Prison & Ex-Offender Ministry Resources

Krause, J. (1977). Causes of delinquency as perceived by juveniles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.

OVERVIEW

This study attempted to determine whether a juvenile delinquent’s explanation for the crime committed might be of value in designing preventive and remedial programs.

DESIGN

Three groups of Australian boys ages thirteen to fifteen were selected to answer a questionnaire about the delinquency of hypothetical male juveniles. They were not asked why they themselves committed crimes, since it was assumed that the process of projection would render the motives attributed to the hypothetical males similar to their own personal reasons. The boys were divided into three groups:

 

Group A	106 cases from a low delinquency area of Sydney.
Group B	110 cases from a high delinquency area of Sydney.
Group C	50 cases composed of juvenile offenders in a state correctional institution.

 

CONCLUSIONS

The three groups showed highly significant agreement on causes and rank order of causes. The main causes, in rank order, were

• Peer influence.
• Thrill-seeking.
• Desire to prove oneself.
• Boredom.
• Material gain.
• Monetary gain.
• Being dared by peers.

IMPLICATIONS

1. The causes of delinquency found in the study reflect the perceived needs of many children. Counselors, teachers, and youth leaders serve kids’ needs; therefore, the goals of youth work need to be adjusted to meet these needs.
2. Youth workers must address the needs of groups of kids as well as individual children. Peer influence must be directed positively by helping youth build communities of trust committed to one another’s growth. Research such as this enables youth leaders to reach and listen to young people more effectively.

Leyton, E. (1986) Compulsive killers: The story of the modern multiple killer. New York University Press, 318pp.

OVERVIEW

Some startling American statistics will set the stage for a discussion of the author’s findings:

 

Rate of Multiple Murderers	Per 100,000 Population
1920s	2
1930s	1
1940s	3
1950s	1
1960s	6
1970s	17
1980-84	25

No other industrial country comes close, according to the author, to American murder statistics. The current homicide rate in the U.S. is 10 murders per 100,000 population. The rate in Canada is 2.5 per 100,000, and rates for European countries lie between 1.5 and 2.5. Leyton estimates that multiple murderers strike successfully about once a month in the U.S. compared to once every two to three years in Canada and Great Britain.

This book studies why the U.S. produces so many more multiple killers. Is there more insanity in America than in other nations? More weapons? Greater leniency? The author, a Canadian anthropologist, spent four years corresponding with both killers and police departments. He examined FBI files, murderers’ confessions, and any writings on the subject. What impresses the author is that the killers in the study are ambitious, discontented, unemployed (or underemployed), working or lower-class individuals who preyed upon victims in a higher social stratum. They seem to be obsessed with a need for recognition, status, and acceptance into a class by which they feel rejected.

"They are among the most class conscious people in America, obsessed with every nuance of status, class and power," Leyton argues. Their murders are a "kind of primitive rebellion against the social order." Their victims were, most often, women they saw as beautiful. But sex is not the primary motivation, the author maintains. It is "a delicious byproduct, or extra dividend, to their adventure." They kill to get even and to dominate. If rape is added to their villainy, it is primarily a violent display of power.

The Boston strangler of the 1960s, Albert DeSalvo, told police he killed women because "I’m not educated and these girls was all college graduates...I made fools of them...I made them do what I wanted and accept me and listen to me."

Edmund Kemper killed his mother, grandparents, and six beautiful young women in the 1970s. He explained that he was "striking out at what was hurting me the worst, which was the area, I guess, deep down, I wanted to fit in the most, and I had never fit in, and that was the in-group."

Leyton believes multiple killings can best be explained anthropologically. In his opinion, these killers are better understood as cultural extremes than as "crazies." Most of them were not diagnosed as having a serious mental disorder. These men "can only be accurately and objectively perceived as prime embodiment of their civilization, not twisted derangement. They can only be fully understood as representing the logical extension of many of the central themes in their culture—of worldly ambition, of success and failure, and of manly avenging violence."

America produces so many multiple murderers, according to the author, because of the way the culture glorifies violence and penalizes failure. Rambo is praised, and those who cannot get ahead are branded as losers. And, in the U.S., there is no cultural solidarity that unites the poor. The culture tends to isolate those who are not successful. Neither of these two factors are as prevalent in other societies.

IMPLICATIONS

1. The extremes of American culture and the heinous crimes of those alienated individuals who suddenly explode must be condemned. These increasingly frequent tragedies are among the many signs begging the U.S. society to assess the quality of life and the values of the culture.
2. Americans shudder with each new episode of serial killing. In morbid curiosity, the society follows such news. It sells newspapers and raises viewing ratings. But how can this help to solve the deeper issues of such crime?
3. There is a troubled segment of the American youth and adult population. Within those segments there are classic types who commit most serial killings and such violence. Those who work with the young should be aware of the desperate need of these individuals for affirmation and life-skills training.

Corvo, K.N. (1997, March). Community-based youth violence prevention. Youth & Society, 28(3), 29l-3l6.

OVERVIEW

Youth leaders, new and experienced, need to learn more about preventing kids from becoming involved in violence and other criminal activities. In his article, Corvo offers key insight into issues that youth leaders and others should consider when developing a prevention program for their own community.

The Gund Foundation continually strives to understand and assess the different problems facing youth in today. Over the past two years, the Foundation has spent time and money researching the causes of the increase in youth violence and possible ways to address and prevent violent behavior.

The first step in violence prevention is to research and define the problem that the community is having with violence. There are different methods that a community can use to identify any local problems; they need to look beyond their personal beliefs about the problem to truly analyze the dilemma:

It is overly simplistic to assume that the conditions relevant to youth violence at the national level are identical to those in a local community.

In other words, it is important for a community to assess their local needs—not the needs of the entire nation. Each community should appraise their own situation and devise a program that works toward their needs.

A community attempting to organize a violence prevention program should consider devise a model that patterns an effective, established program. Unsuccessful programs have similar problematic characteristics evident from the beginning of the development of the program. In creating a program, a community should assert a strong, clear problem statement. Weak program statements are often simplistic, refraining from detailing the causes for the needs of the program.

There are many different models for developing a community program. Three will be highlighted in this discussion. The Public Health Model (PHM) is based on the biopsychosocial model emphasizing prevention. This model defines youth violence either as a disease or through a disease metaphor. A liability with this model is that it focueses on identifying individuals or environments at risk for delinquent activity before the behavior has taken place; this suggests that any intent to address the issue or improve psychosocial functioning can be labeled as "youth violence prevention." There are many alternative methods of intervention than the PHM model. These models include individual, family, and community factors broader in definition than the PHM model.

School-based conflict resolution programs are also worthy of consideration. These programs attempt to reduce teenage violence by teaching alternative, nonviolent methods of solving problems. These programs are popular and are offered in many different schools across America. There are criticisms to conflict resolution programs: violent behavior has not been proven preventable with education. Others suggest that these programs do not address the different problems that adolescents might have. Programs should allow for some kind of versatility for the people who go through it. Closely related to conflict resolution programs are programs that teach social skills.

Family intervention programs "attempt to affect youth violence through altering family organizations, functioning, relationships, or parenting styles." These types of programs train parents and communities on positive parenting styles, providing practical methods for families to use when facing problems with a young delinquent. These programs are designed to avert very young delinquents behavior; such programs are generally less effective as the child grows older.

While the public health, school-based, and family intervention models are the predominant models for addressing the violent behavior of youth, other types of programs are also endorsed. These include gang and peer intervention, reducing firearm availability to teenagers, mentoring, and community building.

In developing a prevention program for violence in any neighborhood, it is important that the planners and supporters brainstorm creative, effective ways to address the specific problems they are attempting to solve. Collaboration with other organizations and programs often generates more powerful solutions. This includes researching the imminent problems and developing assessable, trackable goals while the program grows in both stature and worth.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1. What have you learned about violence prevention techniques from this article? Are the techniques compatible with your experience in working on violence prevention? Explain.
2. What are some of the violence problems in your community?
3. What different methods have you used or witnessed to address problems of violence?
4. Which model do you believe best addresses the issues in your community? How would you adjust this model to work in your community?
5. From this article, have you noted any improvements or adaptations to make to your programs?

IMPLICATIONS

1. There is no "quick-fix" method of violence prevention.
2. Youth leaders need to recognize different problems facing their youth and design methods to effectively address these problems.
3. Programs need to be designed with a particular community in mind. A program that works in one city or in one neighborhood will not necessarily work in other cities or neighborhoods.
4. With the emergence of juvenile violence, it is important that community and church leaders understand how to recognize violent youth and develop ways to address violent situations.

Police and Gangs, Trymaine Lee, “Mass Arrest of Brooklyn Youths Spotlights Police Tactics and Community Tensions,”  NYTimes, 24Jun07, p. 24.

 

OVERVIEW

 

Donnell McFarland (18) and James Kelly (16) had been friends in the neighborhood of Hope Gardens Housing in Bushwick, Brooklyn (NYC).Then friendship turned to enmity, climaxed by James Kelly allegedly shooting McFarland in the head and killing him. Kelly is said to be a member of Linden Street Bloods and McFarland a member of the Pretty Boy Family, which is either a tight group of friends or another subdivision of the national Bloods.

 

Grief for the friends of McFarland was profuse and Asher Callender (19) organized a trip to McFarland’s wake in Coney Island. Most got permission to miss school on that May 21^st (2007) and bought T-shirts printed with McFarland’s picture with R.I.P. Freshh, his nickname. They were to meet in that park that day and Asher, who knew the way would lead them.

 

The group slowly congregated in the park, in small grieving groups, and when they felt that everyone was there, they began walking up

Putnam St.

toward the subway. Suddenly, they found the street blocked off by police vans and a swarm of police shouting, “Hands up,” “Don’t move,” “Get on the ground.” One of the kids yelled, “Nobody run,” fearing they might be shot. Apparently without any guns being drawn, with no injuries to either youth or police, and without any noise, the group was handcuffed and lead away.

 

Why?  There are two different versions from police and community.  The immediate charges of the police were that gang signs were being exchanged, gang colors were being worn with the name of the gang, pedestrians were being forced off the sidewalks into the streets, and gang members were jumping on cars.

 

Police also reported a series of incidents since McFarland’s shooting. “A member of the Pretty Boy Family was reportedly shot in the foot two weeks before McFarland’s death. Then there had been a confrontation between a William Gonzolez, who had been feuding with McFarland, and a man believed to belong to the Pretty Boy Family. That same day, Jakai King, whom the police described as a member of the Linden Street Bloods, was attacked by members of the Pretty Boy Family. Two days later, he was attacked again, stripped down to his underwear and sent running down the street.”

 

Furthermore, police in the 83^rd precinct and 60^th precinct of Coney Island, said they had been informed by community leaders that there would be a confrontation—that members of the Linden Street Bloods said they would shoot anyone wearing a T-shirt memorializing the slain McFarland. Paul J. Browne, a police spokesman, further explained that the police considered “Freshh” on the T-shirts a gang name since McFarland has belonged to what they considered a gang.

 

The police description of threatening actions on the part of these students was not substantiated by parents and witnesses. “Hector Polonia, 52, was sweeping the sidewalk in front of United Cleaners where he’s manager. He saw the group of young people crossing Putnam as the police moved in.”

 

They weren’t making any noise or anything (Polonia said). They were acting like a normal bunch of teenagers.

 

Ms. Guerrero was sitting in Putnam Park. “They didn’t get on any cars.” Other car owners whose cars were parked on Putnam St. said there was no sign of damage on any of the cars.

 

Those under 16 were quickly released. The rest were held, charged and questioned. “Six female mourners in the group were given summonses for disorderly conduct. The remaining young men were run through the system and charged with disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. Most remained in jail overnight, some as long as 36 hours.”

 

Students are looking for an apology. “The district attorney is offering community service in exchange for guilty pleas. So far none has accepted.”

 

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

 

1. What are your honest feelings about this story?

2. What arguments would you offer on the part of the students, their parents and the community?

3.  What would be the argument of the police and their supervisors?

4.  How would this same situation have been handled in a primarily white, suburban area?

5.  What can be learned from this situation in Brooklyn, NY?

IMPLICATIONS

 

1.  A situation like this should be investigated and talked through. Trust in the police must be restored in this community and with all who read this article.

2.  The boredom, frustration and violence on city streets involve personal and community responsibility. But school failure, the unemployment, family distress and resort to thug lifestyles also imply failures of our social systems.

3.  Strict, massive and consistent displays of police enforcement can reduce crime figures—as New York City has demonstrated. But it is not enough to put a lid on violence. It’s root causes must be explored and dealt with.

4.  Any solution to street violence that does not depend heavily on collaboration between politicians, police, educators, the community and its agencies and churches is bound to fail in the long run. We must listen to each other and work together.

 

Dean Borgman   c. CYS