Raw numbers from the UCR, showing a decline in total arrests by age group (sadly, crime *rates *by age cohort have proven surprisingly difficult to find online, so you’d either need better Google-fu than I, or you’d have to cross reference with census data).
There’s a chart halfway down this page with arrest rates by age. (Hey, I found it!)
Crime rates decline “substantially” by age in self-report statistic as well, which *suggests *that it’s not merely a matter of arrests leading to an aversion to committing future crimes.
Backfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime. Not directly on point, as it mostly addresses adult offenders, but illustrative of a mechanism that may apply to one degree or another.
This article concludes thusly: “On the street, the study of what keeps people from a life of crime, or turns them away from it is called the desistence field of research. Theoretically, such variables as vulnerability and insulation (also called buffering) are important, which refer to conditions or states that turn good people bad or bad people good. However, researchers have been more interested in the deterrent effect of imprisonment, which has been estimated as having no more than a 10-20% deterrent effect per year (Shinner & Shinner 1975). The fact of the matter is that more people age out of crime than for any other method of desistence (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990), and the so-called age-curve constant is remarkably stable, even for high-rate, persistent offenders. In fact, as Golub’s (1990) research shows, imprisonment may actually disrupt the normal pattern of desistence.” [emphasis added]
Lamentably, the first paper referenced above (Shinnar) is not available online without a fee, and the second (Golub) is not available online at all, but the referenced book is partially available via Google (don’t know how helpful that will be, however, as the online portions include less than half the book, and what is there is pretty chopped up).
Anyway, finding research that *directly *backs up my *specific *claim is difficult (at least for those of us unwilling to shell out for a jstor subscription). But do you have any evidence that I’m incorrect, direct or otherwise? Do you really believe that there’s a large difference in adult crime rates between those who, as juvenile offenders, either were or were not arrested?
I do not believe this bit in the slightest. I was a teenage boy myself and managed not to be a delinquent. Teenagers mugging someone isn’t a kid being a kid, it’s a criminal being…well a criminal.
What is the better result you’re looking for? I would need a little more clarity on what you’re talking about here to agree or disagree.
No idea whatsoever. I’ve never dealt with the juvenile justice system.
Count me among those who are utterly baffled by this “kids will be kids” bullshit. (Considering the same line was used by an authority figure after most of the bones in my face got shattered in an unprovoked attack, I have a certain dislike of that line in general.)
You press charges and let the courts decide whether it’s in the best interests of society to be lenient. By refusing to press charges, you are refusing to give society an oportunity to protect itself from these antisocial behaviors.
Age is no excuse for this sort of criminal behavior, and excusing it because of some sob story or because of “so much wasted potential” is really nothing more than prejudice.
You don’t believe that juvenile delinquents tend to age out of delinquent behavior? Because the evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
Would pressing charges lead to a better result for the kids (better quality of life both now and as adults) and/or a better life for everybody else (in that the kids would be significantly less likely to offend I the future)?
It was more the ‘kids will be kids’ part. Youth is no excuse for criminal behavior.
I haven’t done a lot of research on the topic since it’s not one that I have cause to think about often. For the most part, I am of the opinion that criminals should be prosecuted.
I don’t believe that this is the case. I have never heard of a 24 or 48-hour deadline on pressing charges. It’s probably just a hassle for them and they don’t want to go back and find the witnesses, etc. You have every right to press charges. Don’t let them persuade you not to just for their convenience.
The documenting officer has not returned my calls. Since I have connections with state government, I’m working on getting in touch with someone at RTD to see if we cannot reduce (at least temporarily) the opportunity of this crime of opportunity. I propose posting the following:
I certainly hope this is not true. What happens if you go to the doctor and it turns out that you broke a bone in your hand and didn’t realize it? Information you didn’t have at the time certainly could be a factor in your decision, and then they tell you TFB? That’s not right.
This, except for the “maybe the kids deserve a break” part. Thieves and muggers deserve incarceration, no matter their age, no matter their particular circumstances. It’s your responsibility to start that ball rolling. Letting them off enables them and hurts society. You were 100% wrong in not pressing charges, and are now IMO somewhat morally complicit in any further crimes they commit.
I don’t buy that. It’s a nice soundbite, and it’s a good way to make someone feel guilty and second guess their situation.
It’s one thing to say it from the comfort of a screen in the safety of the house, It’s quite another to be standing there, out of breath, shaking off the adrenalin.
As far as being complicit in any future crimes they may commit. Bullshit. Someone geared to break the law will continue to break the law. Short of chaining them to a wall, there’s not a lot you can do about it.
I canslightly raise awareness to the situation in the hopes other folks don’t give them the opportunity.
Will I press charges next time? Probably. Will I second guess my decisions of the previous week? Nope. I made the best decision I could with the information at hand.
I’m not as harsh as FallenAngel, at least. I’m just saying you’re only somewhat complicit, since IMO it’s your responsibility as a member of society to press charges. You owe that to the rest of us, especially to those who have been in your shoes and elected to press charges instead of turning their back. We in turn owe you and the rest of society the same service.
The offenders are entirely responsible for their actions if they proceed to commit crimes. However, you’re somewhat responsible for putting them in a position where they can do just that. Yes, it’s easy for me to say that here in the comfort of my home, but it’s something I deeply believe, and I guaranfuckingtee I’ll be just like Enderw24 if something like this ever happens to me. I’m not trying to say you’re a dirtbag like those teens, but I am saying you made a choice antithetical to the best interests of society. Sorry if I sound harsh. But your “probably” and “I made the best decision” lines make me think your decisions are made more out of selfishness, fear, and laziness than out of a desire to benefit society and punish the guilty.
Oh no doubt I was selfish about it…my overriding concern was: “I don’t want these kids, or their gangmates to discover where my wife and young boys live.”
I’ll completely and totally cop to THAT admission.
You should. We’re none of us angels, and if the threshold for being cut off from our empathy is the theft of a cell phone as a minor, then there aren’t going to be many people left for us to care about.
Or you could look at it in a more concrete way: a kid whose life is fucked up and unhappy is going to have a negative effect (one way or another) on the community at large, so, all else being equal, you should hope for him to be well (even if he is a little shit).
But then he would also be morally culpable for any and all plausibly foreseeable bad consequences that arose from pressing charges; it’s not as simple as you suggest here unless you’re more confident in the virtues of arrest than (IMO) the evidence warrants.
This wasn’t a $50 cell phone; the phone at issue cost more than $500, and the thief or thieves most likely knew that. It’s not like the item stolen was new to the marketplace and therefore unfamiliar to them. There should be some consequences that are in proportion to the seriousness of the crime, and appropriate for a juvenile offender.
Where do you get that? Once he presses charges, he acts in a manner that contributes to society. After that, the system takes the offender and does what it will. Any bad things arising from what that system does or does not do is the system’s problem, and society will somehow have to work to change the system. The individual pressing charges has no culpability for that, and no responsibility to individually (without the collective effort of that society) try to address that fault in the system.
Just because he incurs culpability by not acting, does not mean he must incur culpability by acting. It seems very simple to me, but I certainly may be missing something–I’m not the brightest bulb in the box.
This is excellent advice. It applies to you, too. I don’t see them retaliating for a stolen cell phone. And I have a hard time seeing you counsel others to do what you don’t do. I really hope you reconsider pressing charges. I do not believe that if you didn’t press charges that day, you lose your chance. It seems as though either they are bullshitting you, or you are not pushing the matter because of uncertainty on your part.
It’s the obviousness of this statement that I’m contesting. He would be *engaging *society by pressing charges, but that hardly guarantees that society (or the OP, or the kids) would be better off in the long run for his decision.
You absolutely can not have this both ways. Either we’re responsible for the foreseeable (though indirect and unintended) consequences of our actions, or we’re not. If any bad consequences that arise from pressing charges are merely “the system’s problem,” then any bad consequences that arise from *not *pressing charges are merely “the kids’ problem.”
And while it’s not unreasonable to say we’d bear some responsibility for the future crimes committed by those against whom we declined to press charges, that statement is only accurate if, and to the extent that, pressing charges would make them less likely to commit crimes going forward (and then that must be weighed against the potential harm to the offenders, the monetary cost of processing them, etc.). In my non-expert opinion, people in this thread are displaying too much confidence in the ability of an arrest to straighten kids out.
Choosing not to act is itself an act. You can absolve yourself of responsibility for the consequences of your choices neither by delegation nor by apparent inaction; man is condemned to be free.