Keywords

Juvenile Delinquency: Introduction

Juvenile delinquency constitutes a serious social problem worldwide in today’s societies and has persisted in the world for many centuries with negative consequences for individuals, family, and society (Hazra, 2021), understood by Neissl (2020) as young people under the age of 18 who participate in criminal activities.

Rutter et al. (2000) wonder if there will be a rigorous and correct definition of delinquency and if the term delinquency can have a clear and uniform meaning for all people. This question becomes more evident if one considers that this term refers to acts at the outset quite diverse and complex (Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987). The definition that seems most unanimous is that juvenile delinquency is understood as the participation of a minor in actions that violate one or more criminal laws (Loeber et al., 2008). Thus, the same authors relate juvenile delinquency to antisocial behavior, which is considered as behaviors that inflict less or greater severity on others. Some authors call attention to the fact that antisocial behavior is one of the main problems in childhood preceding the development of dysfunctional behaviors that arise later, such as drug abuse, delinquency, criminality, and marginal existence in adulthood (Patterson et al., 1992).

Delinquency and deviance emerge as equivalent notions. Becker in 1963 published a book called Outsiders, considering “deviance” as an infraction of social norms, inserting the theory of “labeling,” obtaining a negative reputation related to deviance and delinquency (e.g., drug users, violent aggressors) (Becker, 2018).

The emergence of juvenile delinquency can be explained in different ways and etiologies, through the perspective of scholars of this problem. Kiche (2020) argues that family breakdown (e.g., neglect or abuse of parents) can contribute to delinquent behavior, by the lack of social ties between young people and parents, while Hazra (2021) presents that poverty can be responsible for delinquent behavior leading to poor living conditions, domestic violence, low education, and scarce opportunities for young people, particularly those in developing countries, as well as the consumption of substances (e.g., Cunha et al., 2015; Matos et al., 2015; Quintas, 2019), associated psychopathologies (e.g., Matos, 2019), peer pressure (the role of the peer group in the development of disruptive behaviors has already been proven in the risk of aggressive or externalizing behaviors (e.g., Martins & Gomes, (2019), Monahan et al. (2009), Mrug et al. (2004)) and cultural and social variables (e.g., Ahmad (2020)). This author notes that in the Middle East, young people engage in delinquent behavior as a consequence of radicalization by terrorist groups and wars with neighboring countries (Ahmad, 2020). Other authors argue that increases in delinquency rates appear to be directly correlated with technological and economic development, noting that official data indicate that Western Europe, the USA, and Japan have high levels of juvenile delinquency (Mlay & Mpeta, 2023). Rising rates of juvenile delinquency also happen on the African continent, such as Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria, with the most common crimes being home, shop, and car thefts (Waruiz et al., 2021).

Young and Their Relationship with the Legal System

As Mirón (1990; Mirón & Otero, 2005) affirms, in principle the norms and laws that govern a given society, as well as the punishments applicable to all those who violate them, are formulated from the principle that all the members that make up that same society are in possession of the complete understanding of such norms, as well as the consequences that may arise from their noncompliance.

From the twentieth century arises the idea that one cannot treat legally and socially in the same way an adult subject and a minor subject (Le Blanc et al., 2008), and age is an important criterion to determine the responsibility or not of a particular person in the face of a certain behavior. As Jean Carbonnier (2016) told us, life is much broader than the law, and this aspect is clear especially in the justice of minors and young people of legal age.

The first aspect to consider for any person, and not only for a juvenile delinquent, according to some authors should be the focus on the competence of minors to be tried and on their ability to understand, use, and defend their rights (Redlich et al., 2003; Redlich & Goodman, 2003; Rogers et al., 2014).

Different investigations have shown that minors have a very limited knowledge of court procedures and the legal terminology used (Crawford & Bull, 2006; Sacau et al., 2015; Sacau, 2019). The developmental characteristics of minors make them less cognitively able to respond about their actions and, on the other hand, more permeable to intervention with a view to their reeducation (Bryan-Hancocka & Casey, 2011).

Juvenile delinquency refers to any activity or transgression against the law and is therefore qualified as a crime by criminal law (Feijó & Assis, 2004). In Portugal, these offences fall into the realm of juvenile delinquency when committed by young people aged between 12 and 16 years (Lei tutelar educativa n°4/2015, de 15 de janeiro; Cardoso et al., 2015).

Typologies of Deviant Behaviors Among Young

The most frequent behaviors among young people can be grouped into six broad categories: conduct against the norms, vandalism, theft, assaults on people, crimes related to the consumption, and trafficking of illegal drugs in an individual or group context (APA, 2014; Cardoso et al., 2015; Junger-Tas et al., 2013; Mirón & Otero, 2005; Murray & Farrington, 2010).

Conduct Against the Norms

Delinquency is a negative behavior that violates norms (Zahrawati et al., 2023) and social values prevailing in society, such as being late to class, not doing assignments, cheating, and arguing (Raihana, 2016). These same negative attitudes that can persuade the subjects may be the result of various types of social problems such as the existence of social conflicts, associations of uncontrolled adolescents, the diminution of the values of nationalism and patriotism, disputes between the subjects, and the appearance of negative consequences of foreign cultural values, eroding local and national values that have existed for a long time (Rokhman et al., 2014; Zahrawati et al., 2022).

Their social dangerousness is greatly reduced, with an almost total absence of violence. On the other hand, there is almost no preparation of this type of crime and when it exists it is weak (Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987). On the other hand, as stated by Rutter et al. (2000), many of these activities are part of the type of offenses that we can classify as status, that is, behaviors in which it is the age at which the act committed gives them a character of infraction.

Vandalism

This category of offences includes reprehensible public acts, damage to property, arson, destruction of objects, etc. That is, acts whose common denominator is the destruction or destruction of a public or private good. Thus, we can conclude that vandalism presents itself as a group actout, where the search for emotions (search for arousal) prevails and where the impulsive or opportunistic character seems accentuated, reaching this practice a very accentuated number of subjects, despite its almost zero material profitability (Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987).

As Rutter et al. (2000) point out, vandalism appears alongside violations of the norms as the most frequent type of juvenile offense. In fact, the studies by Mirrlees-Black et al. (1996) carried out in Great Britain go in this direction, demonstrating the difference from the results obtained from the official statistics that put certain types of theft first.

The Theft

As stated by some authors (Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987; Junger-Tas, 1994; Rutter et al., 2000), young people who appear before the courts are essentially distinguished by being individuals who steal, that is, they privilege a delinquency of a material type where what we might call objective gravity presents a medium degree compared to other delinquent manifestations.

It is a criminal category where most of the time there is the consequent preparation. Most adolescents, about 71% (e.g., Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987), claim to have previously organized and planned the crime on a regular basis.

Theft by break-in is an offence strictly directed against property, carried out in a stealthy manner in the absence of the owner, so there is no threat or intimidation to achieve its ends. It is, due to its extent and frequency, the most common delinquent mode of expression in adolescents (Garrido et al., 1999).

According to Frechétte and LeBlanc (1987), theft from stores and establishments ranks second in the acts committed by adolescents. It is verified that both men and women participate in this type of crime (Baumer & Rosenbaum, 1984).

It seems relevant to note that the presence of alcohol or illegal drugs precedes the passage to the act (e.g., Wrigth and Decker (1997)).

For Garrido et al. (1999), there are two basic types of theft in which violence is employed. In the first type, violence is the modus operandi, that is, the offender is fully aware that he will only be able to achieve his goals through this type of action. In the second type of violent theft, the offender acts this way because he was surprised during the theft, eventually using violence as a response to get out of the situation in which he fell.

Aggression Toward People

According to Frechétte and LeBlanc (1987), very few subjects venture into this type of performance. On the other hand, individuals can be divided into two groups, being in a first group those subjects who carry out attacks against people in a controlled and rational way, that is, in which violence is used with intention and not having at the outset connections with the victim, and being a more structured, more intentional activity, and more subordinated to concrete objectives. A second group will bring together the subjects whose aggressive reactions will be more impulsive, more explosive, and undoubtedly more excessive, since they are not premeditated and are therefore executed very often after the ingestion of alcohol or illegal drugs.

Anderson and Huesmann (2003) defend a dimensional approach, characterizing aggressive acts in four dimensions: (1) degree of hostility or emotional instability, (2) behavioral automatism, (3) degree in which the main objective was to hurt the victim or favor the aggressor, and finally (4) degree of weighting of the consequences. The intention to cause harm remains a fundamental criterion in all aggressions. According to the same authors, this approach allows a clearer understanding of the different motivations and consequences of aggression.

The explanation that enjoys the greatest acceptance is the social learning theory, where it is established that aggression and violent conduct are learned following direct experience and imitation of real and symbolic models. Hence the family, as the first reference group, becomes the primary source of aggressive models. Thus, the individual who has developed in a climate in which violence is something normal and acceptable or even reinforced will present greater possibilities of becoming a violent and aggressive subject against other people (Garrido et al., 1999; Sarasúa et al., 1994).

Drug Consumption and Trafficking

This type of offence in relation to the latter group involves a more formal criminal character, since the law expressly defines the possession and trafficking of drugs as unlawful acts.

It is believed that drug consumption is directly associated with involvement in crimes, but this does not always happen (Quintas, 2019). Some studies show that the practice of crimes precedes the consumption of drugs or occurs temporally with the consumption of drugs (Agra & Matos, 1997; DeLisi et al., 2015).

Overall, longitudinal studies show contrary results compared to the effect of drug use on delinquency and/or delinquency on drug use. Thus, DeLisi et al. (2015) present that in a sample of young chronic delinquents, the first offense is more related to several outcomes associated with the repeated practice of crime which is the crime of drug use. However, Hunter et al. (2014) cannot prove that marijuana use upon entry into a youth program is related to higher levels of future delinquency.

On the other hand, a meta-analysis with 30 empirical studies shows us that there is a correlation between drug abuse and the commission of crimes. This review shows that the probability of a drug user committing a crime is about 3–4 times higher than a nonuser but is dependent on the type of drugs consumed, with the commission of crimes being higher in the case of crack (OR = 6.21), heroin (OR = 3.59), or cocaine (OR = 2.62) than when the drugs consumed are amphetamines (OR = 1.86) or marijuana (OR = 1.51) (Bennett et al., 2008).

With regard to consumption, the subjects seem to come from poorly structured family backgrounds, and antisocial activity manifests itself early (before the age of 10), by a behavioral polymorphism (e.g., loitering, escapes, thefts). The first experiences with drugs occur before the age of 16, with a progression toward “hard” drugs (after cannabinoids) as well as alcohol (Negreiros, 2008; Tuchfield & Logan, 1982).

Evolution of Criminal Activity in Relation to Age: Criminal Careers

The age group in which delinquency occurs is determinant and according to the legal framework, the manifestation of antisocial behaviors by children and adolescents is called “delinquents” and by “criminals” adults (Hinshaw & Lee, 2003).

Farrington et al. (2008) show that a large percentage of the subjects who carry out crimes of different natures are young individuals, and the peak of their criminal actions occurs until the end of their adolescence. On the other hand, there is also a growing decrease in the average age of entry into delinquency, with a phenomenon of juvenilization occurring in all offenders (Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987; Mannheim, 2013; Rutter et al. 2000; Wolfgang, 1964).

According to Rutter et al. (2000), this juvenilization of delinquency, although it calls into question the invariances of Hirschi and Gottfredson (1983), does not fail to present developmental axes, sometimes paradoxical. According to a study by Graham and Bowling (1995), the culminating age of delinquency or its highest peak coincides with 21 years for boys and 16 years for girls, with the highest age for property crime offences around 14, violent conduct around 16, and serious offences at 17 and 20 drug-related offences.

Farrington et al. (2008) in longitudinal studies on the prevalence of infractions have shown that they begin their practice, although with decreased rates in late childhood (10–12 years), they continue to fall in early adolescence (13–15 years), with a peak of occurrence in late adolescence (16–19 years) and decrease from this time. The same authors point out that this curve of crime according to age tends to remain consistent in different countries.

The issue of the culminating age is related to the question of the temporal succession of events that may occur in the passage from a phase of clear dependence for the young to another of independence, where the issue of compulsory education and entry into the labor market emerges (Arnett, 2000; Conger & Elder, 1994; Rutter et al., 2000). In Western countries, however, these cycles represent a clear increase in age, a fact that does not explain juvenilization at all may explain the evident increase in the peak of criminal activities.

In a longitudinal study of about 10,000 adolescents, Wolfgang et al. (1972) conclude that it is the subjects who begin their delinquent activity at puberty, more precisely around the age of 12–13, who carry out the most crimes until the age of 18. Precocity appears in these studies as a predictive index of the frequency and severity of delinquent acts during adolescence as well as in adulthood. This is equally supported by Farrington (1983) and Negreiros (2008). The age of onset of delinquency emerges as a primary factor in predicting the delinquent conduct that will inevitably follow to assess its duration (Rutter et al., 2000).

In a study carried out by Fréchette and LeBlanc (1979), it is found that the entry into criminal activity begins on average very early, that is, in many cases before the age of 12 or between the ages of 12 and 14.

Regarding the study of the persistence, duration, and chronicity of delinquent action (Loeber, 1982; Negreiros, 2008), we can say that the consolidation of delinquency appears as a process in which a double movement can be verified, on the one hand the appearance of delinquent behaviors and the rapid acceleration of these acts and on the other hand the establishment of these same behaviors, so as to become dominant and become as if inscribed in the functioning of the subjects (e.g., Kagan and Moss (1983) and McCord (1982)).

There are certain categories of offence which may at first be more persistent than others. Fréchette and LeBlanc (1979) verify that shoplifting and theft by break-in are perhaps those crimes that last longer in adolescents, that is, they are categories that appear as the most likely to fuel delinquent activity over a longer period.

Taking into account the study of Fréchette and LeBlanc (1979), there is a remarkable acceleration of the processes of renewal and multiplication of the forms of expression of delinquency in subjects between the ages of 12 and 14. While between the ages of 8 and 12, there is a greater bottleneck of activities, these being limited to two or three of a less pronounced severity, that is, there is an almost inexistence of polymorphism and heterogeneity so typical of adolescent criminal activity.

There are still other authors who advocated that there were no differences between the criminal and the noncriminal personality (Pinatel, 1963). There was a criminal personality grouped in a central node and variants. The central node was composed of four personality traits that facilitated the passage to the criminal act (egocentrism, emotional lability, aggressiveness, and affective indifference (Born, 2005)). The variants were composed of temperament, physical, intellectual, and professional skills and nutritional and sexual deficiencies that were not directly related to the passage to the act and were fundamental in the type of criminal activity involved by the individual (Born, 2005; Simões, 2021).

Subsequently other authors (Born, 2005; Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987; Simões, 2021) validated and updated Pinatel’s theory (1963) by introducing the notion of delinquent personality, highlighting the aspects that benefit the onset and development of the delinquent personality (in childhood and adolescence) that would be composed of three symptoms: criminal rootedness, long-lasting dissociality, and an exacerbated egocentrism. The criminal rootedness manifested in the increase of delinquent practices and their perseverance over time, involving different developmental stages: activation, aggravation, and withdrawal. Activation would include the initiation and development of criminal practice through several substages: (1) acceleration (illegal practices would increase in frequency), (2) diversification (illegal actions would be increasingly heterogeneous, becoming more alarming if their onset happened prematurely), and (3) dynamic interaction with a longer duration and frequency, which would lead to a type of habitual or chronic delinquency (Born, 2005; Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987; Simões, 2021).

The aggravation would be related to the consequent normative and behavioral deterioration that was happening in the antisocial practices of individuals, explaining the persistent and problematic delinquency (Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987).

The last phase, the dropout, would be related to the reduction of diversification, frequency and duration, and severity of the subjects’ conducts, with a progressive slowing down around the age of 18. In this way, individuals who remained in a nonnormative framework would move from juvenile delinquency to a type more linked to organized crime or the criminal career would end with the end of adolescence and the group phase that is common to all young people, whether normative or not (Fréchette & LeBlanc, 1987; Simões, 2021).

One of the most in-depth problems at the theoretical level has been the relationship of the age-crime curve, such interest has to do with the observation of an abrupt increase in the number of arrests between 12 and 17 years, and to verify a subsequent decrease, which is strongly accentuated especially from the end of adolescence, with a growing increase in criminal activity between the ages of 12 and 17, followed by a decline in criminal activity (Blumstein et al., 1988; Loeber, 2012; Piquero et al. 2003).

The analysis of the relationship between age and crime has obeyed several theoretical hypotheses, two of which are the most pertinent. The first considers that age exerts a direct and invariant effect on the crime, not being dependent on other variables such as sex and type of crime, among others, while the second orientation argues that the relationship between age and delinquency is not invariant, that is, it results from a mediatization of personal characteristics and specific social conditions. Thus, the first position can be called the criminal propensity approach and the second the criminal careers (Loeber, 2012; Negreiros, 2008).

Born (2005) refers to the existence of a chain of mechanisms in which the early onset of delinquency triggers dynamic processes that end up translating into both qualitative and quantitative changes in the delinquent trajectory. Thus, precocity may constitute an independent variable since the activation process, as well as the processes of acceleration, stability, and diversification, manifest themselves because of early criminal activity.

However, as stated by Negreiros (2008), it is not acceptable to assume that an early onset of criminal activity leads to an invariable and inevitable way to a stable and serious antisocial activity, since such a position turns out to be a little reductive falling into a certain and evident determinism. That is why it is important to know what factors might determine an early onset of delinquent activity and, on the other hand, to know whether one might question the principle that an early onset inevitably leads to frequent, stable, and diversified delinquent activity regardless of the type of offence committed.

The questions regarding the age-crime curve seem endless; however, there have been two new revisions since Rolf Loeber’s paper in 2012 (Britt, 2019; DeLisi et al., 2015). Additionally, the differences between the curves of the 1960 and 1980 generations need to be clarified (Le Blanc, 2020).

Prevalence of Juvenile Delinquency

Enzmann et al. (2010) conducted a study on self-reported delinquency in 31 countries, based on data from the Second International Self-Reported Delinquency Questionnaire (ISRD2), and found that Ireland, the USA, Germany, and the Netherlands had the highest rates of violent juvenile delinquency. Among the countries with low rates of juvenile delinquency were Cyprus, Portugal, and Venezuela. In 2018, Enzmann et al. realized another investigation where they reported the main results of Third International Self-Reported Delinquency Questionnaire (ISRD3), with a sample consisting of 27 countries. The countries with the highest prevalence of juvenile delinquency were the USA, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Serbia, and Italy, and the countries with the lowest prevalence rates of self-reported delinquency were India, Kosovo, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Indonesia.

In turn, the World Health Organization in 2015 reported that approximately 200,000 youth homicides occur among individuals aged between 10 and 29 years, with the main perpetrators being young people themselves (WHO, 2015). In 2020, the WHO conjectured that there are 200,000 homicides annually among young people aged 10–29 in the world, making homicide the fourth leading cause of death in this age group. Homicide rates among young people vary greatly from country to country and even within each country. Globally, 83% of young homicide victims are male, and most murderers are also male in all countries. Youth homicide rates among women are much lower than among men virtually worldwide (WHO, 2020).

Recent data from the Children, Violence, and Vulnerability (2022) report presenting the results of a survey of 2025 young people between the ages of 13 and 17, of both sexes in England and Wales, indicate that during the pandemic, violence decreases; more specifically, robberies decreased by 34%, homicides in 20%, and hospital admissions related to occurrences with knives from 0 to 17 years 14% between 2019/2020 and 2020/2021. As restrictions caused by the pandemic have reduced, some forms of violence have returned to pre-pandemic rates, while others have not. Robberies remain 27% below the rate in 2019/2020, but homicides of 13–17-year-olds in London are higher in 2021 than in 2019.

Risk and Protective Factors

The study of risk factors constitutes a fundamental factor for the design of juvenile delinquency prevention programs (Caridade et al., 2019). A risk factor can be defined as a condition that increases the likelihood of deviant behaviors or delinquency but does not necessarily produce them (Murray & Farrington, 2010). In the literature, it is possible to identify the risk factors associated with a higher probability of juvenile delinquency that can be organized into four dimensions (Murray & Farrington, 2010): individual, family, social, peer group, and school.

Regarding the individual risk factors, this includes the genetic, emotional, behavioral, social, and cognitive characteristics of the young person. According to Wasserman et al. (2003) and Farrington (2005), individual risk factors include early antisocial behaviors, hyperactivity, low intelligence, poor cognitive development, and low levels of inhibitory behaviors (fear, anxiety, inhibition, and shame).

The literature also refers to the following individual risk factors: personal propensities, habits, cognitions, attitudes, and emotions (Assink et al., 2015), consumption of alcohol and other drug substances (Rocca et al., 2019), being male (Junger-Tas, 2012), antisocial beliefs (Antunes & Ahlin, 2017), and high impulsivity or lack of self-control (Bolger et al., 2018).

Emotional dysregulation has been linked to juvenile delinquency problems (Basto-Pereira et al., 2016; Kemp et al., 2017; Salinas & Venta, 2021). Kemp et al. (2017) found a strong relationship between low emotional regulation and future arrests in adolescents from urban public schools. One explanation for this relationship was that youth with low emotion regulation skills may participate in illegal acts due to poor judgment and negative decision-making motivated by dysregulated emotions (Kemp et al., 2017). The authors further considered that adolescents with poor emotional management may be perceived by law enforcement authorities as being at greater risk of committing crimes, which could lead to arrests (Kemp et al., 2017).

Young delinquents, in addition to their greater vulnerability to intense and negative emotional experiences, such as those that typically occur during adolescence (many of these young people have life trajectories punctuated by disruptive events, e.g., abuse), experiencing mostly negative emotions (Basto-Pereira et al., 2016; Kemp et al., 2017).

Presently, problematic use of technology may also play a role in the occurrence of delinquency. Despite the controversial debate about the consequences of video games, some studies point to positive relationships between playing violent video games and a greater propensity for aggressive and antisocial behaviors (DeLisi et al., 2013; Medeiros et al., 2020).

Concerning family factors, some investigations indicate that family size is positively associated with child delinquency (e.g., Wells and Rankin (1988), Moitra et al. (2018)). This relationship between large families and the hypothetical increase in the criminal conduct of children has tended to be explained due to the effect of three variables, namely, (i) the social class of large families, since these are more frequent among social classes with fewer resources; (ii) the greater probability that when there are many siblings, one of them will develop deviant behaviors and infect this behavior to the others; and (iii) the lower probability of the parents of large families to adequately control their children and establish an intense affective bond with them (Wells & Rankin, 1988; Moitra et al., 2018). Other authors (e.g., Harris-McKoy and Cui (2013), Meldrum et al. (2012), Redondo and Garrido (2001)) have pointed out the relevance that effective and appropriate parenting practices (i.e., guided by secure attachment style and parental supervision) play in promoting young people’s self-control, reducing the possibility of adherence to risk behaviors and other offending practices.

Family structure, especially dysfunctional or unstructured families also known as “broken home” where at least one of the biological parents, often the father, is absent throughout an individual’s childhood, is a risk factor that provides information about experiences of multiple disadvantages and the relationship with later delinquency (Farrington, 2005; Murray & Farrington, 2010). Farrington (2005) considers that the dysfunctional environment in the family is often caused by parental conflict, while the love and support of the father can have a preventive effect on the involvement in criminal activities on the part of the adolescent. It should also be noted that young victims of physical abuse tend to present persistent delinquent behaviors; the experiences of victimization have been pointed out as a risk factor for juvenile delinquency (Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002).

About social class, Kuhl et al. (2016) argue that the possibility of delaying role transitions (e.g., marrying or having children), as well as extending negative transitions – delinquency – may be dependent on the social class to which they belong. Thus, subjects with lower socioeconomic levels may be driven to “early exits” from adolescence to adulthood, shortening the period of attachment to delinquency (Hagan & Foster, 2001).

Mirón (1990, p. 36) states that “(…) the relationship between social status and delinquency is not at all as simple and direct as one might believe in principle. Although it seems clear that this relationship does not occur for minor crimes, nothing definitive can be said for the most serious crimes (…).”

According to Emler and Reicher (1995), several studies point to the existence of a contradiction and even a clash between the culture of the lower classes and the culture of the school, which will typically be middle class. This will mean marginalization from the outset and, on the other hand, an impossibility of complete adaptation to the school environment. Thus, since school is one of the most important variables regarding the entry of young people into criminal activities (Quinsey et al., 2004), these authors place here one of the first factors that may explain such entry.

The area of residence, the conditions in which young people from the lower classes live, knowing how and where adolescents spend their time is an equally important aspect in the field of delinquency. Middle-class youth have their own interaction spaces (e.g., their home, their bedroom) where they can be with their friends. On the other hand, the lower-class subjects do not have such spaces, most of their interactions take place on the streets, with less supervision by the parents. On the other hand, the options in terms of leisure time are much more varied (e.g., concerts, cinemas, sports), which does not occur with young people of lower class, who are much more limited at this level and therefore more vulnerable to antisocial behavior. Conger and Elder (1994), Debarbieux and Blaya (2002), and Emler and Reicher (1995) in their longitudinal study of 378 families analyzed the influence of economic pressure on parents and their children in adolescence. The conclusions were as follows: disadvantaged situation and poverty may be reasonably sound (though not always strong) indications of a higher risk of delinquency. Indeed, for the authors, economic pressure has a clear effect on antisocial conduct, but the influence is indirect. That is, it is mediated by the depression of some parent, marital conflict, and/or hostility of the parents.

Farnworth et al. (1994) also used the Rochester Youth Development Study to determine which aspect of disadvantaged social status was most related to some types of delinquency. Longitudinal analyses showed that the main effect was not derived from social class, but from continued unemployment and continued dependence on social services. The associations were more evident with delinquency linked to drug sales and auto theft, than with petty theft, property damage, and other types of common delinquency.

We can conclude that the results of these investigations are very constant and point to the existence of a risk of antisocial conduct associated with poverty and disadvantaged social situation. However, this is mediated by the adverse effects of prolonged economic stress associated with an obviously unbalanced family functioning. Thus, the debate on the relationship between social class and delinquency remains open (Farnworth et al., 1994).

Rutter et al. (2000) conclude that the most plausible is that “disadvantaged social position and poverty participate as distant factors in the causal processes that lead to antisocial conduct” (p. 281). Thus, the effect of social class on delinquency is strongly related to the impact of disadvantaged social class on inadequate development patterns and on family tensions. Thus, the effects of social class on delinquency, even if it exists, seem indirect.

Regarding the peer group, several studies (e.g., Kim and Lee (2022), Shaw and McKay (1969)) demonstrated that having friends with antisocial behavior is one of the most consistent correlations of adopting the same type of behaviors. The study by Shaw and McKay (1969) found that most of the young people (88%) present in juvenile courts carried out their criminal conduct in the company of other peers, that is, in a group, and it is the members of these groups with more criminal histories and older who end up becoming the transmitters of the culture of the group or of a type of criminal life. It should be mentioned that there will be a double position on the relationship between group delinquency and individual delinquency. On the one hand, delinquency is due to a process of selection of friends, those who are similar being chosen, and on the other hand, it results from a process of group influence. On the other hand, Mirón (1990, p. 178) does not fail to show that “(…) there is no reason why these positions cannot be considered together. That is, to assume that both phenomena: selection and influence, have some impact on explaining the strong association between deviant peer conduct and individual deviance.”

Regarding school factors, involvement and motivation in relation to school have been pointed out as protective factors against delinquency (Redondo & Garrido, 2001). However, Wong et al. (2010) in a review of the literature on European studies found that school factors seem to affect male delinquency more than female delinquency. One explanation for this may be that when boys fail in school, they may feel that they must compensate by acting in a delinquent manner to regain their status, and girls consider that status can be regained by other types of behavior.

It should be noted that it is implausible that a single risk factor explains criminal behavior, but it is several internal factors and external factors that jointly influence young people (Humphrey & Van Brunschot, 2018). Considering the multifactoriality and the interaction of criminal risk factors, Redondo Illescas elaborated the Triple Criminal Risk Model (2008, 2015). This model suggests the existence of three main factors that act in interaction: (i) personal risks, which can hinder personal development and socialization processes (e.g., low self-control, poor interpersonal skills, antisocial beliefs, and drug dependence), social deprivation that can hinder youth socialization processes (e.g., family deprivation, poor school involvement, and delinquent friends), and exposure to criminal opportunities (e.g., unprotected property or living in slums). According to the model, young people are influenced by the interaction between personal risks and a lack of prosocial support, which will determine their possible “criminal motivation” or their individual propensity for crime. The criminal motivation will interact with any criminal opportunities to which the subject is exposed. Thus, the combination of “criminal motivation” (low/high) and exposure to “criminal opportunities” (infrequent/frequent) makes it possible to perform three theoretical reviews: (i) when both risk influences are low, a low criminal risk is expected; (ii) when one of them is low but the other is high, an intermediate/moderate risk of crime can be expected; and (iii) when both levels of risk are high, a high level of criminal risk is expected (Redondo Illescas, 2015).

In the context of adolescence, there are also factors that promote the appropriate development of the adolescent and that would distance him from criminal behaviors. Protective factors are understood as individual, family, or social circumstances that benefit the development of the individual, reducing the vulnerability of suffering problems of risk of delinquency (Mampaso et al., 2014). The authors point out three types of protective factors: (i) individuals (female gender, high intelligence, good social skills, and resilient temperament), (ii) social relationships (good family relationships and emotional support), and (iii) healthy beliefs and role models (learning and internalization of norms and values, moral commitment, and good role models) (Mampaso et al., 2014).

Prevention of Delinquency

As already explored earlier, juvenile delinquency results from several risk factors. According to Wasserman et al. (2003), it cannot be explained just by one risk factor, and the development of prevention programs needs to take in count risk factor from individual, family, peer, school, and community levels. In fact the prevention of juvenile delinquency requires a multifaceted approach as argued by O‘g‘li et al. (2023) with early intervention programs, quality education, parental involvement, restorative justice practices, and access to mental health services as key to prevent and reduce prevalence rates of juvenile delinquency.

Regarding the prevention of delinquency process, Latorre (2006) identified three steps: (i) the identification of the phenomena that are precursors of a subsequent criminal behavior; (ii) the development of practical methods based on these precursors, to identify children at high risk of delinquency or antisocial behavior; and (iii) the implementation of a preventive strategy to modify these risk factors and to reduce the opportunities for these children to become delinquents.

Preschool age seems to be the critical period for preventing the development of disruptive behavior and, eventually, delinquency. According to Loeber et al. (2003), the reasons are as follows: disruptive problem behavior is the most common source of referral to mental health services for preschool children; there seems to a have a relationship between problem behaviors in preschool and later conduct disorder and child delinquency; and the development (e.g., of the language) may compromise the capacity for learning and contribute for late child delinquency. Regarding cost-benefit of early developmental delinquency prevention programs, there are some evidence of the economic efficiency of these programs when are offered at an early age (Loeber et al., 2003). For example, regarding delinquency and crimes savings to the criminal justice system (e.g., courts, corrections), it avoids tangible and intangible costs incurred by crime victims (e.g., medical care, damaged and lost property, lost wages, lost quality of life, pain and suffering) and avoids tangible and intangible costs incurred by family members of crime victims (e.g., funeral expenses, lost wages, lost quality of life) (cf. Welsh, 1998). Findings from the longitudinal study conducted in Chicago suggest that intervention during preschool was associated with “reductions in the incidence, frequency, and severity of juvenile delinquency by age 18” (Mann & Reynolds, 2006). This study intends to research the role of an early educational intervention and the findings stressed “the importance of early intervention and schooling factors in reducing delinquency and highlight the benefits of early intervention as one mechanism for delinquency prevention” (p. 153). De Vries et al. (2015) in a recent systematic review in a meta-analysis with 39 studies concluded that multimodal programs and programs were carried out in the family context instead of narrowly focused or group-based programs.

Therefore, juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon, and prevention should start as earlier as possible regarding the different systems where children are integrated (family, preschool, school, peers, and community).

Intervention

Regarding intervention, there is a consensus that program intervention should be (Latorre, 2006) multifaceted (employing various techniques), multidimensional (affecting many aspects of the offender’s life, but focusing on modifying criminogenic objectives), and intensive; they are well-structured programs and have strong evaluative support, based on a cognitive-behavioral perspective where they encompass some procedure to modify cognitions and behaviors. They act on the social and personal deficits of the subject while trying to promote resources and “strengths.” They also make use of modeling and role-playing as a means to teach prosocial attitudes and as didactic support for cognitive-behavioral techniques, with well-trained and professionals functioning as positive role models in their reality-oriented interaction and in line with the offender’s learning style. They use the tutoring system (with youngers): individualized programs, as well as clear rules of conduct and a continuous feedback process on their behavior. Positive behavior is reinforced, while negative behavior is consistently sanctioned, trying to involve family and community. According to Latorre (2006) with the aim of the “to get the offender to adopt a different way of relating to the world and seeing him within that world. This “different way” means opposing prosocial behavior to antisocial behavior” (p. 230).

In 2010, Litschge et al. conducted a systematic search to summarize studies from 1980 to 2007 with the aim to identify and summarize treatment effects for children and adolescent focused on antisocial children and youth (juvenile offenders, aggressive children and youth, court-referred children, and youth) or behaviors (violence, aggression, delinquency, drug abuse, externalizing and disruptive behaviors). The results were focus on “several treatments were broad and varied but tended to cluster around four types: behavioral or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), family, multimodal, group based, and miscellaneous (e.g., pharmacotherapy)” (p. 24). The results point to important conclusions. One of them is the fact that when interventions “aggregate negative peers are probably less effective for reducing conduct problems (e.g., recidivism) than those where individuals have access to positive peers; another skills training is important; politically popular treatments among both policy makers and practitioners are not necessarily effective; and (…) there is a continuum of behavior severity not necessarily captured in these studies that needs to be accounted for in terms of treatment matching” (p. 32).

In fact, according to Bilchik (1998), the effective early intervention programs to mediate risk factors known to predict serious and violent juvenile offending should involve parents, children, community, and schools. The intervention with family and with the juvenile delinquents, namely, parenting intervention, seems to have beneficial effects. This evidence is given by reducing time spent in institutions and in their criminal activity but also for those involved (family and their family) with gains for society (Woolfenden et al., 2002). The intervention with families and with youngers is also important not only in intervention but in prevention. For example, in a study conducted by Dishion and Andrews (1995), the authors applied alternative intervention strategies to reduce escalation in problem behaviors among high-risk young adolescents (11–14 years old, n = 158 families with young adolescents). With two groups (119 families were randomly and 39 families of young adolescents as a quasi-experimental control), interventions focus on parent and in teen resulted in immediate several beneficial effects, namely, on observed and reported family conflict and on behavior problems at school. Recent findings from Xiong et al. (2020) from a longitudinal study were that the relationship between authoritative parenting, juvenile delinquency, and crime victimization among Chinese adolescents was explored and find that adolescents growing up in authoritative families are at lower risk for delinquency and crime victimization. The authors argued that these findings have important implications for prevention but also intervention strategies to reduce delinquency among youngers. According to the study results (Xiong et al., 2020), authoritative parenting plays a critical role in inhibiting delinquency and crime victimization; consequently, the parenting education programs should give the parents the awareness of the need for an equilibrate balance between providing support and imposing control. This program should also promote a parent-child relationship positive. According to Bouchard and Wong (2018), the use of incarceration for young offenders is namely reserved as a last resort and for those youth who are at high risk of reoffend and a most of the convicted juvenile offenders serve at least some or all their sentence in the community.

Intervention programs that include emotional regulation are recommended in the adolescence, because it is at this evolutionary moment when the acquisition of certain skills will allow emotional responses to be modulated in the future. One of the most relevant examples is the “Start Now” program, developed in the Department of Mental Health from the University of Connecticut. This program was evaluated in different correctional services in the state of Connecticut and is focused on increasing the self-control over impulses, recognition, and regulation of emotions, making decisions taking into account the consequences and improving stress management. The program combines cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, therapy dialectical behavior, and trauma treatment (Kersten et al., 2016).

Pappas and Dent (2023) conducted research that encompassed 48 meta-analyses and systematic reviews of 53 research reports. The results showed that intervention programs are related to a significant decrease in recidivism of juvenile delinquents who participated in the programs compared to those who did not. Therefore, other meta-analyses corroborate these results (Bouchard & Wong, 2017; Van der Stouwe et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2018). In this sense, the authors (Pappas & Dent, 2023) conclude that intervention programs can be considered as an efficient procedure to reduce the recidivism of young offenders, namely, when combined with a modality of rehabilitation program. In these programs, interventions were carried out with juvenile offenders, namely, multisystemic, cognitive-behavioral, educational, restorative justice, specialized courts, and probation with intensive monitoring.

Conclusions

From the foregoing, we can conclude that regarding juvenile delinquency the question of the problem of definition arises from the outset. That is, whether there will be a rigorous and correct definition of delinquency from the outset and whether such a term can have a clear and uniform meaning for all. In fact, when we talk about juvenile delinquency, the notions of deviance and delinquency always arise, which implies legal and nonlegal definitions of this phenomenon. That is, advocates of a nonlegal definition of delinquency claim that criminal behavior is a violation of the dominant norms of conduct in a given community. A legal approach to the problem is through recourse to the law and the conducts that appear visible and, for this reason, reprehensible in the light of the judicial apparatus.

What has been stated above inevitably also has to do with another concept which is the concept of the young. We can say that there are, depending on the age level, children who are exempt from responsibility, young people with diminished responsibility, and adults with full responsibility. Look at the complexity of the physiology of puberty and the social and economic conditions that may or may not provide the entry of the young person into adulthood. These issues are important in determining full criminal liability. Age issues lead to yet another problem, which is determining where statute offenses and code offenses begin and end, that is, those that have to do with age (e.g., running away from home, not attending school, drinking alcohol in public places) and those that refer to illegal conduct at any age (e.g., stealing, acts of vandalism, homicide). Certain acts committed by young people cannot be compared with each other, since they range from mild criminal conduct to extremely serious behavior.

The issue of the peer group may be important since the structure, the degree of less emotional relationship, the motivation to take risks, the greater separation from the adult world and its mechanisms of social control, and the greater importance of hierarchy and status make groups of boys potentially more criminogenic groups (Mrug et al., 2012).

It should be noted that it is essential to consolidate programs that work on protective factors, namely, the appropriate use of free time; the active participation of family and friends, in order to prevent school dropout; the likelihood of using psychoactive substances; and the practice of infringing behaviors (Altamar-Escorcia et al., 2021).

Despite the advances in knowledge in this area, there is still a long way to go. In the same way that reality is not static, new deviant behaviors arise related to the virtual context and need greater attention not only by educational agents but also by the scientific community.

Cross-References