Delinquency Labels

Most people have preconceived notions regarding the relationship between social class and delinquency. A common assumption is that lower-class juveniles are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior than their higher-class counterparts. Criminologists have performed a large number of studies examining the socio-demographic characteristics of delinquents, which often yielded contradictory results. When analyzing the extent and trend of juvenile delinquency in the United States conclusions can be drawn from estimates derived from arrest records, self-reports, and victimization data. Arrest estimates, self-reported information, and victimization data provide different estimates of the extent of delinquency in the United States (Maxfield et

Based on the social disorganization theory; Shaw and McKay account for high crime begins with poverty, low socioeconomic status and the inability to “control the teenage population,” (Sampson, 2016). Shaw and McKay also knew that within the community, delinquency was a trait that was picked-up by and from other delinquents. Furthermore, if the ability to control young

Labeling theory makes no attempt to understand why an individual initially engaged in primary deviance and committed a crime before they were labeled; this then limits the scope of the theory’s explanations and suggests the theory may not provide a better account for crime. Labeling theory emphasizes the negative effects of labeling, which gives the offender a victim status. Also, the same likelihood exists for developing a criminal career regardless of deviance being primary or secondary. Furthermore, labeling theorists are only interested in understanding the aftermath of an individual getting caught committing crime and society attaching a label to the offender. This differs from the view of social learning theory, which seeks to explain the first and subsequent criminal acts. Many critics also argue that the racial, social, and economic statuses of an individual create labels, as opposed to criminal acts; this theory then fails to acknowledge that those statuses may factor into the labeling process. As a result, the above suggests that labeling theory does not provide a good account for crime and appropriately has little empirical support. Moreover, in terms of policy implications, labeling theory implies a policy of radical non-intervention, where minor offenses

Focuses mainly on interactionist theory but uses labeling theory as a type of interaction that affects delinquency. Labeling specifically in relation to gender, used to explain the gender gap in juvenile delinquency. Used data from the 1976 National Youth Survey, a longitudinal study, uses a multistage cluster sampling, sample includes 1,725 11-17 year-olds, using the first three annual waves of data. Used personal interviews to collect self-report of delinquency, parents ' appraisals of their children, and youths ' reflected appraisals of themselves from the standpoint of parents, friends, and teachers. Labeling theory implies that males are more likely than females to be labeled delinquent, in part because they engage in more objective acts of rule violation, and in part because common stereotypes portray delinquency as a male phenomenon. Except status offenses, which are more often reported for and enforced on females rather than males. Believed that females may be more relationship-oriented, making them more sensitive to public opinion. The labeling process is more consequential for females than for males is also unsupported.

Menna, W. (2007, September 15). Evaluating Labeling Theory of Juvenile Delinquency. Retrieved from Science 360: http://

The results effectively confirm labeling theorist’s proposition that police intervention furthers, instead of deters, deviance. First, Wiley et al. achieved covariable balance on all the variables. Through their methods, they found that “arrest is associated with less anticipated guilt, greater acceptance of neutralization techniques, greater negative peer commitment, and more delinquency” (Wiley et al. 2016: 297). Before the results were matched, there were twenty-three more delinquent acts for juveniles who were contacted by police instead of not. Even so, after

The fourth article that I reviewed, focused on labeling theory. In this article, Labeling Effects of First Juvenile Arrests authors Liberman, Kirk, and Kim focused on how the first arrest increases the likelihood of reoffending for juveniles. The idea of labels triggers “secondary sanctioning” processes. Labeling is a powerful mechanism that can lead to crime.

In viewing the information contained in the aforementioned articles, one can immediately understand the underlying reasons that women are committing more crimes than men. Through the mid-1990s, the arrest rates of both genders has increased steadily, with the male rate far exceeding that of females (Gross, 2009, pp. 84). However, in recent years, a shift has been seen, with the numbers of female offenders rising significantly, especially at the juvenile level, which significantly raises the likelihood of re-offending later in life. As such, an understanding of the differences between the sexes in terms of the reasoning behind their offenses has long been researched.

When it comes to juvenile delinquency an adolescent personality is usually impacted from different factors such as early child hood experiences of witnessing a crime, seeing a violent act, being the victim of a crime, or being around others or family who engaged in criminal activity, these factors can either create an adolescent with a positive or negative attitude, or an anti-social behavior which could create a path for a delinquent behavior (Wilson, p. 34). A study has shown that family interactions accounts for about 40 percent of the cause of an adolescent with an anti-social behavior, the study also shown that aggressiveness which is a common trait of adolescent who engage in delinquent acts is usually created from peer influences (Wilson, p. 34).

Despite the general consensus that the number of females involved in crime is continuing to rise, males are still the dominant gender committing crimes, especially for violent offences. This may be why there is a continued lack of research on female offenders using a gender specific approach that accounts for gender differences. Historically, female offenders have been primarily studied using a gender-neutral model comprising mainly male offenders. Although there is support that a gender-neutral model can effectively apply to both male and female offenders (van der Knaap et al. 2012), there has been an ongoing debate on whether the pathways and processes that lead to female offending can be successfully explained and ultimately applied to interventions and preventions by using theories originally created to explain male crime (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996).

Two theorist and theories that have been recognized by many involved in the criminal justice field are Ross L. Matsueda's Theory of Differential Social Control, and, Charles R. Tittle's Control Balance Theory. Matsueda's theory, (1) identifies a broader range of individual-level mechanisms of social control, (2) specifying group and organizational processes for controlling delinquency, (3) conceptualizing classical criminological theories as special cases of a general interactionist framework, and (4) testing the interactionist model empirically against specific hypotheses drawn from competing theories. Tittle's theory believes deviance results from the convergence of four variables: (1)

One factor that influences the likelihood of criminal behavior involves a person’s genetics. Certain inherited behaviors can lead people to be more likely to have criminal behaviors. Stated in the article "The Criminal Mind,” Arian Raine explains, “More than 100 studies of twins and adopted children have confirmed that about half of the variance in aggressive and antisocial behavior can be attributed to genetics.” (Raine). Aggressive and antisocial behaviors are found in many criminals. Research proves that these behaviors can be due to genetics, and this makes these behaviors a genetic influence to criminal behavior. Additionally, anybody can be a criminal, but gender plays a role in their chances as well. In the article “Born

Juvenile delinquency is of great concern in the United States. In 2007 over 2 million arrests were juveniles. There are two types of juvenile delinquency. The first type of offense is a behavior that would be a criminal violation for an adult. The other offense is called a “status” offense. Status offenses are delinquent actions that do not apply to adults, like running away and truancy. This paper will discuss the impact of gender and family on delinquency and the treatment by gender in the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile offending is a major problem in society. Understanding the risk factors that contribute to the increased likelihood of a juvenile to engage in delinquency is important. There are many factors that can influence the increased risk of juvenile delinquency. These factors include poverty, low socioeconomic status, age (Jarjoura, Triplett, & Brinker, 2002), race, gender (Lucero, Barret, & Jensen, 2015), education (Lucero, Barret, & Jensen, 2015; Jarjoura, 1993), and family structure (Anderson, 2002; Kierkus & Hewitt, 2009). It is important to examine if some risk factors can contribute more than others and to what extent they interact with one another. This paper will discuss three important risk factors that contribute to the likelihood of juveniles engaging in deviant acts. The three risk factors discussed are poverty, family structure, and educational attainment. In addition, this paper will demonstrate how these three risk factors interact with one another, resulting in a higher propensity for involvement in juvenile delinquency.

The social process and traditional structure theory explained why female crime rates are rather lower than males. The social process theory tend to explain the traditional crime with regards to differential opportunity to lean criminal techniques and values. The use of the traditional theory shows evidence in which considered the overlap on the causes of crimes committed by both genders. Studies shows that both male and female offenders that came in contact with the criminal justice system often came from a social background that are typically of low socioeconomic status, poorly educated, under or unemployed, and minority groups (Steffensmeir and Allan, 1995). The only difference between male and female offenders is, female