I have written in past articles about crime, and violent offending, being largely committed by young men, and that apart from a few persistent offenders, most age out of crime in their early to mid-twenties. This is one of the few things that most criminologists agree on as the statistics are extremely compelling and hard to dispute. However, I haven’t written much about why violent offending is committed by young people, especially young men. I have written somewhat about why young people stop offending e.g., they get jobs, find partners, develop stable routines around these things, and basically run out of time to commit offenses etc., but I’ve written little about why such people may offend when they are younger. In this article I want to look at some of the psychological and social factors that result in offending and especially violent offending in the first place.

               Whilst our “personalities” have largely been established by our early teenage years, some of our brain functions haven’t, and don’t until much later e.g., by your early teens, who you are, has largely been defined however this doesn’t mean that this determines how you will act and behave at this time. This is one of the reasons why it can be extremely confusing for parents to get a visit from the police informing them that their “normally” well-behaved, compassionate, considerate and respectful son/daughter was caught throwing rocks through the windows of an old people’s home i.e., their actions are genuinely out of character with their personality. The teenage years are when the brain’s arousal system is so susceptible to reward, that the systems regulating sell-control are often over-ridden, leading to risk taking and poor choices. This can lead to genuine confusion and questioning in adolescents post an event e.g., “Why did I do that?” What made sense in the moment makes little to no sense when analyzed afterwards; what was actually gained by throwing rocks through the window of an old people’s home. Rationally? Nothing. But in that moment the psychological and physical exhilaration and excitement of causing destruction was too tempting to pass up. As our self-control systems start to mature in our early twenties, we can understand the risk and the consequences of such actions and determine/decide that taking advantage of such an opportunity may not be such a good idea, to a point that we don’t even consider such opportunities i.e., we are no longer aroused to seek such excitement and reward. When we put artificial measures of maturity in place such as determining that by sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one etc. that individuals should be fully responsible for their actions we may be ignoring how relatively “slowly” the brain actually develops, concerning the assessment of risk, in young people, especially young men.

               As well as psychological factors that result in offending being largely a young person’s – especially male – game, there are social factors as well. The social structures we have created for young people, that ultimately benefit them, also harbor risks/dangers. Schools are institutions that bring large numbers of young people together, they are often places where friendships are made, and result in young people spending a lot of time together. Schools themselves actually represent some of the safest places/spaces for people to be in, despite the way they are sometimes portrayed in the media. There is far more youth violence, and general violence, that is committed off of school premises rather than on them. In Routine Activity Theory, teachers act as handlers, place managers and guardians. A handler is someone who exerts an influence over a potential offender, monitoring their behaviors and preventing/discouraging them from committing an offense; there are obviously – like in all social environments - some teachers who are better at this than others. A handler, such as a teacher, can also act as a guardian, by protecting a potential target from a motivated offender. A teacher(s) is also a place manager who deters offending in a particular location i.e., a classroom/school. In environments where place managers, guardians, and handlers exist there is less of a risk of offending, however individuals need to exert these roles rather than simply assume them. However, before and after school such controls don’t exits and this is when and why a lot of youth offending occurs; the large social group(s) exists but these controlling factors don’t.

               Young people are seeking both their own identity along with a social identity; schools help them do both. However, kids can fall into “good” groups, as well as “bad” regardless of their own personality/character e.g., a “good” kid in one setting can become a “bad” kid in another etc. The psychologist Judith Harris examined this and concluded that children and young people will adapt to their settings based on reward. If at home, a child/teenager is rewarded – and conversely punished – by adopting a good behavior such as being polite and refraining from bad language etc., that is what they will do. However, if in a social group, outside of the family, they are socially “rewarded” for being rude, obnoxious, undermining/defying authority etc., that is what they will do. As individuals we want to be accepted socially and will adapt our behaviors to match the groups we want to belong to, and in some way profit from. If there is a “cool” group, which engages in crime, but rewards us with social status, we may wish to belong and be accepted by it, and our yet to develop ability to exert social control and evaluate risk, may mean we take/make those bad choices.

               I remember watching an interview/presentation with/by criminologist Marcus Felson, where he talked about holding his breath when his son was a teenager, hoping that his son wouldn’t engage in “stupid” but criminal events – recognizing that for a wide variety of reasons he might – and then breathing a sigh of relief when he reached his early to mid-twenties, and hadn’t. It is important for a number of reasons to recognize that adolescence is a period of risk for offending, and that the things individuals do during this period don’t necessarily define who they are. This is not to say that there shouldn’t be responsibility and accountability, as these are things which demonstrate personality and character, however defining a person who is psychologically and mentally developing during this time solely on their acts would be incorrect.