Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Delinquency Theories: appraisals and applications provides a full and accessible overview
of contemporary theories of juvenile delinquency.
The book opens with a comprehensive description of what a theory is, and
explains how theories are created in the social sciences. Following on, each subsequent chapter is dedicated to describing an individual theory, broken down and
illustrated within four distinct sections. Initially, each chapter tells the tale of a
delinquent youth, and from this example a thorough review of the particular
theory and related research can be undertaken to explain the youths delinquent
behavior. The third and fourth sections of each chapter critically analyze the
theories and provide a straightforward discussion of policy implications of each,
thus encouraging readers to evaluate the usefulness of these theories and also to
consider the relationship between theory and policy.
This text is an invaluable resource for both undergraduate and graduate students of subjects such as youth justice, delinquency, social theory, and criminology.
John P. Hoffmann is Professor of Sociology at Brigham Young University. His
research interests include the etiology of juvenile delinquency and drug use over
the life course. His research has appeared in Criminology, The Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, and other journals.
Delinquency Theories
Appraisals and applications
John P. Hoffmann
Contents
List of figuresvi
List of tables
viii
Acknowledgements
ix
16
33
58
82
103
7 Learning to be delinquent
123
145
165
183
202
220
241
Notes260
References263
Index301
Figures
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.2
4
7
21
25
32
35
38
39
40
43
45
47
49
50
52
63
67
71
77
85
87
90
96
97
107
109
111
118
126
128
Figuresvii
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
10.1
10.2
10.3
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
12.10
12.11
13.1
13.2
13.3
132
134
136
138
152
153
155
159
173
174
177
188
190
198
222
222
223
224
225
226
226
227
231
232
234
244
244
249
250
252
256
Tables
1.1
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
6
37
52
64
69
73
106
131
Acknowledgements
I have been working on this book off-and-on for several years. The idea of it was
planted in my mind by Ronald Akers, distinguished criminologist, developer and
advocate of social learning theory, and author of the excellent book Criminological
Theories (co-authored with Christine Sellers). Ron was interested in a companion
book that featured theories of juvenile delinquency given that few texts focused
on this important topic. Following his invitation to prepare such a book, I ended
up thinking about it for a while and then agreeing to take on the task. However,
as often happens, the idiosyncrasies of life were at play and this project took many
more years than I had anticipated. If it were not for the support of several people
there is no doubt I would never have completed this book. First and foremost, I
thank Tim Ireland, collaborator, colleague, teacher, and friend. He helped with the
organization and writing of a couple of chapters, reviewed the entire book with
a careful and thorough eye, and helped me edit it down to a manageable length.
Karen Spence was tireless in finding various bits of information and diagrams
that helped illustrate some important issues. I thank her most enthusiastically. The
administrative staff of the Sociology Department at Brigham Young University
helped me prepare the references. Several reviewers offered many useful suggestions for which I am most appreciative. The staff at Routledge, in particular
Gerhard Boomgaarden, Jenny Dodd, and Elisabet Sinkie, as well as Andrew R.
Davidson of Prepress Projects Ltd, were incredibly supportive and helpful as they
shepherded the book through all stages of production. The final product is so
much better than I could have imagined thanks to their hard work. Finally, I thank
my family for the warm and loving support I receive every day. In particular, this
book is dedicated to my son Brian, who currently lives and serves in Ghana, of
whom I am most proud.
What is a theory?
As mentioned earlier, a simple definition of a theory is that it is an attempt to explain
or predict some event or phenomenon. Many of us claim to have theories of why
something occurs. However, we often confuse an opinion with a theory. Opinions
are judgments or beliefs that are not necessarily based on facts or generalized ideas
Self-esteem
Statement (proposition)
Figure 1.1 A simple model of self-esteem and delinquency.
Delinquent
behavior
Table 1.1 Four scenarios involving physical abuse and delinquency (%)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Delinquency
No delinquency
Physical abuse
100
No physical abuse
100
Physical abuse
95
No physical abuse
99
Physical abuse
25
75
No physical abuse
15
85
Physical abuse
75
25
No physical abuse
10
90
Delinquent
friends
Delinquent
behavior
Figure 1.2 Example of a reciprocal relationship.
Conclusions
The goal of this chapter has been to present some important background material
that will assist you as you learn about specific theories of delinquency. We have
considered definitions of theory, in particular scientific theory, and some of the
characteristics that a good theory should possess. A good theory should be coherent, verifiable, simple (but not overly so), significant, and have sufficient scope and
utility. There are many policies and programs designed to minimize delinquency,
so it is important that we seek good theories to guide these policies and programs.
This chapter also considered several ways of classifying theories of delinquency. The key ways are by placing them into consensus or conflict categories;
categories based on whether the theories address macro-level rates of delinquency,
individual-level delinquent behaviors, or small group behaviors; and categories
based on our assumptions about human nature (Is it naturally selfish, selfless, or
a blank slate? Do humans act rationally or do emotions drive behaviors?). All of
these schemes are potentially beneficial, since each considers important assumptions about the origins and motivations of human behavior.
This chapter is concerned with one of the oldest theories of crime and delinquency:
deterrence theory. A key assumption of this theory is that people, both young and
old, make decisions about how to behave based on a rational calculation of its
risks and rewards. This may sound simple, but deterrence involves a much more
complex set of circumstances than one might think. Consider two U.S. Supreme
Court decisions regarding the death penalty for those who commit capital crimes as
juveniles Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) and Roper v. Simmons (2005). The facts in Stanford
and Roper are quite similar. An adolescent committed a murder, showed little or no
remorse, there were aggravating circumstances (such as robbery, sexual assault, or
kidnapping), and the trial court sentenced the convicted adolescent to death.1
Prior to Roper the leading death penalty case for juveniles was the Stanford case,
decided just 16 years earlier. The court in Stanford held that the execution of an
offender convicted of a capital crime, who was either 16 or 17 at the time of the
offense, is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Although Stanford was a controversial
decision, it was the law of the land long enough for 19 juvenile offenders to be
convicted and executed for capital crimes (Amnesty International USA, 2005).
One of the arguments raised by the defense in the Stanford case was that the
death penalty for juveniles fails to serve the legitimate goal of penology ... it fails
to deter because juveniles, possessing less developed cognitive skills than adults,
are less likely to fear death. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, claiming
as the socio-scientific data suggests ... it is not demonstrable that no 16-year-old
is adequately responsible or significantly deterred. It is rational, even if mistaken,
to think the contrary. Therefore, the Supreme Court in 1989 suggested that if the
threat of death deterred even one 16-year-old from committing a capital offense,
then a legitimate societal goal is achieved.
In the Roper case the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of five to four, broke
with precedent and determined that the execution of juvenile offenders who committed capital crimes was unconstitutional. A particularly important part of its
decision stated:
[a]s for deterrence, it is unclear whether the death penalty has a significant or
even measurable deterrent effect on juveniles ... [T]he absence of evidence
of a deterrent effect is of special concern because the same characteristics
that render juveniles less culpable than adults suggest as well that juveniles
Punishment
Certainty
Delinquency
Swiftness