Criminology

This document discusses the causes of youth offending and the justice perspective in criminology. It also includes a case study of a young offender and their rights in police custody.

Running Head: CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology
Name
Institution

CRIMINOLOGY 2
Community
PART A
Question #1
The punishing of a person convicted of a crime is hugely motivated by three primary key
elements: deterrence, retribution, as well as rehabilitation. For young offenders, the doctrine of
rehab is frequently consigned the highest significance. Using the full vigour of the criminal rule
to young offenders, especially children have long been thought to be contentious. Thus, in the
United Kingdom (UK), the age of criminal liability is 10 years in England and Wales. The
difference in ages have been a response to the types of concerns on the welfare models originally
designed to avert young offenders from the criminal justice system to more “treatment-based
programs, which acknowledge the susceptibility of children plus young individuals. The most
effective approach is the “justice” (Young, Greer & Church, 2017).
Aristotle (384-322BC) believed that justice comprises of giving individuals what they
deserve, and that a just society is one, which allows its people to accomplish their greatest nature
and to live a good life. In the book “Justice” authored by Michael Sandel, the writer mentions
that justice may approached by respecting the individual freedom, in this case, young offenders’
freedom. This underscores the fact that the “justice” approach best articulates for the rights of
young offenders as it emphasizes on their rights. Justice as a model has been found to work best
in helping the young offenders get their rights. The “welfare” approach is founded on the
assumption that intervention must be founded on meeting the young persons’ needs other than
punishing their actions. The justice model promotes the legal rights of the young offenders that

CRIMINOLOGY 3
limit higher state intervention. This approach allows the system to determine child’s “best
interests” that will eventually promote the legal and judicial safeguards. The approach
underscore the fact that all young criminals should be held accountable plus reprimanded for the
criminal acts, nom matter what their age. Additionally, the impact was that the “approaches
imposed on young offenders-(other than child-) oriented and that young offenders may; thus, be
legitimately punished for they have committed. The “justice” strongly emphasizes due process
and accountability, where the number of young offenders has been seen to decline than in the
welfare system that have seen to be ineffective in addressing the offences of young offenders in
the criminal justice system. The justice approach will ensure that young offenders are not
rehabilitated but given their rights on the crimes they committed. This implies that effectiveness
of the justice approach provides legal safeguards by making sure that the rights of young
offenders against arbitrary or unequal types of punishment (Young, Greer & Church, 2017).
Question #2
Young offending has become a major issue that have guided theories and debates on
juvenile delinquency in the society between criminologists, psychologists, as well as
sociologists. Several people have developed diverse views regarding the causes of youth
offending that have continued to increase in the modern society. There are many theories that
have been put forward to explain the causes of juvenile delinquency or youth offending, whereby
the theories range from classical to contemporary theories. Many philosophers have developed
different explanations attempting to examine the trends of youth offending. There are many
social-based theories that explain young offending and traditional and contemporary perspective.

CRIMINOLOGY 4
The two theories that best explain causes of youth offending are strain/institutional anomie
theory and disorganization theory (Krohn & Ward, 2015).
Strain/Institutional Anomie Theory
The strain/institutional anomie theory that was coined by Robert Merton in 1940s
explains the causes of juvenile delinquency. The theory explains that young people commit
crimes since they do have sufficient resources to meet their needs and make them happy. This
implies that the needs of the young persons are not met and they explore other means to meet
these needs including committing crimes. Many societies have seen declining number of youths
in schools to get what the society expects them to have and they end up committing crimes.
These youths will find substitute methods through crimes to attain what is anticipated by them by
the society (McNeeley, 2014). Furthermore, the strain theory emphasizes that many youths have
similar goals, values, as well as motivations; nonetheless, many youths do not have similar
capability to attain these goals, such as economic and social accomplishment. These differences
among these young persons and their limited opportunities to achieve them will create
displeasure. Because chances are more open to the upper in addition to middle-class individuals,
those in the lower class encounters frustration the most leading to diverse delinquent behaviours
via general strain theory (Liqun, Ruohui, Ling & Zhao, 2009). Thus, strain as the demonstration
of pessimistic stimuli, like child abuse, physical retribution, family plus peer conflicts, traumatic
life and criminal discrimination leading to young offending. Many studies have shown that strain
or pressure, such as family separation, unemployment, migration and emotions of dissatisfaction
with school plus friends are classically linked to criminal behaviour amongst young persons
(Kim, Akers & Yun, 2013).

CRIMINOLOGY 5
Social Disorganization Theory
Clifford and McKay Henry developed the social disorganization theory that is closely
connected to juvenile crime because of the social disorganization present in then society. The
social disorganization is due to environmental aspects, which surround the community. Social
disorganization is the inability of the particular society to organize itself because of the
environmental changes (Maimon & Browning, 2010). This theory emphasizes that the social
disorganization would lead to novel social groupings in the society with low-income populaces
living in one neighbourhood and vice versa. These individuals usually demonstrate a higher
population turnover leading to overcrowding, as well as eventually leading to denial of their
economic empowerment. This will imply that these individuals will become poorer and
embrace morally wrong behaviours including committing crimes. Youths that live in these
neighbourhoods will develop criminal behaviours because of the nature of the surroundings in
order to survive. The young people will feel pressured by life due to low socioeconomic status
and eventually commit crimes that will become the usual trend. The young persons will be
interacting with others and learn diverse behaviours , whereby the negative neighbourhood
environmental trends are normally related to upper crime rates among the juveniles as social
disorganization lead to such group of societies that fashioned new social standing, specifically
those from low-income population (Botchkovar, Marshall, Rocque & Posick, 2015)..
PART B-Case Study
Question #3

CRIMINOLOGY 6
The case of Shaun is best explained through the justice perspective regarding the
behaviour she exhibits as a young offender. The justice clear promotes the due process and that
the right treatment is administered rather than exposing his to unequal punishment because of her
behaviour that has become recurrent and has made her to be arrested for many instances. The
justice perspective encourage the use of proper legal procedures to make sure that the offender
gets justice through the legal process and that the offenders’ rights will be promoted. Since
Shaun pleaded guilty for her offenses of the possession of the Class A drugs, thus her rights
should be promoted by ensuring that she gets the justice as a young offender. The current system
that Shaun was subjected ensured that the due process was followed and that all the processes
were made sure it was in accordance to the law. This was meant ensure that the rights of the
offender are not violated and that the rights were respected through the law. Additionally, the
justice perspective usually ensures that the “best interests” of the offender are respected as in the
case of Shaun. It is apparent in the case study that Shaun committed crimes because of the
motivation for money as the situation compelled her to do so. The detention and rehabilitation of
Shaun was clearly based on the laws that ensured that the punishment reflected the crime that
was committed by Shaun (Akers, 2009).
Additionally, Shaun has been subjected to full court process that will ensure that the due
process will be followed. The court process ensured that the rights of Shaun are not violated and
that he gets the needed justice eventually. The court process that Shaun was subjected ensured
that the rights of Shaun as a young offender are not violated and that the right punishment is
administered. The justice perspective ensures that the rights of the offender are not violated as it
is evident in the case of Shaun. Shaun was given guarded interview session that was clear

CRIMINOLOGY 7
protection of his rights to privacy (Bateman, 2014). The protection was in line with law and was
expected to promote the privacy of the interview. Also, the issue of informed consent was
evident in the case of Shaun and this emphasizing of the justice perspective as this was the right
of the offender. Shaun was now 17 years old and the law recognized her as a mature person to
make informed decisions on the criminal offenses committed. He was ready to make informed
decisions as a young offender. The failure to live with the community ‘expectations after
attaining educational qualifications whilst in custody shows that the rehabilitation was
ineffective and that welfare perspective could not adequately explain the case of Shaun’s case.
Shaun has shown that he was non-compliance and rehabilitation was not effective in addressing
issues of re-offending. This is better captured by the social disorganization theory that explains
that Shaun might experiencing economic challenges and needed empowerment, but this was not
available and made him re-offend as a young offender. This is clearly captured by the justice
perspective that allowed the due process to take its course and this made it possible to be
punished for the crimes he had committed including robbery cases (Young, Greer & Church,
2017).
The justice perspective will further that the interests of the offender are taken into
consideration and that one should be convicted for crimes committed. This was in the case of
Shaun because there was no evidence to show that he was using Class A drugs form his past
Youth Offending records and by own admission of only smoking cannabis. This implies the law
will ensure that the crime of using cannabis will prevail because there was evidence to show the
same. In addition, Shaun was not using these drugs because of other reasons, but for financial
gain. Shaun’s offending pattern has been financially promoted as due to past robberies

CRIMINOLOGY 8
committed. The law show clearly understands why Shaun has been committing crimes based on
the different theories. Shaun committed crimes because of the issues of the family as he had a
long history of estrangement from his family and from the tender age she has been surviving by
becoming involved in crimes. This is supported by the strain theory that maintains the young
people like Shaun commit crime because of family pressures that make them too look for
substitutes to meet their goals. These individuals will opt to crimes to survive in the society like
the case of Shaun. Therefore, the justice perspective should better understand the reasons Shaun
is committing crimes and developed the necessary punishment to these specific crimes rather
than suggesting rehabilitation that will not help (Higgins, Jennings, Marcum, Ricketts &
Mahoney, 2011).
Question #4
There are a number of rights that Shaun should have been entitled to while being held in
the police station. Shaun should be entitled to free legal advice while he was in police custody.
The suspect should always be accorded free legal advice following an arrest and before one is
questioned at the police station. Therefore, Shaun should have been given free legal advice as a
young offender in the police station after he was arrested. In addition, the legal advice was
necessary for Shaun before he was questioned at the police station. It was evident in the police
station that he was involved in guarded interview in the absence of legal counsellor to ensure that
he responded adequately to the questions by the police officer. The police should have availed
station’s duty solicitor who is available 24 hours in a day and self-governing of the police. Thus,
this would be done through a phone rather than a duty solicitor because the crimes Shaun had
committed as a minor (Young, Greer & Church, 2017).

CRIMINOLOGY 9
Shaun was entitled to right to information while in the police custody. The right to data
on criminal proceedings makes sure that each arrested individual knows why they have been
arrested plus the accessible evidence that has been gathered against the suspect. Shaun should
have been informed on what evidence was available and the offences against him by accessing
the case file. This will include information like one’s own rights in case of arrest, like the right to
remain silent or the right to answer to consult legal representative. Shaun had the right to be
served with written rights so that he could understand his rights while in custody.
Shaun had the right to contact “appropriate adult” that may be the parent, guardian, or a
carer because he was only 17 years when he was arrested by the police officers. Shaun should be
entitled to an option of looking for an “appropriate adult” to come to the police station to help
him plus be there during interviewing plus searching. The “appropriate” should be someone aged
18 years and above. The “appropriate adult” is bound by legal privilege so that means anything
to Shaun can say in private is not confidential and they may be questioned by the police as
whiteness or in court, regarding what was discussed.
The period of custody at the police station is consideration that should entitled to Shaun
while in custody at the police station. Shaun has legal right to be released and taken to court after
24 hours after arriving at the police station. The police officers should only detain a suspect for
not more than 24 hours before he/she is released. Detaining a suspect at the police station for
more than 24 hours will amount to the violation of his rights. The police work to a “detention
clock” that begins once the person arrives at the police station. In the case of Shaun, he was in
custody for more than 24 hours and this violated his fundamental rights. This is an important
right since holding a person for more than 24 hours will be violating the rights and Shaun

CRIMINOLOGY 10
through his lawyer should have taken legal action against the police unless Shaun was
intoxicated while arriving at the police station.
Question #5
Risk Assessment
The case of Shaun youth offending presents many challenges to the community as a
whole. The exposure to criminal court itself seems to have a harmful impact on youth offending.
Mental problems among young offenders are more prevalent that places more burden to the
community in attempting to meet the needs of these youths who have mental challenges. Many
youths will abandon their education because of the mental problems and depend more on the
society because their needs are often unmet. In regard to other kinds of disorders, mood disorders
can be linked to violent offending in instances in which the mood disorders is linked to hostility
in the community. In some instances, mental disorder cannot be linked to actual offending;
however, youths along with adults with mental problems wind up in the criminal justice systems
as a result of the absence of community mental heath services. The community should shoulder
the costs of rehabilitating the likes of Shaun because of the mental problems that make them to
offend. The community will need to develop better interventions to deal with re-offending youths
in the community and this will mean strain on the accessible resources. There is evidence that
demonstrate that the majority of the risk assessment schemes must have an item(s) related to
attention problems, as well as impulsive behaviour (Olver, Stockdale & Wormith, 2009).
The growing trend of offending will result in the insecurity of the neighbourhood in the
community and result in fears by the members of the society. Youth offenders such as Shaun will

CRIMINOLOGY 11
likely to carry more robberies and even killings in the community resulting in the loss of life and
property. This will greatly undermine the security of the community and negative impact the
achievements that have been attained in the community. In addition, juvenile offenders have
attracted labelling, stigmatization and pessimistic self-image linked to criminal conviction,
however too the practical results of sentence, which include variety of offending peers in the
community level. Also, imprisonment presents much extra harm to the community, comprising
disturbance of care, as well as pro-social associations, discontinuity of schooling, relationship
with offending peers, as well as contact to violent behaviours that affects the community in one
way or another (Kinner, Degenhardt, Coffey, Sawyer, Hearps & Patton, 2014).
Conclusion
Several youth offenders are as well victims of multifaceted needs, resulting in public
health strategy, which needs equilibrium between welfare plus justice systems. The UK along
with other high-income nations globally have developed forensic child and teenager
psychotherapy , a complex discipline that integrates legal , psychiatric, as well as developmental
domains. While using risk-based or other strategies to enlighten rehab planning, it must be
considered that some youth will cease from criminal acts without any form of intervention. Thus,
there is too proof that demonstrate that the drawing of youth who carry out low-level crimes into
the official youth justice system can augment their felonious acts. Thus, diversionary strategies,
which include restorative justice that direct these people away from the official justice system,
can be suitable for some young persons. This is supported by the fact that justice perspective
better provides the needed solution to the youth offending problem rather than the welfare
perspective. Within the community, efficient programmes may be characterized by powerful

CRIMINOLOGY 12
inter-agency collaboration, which are well-managed, with proper strategic leadership. The
community-based interventions tend to more efficient than custody. Youths like Shaun would;
nevertheless, all the time need to be sentenced to guardianship and they are more liable than
those than need thorough intervention.
Proposal Sentence
Family-based restorative interventions, which draw on the community and too take into
consideration broader offense needs may be efficient and deliver an optimistic net return on
investment.

CRIMINOLOGY 13
References
Akers, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and
deviance. New Brunswick [N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Bateman, T. (2014). Where has all the youth crime gone? Youth justice in an age of austerity.
Child Soc. 28(2): 416–24.
Botchkovar, E., Marshall, I. H., Rocque, M., & Posick, C. (2015). The Importance of Parenting
in the Development of Self-Control in Boys and Girls: Results from a Multinational
Study of Youth. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2), 133-141.
Higgins, G. E., Jennings, W. G., Marcum, C. D., Ricketts, M. L., & Mahoney, M. (2011).
Developmental trajectories of nonsocial reinforcement and offending in adolescence and
young adulthood: An exploratory study of an understudied part of social learning theory.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 60-66.
Kim, E., Akers, R. L., & Yun, M. (2013). A Cross-Cultural Test of Social Structure and Social
Learning: Alcohol Use among South Korean Adolescents. Deviant Behavior, 34(11),
895-915.
Kinner, S.A., Degenhardt, L., Coffey, C., Sawyer, S., Hearps, S. & Patton, G. (2014). Complex
health needs in the youth justice system: a survey of community-based and custodial
offenders. J Adolesc Health . 54(2): 521–6.
Krohn, M., & Ward, J. T. (2015). Integrating Criminological Theories. In the Handbook of
Criminological Theory (pp. 318-335). John Wiley & Sons.

CRIMINOLOGY 14
Liqun C., Ruohui Z., Ling R & Zhao, J. S. (2009). Social Support and Anomie: A Multilevel
Analysis of Anomie in Europe and North America. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(4), 625-639.
Maimon, D., & Browning, C. R. (2010). Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and
violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology, 48(2), 443-474.
McNeeley, S. (2014). Lifestyle-Routine Activities and Crime Events. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 31(1), 30-52.
Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, J. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders:
A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(2):329-
353.
Young, S., Greer, B. & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic
interventions: a global perspective. BJPsych Bull. 41(1): 21–29.

CRIMINOLOGY 15