Which of the following developments in the nineteenth century would most likely help explain the size and composition?

Delinquency has been a social problem since the industrial revolution. There has been an ongoing debate within society and its institutions about the effectiveness of punishment, treatment, and rehabilitation as primary solutions to this social problem. Since the early 1970s science has made significant methodological and theoretical progress in identifying specific antecedents and mediators of delinquency and crime. This progress includes developmental sequencing of these antecedents that, in turn, is leading to the development of precise interventions. Many of these early risk factors directly or indirectly involve parent–child interactions. Contextual influences that historically have been associated with delinquency (e.g., poverty, parent psychopathology) have been shown to be most influential because of their disruptive effects on parenting. Later, peers become important in the further development and maintenance of delinquent behavior. Harsher punishment approaches have been shown neither to be in the best financial interest of society nor to reduce rates of juvenile delinquency and crime, whereas, prevention and treatment-based intervention efforts have been shown to be cost-effective. Future research will identify malleable variables and validated intervention technologies at all levels of delinquency and crime prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary). Future research will develop gender-specific predictive and prevention models that will reliably identify the small percentage of youths who account for the most delinquency and crime, and the youths most likely to transfer delinquency and crime across generations. In addition, future theoretical and methodological advances will include a focus on the interaction between biological/genetic variables and social environments (both naturally occurring and therapeutically designed) and the results of this interaction on antisocial developmental trajectories and rates of delinquency and crime.

2 What is Delinquency?

Delinquency is generally thought to mean criminal behavior committed by juveniles under the legal age of adulthood. A widely used definition was proposed by Hirschi (1969, p. 47), ‘[D]elinquency is defined by acts, the detection of which is thought to result in punishment of the person committing them by agents of the larger society.’ Although the notion of juvenile delinquency is now ubiquitous, prior to the late nineteenth century few legal distinctions were made between juveniles and adults. Even childhood itself is a relatively modern concept.

Breaking from the tradition of treating children as ‘miniature adults,’ the start of the twentieth century witnessed a group of reformers in Chicago create the first juvenile court. The motivating idea was that children had special needs, and that to treat them like adults violated American ideals of fairness. The juvenile court was to act as a ‘parent’ for troubled youth whose own families could not, or did not, control them. The doctrine of ‘parens patriae’ led to profound changes in how juveniles were treated, not only for the commission of crimes, but also for a range of so-called ‘status’ offenses (truancy, use of profanity, sexual precocity, tobacco use, running away, and curfew violations). Although most theories of delinquency focus on criminal rather than status offenses, versatility is the hallmark of adolescent misbehavior.

The study of delinquency is based on an understanding of psychopathology, biological factors, and social circumstances that converge at a given time on an act judged criminal according to the laws governing the group. These acts could be examined from a perspective of a criminology of difference in which the actor is an object of study, or from a perspective of a criminology of process in which the actor is the subject in the middle of a conflict with the social group. Psychopathology is based on a criminology of difference and offers criminality appropriate methods for the study of criminals and their crimes. At the same time, psychopathology and criminology are related by virtue of a parallelism of constructs whereby symptoms may actually be crimes and vice versa or by associations between crimes and mental illness that on occasions could be understood to be causal. This paper reviews ways in which these associations could take place.

Acculturation Factors

Drug use, delinquency, and other problem behaviors among Latino youth are influenced by socialization experiences and the experiences of their families in their new environments. This process is known as acculturation. A core assumption is that acculturation simultaneously evolves in several critical areas, including the contexts of exit from the country of origin and entrance into the US described above (Fabrega, 1989). Experiences involving adjustment to a new cultural setting can threaten the functioning of families, and in particular, relationships among family members. Acculturation is a discontinuous and idiosyncratic process, rather than a monolithic one. In the framework presented above, the family plays many important roles (e.g., as a source of multiple stressors, as well as a system of buffers that can reduce risk for delinquency and adolescent AOD use/abuse).

The process of acculturation is one that creates intergenerational transitions from the culture of origin to the development of bicultural capabilities among family members, typically the younger generation. This produces stress for the acculturating individual and the broader family system (Ruiz & Casas, 1981). Within the family, this produces a “cultural shift,” a dynamic tension that may increase stress (Mendoza & Martinez, 1981), and exacerbate normative intergenerational conflicts. The work of Szapocznik and colleagues (e.g., Szapocznik et al., 1988; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980) illustrates the potential for the acculturation process to produce stress and conflict in the family as adolescents become more acculturated into the values and behaviors of American society, and parents in turn become more authoritarian as they attempt to stop what they see as a downward progression into inappropriately liberal attitudes and behaviors.

Nearly every study describing the influence of acculturation upon adolescent problem behavior has documented significant direct relations, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. While findings differ across studies in exactly how acculturation may be related to maladjustment, there are important factors subsumed by the acculturation process that need to be considered in the development of prevention programs that involve Latino youth and their families. For example, social psychologists have struggled to describe how acculturation operates at the individual level. There are several overlapping approaches to conceptualizing and measuring acculturation in American social psychology, including linear acculturation models (e.g., Rogler, Cortes & Malgady, 1991), cultural identity (e.g., Felix-Ortiz & Newcomb, 1995), multidimensional models (e.g., Keefe & Padilla, 1987; Padilla, 1980; Szapocznik, Scopetta, Kurtines & Amalde, 1978), and orthogonal models (Oetting, 1993). It is universally acknowledged that acculturation is a product of multiple ongoing processes that are idiosyncratic, dynamic, and complex. The varying ways in which acculturation has been conceptualized have produced a series of lenses through which researchers have looked at the influence of acculturation on the behavior and adjustment of Latino youth and their families.

Acculturation influences adolescent substance use and abuse through its interactions with other risk and protective factors. For example, modeling and other elements of social learning are relevant to the process of acculturation since immigrant children and adolescents are exposed to prevalent attitudes, norms, and behaviors in contemporary American society, including those related to substance use and experimentation. There are also influences related to the stressors that the acculturation process imposes on immigrant families. These stressors are sociocultural in nature, and include economic factors, as well as cultural conflicts within and outside the family. These elements are integral to the development of substance use/abuse interventions with Latino youth. However, the influence of acculturation must be considered in the developmental context of broader individual, social, and socioeconomic factors that affect all youth, regardless of ethnic background or level of acculturation.

Age and Career Offenders

Many studies analyzing delinquency and crime patterns in cohorts show that any given group contains a relatively small number of repeat offenders who commit a disproportionately large number of crimes. This ‘chronic offender group’ (approximately 8%) is responsible for more than half of all the offenses committed, including a large portion of homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Although the road to a chronic criminal career is highly complex and defies simple explanations, the studies agree on the following points. Most delinquents do not become chronic offenders. A few mischievous and petty delinquencies do not usually lead to an acceleration of serious criminal offending. Compared with conventional delinquent youths, chronic offenders begin their criminal careers at very young ages, often before reaching the age of 10. In fact, age at the onset of offending is the single best predictor of becoming chronic offenders and embarking on adult criminal careers. According to these studies, the younger a person is when first arrested, convicted, or confined for any criminal behavior, the more likely it is for that individual to continue offending. Offense patterns of chronic delinquents are often characterized by excessive violence, destruction, and lack of remorse. Calculations of the average lengths of criminal careers show them to be about 6 years, with career lengths peaking between the ages of 30 and 40. These findings have great potential for crime control and penal policy development. This is because if chronic offenders could be correctly identified and incarcerated for long periods of time, the crime rate should decline considerably.

Responding to these findings, Congress and state governments have passed a wide range of legislative initiatives during the past few years. Rooted in chronic offender research, these efforts are designed to deal more effectively with the nation's mounting crime problem. They do so by targeting high-risk, violent, and persistent offenders for rigorous prosecution. If found guilty in a court of law, such offenders are sentenced to long periods of incarceration, including life without parole. Advocates of longer sentences assume that they will both reduce crime and, ultimately, save taxpayer money. This is because they believe that such sentences will not only decrease the cost of victimization through incapacitation, but will also reduce the substantial costs of rearrest and reprocessing of repeat offenders by the criminal justice system.

Yet in spite of these dramatic legislative changes in sentencing, it is not known whether they will ultimately achieve the desired effect of crime reduction. This is because the research evidence on selective incapacitation is still incomplete. At present, criminologists do not yet have the ability to predict precisely which offenders present unusually high risks for recidivism and violence. Obversely, there is a similar lack of knowledge to correctly predict which offenders represent unusually low risks to society. The result has been legislative overkill. Present sentencing schemes cast too wide a net in their efforts to incapacitate and punish the serious, repeat offender. In the process, too many criminals are incarcerated whose crimes are minor and who do not pose a threat to the community.

The cumulative impact of career offender laws and related harsh sentences for repeat offenders has led this nation to the highest incarceration rate in the world, with over 350 prisoners per 100 000 US residents! To date, prison populations have increased close to a million persons in state and federal prisons. The cost of maintaining these prisoners has risen concomitantly, and will reach $19 billion in 1995, excluding the costs of holding prisoners in the nation's city and county jails. If current trends continue unabated, the costs of incarceration are destined to rise further. This is because of the unprecedented growth of lifers and elderly in prisons, whose health-care needs double and triple the cost of caring for younger inmates in the general prison population.

Considering what is known about the relationship between age and crime, current developments in criminal justice countervail existing knowledge: statistically speaking, recidivism is known to decline with increases in age. Because offending at an early age is highly predictive of long criminal careers, scarce public resources would be better focused on crime prevention rather than on aging and geriatric inmates, whose criminal careers have peaked and decelerated long ago.

1 Delinquency

The inverse relationship between religiosity and delinquent behavior among adolescents has also been well established (Baier & Wright, 2001). Adolescent religiosity has also been linked to lower delinquent and violent problem behavior (Johnson, Jang, Larson, & De Li, 2001; Regnerus & Elder, 2003). For instance, a national probability sample found that youth aged 13–18 who considered religion to be influential in their lives and attended church frequently were 50% less likely to engage in serious fighting than their nonreligious peers (Sloane & Potvin, 1986). Johnson et al. (2001) found that adolescent religiosity was negatively correlated with adolescents’ attitudes toward delinquent behaviors, their association with delinquent peers, and their engagement in delinquent behaviors after controlling for their socio-demographic backgrounds. Pearce, Jones, Schwab-Stone, and Ruchkin (2003) found that frequent exposure to religious content (e.g., reading, watching, or hearing religious information) decreased the likelihood of antisocial practices, witnessing violence, or being the victim of violence. In a nationally representative sample of youth in grades 7–12, Regnerus and Elder (2003) found evidence for a cyclical trend in the relationship between adolescent religiosity and delinquency. In this sample, religiosity was related to a slight decrease in delinquent behaviors in early adolescence, disappeared as a predictor of delinquent behaviors during middle adolescence, and emerged as a stronger negative predictor in late adolescence.

See also:

Action, Theories of Social; Delinquency, Sociology of; Dramaturgical Analysis: Sociological; Ethnomethodology: General; Exchange in Anthropology; Goffman, Erving (1921–82); Identity: Social; Interactionism and Personality; Macrosociology–Microsociology; Mead, George Herbert (1863–1931); Phenomenology in Sociology; Reflexivity: Method and Evidence; Self: History of the Concept; Small-group Interaction and Gender; Social Psychology; Social Psychology: Sociological; Status and Role, Social Psychology of; Symbolic Interaction: Methodology; Traditions in Sociology

Control and Cultural Deviance Theories

In a comprehensive and systematic review of delinquency theories and research, several US government-funded studies have attempted to provide an empirically based model of delinquency which integrates the most valid parts of various theoretical perspectives (Weis and Hawkins, 1981; Weis et al., 1980). The researchers drew upon the two major theoretical perspectives of delinquency: control theory (Briar and Piliavin, 1965; Hirschi, 1969) and cultural deviance theory (Akers, 1977; Akers et al., 1979).

Control theory states that juvenile delinquency is the result of weak, absent, or ineffective social controls (Weis and Hawkins, 1981). Although numerous variations of control theory are found in the literature, Hirschi (1969) offered a version which specifies that a youngster's bond to society will be composed of four elements (i.e., attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief), and that significant units of social control include the family, school, and the law. Delinquency becomes possible when there is inadequate attachment to parents or school, inadequate commitment to educational or occupational success, and inadequate belief in the legitimacy and validity of the law. Thus, a delinquent child is the unsocialized product of his or her environment.

Hirschi's theory does not address the issue of why youth become delinquent, but instead questions why persons refrain from crime. He proposed that the four elements of a youngster's bond to society are important because of the following reasons. Attachment is important because it contains a moral dimension that dissuades persons from engaging in delinquency. He argued that although various subcultures do not exist, variance in a person's belief in society's norms does exist. He proposed that the less one's belief, the more prone one is to engage in delinquent behavior. Commitment to conventional activity dissuades persons from delinquency because they have invested time and energy into a conventional activity which therefore causes the person to weigh the risk of losing their investment against the benefits of engaging in delinquent behavior. Finally, he indicated that involvement reduces delinquency by limiting one's time to contemplate and commit delinquent acts.

Cultural deviance theory states that delinquency results from youths conforming to deviant cultural norms. In essence, cultural deviance theory is identical to the subcultural theories discussed above. Akers (1977) used a social learning model and proposed that the delinquent behavior is learned when the consequences of that behavior are rewarding to the youth engaging in delinquent acts. Thus, to prevent delinquency, delinquent behavior should be extinguished or punished.

Perhaps the most widely cited and investigated cultural deviance theory is Sutherland's theory of differential association (Sutherland and Cressey, 1970). This theory includes seven propositions which address specific causal factors of unlawful behavior. The concept of association with lawbreakers is seen as central to the origin of delinquency, and organized crime and criminal behavior could be overcome if we, as a society, organized ourselves better to fight it. Sutherland's theory of differential association continues to be quite influential.

Control and cultural deviance theories are easily integrated with each other. Although they are both socialization theories, they also have individual inadequacies. In combination, the two theories complement each other by compensating for each others' deficiencies—control theory specifies units and elements of socialization which result in a well-socialized individual, whereas cultural deviance theory focuses on the learning of deviant behavior, suggesting how individuals might be socialized to conventional norms.

Weis and Hawkins (1981) offered a model of delinquency, relevant to prevention and intervention efforts with street gangs, based upon this integration of control and cultural deviance theories. They further suggested that a dynamic multivariate causal model, which is responsive to the direct and interaction effects among variables over time, is appropriate. They postulated that the different causes of delinquency have different effects at different points in a youngster's life. Further, they suggested the existence of four stages of a youngster's life during which different units of socialization exert primary influence. They described these stages as parallel to those of the educational system—preschool, primary school, junior high school, and high school—and as having as their most salient units the family, the school, and peers, respectively. Based on this integrated social development model of delinquency, they described the general process and strategies of delinquency prevention as follows.

Opportunities for involvement in conventional activities and for interaction with appropriate role models are necessary for nondelinquent socialization. In order for these experiences to produce social bonds, participants must have certain basic skills, the application of which makes participation rewarding. It should be emphasized that skills must be possessed by both youthful participants and by others (such as parents and teachers) with whom youths are involved. For example, for involvement in school to be rewarding, students must develop cognitive skills, but teachers must also be skilled in recognizing and reinforcing students' progress. Furthermore, different actors in youths' social environments must be consistent in their expectations for and responses to behavior if conforming behavior is to be continually reinforced and deviant behavior prevented or extinguished.

Based on this model, gang intervention programs must strive to facilitate the formation of bonds between the youth and the appropriate institution (family, school, or peers, depending upon the youth's age). To accomplish this, programs must teach requisite social and educational skills when they are absent, and then facilitate their use and subsequent reinforcement in appropriate manners.

Delinquent Behavior and Association with Delinquent Peers

MDFT-treated youths have shown decreased delinquent behavior and associations with delinquent peers, whereas peer group treatment comparisons reported increases in delinquency and affiliation with delinquent peers. These outcomes maintain at 1 year follow-up. Department of Juvenile Justice records indicate that compared to teens in usual services, MDFT participants were less likely to be arrested or placed on probation, and had fewer findings of wrongdoing during the study period. MDFT-treated youth have also required fewer out-of-home placements than comparison teens. Importantly, parents, teens, and collaborating professionals have found the approach acceptable and feasible to administer and participate in.

A NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF MONOSEXUAL SIBSHIPS

In sections III.F on delinquency and III.J on major mental health disorders, numerous research findings on the all-male sibship and fewer on the lone male with sisters are reviewed. For delinquency, it is quite clear that those from large all-male sibships are at greater risk (Clarke & Softly, 1975; Hogan and Kitazawa, 1982; Jones et al., 1980; Ostapuik et al., 1974; Riess, 1976; Sletto, 1934), and that sisters deter in proportion to their number. For academic achievement, sibships of predominantly males are at greater risk of having reading difficulties and learning disability, as well as lower IQs. The eldest male seems relatively unaffected by this risk.

For mental health in general, and schizophrenia in particular, the monosexual male sibship is not as conspicuous as for delinquency, but there is definite evidence of the mental hazards of having many brothers, particularly for the penultimate male with all older brothers and a single younger sister (Hare & Lyster, 1980; Lindsay, 1971). For women, those with all brothers and no sisters are also at greater risk of schizophrenia (Schooler, Boothe, Goldberg, & Chase, 1971).

Males who committed rape and sexual assault on male minors more frequently came from monosexual sibships (Gasch, 1964). High rates for homosexuality were also found for the youngest of two and three brothers and middle-borns of three in both SS3 and SS4 + sibships. Alcoholics are also more frequent among younger males with older brothers (Blane & Barry III, 1975; Parker, 1959). Younger brothers with older male sibs are then found in an unfavorable position; firstborns in all-male sibships seem not to be greatly disadvantaged. The absence of a same-sex parent also has negative effects. A same-sex older sibling seems to alleviate such negative effects (Birtchnell, 1971). Toman (1976) and Olson (1973) emphasize that effects of sibship patterns will generally increase with number (two brothers will have more effect than one; three, more than two), arid so indeed it seems.

We turn now to less extreme negative effects of the all-male sibship on its members (See section II., Personality and its subentries for elaboration). Such men tend to be physically overly aggressive (Keller, 1964), in line with their tendency toward delinquency.

Sims (1974) reported all same-sex siblings led to emotional disturbances for both boys and girls. Olson (1973) found among undergraduates that oldests and youngests with all-same-sex or all-cross-sex siblings were most likely candidates for elevated MMPI scores indicating emotional difficulties. The period of time before neuropsychiatric hospitalization for male patients increased in proportion to the number of sisters and their nearness in age (Miller, 1967). Sisters’ presence tended to alleviate psychiatric difficulties. Male patients with chronic emotional problems had more males in their sibships. Patients with chronic emotional problems (anxiety, depression, and maladjustment) had significantly more brothers (Patrick, Coleman, Eagle, & Nelson, 1978).

Middle-born girls showed poor social adjustment in proportion to the size of the sibship, nearness to adjacent siblings, and sex of next siblings. Same-sex siblings were more disadvantageous (Newbert, 1969; Wagner, Schubert, & Schubert, unpublished). Kaplan (1970) found girls with all-female siblings were less self-derogatory. However, Dielman, Barton, and Cattell (1974) found children with more sisters were higher in guilt, whereas those with more brothers were higher in ego strength, boldness, self-sentiment, and excitability. Klockars (1968) reported that middle-born SS3 men with an older and younger sister were less anxious and more dependable.

Olson (1973) found lowest MMPI F scores (nonconformity) among large sibships of mixed-sex composition. Highest F scores were among both those allsame and all-opposite-sex sibships. Vaughn (1975) found early-born males and males with several brothers were more likely to be poorly socialized than later-born males with sisters. Grosz (1968a) found middle-borns with opposite-sex siblings were less often married (which he considered maladjustment).

Cicirelli (1982) found elderly persons with more living brothers were more external, and McDonagh (1971) found that male high school students with three brothers to each sister were more field dependent.

In summary, Toman (1976) and Olson (1973) both pointedly state that the effects of sibship pattern will increase as the number of males increases, to which these reviewers quite agree. Females have less cumulative effect.

For negative effects then, an increase of male siblings makes the male at greater risk of delinquency, schizophrenia, other major mental disturbances, homosexuality, rape, child molestation, and alcoholism. He is also at risk of increased physical aggressiveness, poor self-esteem, anxiety, feelings of guilt, and of not marrying. They are less conforming. Sisters seem to reduce the likelihood of these untowards attitudes and behavior. For females, although there are some similar effects, such effects are much less severe and consistent.

Caveat: As with all rare occurrences, there will be many false positives; many who derive from all-male (or all-female) sibships will not come to these unfortunate ends, though they may be unhappy, somewhat maladjusted, and less than fully functioning. Indeed some may be unusually successful, even eminent, as we shall see in the next section.