Forensic Psychology For Dummies (149 page)
Read Forensic Psychology For Dummies Online
Authors: David Canter
Sometimes, people (perhaps the parents) claim that a child ‘got in with the wrong crowd’; in other words, the child’s friends and associates led him astray and so are to blame. But in fact a dysfunctional family life aggravates this process. When the relationship between the parents and child is poor – for example, with little interaction between them and when the interaction that does exist doesn’t support the child and is full of conflict – it increases the child’s search for significance among other children. In addition, the aggressive style of interaction characteristic of such families is mirrored in the child’s interaction with peers, so that other children who aren’t comfortable with that behaviour reject the child. He then drifts into contact with deviant children and by this route can find his way into drug and alcohol abuse, theft and violent offending.
Dealing with delinquency
As I describe in Chapter 2, males are most likely to commit crimes. Research reveals that boys who get involved in crime do so at a younger age than girls and their crimes include violence much more often than girls.
The high number of youngsters who carry out some sort of criminal activity is surprising. For example, Sweden isn’t known for its high crime rate, but in one recent survey over half the boys questioned admitted theft and only slightly fewer girls. Also, about one in five boys reported committing a violent offence, but less than one in ten girls.
In the US, gang culture is an important aspect of youth offending. Among 17-year-olds, about 1 out of every 12 declares that they’re in a gang; almost one in five reports having sold drugs and carried a gun. These young gang members appear to be responsible for a high proportion of violent and non-violent offences in the US.
Youthful offending therefore appears to be rather common, but only a small minority of people who commit some sort of offence as youngsters go on to be criminals as adults. It is those who commit a number of offences who are most likely to drift into a criminal career. The task for the authorities is to distinguish between those juvenile delinquents who are on a path to serious crime and those who’re exhibiting youthful exuberance and impulsivity. Often the difference lies in the family’s reactions to the youngster’s misdemeanours, as I emphasise throughout this chapter.
When thinking of children as criminals, the legal requirement of
mens rea
(the child knew what he was doing and that it was wrong; see Chapter 1 for more) has to be taken into account. This may mean the child can’t be tried at all or that, in very serious crimes, they have to go through a process that is very similar to what adults experience, but then
mens rea
becomes a crucial part of the trial and can be difficult to establish with a young person. The individual may not be able to express thoughts or feelings clearly, or even to have an effective understanding of what has gone on, and may be confused by the questioning process.
Many jurisdictions therefore have a blanket assumption that children below a specific age can’t be regarded as being responsible for their actions. The curious fact is that this age of criminal responsibility varies considerably from place to place (and some countries don’t bother to specify any age at all). Some countries have ages that vary (the US age ranges from 6 to 12 years old across different states and Iran shows its sexist attitudes by using 9 years old for girls and 15 years old for boys).
7 years old: India