|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study by Robbins and Ritter was to examine the incidence of juvenile violence and its various correlates, and to review the different treatment options that have been used for the violent juvenile offender.
METHODOLOGY: A non-experimental exploratory design was employed, involving a review of literature in the field of juvenile delinquency.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors examined a number of different sources of crime statistics. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report, violent crimes committed by youths under the age of 18 decreased only slightly between 1977 and 1986 - arrests for murder and robbery decreased over the time period, but there was an increase in rape and aggravated assault. The under-representation of crimes in official statistics led the authors to examine self-report and victimization studies as well. These studies suggested that although there has not been a significant increase in crime over the years, the rate of delinquency that remains undetected is considerably high. However, problems of reliability in self-report studies still might underestimate the true incidence of violent juvenile crime. Longitudinal cohort studies have shown that arrest rates for violent crimes among youths had tripled between 1960 and 1975, with as many as 31% of subjects being arrested for violent crimes. The authors concluded this examination of incidence studies with the suggestion that any generalizations drawn from arrest data are, at best, merely educated guesses, with the true incidence remaining unknown. The authors then turned their attention to an investigation of the correlates of juvenile violence. The first and strongest factor with a relationship to crime is gender, with males being significantly more likely to participate in violent crimes than females. Race and crime is an issue under much debate - studies involving official statistics show that blacks commit more violent offenses than whites, but self-report studies show no discernible difference. Controversy also surrounds the issue of class and crime, as studies have found varying results depending upon the measure of class employed. Self-report studies show some difference between those in the lower classes and others, but measures of class using parental education or occupation showed weaker relationships with delinquency than did measures involving poverty, unemployment or welfare. The authors suggested that a modest association might exist between class and delinquency, primarily due to family problems that are often associated with low social status. Family correlates with juvenile delinquency include parent criminality, ineffective discipline techniques, family discord and poor parent-child relationships. Alcohol abuse, child physical or sexual abuse or neglect, broken or single-parent homes and psychotic family dynamics have also been found to show some association with violent behavior in youths. Individual characteristics associated with juvenile violence include past violence and substance abuse, lower intelligence and poor academic achievement, late onset of puberty, abundance of illness or accidents, genetic characteristics and various neurological or physiological abnormalities. Variables related to psychological functioning have been found to be poor predictors of juvenile violence, although the most common diagnosis of the juvenile offender is that of antisocial personality disorder. The authors concluded this section of their review with a caution - most of the studies of the correlates of juvenile violence use clinical samples and do not control for the many family, situational and environmental factors that might preclude the establishment of causal effect. The authors suggested that the violent delinquent has traditionally been considered as the most severely mentally impaired of all juvenile offenders, and therefore the least amenable to treatment. As a result, many have been incarcerated without possibilities of treatment or rehabilitation. When treatment has been offered, it has been provided mainly in the form of psychiatric interventions, which have been shown to have little or no effect. Individual psychotherapy has been found to be of little value with most juvenile offenders, although group or milieu therapy and behavior modification programs seem to have been somewhat successful. The most common treatment response, incarceration in correctional or mental health facilities, has been found to serve the purpose of protecting the community and punishing the offender, rather than rehabilitating the individual. Community treatment responses are not often used for violent offenders, as the individuals are often viewed as too dangerous to be in an open environment. The final treatment option is that of non-intervention, as the maturation hypothesis suggests that many juveniles will mature out of their antisocial behavior if they are not stigmatized or if their behavior is not reinforced by experiences with the juvenile justice system. The authors concluded their examination of treatment policies by suggesting that methodological flaws in program evaluations, such as lack of experimental conditions, inadequate definitions and measures of treatments and difficulties in establishing causality, preclude any firm generalizations about the effectiveness of intervention strategies.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors examined the policy and practice implications of their findings. The fact that most offenders will not continue their delinquent behavior, and that those who do represent a small minority of juvenile delinquents, suggests that a policy of not incarcerating the few who will continue to recidivate is better than incarcerating many who will not continue their behavior. The authors saw the treatment of youths as adults in court as running counter to the notions of rehabilitation and treatment, and concluded that institutionalization should be used only as a final option for chronic offenders, after group therapy and community programs have failed. The authors also suggested that differential sentences be applied to chronic and first-time offenders, with programs of community reintegration and rehabilitation being provided for those spending time in correctional or mental health facilities. These treatment and rehabilitation programs should be based upon a multi-causal approach to juvenile delinquency, with interventions aimed at these many dimensions of violent behavior. Implications for future research included well-designed methodologies that would allow for accurate outcome and follow-up measures, and a reduction in the problem of methodological flaws.
EVALUATION:
This paper presents a thorough and insightful examination of the issues surrounding the violent juvenile offender. Its primary contribution to the field is a thoughtful discussion of the problems of treatment and rehabilitation, and an important examination of implications for policy and intervention programs. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - 1970s
KW - 1980s
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Treatment
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Violence Causes
KW - Violence Risk Factors
KW - Violence Treatment
KW - Treatment Recommendations
KW - Delinquency Intervention
KW - Delinquency Treatment
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Delinquency Causes
KW - Delinquency Risk Factors
KW - Crime Risk Factors
KW - Crime Causes
KW - Crime Treatment
KW - Crime Intervention
KW - Family Risk Factors
KW - Individual Risk Factors
KW - Offender Treatment
KW - Offender Rehabilitation
KW - Homicide Offender
KW - Robbery Offender
KW - Sexual Assault Offender
KW - Rape Offender
KW - Violence Against Women |