Why young people are attracted to crime?
The way in which young people are represented and understood in relation to crime has changed rapidly over the last century. Interest in youth justice has, however, been particularly strong in the last decade or so. Young people have become subject to huge amounts of new legislation and policy-making aimed at changing what is seen as a wave of youth crime (Fionda, 2005).
Young people have even come to be seen in such a way in society that they have lost their childhood (Fionda, 2005). This essay first examines the historical perspective on youth crime and how this construction of the young has emerged. It then moves on to explanations of crime such as strain, anomie, subcultural theories, moral panics and critical criminologies. Finally it looks at black and ethnic minorities and what has been the government’s overall response to youth crime.
The Historical Perspective on Youth Crime
The history of youth and crime is traced by Muncie (2004). Over the years, Muncie (2004) points out, the way in which juvenile offenders have been seen has changed. But, the way in which crime has been described cannot be effectively separated from the ways in which attempts have been made to control it. Within the social constructionist approach to studying criminology, emphasis is placed on studying the discourses involved, be they legal, social or political. From these discourses Muncie (2004) argues that youth crime is actually in a constant state of metamorphosis. This can be seen in the terms that have emerged to represent young people and their criminal behaviour. Historically, then, an early term was ‘juvenile delinquent’ which emerged in the early 19th century. Later, in the early 20th century, the term ‘troublesome offender’ became common.
These conceptions of young people and crime have changed with the different ways that young people have been constructed. Hendrick (1997) charts these changes beginning with the romantic child in the 18th century, becoming the evangelical child, the factory child, the delinquent child and the schooled child throughout the 19th century. In the 20th century, by comparison, the child has been constructed as the psycho-medical child, the welfare child and now the psychological child. Overall then, Muncie (2004) argues, these different definitions and historical developments leave a number of difficulties in defining the nature of childhood. Muncie (2004) further argues that the historical way in which children and youths have been represented has more to do with the fears of adults than the actual behaviour of children.
The reasons that have been used to explain youth crime are many and varied. Muncie (2004) describes the positivist theories that have been used to explain youth crime. These have included multi-factor approaches which place the causes of youth crime in low IQ, genetics, personality and so on. One example of the research backing up this theory comes from Farrington, Barnes and Lambert (1996) who found that there was a much higher likelihood that offenders would come from families with other offenders in it. Claims have even been made for isolating the genetic component of youth offending. Mednick, Gabrielli and Hutchings (1987), for example, reviewing 14,000 cases of adoption, find there is a genetic component of criminality - although this might well be a predisposition rather than a direct cause. Other theories have focussed on personality as the cause of youth crime. Rutter and Smith (1995), for example, reviewing the literature, find that there has been an increase in personality disorders perhaps caused by family break-up.
Anomie and Strain
One important early theory of crime in general is related to anomie and strain. Anomie developed from the work of Durkheim (1933) who argued that because of the relative advantages and disadvantages of people in society, it was inevitably that crime would occur. ‘Anomie’ - a breakdown of social values and norms - occurred particularly in organic societies such as ours in which people are highly interdependent. Because of the difficulty of controlling these interactions, it is possible for people’s desires to get out of control and for anomie to be created.
Merton (1949) built on these ideas, but rather than focusing on human desires, he placed the emphasis on the way in which people are attempting to achieve certain goals. They firstly attempt to do this by legitimate means, but if they can’t then they turn to criminal methods. A problem arises if there is too great a gap between cultural norms about the sorts of goals that are ‘normal’ and what is practically achievable. This gap is most likely to be widest at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum where educational, economic and social opportunities are frequently lowest. One of the main differences between Merton’s ideas and those of Durkheim was that the latter thought aspirations are set internally while Merton thought they are set by society and culture.
People are though to react in one of five ways according to Merton’s (1949) model. These are firstly by accepting the goals society has set them, even if they are not achievable - this will not result in crime. The second is made up of those rejecting the means society has set for them to achieve the goals but accepting the goals themselves. In the third group are those who reject the goals but accept the methods. The fourth are those who reject both the methods and the goals and do not fight back. The last category are the same but do feel able to fight back.
Subcultures
Merton’s (1949) theory was criticised by Cohen (1965) for being too individualistic. Specifically, it does not appear to explain the way in which people actually started carrying out criminal or deviant acts. Cohen’s (1955) adaptation of strain theory, then, looked at the subcultures and how these fostered deviant acts. One of the main points Cohen wanted to help explain was why many of young people’s delinquent acts didn’t seem to be that rational, as Merton’s theory suggested. Instead, Cohen (1955) argued, young people were involved in carrying out minor crimes that didn’t seem rational because the subcultures within which they were operating had different norms. These cultural differences were represented in a variety of different ways: they had special language, different clothes and different behaviour.
Cohen based his findings on his study of gangs in Chicago. He found that these subcultures took part in deviant acts that had particular characteristics: there was considerable group loyalty, short-term hedonism, working-class membership and participation in acts that were non-specialist. The combination of these acts and the adoption of different norms to the rest of society were part of the subculture’s way of coping with ’status frustration’ - the fact that they had little or no status in middle class society. Cohen (1955) thought the behaviour of the subculture was, in psychodynamic terminology, a ‘reaction formation’.
Cohen’s ideas were further built upon by Cloward and Ohlin (1961) who made a return to ideas that were built more on Merton’s work in the sense that they thought gangs acted on utilitarian, or rational, grounds. Some gang members, they argued, were only interested in taking part in activities that seemed to offer little gain, but these were not representative of the many who were interested in accumulating money. The norms in the subculture are based, then, on lower class ideas of a high-status position (Muncie, 2001). Three particular types of subcultures were suggested by Cloward and Ohlin (1961), a retreatist subculture, a conflict subculture and a criminal subculture. The first, a retreatist subculture, tends to just involve drug use and guns. The conflict subculture, however, arises where there is no way to achieve high status by either legal or illicit means. Finally, the criminal subculture emerges when the way is blocked for legally gaining status but criminal role-models are available.
Muncie (2001) argues that the strength of these theories was they turned the emphasis away from psychological damage causing delinquent behaviour. Instead, youth behaviour could be seen to result from the combination of local culture and inequalities and lack of opportunities for young people in particular areas. Despite this, subculture theories of youth delinquency have come in for considerable criticism. Matza (1964), for example, studying the behaviour of individual members of gangs found they tended to drift in and out of deviant activities. They did not seem to share core values as might have been expected by the theories described above. Downes (1966), meanwhile, examined East London working-class boys and found little evidence of status frustration. Instead Downes (1966) found the boys tended to dissociate themselves from social norms through entertainment and other diversions.
Muncie (2004), reporting on much research carried out since the 1960s, finds there is generally little evidence of gangs and their attendant subcultures in the UK. Similar research is reviewed from the US. Katz (2000) finds that there are rapidly rising fears about the influence of gangs, despite the fact there seems little evidence of their existence. Katz (2000) argues that fears about gangs tend to be associated with worry over immigration and one appears to be correlated with the other.
It is only a short step from talking of subcultures to the modern cultural analysis of subcultural styles. Muncie (2004) points out that critical criminology has crossed over into this area, and the analysis of these subcultural styles provides some insight into the attraction of youths to crime, or at least the way in which these subcultural styles have been constructed as oppositional. One subcultural style which has received considerable analysis is the ‘teddy boys’. This was a subcultural style adopted by working class boys in the 1950s which was associated with the wearing of Edwardian clothes and listening to rock’n'roll. The teddy boys’ subcultural style was thought to stand for disaffection with mainstream cultural norms. The mods, meanwhile, also emerged in the 1950s and 1960s - their style involved a tidy appearance with smart Italian suits. Finally, the skinheads who emerged in the late 1960s, also from East London, wore short hair, heavy boots, half-mast trousers and braces. It has been argued that skinhead culture was an attempt to reassert traditional working-class values.
Tags: crime, Downes, legislation, youth crime, youth justice
