Analyzing Juvenile Offenders: Criminological And Non-Criminological Attributes In Adulthood (Essay).

Research Aims and Objective

The number of crimes committed by juveniles is becoming increasingly prominent across the developed Nations. In the United Kingdom itself, the previous year’s saw 57600 arrests of children who were aged between 10 to 17 years for Major offenses 2 and 3 (Underwood & Washington,2016). This increasing number highlights a question of how the future of these juvenile children will be (Basanta, Fariña & Arce, 2018). The entire system of the government is created in such a manner with these children, in particular, are kept under such surveillance for a notable period that focuses on assuring the effects and impact that can be made on the mind to completely be assured to save them from making criminal activities happen as they grow up to be adults (Terry, 2017).  Despite the fact that the number of youngsters convicted of crimes has decreased over the last decade, the proportions of these criminal categories have been shifting (Appendix 4). Offenders who commit crimes involving violence against persons have experienced the biggest rise, rising from 20 percent in 2010 to 31 percent this year (YJB, 2021). The following research proposals focus on understanding and analyzing the juvenile offenders and predictions of distinctions between criminological and non-criminological attributes in adulthood by analyzing the different methods that can be used to create an impact.

The primary need for conducting the following research comes from the increasing number of cases of criminal activities by juveniles that are found to be involved (Baglivio & Epps, 2016). The simple specification of how a young individual takes the root of crime comes not just from their environment but from their mindset, which comes through psychologically ordered prospects, which can often be an imbalance (Rhoden, Macgowan & Huang, 2019). Conducting the following research focuses on finding an opportunity to understand these juvenile offenders and their minds, to come up with a better plan in the future to save them from criminological activities and take the path of a non-criminological life ahead.

The primary aim of the research is to analyse the Juvenile offenders and predication of distinction between criminology and non-criminological attributes in adulthood.

To understand juvenile under the Criminal Justice System.  

To understand the differences between adults and juvenile from criminological perspective.

To understand the differences between adults and juvenile from non-criminological perspective.

Youth is that time in one's life when no one really considers one to be an adult or a kid, but instead somewhere in the between. Many of the young people have a difficult time in these years as they need more assistance and direction but don't get it because "oh, you're not a child any longer, you're an adult." "Youth is the nation's backbone," we are told time and time again, yet we fail to provide them with the essential tools for them to take over the globe, so they fade into obscurity while being expected to meet everyone's expectations (Olivier, 2019).

When discussing criminal offences committed by minors, academics often use the phrase "juvenile delinquency," although its specific meaning varies by state and region. The particular causes of these discrepancies aren't known, although it's possible that they stem from the absence of a universally accepted worldwide standard (Young, Greer, & Church, 2017).

Research Objectives

More than 14,000 children entered the Youth Justice System in 2017 alone, with 26,000 youngsters warned or sentenced, and close to 71,000 crimes reported, according to the Youth Justice Statistics released in January 2018. The average sentence term for youngsters has increased year-on-year. Moreover, almost 40 000 incidents using knives or offensive weapons were recorded that year, representing a 7% rise in the Youth group. As well as failing to dissuade repeat offenders, the Youth Justice System failed to prevent almost 41% of repeat offenders within 12 months, who perpetrated an average of 3.92 crimes (YJB, 2021). More detailed analysis as to the statistics on this concern can be seen in Appendix 2.

It is a concern of assistance and protection for the youth that this report, as well as its length and recurrence, raises. The present administration, like its predecessors, is ignorant and ineffectual when it comes to the youth's criminal condition. The current government implemented a plan to prevent knife crime as a result of the publication of these Youth Justice Statistics. In an effort to reduce knife crime, this legislation prohibits the purchase of knives through the internet (BBC, 2017). In order to prevent the youth from obtaining them, placing the biscuit container on top of the cabinet and then turning away if he develops a more risky means of obtaining them is vital. MPs' handling of knife violence demonstrates a lack of awareness of the gravity of teenage criminality or a lack of respect for the families of those killed by knives. Another example of the government's ineptitude is seen here." Government law prohibiting the sale of acid to children below 18 years was put in place in England due to a recent rise in acid attacks. (News AU, 2017)  To put it another way, they're trying to get rid of acid attacks in the same way they've eliminated alcohol and cigarettes, regardless of the fact that no one might have never seen a juvenile with either of those things in his hands (ironic tone). "Who cares about young criminals?" asks the British government, which seems to have been involved in this rise in crime by turning a blind eye. They are monsters because of their acts. Any of these children might end up in the juvenile justice system and, more importantly, fail to exit it if enough resources, support, and supervision are not provided (Fauconnier, 2019).

A person's propensity for criminal behaviour might grow without him or her even realising it, thanks to a variety of unavoidable risk factors. A person's chance of committing a crime is increased by external influences known as "risk factors" (Mann et al, 2010). They do not justify the acts, but they have provided academics and practitioners in the justice system with a better understanding of crime and offenders, allowing them to devise more effective strategies to stop crimes before they are done in the first place. Some of the most prominent risk factors associated with juvenile criminals may be categorised as person, family, peer group, and school/community. Having antisocial behaviour, low behavioural inhibitions, poor cognitive development, or hyperactivity can make a child more likely to do something bad if they aren't fixed. Family risk factors come in a wide variety of forms. There is an elevated likelihood of criminal behaviour regardless of whether a child is raised in a safe environment or not. As an adult, a person is more prone to use violence than someone who grew up in a home free of struggle, maltreatment, and abuse. These and other variables, including as large families, poverty, domestic abuse, divorce, and adolescent parenthood, all have a role. People sometimes use the term "we are what we surround ourselves with" when discussing the behaviour of adolescents, meaning that a sensitive person may be affected by the people in his or her immediate environment. People's propensity of engaging in criminal action may be influenced by a variety of factors, including peer pressure, gang participation, and social isolation (caused by bullying or rejection). As a result, schools and communities play a significant role in forming the kind of person we will become in the future. Students with poor academic performance, low educational ambitions and marginalisation may all be deterred from a promising future if they are enrolled in hazardous schools or live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods with a high crime rate (Bonta, 2002).

Review of Literature

Delinquency cannot be caused only by one risk factor. A child's risk factors do not ensure that the child will commit a crime, but it is important to highlight this for clarity. Recovery from setbacks is an essential part of the process. As more risk factors are present in a young person's life, the likelihood that they will wind up in the juvenile justice system increases. The government should work to minimise this risk as much as feasible (Arnold, 2007).

The review focuses on persons between the ages of 18 and 24. Adult criminal offenders in that age range are regarded in the CJS of England and Wales and most Western nations as if they were a separate age group. However, when it comes to those under the age of criminal liability (10 years in England and Wales) but still young enough to be charged, the juvenile justice system offers a number of answers tailored to that age group's needs. With this classification, it is not surprising that academic and policy studies tend to concentrate on either under-18s or adults as a single category. Study after study has shown a link between maturity and what is known as "juvenile criminality," or illegal behaviour committed by those under the age of 18.

Studying human growth in terms of physical, intellectual, emotional, and social well-being might serve as a good place to start (Steinberg and Schwartz, 2000). Each of these subcategories may benefit from the notions of adulthood and immaturity. While it's true that these stages change and develop throughout time, the term "maturity" tends to emphasise the point at which a child or adolescent becomes an adult. Different developmental categories have different weights in this evaluation since it focuses on young individuals between ages 18 and 24. As a result, the majority of young individuals will become physically mature by the middle of adolescents; some have been mentally mature at the age of 12 or 13, while others may not finish puberty until they become 18 or 19 years old (Vizard, Lovell, & Udwin, 2006). In most cases, the physical maturity or immaturity of an offender will have little bearing on the CJS's reaction to them. In the same way, intellectual maturity might be considered. However, it is widely believed that an individual's intellectual talents evolve to adult levels before the age of 18 (Steinberg & Schwartz, 2000). Naturally, young individuals might also have intellectual capacity that is much lower than the adult average, as shown by low IQ tests and a variety of possible learning problems. A fundamental concern for the CJS is that there is a high correlation between low IQ and criminality, as shown by study (Estrada, 2001). The remaining areas of emotional and social development seem to be the most relevant to the criminal justice system's consideration of the maturity of young people, for the following reasons. They are also complicated and ambiguous, in part because of their interplay with each other and with the development of intellectual/cognitive abilities.

Juvenile: An overview

Judgment (also known as "maturity of judgement") and moral reasoning (sometimes known as "moral reasoning") are the two key areas studied in psychology research on the association between maturity and criminal behaviour (Chassin et al., 2010). For the purpose of clarity, even though these two methods have some conceptual similarities, they will be discussed separately. The last portion of the paper examines efforts to connect psychological studies of criminal behaviour with social ones.

"Capacity for cognitive maturity" and "psychosocial maturity," respectively, are often distinguished in psychological research literature as being separate from people's "capacity to think, reason, understand" and their "elements of growth and behaviour that include personality characteristics, interpersonal interactions, and emotional experience" (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996). A study by Cauffman and Steinberg (1999) found that adolescents and young adults have a similar level of cognitive maturity since their skills were fully formed in or before infancy. As a result of this, many recent studies have focused on identifying and studying the many psychosocial elements that impact young people's decision-making and the development of young adults as an individual stage. Emotional development and social development are both represented in these psychosocial aspects. The ability to make choices that are considered adult-like is largely seen as a measure of maturity in this body of psychological study (and is thus fundamentally a normative construct). Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) refer to this as 'maturity of judgement' or 'socially responsible decision making'. It is widely accepted that young people's maturity is influenced by three psychological factors: responsibility, moderation, or perspective (Stimmel et al., 2014).

Young people's ability to assess events and make appropriate judgments is thought to be influenced by three key psychosocial factors: responsibility, temperance, and perspective (Bryan-Hancock & Casey, 2010). By breaking these three broad categories into its component parts, Steinberg and Cauffman were able to investigate the present findings in more detail. Results are shown in Box 1 (Appendix 1).

Studies on the development of psychosocial skills during adolescence and early adulthood have focused on the disparities amongst various youths, including males and females, whom have or have not been exposed to particular "risk factors." According to the findings of many of these research, the degree of psychosocial maturity of young adults (18-25 years of age) continues to vary across people and that those at the lower end of this age range are closer to under-18s than to 25-year-olds in terms of psychosocial functioning (Bryan-Hancock and Casey 2010). Youths don't all grow at the same time, say Bryan-Hancock and Casey in a good and relatively current overview paper, but they do so within a range around the arbitrary cut-off for adult CJS at the age of 18. At the age of 18, many people have not yet reached their full potential. 

Research on criminality, or "antisocial" or "delinquent" behaviour, is the focus of all of the research cited above. This is because all of them examine the link between maturity and criminality. Adolescents with incomplete psychosocial development are more likely to make "immature judgments" or choices to participate in criminal behaviour, according to most research. This risk persists throughout early adulthood. When it comes to making antisocial decisions, Modecki believes that "youths may be more comparable to teenagers than adults" (Modecki, 2008). The capacity to suppress one's impulses in decision-making may be affected by emotions long into one's early to late twenties, according to this study's findings, even as responsibility and perspective grow (and so have less of an impact on the choices to offend) (Modecki, 2008). According to Cruise et al., "temperance" has a substantial impact on the behaviour of teenagers (2008). This has been proven to be "the most important maturity variable for predicting aggressive, nonviolent, and overall delinquent behaviour in boys" and "shows promise as a strong predictor of comparable behaviour among females" for men, and "shows promise as a strong predictor of similar behaviour among females" for boys.

The current situation

It seems that this study has begun to define "maturity" and to pinpoint the important psychosocial ability that influences individual choices to participate in violating behaviour, although there is still some uncertainty about what constitutes maturity. Since certain characteristics that are considered to be part of an individual's psychosocial maturity are cognitive, the above-mentioned separation is not necessarily watertight. Furthermore, the psychological components themselves have a mutually reinforcing effect. The capacity to recognise the long-term implications of one's activities is a fundamental component of perspective, but it also needs the ability to assess the risks and rewards of one's actions, which is a key component of temperance (Cauffman and Steinberg, 2000). Additionally, there are other studies that have established links between cognitive and psychosocial elements, such as Fried and Reppucci 2001 and Pan 2010.

Iselin et al. (2009) presented a more nuanced definition of maturity based on research that included both adolescents and young adults. Psychosocial capabilities or "maturity skills," as they are referred as in this study, may be employed for both good and negative purposes. In this way, antisocial behaviour may be an indication of maturity, which removes some of the normative connotations often associated with the term. There were two types of cognitive control that were looked at: proactive and reactive. In the study, the researchers looked at two different types of maturity and cognitive control (which responds directly to environmental cues). Since then, more specific statements have been made about "the relationships between certain characteristics of cognitive control or psychosocial maturity," which "allow scientists and therapists to pinpoint more exact sites for remediating linked psychological and cognitive deficiencies" (Iselin et al., 2009). Even yet, it's plausible to claim that the complexity of the situation makes it impossible to develop a tool for assessing a person's maturity in the context of a criminal offence. As Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) point out, 'maturity of judgement cannot be assessed directly.' they are sceptical of the availability of such tools. 

The capacity to engage in morality (or to make moral judgments) is seen as the most important factor in determining whether or not someone is a criminal. However, there is no evidence to suggest that moral knowledge (the ability to discern right from wrong) and behaviour are directly connected (Palmer, 2007). These concerns regarding what individuals believe about the rules of society, if they respect and accept such rules, as well as if they have an impact on their behaviour, represent a complicated collection of issues.

Attitudes do not correctly predict behaviour. In the link between attitudes and behaviour, elements such as opposing attitudes, motivations, emotions, and the presence and influence of other individuals operate as a mediator. Consequently, persons may be compelled to commit a crime by their peers, yet may not have done it voluntarily. Palmer (2007) asserts that criminals' moral thinking is less advanced than that of non-offenders. Understanding moral reasoning from a developmental viewpoint is important because, despite the lack of a clear causal relationship between criminal behaviour and moral reasoning, some people have immature moral thinking while others are criminals. Human moral reasoning is a process that begins with egocentric thinking, and progresses to reasoning grounded on a deeper understanding of the necessity of social norms and rules and of moral principles that guide social life. There are significant disparities between persons between adolescence and the early stages of adulthood in terms of their progression through the different phases. A person's moral reasoning is influenced greatly by their social connections, such as their child-parent attachment, parenting approaches, and their wider family and peer affiliations (Palmer 2003). People who study moral reasoning are also interested in how cognitive or emotional development goes together. Irregularities in moral reasoning may be explained by "cognitive distortions," according to Barriga et al (2009).

Let us safeguard, assist, and lead young children

When it comes to analysing social information, Palmer believes that these distorted perceptions may be found in the individual's ability to handle social information. As a result of complex interactions between environmental and social factors, particularly the effects of parenting, cognitive distortions are generally characterised by mistakenly attributing responsibility and intent to others, as well as by minimising or mislabeling behaviour and its ramifications. To back up this theory, Palmer and Hollin (2000) conducted an investigation of the relationship between 97 young male criminals and 77 non-offenders. Barriga et al. (2009) use a somewhat different approach to their research. Pro-social behaviour is facilitated by more empathy, which is related with moral maturity for them. A correlation between moral development and empathy was identified in a study of 78 offenders ages 13 to 21. Self-serving cognitive distortions, on the other hand, have been shown to impede moral judgement maturity and reduce one's potential for empathic response. Self-centeredness is what they call it, and they blame others while downplaying or mislabelling their own behaviours, just as Palmer did.

Older offenders, like juvenile criminals, may have developed cognitive biases they don't even realise they have until they commit a crime (immature judgement has become embedded, to put it another way). Researchers such as Palmer and Barriga et al. have found similarities between their studies on 'moral reasoning' and studies on responsibility, temperance, and perspective in terms of how individuals think about moral issues. A person's ability to make moral judgments, recognise and react to the sentiments of others, as well as to think through and assess alternative options are all addressed by these principles. Approaches based on a developmental model of maturity use these principles. A diverse collection of elements, including as "social information processing," "empathy," and "cognitive distortions," are used in the moral reasoning method to explain why individuals behave the way they do. There is a lot of ambiguity or complexity in the psychological literature, which makes it more difficult to come up with efficient tools to evaluate maturity (Palmer, 2007).

In the psychology literature, there are several studies that give a more comprehensive view of individual development. Davis and Vander Stoep (1997), for instance, emphasise on the 'transition to maturity' as encompassing both personal growth processes and characteristics of social functioning. It's all about the 16-25-year-olds who have a major emotional problem, according to this research. There are many "developmental tasks" that must be completed throughout the transition from childhood to adulthood, including changes in cognitive and moral thinking, as well as the management of social connections and the building of one's self-image. They believe that the individual's standing in regard to specific social aspects, such as job, housing, and social and interpersonal networks, may be used as a key performance indicator in the transition to adulthood. As a result, 'arbitrary age discrepancies across stated target audiences' cannot be used to explain the migration of persons from adolescence to adulthood in this study' (Davis &Vander Stoep, 1997). When vulnerable young people become legally established adults, Osgood and colleagues (2010) criticise the abrupt discontinuation of aid and advocate for the construction of young-adult-centered support networks that are both developmentally appropriate and socially inclusive.

An important and widely-cited theory that Moffitt (1993) put up concerning the link among maturity and crime seems to be the "maturity gap thesis". There are two categories of criminals identified by Moffitt: those who commit crimes throughout their lives and those who do them just during their teens. Adolescent LCP offenders engage in antisocial behaviour and commit significant crimes as adults. In contrast, AL offenders don't begin breaking the law until they reach adolescence and quit when they reach adulthood. The age-crime curve, a basic observation in criminology across cultures, shows that AL offenders conduct the majority of crimes perpetrated by juveniles (Froggio, 2007). Neuropsychological and environmental variables combine in early infancy to generate LCP offending. It follows that policies and services aiming at early detection are needed to help prevent the spread of these diseases, as shown by the results of this study. "Maturity gap"—the difference in biological and social development amongst teenagers and adults a concept used by Moffitt to characterise teenage criminal behaviour. By following the example of their LCP classmates, Moffitt claims that AL criminals get engaged in crime because they mimic their peers' adult-like behaviors and disregard social norms. ALs believes that participating in illegal actions on their own initiative, rather than being directed by the LCP group, shows their maturity and self-reliance. However, when these young people get older, the societal constraints that formerly bound them begin to loosen, and they are then free to behave like normal adults.

The 'maturity gap' theory has been explored, modified, and adapted in subsequent research, and although some have contested its theoretical and empirical validity, others have found extensive support for the presence of a maturity gap during adolescents (Barker et al, 2003). There is general support for Moffitt (2006)'s theory that low IQ and hyperactivity are the root causes of LCP offending, which is reinforced by poor parenting practises and humiliation at school, leading to a lifetime of offending. Barnes and Beaver (2010) evaluated the 'maturity gap' concept explicitly and found that moderate delinquency among males was predicted by the presence of a maturity gap, but not substantial offending. Moffitt's hypothesis that the two groupings of male offenders, AL and LCP, could be easily identified proved to be right as a consequence. Though the "maturity difference" has been used to explain female criminal behaviour, research has found no evidence to support this theory.

It seems that in mainstream criminological research on offending behaviour, the idea of maturity seems to be considerably less established. "Self-control" is the most important component in understanding criminal behaviour, according to the "generic theory of crime" developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). Another approach, known as "developmental criminology," looks at a wide range of risk as well as protective characteristics that predict criminal behaviour.

When it comes to crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) believe that it is the individual's degree of self-control that is responsible for the violence. For them, a lack of self-control is characterised by a preference for instant gratification above long-term repercussions of acts. According to these researchers, the ability to regulate one's impulses is a result of parental socialisation and stabilises around the age of eight to ten. There is some debate over whether or not self-control is an important factor in criminal behaviour, and other researchers have tested this theory extensively. While it has received some support in the form of evidence, it is less frequently considered significant as a determinant of criminality when considered alone (Pratt & Cullen, 2000).

Two aspects of the self-control theory are pertinent to this review. The idea of 'maturity' is irrelevant to the socialisation hypothesis, which states that individual self-control is not influenced by the maturation process. Gottfredson and Hirschi's definition of self-control seems to be similar to the psychosocial construct that we talked about above. Cauffman, Steinberg and Piquero (2005) say that their own definition of "psychosocial maturity" is indeed very similar to the one that Gottfredson and Hirschi used. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, the psychosocial concepts of "temperance" (controlling impulsiveness) and "perspective" (thinking about what will happen in the future and how others see things) are very similar to parts of their explanation of self-control (Cauffman, Steinberg & Piquero, 2005).

When it comes to British criminology and CJS, social methods tend to predominate rather than psychological ones. Research on criminal behaviour and individual development has been conducted by the Cambridge Study on Delinquent Development and the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (Farrington & West, 2013). Individuals' criminal behaviour seems to be influenced by a variety of social and environmental circumstances, although neither theory expressly mentions maturity or immaturity as a factor. It's only with the concepts of "impulsivity" and "empathy" that the researchers get close, albeit these are seen more as personality qualities than as indicators of developmental progress. A child's or young person's life has traditionally been considerably more focused on the identification of 'risk factors' and 'protective factors', which should prompt preventative interventions, in the British tradition (Zara & Farrington, 2013). There is no explicit mention in the American psychology literature to "maturity" as an important term in its own right, even in overviews by British academics of studies on personal development characteristics as contributors to criminal behaviour.

According to psychological study, how much of a role does "maturity" have in determining a person's likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour? This topic has been raised by researchers in the field of criminology (for example, McAra & McVie, 2010). Exposure to risk factors has been recognised in psychology research as a characteristic that distinguishes certain young people from others and affects their tendency to commit crimes and to resist punishment. There is a lot of talk about "personality variables," such the tendency to be impulsive and empathic, as indicators of one form of risk factor or susceptibility in criminological study (Soothill et al., 2002).

Furthermore, criminological research has found a wide variety of risks and vulnerabilities as possible factors in the development of offending behaviour, which may also indicate a lack of perspective in decision-making. To put it another way, can the effect of familial, societal, and cultural elements be separated from 'maturity' as a component in explaining criminal behaviour? Judgment maturity is impacted by the conditions in which choices are made, i.e., maturity of judgement varies based on the social situation in which a person finds himself/herself when making decisions to respond. Depending on the situation, people may show varying degrees of maturity, perspective, and moderation. This, according to Steinberg and Cauffman (1996), is why it's difficult for them to establish a person's "maturity of judgement" at a fundamental level. This is in accordance with their previous findings.

According to Wikström and colleagues' substantial earlier research, Wikström and Treiber (2017), in a paper for the Youth Justice Board, support this comprehensive perspective. Even while there are many so-called "risk factors" related with adolescent crime, they are more often than not only symptoms or signs of criminal behaviour. In their essay, they stress the significance of this divergence. Moral values and self-control seem to be the most important factors influencing young people's predisposition to commit crimes, according to recent research. The available knowledge base reveals that these two factors have a significant influence on young people's tendency to commit crimes.

There are a lot of different kinds of ways to look at "moral values," but Wikström and Treiber (2008) say that it's important to look at the environment in which moral decisions and self-control are made, even if this seems to be a lot like looking at psychosocial maturity and "moral reasoning." Criminal behaviour may be directly linked to factors in the environment or society as a consequence. Criminality among teenagers may be explained by the interaction of their morals and self-control with environments that promote criminal behaviour. ‘Social circumstances characterised by social chaos, disorganisation, a lack of social cohesiveness, and a lack of collective effectiveness are ripe for criminal activity. Study findings reveal that boys living in better-off neighbourhoods are less likely to exhibit the same impulsive behaviour as their counterparts who are from poorer neighbourhoods, even if they have identical personal and social traits

Wikström's subsequent papers focus on parts of the case for the significance of environment to individual decision making. From the Peterborough Adolescents and Young Adults Development Study in the United Kingdom, Oberwittler & Wikström (2009) draws conclusions. According to this study, young people who have the lowest levels of morality and self-control and who spend more time unsupervised in neighbourhoods with a low level of community support and are surrounded by peers who are more likely to be criminals are the most likely to become involved in criminal activity. However, the impact of being exposed to a criminogenic environment on one's tendency to commit crime is determined by the person. Morality and self-control interact when a person develops a preference for crime as an option and then acts on that preference when the time comes. Changes in the amount of time individuals spend in criminogenic surroundings are crucial for those who are more inclined to commit criminal acts. The morality of criminogenic contexts is determined by their moral standards and the severity with which those rules are enforced, as shown in Wikström (2009) and Wikström and Svensson (2010). A person's crimes are understood as the direct result of his or her moral involvement with the moral milieu in which they occur. This may be done in terms of the moral standards that apply to the site and their enforcement (monitoring and intervention), as well as the severity of probable repercussions, in order to construct a moral context (Svensson et al., 2010).

There are a few points to be made in this study. Firstly, there are conceptual links between the psychosocial and moral reasoning techniques utilised in psychological 20 research. Secondly, Consider the young person's personal and societal surroundings when measuring their maturity or lack thereof. Complicating matters even further is the seeming inability to devise accurate criteria for assessing the maturity of judicial proceedings.

The proposed research will be based on a qualitative methodology and an integrative review will be used as the method for data collected. An integrative review is when the findings of existing literature are evaluated and summarized to draw relevant conclusions which are relevant to the research question. An integrative review is thus useful in terms of enabling the researcher to collect an extensive amount of secondary data within a specific period of time and cost (Ngozwana, 2018). For the proposed study, an integrative review will be useful to collect extensive secondary data on the criminological attributes of juvenile and adult offenders since it will otherwise not be possible for the researcher to collect primary data directly from such participants (Mohajan, 2018). Additionally, an integrative review is advantageous in comparison to a systematic review since while the latter includes only experimental data, the former includes both experimental as well as non-experimental data respectively (Munn et al. 2018). Thus, an integrative review was also chosen for this study since it will enable the researcher to collect a wide variety of both scholarly as well as grey literature – such as news reports and governmental or public reports on adult and juvenile offenders in the United Kingdom respectively. Since no primary data will be collected, the proposed study will not require a sample (Asmussen & Moller, 2019). However, in order to ensure coherence and relevance to the research question, it will be ensured that the experimental studies included in the review will comprise of juvenile or adult offenders or stakeholders relevant to forensic psychology as the key participants.

Carrying out the following research in an ethical manner is integral and can be done by not leaking confidential data. Other than that, the ethical issue of the work comes from the determining factor of whether a juvenile offender deserves to gain a chance if the activities conducted by them are not through the effect of the circumstances or their psychological condition.

The period of the following research is a prominent limitation along with a limited budget, which can create a limitation towards the extent the research can go further. As no primary survey was conducted in the research, so the research failed to adequately present the actual and current scenario regarding the research objective.

The decline in the number of First Time Entrant (FTEs) in the lower age bracket (10-14 year olds) during the previous decade has been greater than the fall in the older age bracket, indicating that the average age of FTEs is rising (15-17 year olds). FTEs between the ages of 10 and 14 fell by 13% last year, while those between the ages of 15 and 17 fell by 11%, as shown in Appendix 3 below. A majority of children who got a warning or punishment in the most recent year were males, who made up 51% of the overall 10-17 age group in England and Wales in the year ending March 2020. During the last decade, this percentage has gradually increased. Most youngsters who got a warning or punishment in England and Wales were between the ages of 15 and 17 (78 percent), as is reflected in the chart under Appendix 4 (YJB, 2021).

When a person turns 18, in most jurisdictions, the way the law treats them changes substantially. Depending on the state, this may happen as early as the age of 16 or even as late as the age of 19 (see Griffin, 2012). As opposed to the juvenile justice system, which prioritises the well-being of children, rehabilitation, and offender reentry into society, criminals now face the adult CJS, which prioritises punishment for the sake of penalty, retribution, and deterrent. There are several reasons why minors should be treated differently from adults. A number of studies have shown that juveniles have less mature judgement, weaker self-regulation, and inferior decision-making skills when it comes to committing crimes.

Juveniles may be less able to regulate their impulses, making them more inclined for taking risks and committing crimes out of sheer elation rather than out of consideration for the cost vs gain. Children are regarded to be more concerned with instant rewards than long-term implications when it comes to making decisions. Many believe that juvenile offenders have a greater capacity for reform and redemption than older offenders. So they are not as deserving of punishment since they are not as guilty or blameworthy. Their ability to interact with attorneys, make legal judgments, comprehend and participate in the legal process, or face trial is also lower than that of the average citizen (Farrington, Loeber, & Howell, 2012).

There are two parts to culpability: how blameworthy a person is and how much punishment he or she should be given. In order to prevent life-altering consequences and allow for change, it is believed that the lessened accountability of young people for criminal behaviour necessitates softer punishments. Youths' undeveloped judgement reflects disparities in their understanding of risk, their assessment of short- and long-term repercussions, their ability to self-control, and their vulnerability to unfavourable peer pressures.

The same factors that reduce adolescent criminal responsibility also have a negative impact on adolescent adjudicative competence. In order to exercise other procedural rights, a person must be competent. In order to ensure a fair trial, the defendant must be competent. Defendants must have "a current ability to confer with his counsel with a reasonable extent of rational comprehension," as well as "a rational as well as factual knowledge of the proceedings against him," in order to be competent to stand trial. Experts in the field of developmental psychology claim that immaturity itself has the same deficiencies in comprehending as a serious mental disease, and that it makes many adolescents unable to stand trial (Scott and Grisso, 2005). Children who are marginally or weakly intelligent, mentally unwell, or otherwise mentally impaired as a consequence of injury or child abuse have a greater risk of this susceptibility. Adolescents' capacity to comprehend legal procedures, acquire information, interact with and aid counsel, and make logical judgments is hindered by developmental issues instead of mental illness or impairment.

As a result of this concentration, developmental psychologists have tended to emphasise logical thinking as a marker of maturity for many years. Some researchers have developed an entirely new way to look at teenage risk-taking behaviour. They begin by saying that "risk taking is the outcome of both logical-reasoning and psychosocial variables in actual world" (Steinberg, 2007). Psychosocial capabilities like impulse control, mood management, delay of pleasure, and resistance to peer influence continue to progress well into early adulthood, in contrast to logical thinking, which seems to be more or less completely formed by the age of 15. White matter builds up and synapses are pruned as people age, which is consistent with recent findings that the brain continue to develop from infancy through early adolescence. Dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, which is crucial for impulse control, is one of the last brain areas to grow, not reaching adult size until the early twenties, according to the research findings. Findings showing males with psychopathic tendencies are more likely to have diminished white matter than their peers underscores the relevance of white matter (De Brito et al., 2009). The structural impairments of criminals' brains are well-documented (see, for example Raine, et al., 2000), but our research focuses on the changes in brain functioning that occur as we age. When the prefrontal cortex undergoes developmental changes throughout adolescence and early adulthood, executive functions such as reasoning, abstraction, planning, foreseeing the effects of actions, and impulse control improve.

Delinquency in children and adolescents has been linked to a slew of individual traits and features. Age, gender, pregnancy problems, impulsivity, aggression, and drug abuse are just a few examples of these personal characteristics. Prenatal and early childhood factors may have a direct impact on a child's development, while others may not become obvious until the teen years or later. If one analyses the growth of an individual in relation to their environment, one may better understand their personality traits and their connection to criminality. Teenage delinquency seems to be influenced by how well they get along with their peers and family members at home. Particularly in the formative years of a child's life, the bonds formed between parents and children may have a lasting influence. During adolescence, peer relationships become more crucial.

Involvement with deviant peers is a substantial predictor of antisocial conduct, according to research in the field. Only past criminality had a direct influence on prospective delinquency in one longitudinal research that looked at interaction with antisocial peers. Adolescent antisocial conduct has been linked to a number of factors, including peer delinquent behaviour, peer acceptability of deviant behaviour, connection to or devotion to friends, time spent with peers, even peer pressure to deviate. Adolescent delinquency is exacerbated by deviant peers in three ways: when they think their peers approve of delinquency, when they are close to deviant peers, and when they feel pressured by deviant peers to do delinquent activities.

There is an association between delinquency and low academic performance and truancy, as well as early school dropout. These issues may be exacerbated by certain teaching techniques. Grade retention and tracking, as well as suspension and expulsion, have been shown to have more detrimental consequences than favourable ones. Tracking as well as grade retention have been shown to worsen academic achievement in pupils who are already struggling. The academic performance of children in high tracks does not seem to increase when compared to comparable pupils in schools that do not utilise tracking. Expulsion and suspension deprive students of an education in the name of maintaining order, although research shows that these measures have little influence on the incidence of disruptive conduct. The impact of these regulations on the rest of the student body is unknown. Because the policies disproportionately impact minorities, they may inadvertently perpetuate unfavorable preconceptions about minorities.

Conclusion

"Personality," according to Larsen and Buss (2002), is "a collection of psychological qualities and processes inside an individual that are structured, generally long-lasting, and that impact his or her interactions with, and adaptations to, the environment". In most cases, traits may be categorised into one of two categories. A criminal's demeanour can be influenced by a wide range of personal traits. In the past three decades, personality traits have been shown to be important predictors of juvenile crime and delinquency. Criminal behaviour may be influenced by a single personality feature or a collection of personality qualities. People's personalities are linked to delinquency and criminality. In general, studies on adolescent delinquency have used a sociological or psychological approach to analysis. Personal and inner power is provided by psychology, and this power is formed by the superego or intensified by habitual behaviour. Sociology is concerned with the cultural systems that have an effect on the mechanisms of social control that exist outside of the individual. Traits theories like Siegel's emphasise the psychological components of crime, such as the link between personality, cognition, learning, and criminal conduct. Using a psychodynamic lens, researchers may examine how early life events shape who we become. People learn to commit crimes as a result of being exposed to the ideas, customs, and behaviours that go along with them. It is normal for minors to engage in short-term, situational, and even illegal activity. first of all to study how personality traits might be used to analyse criminal behaviour Eysenck (1964). An major point asked by Eysenck was, "Why do most individuals conduct relatively innocent lives, rather than engaging in a whole career of criminality?". He said that everyone had a "inner guiding light" or "conscience" that prevents them from undertaking criminal acts. More illegal or deviant action is committed by those who lack taught moral and social responses (or conscience, which is the result of limited ability to be trained and extraversion), according to Eysenck (1964). There are currently a large number of studies that agree that there are five primary elements of personality. 

Several researches studied the link between conscientiousness and deviance and the transparency. A study of juveniles from the Pittsburgh Youth Study (John et al., 1994) found that delinquent males had lower conscientiousness values. Low scores on conscientiousness have also been linked to male and female vandalism/theft and the number of times a person gets arrested (Heaven, 1996). It was found that girls in prison who had lower emotional stability scores were more likely to cause harm, fight, or steal. Hornsveld and de Kruyk (2005) validated these findings by showing that aggressive outpatients exhibited lower emotional stability scores than the control group. As previously noted in analysis of the research, there is a strong correlation between extraversion and criminal behaviour. The extraversion ratings of delinquent boys in Pittsburgh were greater than those of non-delinquent boys, according to a 1994 study by John et al., which makes sense given that Mak et al. (2003) discovered that high extraversion levels were a significant predictor of male delinquent behaviour. Prisoners' extraversion scores are greater than those of the general population, making them more sociable, chatty, and self-assured (Burgess, 1972). Antisocial personality disorder in adults may be linked to a wide range of behaviours, including aggression against people and animals; property destruction; dishonesty; fraud; and significant rule breaches committed by juvenile offenders.

Arnold, T. (2007). Dynamic changes in the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and the effects on prediction accuracy. Unpublished Master’s Dissertation, St. Cloud University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Asmussen, C. B., & Møller, C. (2019). Smart literature review: a practical topic modelling approach to exploratory literature review. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1-18.

Baglivio, M. T., & Epps, N. (2016). The interrelatedness of adverse childhood experiences among high-risk juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(3), 179-198.

Barker, G. (2005). Dying to be men: Youth, masculinity and social exclusion. Routledge.

Barriga, A. Q., Sullivan?Cosetti, M., & Gibbs, J. C. (2009). Moral cognitive correlates of empathy in juvenile delinquents. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19(4), 253-264.

Basanta, J. L., Fariña, F., & Arce, R. (2018). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model: Contrasting criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs in high and low risk juvenile offenders. Children and Youth Services Review, 85, 137-142.

BBC. (2017). Home deliveries to be banned for online knife sales. Retrieved 16 March 2022, from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40640810

Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal justice and behavior, 29(4), 355-379.

Bryan-Hancock, C., & Casey, S. (2010). Psychological maturity of at-risk juveniles, young adults and adults: Implications for the justice system. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17(1), 57-69.

Cauffman, E., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). Psychological, neuropsychological and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self?control. Criminology, 43(1), 133-176.

Chassin, L., Dmitrieva, J., Modecki, K., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., ... & Losoya, S. H. (2010). Does adolescent alcohol and marijuana use predict suppressed growth in psychosocial maturity among male juvenile offenders?. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(1), 48.

Davis, M., & Vander Stoep, A. (1997). The transition to adulthood for youth who have serious emotional disturbance: Developmental transition and young adult outcomes. The journal of mental health administration, 24(4), 400-427.

Estrada, F. (2001). Juvenile violence as a social problem. Trends, media attention and societal response. British Journal of Criminology, 41(4), 639-655.

Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., & Howell, J. C. (2012). Young adult offenders: The need for more effective legislative options and justice processing. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(4), 729-750.

Fauconnier, M. (2019). International Youth Day: Youth Crime in the United Kingdom: Time for action - Humanium. Retrieved 16 March 2022, from https://www.humanium.org/en/youth-crime-in-the-uk/

Fried, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (2001). Criminal decision making: The development of adolescent judgment, criminal responsibility, and culpability. Law and human behavior, 25(1), 45-61.

Froggio, G. (2007). Strain and juvenile delinquency: A critical review of Agnew's general strain theory. Journal of loss and trauma, 12(4), 383-418.

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1993). Rethinking the juvenile justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 39(2), 262-271.

Iselin, A. M. R., DeCoster, J., & Salekin, R. T. (2009). Maturity in adolescent and young adult offenders: The role of cognitive control. Law and Human Behavior, 33(6), 455-469.

McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010). Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10(2), 179-209.

Modecki, K. L. (2008). Addressing gaps in the maturity of judgment literature: Age differences and delinquency. Law and human behavior, 32(1), 78-91.

Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency, 49-75.

Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23-48.

News AU. (2017). Kids to be banned from buying acid. Retrieved 16 March 2022, from https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/uk-kids-under-18-years-old-to-be-banned-from-buying-acid/news-story/a0d454d7cfe2b74374cda89a98b1fa02

Ngozwana, N. (2018). Ethical dilemmas in qualitative research methodology: Researcher’s reflections. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4(1), 19-28.

Oberwittler, D., & Wikström, P. O. H. (2009). Why small is better: Advancing the study of the role of behavioral contexts in crime causation. In Putting crime in its place (pp. 35-59). Springer, New York, NY.

Olivier. (2019). International Youth Day: Youth Crime in the United Kingdom: Time for action - Humanium. Retrieved 16 March 2022, from https://www.humanium.org/en/youth-crime-in-the-uk/

Olivier. (2019). International Youth Day: Youth Crime in the United Kingdom: Time for action - Humanium. Retrieved 16 March 2022, from https://www.humanium.org/en/youth-crime-in-the-uk/

Palmer, E. J. (2007). Criminal thinking. Applying psychology to criminal justice, 147-165.

Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2000). The interrelations of socio?moral reasoning, perceptions of own parenting and attributions of intent with self?reported delinquency. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5(2), 201-218.

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta?analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931-964.

Rhoden, M. A., Macgowan, M. J., & Huang, H. (2019). A systematic review of psychological trauma interventions for juvenile offenders. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(8), 892-909.

Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (2004). Developmental incompetence, due process, and juvenile justice policy. NCL Rev., 83, 793.

Soothill, K. (2010). Sex offender recidivism. Crime and justice, 39(1), 145-211.

Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20(3), 249-272.

Steinberg, L., & Schwartz, R. G. (2000). Developmental psychology goes to court. Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice, 1, 9-10.

Stimmel, M. A., Cruise, K. R., Ford, J. D., & Weiss, R. A. (2014). Trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology, and aggression in male juvenile offenders. Psychological trauma: theory, research, practice, and policy, 6(2), 184.

Svensson, R., Pauwels, L., & Weerman, F. M. (2010). Does the effect of self-control on adolescent offending vary by level of morality? A test in three countries. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(6), 732-743.

Terry, R. M. (2017). Discrimination in the handling of juvenile offenders by social control agencies. In Becoming delinquent (pp. 79-92). Routledge.

Underwood, L. A., & Washington, A. (2016). Mental illness and juvenile offenders. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(2), 228.

Vizard, E., Lovell, M., & Udwin, O. (2014). Sexually harmful behaviours in children and young people with learning difficulties. OP32: Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour, 67-78.

Wikström, P. O. H., & Treiber, K. (2017). Beyond risk factors: an analytical approach to crime prevention. In Preventing crime and violence (pp. 73-87). Springer, Cham.

Wikström, P. O., & Treiber, K. (2008). Offending behaviour programmes. Youth Justice Board.

Young, S., Greer, B., & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: a global perspective. BJPsych bulletin, 41(1), 21-29.

Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2013). Assessment of risk for juvenile compared with adult criminal onset implications for policy, prevention, and intervention. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 235.