Juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon influenced by neuropsychological traits, social environments, and developmental processes. While adolescence is marked by a peak in crime rates, the pathways of juvenile delinquency vary significantly, with some individuals persisting in antisocial behavior into adulthood and others desisting by age 18.

 

This article examines Moffitt’s (1993) dual taxonomy of adolescent antisocial behavior, analyzing the factors contributing to persistent and adolescent-limited delinquency. It also explores the limitations of existing theories and highlights the need for further research on internal and external variables that facilitate desistance in criminogenic environments.

​

Moffitt (1993) aims to explain the two categories of juvenile antisocial behaviour, the origin of their delinquent careers, why not all teenagers turn to delinquency and how criminal desistence occurs. This topic is relevant because the highest incidence of crime rates peaks at age 17 and drop by a 50% by the time teenagers reach their early 20s.

​

According to Moffitt, delinquent behavior is common in most teenagers, and signs of antisocial behavior can even appear in early childhood. Neuropsychological causes, such as maternal drug use, poor prenatal nutrition, child abuse, and developmental disorders like autism, can impact a child’s cognitive abilities, academic performance, and self-control. Without proper support or intervention, these children are more vulnerable to ending up in environments that encourage criminal behavior.

 

Moffitt draws a distinction between adolescent-limited and persistent antisocial behavior. Adolescent-limited behavior typically ends by age 18 and is driven by a perceived maturity gap and a desire to emulate peers. Teenagers often rebel against authority or engage in delinquent activities to assert their maturity.

 

However, they usually abandon these behaviors when a prosocial lifestyle—one that is socially rewarding and constructive—becomes more appealing. In contrast, persistent antisocial behavior continues beyond adolescence and into adulthood, rooted in childhood aggression and shaped by cumulative developmental factors. This type of behavior tends to predict lifelong struggles in maintaining a stable and socially acceptable life. 

​

Cumulative effects of early antisocial tendencies, such as temper tantrums, can lead to long-term challenges. For those with adolescent-limited delinquency, desistance occurs when they recognize that criminal behavior does not provide the desired outcomes in adult life. Social disapproval, difficulty finding jobs, and the risk of legal consequences often contribute to their decision to stop engaging in crime.

 

Hirschi’s control theory suggests that desistance is more likely when a delinquent’s environment supports prosocial behavior and discourages criminal activity. Moffitt argues that persistent juvenile delinquents either never desist or do so much later in life. When they eventually desist, it is usually because they choose to prioritize a prosocial way of living.

 

However, and following this theoretical basis, is desistence still possible in persistent juvenile delinquents whose environment is actively criminogenic, and therefore they do not have the necessary informal control to desist? 

​

A deterministic perspective might argue that childhood traits can predict future criminal behavior, but Moffitt acknowledges that connections with prosocial individuals can interrupt this cycle. This idea, however, assumes that such connections are possible, leaving the question of desistance in persistent delinquents with limited social support unanswered.

 

The concept of resilience offers a potential explanation. Defined by Chevalier & Humblet (1997) as “factors within the individual which help withstand the risk factors'' (Chevalier & Humblet, 1997), it is imperative to analyse if it can also play a significant role in desistance in an active criminogenic environment. The theory of resilience says that it can help resist the risk factors in future delinquent opportunities, but it is an infrequent phenomenon and only has a theoretical basis.

​

Several studies, on the other hand, have shown that persistent juvenile delinquents who desisted from their criminal career experienced a negative incident that “led them, introspectively, to acknowledge that their drift into criminal activity was characterized by uncertainty and insecurity, […], and recognize that they needed to undergo a profound substantive change […] to regain control of their lives” (Chevalier & Humblet, 1997), meaning that the delinquents needed to shift their perspective of the world to a non-determinist standpoint; where even despite their neuropsychological predisposition to crime and criminogenic social environment, they could be in control of their lives. Several juvenile delinquents have also admitted that it was this deterministic approach that led them to continue their delinquent career against their will (Zemel et al., 2018).

 

Therefore, desistence can occur if the environment is still criminogenic, but the start of the desistence process must be internal, and it is not guaranteed that the delinquents that experienced the same drastic incident will begin an introspection that will lead in desistence. This topic requires more research of the existence of other variables that can influence desistence without relying on informal social control, because the reveal of these variables can be used in creating cognitive intervention programs to encourage juvenile desistence.

​

References

 

Born, M., Chevalier, V., & Humblet, I. (1997). Resilience, desistance and delinquent career of adolescent offenders. Journal of adolescence, 20(6), 679-694.

 

Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological review, 100(4), 674-701.

 

Zemel, O., Einat, T., & Ronel, N. (2018). Criminal spin, self-control, and desistance from crime among juvenile delinquents: Determinism versus free will in a qualitative perspective. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(15), 4739-4757.