Juvenile delinquency affects everyone. It puts a strain on the family, as well as the taxpayers that provide programs for the impoverished families. Law-abiding citizens see their money going for detention facilities and to lawyers who represent the delinquents whom, for the most part, probably come from indigent families. Today we have to take into account the victims involved as well. Yet even more of taxpayer dollars go for treatment of the victims, whether the treatment be physical or psychological. It is not uncommon for taxpayers to feel the brunt of delinquency.

This perspective states that members in society form bonds with other members in society, or institutions in society such as parents, pro social friends, churches, schools, teachers, and sports teams, to name a few. “The ties and affection that develop between children and key people in their lives create higher levels of social capital and internalizes the norms of society, such as being a law-abiding citizen” (Leighninger, 1996). This perspective would address juvenile delinquency as the juvenile failing to form the same bonds, and creating the same levels of social capital, as a law-abiding citizen. Because of this deficiency in their socialization, the juvenile is far more prone to engage in criminal activity.

Strain Theorists share a similar perspective with the Structural Functionalists. The Strain Theory argues people who commit crimes have basically the same values as everyone else. Primarily among these values is an emphasis on the achievement and success. According to this theory, the avenues for the achievement of success are greatly restricted for the people of the lower class. Thus, they are faced with a cruel dilemma; “either abandon the major American values of success and prosperity or they abandon another--obedience of the law” (Leighninger, 1996:93). The Strain Theory has been mainly applied to juvenile delinquency among lower-class boys. The central idea is that these young people share the value of success with the larger culture, but because of inadequate socialization they are unable to effectively compete. This produces strain, which they seek to resolve (Leighninger, 1996). Strain Theory has its limitations however. It does not explain suburban delinquency for example.

Social Control theorists start with the premise that human behavior is by nature antisocial and delinquent. “We are all animals, and thus all naturally capable of committing criminal acts,” and “people commit crimes because it is in their nature to do so. The question that really needs an answer is why do most people not commit crimes” (Elrod, 1999). Social Control theorists would view delinquents as acting out of their most primal inclinations.

With so many theories, how can societies decide which ones are most applicable? All theories presented here, as well as numerous others that exist explain various causes of juvenile delinquency. The key concept is that when trying to understand the various theories, one must realize that they could, and in many circumstances should be used in conjunction with one another. As with any social problem, the causal factors can be numerous, and there are always exceptions to every theory. Juvenile delinquency is such a diverse topic, that the explanation of this social problem is just as diverse.

Explaining crime and delinquency is a complex task. A multitude of factors exists that contribute to the understanding of what leads someone to engage in delinquent behavior.

Some topics in this essay:
Strain Theory, Elrod Ryder, Choice Theory, Association Theory, Cultural Deviance, Social Control, World April, Structural Functionalists, Labeling Theorists, African American, juvenile delinquency, leighninger 1996, criminal activity, cultural deviance, criminal behavior, strain theory, tomovic 1979, engage criminal, engage criminal activity, delinquent behavior, explain juvenile, task multitude factors, delinquency key concept, explain juvenile delinquency, explaining crime delinquency,