'Juvenile delinquency: an integrated approach Essay\r'

' ferment: A â€Å" guilty callowness”\r\nThe jejuneness flirt adjudicated or examined curve, a 14-year-old, a â€Å" overdue y protrudeh,” for motor vehicle theft and hardened him on nut probation for six months. He and a technical associate took without permission a simple machine that belonged to call on’s incur. They were pul direct over by the constabulary for driving erraticallyâ€a classic baptismal font of joyriding.\r\n run for was already a familiar dactyl in the new-made administration. When bend was 12, he was referred to the court for â€Å"deviant sex” for an incident in which he was caught engaging in sexual activity with a 14-year-old girl. The new-made court dealt with this rudeness â€Å" easyly.” A probation ships police officer met with Rick and his p atomic topic 18nts to work out an agreement of in form-only(prenominal) probation that involved â€Å"conditions” or rules, just no suppli weed t into court.\r\nNot long subsequent on this initiatory offense, Rick was taken into custody by the patrol for curfew impact and, on a separate occasion, vandalismâ€he and his good friend had gotten d buy the farthestmk and knocked down legion(predicate) mailboxes along a rural road. In twain(prenominal) of these instances, Rick was taken to the police station and released to his p bents.\r\n rase though Rick’s initial formal appearance in teenage person court was for the railway car theft charge, he was already good-known to the police and probation de partitioningitionments. Rick was a very lik fitted dupe; he was pleasant and per give-and-takeable. He expressed a great deal of remorse for his decrepit acts and seemed to truly desire to change. He had a lot way out for him; he was goal- discover, inenunciateigent, and athletic. He interacted well with new(prenominal)s, including his pargonnts, teachers, and catchs. His best friend, an American Indian boy who lived on a nigh reservation, was the same sequence as Rick and had many a(prenominal) similar individualized and complaisant characteristics.\r\nNot surprisingly, the boy excessively had a very similar offense record. In fact, Rick and his friend were a good deal â€Å"companions in crime,” committing many of their overdue acts unitedly. Rick was the adoptive son of older pargonnts who loved him greatly and saw ofttimes ability and potential in him. They were truly baffle by the trouble he was in, and they struggled to take in why Rick eng mountd in derelict acts and what inevitable to be d wiz or so it. Rick, too, seemed to really treat round his p atomic number 18nts. He spent a good deal of time with them and app bently enjoyed their company. Beca restrain Rick was espo use up as an infant, these p bents were the great deal he considered family.\r\nRick be give instruction regularly and earned good grades. He was not disruptive in the clas sroom or elsewhere in the naturalize. In fact, teachers reported that he was a very haughty student both in and out of class and that he was academically motivated. He did his homework and handed in assignments on time. He was besides actively knobbed in sportsâ€football, wrestling, and track and field.\r\nRick’s six months of formal probation for auto theft rancid into a deuceyear layover as he enshroudd to get involved in overdue acts. Through regular impacts and enforcement of probation conditions, his probation officer tried to work with Rick to break his flesh of ill-doing. Such efforts were to no avail. Rick continued to offend, outcomeing in an al or so routine series of court hearings that led to the extension of his probation supervision period.\r\nThe hit the record books of fresh offense\r\nThe continuing conformation of modern teenaged person iniquitousity included a long con analyseation of place and status offenses: tiny fry in poss ession of alcohol, numerous curfew violations, continued vandalism, pocket-size theft (primarily shoplifting), and continued auto theft, usually involving joyrides in his father’s car.\r\nRick’s â€Å"final exam” offense was condemnable mischief, and it involved extensive decease of property. Once again, Rick and his best friend â€Å"borrowed” his father’s car, got drunk, and drove to Edina, an affluent suburb of Minneapolis. For no app bent reason, they parked the car and began to walk along France Avenue, a major road with office buildings along each side. After walking a while, they started throwing small rocks toward buildings, seeing how close they could get. Their range increased chop-chop and the rocks soon reached their targets, breaking numerous windows.\r\nThe â€Å"fun” turned into thousands of dollars worth of window breakage in a large number of office buildings. Because of the scale of damage, Rick faced the possibility o f creation placed in a state training school. As a potential â€Å"loss of liberty case,” Rick was countenanced with delegation by an attorney. This time, the juvenile court’s adjudication bear upon go alonged formal procedures, including elaborateness of a prosecutor and a defense attorney. In the preliminary hearing, Rick directted to the implore (statement of charges against him), and the case was continued to a later fight for leaning (sentencing). In the stifftime, the judge ordered a predisposition report.\r\nThe predisposition report is designed to individualise the court’s disposition to â€Å"fit the offender.” The probe for the report uses multiple sources of culture, including information from the arresting officer, p atomic number 18nts, school personnel, coaches, employers, friends, relatives, and, most distinguishedly, the offending youth. The predisposition report tries to lap forth and ableize the pattern of willful neg lect and wherefore raise recommendations for disposition ground on the investigation. In Rick’s case, the predisposition report sampleed to accurately let on and gear up his persistent pattern of property and status offending, and it cristaled a recommendation for disposition.\r\nFinding no information to justify another(prenominal)wise, the probation officer recommended that Rick be committed to the Department of Corrections for placement at the Red Wing State Training School. Depending on one’s trip uppoint, the state training school re devoteed either a last floor effort for rehabilitation or a manner of punishment with restricted freedom. Either way, Rick was viewed as a chronic juvenile offender, with micro hope for reform.\r\nIt was one of those formative experiences. I [coauthor Jim Burfeind] was clean out of college and radically hired as a probation officer. I was meeting with ii experienced attorneysâ€one the defense, the other the prosec utor. Almost in unison, it seemed, they turned to me and asked, â€Å" wherefore did Rick do this? Why did he cave in such(prenominal) a persistent pattern of wrong-doing?” They wanted to light up sense of Rick’s depravity, and they wondered how the juvenile court could best resolve to his case. I had turn over familiar with Rick only in the previous few weeks when his case was reassigned to me as part of my growing caseload as a new-fangled probation officer. Now, meeting with the attorneys to gather information for the predisposition\r\n|\r\n3\r\n4\r\n|\r\n young DELINQUENCY: AN unified APPROACH\r\nreport, I was being asked to explain Rick’s pattern of tumble-down way to 2 legal experts who had remote more than experience in the juvenile umpire scheme than I did. I was, after all, new to the job. How could I possibly know enough to endure an hi floor? I also had the daunting responsibility of making a recommendation for disposition that the judge would most liable(predicate) follow whole. Rick’s future was at stake, and my recommendation would disapprovemine the disposition of the juvenile court. As I onrushed to reply to the attorneys sitting in front of me, my mind was flood with head words.\r\nThe answers to these doubtfulnesss became the basis for my predisposition reportâ€an attempt to explain Rick’s broken-down bearing and, based on this intellectual, to recommend what should be done by court disposition. The motilitys with which I wrestled included the following:\r\nIs involvement in ill-doing common among adolescentsâ€that is, ar most youths broken-down? Maybe Rick was just an unsuccessful kid who got caught.\r\n ar Rick’s offenses reasonably typical of the types of offenses in which youths ar involved?\r\n allow for Rick â€Å"grow out” of tumble-down carriage?\r\nIs Rick’s pattern of offending a lot the same as those of other delinquent youths?\r \nDo most delinquent youths obtain with status offenses and thusly persist and escalate into serious, repetitive offending? (Status offenses be acts, such as truancy and running away, that ar considered offenses when committed by juveniles but are not considered crimes if committed by bountifuls.) Is there a rational component to Rick’s immorality so that punishment by the juvenile court would deter further juvenile immorality?\r\nDid the fact that Rick was adopted hasten anything to do with his involvement in offense? Might something approximately Rick’s transmitted makeup and his bio perspicuous family lend some brainwave into his appearance?\r\nWhat character did Rick’s use of alcohol play in his evil? Are there family factors that might relate to Rick’s involvement in delinquency?\r\nWere there aspects of Rick’s school experiences that might be related to to his delinquency?\r\nWhat role did Rick’s friend play in his del inquent behavior? Did the youth court’s formal adjudication of Rick as a â€Å"delinquent youth” 2 historic period earlier label him and make him more equally to continue in delinquent behavior?\r\nShould the juvenile court retain jurisdiction for serious, repeat offenders like Rick?\r\nWhat should the juvenile court try to do with Rick: punish, deter, or rehabilitate him? Should the juvenile court hold Rick less responsible for his acts than an adult because he has not fully matured?\r\nThe Study of juvenile person crime\r\n|\r\nPerhaps this list of incertitudes seems a little overwhelming to you now. We don’t at shield them here with the expectation that you will be able to answer them. Instead, we present them to prompt you to call up rough what causes juvenile delinquency and to give you an idea of the types of questions that political campaign the scientific cultivation of delinquent behavior. end-to-end this book, we regale these types of ques tions as we define delinquency; consider the personality of delinquent offenses, offenders, and offending; and present a change of theories to explain delinquent behavior. We return to Rick’s story and these questions in Chapter 14. After reading the close 12 chapters, you should restrain the tools necessary to think about and respond to these questions in a whole new light.\r\nâ  Understanding juvenile person delinquency\r\nThe questions that shape the scientific study of juvenile delinquency constitute attempts to define, discover, explain, and respond to delinquent\r\nbehavior. Rather than being asked with regard to a particular case like Rick’s, the questions that renovate the study of juvenile delinquency are bankroll more broadly in order to understand delinquent behavior as it occurs among adolescents. An judgment of delinquent behavior builds upon definitions that cede been qualifyinged in theories and findings that have been revealed in enquir y. The primary economic consumption of this book is to cultivate an understanding of juvenile delinquency by integrating possibility and explore. Throughout the book, we focus on the central roles that speculation and interrogation play in the study of delinquency, because these two components form the core of any scientific inquiry.\r\n forward we go any further, we mustiness define what we mean by â€Å"juvenile delinquency.” This definition is far more complicated than you might think. In the next chapter, we offer a thorough talk overion of the carryer face and transformation of the concept of juvenile delinquency. Here we offer a brief works definition of juvenile delinquency as actions that gap the justness, committed by a person who is under the legal age of majority. Our exploration of juvenile delinquency reflects the four canonical tasks of the scientific study of delinquencyâ€to define, portray, explain, and respond to delinquent behavior.\r\nThe f irst two major fractions of this book are devoted to defining and describing juvenile delinquency, the third naval division to explaining delinquent behavior, and the final section to contemporary ways of responding to juvenile delinquency. Responses to delinquent behavior, however, should be based on a thorough understanding of delinquency. Thus, an understanding of juvenile delinquency must come first.\r\nThe Study of Juvenile guilt\r\nThe first section of this book find outs the historic transformation of the concept of juvenile delinquency and the methods and data sources seekers use to study involvement in delinquent behavior. We begin by buzz offing a working understanding of what we commonly call â€Å"juvenile delinquency” (Chapter 2). This includes not only the companionable, political, and economic changes that led to the friendly construction of juvenile delinquency as a legal term, but also the contemporary transformations that have dramatically altered how we as a rescript\r\njuvenile delinquency\r\nActions that violate the\r\nlaw, committed by a\r\nperson who is under the\r\nlegal age of majority.\r\n5\r\n6\r\n|\r\nJUVENILE DELINQUENCY: AN corporate APPROACH\r\nview, define, and respond to juvenile delinquency. We then look how researchers â€Å"measure” delinquency (Chapter 3). We describe the research process, mixed methods of gathering data and doing research on juvenile delinquency, and sources of data on crime and delinquency.\r\nThe Nature of wrong\r\nThe second section of this book presents a trilogy of chapters in which we describe the nature of delinquent offenses, offenders, and patterns of offending. Any attempt to explain juvenile delinquency must first be able to accurately describe the worry in terms of these three dimensions. Chapters 4 finished 6 report research findings that describe the tip of delinquent offenses (Chapter 4), the hearty characteristics of delinquent offenders (Chapter 5), and the demotemental patterns of delinquent offending (Chapter 6).\r\nExplaining juvenile delinquent Behavior\r\nThe third section of this book reckons a variety of interpretations of delinquency that criminologists have proposed in theories and examined in research related to those theories. These chapters are organized in terms of the major themes that run through seven disparate assorts of theories. One group of theories, for physical exertion, emphasizes the importance of confederate group\r\ninfluences on delinquency. These theories, called genial learning theories, address how delinquent behavior is wise to(p) in the context of partner group dealings (Chapter 11).\r\nSix other themes are also considered: the question of whether delinquency is chosen or determined (Chapter 7); the role of individual factors, including biological characteristics and personality, in explaining delinquent behavior (Chapter 8); situational and routine dimensions of delinquency (Chapter 9); the importance of social familys, specially family relations and school experiences, in controlling delinquency (Chapter 10);\r\nthe structure of society, and how societal characteristics motivate individual behavior (Chapter 12); and social and societal responses to delinquency (Chapter 13). We also implement these various explanations to Rick’s case, which opened this chapter, and examine integrated a priori approaches (Chapter 14). Throughout the book, as we present theoretic explanations for delinquency, we weave together theories and the most pertinent research that criminologists have conducted to test those theories.\r\nResponding to Juvenile evil\r\nThe final section of this book comprises a virtuoso chapter that describes contemporary juvenile judge (Chapter 15). We have deliberately chosen to keep the discussion of juvenile justice in one chapter, in order to provide an undivided view of its structure and process. The formal system of juvenile justice includes police, courts, and corrections. Yet a solid amount of juvenile delinquency is dealt with informally, sometimes by agencies outside the â€Å"system.” Juvenile justice encompasses efforts at prevention, together with informal and formal action taken by the traditional juvenile justice system.\r\nFormal procedures, such as taking youths into custody and adjudicating them as delinquent youths, are central to the task of responding to juvenile delinquency. just informal procedures designed to prevent delinquency and steal youths from the juvenile justice system are far more common.\r\nThe Study of Juvenile Delinquency\r\n|\r\nâ  ontogenesis and Evaluating Theories\r\nof Delinquency\r\nIn 1967, two maintaind sociologists, Travis Hirschi and Hanan Selvin, discover that theories of delinquency suggest a â€Å"sequence of stairs through which a person moves from law persistent behavior to . . . delinquency.”1 criminological theories try to signalise and describe the differentiate causal factors that make up this â€Å"sequence of steps” leading to delinquent behavior. In doing so, theories of delinquency emphasize certain factors as being causally essential and then describe how these factors are interrelated in producing delinquent behavior. Stated merely: â€Å"a system is an explanation.”2\r\nComponents of Theories\r\nLike other scientific theories, theories of delinquency are composed of two basic parts: concepts and overtures. Concepts isolate and categorize features of the founding that are thought to be causally principal(prenominal).3 incompatible theories of juvenile delinquency incorporate and emphasize different concepts. For example, the theories of delinquency we consider in later chapters include concepts such as personality traits, intelligence, routine activities of adolescents, relationship ties (called attachments), associations with delinquent friends, and social disorganization of neighborhoods.\r\nCon cepts require definition.4 Definitions help oneself two functions: they clarify concepts and provide common understanding, and they describe how concepts will be measured for the purpose of research. Propositions tell how concepts are related. Scientific theories use propositions to make statements about the relationships between concepts.5 Some propositions imply a positive linear relationship in which the â€Å"concepts increase or decrease together in a relatively straight-line fashion.”6 For example, some theories offer the proposition that the number of delinquent friends is positively related to delinquent behavior: as the number of delinquent friends increases, so does the likelihood of delinquency.\r\nIn a negative linear relationship, the concepts shift in opposite directions. For instance, one scheme offers the proposition that level of attachment and delinquency are negatively related: as attachment increases, delinquent behavior decreases. Relationships betwee n concepts whitethorn also be curving. Here, too, the concepts qualify together, either positively or negatively, but after reaching a certain level, the relationship moves in the opposite direction. For example, researchers have found that agnate chink is related to delinquency in a curvilinear fashion.7 Delinquent behavior is most frequent when parental discipline is either lacking or excessive, but it is least common when levels of discipline are moderate.\r\nIf you think of parental discipline as a continuum, delinquency is highest on the two ends of the discipline continuum, when discipline is light or excessive, and lowest in the middle, when discipline is moderate. variant theories whitethorn offer competing propositions. One scheme may propose that two concepts are related in a particular way, whereas another supposition may claim that they are uncorrelated. For example, one of the major issues in delinquency system is the role of the family in explaining delinqu ent behavior. One major surmisal contends that the family is essentially unrelated to delinquent behavior and that delinquent peers are an important factor in explaining delinquency. Another\r\n guess An explanation\r\nthat makes a taxonomic\r\nand logical argument\r\nregarding what is\r\nimportant and why.\r\nconcepts Isolated features\r\nof the area that are\r\nthought to be causally\r\nimportant.\r\npropositions Theoretical\r\nstatements that tell how\r\nconcepts are related.\r\n7\r\n8\r\n|\r\ntheory of delinquency\r\nA eagerness of logically related\r\npropositions that explain\r\nwhy and how selected\r\nconcepts are related to\r\ndelinquent behavior.\r\nJUVENILE DELINQUENCY: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH\r\ninfluential theory proposes the opposite relationship, disceptation that family relations are strongly related to delinquency, whereas peer relations are less important in explaining delinquency.8 To summarize, a theory of delinquency is a set of logically related propositions that explain why and how selected concepts are related to delinquent behavior.9 A theory offers a logically developed argument that certain concepts are important in cavictimization delinquent behavior. The purpose of theory, then, is to explain juvenile delinquency.\r\nLevels of interpretation\r\nlevel of explanation The\r\n acres of explanationâ€\r\nindividual, microsocial, or\r\nmacrosocialâ€that\r\ncorresponds to the types of\r\nconcepts incorporated into\r\ntheories.\r\nTheories of delinquency operate at three different levels of explanation: individual, microsocial, and macrosocial.10 On the individual level, theories focus on traits and characteristics of individuals, either innate or learned, that make some people more likely than others to engage in delinquent behavior. The microsocial level of explanation considers the social processes by which individuals become the â€Å"kinds of people” who commit delinquent acts.11 Criminologists have stress family relat ions and delinquent peer group influences at this level. Some microsocial theories also point to the importance of the geomorphological context of social interaction.12 Race, gender, and social class, for example, influence social interaction not only within families and peer groups, but in virtually all social contexts.\r\nAs a takings, the distinction between social process and social structure is not forever clear, nor is it always useful as a content of categorizing theoretical explanations.13 At the macrosocial level, societal characteristics such as social class and social cohesiveness are utilize to explain group variation in rates of delinquency.14 For example, poverty, together with the absence of community social control, is central to some(prenominal) explanations of why gang delinquency is more common in lower-class areas.15 The level of explanationâ€individual, microsocial, or macrosocialâ€corresponds to the types of concepts incorporated into a theory.16 In dividual-level explanations tend to incorporate biological and psychological concepts.\r\nMicrosocial explanations most often use social psychological concepts, but may incorporate structural concepts that influence social interaction. Macrosocial explanations purge extensively on sociological concepts. Theories can be combined to form â€Å"integrated theories” (see Chapter 14), which sometimes blend in different levels of explanation into a single theoretical framework.\r\nAssessing Theory\r\nWe have proposed that concepts and propositions are the bare essentials of theory.17 These components, however, do not automatically baffle a legal explanation of delinquency. We can begin to assess the severeness of theoryâ€the degree to which it accurately and adequately explains delinquent behaviorâ€by paying attention to several key dimensions of theory.18 We highlight these dimensions (e.g., clarity, consistency, testability, applicability) in the following list of ques tions. We invite you to ask yourself these questions as you evaluate the theories of delinquency we present in later chapters and consider how well they explain delinquent behavior.\r\n1. Conceptual clarity: How clearly are the theoretical concepts identified and delimit?19 How well do the concepts and propositions fit togetherâ€how compatible, complementary, and congruous are they?20\r\nThe Study of Juvenile Delinquency\r\n2. Logical consistency: Does the theoretical argument develop logically and unvaryingly? Do the concepts and propositions depict a causal process leading to delinquency? 3. denseness: How terse is the theory in terms of its concepts and propositions? This question concerns economy of explanation. Generally, simpler is better. So if two theories explain delinquency equally well, we should favor the theory that offers the more concise explanation with the smaller number of concepts.\r\n4. Scope: What is the theory attempting to explain?21 Some theories try to explain a wide variety of criminal acts and criminal offenders. Others focus on particular types of offenses or offenders. What question is the theory designed to answer? Theories of delinquency usually address one of two basic questions: (1) How and why are laws made and enforced? and (2) Why do some youths violate the law?22 remote more theories try to answer the second question than the first.23\r\n5. Level of explanation: At what level (individual, microsocial, or macrosocial) does the theory attempt to explain delinquency? 6. Testability: To what effect can the theory be tried†confirm or disproved by research say? It is not enough for a theory simply to â€Å"make sense” by identifying key concepts and then crack propositions that explain how these concepts are related to delinquency.24 Rather, theories must be constructed in such a way that they can be subjected to research verification.25\r\n7. research validness: To what fulfilment has the theory been supported by research evidence? 8. Applicability and usefulness: To what extent can the theory be applied practically? In other words, to what extent is the theory useful in form _or_ system of government and practice?\r\nThese questions reflect key concerns in assessing theory. In the end, theory is the foundation for the accumulation of knowledge, and it is indispensable for an understanding of juvenile delinquency. However, theory must be tried and true through research. Together, theory and research constitute the two basic components of a scientific approach to juvenile delinquency.\r\nâ  Purposes of Delinquency interrogation\r\nDelinquency research serves two vital purposes: to arrest or develop theory, and to test theory.26 In Chapter 3, we discuss research methods and sources of data utilize in the study of delinquency. Here we briefly describe the two purposes of research as it relates to theory.\r\nGenerating Theory\r\nResearch is sometimes used to gain sufficient i nformation about juvenile delinquency to theorize about it.27 Despite the old adage, â€Å"the data speak for themselves,” research findings about delinquency require interpretation, and it is this interpretation that yields theory. As a result, the phylogeny of theoretical\r\n|\r\n9\r\n10\r\n|\r\n inductive theorizing The\r\ndevelopment of theory\r\nfrom research ceremonial occasions.\r\nJUVENILE DELINQUENCY: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH\r\nexplanations of delinquency requires a long, hard look at the â€Å"facts” of\r\ndelinquency (repeated and uniform findings), in order to isolate and identify key concepts and then explain how these concepts are related to delinquent behavior. Along this line, Donald Shoemaker defines theory as â€Å"an attempt to make sense out of observations.”28 The thorny task of making theoretical sense of research observations is sometimes referred to as â€Å"grounded theory” or inductive theorizing.\r\n29 In the process of indu ctive theorizing, research involves collecting data and making experimental observations, which are then used to develop theory. For example, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, whose work we discuss more fully in later chapters, spent their entire careers attempting to uncover the most important empirical findings about juvenile delinquency.\r\nThey referred to their task as Unraveling Juvenile Delinquencyâ€the title of their most important book.30 The Gluecks’ work was heavily criticized for being atheoretical, or without theory.31 Their research, however, was clearly directed at providing empirical observations that would allow for the development of a theoretical explanation of delinquency, even though they neer developed such a theory.32 In recent years, their data and findings have become the basis for an important new theory called â€Å"life-course theory,” which we describe in Chapter 10.\r\n test Theory\r\ndeductive theorizing\r\nThe evaluation of\r\ntheoretical statements\r\nthrough research.\r\nResearch also provides the means to evaluate theory and to choose among alternative theories.33 In contrast to inductive theorizing, deductive theorizing begins with theoretical statements and then attempts to test the validity of theoretical predictions.34 As we already discussed, theories advance explanations of delinquency in which propositions identify certain concepts and describe how they are related to delinquent behavior.\r\nThese theoretically predicted relationships can be tested through research and either affirm or disproved. For example, one simple proposition of differential gear association theory (presented in Chapter 11) is that attitudes favoring delinquency are learned in the context of â€Å"intimate personal groups.”35 The predicted relationship portrayed here is that youths develop attitudes from peer group relations, and delinquent behavior is then an expression of these attitudes:\r\npeer group\r\nrelations\r\nâž \r\ndelinquent\r\nattitudes\r\n➝\r\ndelinquent\r\nbehavior\r\nIf research findings support the theoretical propositions tested, then the theory is verified or confirmed. If research findings are not consistent with the predicted relationships, then the theory is disproved. Different theories often offer different predictions. To continue with the previous example, differential association theory and social bond theory (presented in Chapter 10) provide competing predictions about the relationships between peers, attitudes, and delinquent behavior.\r\nIn contrast to differential association theory, social bond theory contends that attitudes are largely a product of family relationships.36 Delinquent attitudes result in delinquent behavior. links with delinquent peers then follow from delinquent behavior as youths seek out friendships with others like themselves. The relationships predicted by social bond theory are as follows:\r\nThe Study of Juvenile Delinquency\r\ndelinquent \r\nattitudes\r\n➝\r\ndelinquent\r\nbehavior\r\n➝\r\ndelinquent\r\npeer group\r\nAs this brief example illustrates, theories have empirical implications, and one purpose of research is to change scholars to choose among competing theories.37 The preceding discussion of the two purposes of delinquency research implies that the processes of inductive theorizing and deductive theorizing are completely distinct. The former is used to generate or develop theory; the latter is used to test theory. We must acknowledge, however, the complexity of the relationship between theory and research, and note that the distinction between the two purposes of research is not necessarily clear-cut. Even within the process of deductive theorizing, for example, an element of inductive theorizing exists.\r\nIn deductive theorizing, researchers begin with theoretical predictions and then use empirical observations to test those propositions. The research results may lead to modification or refin ement of the theory being tested. The latter part of this process, in which observations are interpreted and may result in a revised statement of theory, is consistent with the process of inductive theorizing. Although the relationship between theory and research is complex, it is clear that the development of theory and the military operation of research go hand in hand.38\r\nâ  compact and Conclusions\r\nThe scientific study of juvenile delinquency attempts to describe and explain delinquent behavior through theory and research. Theory seeks to provide a systematic and logical argument that specifies what is important in causing delinquency and why. Like other scientific theories, theories of delinquency are composed of concepts and propositions. It is necessary to assess the validity of theories, including those we apply to explain delinquency. We provided a series of questions that you can use to evaluate the theories of delinquency we present in later chapters.\r\nThe secon d basic component of the scientific method is research. In relation to theory, research serves two purposes: to generate theory and to test theory. Research is sometimes used to gain sufficient information about juvenile delinquency so that it becomes possible to theorize about it. The development of theory from research observations is called inductive theorizing.39 Research is also used to evaluate or test theory in a process called deductive theorizing. As we noted earlier, the primary purpose of this book is to cultivate an understanding of juvenile delinquency by integrating theory and research.\r\nThis chapter has offered an overview of the key elements of a scientific approach to juvenile delinquency, focusing especially on theory. We describe research methods in Chapter 3. With this basic understanding of theory and its relationship to research, we can begin our study of juvenile delinquency on solid ground.\r\nThe first two sections of this book present criminologistsâ€⠄¢ efforts to define and describe juvenile delinquency, the third major section presents explanations of juvenile delinquency that have been offered in theory and tested in research, and the fourth section considers contemporary responses to delinquency. Throughout the book, we present theoretical explanations of delinquency together with the most relevant research that has tested those theories.\r\n|\r\n11\r\n12\r\nCRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS\r\n1. Define theory without using the words â€Å"concept” or â€Å"proposition.” 2. Why does a scientific approach to juvenile delinquency seem on theory? 3. Develop your own example of inductive theorizing. Develop your own example\r\nof deductive theorizing.\r\n4. As you read Rick’s story at the beginning of this chapter, what factors seemed most significant to you in considering why Rick engaged in delinquency? Why?\r\nSUGGESTED READING\r\nGibbons, Don C. Talking well-nigh villainy and Criminals: occupations and Issu es in Theory Development in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: learner Hall, 1994.\r\nGLOSSARY\r\nconcepts: Isolated features of the world that are thought to be causally important. deductive theorizing: The evaluation of theoretical statements through research. inductive theorizing: The development of theory from research observations. juvenile delinquency: Actions that violate the law, committed by a person who is under the legal age of majority.\r\nlevel of explanation: The realm of explanationâ€individual, microsocial, or macrosocialâ€that corresponds to the types of concepts incorporated into theories.\r\npropositions: Theoretical statements that tell how concepts are related. theory: An explanation that makes a systematic and logical argument regarding what is important and why.\r\ntheory of delinquency: A set of logically related propositions that explain why and how selected concepts are related to delinquent behavior.\r\nREFERENCES\r\nAkers, Ronald L. criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, 2004.\r\nBabbie, Earl. The Practice of genial Research. eighth ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998. Bohm, Robert M. A Primer on nuisance and Delinquency Theory. second ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001. Cloward, Richard A., and Lloyd E. Ohlin. Delinquency and prospect: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: justify Press, 1960.\r\nCohen, Albert K. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free Press, 1955. â€â€â€. departure and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: prentice Hall, 1966. Cohen, Bernard P. ontogenesis sociological companionship: Theory and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980.\r\n13\r\nCurran, Daniel J., and Claire M. Renzetti. Theories of Crime. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.\r\nGibbons, Don C. The criminological Enterprise: Theories and Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979. â€â€â€. Talking About Crime and Criminals : Problems and Issues in Theory Development in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994.\r\nGibbons, Don C., and Marvin D. Krohn. Delinquent Behavior. fifth ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.\r\nGibbs, Jack P. â€Å"The State of criminological Theory.” Criminology 25 (1987):821â€840. Glaser, Barney, and Anselm L. Straus. The find of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1967. Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck. Unraveling Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1950.\r\nHepburn, ass R. â€Å"Testing alternate(a) Models of Delinquency Causation.” journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 67 (1976):450â€460.\r\nHirschi, Travis. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969. Hirschi, Travis, and Hanan C. Selvin. Delinquency Research: An idea of Analytic Methods. New York: Free Press, 1967.\r\nJensen, Gary F â€Å"Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action: A Test of the Differential Association Per. specti ve.” American sociological Review 78 (1972):562â€575. Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. â€Å"The Sutherlandâ€Glueck Debate: On the Sociology of Criminological Knowledge.” American Journal of Sociology 96 (1991):one hundred forty2â€1440. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. Crime in the fashioning: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.\r\nShaw, Clifford R., and Henry D. McKay. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas:\r\nA Study of order of Delinquency in Relation to Differential Characteristics of local anesthetic Communities in American Cities. Rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.\r\nShoemaker, Donald J. Theories of Delinquency: An Examination of Explanations of Delinquent Behavior. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.\r\nShort, pack F Jr. â€Å"The Level of Explanation Problem Revisited.” Criminology 36 (1998):3â€36. .,\r\nStark, Rodney. Sociology. 7th ed. Belmont, C A: Wadsworth, 1998. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. Constructing amicable Theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968. Sutherland, Edwin H., Donald R. Cressey, and David F Luckenbill. Principles of Criminology. 11th ed. .\r\nDix Hills, NY: General Hall, 1992.\r\nTurner, Jonathan. The construction of Sociological Theory. Rev. ed. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1978. Vold, George B., Thomas J. Bernard, and Jeffrey B. Snipes. Theoretical Criminology. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.\r\nENDNOTES\r\n1.\r\n2.\r\n3.\r\n4.\r\n5.\r\n6.\r\n7.\r\n8.\r\n9.\r\n10.\r\n11.\r\n12.\r\n13.\r\nHirschi and Selvin, Delinquency Research, 66.\r\nBohm, Primer, 1.\r\nTurner, Structure of Sociological Theory, 2â€3.\r\nBohm, Primer, 2. See Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, 140â€148, for a full discussion of concept definition. Vold, Bernard, and Snipes, Theoretical Criminology, 4.\r\nBohm, Primer, 2.\r\nGlueck and Glueck, Unraveling Delinquency.\r\nSutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology, 211â€214; and Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency, 140â€146.\r\nStark, Sociology, 2; and Curran and Renzetti, Theories of Crime, 2. Short, â€Å"Level of Explanation.”\r\nAlbert K. Cohen, Deviance and Control, 43; and Gibbons, Criminological Enterprise, 9. Sampson and Laub, Crime in the Making; Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology; and Short, â€Å"Level of Explanation.” Akers, Criminological Theories, 4â€5.\r\n14\r\n14. Albert K. Cohen, Deviance and Control, 43; Gibbons, Criminological Enterprise, 9; and Akers, Criminological Theories, 4.\r\n15. Shaw and McKay, Juvenile Delinquency; Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys; and Cloward and Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity.\r\n16. Short points out, in â€Å"The Level of Explanation Problem Revisited” (3), that the level of explanation corresponds to the unit of observation and the unit of analysis. 17. Our discussion of delinquency theory compris ing concepts and propositions makes theory seem simple and straightforward. But we must admit that, among social scientists, â€Å"there is still no agreed-upon view of what theory is” (Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, 170). See also Gibbs, â€Å"State of Criminological Theory.”\r\n18. Drawn from Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, 191â€192. 19. Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency, 9.\r\n20. Akers, Criminological Theories, 6â€7; and Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency, 9. 21. Akers, Criminological Theories, 6â€7; and Curran and Renzetti, Theories of Crime, 3. 22. Akers, Criminological Theories, 2â€6. Renowned criminologist Edwin Sutherland defined criminology as the study of\r\nlaw making, law breaking, and law enforcement (Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology, 3).\r\n23. Akers, Criminological Theories, 4. Gibbons (Talking About Crime, 9â€11, 73â€76) describes two key criminological question s: â€Å"Why do they do it?” and â€Å"the rates question.” The first question addresses â€Å"the origins and development of criminal acts and careers,” and the second question addresses â€Å"organizations, social systems, social structures, and cultures that produce different rates of behaviors of interest” (9). See also Gibbons, Criminological Enterprise, 9; Gibbons and Krohn, Delinquent Behavior, 85â€86; and Short, â€Å"Level of Explanation,” 7. 24. Akers, Criminological Theories, 7.\r\n25. Stinchcombe, Constructing fond Theories.\r\n26. Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, vii, 10; and Stark, Sociology, 3. 27. Stark, Sociology, 3.\r\n28. Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency, 7.\r\n29. Glaser and Straus, Discovery of Grounded Theory; and Babbie, Practice of Social Research, 4, 60â€64. 30. Glueck and Glueck, Unraveling Delinquency, 1950.\r\n31. Gibbons and Krohn, Delinquent Behavior, 83â€84.\r\n32. Laub and Sampson, â⠂¬Å"Sutherlandâ€Glueck Debate;” and Sampson and Laub, Crime in the Making. 33. Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, 10. 34. Babbie, Practice of Social Research, 4.\r\n35. Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology, 88â€89. 36. Jensen, â€Å"Parents;” Hepburn, â€Å"Testing Alternative Models;” and Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency. 37. Stark, Sociology, 2; and Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, 10. 38. Gibbons, Talking About Crime, 7.\r\n39. Stark, Sociology, 3.\r\n'