A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS IN JUVENILE
DELINQUENTS AND NON-DELINQUENTS.
Name of candidate: Monica Shabbir
Date: March.10.2006
Name of Supervisor: Dr. Uzma Ali (PhD)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present research is to evaluate the behavioral problems in juvenile
delinquents and non-delinquents. After detailed literature review it was hypothesized that the
Delinquent children will score high on sensation seeking and aggression as compared to nonDelinquent children. Further the Delinquent children will have a history of parental physically
abuse, parental drug abuse and school drop out as compared to non-Delinquents. In order to test
these hypotheses a sample of 50 (25 delinquent 25 non delinquent) will be selected from the
Remand home of Karachi. The age of the juvenile delinquent range from 10 to 17 years who will
be from low socio economic status and their educational level will be primary. Sensation seeking
scale (SSC) (by Hilgard (1953) and Human figure drawing test (HFD) (by Koppitz 1968) will be
administer on juvenile children individually. In order to interrupt the results in statistical
terminology t- Test will be computed.
INTRODUCTION
Delinquency is defined as the quality or state of offending by neglect or violation of duty or of
law. When this definition is applied to children, there is a curious juxtaposition in the term
“offending by neglect.” Consider that “between 50 to 75 percent of incarcerated youth have
diagnosable mental health disorders with one out of every five having an SED (Coalition for
Juvenile Justice, 2000).
Juvenile delinquency is an emphasized, nebulous, legal and social label for a wide variety of law
and norm violating behaviors. Legally, a juvenile delinquent is one who commits an act defined
by law as illegal and whom an appropriate court adjudicates “delinquent”. The legal definition is
usually restricted to persons under 18, but states vary in their age distinctions (Bartol & Bartol,
1986).
According to Schwartz and Johnson (1985) the term Delinquency is a legal one, used to refer to
juvenile (usually under the age of 18) who has committed an act would be considered illegal for
an adult.
Delinquency is not a single entity - it is an enormous variety of different behaviors. The only
element common to these behaviors is that law as delinquent defines them and they are
committed by someone of juvenile age (Jenkins, Heidemann & Caputo, 1985).
By Focus Adolescent services (2003) the Los Angeles County Office of Education identifies
truancy as the most powerful predictor of delinquency. Police departments across the nation
report that many students not in school during regular hours are committing crimes,
Further they described absenteeism is detrimental to students' achievement, promotion,
graduation, self-esteem, and employment potential. Clearly, students who miss school fall behind
their peers in the classroom. This, in turn, leads to low self-esteem and increases the likelihood
that at-risk students will drop out of school.
By General Assembly resolution (1990) a juvenile is every person under the age of 18. The age
limit below which it should not be permitted to deprive a child of his or her liberty should be
determined by law; The deprivation of liberty means any form of detention or imprisonment or
the placement of a person in a public or private custodial setting, from which this person is not
permitted to leave at will, by order of any judicial, administrative or other public authority.
According to Wilson and Howell (1993) that there are increase the chances that a juvenile will
engage in behavior that can lead to delinquency. Risk factors include availability of drugs or
firearms in the community, family conflict, a lack of commitment to school, and friends who
engage in problem behavior.
Studies on the problem of the Juvenile deviation generally present two theoretical perspectives.
Sociological and psychological. Despite the fact that psychology and sociology focus on
different aspects of crime (sociology stresses the system, psychology the person), both
disciplines concentrate their attention on the theme of "control”. Psychology emphasizes the
personal or inner control that is determined by super- ego or by learned behavior patterns.
Sociology pays attention to the society or community institutions that have a direct effect on the
processes of outward social control. According to Reiss, deviation depends both on the personal
and social controls (Trojanowicz, Morash, 1992). The lack of personal and social control may
result in crime involvement. There is no doubt that the family is significant for both personal and
social control.
The CSAP ( center for substance Abuse Prevention) (2003) suggest if children are raised in a
family with a history of addiction to alcohol or other drugs, the risk of having alcohol and other
drug problems themselves increases. If children are born or raised in a family with a history of
criminal activity, the risk of juvenile delinquency increases. Similarly, children who are raised by
a teenage mother are more likely to be teen parents, and children of dropouts are more likely to
drop out of school themselves.
According to CSAP (2003) ,Persistent, serious conflict between primary caregivers or between
caregivers and children appears to enhance risk for children raised in these families. Conflict
between family members appears to be more important than family structure. Whether the family
is headed by two biological parents, a single parent, or some other primary caregiver, children
raised in families high in conflict appear to be at risk for all of the problem behaviors. For
example, domestic violence in a family increases the likelihood that young people will engage in
delinquent behaviors and substance abuse, as well as become pregnant or drop out of school.
And boys who are aggressive in grades K-3 are at higher risk of substance abuse and juvenile
delinquency. However, aggressive behavior very early in childhood does not appear to increase
risk. When a boy's aggressive behavior in the early grades is combined with isolation or
withdrawal, there is an even greater risk of problems in adolescence. This increased risk also
applies to aggressive behavior combined with hyperactivity or attention deficit disorder.
This risk factor also includes persistent antisocial behavior in early adolescence, like
misbehaving in school, skipping school, and getting into fights with other children. Young
people, both girls and boys, who engage in these behaviors during early adolescence, are at
increased risk for drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, violence, school dropout, and teen
pregnancy.
The EDJJ center (educational, disabilities juvenile justice) reports that children’s homes and
families constitute one of the earliest indicators of potential academic failure. Research has
demonstrated a connection between poverty and school dropout for both regular and special
education students. In addition to poverty, students at risk often come from families where
academic skills such as reading are not modeled, and where multiple family stressors are present
(e.g., alcohol and other drug abuse, divorce, child maltreatment). High levels of poverty are also
associated with forms of community social disorganization (e.g., high rate of unemployment,
insufficient resources for after-school programs) that place youth at risk for school failure and
delinquency.
Further they suggest home, community, and school risk factors are connected and negatively
affect outcomes in each of these domains. For example, children in poverty often have less
verbal interaction with their parents; resulting in significantly lower vocabularies at the time they
enter school (Hart & Risley, 1995).
Overview by Michael Shader, OJJDP’s Research and Program Development Division.) Children
and many adults living in this dichotomy are not allowed to express their feelings, especially
negative ones like anger. The suppression works like a wheel, all the members spinning silently
through the chaos of their life with at least one or more members at the center or hub. This hub is
the most troubled members of the family, and they are the only ones permitted to express painful
feelings openly, especially anger.
Adolescence has been described as a phase of life beginning in biology and ending in society
(Petersen, 1988). Indeed, adolescence may be defined as the period within the life span when
most of a person's biological, cognitive, psychological and social characteristics are changing
from what is typically considered child like to what is considered adult like (Lerner & Spanier,
1980). Longitudinal research shows that youth who encounter multiple simultaneous life changes
in early adolescence are more likely to experience emotional and behavioral problems (Simmons
& Blyth, 1987).
When anger is chronic in such families and is unexpressed by the majority of members who are
on the rim of the wheel, anger may take other forms. These include abuse of self, others, anti
social behavior, various acute and chronic illnesses including stress related.
For the child in such a situation the reality of it is denied and a new model, each family member
assumes a distorted view of reality based upon a false belief system as real.
Criminals are particularly likely to have had an unstable and unpleasant family environment as
children and they typically have conflictual, unstable relationships as adults (Farrington, 1992;
Tonry et al, 1991; Farrington, et al, 1990; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Gove & Crutchfield,
1982). They are also likely to have been physically abused and are particularly likely to be
erratic and violent as adults (Reiss & Roth, 1993). Most criminals have a history of poor
performance at instrumental tasks. This typically results in a very limited education, and, as an
adult, a poor work history and a limited income. Not unexpectedly, such persons have a low
investment in conventional society and often have an antagonistic orientation towards
conventional society. For such persons the potential loss of the rewards associated with normal
society do not pose a substantial cost (Geerken & Gove, 1975), and they often turn elsewhere for
symbolist situations that provide meaning to their lives.
Childhood conduct problems are strong predictor of subsequent involvement in an anti social
behavior. Results from a variety of longitudinal studies show that children who are aggressive
and non compliant during elementary school are at risk for serious delinquency during
adolescence. ( Capsi & Moffit, 1995;Loeber,1982;Patterson, Reid,& Dishion,1992;Sampson
&Laub,!993).
The literature on violence strongly suggests that persons who are violent as adults typically have
been physically abused as children, which implies that the childhood experiences of violent
offenders may differ in important ways from those of nonviolent offenders (Reiss & Roth).
Another literature indicates that violent offenders are more likely to be habitual offenders
(Blumstein, Cohan, Roth, & Visher, 1986; Petersila, Greenwood, & Lavin, 1978).
The individual / personal characteristics and emotional needs of children can also be contributing
factors to criminal patterns of behavior. By contrast engaging in more serious criminal activity
i.e. likely to lead to arrest during adolescence may indicate psychological problems rather that
social continuity ( Rutter & Gramzey, 1983).
Behavior tendencies such as aggression, impulsivity, hyperactivity, and risk taking lead to
childhood oppositional / defiant behavior, adolescent delinquency, and adult criminal behavior.
Although the latent- trait perspective does view parental behavior as an important cause of
antisocial tendencies in children, the effect of parenting is seen as largely limited to the
childhood years ( Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
In exploring the relationship between sensation seeking and delinquent behavior, it is important
not only to consider biological phenomenon such as arousal but also to attend to psychosocial
factors that influence the _expression of these characteristics. Despite the observed relationship
between sensation seeking and antisocial behavior, it is also clear that sensation seeking does not
necessarily result in an antisocial outcome. Sensation seeking can be seen in non-antisocial
persons who choose high-risk sports or professions as well as many other socially acceptable
outlets of this trait (Goma, Perez, & Torrubia, 1988; Zuckerman, 1983). One theory has proposed
that social variables, such as socioeconomic status, strongly influence the outcome of sensation
seeking into antisocial versus pro social behaviors (Farley & Sewell, 1976).
This research would be important to evaluate the factors and their impact that would be geared to
preventing or reducing juvenile delinquency and victimization. The Research also strives to
promote the rigorous and informative and evaluations. Overall mission is to generate and collect
credible and useful information for improved decision making to prevent and reduce juvenile
delinquency and victimization.
METHOD
SAMPLE:
Sample of the present research consist of 20 juvenile and 20 non-juvenile children and
adolescents belongs to low socio economic status. Their age ranging from 10 to 17 (before 18)
years. They were selected to form two groups. Normal children belongs from home and juvenile
delinquent children belongs from remand home.
PROCEDURE:
The entire experimental sample will be collect from the Remand home of Nazimabad, (Karachi).
In order to investigate the risk factors and behavior, a structured interview form (Intake card and
case history sheet of institute of clinical psychology University of Karachi) will be used. The
controlled sample (Non- Delinquent) will be randomly selected from population of Karachi.
They will be matched on the variable of socioeconomic status, age, sex, and educational level.
Sensation seeking scale (by Hilgard (1953) and Human figure drawing test (by Koppitz 1968)
will be administer on both juvenile delinquent and non delinquent children individually. T- Test
will be applied for statistical analysis of data.
Operational Definations:
Sensation Seeking behavior is defined as thrill and adventure seeking, experience seeking,
disinhibition, and susceptibility to boredom. These four dimensions encompass behaviors such as
engaging in physically risky activities; pursuing new experiences through travel, music, art, and
drugs; seeking social stimulation through parties, social drinking, and a variety of sex partners;
and avoiding boredom produced by unchanging circumstances.
Sensation seeking may include a wide variety of activities such as skydiving, body-contact
sports, hiking and camping, visiting a museum, attending a theatrical performance, or playing
computer and video games. (From NIDA NOTES, July/August, 1995 ).
Parental Physically Abusive is defined as,
1. A child is anyone under the age of 18.
a. Physical Abuse: Causing deliberate and intentional bodily harm to a child or vulnerable
adult.
b. Emotional Abuse: verbal and/or nonverbal emotional cruelty to a child or vulnerable
adult. Emotional abuse sends a message to the victim that he/she is worthless, bad,
unloved, and undeserving of love and care.
c. Neglect: Endangering a child’s or vulnerable adult’s health, welfare, and safety through
negligence. This includes but is not limited to withholding food, medical care, affection,
affirmation, clothing, shelter, hygiene, or education.
d. Sexual Abuse: Sexual contact between an adult and a child, an older and/or more
powerful child and a child, or an adult and a vulnerable adult. Sexual abuse may include
but is not limited to: fondling, inappropriate touching, intercourse, incest and the
exploitation or exposure to pornography and/or prostitution.
e. Ritual Abuse: Intentional abuse of a physical, sexual, or psychological nature inflicted on a
child or vulnerable adult in a stylized way by a person (or multiple persons) with responsibility
for the victim’s welfare. Ritual abuse may include cruelty or threats of cruelty of animals, and
repetitious threats of sexual or physical violence to the victim, or other persons related to the
victim. (An Abuse Prevention Policy, 2004.)
School Drop outs define as Student nonattendance or truancy is a problem that extends much
further than the school. It
affects the student, the family, and the communit . Adolescent Services (2000).
RESULTS
Juvenile delinquent children in comparision with normal children are found similar as the statistical
analysis shows that there is no significant difference has been found between juvenile delinquent and
normal children at p .001.
TABLE 1
Delinquent children will score high on sensation seeking and aggression as compared to nonDelinquent children.
GROUPS
N
Sensation Seeking Beh
MEANS
S.DEV
20
5.05
1.99
20
4.80
1.96
Agression of Normal Children
20
1.30
.47
Agression Of Delinquent Children
20
1.35
.49
of Normal Children
Sensation Seeking Beh
of Delinquent Children
t-test for Independent sample was applied. The results are not significant at p .001 mean of sensation
seeking behavior of normal children is 5.05 and agression is 1.30 while mean of sensation seeking
behavior of delinquent children is 4.80 and agression is 1.35.indicating that there is no behavior
difference between delinquent children and normal children and both category keeping same
level of agression and sensation seeking behavior.
TABLE 2
Delinquent children will have a history of parental physically abuse, parental drug abuse and
school drop out as compared to non-Delinquents. "
NORMAL PARENTS
Parents Addiction
t
df
Sig
.936
38
.355
Mean
.15
P .001
Physical Abuse
-.346
38
.731
-02
P .001
School Drop Outs
-3.210
38
.003
-.40
P .001
DELINQUENT PARENTS
Parents Addiction
t
.936
df
Sig
Mean
37.991 .355
.15
P .001
Physical Abuse
-.346 37.879 .731
-02
P .001
School Drop Outs
-3.210 26.034 .004
.40
P .001
Results are not significant at p .001, except of drop out attitude which is significnt at p. 001.
While parental abuse behavior and drug history both are equally common in both groups.It is
quite clear that mean of parents addiction of normal children is (X .55) , physical abuse behavior
is( X .70) while school drop outs rate is( X-02) Similarly the mean of parents addiction of
juvenile delinquent is (X .40), physical abuse behavior is (X .75) while school drop outs rate
is(X .45), which showed significant difference.
DISSCUSSION
The study is undertaken in order to compare the behavioral problems in juvenile Delinquents and
non juvenile Delinquents children.
Hypothesis No.1 states :
" Delinquent children will score high on sensation seeking and aggression as compared to
non-Delinquent children."
This hypothesis doesn't supported by the data and not significant at p .001.According to the
table No.1 , it is quite clear that mean of sensation seeking behavior of normal children is 5.05
and agression is 1.30 while mean of sensation seeking behavior of delinquent children is 4.80
and agression is 1.35.indicating that there is no behavior difference between delinquent children
and normal children and both category keeping same level of agression and sensation seeking
behavior.
Acccording to Allison Thompson (2001), It makes no sense to just blame it on the parents, or
the schools, or a child's aggressive tendencies. It is a combination of factors that predicts violent
behavior," he says. "A child with disruptive behavior problems is not going to be violent if the
right set of circumstances is compensating for their problems. Conversely, given enough stressful
circumstances, a child who would otherwise be fine might become aggressive. The combination
of factors to look for should be found both in the child and in the child's environment."
Rich draws the example( cited article by William J. Cromie 1998) that Young minds aren't
always capable of separating fiction and reality," Rich comments. "They may see violence as an
easy way to settle conflict or relieve stress. The media doesn't show the consequences, and they
don't think about them." The combination of music and images is more potent than either alone,"
Rich points out. "Music lulls and disinhibits, making it easy to suspend reality. The barrage of
brief scenes allows images of violence and sex to be mixed in far more insidious ways than in a
narrative drama," such as the "soaps" or sitcoms.
Hypothesis No.2 states :
"Delinquent children will have a history of parental physically abuse, parental drug abuse
and school drop out as compared to non-Delinquents. "
This hypothesis doesn't supported by the data and not significant at p .001, except of drop out
attitude which is significnt at p. 001. While parental abuse behavior and drug history both are
equally common in both groups.It is quite clear that mean of parents addiction of normal children
is .55, physical abuse behavior is .70 while school drop outs rate is -02. Similarly the mean of
parents addiction of juvenile delinquent is .40, physical abuse behavior is .75 while school drop
outs rate is .45, which showed significant difference. As The Los Angeles County Office of Education
(2000) identifies truancy as the most powerful predictor of delinquency.
One of reason of disaproving of the hypothesis could be because of ,It has been observed
during the data collection that, the remand home of delinquent children are quite diffrent from
street delinquent children reason. further they are supervising by the structured enviorment like,
they are teaching by Quran, providing supportive enviorment, proper diet, sympathic behavior
and used to indulge in constructive work like sports .
It has been also observed during the research conducting that poor socio economic status leads
to poor education because poor people can't afforad their studies. Reasheres has been proved that
lack of education creat multiple problems in society and leads to a cluster of behavior problems
in which delinquency is the one of risk factor.
Regarding their children's attitude like delinquency , impulsivity, aggression, and school drop
outs can be handle by supportive enviorment but parents's lack of education , family size, home
discord, anti social behavior would be a promotor of youth's violent or agressive behavior .
(Office of
the SurgeonGeneral, 2001 For example, poverty is often seen as a risk factor, but the
presence of supportive, involved parents may mediate the negative influence of poverty to lessen
a youth’s chance of becoming delinquent.
The Cambridge Study in (1989 ), About Delinquent Development is a prospective longitudinal
survey of 411 London males from ages 8 years old to 32 years old. This article investigates the
prediction of adolescent aggression (ages 12-14 years old), teenage violence (ages 16-18 years
old), adult violence (age 32 years old), and convictions for violence. Generally, the best
predictors were measures of economic deprivation, family criminality, poor child-rearing, school
failure, hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention deficit, and antisocial child behavior.
McCord’s (1979) study of 250 boys found that among boys at age 10, the strongest predictors of later
convictions for violent offenses (up to age 45) were poor parental supervision, parental conflict, and
parental aggression, including harsh, punitive
discipline. Some research has linked being raised in a single-parent family with increased delinquency
(McCord, Widom, and Crowell, 2001); however,when researchers control for socioeconomic conditions,
these differences are minimized.
The results of our study suggested that family who were illiterate with low socioeconomic status
seemed to be associated with poor family structure , abusive, addictive and aggressive behavoir.
Psychological factors were found to be associated during of data collection , reflects the fact that
enviorment play a vital role in the development of the children. Findings might be interpreted to mean
that children faced similar kind of experiences produces the same results.
In concluding i would like to stress that it is better to extend this study with psychitric illness and
problems in juvenile delinquent children. Further present research could be a comparitive study among
street delinquent children and remand home delinquent children.
REFERENCES
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J. Roth, J., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and "career
criminals" (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bartol,C.,& Bartol, A. ( 1986). Criminal behavior - A psychosocial Approach. Prentice hall
Capsi, A., & Moffit,T.E( 1995). The continuity of maladaptive behavior: from description to
understanding in the study of anti social behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental Psychopathology, Vol. 2, and pp.472-5110, New York: Wiley.
CSAP (2003) , Research and Programs (now Channing Bete Company). RISK AND
PROTECTIVE.University of Nevada, Reno. 2003 CSAP's Western CAPT.All rights reserved.
<http://www.preventionscience.com/>.
Elizabeth,M.,Koppitz, Ph.D.( 1968).Psychological Evaluation of Children’s Human Figure
Drawings. Board of co-operative Educational Services Yorlk town Height, N.Y.
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., & Van Kammen, W. B. (1990). Long-term criminal outcomes of
hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention deficit and conduct problems in childhood. In L. N. Robins &
M. Rutter (Eds.), Straight and devious pathways from childhood to adulthood (pp. 62-81).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Farrington, D. P. (1992). Explaining the beginning, progress, and ending of antisocial behavior
from birth to adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Facts, frameworks, and forecasts: Advances in
criminological theory (Vol. 3, pp. 253-286). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Farley, F. H., & Sewell, T. (1976). Test of an arousal theory of delinquency: Stimulation-seeking
in delinquent and non-delinquent black adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 3, 315-320.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Gove, W. R., & Crutchfield, R. (1982). The family and juvenile delinquency. Sociological
Quarterly, 23, pp. 301-319.
Geerken, M., & Gove, W. R. (1975). Deterrence: Some theoretical considerations. Law and
Society Review, 9, pp. 497-513.
Goma M., Perez, J., & Torrubia, R. (1988). Personality variables in antisocial and prosocial
disinhibitory behavior. In T. Moffitt & S. Mednick (Eds.), Biological contributions to crime
causation (pp. 211-222). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff
Hilgard.E.R. (1953) Introduction to Psychology 10th Edition, Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS),
396,397, 397. Stanford University.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Jenkins,R.L., Heidmann, & Caputo, J.A. ( 1985). No single cause: Juvenile delinquency & the
search for effective treatment. Maryland: The American correctional Association.
Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial behavior: A review. Child Development, 53,1431-
1446.
Nick Lebelle ( 2000).Focus Adolescent Service .Youth Who Drop Out One-Third of Those Who
Enter High Schools Don't Graduate. http://www.focusas.com/Dropouts.html
Petersilia, J., Greenwood, W., & Lavin, M. (1978). Criminal careers of habitual felons. (U.S.
Department of Justice) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Petersen,A.C.( !988). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 583-607.
Patterson, G.R.,Reid,J.B& Dishion,T.J.(1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR:Castaglia
Reiss, A., & Roth, J. A. (Eds.). (1993). Understanding and preventing violence. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
( Ruter ,M.L.,& Gramzey,N.( 1983). Dvelopmental psychopathology . In P.H. Mussen (
Gen.Ed.), E.M. Hetherington ( Vol.Ed.), Hand book of child psychology, Vol.4, Socialization,
Personality and social development (4th ed.,pp.775-911), New York : Wiley
Schwartz,S., Johnson,J.H. ( 1985). Psychopathology of Childhood: A Clinical - Experimental
Approach, Second Edition. Pergamon General Psychology Series, PG 309.
Simmons, R.G.,& Blyth,D.A. ( 1987). Moving into Adolesence : The impact of pubertal changes
and school context. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sampson,R.,&Laub,J.H.(1993).Crime in the making :pathways & turning points through life.
Cambridge: Harvard University press.
Sara Pigeon (2005),” Helping Our Families”. Youth Program Juvenile Diversion. Tribal Red
Road Project: What are Risk Factors and Protective Factors.
http://www.sagchip.org/tribalobserver/article.asp?article
Tonry, M., Ohlin, L. E., & Farrington, D. P. (1991). Human development and criminal behavior:
New ways of advancing knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Trojanowicz, R.C.& Morash, M. (1992). Cited in Marija Snieckute (1998). Juvenile delinquency
and the Family, Sociologist, Penki Kontinentai,
Ltd.http://www.sociumas.It/Eng/Nr16/nepilnameeciai.asp
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty Adopted by
General Assembly resolution 45/113of 14 December (1990). Copyright 1997 – 2002 Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, Switzerland.
Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C., 1993, Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic
Juvenile Offenders, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Office of the Surgeon General. 2001. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and
Science, Office of the Surgeon General. Retrieved from www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence.
Derzon, J.H., and Lipsey, M.W. 2000. The correspondence of family features with problem, aggressive,
criminal and violent behavior.Unpublished manuscript. Nashville, TN: Institute for Public Policy Studies,
Vanderbilt University.
Wasserman, G.A., and Seracini, A.G. 2001. Family risk factors and interventions. In Child Delinquents:
Development, Intervention, and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, pp. 165–189.
McCord, J. 1979. Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal behavior in adult men. Journal of Risk
Factors for Delinquency: An Overview 10 Personality and Social Psychology 37(9):1477–1486.
McCord, J., Widom, C.S., and Crowell, N.A., eds. 2001. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Panel on
Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cromie,W.J. 1998.Music Videos Promote Adolescent Aggression. President and Fellows of Harvard
College
Thompson,A. 2001. Adolescent Aggression Linked to Victimization, Says Psychologist.
Farrington DP.1989.Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult
violence.Summer;4(2):79-100.Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, England. PMID:
2487131 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE.
Nick Lebelle 2000. Focus Adolescent Services.http://www.focusas.com/Dropouts.html
An Abuse Prevention Policy 2004, Why Conference Trustees Subcommittee On safety Policies For
Children and Vulnerable Adults.
Zuckerman,M. 1995.Measuring Sensation Seeking .NIDA NOTES.University of Delaware.