W w w. H a m I l t o n p r o j e c t. O r g acknowledgements



Yüklə 237,08 Kb.
Pdf görüntüsü
səhifə3/10
tarix14.12.2017
ölçüsü237,08 Kb.
#15817
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

6  

Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States

The majority of criminal offenders are 

younger than age thirty.



3.

Juveniles make up a significant portion of offenders each year. 

More than one quarter (27 percent) of known offenders—defined 

as individuals with at least one identifiable characteristic that were 

involved in a crime incident, whether or not an arrest was made—

were individuals ages eleven to twenty, and an additional 34 percent 

were ages twenty-one to thirty; all other individuals composed 

fewer than 40 percent of offenders. As seen in figure 3, this trend 

holds for all types of crimes. More specifically, 55  percent of 

offenders committing crimes against persons (such as assault and 

sex offenses) were ages eleven to thirty. For crimes against property 

(such as larceny-theft and vandalism) and crimes against society 

(including drug offenses and weapon law violations), 63 percent 

and 66 percent of offenders, respectively, were individuals in the 

eleven-to-thirty age group.

A stark difference in the number of offenders by gender is also 

evident. Most crimes—whether against persons, property, or 

society—are committed by men; of criminal offenders with 

known gender, 72 percent are male. This trend for gender follows 

for crimes against persons (73 percent), crimes against property 

(70 percent), and crimes against society (77 percent) (DOJ 2012). 

Combined, these facts indicate that most offenders in the United 

States are young men.

Some social scientists explain this age profile of crime by appealing 

to a biological perspective on criminal behavior, focusing on the 

impaired decision-making capabilities of the adolescent brain in 

particular. There are also numerous social theories that emphasize 

youth susceptibility to societal pressures, namely their concern 

with identity formation, peer reactions, and establishing their 

independence (O’Donoghue and Rabin 2001).



Chapter 1: The Landscape of Crime in the United States

Sources: DOJ 2012; authors’ calculations.

Note: The FBI defines crimes against persons as crimes whose victims are always individuals. Crimes against property are those with the goal of obtaining 

money, property, or some other benefit. Crimes against society are those that represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activity 

(DOJ 2011). Offender data include characteristics of each offender involved in a crime incident whether or not an arrest was made; offenders with unknown 

ages are excluded from the analysis. Additionally, incidents with unknown offenders—1,741,162 incidents in 2012—are excluded. For more details, see the 

technical appendix.

FIGURE 3.

Number of Offenders in the United States, by Age and Offense Category, 2012

More than 60 percent of known criminal offenders are under the age of thirty, with individuals ages eleven to twenty constituting 

roughly 27 percent of offenders, and individuals ages twenty-one to thirty making up an additional 34 percent.

Ages 10 and under

Ages 11–20

Ages 21–30

Ages 31–40

Ages 41–50

Ages 50 and over

Number of off

enders (in thousands)

1,400


1,200

1,000


800

600


400

200


0

Crimes against persons

Crimes against society

Crimes against property

Total



The Hamilton Project  •  Brookings   7

Disadvantaged youths engage in riskier 

criminal behavior.

4.

Youths from low-income families (those with incomes at or below 

200 percent of the federal poverty level) are equally likely to commit 

drug-related offenses than are their higher-income counterparts. 

As seen in figure 4, low-income youths are just as likely to use 

marijuana by age sixteen, and to use other drugs or sell drugs by age 

eighteen. In contrast, low-income youths are more likely to engage in 

violent and property crimes than are youths from middle- and high-

income families. In particular, low-income youths are significantly 

more likely to attack someone or get into a fight, join a gang, or steal 

something worth more than $50. In other words, youths from low-

income families are more likely to engage in crimes that involve or 

affect other people than are youths from higher-income families.

A standard economics explanation for the socioeconomic profile 

of property crime is that for poor youths the attractiveness of 

alternatives to crime is low: if employment opportunities are 

limited for teens living in poor neighborhoods, then property 

crime becomes relatively more attractive. The heightened 

likelihood of violent crime among poor youths raises the issue 

of automatic behaviors—in other words, youths intuitively 

responding to perceived threats—which has become the focus of 

recent research in this field. However, the similar rates of drug 

use across teens from different income groups is consistent with 

a more general model of risky teenage activity associated with the 

so-called impaired decision-making capabilities of the adolescent 

brain.


Some intriguing recent academic work has proposed that adverse 

youth outcomes are often the result of quick errors in judgment 

and decision-making. In particular, hostile attribution bias—

hypervigilance to threat cues and the tendency to overattribute 

malevolent intent to others—appears to be more common among 

disadvantaged youths, partly because these youths grow up with 

a heightened risk of having experienced abuse (Dodge, Bates, and 

Pettit 1990; Heller et al. 2013). Some experts have consequently 

begun promoting cognitive behavioral therapy for these youths 

to help them recognize and rewire the automatic behaviors and 

biased beliefs that often result in judgment and decision-making 

errors. Promising results from several experiments in Chicago—

in particular, improved schooling outcomes and fewer arrests for 

violent crimes—suggest that it is possible to change the outcomes 

of disadvantaged youths simply by helping them recognize when 

their automatic responses may trigger negative outcomes (Heller et 

al. 2013).

Chapter 1: The Landscape of Crime in the United States

Source: Kent 2009.

Note: Original data are derived from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Adolescent risk behaviors are measured up to age eighteen, except for 

marijuana usage, which is measured up to age sixteen. Low-income families are those whose incomes are at or below 200 percent of the the federal poverty level 

(FPL). Middle-income families have incomes between 201 and 400 percent of the FPL. High-income families have incomes at or above 401 percent of the FPL.

FIGURE 4.

Adolescent Risk Behaviors by Family Income Level

Although youths from low-income families are as likely to use or sell drugs as are their higher-income counterparts, the former are 

significantly more likely to engage in criminal activities that target other people.

Per

cen

t of y

ouths

0

5



10

15

20



25

30

35



40

Use marijuana

Use other

drugs


Sell drugs

Attack 


someone/get 

into a fight

Become a 

member of 

a gang

Steal something



worth more

than $50


Carry 

a gun


Youths from low-income families

Youths from middle-income families

Youths from high-income families



Yüklə 237,08 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə