Juvenile delinquency
Based on Wikipedia: Juvenile delinquency
The Pipeline Problem
Here's a striking fact: in the United States, nearly 75% of states have built more prisons than colleges in recent decades. The cost of housing a single inmate exceeds what most states spend per student on education. This isn't just an awkward budget choice—it reflects a fundamental tension in how we think about young people who break the law.
Juvenile delinquency is what we call it when someone under the age of majority commits an act that would be considered a crime if an adult did it. But that clinical definition obscures something fascinating and troubling: the boundary between "troubled kid" and "criminal" is remarkably fuzzy, varies wildly by location, and has shifted dramatically throughout history.
Before the 18th century, the line barely existed at all. Children as young as seven could be tried in adult courts and, if convicted, executed. The very concept of treating young offenders differently is a relatively recent invention.
Where the Lines Fall
Illinois established the first juvenile court in the United States, marking a philosophical shift from punishment toward treatment. These new courts used different terminology, kept records confidential, and focused on rehabilitation rather than retribution.
But where exactly should the line fall? The answer depends entirely on where you're standing.
Most American states define a juvenile delinquent as someone under 18. But Michigan, New York, and Vermont recently raised their threshold to under 19, and Vermont went further in 2022, extending protections to those under 20. Meanwhile, Georgia, Texas, and Wisconsin still draw the line at 17—meaning a 17-year-old in Texas faces the adult criminal system, while their counterpart in Vermont would be treated as a juvenile.
Japan moved in the opposite direction. In April 2022, the country lowered its juvenile threshold from under 20 to under 18, aligning it more closely with Western norms.
The minimum age creates even more confusion. How young is too young to be held criminally responsible? Some states have no floor at all—theoretically, a very young child could be prosecuted. Others have recently raised their minimums: North Carolina moved from 6 to 10 years old in 2021, Connecticut shifted from 7 to 10, and New York adjusted from 7 to 12.
Think about that for a moment. Until 2021, a six-year-old in North Carolina could, at least in principle, be adjudicated as a delinquent.
What the Numbers Actually Show
The United States has the highest number of juvenile delinquency cases among countries that track such data. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that about 7 in every 1,000 American juveniles committed a serious crime in 2016. "Serious" here means one of eight specific offenses: murder and non-negligent homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny theft, and arson.
But here's something that might surprise you: youth violence rates in the United States have plummeted to roughly 12% of their peak levels from 1993. Most juvenile offending is non-violent. The crimes young people commit most often are what researchers call "status offenses"—things that are only illegal because of the offender's age, like truancy, violating curfew, or underage drinking.
When juvenile cases do make it through the court system, probation is the most common outcome. Males account for over 70% of all cases.
Globally, tracking juvenile delinquency is nearly impossible. Many countries don't keep records of detained or delinquent youth. UNICEF estimates that over one million children are in some form of detention worldwide, but even this is likely an undercount.
Two Kinds of Offenders
Developmental psychologist Terrie Moffitt identified a crucial distinction in 2006 that has shaped how researchers think about juvenile crime ever since.
The first type she called the "adolescence-limited offender." This is someone whose criminal behavior begins and ends during their teenage years. Moffitt argues that most adolescents show some form of antisocial or delinquent behavior—it's essentially a normal part of growing up. The key question isn't whether a teenager acts out, but whether that behavior started much earlier and will persist much longer.
The second type is the "life-course-persistent offender." These individuals begin showing antisocial or aggressive behavior in childhood, continue through adolescence, and maintain the pattern into adulthood. They represent a much smaller proportion of offenders but account for a disproportionate share of serious crimes.
This distinction matters enormously for policy. If most juvenile offenders naturally age out of criminal behavior, then harsh interventions during adolescence might actually make things worse by disrupting normal development. But for life-course-persistent offenders, early intervention might be the only chance to alter a trajectory that otherwise stretches across decades.
The Weight of Where You Come From
What pushes a young person toward delinquency? According to Laurence Steinberg's influential textbook Adolescence, the two most powerful predictors are parenting style and peer group association. Everything else—socioeconomic status, school performance, family structure—operates largely through these two channels.
Psychologist Diana Baumrind identified what she called "authoritative parenting" as the most beneficial approach: a combination of warmth and acceptance with clear discipline and boundaries. Think of it as the middle ground between authoritarian rigidity and permissive neglect.
Children raised by single parents are statistically more likely to engage in delinquent behavior. But researchers Graham and Bowling found something important: when you control for parental attachment and supervision, children in single-parent families are no more likely to offend than anyone else. The issue isn't family structure per se—it's what that structure sometimes means for how closely parents can monitor their children.
Unsupervised adolescents are more likely to fall in with negative peer groups. And negative peer groups are powerfully predictive of future trouble.
Siblings matter too, but in specific ways. Having an older sibling who has committed crimes increases delinquency risk, especially if the sibling is the same gender and maintains a close relationship with the younger child. Interestingly, a more hostile or aggressive older sibling is actually less likely to pull a younger sibling toward crime. The more strained the relationship, the less influence either sibling has on the other.
One finding that speaks to the complexity of these influences: children resulting from unintended pregnancies are more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior. They also tend to have lower-quality relationships with their mothers. The causal chain here is difficult to untangle, but it suggests that circumstances surrounding a child's birth can cast a long shadow.
The Power of the Crowd
In the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch conducted an experiment that has become a cornerstone of social psychology. He showed participants a line and asked them to identify which of three comparison lines matched its length. The correct answer was always obvious.
But Asch had planted confederates in each group who deliberately gave wrong answers. When participants watched others unanimously choose the wrong line, 76% of them conformed and gave the same incorrect answer at least once.
The implications for juvenile delinquency are straightforward but profound. Adolescents are exceptionally susceptible to peer influence. A teenager surrounded by a group engaged in deviant behavior faces enormous social pressure to participate. Once they become part of that group, they become susceptible to what psychologist Irving Janis called "groupthink"—the tendency for cohesive groups to prioritize consensus over critical thinking.
Robert Vargas's research offers a glimmer of hope here. Adolescents who can choose between multiple friend groups are less susceptible to peer influence that might lead them toward illegal behavior. Having options, it turns out, provides a kind of social immunity.
Peer rejection in childhood is itself a major predictor of later delinquency. Children who are rejected by their peers often fail to develop normal social skills and gravitate toward antisocial groups—the only ones that will accept them. Aggressive children who have experienced rejection are more likely to develop what psychologists call a "hostile attribution bias," interpreting even neutral actions by others as deliberately threatening. This leads to impulsive, aggressive responses that only deepen their isolation and accelerate their trajectory toward trouble.
From School Discipline to Criminal Justice
Something has changed in American schools over the past few decades. Today, 67% of high school students attend schools with police officers present. Discipline has become increasingly criminalized.
This transformation is often traced to "zero tolerance" policies, which emerged from two sources: the "broken windows" theory of criminology and the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. The broken windows theory holds that small signs of disorder—a broken window left unrepaired, graffiti left uncleaned—invite more serious crime. Applied to schools, this logic suggests that strict, consistent punishment for minor infractions will prevent larger problems from developing.
Zero tolerance mandates specific, harsh consequences for rule violations regardless of context or history. A first-time offender and a chronic troublemaker might receive the same suspension for the same infraction. The idea is to remove discretion and create certainty.
The unintended consequences have been severe.
Research shows that students who receive a suspension are less likely to graduate and more likely to be arrested or placed on probation. A single suspension or expulsion doubles the risk that a student will repeat a grade. Being held back, especially in middle or high school, is one of the strongest predictors of dropping out entirely. Youth with a prior suspension are 68% more likely to leave school before graduating.
When school discipline leads to involvement with the juvenile justice system, researchers call this the "school-to-prison pipeline." Matthew Theriot's research documents how increased police presence in schools, combined with stricter disciplinary policies, causes student misbehavior to be treated as criminal matters rather than internal school issues.
The pipeline doesn't affect all students equally. According to data from the United States Government Accountability Office, 39% of students suspended during the 2013-14 school year were Black, despite Black students comprising only about 15% of public school enrollment. This overrepresentation applied to both boys and girls of African descent. Compared to White students, Black students were expelled or suspended at three times the rate.
The Gender Gap
Across all types of offenses, females are less likely than males to engage in delinquent acts. When they do offend, they tend to commit less serious crimes. This gender gap is one of the most consistent findings in criminology.
Why does it exist? The most compelling explanation centers on socialization. Boys and girls are raised differently. They receive different messages about aggression, risk-taking, and acceptable behavior. They are monitored and supervised in different ways. These early experiences shape the choices available to them and the paths they might follow.
The predictors of delinquency also vary by gender. The factors that push a boy toward crime are not always the same factors that push a girl. Understanding these differences is crucial for designing interventions that actually work.
Beyond Zero Tolerance
If zero tolerance policies have contributed to the school-to-prison pipeline, what's the alternative? Some researchers and practitioners advocate for "restorative justice" approaches—methods that focus on repairing harm and rebuilding relationships rather than meting out punishment.
The logic is straightforward. Punishment removes a student from school, damages their educational trajectory, and often pushes them further toward criminal involvement. Restorative approaches keep students in school while addressing the underlying behavior.
This isn't about being soft on crime. It's about recognizing that the harsh measures designed to prevent delinquency have, in many cases, accelerated it. The data on suspension, expulsion, dropout rates, and subsequent arrest are difficult to ignore.
The broader question is how society should think about young people who break rules. Are they miniature criminals who deserve adult consequences? Are they developing minds that need guidance and correction? Are they products of circumstances beyond their control?
The answer, almost certainly, is that they are some of each—and that the mixture varies from case to case. The challenge for parents, schools, and courts is distinguishing between the adolescence-limited offender who will grow out of trouble and the life-course-persistent offender who needs intensive intervention.
What seems clear is that the current system, with its wide state-by-state variations, its school-to-prison pipeline, and its sometimes arbitrary age cutoffs, often fails to make this distinction. A 17-year-old facing adult criminal prosecution in Texas for an act that would be handled in juvenile court in Vermont isn't evidence of a system working rationally. It's evidence of a system still struggling to figure out what juvenile delinquency really means—and what we should do about it.