This paper will discuss various research correlating the delinquent behavior of gang membership, Conflict theory and the Rational Choice theory. An explanation will be given explaining how these theories account for the existence of said behavior. An in depth look at the two theories will cover the history and significance to the juvenile justice system. In addition, this paper will include a personal critique of these theories and how it may explain this particular aspect of juvenile delinquency.
In order to understand the correlation between the delinquent behavior of gang membership, Conflict theory and the Rational Choice theory, a detailed explanation of each will follow. This paper will examine the history of these two theories and their significance relating to the juvenile justice system. In conclusion, this paper will include the author’s personal opinion of these theories and how it may explain this particular aspect of juvenile delinquency.
Conflict theory, centers around battles between the powerful and powerless. Theorists contend that material and non-material assets are unequally appropriated and that those with more assets utilize their capacity to misuse those with less assets and less power. Conflict criminologists consider wrongdoing to be a socially built label that powerful groups connect to the exercises of activities who have less power, and they recommend that police tend to target what they see to be ‘dangerous groups’ as opposed to simply reacting to criminal conduct. As indicated by the conflict theory, the law is habitually imposed in a biased manner to shield predominant interests from dangers to social request presented by dominated or repressed groups. It additionally proposes that minority status comprises a perilous ‘class’ and thus routinely draws police attention.
Past research additionally suggests that gang members are frequently targeted by police for stop-and-frisk encounters. Gang members might be powerless against involuntary police stops and searches since they are regularly associated with “drug trafficking, weapons offences, and other violent crime and thus may legitimately draw the attention of police” (Hayle, Wortley, & Tanner, 2016). Moreover, in public, gang members might be more conspicuous than different regular citizens since they frequently travel in groups and show “gang-related symbols and/or paraphernalia (i.e., gang colors, tattoos, clothing, etc.)” (Hayle, Wortley, & Tanner, 2016).
Research results regarding this theory show that race plays a role in attracting police attention. Among juveniles who take part in generally comparable sorts of conduct, and comparative levels of wrongdoing, “black youth are stopped and searched more often than white youth” (Hayle, Wortley, & Tanner, 2016). The results also suggest that police commit racial profiling and should address its unreasonable treatment of black children. Many researchers contended that these youth generally lack the access and the knowledge to politics and legalities and may “resort to deviant and criminal behaviors, including violence, to achieve their goals” (Barrick, Hickman, & Strom, 2014).
The Rational Choice theory presumes that a choice to offend happens, and that such a choice is taken by rationally thinking person, who weighs the advantages and disadvantages of the activity.
These presumptions of free will and rationality have been an integral part of criminology since its inception and was extremely popular during the 1980s and the 1990s, when a lot of research was completed regarding the correlation between rational decisions and criminal behavior. Early study of this theory believed that the fear of potential discipline would deter an individual from committing a crime. The idea is that people utilize free will and make decisions based on the projected outcomes (Steele, 2015).
As per the theory, would-be wrongdoers reasonably gauge the pros and cons of criminal activity before they act. Theorists have generally expected that people who see the costs of a criminal act to be “greater than the rewards would refrain from offending, since offending would simply not be worth the cost” (Bouffard, 2002). A few endeavors have likewise been made to sort these potential expenses. There are formal (generally lawful consequences) versus informal costs (social disgrace or sentiments of blame or disgrace).
Williams, Jankowski, and MacLeod all show ethnographic records to demonstrate that young people in low-income neighborhoods settle on conscious choices to commit criminal acts since few legal means to make money are accessible to them. Jankowski takes note that “in some chronically poor neighborhoods, gang membership has become a family tradition, and many parents actively encourage their children to belong to the same gangs to which they themselves belonged when they were younger, much as parents with Ivy League educations encourage their children to attend their alma maters” (Hechter & Kanazawa, 1997).
It is imperative to characterize what is implied by the term ‘gang’, as it can have a critical bearing on how we comprehend the issues confronting ‘gang associated’ families and how we may react to their requirements. Multiple definitions have been offered with differing impact on strategy and practice. In 2005, Hallsworth and Young offered the following definition of a ‘gang’: “… a relatively durable, predominantly street-based group of young people who see themselves (and are recognized by others) as a discernible group for whom crime and violence is intrinsic to identity and practice. The minimal characteristic features of the gang then are that it has a) a name, b) a propensity to inflict violence and engage in crime where c) violence and delinquency performs a functional role in promoting group identity and solidarity” (Young, Fitzgibbon, & Silverstone, 2014). As indicated by various researchers, when social conditions are unforgiving and social establishments like the family (and the school) fail, “the children are ‘up for grabs’ by older, more experienced, gang members and susceptible to street rather than institutional socialization processes” (Young, Fitzgibbon, & Silverstone, 2014).
Jankowski is doubtful about the social determinist contentions that have been offered to explain gang participation. While he doesn’t altogether reject familial or social impacts, he believes that they ought not outweigh individual qualities. Following ten years of ethnographic research of gang members, he found that they were as liable to originate from two-parent families as not, and that many group individuals experienced strong bonds inside their families. Gang members were not, as ordinarily anticipated, hunting down a substitute dad or male role model, nor were they trying to replace their ‘broken’ family; “the gang members in his research were ‘deviant’, ‘individualistic’ characters competing for scarce resources…initially the young initiate believes that the links and contacts established through the gang will enhance their status within the community and significantly improve their quality of life” (Young, Fitzgibbon, & Silverstone, 2014).
Research has determined different elements that put youth in danger of gang participation, but it should be noted that it can’t be attributed exclusively to one factor. Multiple variables can be divided into four areas: “the community/neighborhood, family, school, and peers” (Alleyne, & Wood, 2014). “Gangs tend to thrive in disadvantaged and socially disorganized communities…Also, gang members have been found to come from neighborhoods with already existing gangs and high juvenile delinquency, thus putting young people who reside in these “gang neighborhoods” at an increased risk of gang joining” (Alleyne, & Wood, 2014).
An astounding yet reliable finding is that, much of the time, gang membership is a short‐term undertaking, averaging only 2 or 3 years, all things considered. Certain demographics are generally the same among all research, including: “Gang membership is more likely among males, ethnic minority group members, youths from low socioeconomic levels, and early adolescents than their demographic comparison groups” (Alleyne, & Wood, 2014).
The protection offered by a gang could be a solid motivator to join, particularly for younger people who are being bullied or abused. It is likewise conceivable that the possibilities of security by gang members will be less appealing as youth age and mature physically and mentally. (Brown, Hippensteele, & Lawrence, 2014).
For high-risk youth who live in neighborhoods tormented by destitution and viciousness, afterschool programs should be created to give the sort of physical and emotional security youth need to flourish. Creating necessary relationships between adults and juveniles is one remedy for “’the toxic cocktail of poverty, illiteracy, racial disparities, violence, and massive incarceration’ that derails our young people and contributes to the deterioration of communities and of our nation as a whole” (Afterschool Matters, 2015).
The Conflict theory shows that some juveniles “resort to deviant and criminal behaviors, including violence, to achieve their goals” (Barrick, Hickman, & Strom, 2014), which may explain the prevalence of gang membership. The Rational Choice theory shows that some young people in low-income neighborhoods settle on conscious choices to commit criminal acts since few legal means to make money are accessible to them. Both theories do a good job in explaining some of the reasons why some youth join gangs.
References
- Afterschool Matters. (2015). Creating Opportunities for Mutual Affiliation (pp. 13-23).
- Alleyne, E., & Wood, J. L. (2014). Gang Involvement: Social and Environmental Factors. Crime & Delinquency, 60(4), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128711398029
- Barrick, K., Hickman, M. J., & Strom, K. J. (2014). Representative Policing and Violence Towards the Police. Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 8(2), 193–204. Retrieved from http://www.nclive.org.ezproxy.nccu.edu/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nccu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=96309479&site=ehost-live
- Bouffard, J. A. (2002). Methodological and theoretical implications of using subject-generated consequences in tests of rational choice theory. Justice Quarterly : JQ, 19(4), 747-771. Retrieved from http://nclive.org.ezproxy.nccu.edu/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.nccu.edu/docview/228162288?accountid=12713
- Brown, B. B., Hippensteele, I. M., & Lawrence, S. M. (2014). Commentary: Developmental Perspectives on Adolescents and Gangs. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell), 24(2), 284–292. https://doi-org.ezproxy.nccu.edu/10.1111/jora.12127
- Hayle, S., Wortley, S., & Tanner, J. (2016). Race, Street Life, and Policing: Implications for Racial Profiling. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 58(3), 322–353. https://doi-org.ezproxy.nccu.edu/10.3138/cjccj.2014.E32
- Hechter, M., & Kanazawa, S. (1997). SOCIOLOGICAL RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY.Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 191-214. Retrieved from http://nclive.org.ezproxy.nccu.edu/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.nccu.edu/docview/199580379?accountid=12713
- Hess, K., Orthmann, C., & Wright, J. (2013). Juvenile justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
- Holland, T. P. (1974). The community: organism or arena. Social Work, 19(1), 73–80. Retrieved from http://www.nclive.org.ezproxy.nccu.edu/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nccu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=16247251&site=ehost-live
- Paternoster, R., Jaynes, C. M., & Wilson, T. (2017). Rational Choice Theory and Interest in the “Fortune of Others.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(6), 847–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427817707240
- Pyrooz, D. C., & Densley, J. A. (2016). Selection into Street Gangs: Signaling Theory, Gang Membership, and Criminal Offending. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(4), 447–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815619462
- Steele, R. (2015). How Offenders Make Decisions: Evidence of Rationality. British Journal of Community Justice, 13(3), 7–20. Retrieved from http://www.nclive.org.ezproxy.nccu.edu/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nccu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=i3h&AN=113829249&site=ehost-live
- Young, T., Fitzgibbon, W., & Silverstone, D. (2014). A Question of Family? Youth and Gangs. Youth Justice, 14(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225414537569
