Theories On Juvenile Crime : Part 1

Role Name Affiliation

Role Name Affiliation.

Principal Investigator
Paper Coordinator
Content Writer/Author (CW)
Content Reviewer (CR)
Language Editor (LE)
Prof. G.S. Bajpai Registrar , National Law
University Delhi
Dr. K.P. Asha Mukundan Assistant Professor, Tata Institute
of Social Sciences
Dr. K.P. Asha Mukundan Assistant Professor, Tata Institute
of Social Sciences
Prof. Vijay Raghavan Professor, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences

Description of Module:

Items Description of Module

Subject Name Criminology
Paper Name Juvenile Justice.
Module Name/Title Theories on Juvenile Crime Part 1.
Module Id
Pre-requisites Basic understanding of
 Psychology
 Sociology
 Crime
Objectives  To understand and appreciate theories related to crime.
 To understand different perspectives through which the
phenomenon of crime is understood.
 To be able to relate to the theories.
Key words Theories on Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Delinquency, Rational
choice, Social disorganisation, strain, differential association,
Labelling, Social Control.
Acronyms:

Child in Conflict with Law CCL

Indian Penal Code IPC
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 JJA
Juvenile Justice System JJS
Module

1. Introduction
2. Understanding theories related to Juvenile Crime.
2.1 Classical School :
2.1.1 Deterrence theory :
2.2 Positive School
2.2.1 Rational choice theory
2.2.2 Biological and Socio-biological theories

2.2.3. Sheldon‟s theory of somatotypes

2.3 Genetic-Inheritance Studies
2.3.1 Twin Studies
2.3.2 Adoption studies
2.3.3. Chromosomes
2.3.4 Neurotransmitters
2.4 Psychological Theories
3.4.1. Psychoanalytic Theory
 1. Introduction :

“Juvenile Crime” is better understood or referred to as Juvenile Delinquency. Given the negative
connotation to the term “Delinquency”, this word is internationally not used in academic
discourses. In India, a “Juvenile Delinquent” is referred to as “Child in Conflict with law” and is
defined as per the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as a child who is
alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age
on date of commission of such offence1.
This module looks at the various theories on juvenile crime developed by criminologist,
sociologists and psychologists who has attempted to provide possible explanation of causes,
extent and correlation among a group or observed phenomenon related to crime. The major
difference among the theories relates to the academic discipline in which the theorist was trained
to understand humans and human behaviour. These differences in training results in differences
in perceiving and understanding crime. It may be noted that the theories related to crimes by
children are drawn from the larger theories of crime in general. Many of the theories of crime has
also resulted from the study of crimes committed by juveniles.
This chapter looks at only those theories that have a bearing on understanding juvenile crime.
Here one would also like to mention that the main objective of this module is to enable the reader
to understand and appreciate the theories. No theory is superior or inferior and no single theory
will ever be able to explain all types of juvenile behaviours.

2. Understanding theories related to Juvenile Crime.

2.1 Classical School :

Cesar Beccaria is considered the main proponent of Classical School and explained his thoughts
in the book on “Crimes and Punishment. According to Beccaria, people do what they do because
they derive pleasure from their acts. The two main concepts emphasised here is on „Free Will‟
and „Rational Choice‟. Rational Choice means, criminal activity is motivated by the principles of
gratification of pleasure and avoidance of pain and this is a decisive or rational to choose to
commit crimes. Free will represents individual responsibility for behaviour. This does not mean
that the person would always accept accountability. The society would also hold the person
accountable as it is assumed that the action is a result of „Rational Choice‟ made. The individual
commits an offence out of choice and is based on awareness of potential consequences. Beccaria
championed the abolition of the death penalty and believed that punishments should only
minimally exceed the level of damage done to society. Punishment, however, must be certain and
swift to make a lasting impression on the criminal and to deter others (Walsh et al, 2011).
The need for a separate system to handle offending juveniles, apart from adult criminals, was a
reflection of a neo classical view that free will is dependent of circumstances like namely the
person‟s age.

1 The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 2 (13)
In the Indian context, Juvenile Justice System (JJS) is based on the principle of treatment,
rehabilitation, prevention which emphasises on corrections. The timeless debate on the need to
treat a juvenile committing serious offence can be understood from the Classical school concept
of free will and rational choice. The thought being, that a juvenile capable of committing a
heinous offence, does so with an intent which is of free will and thus a rational choice and so
should be held accountable for the same. Several countries do have the legal provision of
transferring the juvenile to the adult system based on the severity of the offence committed.
India, in 2015 provided this provision in law to transfer the juvenile from the JJS to the adult
system based on the severity of offence and assessment of whether rational choice was exercised.
The continues to be a debate on whether “free will‟ is truly an individual choice or the result of
several factors that operate. Hence is „free will‟ truly free will ?

2.1.1 Deterrence theory :

Deterrence theory was the outcome of the larger Classical theory. Cesare Beccaria, in his
classical theory stated that criminals would choose to break the law only after considering the
risks and rewards of their actions. Here the notion of free will, rational choice and punishment
are applied. Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to prevent people from offending and
reoffending.
The deterrence theory has two important assumptions. First, specific punishment imposed on
offender will prevent him from committing further crime and; Second, fear of such punishment
will prevent others from committing similar crime. Thus the two kinds of Deterrence discussed
here are –
1. General
2. Specific.

General deterrence, is a sentence that will discourage others who may be inclined to commit
same or similar offence. It includes the existence of institutions like laws, police, courts,
penalties and prisons which serve as guidelines to distinguish between acceptable and
unacceptable behaviour. The objective is to create a general social climate environment for fear
of detection and prosecution which would reduce unlawful behaviour or activity.
In India, media projection of crimes done by juveniles in the year 2013, lead to a public opinion
to state that the Juvenile Justice Act has a lenient approach towards juveniles committing offences
and hence the need to communicate a stronger message to the children by making the provisions
more penal in nature. The objective of the same was “General Deterrence”.

Specific deterrence is a sentence intended to discourage the accused from again committing the
offence. It is individual focussed. They are those directed at particular crimes or social problems
that are perceived to be especially harmful. Here the measures to deter deviant or unlawful
behaviour will be more focused and the punishments tailored to the offence. Specific deterrence
measures can be found in many crime prevention and reduction settings. For example, the order
of “detention in Special homes” given to a juvenile is done with the expectation that he/she would
not recommit or reoffend.
 2.2. Positive School :
Jeremy Bentham, the main propagator of positive school was a British lawyer and philosopher.
His major work comprised of the book „Principles of Morals and Legislation‟ which speaks
about the philosophy of the „principle of utility‟. Principle of Utility states, human actions should
be judged moral or immoral by their effect on the happiness of the community. The real function
of legislature is thus to make laws aimed at maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain in society.
The difference between Positive school and Classical School are –
 Classical school held individual responsible for his or her action; while Positive school
sees behaviour as forced by outside causes beyond the control of individuals.
 Classical School held that raising pain would deter and alter behaviour; Positive School
believed in identifying and eliminating factors causing that behaviour i.e treatment and
rehabilitation.
Positive school believed that deviance is a result of multiple causes, series of event or
situation occurring over period of time. It treats deviance as similar to a medical professional
who approaches sickness. Positivist school emphasis not on offense, but on the offender,
his/her unique situation and various factors causing the individual to be an offender. Thus,
Positivism emerged as a dominant school of thought creating way for treatment and
rehabilitation for correcting circumstances of the individual.
The Juvenile Justice System in India can be understood in this light, as it too focuses on the
causes of delinquency and seeks ways to correct behaviour causing delinquency. In many
ways, criminal justice system in India is influenced by the classicism whereas the Juvenile
Justice System by the positivism.

2.2.1 Rational Choice Theory

"Rational choice" theory, was derived from the expected utility model in economics and stems
from the utilitarian philosophy of man being a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs
and benefits, and makes a rational choice to meet the offender‟s common needs for things such as
money, status, sex and excitement. (Heineke, Reynolds, 1985, as cited in Akers, 1990-1991)
The utility premise of rational choice theory has an obvious affinity for the deterrence doctrine in
criminology. Both theories assume that human actions are based on "rational" decisions-that is,
they are informed by the probable consequences of that action.
In India, the debates on treating children above 16 years of age and having committed a heinous
crime, as adults, and be given punishment in par with an adult saw two groups. Those in support
of this move, proposed the „deterrent model‟. While those resisting this change, debated using
the “rational choice” model to state if these young boys were rational human beings, they would
not have committed the act in the first place. As a matter of fact, no one be it an adult is also a
rational human being. Some of the rational choice models of crime in the literature have been
expanded beyond the basic expected utility proposition to include family and peer influences,
moral judgments, and other variables. For example, a factor like social influence is likely to be
more important than moral credibility to teenagers, due to their developmental psychology.
Thus, the literature in criminology emphasizes limitations and constraints on rationality through
lack of information, structural constraints, values, and other "non-rational" influences. The
rational choice models go well beyond this to paint a picture of partial rationality with various
situational and cognitive constraints and deterministic notions of causes and motivations. The
primary concepts and valid postulates of deterrence and rational choice are subsumable under
general social learning or behavioral principles. (Parsons, Shils, 1951, as cited in Akers, 1990)

2.2.2 Biological and Socio-biological Theories

Cesare Lombroso, father of modern criminology, based his ideas on Charles Darwin`s theory of
the survival of species and viewed criminals as throwbacks to an earlier state of human existence.
These individuals were not as physically or mentally advanced as the rest of society. His theory
states that individuals committing crimes have inherited biochemical and genetic factors which
came to be known as the Biological explanation / theory to crime. "Biological" theory in
criminology ascribes considerable importance to genetic inheritance of criminal disposition as
well as to a genetic anomaly in human chromosomes. Biological Theory considers delinquent
behavior as predisposed and revolves around the idea that children are born to be criminals.
Lombroso believed that the ultimate roots of crime lie in the atavistic, or ape-like, qualities that
generally reflected the physical features of the apes from whom man was a descendant. He called
them “born criminals”. In a study of incarcerated offenders, Lombroso (1876) noted that more
than 40 percent of the criminals had five or more atavistic traits. The remaining criminals fell into
categories of “criminaloids” and “insane”. Criminaloids were individuals who entered criminal
activity due to a variety of factors including mental, physical, and social conditions that, when
occurring at the same time, would trigger deviant behaviour (Vold, Bernard, 1986). Insane
criminals included idiots and mentally deranged individuals. Lombroso`s work led to a great deal
of controversy. His failure to include a control group of non-criminals meant that he was unable
to state whether the results would be different if he studied people in the general public.
The research conducted by Lombroso and his followers were not persuasive because the people
selected for the comparisons were rarely used and their direct connection between physical
features and criminality were never scientifically established. Besides, Lombroso did not use any
non-criminal control groups to establish whether the „atavistic‟ features he identified were
confined to the criminal population.
In India, the Bollywood movies in the 80‟s and 90‟s used to project villains as people who looked
different and did not confirm to social norms of looks.
2.2.3. Sheldon’s theory of somatotypes
Wilson Sheldon (1949) advanced the theory that shares with Lombroso‟s idea, that criminal
behaviour is linked to a person‟s physical form and attempted to relate body traits systematically
with delinquency. Somatotype is the overall shape of the body, in consideration of the relative
development of the various parts of the body in comparison with each other. Sheldon identified
three basic somatotypes and related temperaments- ectomorph (thin), endomorph (fat) and
mesomorph (muscular). This findings were based on his observations of delinquents in a
residential facility. Sheldon found that mesomorphic characteristics were most prevalent and
ectomorphic features were the least common. He concluded that mesomorphic individuals were
more likely to commit delinquent acts than were other youths.

Further investigation of somatotypes and delinquency conducted by Gleucks (1956) revealed that
delinquency is caused by a combination of environmental, biological and psychological factors.
From their exhaustive research, they concluded that there is no such thing as a „delinquent
personality”. However, Mosomorphs, may be more delinquent than other body types because
their physical and psychological traits equip them well for a delinquent role under the pressure of
unfavourable socio cultural conditions …” (Glueck and Glueck, 1956 quoted from Shoemaker
2005)

2.3 Genetic-Inheritance Studies

The debate between heredity vs environment, nature versus nurture, as the primary cause of
behaviour has occupied the attention of social and behavioural theories for hundreds of years. It
began with Lombroso‟s claims of having discovered the “born Criminal”, post which several
studies were undertaken to establish this relation. Biological explanations or Epidemiological
evidence that genetic factors contribute to criminal behavior come from three sources: family,
twin, and adoption studies. The limitation of family studies is the inability to separate the genetic
and environmental sources of variation. Therefore, given the limited utility of family studies to
separate issues of nature versus nurture, only twin studies and adoption studies are mentioned
here.
2.3.1 Twin Studies
Several studies on monozygotic and dizygotic twins emerged to find the link of genetic
component to behaviour. The logic behind these studies was that hereditary influence on
behaviour can be best understood by studying twins. If heredity influences behaviour more than
the environment, concordance rates should be higher among identical twins than among fraternal
twins or siblings.
Majority of these studies reached the conclusion that higher rates of concordance were found
among identical twins than among fraternal twins or siblings (Cortes and Gatti, 1972, 1977; Vold
and Bernard, 1986). However, the authors also concluded that juvenile delinquency, particularly
female delinquency, is largely attributable to environmental factors. These twin studies have
faced criticisms for the following reasons (1) the use of small number of twin pairs, which
prevents adequate statistical comparisons; (2) the difficulty in accurately determining whether
twins are monozygotic or dizygotic; (3) the exclusive use of official definitions of crime and
delinquency: (4) the inadequate control of environmental factors, particularly since these may
affect identical twins and twins reared apart (Sutherland and Cressey, 1978)
Later studies also suggested that genetic factors have an influence on the action of individuals.
However these studies are highly suspected on grounds of not taking DNA testing, small and
insignificant relationships and lastly lack in control over any environmental influences.
2.3.2 Adoption studies
Many studies have been composed to attempt to discover if children who are at risk for antisocial
personality disorder are more likely to develop symptoms in an adoptive family environment, or
if that environment will protect them from the disorder's development. It has been shown through
these various studies that antisocial personality disorder is, indeed, more likely to present itself in
adoptees that already have biological risk factors (at least one biological parent had a background
of criminality or antisocial personality disorder). The adoptees that are born with no risk of
developing the disorder do not usually develop it while living in an adoptive environment. The
adoptive family environment combining with the pre-existing biological risk seems to make
antisocial personality disorder quite prevalent among adoptees (Roth & Finley, 1998).
It was also found that adoptees experienced an even higher risk for antisocial personality disorder
if both their biological parents and their adoptive parents came from criminal backgrounds.
However, methodological problems exist with these kinds of studies because there are so many
factors to consider. For example, it has yet to be clarified whether this disorder is more likely to
be carried through the biological mother, or the biological father.
Most of these adoption studies were conducted using only information from the biological
mother, and not the other half of the equation: the biological father. Information is also vague
regarding a criminal background as an instant checkmark for antisocial personality disorder in
biological and adoptive parents. It is often assumed that the existence of a biological parent's
criminal background immediately means that that parent has antisocial personality disorder, and
also has definitely passed it down to the adopted-away offspring. The problem is, it also cannot
be assumed that the lack of a criminal background points to a lack of the disorder itself (Roth &
Finley, 1998). With all of these discrepancies and uncertainties, it is undoubtedly a complex
process to try to figure out what factor has the most effect on the development of antisocial
personality disorder.
Other Genetical reasons that explained crime were –
2.3.3 Chromosomes
Human cells normally have 22 pairs of chromosomes, plus a pair of chromosomes that
determines sex, for a total of 46. Sex chromosomes are termed X and Y. Females carry a
combination of XX, and males carry a combination of XY. During conception, the male‟s sperm
carries genetic material to the female‟s egg. If the sperm that fertilizes a female egg is carrying a
Y chromosome, the resulting embryo will develop into a male fetus (XY). If the sperm is carrying
an X chromosome, the resulting embryo will develop into a female fetus (XX).
During this process, however, things can develop abnormally. For example, during the process,
some men are left with an extra Y chromosome (XYY). Erroneously termed XYY syndrome, a
“supermale” carrying this chromosomal pattern usually has a normal appearance and will
probably never know that he carries an extra Y chromosome, unless he is genetically tested for
some other reason. Given the Y chromosome‟s association with the male sex and with increased
production in testosterone, many claims have been made in the research literature that XYY
males are more aggressive and more violent. This supposition has not been supported with
scientifically valid research.
Scientific progress made inquiry into genetic correlates of behavior more precise and less
speculative. Although scholars are reluctant to associate criminal behavior with any specific gene,
researchers continue to investigate the inheritability of behavioral traits.
2.3.4 Neurotransmitters
Neurotransmitters are molecules that are used to signal between neurons in the central nervous
system. A neurotransmitter released from one neuron affects the functioning of adjacent neurons.
Numerous studies have examined the neurotransmitter serotonin in criminal groups. In a review
of the literature, (Berman and Coccaro 1998 cited from Rudo et al 2011) conclude that reduced
serotonin activity is related to aggressive behavior, particularly in those who commit or attempt to
commit crimes with significant potential for harming others, such as arson and homicide. In a
meta-analysis by (Moore, Scarpa, and Raine 2002 cited from Rudo et al 2011), the effect size for
the relationship between the serotonin metabolite 5-HIAA levels and antisocial behavior was -
0.45. In addition to studies that have established a relationship between serotonin and antisocial
behavior, one study found that antidepressants, which increase serotonin, reduce aggression in
humans (Coccaro & Kavoussi 1997 cited from Rudo et al 2011).
A molecular genetics study by Sadeh et a1. 2010 (cited from Rudo et al 2011) found that the
psychopathic traits "callous-unemotional" and "narcissicm" were associated with SES in youth
with two "long" variants of the serotonin transporter gene polymorphism. This gene variant is
thought to alter the serotonin system, although the exact effect on serotonin transmission in the
brain is not clear. Overall, these studies suggest that alterations in serotonergic function may
confer risk for antisocial behavior by heightening vulnerability to environmental stress. Overall,
these findings suggest that hormones and neurotransmitters often interact with social and
environmental factors to increase the likelihood of antisocial behavior. The mechanisms by which
hormones and neurotransmitters may interact with social factors to result in antisocial behavior
are not well understood, so future studies will be necessary to further elucidate these
relationships. Increasing our understanding of how biological and social factors interact will
likely have implications for the prevention and treatment of crime.
2.2.2.6 Hormones and Aggression
The normal function of the body is the secretion of various hormones. This natural chemical
stimulus helps growth, reproduction and functioning of central nervous system. The endocrine
system produces several hundred hormones in response to nerve and chemical signals and to
perceptual cues, which interact with each other and with the nervous system. Hormones regulate
short-term processes, such as the nearly immediate responses to an external threat, and longer-
term processes, such as sex differentiation, maturation and reproduction increase.
During the preschool and early elementary school years testosterone levels are low in boys and
girls. During adolescence testosterone production surges, on average 10-fold in males and two- or
three-fold in females (see Figure 1). These changes are implicated in the emergence of secondary
sexual characteristics that include ripening sexual apparatus, male musculature, body hair and
deepening voice. Fully adequate male sexual behavior requires a minimal amount of testosterone,
but beyond that, variations in hormone level are not reliably related to sexuality (or to
homosexuality). Testosterone levels reach a peak in young adult male As per Shah and Roth, 1974
most attention was focused on reproductive hormones to understand deviance. Androgen the male
sex hormone present in testosterone has been found related to aggressive behaviour in animals.
Studies used as evidence that higher testosterone associated with pubertal development is linked
to aggression in youth are not clear cut. Two studies by Olweus and his colleagues (1980, 1988
cited from Booth et al 2006 ) and another by Mattsson, Schalling, Olweus, Low and Svensson
(1980 cited from Booth et al 2006) are often interpreted as evidence of a testosterone-aggression
link. But their data do not support such a conclusion. A comparison of samples of institutionalized
delinquent boys and non- delinquent high school students revealed that testosterone was slightly
higher in the delinquent sample, but the difference was not statistically significant. The delinquent
sample of youth who were incarcerated for violent crimes had slightly higher testosterone levels
than those institutionalized for non-violent offenses, but again the difference was not statistically
significant. Staff and professional evaluations of aggressiveness were also unrelated to
testosterone levels. Testosterone-related differences in aggression in the non-delinquent sample
were studied as well. None were statistically significant. The only difference manifested was that
adolescents with higher testosterone were more likely to respond more vigorously in response to
challenges from teachers and peers. The vigorous response finding is consistent with our assertion
that testosterone is linked with aggression only when it is part of dominance behaviour

Summing up studies on genetic-inheritence: In sum, there is a large body of evidence

supporting the interacting roles of biological and social factors in criminal behavior. Pre- and
peri-natal factors, such as prenatal exposure to nicotine and alcohol and birth complications, have
been found to predict crime, particularly in the context of familial adversity and other
psychosocial risk factors. Genetics research has reported heritability estimates of about 40-60
percent for crime, and specific genotypes, such as that conferring high levels of MAO-A, may be
protective in adverse environments, at least for some populations. High levels of testosterone and
low levels of cortisol may predispose to crime, and these hormones appear to interact with each
other and with social risk factors to predict antisocial behavior. Brain imaging research has found
an association between decreased prefrontal cortex function and violence, and this pattern has
been reported to interact with psychosocial adversity, such that murderers from good homes are
more likely to show this brain deficit. Psychophysiological studies have found a similar
relationship, in which the relationship between factors such as low heart rate and aggression is
found only in those from benign backgrounds. Additionally, poor neuropsychological functioning
is a risk factor for antisocial behavior, but good neuropsychological functioning is protective in
the context of adversity. Although more work remains in clarifying these findings, especially with
respect to how they apply to different types of offending (e.g., violent versus nonviolent,
premeditated versus impulsive), the discovery of biosocial interactions using such a wide variety
of measures lends support to the biosocial perspective on crime.