The Theories of Delinquency

The Theories of Delinquency

Susanne Trujillo

Juvenile Delinquency JUS 365

Susanne Trujillo

September 22, 2007

Various attempt s have been made by Theorists to understand juvenile delinquency and the reasons why juveniles commit crimes, including any remedies that may be applied to prevent juvenile criminal behavior. Early theories of juvenile delinquency were important to the first juvenile court formed in Cook County, IL in 1899(del Carmen and Trulson, 33). . However, only a few select theories prove to be as influential today as they were when they were first published. Edwin Sutherland’s differential theory is one of those theories.

Edwin Sutherland’s sociological explanation of juvenile delinquency and his contribution of the Differential Association Theory play an important part when determining juvenile delinquency. Published in 1934, his theory of Differential Association has remained unchanged (del Carmen and Trulson, 47). His theory attributes the cause of crime to the social center of individuals, rather than that of the biological or psychological perspective. In his theory, he emphasizes that any community is organized for both criminal and non-criminal behavior, and he believed that delinquent behavior applied to the rich and poor alike, as well as the emotionally stable or unstable. There are nine components to Sutherland’s differential association theory. The main component of the differential theory is that crime is a learned behavior and people learn criminal behavior through communication others. The more a person engages with one or more groups defines criminal behavior as acceptable, rather than with groups that do not find crime acceptable, the more than likely a person will engage in criminal behavior and will think that it is a normal behavior. However, his theory is often misinterpreted meaning that people who associate with delinquent peers will become delinquent as well. The theory merely suggests people can learn criminal and noncriminal behavior from anyone, and it is often based on frequency, duration, and priority with associations (del Carmen and Trulson, 48). Sutherland’s theory has its fair share of criticism since it first appeared. A common criticism reflects that Sutherland’s theory failed to explain certain criminal behavior, and that not all crimes can be explained such as crimes committed by irrational individuals. Regardless, Sutherland’s theories have remained strong. As Sutherland explores the possibility of delinquency by association, the labeling theory must be closely looked at and considered.

The labeling theory is somewhat of a “guilty by association” theory. According to this theory, a person’s behavior is shaped by social labels and will become a criminal when labeled a criminal by society. This theory closely correlates with Sutherland’s theory of social interactions with others. Although the labeling theory is limited in explaining initial deviance, when linked with other theories such as differential association theory, we can account for more delinquency amongst juveniles. The original labeling theory has been considered to have come from Edwin Lemert, who made a distinction between primary deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is the original act that is defined as deviant by others. Secondary deviance is an adaptation to societal reaction to primary deviation. Initially, primary deviances that result in immoral, unethical or illegal acts do not affect a person’s self-concept. However, if the behavior is continued that person may be labeled a trouble maker within the society. Once a person is labeled and transforms to the identity label that has been placed on him, it may results in secondary deviance, meaning he is now classified delinquent. Official labeling does not have to lead to secondary deviation, depending on financial means of the individual. Support, representation, and someone with fewer resources may not be able to avoid imprisonment and labeling. Most often members of minorities and the poor end up in official statistics as being delinquent and acts of deviance often becomes a means of defense for those that are labeled a delinquent (del Carmen and Trulson, 50-51). This means a juvenile who is exposed to criticism and reacts in a negative way and is more likely to commit crime. The more a juvenile feels he is expected to be defiant and won’t amount to anything anyway