RACE AND ETHNICITY OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Race and ethnicity of juvenile offenders

Race and ethnicity of juvenile offenders

Introduction

It is a fact that many researchers have been made in the past to identify the key factors in the issues involving in Juvenile and adult involvement in offending among racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. These differences have prompted competing theoretical interpretations and public policy debates. However, conclusions about the racial differences in serious and violent juvenile offending have been reached primarily using individual-level data that, when used alone, yield incomplete results. Multilevel analyses that consider community and contextual factors have the potential to produce a fuller understanding of the meaning of these differences. Race and ethnicity are controversial variables in epidemiological studies. Most of the controversy comes from the misuse of these variables as risk factors and from issues concerning validity and consistency of data over time and territory. Substantial inconsistencies in the categorization of race and ethnicity can be found in the literature. For these reasons, some journals have written policies and published glossaries to better define these variables. However, revisions of criteria are often required due to the dynamics of social and demographic change, such as migrations, globalization, and other cultural movements that may change the perception of group identity (Adorno, 2000).

Discussion

Race and ethnicity of the child may be self-identified there is or has elements of both recording methods. Recording categories of race and ethnicity may also change. For example, race - whites, blacks, American Indians and Asia - Juvenile fear does not depend on ethnicity - Hispanic or not Hispanic. Cases and Hispanics as a race record do not have a separate ethnic category. Some evidence also includes unknown race and ethnicity, as well as "other race". These changes to the registry to make a comparison between the bit data types, such as arrests for minor in comparison with juvenile court cases. If all serious crimes, it is believed the picture is more complicated. Between 1983 and 1992, juvenile arrest rates for all types of violent crimes increased by 82 percent among white youth and 43 percent among black youth. Nature of the changes was higher rates of arrest for robbery and murder. In 1983, black youths are about five times more likely to be arrested for the murder were white youths in 1992; this share was more than seven to one.

Another component to address in the understanding of racial and ethnic dissimilarities in the length and span to which juvenile persons engaged in grave crimes. UCR facts and numbers are not helpful in this regard. However, longitudinal investigations have lost some more lightweight on this topic on the cornerstone of authorized figures. Based on police data from a cohort of 1945 in Philadelphia, Wolfgang, subsidiaries and Sellin (1972) found that race and socioeconomic status associated with the frequency and severity of the crime. These outcomes were verified with a cohort of 1958 in Philadelphia. Nevertheless, more facts and numbers are required to completely realize the connection between ...