In America, children as young as three years of age could be brought
before the court, while in England a girl of seven was hanged. In
Massachusetts, in 1871, 1,354 boys and 109 girls were handled by the
courts. Reform schools proliferated during the 19th century and were
criticized for failing to prevent the apparent increase in delinquency.
Reformers called “child savers†- believed that juveniles required
non-instructional treatment that would reflect the natural family
(Platt, 1969).
This legal and humanitarian concern for the
well-being of children led to the establishment of the first juvenile
court in Cook County Illinois, in 1899. By 1925, all but two states had
followed the Illinois example. Thus, it seems fair to say that the idea
of juvenile, delinquency is a relatively modern construction, a notion
shared by writers such as Gibbons and Krohn (1991), Empey (1982), and
Short (1990). The data on delinquency, however, are not limited to the
legal status of juvenile delinquency, because counsellors are just as
interested in unofficial as in official acts of delinquency.
Moreover, the gender debate on juvenile delinquency has concluded that
the phenomenon does not vary by sex as male and female juveniles engage
in delinquent acts. However, male rates in cases of juvenile delinquency
are almost the same for the female, especially for sex offences,
truancy and incorrigible conducts, but differ in other delinquent
tendencies such as stealing and aggregated assault (Iwarimie – Jaja
1999:43).
Sequel from the above background information, this
study will attempt to focus on the trends, patterns and factors
responsible for juvenile delinquency. It will also show how
socio-biological and psychological conditions can have expulsive effects
on the child and make for engagement in delinquent activities.
Furthermore, the essential purpose of this study is to reformulate and
apply to our society the theoretical framework which writers who have
studied juvenile delinquency have used. In this way, the study intend to
adopt a holistic or multidisciplinary approach for the explanation of
juvenile delinquency.
Statement of the Problem
The problem
of juvenile delinquency has engaged the attention of various scholars
especially in the developed countries. Without mincing words, juvenile
delinquency has “calamitous effects†in our contemporary societies.
Efforts to discover its causes/roots reveal that it is an endless effort
to attribute its roots/causes to a single factor such as poverty,
family environment, biochemical make-up, genetic factors to mention but a
few.
The nature and scope of the juvenile delinquency vary from
non-violent, to violent and from minor to serious offences. They include
minor or single offences like cheating, fighting, lying, truancy and
stealing to serious offences such as murder, arson, burglary,
destruction of property and armed robbery. It also includes acts of
drunkenness, alcoholism, prostitution, drug trafficking and peddling;
fraudulent practices, bribery, corruption and counter feinting. For
these acts of infringement, “the delinquent child is not tried under the
criminal laws, but by the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which must
do everything possible to help the child, because of the presumption
that he/she is immature and lacks criminal intent (Iwarimie – Jaja,
1999:41).
There is no gain-saying the fact that delinquent
juveniles are likely to graduate into adult criminals. Iwarimie – Jaja
(1999) explains the link between juvenile delinquency and adult
criminality. That is, to explain the process that are involved when a
juvenile or a young person who has been involved in delinquency or has
been associated with delinquent gangs or friends, and/or have been
processed through the Nigerian Criminal Justice System and have
continued to commit delinquency until he becomes an adult, or even stops
his delinquent acts or association with delinquent or criminal friends,
but suddenly begins to commit crime when he reaches adult age.
Studies by Wolfgang and his associates (1972) supported the linkage
between juvenile delinquency and adult criminality. Wolfgang and his
associates (1972) studied criminal careers of cohort boys (9,945) born
in 1945 and followed their criminal activities until when they became 18
– year – old in 1963. From official police records in their
Philadelphia study, they discovered that their sample contained 3,475
boys with police contact, 1862 delinquent youths were recidivists, 1,613
of them were first time offenders. 1,862 of them were first time
offenders. 1,235 of them had been in police custody more than once but
less than five, times, while 627 of them had been arrested five times or
more. According to Wolfgang et.al 1972, the 627 delinquent recidivists
with arrest record of five times or more account for 5,305 offences or
51% of all offences in the area. These offenders are identified as the
chronic offender committed serious crimes; 69% of the aggravated
assaults, 71% of the homicides, 73% of the rapes, and 83% of the
robberies.
Wolfgang and associates in a second study (Birth
Cohort II) used a larger sample of youths (males and females) born in
Philadelphia in 1958. They found that the 1958 cohort of youths was
significantly more involved in serious crime than the 1945 group, their
violent offence rate is 149 per 1,000 in the sample (i.e. three times
higher) than the rate for the 1945 group (which is 47per 1,000
subjects). However, the 1945 cohort study found that crime offenders
dominate the total crime rate and continue their law violating career as
adults.
Indeed, Iwarmie Jaja’s study (1999) shows also that
juvenile recidivists are the ones that mature to become armed robbers.
As he puts it:
No individual gets up one day and decides to rob a
bank or a residence armed with a gun. This is because armed robbery is a
high-level criminal act which criminals must graduate into commit
either individually or in gang context (Iwanmie – Jaja, 1999: 72).