Juvenile Offenders Summary
In this module’s assigned reading, Terrie E. Moffitt suggests that the act of juvenile delinquency is made up of two types of offenders: 1: adolescent-limited offenders and 2: life-course persistent offenders. Adolescent-limited offenders are believed to exemplify anti-social behavior only though adolescence, as they in time turn towards pro-social norms while simultaneously distancing themselves from anti-social behavior. The majority of youth that partake in anti-social behavior are adolescent-limited offenders. Moffitt demonstrates that such behavior occurs as an existing maturity gap (through development) pushes young individuals to imitate anti-social behavior while pushing away pro-social norms (Moffitt, 1993). Very few individuals
…show more content…
Such implications become apparent for the reason that existing treatments and juvenile justice intermediate sanctions fail to take into account both the social nature of delinquency as well as the etiological differences between life-course persistent offenders and adolescent-limited offenders. For both categories of Moffitt’s taxonomy, the strong social nature of delinquency is apparent. Because of this, it is imperative that adolescents found to be delinquent within the juvenile justice system be placed in intermediate sanctions with other adolescents that demonstrate comparable offenses in terms of intensity and extent so that delinquent activity undertaken by the offenders decline rather than augment. As presented in Warr’s article, the likelihood of a youth reoffending while being a participant within a court ordered sanction might hinge on the courts decision of placement. It can be considered that if a court assigns low-level offenders into regular contact with chronic offenders (when reflected in the theory of socialization) there is a heightened risk of recidivism (in reoffending and the serious of offense) (Warr, 2011). Additionally, the developmental taxonomy (etiological roots) of the offender need to be addressed during the assessment of treatment /sentencing so that proper treatment can put forth for rehabilitation purposes while risk assessment can be placed in the
Such implications become apparent for the reason that existing treatments and juvenile justice intermediate sanctions fail to take into account both the social nature of delinquency as well as the etiological differences between life-course persistent offenders and adolescent-limited offenders. For both categories of Moffitt’s taxonomy, the strong social nature of delinquency is apparent. Because of this, it is imperative that adolescents found to be delinquent within the juvenile justice system be placed in intermediate sanctions with other adolescents that demonstrate comparable offenses in terms of intensity and extent so that delinquent activity undertaken by the offenders decline rather than augment. As presented in Warr’s article, the likelihood of a youth reoffending while being a participant within a court ordered sanction might hinge on the courts decision of placement. It can be considered that if a court assigns low-level offenders into regular contact with chronic offenders (when reflected in the theory of socialization) there is a heightened risk of recidivism (in reoffending and the serious of offense) (Warr, 2011). Additionally, the developmental taxonomy (etiological roots) of the offender need to be addressed during the assessment of treatment /sentencing so that proper treatment can put forth for rehabilitation purposes while risk assessment can be placed in the