The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is the primary legal framework

for juvenile justice in India.

The act provides for a special approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile
delinquency and provides a framework for the protection, treatment and rehabilitation of children in
the purview of the juvenile justice system.
This law, brought in compliance of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),
repealed the earlier Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 after India signed and ratified the UNCRC in 1992.

The Act is considered to be extremely progressive legislation and the Model Rules 2007 have further
added to the effectiveness of this welfare legislation. However, the implementation is a very serious
concern even theSupreme Court of India is constantly looking into the implementation of this law
in Sampurna Behrua Versus Union of India and Bachpan Bachao Andolan Versus Union of India
In order to upgrade the Juvenile Justice Administration System, the Government of India launched
the Integrated Child Protection Scheme(ICPS) in 2009-10 whereby financial allocations have been
increased and various existing schemes have been merged under one scheme.
Based on a resolution passed in 2006 and reiterated in 2009 in the Conference of Chief Justices of
India, several High Courts have constituted "Juvenile Justice Committees" headed by sitting judges
of High Courts. These committees supervise and monitor implementation of the Act in their
jurisdiction.

HISTORY
The first legislation on juvenile justice in India came in 1850 with the Apprentice Act which required
that children between the ages of 10-18 convicted in courts to be provided vocational training as part
of their rehabilitation process.
Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act states that: Prohibition of
publication of name, etc., of juvenile or child in need of care and protection involved in any
proceeding
under the Act-(1) No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or visual media of any inquiry
regarding a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection under this Act
While provisions relating to the Juveniles in conflict with law are very important from jurisprudence
point of view, this Act becomes very crucial for Children in Need of Care and Protection, as they are
very large in number.

Section 29 of the Act provides constituting five members District (Administrative unit in India) level
quasi-judicial body "Child Welfare Committee". One of the members is designated as Chairperson.
At least one of the members shall be woman. The Committee shall have the final authority to
dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the 'Children
in Need of Care and Protection' as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection of human
rights.

Criticism[edit]
The Delhi gang rape case in December 2012 had tremendous impact on public perception of the
Act. On of the convicts was found to be juvenile and sentenced to 3 years in a reform home.
[3]

Eight writ petitions alleging the Act and its several provisions to be unconstitutional were heard by

the Supreme Court of India in the second week of July 2013 and were dismissed, holding the Act to
be constitutional.
Demands for a reduction of the age of juveniles from 18 to 16 years were also turned down by the
Supreme Court, when the Union of India stated that there is no proposal to reduce the age of a
juvenile.
Many experts and activists viewed post December 2012 Delhi Gang Rape responses as creation of
media sensationalisation of the issue, and cautioned against any regressive move to disturb the
momentum of Juvenile Justice Legislation in the Country.
However some sections in the society felt that in view of terrorism and other serious offences,
Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 needed to be amended to include punitive approaches in the existing
Juvenile Justice Law, which so far is purely rehabilitative and reformative. In July 2014, Indian
Express reported that Pakistan-based terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba had asked its members
to declare their age to be below 18 years. This would ensure that they are tried under the Juvenile
Justice Act instead of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The maximum punishment under the Act is three
years.[4]

Juvenile delinquency, also known as "juvenile offending", is participation in illegal behavior

by minors (juveniles, i.e. individuals younger than the statutory age of majority).[1] Most legal
systems prescribe specific procedures for dealing with juveniles, such as juvenile detention centers,
and courts.
In recent years a higher proportion of youth have experienced arrests by their early 20s than in the
past, although some scholars have concluded this may reflect more aggressive criminal justice
and zero-tolerance policies rather than changes in youth behavior.[2] Juvenile crimes can range
from status offenses (such as underage smoking), to property crimes and violent crimes.

However, juvenile offending can be considered normative adolescent behavior.[4] This is because
most teens tend to offend by committing non-violent crimes, only once or a few times, and only
during adolescence.

Types[edit]
Juvenile delinquency, or offending, can be separated into three categories:

delinquency, crimes committed by minors, which are dealt with by the juvenile courts and
justice system;

criminal behavior, crimes dealt with by the criminal justice system;

status offenses, offenses that are only classified as such because one is a minor, such
as truancy, also dealt with by the juvenile courts.[6]

According to the developmental research of Moffitt (2006),[4] there are two different types of offenders
that emerge in adolescence.
One is the repeat offender, referred to as the life-course-persistent offender, who begins offending or
showing antisocial/aggressive behavior in adolescence (or even childhood) and continues
into adulthood;
and the age specific offender, referred to as the adolescence-limited offender, for whom juvenile
offending or delinquency begins and ends during their period of adolescence. [5]
Because most teenagers tend to show some form of antisocial, jucie or delinquent behavior during
adolescence, it is important to account for these behaviors in childhood in order to determine
whether they will be life-course-persistent offenders or adolescence-limited offenders. [5]

Gender roles and differences by sex[edit]

Juvenile delinquency by males are largely disproportionate to the rate of occurrences by females.
This great gap between the crimes reinforce the connotations of traditional masculinity to be the
center of violence, aggression, and competition. This is largely based on the notion that as males, it
is their duty to take what they feel they deserve through these means to define themselves and play
the role of provider and independent figure. These societal conditions are infringed by male peers,.
However, these delinquencies are not as prevalent in females in that they are expected to be more
docile individuals and rely solely more on dependent characters, alleviating them from the need of
committing delinquencies. Because aggression is not a desired characteristic, it has caused more

commotion when females perform crimes that are often attributed to males. The acts of delinquency
begin with the juveniles expectations of their perceived roles through the direction of adults of both
genders. Sandra Lee Bartky expresses these claims thoroughly in her work Foucault, Femininity,
and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power by examining close observation of diction, action, and
decorum. Boys learn to take as much space as possible when sitting, dress appropriately to stand
out, and speak more demanding to assert his position and gain respect from fellow male peers. This
expectation of leadership rarely enforced through peers largely dictates that delinquencies arise
when male feel that they cannot assert or claim such respect through legal and practical means,
thus enforcing violence is merely extenuating a desired trait to gain such position. Thus, delinquent
behavior is expressed as an outlet especially to those of lower socioeconomic backgrounds that
cannot gain precedence through conventional means. Gender role for females is to become more
unnoticeable, a follower that does not need to stand out. Because of their condition to be more
docile and dependent, the instinctive need to gain precedence is not as highly valued. Even respect
comes in the form of different terms, as it is through how appropriately she conducts herself that
seems innocent. This is also influenced by fellow peers such as mothers and other female figures
apart from the authoritative male figure. In this instance, there is no need to urge to commit
delinquency as the female is expected to rely on the male for his expected role as provider. It is
through the act of needing to become dependent that enforces the feminine characteristics to seem
as an alternative to delinquency. In fact, it has been largely stated that while masculinity induces
such violent behavior, femininity is seen as the antithesis to delinquency.[8]Furthermore, it is assumed
that because femininity and masculinity are portrayed to be opposites, they contain a bipolarity in
society that forms an explanation to the staggering disproportionate ratio between convicted
delinquents. A sociological study conducted and recorded in the article Gender Role Expectations of
Juveniles, both a masculine and feminine test was created to be answered by kindergartners until
high school, indicating what role expectations were among the sexes. The answers were
predominantly that males were to provide through aggressive terms, while females should be the
more docile, bolstering the bipolarity assumption. This is because gender-role socialization produces
an absolutist stance toward rules and a receptiveness toward generalized moral standards among
girls while boys tend to develop a more individualistic and relativistic view of rules. [8] The bipolarity
assumption suggests that masculinity and femininity are opposites, and the assumption of
unidimensionality implies that gender differences form a single scale.

[9]

Interestingly, the impact of

feminism has because the formation of a new trend as female delinquency has gone up. Because
women are now able to take more the individualistic social stance and become the means of their
own provisions, the lack of providing those means has caused a gender convergence of crime.
Recent data and observations from the article indicate that gender role change necessarily means
females' changing their gender role identification to become more like males', that is, toward
masculine identification.[10]Thus, crime now committed by females resemble masculine behavior. This
illustrates an alarming trend in which females decide to adopt traditional masculine practices to

instigate the need to commit delinquent acts. This results in more violent behavior among females,
juveniles and adult women alike, however, the feminist critique indicates that this is primarily women
adopting to masculine methods in order to achieve equal respects, thus adopting such practice is not
an indication of equality but as a means of resort still relegated under patriarchal constructs.
However, the indication of gender convergence is still seen permeating between the psychological
and social causes of the delinquent behaviors among females. These findings even went to cases
between androgynous individuals as they were perceived in test findings to become more inclined to
delinquent behaviors than females counterparts, mimicking levels with of males. However, this also
comes into how the androgynous individual expresses its sexual identity regardless of
physiology. Sex differences in crime is prevalent in these terms because of studies indicating that
differentiation acknowledgments between the sexes from the traditional masculine and feminine
characters to the more androgynous ones also play an important psychological component. This
important factor was done through a series of testing, indicating that differentiation is key to the
convergence theory of crime that has bolstered the rise in female crime rates. Differentiation in this
case showed that delinquency caused by androgynous individuals were self-reported and
acknowledged more than the traditional counterparts.[10] Furthermore, females who considered
themselves undifferentiated were more likely to become aggressors, but the reverse is true for
undifferentiated males. This result from testing indicated that undifferentiated males inclined to more
law abiding practices, indicating that traditional masculine behavior supports high self-esteem for
undifferentiated males. Because this contrasts to the data for undifferentiated females, this indicates
that low self- esteem is primarily prevalent in females. These qualities however are suggestive
themes that point towards attitudes toward the police.[10] Data confirms that sex differences in crime
relate to attitudes of legal authority as well as developmental stages with parents, prompting the
undifferentiated behavior that associates with a risk of promoting delinquent behavior. The studies of
gender behavior that makes juveniles amendable at their early developmental stage is a thorough
analysis of why juveniles create delinquent behavior. Through feminist analysis, it is important that
juvenile behavior be studied through the critique of the traditional masculine and feminine constructs
to see how these attitudes shape the nature of the crimes committed between both sexes. From the
gender roles expectations to convergence theory and differentiation, these psychological factors
shape the risk of delinquency that juveniles may intend to act upon. More importantly, these
suggestive studies are still being researched to promote safer behavior for juveniles.

Racial differences[edit]
This article reads like an editorial or opinion piece. Please help improve this article by
rewriting it in anencyclopedic style to make it neutral in tone. See WP:No original
research and WP:NOTOPINION for further details.(March 2014)

There is also a significant skew in the racial statistics for juvenile offenders. When considering these
statistics, which state that Black and Latino teens are more likely to commit juvenile offenses it is
important to keep the following in mind: poverty, or low socio-economic status are large predictors of
low parental monitoring, harsh parenting, and association with deviant peer groups, all of which are
in turn associated with juvenile offending. The majority of adolescents who live in poverty are
racial minorities.[11] Also, minorities who offend, even as adolescents, are more likely to be arrested
and punished more harshly by the law if caught. [12]Particularly concerning a non-violent crime and
when compared to white adolescents. While poor minorities are more likely to commit violent crimes,
one third of affluent teens report committing violent crimes.[4]
Ethnic minority status has been included as a risk factor of psychosocial maladaptation in several
studies (e.g., Gutman et al. 2003; Sameroff et al. 1993; Dallaire et al. 2008), and represents a
relative social disadvantage placed on these individuals. Though the relation between delinquency
and race is complex and may be explained by other contextual risk variables (see, for example,
Holmes et al. 2009), the total arrest rate for black juveniles aged 1017 is more than twice that as of
white juveniles (National Center for Juvenile Justice 2008)(p. 1474).[13] This does not seem to be the
case for the minority group of East Asian background.[citation needed]
According to the OJJDP Statistical Briefing Online Book, in each racial group, the juvenile arrest rate
for all offenses combined generally increased from the early 1980s through the mid-1990s and then
declined in recent years. Between 1980 and 2012, the total juvenile arrest rate decreased 59% for
Asians, 55% for American Indians, 44% for whites, and 21% for black juveniles. In 2012, there were
3,362 arrests of white juveniles for every 100,000 white persons ages 10-17 in the population. In
comparison, the Asian juvenile rate was about one-third (30%) the white rate, the American Indian
rate was about 10% below the white rate and the black rate was more than double the white rate.
The overall arrest rate for black juveniles peaked in 1995. For the other three racial groups, the
arrest rates peaked in 1996. Between their peak years and 2011, the juvenile arrest rates declined
for each racial group: the decline was 45% for black juveniles, 68% for Asians, 61% for American
Indians, and 50% for whites.

Risk factors[edit]
The two largest predictors of juvenile delinquency are

parenting style, with the two styles most likely to predict delinquency being

"permissive" parenting, characterized by a lack of consequence-based discipline and

encompassing two subtypes known as

"neglectful" parenting, characterized by a lack of monitoring and thus of knowledge of

the child's activities, and

"indulgent" parenting, characterized by affirmative enablement of misbehavior

"authoritarian" parenting, characterized by harsh discipline and refusal to justify

discipline on any basis other than "because I said so";

peer group association, particularly with antisocial peer groups, as is more likely when
adolescents are left unsupervised.[4]

Other factors that may lead a teenager into juvenile delinquency include poor or
low socioeconomic status, poor school readiness/performance and/or failure, peer rejection,
or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There may also be biological factors, such as
high levels of serotonin, giving them a difficult temper and poor self-regulation, and a lower
resting heart rate, which may lead to fearlessness. Delinquent activity, particularly the
involvement in youth gangs, may also be caused by a desire for protection against violence or
financial hardship, as the offenders view delinquent activity as a means of surrounding
themselves with resources to protect against these threats. Most of these influences tend to be
caused by a mix of both genetic and environmental factors.[4]

Individual risk factors[edit]

Individual psychological or behavioural risk factors that may make offending more likely include
low intelligence, impulsiveness or the inability to delay gratification,aggression, lack of empathy,
and restlessness.[11] Other risk factors that may be evident during childhood and adolescence
include, aggressive or troublesome behavior, language delays or impairments, lack of emotional
control (learning to control one's anger), and cruelty to animals.[14]
Children with low intelligence are more likely to do badly in school. This may increase the
chances of offending because low educational attainment, a low attachment to school, and low
educational aspirations are all risk factors for offending in themselves.[15][16][17] Children who
perform poorly at school are also more likely to be truant, and the status offense of truancy is
linked to further offending.[11] Impulsiveness is seen by some as the key aspect of a
child's personality that predicts offending.[11] However, it is not clear whether these aspects of
personality are a result of "deficits in the executive functions of the brain"[11] or a result of parental
influences or other social factors.[18] In any event, studies of adolescent development show that
teenagers are more prone to risk-taking, which may explain the high disproportionate rate of
offending among adolescents.[4]

Family environment and peer influence[edit]

Family factors that may have an influence on offending include: the level of parental supervision,
the way parents discipline a child, particularly harsh punishment, parental conflict or separation,
criminal parents or siblings, parental abuse or neglect, and the quality of the parent-child
relationship.[18] Some have suggested that having a lifelong partner leads to less offending. [citation
needed]

Juvenile Delinquency, which basically is the rebellious or unlawful activities by kids in their teens
or pre-teens, is caused by four main risk factors namely; personality, background, state of mind
and drugs. These factors may lead to the child having low IQ and may increase the rate of
illiteracy.[19]
Children brought up by lone parents are more likely to start offending than those who live with
two natural parents. It is also more likely that children of single parents may live in poverty, which
is strongly associated with juvenile delinquency.[4] However once the attachment a child feels
towards their parent(s) and the level of parental supervision are taken into account, children in
single parent families are no more likely to offend than others.[18] Conflict between a child's
parents is also much more closely linked to offending than being raised by a lone parent. [15]
If a child has low parental supervision they are much more likely to offend. [18] Many studies have
found a strong correlation between a lack of supervision and offending, and it appears to be the
most important family influence on offending.[11][18] When parents commonly do not know where
their children are, what their activities are, or who their friends are, children are more likely to
truant from school and have delinquent friends, each of which are linked to offending. [18] A lack of
supervision is also connected to poor relationships between children and parents. Children who
are often in conflict with their parents may be less willing to discuss their activities with them. [18]
Adolescents with criminal siblings are only more likely to be influenced by their siblings, and also
become delinquent, if the sibling is older, of the same sex/gender, and warm. [14] Cases where a
younger criminal sibling influences an older one are rare. An aggressive, non-loving/warm sibling
is less likely to influence a younger sibling in the direction of delinquency, if anything, the more
strained the relationship between the siblings, the less they will want to be like, and/or influence
each other.[14]
Peer rejection in childhood is also a large predictor of juvenile delinquency. Although children are
rejected by peers for many reasons, it is often the case that they are rejected due to violent or
aggressive behavior. This rejections affects the child's ability to be socialized properly, which can
reduce their aggressive tendencies, and often leads them to gravitate towards anti-social peer

groups.[14] This association often leads to the promotion of violent, aggressive and deviant
behavior. "The impact of deviant peer group influences on the crystallization of an antisocial
developmental trajectory has been solidly documented." [14] Aggressive adolescents who have
been rejected by peers are also more likely to have a "hostile attribution bias", which leads
people to interpret the actions of others (whether they be hostile or not) as purposefully hostile
and aggressive towards them. This often leads to an impulsive and aggressive reaction.
[20]

Hostile attribution bias however, can appear at any age during development and often lasts

throughout a persons life.

Children resulting from unintended pregnancies are more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior.
[21]

They also have lower mother-child relationship quality.[22]

Applicable crime theories[edit]

There are a multitude of different theories on the causes of crime, most if not all of are applicable
to the causes of juvenile delinquency.

Rational choice[edit]
Classical criminology stresses that causes of crime lie within the individual offender, rather than
in their external environment. For classicists, offenders are motivated by rational self-interest,
and the importance of free will and personal responsibility is emphasized.[23] Rational choice
theory is the clearest example of this idea. Delinquency is one of the major factors motivated by
rational choice.

Social disorganization[edit]
Current positivist approaches generally focus on the culture. A type of criminological theory
attributing variation in crime and delinquency over time and among territories to the absence or
breakdown of communal institutions (e.g. family, school, church and social groups.) and
communal relationships that traditionally encouraged cooperative relationships among people.

Strain[edit]
Strain theory is associated mainly with the work of Robert Merton. He felt that there
are institutionalized paths to success in society. Strain theory holds that crime is caused by the
difficulty those in poverty have in achieving socially valued goals by legitimate means.[23] As
those with, for instance, poor educational attainment have difficulty achieving wealth and status

by securing well paid employment, they are more likely to use criminal means to obtain these
goals.[24] Merton's suggests five adaptations to this dilemma:
1. Innovation: individuals who accept socially approved goals, but not necessarily the
socially approved means.
2. Retreatism: those who reject socially approved goals and the means for acquiring them.
3. Ritualism: those who buy into a system of socially approved means, but lose sight of the
goals. Merton believed that drug users are in this category.
4. Conformity: those who conform to the system's means and goals.
5. Rebellion: people who negate socially approved goals and means by creating a new
system of acceptable goals and means.
A difficulty with strain theory is that it does not explore why children of low-income families would
have poor educational attainment in the first place. More importantly is the fact that much youth
crime does not have an economic motivation. Strain theory fails to explain violent crime, the type
of youth crime that causes most anxiety to the public.

Differential association[edit]
The theory of Differential association also deals with young people in a group context, and looks
at how peer pressure and the existence of gangs could lead them into crime. It suggests young
people are motivated to commit crimes by delinquent peers, and learn criminal skills from them.
The diminished influence of peers after men marry has also been cited as a factor in desisting
from offending. There is strong evidence that young people with criminal friends are more likely
to commit crimes themselves. However it may be the case that offenders prefer to associate with
one another, rather than delinquent peers causing someone to start offending. Furthermore
there is the question of how the delinquent peer group became delinquent initially.

Labeling[edit]
Labeling theory is a concept within Criminology that aims to explain deviant behavior from the
social context rather than looking at the individual themselves. It is part of Interactionism
criminology that states that once young people have been labeled as criminal they are more
likely to offend.[23] The idea is that once labelled as deviant a young person may accept that role,
and be more likely to associate with others who have been similarly labelled. [23] Labelling

theorists say that male children from poor families are more likely to be labelled deviant, and that
this may partially explain why there are more working class young male offenders.[15]

Social control[edit]
Social control theory proposes that exploiting the process of socialization and social learning
builds self-control and can reduce the inclination to indulge in behavior recognized as antisocial.
The four types of control can help prevent juvenile delinquency are:
Direct: by which punishment is threatened or applied for wrongful behavior, and compliance is
rewarded by parents, family, and authority figures. Internal: by which a youth refrains from
delinquency through the conscience or superego. Indirect: by identification with those who
influence behavior, say because his or her delinquent act might cause pain and disappointment
to parents and others with whom he or she has close relationships. Control through needs
satisfaction, i.e. if all an individual's needs are met, there is no point in criminal activity.

Mental/conduct disorders[edit]
Juvenile delinquents are often diagnosed with different disorders. Around six to sixteen percent
of male teens and two to nine percent of female teens have a conduct disorder. These can vary
from oppositional-defiant disorder, which is not necessarily aggressive, to antisocial personality
disorder, often diagnosed amongpsychopaths.[25] A conduct disorder can develop during
childhood and then manifest itself during adolescence.[26]
Juvenile delinquents who have recurring encounters with the criminal justice system, or in other
words those who are life-course-persistent offenders, are sometimes diagnosed with conduct
disorders because they show a continuous disregard for their own and others safety and/or
property. Once the juvenile continues to exhibit the same behavioral patterns and turns eighteen
he is then at risk of being diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and much more prone to
become a serious criminal offender.[27] One of the main components used in diagnosing an adult
with antisocial personality disorder consists of presenting documented history of conduct
disorder before the age of 15. These two personality disorders are analogous in their erratic and
aggressive behavior. This is why habitual juvenile offenders diagnosed with conduct disorder are
likely to exhibit signs of antisocial personality disorder early in life and then as they mature.
Some times these juveniles reach maturation and they develop into career criminals, or lifecourse-persistent offenders. "Career criminals begin committing antisocial behavior before
entering grade school and are versatile in that they engage in an array of destructive behaviors,
offend at exceedingly high rates, and are less likely to quit committing crime as they age." [27]

Quantitative research was completed on 9,945 juvenile male offenders between the ages of 10
and 18 in the 1970s.[where?] The longitudinal birth cohort was used to examine a trend among a
small percentage of career criminals who accounted for the largest percentage of crime activity.
[28]

The trend exhibited a new phenomenon among habitual offenders. The phenomenon

indicated that only 6% of the youth qualified under their definition of a habitual offender (known
today as life-course persistent offenders, or career criminals) and yet were responsible for 52%
of the delinquency within the entire study.[28] The same 6% of chronic offenders accounted for
71% of the murders and 69% of the aggravated assaults.[28] This phenomenon was later
researched among an adult population in 1977 and resulted in similar findings. S. A. Mednick did
a birth cohort of 30,000 males and found that 1% of the males were responsible for more than
half of the criminal activity.[29] The habitual crime behavior found among juveniles is similar to that
of adults. As stated before most life-course persistent offenders begin exhibiting antisocial,
violent, and/or delinquent behavior, prior to adolescence. Therefore, while there is a high rate of
juvenile delinquency, it is the small percentage of life-course persistent, career criminals that are
responsible for most of the violent crimes.

Prevention[edit]

1936 poster promoting planned housing as a method to deter juvenile delinquency, showing silhouettes of
a child stealing a piece of fruit and a child involved in armed robbery.

Delinquency prevention is the broad term for all efforts aimed at preventing youth from becoming
involved in criminal, or other antisocial, activity.
Because the development of delinquency in youth is influenced by numerous factors, prevention
efforts need to be comprehensive in scope. Prevention services may include activities such as

substance abuse education and treatment, family counseling, youth mentoring, parenting
education, educational support, and youth sheltering. Increasing availability and use of family
planning services, including education and contraceptives helps to reduce unintended
pregnancy and unwanted births, which are risk factors for delinquency. education Education is
the great equalizer, opening doors to lift themselves out of poverty.... Education also promotes
economic growth, national productivity and innovation, and values of democracy and social
cohesion.[30] Prevention through education aides the young person to interact more effectively in
social contexts therefor diminishing need for delinquency.
It has been noted that often interventions may leave at-risk children worse off then if there had
never been an intervention.[31] This is due primarily to the fact that placing large groups of at risk
children together only propagates delinquent or violent behavior. "Bad" teens get together to talk
about the "bad" things they've done, and it is received by their peers in a positive reinforcing
light, promoting the behavior among them.[31] A well-known intervention treatment that has not
increased the prevention of juvenile delinquency is the Scared Straight Treatment. The harmful
effects of Scared Straight and boot-camp programs may be attributable to juvenile offenders
vicarious exposure to criminal role models, to the increased resentment engendered in them by
confrontational interactions, or both

[32]

This suggests that exposure to criminals could create a

sense of idealization and defeat the entire purpose of scared straight treatment. Also, this
treatment doesnt acknowledge the psychological troubles that the teenager may be
experiencing. As mentioned before, peer groups, particularly an association with antisocial peer
groups, is one of the biggest predictors of delinquency, and of life-course-persistent delinquency.
The most efficient interventions are those that not only separate at-risk teens from anti-social
peers, and place them instead with pro-social ones, but also simultaneously improve their home
environment by training parents with appropriate parenting styles,[31] parenting style being the
other large predictor of juvenile delinquency.

Critique of risk factor research[edit]

Two UK academics, Stephen Case and Kevin Haines, among others, criticized risk factor
research in their academic papers and a comprehensive polemic text,Understanding Youth
Offending: Risk Factor Research, Policy and Practice.
The robustness and validity of much risk factor research is criticized for:

Determinism, e.g. characterising young people as passive victims of risk experiences with no
ability to construct, negotiate or resist risk;

Imputation, e.g. assuming that risk factors and definitions of offending are homogenous
across countries and cultures, assuming that statistical correlations between risk factors and
offending actually represent causal relationships, assuming that risk factors apply to
individuals on the basis of aggregated data.

Reductionism, e.g. over-simplfying complex experiences and circumstances by converting

them to simple quantities, relying on a psychosocial focus while neglecting potential sociostructural and political influences;

Juvenile sex crimes[edit]

The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with USA and do not

represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discus
the issue on the talk page. (July 2010)

Juveniles who commit sexual crimes refer to individuals adjudicated in a criminal court for a
sexual crime.[33] Sex crimes are defined as sexually abusive behavior committed by a person
under the age of 18 that is perpetrated "against the victim's will, without consent, and in an
aggressive, exploitative, manipulative, and/or threatening manner". [34] It is important to utilize
appropriate terminology for juvenile sex offenders. Harsh and inappropriate expressions include
terms such as "pedophile, child molester, predator, perpetrator, and mini-perp"[35] These terms
have often been associated with this group, regardless of the youths age,diagnosis, cognitive
abilities, or developmental stage.[35] Using appropriate expressions can facilitate a more accurate
depiction of juvenile sex offenders and may decrease the subsequent aversive psychological
affects from using such labels.[35] In the Arab Gulf states [sic], homosexual acts are classified as
an offense, and constitute one of the primary crimes for which juvenile males are charged. [36]

Prevalence data[edit]
Examining prevalence data and the characteristics of juvenile sex offenders is a fundamental
component to obtain a precise understanding of this heterogeneous group. With mandatory
reporting laws in place, it became a necessity for providers to report any incidents of disclosed
sexual abuse. Longo and Prescott indicate that juveniles commit approximately 30-60% of all
child sexual abuse.[35] The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports indicate that in
2008 youth under the age of 18 accounted for 16.7% of forcible rapes and 20.61% of other
sexual offenses.[37] Center for Sex Offender Management indicates that approximately one-fifth of
all rapes and one-half of all sexual child molestation can be accounted for by juveniles. [38]

Official record data[edit]

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention indicates that 15% of
juvenile arrests occurred for rape in 2006, and 12% were clearance (resolved by an arrest).
[39]

The total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for forcible rape was 3,610 with 2% being female

and 36% being under the age of 15 years old.[39] This trend has declined throughout the years
with forcible rape from 19972006 being 30% and from 2005 to 2006 being 10%. [39] The
OJJDP reports that the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape increased from the early 1980s
through the 1990s and at that time it fell again.[39] All types of crime rates fell in the 1990s.[citation
needed]

The OJJDP also reported that the total number of juvenile arrests in 2006 for sex offenses

(other than forcible rape) was 15,900 with 10% being female and 47% being under the age of
15.[39] There was again a decrease with the trend throughout the years with sex offenses from
1997 to 2006 being 16% and from 2005 to 2006 being 9%.[39]

Males who commit sexual crimes[edit]

Barbaree and Marshall indicate that juvenile males contribute to the majority of sex crimes, with
24% of adolescent males having reported committing sexually assaultive behavior, and 20% of
all rapes and 3050% of all child molestation are perpetrated by adolescent males.[33] It is clear
that males are over-represented in this population. This is consistent with Ryan and Lanes
research indicating that males account for 91-93% of the reported juvenile sex offenses.
[34]

Righthand and Welch reported that females account for an estimated 211% of incidents of

sexual offending.[40] In addition, it reported by The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention that in the juvenile arrests during 2006, African American male youth were
disproportionately arrested (34%) for forcible rape. In one case in a foster home a 13-year-old
boy raped a 9-year-old boy by having forced anal sex with him, in a court hearing the 9-year-old
boy said he has done this multiple times, that the 13-year-old boy was charged for sexual
assault.[39]

Juvenile sex crimes internationally[edit]

Sexual crimes committed by juveniles are not just an issue in the United States. Studies from
the Netherlands show that out of 3200 sex offenders recorded by police in 2009, 672 of those
were juveniles, approximately 21 percent of sexual offenders. The study also points out the male
to female ratio of sexual predators.[41]
In 2009, a U.S. congressman proposed legislature that would create an International Sex
Offender Registry. The bill was introduced due to the fact that because laws differ in different
countries someone who is on the sex offender registry in the U.S. who may be barred from living

certain places and doing certain activities has free range in other less developed countries. This
can lead to child sex tourism, when a sexual predator will go to less developed countries and
prey on young boys and girls. Karne Newburn in his article, The Prospect of an International Sex
Offender Registry, pointed out some serious flaws in the proposed bill, such as creating safety
issues within the communities for the sex offenders placed on the registry. Newburn suggested
instead of creating an International Sex Offender Registry from the U.S. model the U.S. join
other countries in a dialogue on creating an effective model. As of now no registry exists.
Despite this there is still interest in creating some sort of international registry.[42]