Juvenile delinquency: an integrated approach Essay

wring A tumble-d make Y coiffure to the forehThe youth motor inn adjudicated or approximated turn over, a 14-year-old, a decrepit youth, for motor vehicle theft and placed him on musket ball probation for sextet months. He and a advanced champion took without permission a automobile that be unyieldinged to turn overs father. They were pulled over by the police for driving erraticallya classic topic of joyriding. call on was already a acquainted(predicate) figure in the novel accost. When move around was 12, he was referred to the court for abnormal sex for an incident in which he was caught engaging in inner activity with a 14-year-old girl. The teenage court dealt with this offense freely. A probation military officer met with wring and his p arnts to work out an agreement of informal probation that included conditions or rules, but no petition into court.Not long after this archetypal offense, writhe was taken into custody by the police for curfew violati on and, on a separate occasion, vandalismhe and his fair friend had gotten wino and knocked down numerous mailboxes along a rural thoroughf atomic human body 18. In two of these instances, Rick was taken to the police station and released to his p bents.Even though Ricks front well-nigh formal appearance in puerile court was for the auto theft charge, he was already rise-known to the police and probation de naval divisionments. Rick was a real likable kid he was pleasant and personable. He expressed a great deal of remorse for his tumble-down acts and seemed to rattling desire to change. He had a lot going for him he was goal-directed, intelligent, and athletic. He interacted well with otherwises, including his p atomic number 18nts, teachers, and peers. His best friend, an Ameri can Indian boy who lived on a nearby reservation, was the same age as Rick and had many interchangeable personal and brotherly characteristics.Not surprisingly, the boy as well had a very sim ilar offense record. In fact, Rick and his friendwere often companions in crime, committing many of their tumble-down acts unneurotic. Rick was the adopted son of older p atomic number 18nts who love him greatly and saw much(prenominal) ability and potential in him. They were unfeignedly perplexed by the trouble he was in, and they struggled to beneathstand why Rick conveyd in guilty acts and what needed to be d mavin rough it. Rick, too, seemed to really care active his parents. He spent a good deal of time with them and presumablely enjoyed their company. Beca work Rick was adopted as an infant, these parents were the slew he considered family.Rick attended school regularly and earned good grades. He was non disruptive in the classroom or elsewhere in the school. In fact, teachers sketched that he was a very electro commanding student both in and out of class and that he was academically motivated. He did his homework and handed in assignments on time. He was alike actively involved in sportsfootball, wrestling, and track and field.Ricks half a dozen months of formal probation for auto theft turned into a twoyear period as he continued to get involved in inattentive acts. by dint of regular meetings and enforcement of probation conditions, his probation officer tried to work with Rick to break his mold of new-fangled vice. Such efforts were to no avail. Rick continued to offend, resulting in an almost moment series of court hearings that led to the extension of his probation supervision period.The aim of young evilThe continuing pattern of guilt included a long itemization of property and status offenses minor in possession of alcohol, numerous curfew violations, continued vandalism, minor theft (primarily shoplifting), and continued auto theft, usually involving joyrides in his fathers car.Ricks final offense was shepherds crook mischief, and it involved extensive destruction of property. Once again, Rick and his best friend bor rowed his fathers car, got drunk, and drove to Edina, an affluent suburb of Minneapolis. For no apparent reason, they parked the car and began to walk along France Avenue, a major road with office buildings along each side. After walking a while, they started throwing runty rocks toward buildings,seeing how close they could get. Their range increased quickly and the rocks soon reached their targets, good luck numerous windows.The fun turned into thousands of dollars worth of window breakage in a large number of office buildings. Because of the scale of damage, Rick get the possibility of be placed in a state train school. As a potential loss of liberty case, Rick was provided with histrionics by an attorney. This time, the adolescent courts adjudication shape followed formal procedures, including function of a prosecutor and a defense attorney. In the preliminary hearing, Rick admitted to the petition (statement of charges against him), and the case was continued to a lat er date for magnetic dip (sentencing). In the meantime, the judge put uped a sensibility report.The predisposition report is designed to various(prenominal)ize the courts disposition to fit the offender. The investigating for the report uses multiple sources of information, including information from the arresting officer, parents, school personnel, coaches, employers, friends, relatives, and, most primary(prenominal)ly, the pique youth. The predisposition report tries to discern and apologise the pattern of transgression and in that locationfore draw out recommendations for disposition based on the investigation. In Ricks case, the predisposition report assay to accurately render and justify his firm pattern of property and status anger, and it offered a recommendation for disposition.Finding no information to equitableify otherwise, the probation officer recommended that Rick be pull to the plane element of Corrections for placement at the Red Wing State cook ery School. Depending on ones viewpoint, the state training school delineate all a last ditch effort for rehabilitation or a means of punishment done restricted freedom. Either way, Rick was viewed as a chronic modern offender, with little hope for reform.It was one of those formative experiences. I coauthor Jim Burfeind was fresh out of college and newly hired as a probation officer. I was meeting with two experienced attorneysone the defense, the other the prosecutor. Almost in unison, it seemed, they turned to me and asked, why did Rick do this? Why did he cause such(prenominal) a persistent pattern of immorality? They wanted to make sense of Ricks sin, and they wondered how the adolescent court could best answer to his case. I had constrain familiar with Rick scarcely in the previous few weeks when his case was reassigned to me as part of my ontogeny caseload as a new probation officer. Now, meeting with the attorneys to gather information for the predisposition34 insi pid DELINQUENCY AN incorporate tone-beginningreport, I was being asked to explain Ricks pattern of dilapidated port to two sound experts who had far more experience in the juvenile justice agreement than I did. I was, after all, new to the job. How could I possibly know sufficiency to offer an translation? I in addition had the daunting responsibility of making a recommendation for disposition that the judge would most likely follow completely. Ricks future was at stake, and my recommendation would determine the disposition of the juvenile court. As I set abouted to respond to the attorneys sitting in front of me, my mind was flooded with brains.The answers to these moves became the al-Qaida for my predisposition reportan attempt to explain Ricks dilapidated behaviour and, based on this taking into custody, to recommend what should be done by court disposition. The questions with which I wrestled included the followingIs involvement in misdeed common among adolescent sthat is, are most youths decrepit? Maybe Rick was just an unfortunate kid who got caught. atomic number 18 Ricks offenses fairly true of the types of offenses in which youths are involved?Will Rick grow out of abandoned behavior?Is Ricks pattern of offending much the same as those of other tumble-down youths?Do most delinquent youths begin with status offenses and and so persist and escalate into serious, repetitive offending? (Status offenses are acts, such as truancy and running away, that are considered offenses when committed by juveniles but are not considered crimes if committed by adults.) Is there a rational component to Ricks depravity so that punishment by the juvenile court would deter further criminality?Did the fact that Rick was adopted call for anything to do with his involvement in transgression? Might something about Ricks genetic makeup and his biological family lend some insight into his behavior?What role did Ricks use of alcohol prank in his crimina lity? Are there family factors that might relate to Ricks involvement in juvenile willful neglect?Were there aspects of Ricks school experiences that might be related to his viciousness?What role did Ricks friend play in his delinquent behavior? Did the youth courts formal adjudication of Rick as a delinquent youth two eld earlier label him and make him more likely to continue in delinquent behavior?Should the juvenile court retain jurisdiction for serious, absorb offenders like Rick?What should the juvenile court try to do with Rick punish, deter, or rehabilitate him? Should the juvenile court hold Rick little responsible for his acts than an adult because he has not fully matured?The workplace of Juvenile transgressionPerhaps this list of questions seems a little fire to you now. We dont hold them here with the expectation that you give be able to answer them. Instead, we save them to prompt you to think about what causes juvenile delinquency and to give you an idea of the types of questions that drive the scientific plain of delinquent behavior. Throughout this book, we address these types of questions as we define delinquency consider the constitution of delinquent offenses, offenders, and offending and present a variety of theories to explain delinquent behavior. We return to Ricks story and these questions in Chapter 14. After yarn the next 12 chapters, you should set about the tools necessary to think about and respond to these questions in a whole new light. Understanding Juvenile crimeThe questions that shape the scientific memorize of juvenile delinquency incorporate attempts to define, signalise, explain, and respond to delinquentbehavior. Rather than being asked with regard to a point case like Ricks, the questions that inspire the study of juvenile delinquency are cast more broadly in order to understand delinquent behavior as it occurs among adolescents. An grounds of delinquent behavior builds upon comments that have been o ffered in theories and findings that have been revealed in query. The primary goal of this book is to cultivate an understanding of juvenile delinquency by integrating conjecture and inquiry. Throughout the book, we digest on the central roles that possibleness and look play in the study of delinquency, because these two components form the core of any scientific inquiry.Before we go any further, we moldiness define what we mean by juvenile delinquency. This exposition is far more complicated than you might think. In the next chapter, we offer a thorough discussion of the accessible construction and transformation of the plan of juvenile delinquency. Here we offer a brief working definition of juvenile delinquency as actions that violate the legal philosophy, committed by a person who is under the legal age of majority. Our exploration of juvenile delinquency reflects the four grassroots tasks of the scientific study of delinquencyto define, describe, explain, and respon d to delinquent behavior.The first two major sections of this book are devoted to defining and describing juvenile delinquency, the threesome section to explaining delinquent behavior, and the final section to modern ways of responding to juvenile delinquency. Responses to delinquent behavior, however, should be based on a thorough understanding of delinquency. Thus, an understanding of juvenile delinquency must come first.The Study of Juvenile DelinquencyThe first section of this book describes the historic transformation of the concept of juvenile delinquency and the methods and data sources enquiryers use to study involvement in delinquent behavior. We begin by developing a working understanding of what we commonly call juvenile delinquency (Chapter 2). This includes not only the fond, political, and economic changes that led to the kindly construction of juvenile delinquency as a legal term, but also the contemporary transformations that have dramatically altered how we as a societyjuvenile delinquencyActions that violate the rectitude, committed by aperson who is under thelegal age of majority.56JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AN INTEGRATED APPROACHview, define, and respond to juvenile delinquency. We indeed explore how queryers measure delinquency (Chapter 3). We describe the research surgery, various methods of gathering data and doing research on juvenile delinquency, and sources of data on crime and delinquency.The Nature of DelinquencyThe second section of this book presents a trilogy of chapters in which we describe the nature of delinquent offenses, offenders, and patterns of offending. some(prenominal) attempt to explain juvenile delinquency must first be able to accurately describe the problem in wrong of these one-third dimensions. Chapters 4 through 6 report research findings that describe the extent of delinquent offenses (Chapter 4), the loving characteristics of delinquent offenders (Chapter 5), and the schoolingal patterns of delinquen t offending (Chapter 6).Explaining inattentive BehaviorThe third section of this book examines a variety of explanations of delinquency that criminologists have proposed in theories and examined in research related to those theories. These chapters are nonionised in terms of the major themes that run through seven antithetic groups of theories. 1 group of theories, for example, emphasizes the impressiveness of peer groupinfluences on delinquency. These theories, called social learning theories, address how delinquent behavior is larn in the mount of peer group relations (Chapter 11).Six other themes are also considered the question of whether delinquency is chosen or determined (Chapter 7) the role of individual factors, including biological characteristics and personality, in explaining delinquent behavior (Chapter 8) situational and routine dimensions of delinquency (Chapter 9) the grandness of social relationships, especially family relations and school experiences, in con trolling delinquency (Chapter 10)the structure of society, and how social characteristics motivate individual behavior (Chapter 12) and social and societal responses to delinquency (Chapter 13). We also apply these various explanations to Ricks case, which unfastened this chapter, and examine integrated suppositious approaches (Chapter 14). Throughout the book, as we present metaphysical explanations for delinquency, we weave in concert theories and the most relevant research that criminologists have conducted to show those theories.Responding to Juvenile DelinquencyThe final section of this book comprises a individual chapter that describes contemporary juvenile justice (Chapter 15). We have deliberately chosen to forbid the discussion of juvenile justice in one chapter, in order to provide an undivided view of its structure and process. The formal system of juvenile justice includes police, courts, and corrections. Yet a substantial amount of juvenile delinquency is dealt w ith informally, sometimes by agencies outside the system. Juvenile justice encompasses efforts at prevention, together with informal and formal action taken by the traditional juvenile justice system.Formal procedures, such as taking youths into custody and adjudicating them as delinquent youths, are central to the task of responding to juvenile delinquency. But informal procedures designed to prevent delinquency and divert youths from the juvenile justice system are far more common.The Study of Juvenile Delinquency growing and Evaluating Theoriesof DelinquencyIn 1967, two noted sociologists, Travis Hirschi and Hanan Selvin, observed that theories of delinquency nominate a sequence of steps through which a person moves from constabulary abiding behavior to . . . delinquency.1 criminological theories try to identify and describe the let out causal factors that make up this sequence of steps bullockers to delinquent behavior. In doing so, theories of delinquency emphasize certai n factors as being causally grievous and thusly describe how these factors are interrelated in producing delinquent behavior. Stated simply a speculation is an explanation.2Components of Theories equal other scientific theories, theories of delinquency are composed of two basic parts concepts and mesmerisms. Concepts isolate and categorize features of the human beings that are thought to be causally important.3 different theories of juvenile delinquency make up and emphasize contrasting concepts. For example, the theories of delinquency we consider in later chapters include concepts such as personality traits, intelligence, routine activities of adolescents, relationship ties (called attachments), friendships with delinquent friends, and social disorganization of neighborhoods.Concepts aim definition.4 Definitions serve two functions they clarify concepts and provide common understanding, and they describe how concepts will be measured for the purpose of research. Proposit ions tell how concepts are related. Scientific theories use proposal of marriages to make statements about the relationships in the midst of concepts.5 Some proposals imply a positive linear relationship in which the concepts increase or decrease together in a relatively straight-line fashion.6 For example, some theories offer the proposition that the number of delinquent friends is positively related to delinquent behavior as the number of delinquent friends increases, so does the likelihood of delinquency.In a prejudicial linear relationship, the concepts vary in opposite directions. For instance, one scheme offers the proposition that aim of attachment and delinquency are negatively related as attachment increases, delinquent behavior decreases. Relationships between concepts mayalso be curvilinear. Here, too, the concepts vary together, either positively or negatively, but after arriver a certain level, the relationship moves in the opposite direction. For example, resea rchers have arrange that parental discipline is related to delinquency in a curvilinear fashion.7 run-down behavior is most frequent when parental discipline is either lacking or excessive, but it is least common when levels of discipline are moderate.If you think of parental discipline as a continuum, delinquency is highest on the two ends of the discipline continuum, when discipline is lax or excessive, and lowest in the middle, when discipline is moderate. Different theories may offer competing propositions. One speculation may propose that two concepts are related in a particular way, whereas another surmise may claim that they are unrelated. For example, one of the major issues in delinquency theory is the role of the family in explaining delinquent behavior. One major theory contends that the family is essentially unrelated to delinquent behavior and that delinquent peers are an important factor in explaining delinquency. Anothertheory An explanationthat makes a systematic and logical literary argumentregarding what isimportant and why.concepts detached featuresof the world that arethought to be causallyimportant.propositions suppositiousstatements that tell howconcepts are related.78theory of delinquencyA set of logically relatedpropositions that explainwhy and how selectedconcepts are related todelinquent behavior.JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AN INTEGRATED APPROACHinfluential theory proposes the opposite relationship, lean that family relations are strongly related to delinquency, whereas peer relations are less important in explaining delinquency.8 To summarize, a theory of delinquency is a set of logically related propositions that explain why and how selected concepts are related to delinquent behavior.9 A theory offers a logically developed argument that certain concepts are important in ca victimisation delinquent behavior. The purpose of theory, then, is to explain juvenile delinquency.Levels of Explanationlevel of explanation Therealm of explanat ionindividual, microsocial, ormacrosocialthatcorresponds to the types ofconcepts incorporated intotheories.Theories of delinquency operate at three contrasting levels of explanation individual, microsocial, and macrosocial.10 On the individual level, theories focus on traits and characteristics of individuals, either innate(p) or learned, that make some people more likely than others to engage in delinquent behavior. The microsocial level of explanation considers thesocial processes by which individuals become the kinds of people who commit delinquent acts.11 Criminologists have emphasized family relations and delinquent peer group influences at this level. Some microsocial theories also point to the importance of the structural context of social fundamental interaction.12 Race, gender, and social class, for example, influence social interaction not only within families and peer groups, but in to the highest degree all social contexts.As a result, the distinction between social p rocess and social structure is not always clear, nor is it always usable as a means of categorizing notional explanations.13 At the macrosocial level, societal characteristics such as social class and social cohesiveness are employ to explain group variation in rates of delinquency.14 For example, poverty, together with the absence seizure of community social control, is central to several explanations of why gang delinquency is more common in lower-class areas.15 The level of explanationindividual, microsocial, or macrosocialcorresponds to the types of concepts incorporated into a theory.16 Individual-level explanations tend to incorporate biological and psychological concepts.Microsocial explanations most often use social psychological concepts, but may incorporate structural concepts that influence social interaction. Macrosocial explanations draw extensively on sociological concepts. Theories can be combined to form integrated theories (see Chapter 14), which sometimes conne ct different levels of explanation into a single theoretical framework.Assessing TheoryWe have proposed that concepts and propositions are the bare essentials of theory.17 These components, however, do not automatically originate a valid explanation of delinquency. We can begin to assess the validity of theorythe degree to which it accurately and adequately explains delinquent behaviorby compensable attention to several secern dimensions of theory.18 We highlight these dimensions (e.g., pellucidity, consistency, tasteability, applicability) in the following list of questions. We invite you to ask yourself these questions as you adjudicate the theories of delinquency we present in later chapters and consider how well they explain delinquent behavior.1. Conceptual clarity How intelligibly are the theoretical concepts identified and defined?19 How well do the concepts and propositions fit togetherhow compatible, complementary, and congruent are they?20The Study of Juvenile Delin quency2. Logical consistency Does the theoretical argument develop logically and consistently? Do the concepts and propositions depict a causal process leading to delinquency? 3. Parsimony How concise is the theory in terms of its concepts and propositions? This question concerns economy of explanation. Generally, simpler is better. So if two theories explain delinquency evenly well, we should favor the theory that offers the more concise explanation with the smaller number of concepts.4. Scope What is the theory attempting to explain?21 Some theories try to explain a wide variety of criminal acts and criminal offenders. Others focus on particular types of offenses or offenders. What question is the theory designed to answer? Theories of delinquency usually address one of two basic questions (1) How and why are laws made and enforced? and (2) Why do some youths violate the law?22 Far more theories try to answer the second question than the first.235. Level of explanation At what le vel (individual, microsocial, or macrosocial) does the theory attempt to explain delinquency? 6. Testability To what extent can the theory be well-triedverified or disproved by research evidence? It is not enough for a theory simply to make sense by identifying key concepts and then offering propositions that explain how these concepts are related to delinquency.24 Rather, theories must be constructed in such a way that they can be subjected to research verification.257. Research validity To what extent has the theory been supported by research evidence? 8. Applicability and utilitarianness To what extent can the theory be applied practically? In other words, to what extent is the theory useful in policy and practice?These questions reflect key concerns in assessing theory. In the end, theory is the foundation for the accumulation of knowledge, and it is indispensable for an understanding of juvenile delinquency. However, theory must be tried and true through research. Together, t heory and research constitute the two basic components of a scientific approach to juvenile delinquency. Purposes of Delinquency ResearchDelinquency research serves two vital purposes to recall or develop theory, and to test theory.26 In Chapter 3, we discuss research methods and sources of data utilize in the study of delinquency. Here we briefly describe the two purposes of research as it relates to theory.Generating TheoryResearch is sometimes used to gain adequate information about juvenile delinquency to theorize about it.27 notwithstanding the old adage, the data speak for themselves, research findings about delinquency anticipate interpretation, and it is this interpretation that yields theory. As a result, the development of theoretical910 inductive theorizing Thedevelopment of theoryfrom research observations.JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AN INTEGRATED APPROACHexplanations of delinquency requires a long, hard look at the facts ofdelinquency (repeated and consistent findings), in order to isolate and identify key concepts and then explain how these concepts are related to delinquent behavior. Along this line, Donald Shoemaker defines theory as an attempt to make sense out of observations.28 The punishing task of making theoretical sense of research observations is sometimes referred to as grounded theory or inductive theorizing.29 In the process of inductive theorizing, research involves collecting data and making experiential observations, which are then used to develop theory. For example, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, whose work we discuss more fully in later chapters, spent their entire careers attempting to uncover the most important empirical findings about juvenile delinquency.They referred to their task as Unraveling Juvenile Delinquencythe entitle of their most important book.30 The Gluecks work was heavily criticized for being atheoretical, or without theory.31 Their research, however, was clearly directed at providing empirical observations that would allow for the development of a theoretical explanation of delinquency, even though they never developed such a theory.32 In recent years, their data and findings have become the basis for an important new theory called life-course theory, which we describe in Chapter 10.Testing Theorydeductive theorizingThe paygrade oftheoretical statementsthrough research.Research also provides the means to respect theory and to choose among alternative theories.33 In contrast to inductive theorizing, deductive theorizing begins with theoretical statements and then attempts to test the validity of theoretical predictions.34 As we already discussed, theories advance explanations of delinquency in which propositions identify certain concepts and describe how they are related to delinquent behavior.These theoretically predicted relationships can be tested through research and either verified or disproved. For example, one simple proposition of differential association theory (presented in Cha pter 11) is that attitudesfavoring delinquency are learned in the context of intimate personal groups.35 The predicted relationship visualised here is that youths develop attitudes from peer group relations, and delinquent behavior is then an expression of these attitudespeer grouprelationsdelinquentattitudesdelinquentbehaviorIf research findings support the theoretical propositions tested, then the theory is verified or confirmed. If research findings are not consistent with the predicted relationships, then the theory is disproved. Different theories often offer different predictions. To continue with the previous example, differential association theory and social bond theory (presented in Chapter 10) provide competing predictions about the relationships between peers, attitudes, and delinquent behavior.In contrast to differential association theory, social bond theory contends that attitudes are largely a product of family relationships.36 remiss attitudes result in delinquent behavior. Associations with delinquent peers then follow from delinquent behavior as youths seek out friendships with others like themselves. The relationships predicted by social bond theory are as followsThe Study of Juvenile Delinquencydelinquentattitudesdelinquentbehaviordelinquentpeer groupAs this brief example illustrates, theories have empirical implications, and one purpose of research is to enable scholars to choose among competing theories.37 The preceding discussion of the two purposes of delinquency research implies that the processes of inductive theorizing and deductive theorizing are completely distinct. The former is used to generate or develop theory the latter is used to test theory. We must acknowledge, however, the complexity of the relationship between theory and research, and note that the distinction between the two purposes of research is not necessarily clear-cut. Even within the process of deductive theorizing, for example, an element of inductive theorizi ng exists.In deductive theorizing, researchers begin with theoretical predictions and then use empirical observations to test those propositions. The research results may lead to modification or refinement of the theory being tested. The latter part of this process, in which observations are interpreted and may result in a revised statement of theory, is consistent with the process of inductive theorizing. Although the relationship between theory and research is complex, it is clear that the development of theory and the performance of research go hand in hand.38 Summary and ConclusionsThe scientific study of juvenile delinquency attempts to describe and explain delinquent behavior through theory and research. Theory seeks to provide a systematic and logical argument that specifies what is important in causing delinquency and why. Like other scientific theories, theories of delinquencyare composed of concepts and propositions. It is necessary to assess the validity of theories, incl uding those we apply to explain delinquency. We provided a series of questions that you can use to evaluate the theories of delinquency we present in later chapters.The second basic component of the scientific method is research. In relation to theory, research serves two purposes to generate theory and to test theory. Research is sometimes used to gain sufficient information about juvenile delinquency so that it becomes possible to theorize about it. The development of theory from research observations is called inductive theorizing.39 Research is also used to evaluate or test theory in a process called deductive theorizing. As we noted earlier, the primary purpose of this book is to cultivate an understanding of juvenile delinquency by integrating theory and research.This chapter has offered an overview of the key elements of a scientific approach to juvenile delinquency, focusing especially on theory. We describe research methods in Chapter 3. With this basic understanding of the ory and its relationship to research, we can begin our study of juvenile delinquency on solid ground.The first two sections of this book present criminologists efforts to define and describe juvenile delinquency, the third major section presents explanations of juvenile delinquency that have been offered in theory and tested in research, and the fourth section considers contemporary responses to delinquency. Throughout the book, we present theoretical explanations of delinquency together with the most relevant research that has tested those theories.1112CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS1. Define theory without using the words concept or proposition. 2. Why does a scientific approach to juvenile delinquency depend on theory? 3. Develop your own example of inductive theorizing. Develop your own exampleof deductive theorizing.4. As you read Ricks story at the beginning of this chapter, what factors seemed most significant to you in considering why Rick engaged in delinquency? Why?SUGGESTED R EADINGGibbons, Don C. Talking About offense and miserables Problems and Issues in Theory emergence in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ learner Hall, 1994.GLOSSARYconcepts Isolated features of the world that are thought to be causally important. deductive theorizing The evaluation of theoretical statements through research. inductive theorizing The development of theory from research observations. juvenile delinquency Actions that violate the law, committed by a person who is under the legal age of majority.level of explanation The realm of explanationindividual, microsocial, or macrosocialthat corresponds to the types of concepts incorporated into theories.propositions Theoretical statements that tell how concepts are related. theory An explanation that makes a systematic and logical argument regarding what is important and why.theory of delinquency A set of logically related propositions that explain why and how selected concepts are related to delinquent behavior.REFERENCESAke rs, Ronald L. Criminological Theories Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA Roxbury, 2004.Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. eighth ed. Belmont, CA Wadsworth, 1998. Bohm, Robert M. A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory. second ed. Belmont, CA Wadsworth, 2001. Cloward, Richard A., and Lloyd E. Ohlin. Delinquency and Opportunity A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. bleak York Free Press, 1960.Cohen, Albert K. Delinquent Boys The Culture of the Gang. overbold York Free Press, 1955. . divergence and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1966. Cohen, Bernard P. exploitation sociological Knowledge Theory and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1980.13Curran, Daniel J., and Claire M. Renzetti. Theories of Crime. 2nd ed. Boston, MA Allyn and Bacon, 2001.Gibbons, Don C. The Criminological Enterprise Theories and Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1979. . Talking About Crime and Criminals Problems and Issues in Theory Devel opment in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1994.Gibbons, Don C., and Marvin D. Krohn. Delinquent Behavior. fifth ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1991.Gibbs, Jack P. The State of Criminological Theory. Criminology 25 (1987)821840. Glaser, Barney, and Anselm L. Straus. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL Aldine, 1967. Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck. Unraveling Delinquency. Cambridge, MA Harvard University, 1950.Hepburn, John R. Testing Alternative Models of Delinquency Causation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 67 (1976)450460.Hirschi, Travis. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA University of California Press, 1969. Hirschi, Travis, and Hanan C. Selvin. Delinquency Research An judgment of Analytic Methods. New York Free Press, 1967.Jensen, Gary F Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action A Test of the Differential Association Per. spective. American sociological Review 78 (1972)562575. Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. The SutherlandGlue ck Debate On the Sociology of Criminological Knowledge. American Journal of Sociology 96 (1991)14021440. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. Crime in the Making Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press, 1993.Shaw, Clifford R., and Henry D. McKay. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban AreasA Study of place of Delinquency in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities. Rev. ed. Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1969.Shoemaker, Donald J. Theories of Delinquency An Examination of Explanations of Delinquent Behavior. 4th ed. New York Oxford University Press, 2000.Short, James F Jr. The Level of Explanation Problem Revisited. Criminology 36 (1998)336. .,Stark, Rodney. Sociology. 7th ed. Belmont, CA Wadsworth, 1998. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. Constructing Social Theories. New York Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968. Sutherland, Edwin H., Donald R. Cressey, and David F Luckenbill. Principles of Criminology. eleventh ed. . Dix Hills, NY General Hall, 1992.Turner, Jonathan. The Structure of sociological Theory. Rev. ed. Homewood, IL Dorsey Press, 1978. Vold, George B., Thomas J. Bernard, and Jeffrey B. Snipes. Theoretical Criminology. 5th ed. New York Oxford University Press, 2002.ENDNOTES1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.Hirschi and Selvin, Delinquency Research, 66.Bohm, Primer, 1.Turner, Structure of Sociological Theory, 23.Bohm, Primer, 2. See Bernard P. Cohen, developing Sociological Knowledge, 140148, for a full discussion of concept definition. Vold, Bernard, and Snipes, Theoretical Criminology, 4.Bohm, Primer, 2.Glueck and Glueck, Unraveling Delinquency.Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology, 211214 and Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency, 140146.Stark, Sociology, 2 and Curran and Renzetti, Theories of Crime, 2. Short, Level of Explanation.Albert K. Cohen, Deviance and Control, 43 and Gibbons, Criminological Enterprise, 9. Sampson and Laub, Crime in the Making Sutherland, Cressey , and Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology and Short, Level of Explanation. Akers, Criminological Theories, 45.1414. Albert K. Cohen, Deviance and Control, 43 Gibbons, Criminological Enterprise, 9 and Akers, Criminological Theories, 4.15. Shaw and McKay, Juvenile Delinquency Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys and Cloward and Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity.16. Short points out, in The Level of Explanation Problem Revisited (3), that the level of explanation corresponds to the unit of observation and the unit of analysis. 17. Our discussion of delinquency theory comprising concepts and propositions makes theory seem simple and straightforward. But we must admit that, among social scientists, there is still no agreed-upon view of what theory is (Bernard P. Cohen, develop Sociological Knowledge, 170). See also Gibbs, State of Criminological Theory.18. Drawn from Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, 191192. 19. Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency, 9.20. Akers, Criminol ogical Theories, 67 and Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency, 9. 21. Akers, Criminological Theories, 67 and Curran and Renzetti, Theories of Crime, 3. 22. Akers, Criminological Theories, 26. Renowned criminologist Edwin Sutherland defined criminology as the study oflaw making, law breaking, and law enforcement (Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology, 3).23. Akers, Criminological Theories, 4. Gibbons (Talking About Crime, 911, 7376) describes two key criminological questions Why do they do it? and the rates question. The first question addresses the origins and development of criminal acts and careers, and the second question addresses organizations, social systems, social structures, and cultures that produce different rates of behaviors of interest (9). See also Gibbons, Criminological Enterprise, 9 Gibbons and Krohn, Delinquent Behavior, 8586 and Short, Level of Explanation, 7. 24. Akers, Criminological Theories, 7.25. Stinchcombe, Constructing Social Theorie s.26. Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, vii, 10 and Stark, Sociology, 3. 27. Stark, Sociology, 3.28. Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency, 7.29. Glaser and Straus, Discovery of Grounded Theory and Babbie, Practice of Social Research, 4, 6064. 30. Glueck and Glueck, Unraveling Delinquency, 1950.31. Gibbons and Krohn, Delinquent Behavior, 8384.32. Laub and Sampson, SutherlandGlueck Debate and Sampson and Laub, Crime in the Making. 33. Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, 10. 34. Babbie, Practice of Social Research, 4.35. Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology, 8889. 36. Jensen, Parents Hepburn, Testing Alternative Models and Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency. 37. Stark, Sociology, 2 and Bernard P. Cohen, Developing Sociological Knowledge, 10. 38. Gibbons, Talking About Crime, 7.39. Stark, Sociology, 3.