Introduction
This essay examines the representation of social groups within the Youth Justice System (YJS) in the UK, focusing on gender and ethnicity, and explores the reasons behind delinquent behaviour with reference to relevant theories. Additionally, it critically analyses two criminological theories of deviancy among young people, comparing their explanations for such behaviour. The discussion is grounded in the context of the Criminal Justice System (CJS), drawing on statistical evidence and academic literature to highlight disparities and underlying causes. By addressing these issues, the essay aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how social factors and theoretical perspectives intersect in shaping youth offending. The structure will first explore representation in the YJS, followed by an evaluation of theories related to delinquent behaviour, and finally, a comparison of criminological theories on deviancy.
Representation of Social Groups in the Youth Justice System
The YJS in the UK reveals significant disparities in the representation of different social groups, particularly in terms of gender and ethnicity. According to recent statistics, males are disproportionately represented in the system. The Ministry of Justice (2022) reports that approximately 85% of young people in custody are male, despite males and females committing offences at comparable rates for certain categories, such as minor theft. This overrepresentation may be attributed to societal expectations and biases within the CJS, where males are often stereotyped as more aggressive or predisposed to criminality, leading to harsher sentencing or greater police scrutiny (Sharpe, 2016). Indeed, girls are more likely to receive diversionary measures or cautions, reflecting a gendered perception of vulnerability or reformability.
Similarly, ethnicity plays a crucial role in the representation within the YJS. Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) young people are overrepresented at various stages of the CJS. The Lammy Review (2017) highlighted that Black young people are more likely to be arrested, charged, and sentenced to custody compared to their White counterparts, even when controlling for similar offences. For instance, Black children accounted for 26% of custodial sentences in 2021, despite comprising only 6% of the general youth population (Ministry of Justice, 2022). This suggests systemic biases, including discriminatory policing practices such as stop and search, which disproportionately target BAME communities. These disparities indicate deeper structural inequalities within the CJS, where social stereotypes and institutional racism arguably influence decision-making processes.
Theories on Delinquent Behaviour: Gender and Ethnicity
Delinquent behaviour among young people can often be linked to social factors such as gender and ethnicity, with various theories offering explanations for these patterns. One key reason for gender differences in offending relates to social control theory, proposed by Hirschi (1969), which suggests that individuals with weaker social bonds are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour. Boys, arguably, experience less parental supervision and societal control compared to girls, who are often socialised into more conformist roles through stricter monitoring and expectations of domesticity (Chesney-Lind, 1997). This differential socialisation may result in higher male offending rates, as seen in the YJS statistics previously discussed.
Regarding ethnicity, strain theory, developed by Merton (1938), provides a compelling explanation for why BAME young people may be overrepresented in offending statistics. Strain theory posits that individuals experience frustration when they are unable to achieve societal goals through legitimate means, often turning to crime as an alternative. Many BAME youths face systemic barriers, such as economic disadvantage, discrimination in education, and limited employment opportunities, creating a ‘strain’ that can manifest as delinquency (Agnew, 2001). For instance, in economically deprived areas with high BAME populations, young people may feel excluded from mainstream opportunities, pushing some towards criminal activities as a means of status or economic gain.
A notable case illustrating these dynamics is that of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, convicted of the murder of James Bulger in 1993. While their case does not directly align with ethnicity, it reflects issues of social control and strain. Coming from disadvantaged backgrounds with limited parental supervision and exposure to violence, their circumstances arguably contributed to their deviant behaviour, aligning with both social control and strain theories (Morrison, 1995). This case underscores how social and environmental factors can intersect with individual agency to produce tragic outcomes.
Criminological Theories of Deviancy in Young People
Two prominent criminological theories provide insight into deviancy among young people: labelling theory and subcultural theory. Labelling theory, associated with Becker (1963), argues that deviancy is not inherent but is constructed through societal reactions. When a young person is labelled as a ‘delinquent’ by authorities, peers, or family, they may internalise this identity, leading to further offending. For example, a youth repeatedly stopped by police may begin to see themselves as a criminal, fulfilling the prophecy through subsequent behaviour. This theory highlights the role of social interaction and stigma in perpetuating deviancy, particularly within the YJS, where formal labels (e.g., convictions) can have lasting effects.
Subcultural theory, advanced by Cohen (1955), suggests that deviancy arises when young people, often from working-class backgrounds, reject mainstream values and form subcultures with alternative norms that valorise criminal behaviour. These subcultures provide a sense of belonging and status for youths who feel marginalised by society. For instance, gang culture in urban areas often emerges as a subcultural response to economic deprivation and social exclusion, with crime becoming a means of achieving respect within the group. This theory is particularly relevant to understanding persistent youth offending in disadvantaged communities.
Critical Comparison of Criminological Theories on Deviancy
While both labelling and subcultural theories offer valuable perspectives on youth deviancy, they differ in their focus and explanatory power. Labelling theory emphasises the role of societal reaction and individual identity, suggesting that deviancy is a product of external perceptions rather than inherent traits. However, it can be critiqued for overlooking the initial causes of offending, focusing instead on the consequences of being labelled (Akers, 1997). For example, it fails to fully explain why certain groups, such as males or BAME youths, are more likely to be labelled in the first place, pointing to a limitation in addressing structural factors.
In contrast, subcultural theory provides a more structural explanation, linking deviancy to broader social inequalities and cultural responses. It accounts for the formation of deviant groups and the systemic issues (e.g., poverty, exclusion) that underpin them. Nevertheless, it has been criticised for overgeneralising working-class experiences and ignoring individual agency, as not all disadvantaged youths join deviant subcultures (Young, 1999). Furthermore, it may not adequately address how societal labels reinforce subcultural identities, an area where labelling theory offers stronger insight.
Ultimately, integrating elements of both theories provides a more comprehensive understanding of youth deviancy. Labelling theory explains how formal and informal responses amplify offending, while subcultural theory contextualises the social conditions that foster deviant behaviour. Together, they underscore the interplay between individual experiences and societal structures in shaping youth crime.
Conclusion
This essay has explored the representation of social groups within the YJS, focusing on gender and ethnicity, revealing stark disparities influenced by societal biases and systemic inequalities. It has also evaluated social control and strain theories as explanations for delinquent behaviour, with reference to the case of Thompson and Venables, highlighting how social bonds and structural barriers contribute to offending. Additionally, a critical comparison of labelling and subcultural theories demonstrates their complementary strengths in understanding youth deviancy, though each has limitations. These insights suggest that addressing youth crime requires not only individual interventions but also systemic reforms to tackle inequality and stereotyping within the CJS. Future research might further investigate how intersecting identities (e.g., gender and ethnicity combined) influence experiences in the YJS, ensuring a more nuanced approach to policy and practice.
References
- Agnew, R. (2001) Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), pp. 319-361.
- Akers, R. L. (1997) Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.
- Becker, H. S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
- Chesney-Lind, M. (1997) The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Cohen, A. K. (1955) Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
- Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Lammy, D. (2017) The Lammy Review: An Independent Review into the Treatment of, and Outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System. London: Ministry of Justice.
- Merton, R. K. (1938) Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), pp. 672-682.
- Ministry of Justice (2022) Youth Justice Statistics 2020 to 2021. London: Ministry of Justice.
- Morrison, B. (1995) As If: A Crime, a Trial, a Question of Childhood. London: Granta Books.
- Sharpe, G. (2016) Criminal Girls and Women: Gender and the Youth Justice System. London: Routledge.
- Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society: Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in Late Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
