scholarly journals Keeping the Balance Between Humanism and Penal Punitivism: Recent Trends in Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice in Sweden

2006 ◽  
pp. 473-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerzy Sarnecki ◽  
Felipe Estrada
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Recent Trends

Juvenile Delinquency

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Smith
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Social Worker ◽  
Delinquency Prevention ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Risk Factor Data ◽  
Factor Data

The following article on juvenile delinquency has three major objectives: First, it defines delinquency and discusses its measurement and extent; second, it reviews theory and risk factor data on causes of delinquency; third, it discusses current trends in juvenile justice intervention and delinquency prevention, including social worker involvement.

Blame Their Mothers: Public Opinion About Maternal Employment as a Cause of Juvenile Delinquency

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin T. Pickett
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Maternal Employment ◽  
Working Mothers ◽  
Youth Crime ◽  
Small Minority ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Registered Voters ◽  
Public Views

Juvenile justice reformers and practitioners have long blamed mothers for juvenile delinquency, identifying maternal employment as a key cause of youthful offending. The current study uses data from registered voters ( N = 10,144) to examine public views about whether maternal employment in two-parent households promotes juvenile delinquency. The results show that only a small minority of citizens blame working mothers for youth crime. The findings also reveal that views about the criminogenic consequences of maternal employment for children are predicted by factors that are strongly associated with gendered self-interest and exposure to nonegalitarian narratives. Implications of the findings are discussed.

The Crime of Precocious Sexuality: Female Juvenile Delinquency in the Progressive Era

1978 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Schlossman ◽  
Stephanie Wallach
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Juvenile Delinquents ◽  
Racial Prejudice ◽  
Minority Children ◽  
Court Records ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
Female Delinquents

The juvenile justice system's discrimination against poor and minority children has been well documented, but the system's discrimination on the basis of gender has been less widely recognized. Drawing on neglected court records and secondary sources, Steven Schlossman and Stephanie Wallach show how girls bore a disproportionate share of the burden of juvenile justice in the Progressive era. The authors note that during the Progressive era female juvenile delinquents often received more severe punishments than males, even though boys usually were charged with more serious crimes. Schlossman and Wallach conclude that the discriminatory treatment of female delinquents in the early twentieth century resulted from racial prejudice, new theories of adolescence, and Progressive-era movements to purify society.

scholarly journals Developing an integrated biosocial theory to understand juvenile delinquency: from the social, cognitive, affective, and moral (SCAM) perspectives

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Du
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Social Cognitive ◽  
Multiple Risk Factors ◽  
Biosocial Theory ◽  
The Social ◽  
Juvenile Justice Policy ◽  
Justice Practice ◽  
Criminological Theories ◽  
Practical Implications

Biosocial theory has made considerable progress in explaining juvenile delinquency and making explicit references for juvenile justice policy during the past decades. However, because biosocial theory aims to identify multiple risk factors, it makes juvenile justice practice and develop delinquency prevention programs difficult. This paper proposes an integrated biosocial theory from the social, cognitive, affective, and moral (SCAM) perspectives to understand juvenile delinquency and facilitate the development and improvement of prevention and intervention programs. The article briefly summarizes the background and the key concepts of the chosen criminological theories and the logic of theoretical integration. Then it articulates the four aspects of the integrated biosocial theory and how it can contribute to criminology in details. Lastly, the paper identifies its potential limitations and provides practical implications.

scholarly journals Juvenile Justice as a Guarantee for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 20-23
Author(s):  
Sergey E. Smirnykh ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Crime Prevention ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Juvenile Crime ◽  
Delinquency Prevention ◽  
World Community ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right

The article deals with the issues of international legal cooperation in the sphere of juvenile justice as a guarantee of juvenile delinquency prevention. It is stated that one of the most important rights of children in the sphere of juvenile crime prevention is the right of children for protection from crime and its harmful consequences. The world community and individual states need to prevent children’s contact with criminals, who have a particularly negative impact on children, given their special needs related to their age and development. Prevention of juvenile delinquency should be aimed at preventing the involvement of juveniles in criminal activities. Juvenile justice is the most effective way to prevent juvenile delinquency.

Juvenile Delinquency in an International Context

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Neissl ◽  
Simon S. Singer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Geographical Regions ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Justice Systems

Juvenile delinquency is a global phenomenon, and interest in comparative studies of juvenile offending and society’s reaction to it has been steadily growing, despite the inherent difficulties of comparing juvenile justice processes across different regions. Both adolescence and the concept of juvenile delinquency are social constructs that vary by time and place. To know what constitutes a juvenile, or a delinquent act, requires detailed knowledge of a jurisdiction’s social, political, cultural, and legal history. International data in the form of officially recorded contact of juveniles with formal institutions are scarce, and they are often limited in their use for direct comparisons, due to divergent definitions and recording practices, or coverage of geographical regions. The United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UN-CTS) have the widest geographical reach, but lack transparency of definitions or verification. The World Prison Brief by the Institute for Policy Research at Birkbeck University of London provides prison trends around the globe, but only offers one indicator of juvenile imprisonment. The Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE) and the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics collect data on a range of custodial and non-custodial measures, and include detailed notes on national definitions, but are limited to Europe. The largest self-report study of youth is the International Self-Report Delinquency (ISRD) study, which is currently in its third wave that includes 40 countries across the globe. Since 1990 the United Nations has developed international conventions, rules, and guidelines that govern the rights of children, particularly as they relate to juvenile justice, and these guidelines have shaped, and continue to shape, juvenile justice processes across the globe. Almost all regions in the world have provisions to treat juveniles violating the law differently from adults, but they do so in a multitude of ways. Not all countries have separate systems for juveniles and adults, and in some regions of the world informal reactions to juvenile law-breaking dominate, or coexist with formal juvenile justice institutions. Juvenile justice systems are often categorized according to their founding philosophies, between the poles of a welfare and protection approach on one extreme, and a crime control and justice approach on the other. However, such classifications mask important differences between countries, and can only be seen as broad generalizations. In order to capture the intricacies of existing systems, and compare them between jurisdictions, a localized approach to juvenile justice is needed. It is not sufficient to describe which legal orientations or traditions inform a system, but rather it is necessary to examine how these traditions (as well as global trends and pressures) are interpreted by local juvenile justice administrators. Comparative juvenile justice research that can contribute to public debates and to achieving better outcomes for juveniles across the globe needs to be localized, pay special attention to the specific cultural, legal, and historical context of the jurisdiction studied, and differentiate between the law in theory and the law in practice.

The Importance of Evaluation and Monitoring Within the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Mandate

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer H. Peck
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Disproportionate Minority Contact ◽  
Prevention Act ◽  
Evaluation And Monitoring ◽  
Five Phases

In 2002, the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 required that states participating in the Formula Grants Program must put forth a good faith effort at addressing juvenile delinquency and the presence of minority youth at all decision-making points of the juvenile justice system without the use of numerical quotas. The last decade has brought about increases in states’ efforts at identifying and assessing the extent of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) across juvenile court contacts. Many states have already implemented or are currently implementing intervention and prevention efforts at reducing DMC. However, the segments of identification, assessment, and intervention are only three of the five phases of the DMC mandate. In light of the progression of the DMC mandate since its original implementation in 1988, the purpose of this essay is to spark discussion on the future of examining DMC in the juvenile justice system through a researcher’s perspective. Various topics that relate to DMC are presented as ideas for readers to consider, as they progress with their research agendas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document