenile crime during the 1990’s, while the US was seeing a lowered rate. Arab countries are reporting higher rates, and in Japan, Bosozoku Gangs – biker gangs – are responsible for about 80% of juvenile crime in that country (Van Dijk, 2011). Many of the characteristics noted to be shared around the world include parental alcoholism, poverty, and abusive family dynamics or a breakdown of family. In developing countries, it is noted that youth may lose one or both parents, creating a fight to survive that could include introduction into crime to simply support themselves – and possibly siblings. Indeed, the United Nations has also outlined a plan of prevention that should be implemented at every level of government. They suggest that policies, programs, prevention strategies, and studies be conducted, and evaluation be made for effective implementation. Some countries however, such as China, have harsher penalties, and are more prone to punishment and isolation than reparative therapies or proactive programs, according to the Beijing Rules (Van Dijk, 2011). No matter where in the world, no matter how different the culture, many of the risk factors remain the same at their core. Children, it would seem, are human and develop the same way no matter what race, nationality, religion, or cultural difference. This is a positive sign that if programs are designed to fit the cultural frameworks and localized needs, children can be shielded from the integration into criminality, and young offenders be treated to prevent recidivism.  References Arden, G. (2012). The History of AMBLP. Retrieved from Association of Midnight Basketbell League Programs: http://amblp.com/basketball/history/ Bennet Jr., M. D., & Fraser, M. W. (2000). Urban Violence among African American Males: Integrating Family, Neighborhood, and Peer Perspectives. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 93-113. Eddy, M. J., & Reid, J. B. (2001, December). The Antisocial Behavior of the Adolescent Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Developmntal Perspective. Retrieved from Oregon Social Learning Center: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/eddy.htm Fritz, D. (1997). Evironmental Criminology. Sociology Quarterly, 1-4. Fry, J. A. (2010, May 17). Change in Family Structure and Rates of Violent Juvenile Delinquency. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05192010-095240/unrestricted/Fry_JF_T_2010.pdf Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intellegence. New York: Bantom Books. Gul, S. K. (2009). An Evaluation of the Rational Choice Theory in Criminology. Turkish National Police Academy, 36-44. Lauritsen, J. L. (2003, November). How Families and Communities Influence Youth Victimization. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, pp. 1-11. NSW Attourney General. (2011). Routine Activity Theory; Crime Prevention. Retrieved from New South Whales Attourney General and Justice: http://www.crimeprevention.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/cpd/m660001l2/routineactivityfactsheet_nov2011.pdf Schmalleger, P. F. (2009). Criminology Today: An Integrative Introductio. Columbus: Pearson Prentice Hall. Van Dijk. (2011). Juvenile Justice Around the World. In Juvenile Jutice (pp. 328-355). Willson , J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1999). Broken Windows. The Police and Neighborhood Safety, Manhattan Institute, 1-10. 20