Youth and Crime Project

AGE A N D CRIME

Satyanshu K. Mukherjee

(/ j f ^> - x
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE 0? CREMENOLOGY
Jj. AUDTRAUA,^
YOUTH AND CRIME PROJECT

Part I

AGE AND CRIME

Satyanshu K. Mukherjee

A U S T R A L I A N INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Published by the Australian Institute of Criminology,
10 18 Colbee Court, Phillip, A.C.T., Australia. 2606.

First published August 1983

© Australian Institute of Criminology

National Library of Australia

Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Mukherjee, Satyanshu K. (Satyanshu Kumar).

Youth and crime. P a r t i . Age and crime.

Includes bibliographical reference.

ISBN 0 642 87824 2.
ISBN 0 642 87814 5 (set)

1. Juvenile delinquency - Statistics.

I. Australian Institute of Criminology
II. Title. III. Title: Age and crime.

364.3'6

Printed by Canberra Publishing and Printing Co., Fyshwick, A.i

 PREFACE

In recent years 'rising' serious crimes by juveniles have been given con-
siderable attention by scholars, administrators, and the media. Significant
changes in the laws pertaining t o juveniles have been made, some of which
prescribe severe punishments for juveniles who indulge in serious law viol-
ations. The late 1960s saw the granting of certain rights, which were available
only to adults, t o juveniles. It is clear from available records that these
changes were neither based on nor accompanied by systematic studies of the
problem of juvenile misbehaviour. Is serious criminal behaviour among
juveniles increasing? This is the question which this study attempts to
answer.
In this monograph arrest data from Australia, the United Kingdom, and
the United States of America are used to examine trends in juvenile and
adult criminal behaviour. Persons arrested for violent crimes, for example,
homicide and serious assault, and property crimes, for example, robbery,
burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny, and fraud and forgery in these countries
during approximately t w o decades are analysed. As will be described in the
text, this is the first part of a large study on youth and crime.
The Youth and Crime project began as a minor research project at the
Australian Institute of Criminology. But it soon became apparent that the
problem of serious criminal behaviour among juveniles could not be dealt
with adequately by such a study, as such the scope of the study was signific-
antly expanded. A large volume of unpublished statistics were collected to
examine the problem. In this respect most generous help was given by each
of the police departments in Australia. I am indebted to the officers of these
departments for their support.
A number of persons assisted in typing and typesetting. I am grateful to
Evelyn Jacobsen, Trish Psaila, Nancy Smith (University of Manitoba, Winni-
peg) and Christine Grant.
 CONTENTS

Preface

Section I — Introduction
The Present Study
Survey of Literature and Views

Section 11 - National Data

Current Statistical Evidence
Arrest Proportions
Arrest Rates
Peak arrest age and the burning-out process in crime

Section III - Age and Crime in Australian Jurisdictions

Proportion Arrested
Arrest Rates
Serious Assault
Burglary

Section IV - Conclusions: In Defence of Youth

Major Findings
Future Research
 Section I - INTRODUCTION

It is now considered a well-established fact that young males commit a

disproportionately large number of serious offences. This view is current in
almost every society. No one, however, is sure as to what factors lead to high
rates of crime among the youths. Some blame the current permissiveness in
society, others put the blame on law enforcement, and still others charge
that courts are lenient. A common suggestion is that youths of the 1960s,
1970s and 1980s are very different from those of earlier times so far as their
behaviour and responses to life styles are concerned; a lot of their actions,
therefore, which may be termed as violations of laws, are manifestations of
changing behavioural patterns. All of these views, however, lack evidence.
The view that young males are disproportionately represented in the
criminal population can also be questioned on the grounds of evidence. What
gives this view any credence? The main evidence which indicates that,
proportionate to their population, youths are committing more crimes than
adults, is from statistics on arrests. Considering the clearance rates of offences,
it is well known that those arrested form only a portion of perpetrators in
all known crimes. Also, if the victim survey data are taken seriously, this
proportion reduces further. Arrests depend on the workload of the law
enforcement agencies. Arrests also depend on the volume of known crimes
and the volume of crimes cleared. If the clearance rate falls, or if there is a
need to boost the clearance rate, extra arrests can be made and juveniles may
be the easy targets.

The Present Study

Most countries nowadays have two separate systems for coping w i t h
criminal misconduct — one for young persons and one for adults. These
systems are different in various aspects — philosophy, law, procedures, and
operation. The only factor which places an individual in either of the systems
is age. This age varies between jurisdictions — an alleged offender under the
age of 17 or 18 is dealt with by the juvenile justice system and one older
than that is handled by the adult system. These two systems functioned
unchallenged for decades and only during the last 15 years have these
systems, and particularly the juvenile systems, been subject to serious
scrutiny. The scrutiny of the system has come at the heel of an 'ever increas-
ing' crime rate of young offenders in most industrialised nations.
There has been very little significant research in this area in Australia,
hence one must look for evidence elsewhere. But before presenting evidence
from other countries let me state the purpose of the present study. The idea
of a project on Youth and Crime was conceived during my fellowship at
the University of Chicago Law School last year. American literature in crim-
inology currently includes a large volume of work on the criminality of
 2

young persons. The recent recommendations of the report of the United

States Attorney-General's Task Force on Violent Crime 1 have increased the
sensitivity even further. My previous work in Australia 2 did not directly deal
with young offenders and contains little information on crimes by young
persons. The Source Book,2 however, did provide some statistics on offenders
by age. Data on burglary and motor vehicle theft in Australia seemed t o
indicate that young persons, proportionate to their population, tend t o
commit these crimes more often than adults.
Thus, a combination of interests prompted the Institute t o investigate
youth crime in Australia. Once the research commenced, it was soon realised
that enquiring only into individuals arrested for crime will not present much
information which will be new. For instance, if burglaries are committed
predominantly by young persons do the offence attributes differ in any
significant way from those committed by adults? A more fundamental
question is does youth predominance in burglary arrests demonstrate pre-
dominance in the number of crimes committed? What sort of court dis-
positions are attached to similar offences by young persons and adults?
Considering these and other relevant issues, it was thought necessary to
enlarge the scope of the study. Consistent w i t h this approach it was decided
to divide the Youth and Crime project into the following three parts:

I Age and Crime r

II Internal differences in offeface and offenders attributes: Study

of a youth dominated offence
III Age and Sanction
The present report relates to Part I only.

A juvenile, for the Australian part of the study, is a person who is under
the age of 17 years. This is not an age used in every Australian jurisdiction;
the dichotomy used in this research was dictated by practical considerations.
Data for Australia as a whole and those for the eight States and Territories
were collected from different sources4 and hence the Australian totals for an
offence will not be the same as the totals for eight jurisdictions. Furthermore,
the Australian series covers a much longer period than the State series.
Offences selected for analysis are: Homicide; Serious/Aggravated Assault;
Robbery; Burglary; Larceny; Motor Vehicle Theft; Fraud, Forgery, etcetera.
After a brief survey of current perspectives, predictions and predilections,
youth crime in Australia will be analysed. National patterns for selected
offences will be compared with patterns in the United States and England
and Wales. This will be followed by a description of trends in the eight
Australian jurisdictions. In the concluding section, besides summarising the
main findings, some tentative hypotheses will be offered and the following
two parts of the research will be described.
 3

Survey of Literature and Views

The literature touching on our subject is voluminous. I do not intend
therefore t o present an exhaustive literature review.
Delinquency in a Birth Cohort.5 This w o r k remains as one of the most
significant in delinquency research. Without attempting t o present a complete
review of the book, I shall list some of the major findings. Those interested
in detailed methods and conclusions should read the book. The cohort studied
by Wolfgang et at., included all males born in Philadelphia in 1945 and
resident in this city at least f r o m their tenth until their eighteenth birthday.
There are 9,945 boys and almost two-thirds of them have had no contacts
w i t h the police until their eighteenth birthday. Of the 3,475 for w h o m
records of police contact were established, 1,613 did not commit a second
crime which would have made them recidivists. Of the 1,862 boys w h o
committed more than one offence during their juvenile career, 650 had t w o
police records each, 344 had three records, 241 had four records and 627
boys committed five or more offences each.
These 3,475 boys committed 10,214 offences and over half of these
(52 per cent) were perpetrated by 627 boys, w h o were labelled as 'chronic
offenders'. Therefore, slightly over six per cent of the entire cohort and
18 per cent of the boys who had at least one police record, committed 5,305
offences.
Wolfgang's chronic offenders have received considerable notoriety over
the years and w i t h convincing reasons. Consider the data in Table 1. A n
index offence was one which involved injury to a person or theft of property
or damage to property or combination of these. A non-index offence was a
relatively minor one which involved none of the characteristics of an index
offence. It is quite clear that 627 chronic offenders on an average c o m m i t t e d
3.6 index offences and 4.9 non-index offences each until they were 18 years
old. Non-chronic offenders, on the other hand, committed on an average
only 0.5 index offences and 1.2 non-index offences each before they were
18 years of age.

Table 1 - Chronic and Non-chronic Offenders

by Type of Offence

Type of Offence
Offender Index Non-index Total

Chronic 2254 3051 5305

Non-chronic 1559 3350 4909

Total 3813 6401 10214

 4

Although chronic offenders committed far too many offences, the

authors found no evidence of offence specialisation. In this context the
following two paragraphs are noteworthy:
We found that the offense transition matrices did not vary significantly over
offense number. We also discovered that the choice of the type of the next
offense is only very slightly related to the type of the prior offense or offenses.
This finding leads us to the conclusion that the type of the next offense — be it
injury, theft, damage, combination, or nonindex — cannot well be predicted by
examination of the prior offense history, at least when that history is represented
by our typology. There is practically no evidence to support a hypothesis of the
existence of offense specialization among juvenile delinquents.

We are able to assert, however, that once an offense has been committed, the
probability of a repeat of the same type of violation is somewhat greater than
the likelihood of the initial offense. But as we earlier pointed out, these increased
probabilities of repeats of the same type of offense can be explained, under the
assumption of a stationary transition process, as the product of the accumulation
of a large number of offenses rather than as the product of any special proclivity
toward offense specialization. Thus in order to prevent the occurrence of serious
crimes in a delinquent boy's future, efforts should be made to prevent all forms
of recidivism. 6

Wolfgang has not recommended a specific intervention program beyond

suggesting that such a program may be considered at a point 'beyond which
the natural loss rate, or probability of desistance, begins to level o f f . ' 7 This
point is beyond the third offence.

Report on a follow-up of a 10 per cent sample of the original cohort is

not yet available in printed form, nor is the study of a second cohort,
including both boys and girls born in Philadelphia, complete. However, some
material on the follow-up of the first cohort is available. Relationship
between juvenile and adult offender status of the 975 boys born in 1945
revealed that over 59 per cent of the cohort had no record of arrest. Of these
41 per cent who had arrest records, 22 per cent had a record only as juveniles;
14 per cent before and after age 18; and only five per cent had an arrest
record only as adults, or after age 18. 8

In 1975, a prominent American thinker and prolific writer, Professor

Wilson, published the book Thinking About Crime.9 His work is important
not necessarily because his views are right, but because he leads a school of
thought which has a considerable following. He used the cohort study
extensively to support his ideas. Clearly referring to the chronic offenders
Wilson writes:

Because most serious crime is committed by repeaters, most criminals get

eventually arrested. The Wolfgang findings and other studies suggest that the
chances of a persistent burglar or robber 10 living out his life, or even going a
year with no arrest are quite small.
 5

Wolfgang's study has not proved that most serious crime is committed
by repeaters. Second, in Wolfgang's study no conclusive evidence was found
with regard to 'persistent burglars or robbers'. The two paragraphs quoted
above throw ample doubt on this issue.
Wilson's position, which has attracted serious criticism, 12 is that confin-
ing criminals prevents a crime. He does not present any evidence. Actually
the research on which he depends largely for support tells otherwise. Consider,
Finally, we may briefly note that the effect of disposition on the offense histories
of the cohort members is unclear. It appears that the juvenile justice system has
been able to isolate the hard core offender fairly well. Unfortunately, the pro-
duct of this encounter with sanctioning authorities is far from desirable. Not
only do a greater number of those who receive punitive treatment (institutional-
ization, fine, or probation) continue to violate the law, but they also commit
more serious crimes with greater rapidity than those who experience a less
constraining contact with the judicial and correctional systems. Thus, we must
conclude that the juvenile justice system, at its best, has no effect on the subse-
quent behavior of adolescent boys and, at its worst, has a deleterious effect on
future behavior. For it is clear that, if a selection process is operating which
routes hard core delinquents into the courts and correctional institutions, no
benefit is derived from this encounter, for the subsequent offense rates and
13
seriousness scores show no reduction in volume and intensity.

This does not, however, deal with the issue of length of confinement.
Although exceedingly persuasive in recommending three to five years incap-
acitation for serious repeat offenders, Wilson lacks evidence. There is not yet
available enough information to take Wilson seriously. A more pertinent of
Wilson's works deals with age and crime. In a paper published in 1978,
Boland and Wilson commence their description of juvenile crime thus:

Persons under the age of 18 constitute about one fifth of the total population,
but they account for one quarter of all persons arrested and nearly one half of
all those arrested for one of the seven 'index' crimes. Many of these index
crimes, though serious, are nonviolent — burglary, auto theft, and larceny.
Unfortunately, however, the rate at which juveniles are arrested for violent
crimes — homicide, rape, robbery, and assault - has been growing faster than the
rate at which they are arrested for nonviolent crimes, and faster even than the
rate at which adults are arrested for violent crimes. Assuming, as seems likely,
that changes in arrest rates bear a reasonably close relationship to changes in
actual crime rates, we can conclude that juvenile violence has been increasing
faster than crime generally. 14

I shall test the hypothesis of increase in juvenile crime in a subsequent

section, with the help of data. I must, however, take issue with Boland and
Wilson's assumption that juvenile arrest rates bear close relationship with
actual crime. This assumption is not of recent origin but no one has been
able to prove the existence of such a relationship. In the absence of empirical
evidence, I submit that arrest data are biased against juveniles and as such
 6

these cannot serve as indicators of actual juvenile crime rate. The reasons are
as follows:
(i) Juveniles are often arrested for less serious crimes than adults.
(ii) Juveniles tend to commit burglary, robbery and auto theft in
groups and therefore several juveniles may be arrested for one
offence.
(iii) Juveniles are neither accomplished criminals nor are they armed
with deadly weapons; they are likely t o be arrested easily.

(iv) Juveniles tend t o commit crime within a reasonable distance

from where they live, therefore victims can recognise them and
report to police.

If Boland and Wilson could muster evidence it would indeed be hard to

challenge their arguments, but it seems that more often than not when they
produce evidence, it is inappropriate. For example, in order t o support their
argument on increasing juvenile crime rate as evidenced by increasing juvenile
arrest rates they draw from a study of homicides by Block and Zimring. 1 5
Boland and Wilson refute the assertion that 'arrest figures may exaggerate
the increase in juvenile crime, perhaps because the police today are arresting
juveniles for conduct they once would have ignored'. 16 They then present
findings of the Block and Zimring study:
But consider a crime such as homicide, which the police would never ignore and
for which the guilty party is arrested in the great majority of cases. Richard
Block and Franklin E. Zimring found that in Chicago the rate at which young
(aged 15 to 24) black males committed homicides nearly tripled f r o m 1965 to
1970 from 108 crimes per 100,000 population to 298 per 100,000.

Perhaps most disturbing, the number of homicides committed by young males

where the motive was robbery (rather than a personal quarrel) increased the
fastest - from 11 per 100,000 population during 1965 to 90 per 100,000 in
1970. 17

Boland and Wilson consistently overlook empirical evidence and mislead

their readers. First, persons under the age of 18 (juveniles) cannot be con-
sidered to possess similar attributes to those in the 15-24 year age group.
Second, homicide is not an offence which is usually committed by juveniles.
Homicide arrest rates for juveniles in general and those for 13, 14, 15, 16,
ynd 17 year olds in particular are much lower than the rates of 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, and 24 year olds. The peak arrest age for homicide is currently 19.
Boland and Wilson further assert that 'Far from overstating the amount of
juvenile crime, arrest data actually understate it by a considerable margin.' 18
On this issue, let me quote the conclusions of recent Rand Corporation
research:
 7

A t the most aggregate level, including all index crimes, youths from 16 to 21 are
disporportionately overrepresented in arrests. However, as soon as we begin
restricting our attention to more serious offenses (homicide or rape) or serious
offenders (individual armed predators), we find that the proportion of youths
involved drops substantially. To sort out which types of offenses are predomin-
antly youth crimes, and thus possibly responsive to youth-releated sentencing
policies, we need to know more about the relative severity of offenses attributed
to different age groups.

Recent data from California also indicate the juvenile arrest rate is on a
downward trend. 20
 Section II - N A T I O N A L D A T A

Current Statistical Evidence

Is it true that juveniles are disporportionately overrepresented in arrests
for serious crimes? Before I present evidence, I would like to clarify the data
used.
(i) Wherever possible the evidence for this part consists of statistics
collected from Australia, England and Wales, and the United
States.

(ii) Terminologies used in these countries differ. For Australia, the

data relate to persons involved in crimes cleared; for England and
Wales they relate to persons proceeded against; and for the
United States these are persons arrested.

(iii) A juvenile in Australia and in England and Wales is a person

under the age of 17; in the United States a person under the age
of 18 is a juvenile. These are not necessarily the age limits of
juveniles in these countries; the selection was dictated by the
availability of data.

(iv) Because there are very few persons under the age of 10 involved
in serious crimes, in computing age and sex specific arrest rates
I have excluded population under the age of 10.

(v) Definitions of offences included in this study may vary across

jurisdictions. I have collected data from these countries with a
view to identifying trends within each country and not necessarily
for between-country comparisons.

(vi) Usually, analysis of crime and criminal justice statistics by

criminologists and researchers does not provide a sex distribution
of arrest data. In this study, I have attempted to provide such
data.

The disporportionately large representation of young persons in arrests

for violent offences is an allegation which simply is not true. Also, the
suggestion that an increase in the proportion of young persons in the popul-
ation would automatically lead to a higher crime rate is questionable indeed.
It follows, therefore, that if this proportion declines crime rate should also
decline. Consider the data in Table 2. In Australia the proportion of juveniles,
both male and female, remained virtually static between 1964 and 1974, and
thereafter started a slow declining trend. Currently boys aged 10 to 16 make
15 per cent of the male population aged 10 years and over; girls account for
 9

14 per cent of the corresponding female population. Data for England and
Wales, although including the same age groups as in Austrlaia, show the
proportion of juveniles in the population to be quite small. In 1964, boys in
England and Wales constituted four percentage points less than their counter-
parts in Australia and girls were almost five percentage points less. This gap
has reduced significantly in recent years. The American data include 17 year
old juveniles as well and hence the proportions are higher than in the other
two countries. However, the trend in this proportion is again at variance w i t h
those of Australia and England and Wales. Therefore, the three countries
present three distinct trends of the composition of the population, and this
should facilitate a better assessment of the allegation.

Table 2

JUVENILES AS PROPORTION OF POPULATION

AGED 10 YEARS AND OVER

a a b
Year AUSTRALIA ENGLAND & WALES UNITED STATES

Male Female Male Female Male Female

1960 .1855 .1733

1961 .1877 .1748
1962 .1915 .1778
1963 .1961 .1814
1964 .1668 .1607 .1285 .1135 .2013 .1857
1965 .1657 .1597 .1242 .1098 .1999 .1838
1966 .1661 .1597 .1219 .1080 .2006 .1840
1967 .1657 .1590 .1210 .1072 .2021 .1847
1968 .1653 .1585 .1223 .1080 .2037 .1856
1969 .1652 .1587 .1238 .1092 .2044 .1858
1970 .1654 .1583 .1253 .1107 .2043 .1853
1971 .1650 .1591 .1302 .1137 .2038 .1846
1972 .1651 .1583 .1326 .1164 .2022 .1830
1973 .1650 .1576 .1351 .1189 .2000 .1804
1974 .1644 .1561 .1375 .1212 .1973 .1781
1975 .1626 .1536 .1392 .1230 .1930 .1741
1976 .1598 .1505 .1402 .1241 .1877 .1692
1977 .1572 .1477 .1410 .1249 .1821 .1638
1978 .1546 .1452 .1404 .1245 .1763 .1585
1979 .1517 .1425 .1394 .1238 .1705 .1531
1980 .1499 .1406 .1705 .1531

a. A juvenile is a person aged 10 years or over but under the age of 17.

b. A juvenile is a person aged 10 years or over but under the age of 18.
 10

Arrest Proportions
Tables 3.1 to 3.3 present the proportion of juveniles in the arrested
population in the three countries. In order to prove his point that the youths
of America have let themselves loose and are on a rampage, Professor Wilson
uses homicide data. It is not difficult to counter his conclusions. First, across
countries and over time I find not a trace of overrepresentation of youths in
homicide arrests. The data clearly demonstrate that juvenile boys and girls
account for far less a proportion of homicide arrests than their proportion
in the population. Second, I consider it entirely unfair to show increases in
arrests of young adults to mean increases in arrests of juveniles. Obviously,
the increase which Professor Wilson observed was in the age group 18-24;
and if their rate is calculated separately it would be higher than that which
concerned him.
Arrests for aggravated assault also show that boys, proportionate t o their
population, are underrepresented in all the three countries. Here again the
patterns seem to indicate that Wilson is inaccurate. Furthermore, the trends
in recent years in each of the three countries very clearly show that among
arrested population the proportion of boys is on the decline. The interesting
part of arrest data for aggravated assault is the representation of girls — they
are not necessarily underrepresented. Although the number of girls arrested
for violent offences is small compared to the number of boys, the patterns
are indicative of change. In the United States, girls constitute a consistently
higher proportion of the arrests for aggravated assault than in the total popul-
ation since 1971; in Australia and England and Wales, these trends are erratic.
It is also interesting to note that girls constitute a higher proportion of all
female arrests than boys of all male arrests.
Americans are a violent people, and America is a violent society. So goes
the cliche. Professor Wilson and those who hold similar views, have certainly
exacerbated such fears. Wilson is quite specific, however, and he suggests
that it is the American youth who is violent. Unfortunately, the definitions
of a youth considered in various studies are not uniform. Boland and Wilson
while describing juvenile crime obviously refer to youth as a person in the
age group 15 to 24; others have used age group 16 to 21 to mean youth. I
have, in this study, used the dichtomy juvenile and adult taking 17 or 18 as
the cut-off point. Thus 'youth' in this study will mean a juvenile.
Information on juveniles as proportion of population and as proportion
of arrests for violent offences are provided in Figure 1. The curves for all the
three countries are clear and it is evident that juvenile boys proportionate to
their population are underrepresented among those arrested for aggravated
assault and homicide. Conversely, therefore, adult males must constitute a
higher proportion among arrestees than their representation in the popul-
ation. In the United States the trends in juvenile arrests for violent offences
have followed roughly the population trend. The relatively sharp increases in
 11

Table 3.1

AUSTRALIA

BOYS AND GIRLS UNDER 17 YEARS OF AGE AS PROPORTION OF ALL MALES

AND ALL FEMALES RESPECTIVELY INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED
FOR SELECTED OFFENCES, 1964-1980

Homicide Aggravated Assault Robbery

Year Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
< 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17

1964 3.7 2.0 8.0 6.6 15.9 13.8

1965 8.1 2.3 8.0 4.3 9.3 7.1
1966 6.0 2.4 7.1 1.8 15.8 14.3
1967 3.2 2.2 5.4 9.4 16.0 3.8
1968 4.9 2.3 7.2 4.7 12.7 7.9
1969 5.2 0.0 7.4 3.6 16.4 20.7
1970 7.4 0.0 8.9 9.2 15.6 13.6
1971 2.8 9.3 10.0 7.1 17.3 28.0
1972 4.5 4.1 11.8 16.9 16.7 20.0
1973 2.8 3.7 8.5 12.2 19.7 16.0
1974 2.4 5.9 10.1 11.0 17.4 30.1
1975 4.6 5.2 10.0 6.0 18.9 32.9
1976 2.1 5.4 8.2 11.9 17.9 42.0
1977 3.3 4.1 7.7 12.1 16.0 32.3
1978 1.9 0.0 8.0 16.8 15.9 18.6
1979 4.7 4.9 8.2 16.0 14.1 23.2
1980 3.5 4.4 8.8 17.1 16.0 21.8

Burglary Motor Vehicle Theft Fraud Forgery

Year Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
< 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17

1964 48.1 53.0 37.6 36.6 3.0 4.6

1965 46.3 70.7 37.2 61.2 2.9 7.5
1966 44.2 64.9 39.4 49.1 3.8 7.4
1967 42.4 42.6 41.2 53.5 2.8 4.0
1968 45.2 61.5 40.9 22.9 2.1 4.3
1969 49.6 54.4 43.7 40.4 3.9 5.4
1970 49.4 71.2 45.9 50.6 4.9 3.1
1971 52.0 63.0 46.9 61.0 3.2 4.5
1972 54.2 56.6 47.3 57.3 3.4 6.9
1973 56.6 62.0 49.2 57.5 4.0 4.2
1974 55.9 66.6 47.7 62.6 7.3 8.2
1975 56.4 70.6 46.3 59.3 7.1 13.7
1976 58.8 67.2 44.8 59.2 7.8 12.2
1977 57.1 63.5 44.9 58.2 7.1 11.2
1978 56.2 63.6 46.0 53.2 7.0 9.7
1979 53.2 60.0 44.1 55.0 7.6 9.4
1980 55.5 59.7 42.7 55.5 8.9 9.0
 12

Table 10.7

ENGLAND & WALES

BOYS AND GIRLS UNDER 17 YEARS OF AGE AS PROPORTION OF ALL MALES

AND ALL FEMALES RESPECTIVELY PROCEEDED AGAINST FOR SELECTED
OFFENCES, 1964-1979

Aggravated
Homicide Assault Robbery Burglary
Year Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
< 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17

1964 4 .2 0.0 6 .7 3 .3 17.9 27 .1 43.5 51.1

1965 1.5 0.0 7 .9 5 .3 22.8 38 .9 41.0 52.6
1966 2 .9 2.3 6 .3 4 .8 19.1 28 .4 39.7 50.9
1967 2 .1 2.4 b .0 5 .7 18.2 29 .1 38.9 50.9
1968 2 .3 6.4 5 .5 7 .1 19.0 27 .1 38.3 47.8
1969 4 .6 1.5 6 .3 4 .4 16.5 43 .8 37.4 46.5
1970 3 .3 3.5 7 .0 4 .0 26.0 32 .8 37.1 43.4
1971 3 .3 1.2 9 .1 10 .8 27.9 29 .4 36.4 40.6
1972 6 .9 1.3 9 .5 6 .1 33.2 41 .3 38.4 40.2
1973 6 .U 1.1 8 .4 4 .5 39.6 52 .4 41.9 46.1
1974 1.7 6.2 6 .2 5 .3 32.6 46 . 1 44.8 46.2
1975 4 .7 2.1 5 .9 11 .7 28.1 34 .3 41.4 45.6
1976 2 .2 1.3 4 .8 5 .6 26.1 42 .7 40.1 44.7
1977 3 .8 1.7 4 .6 10 .6 23.0 37 .5 39.6 43.0
1978 5 .8 0.0 4 .6 5 .9 24.2 36 .7 40.4 43.8
1979 3 .2 2.9 4 .6 5 .4 23.1 34 .6 36.6 38.7

Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Fraud Forgery

Year Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
<17 <17 < 17 < 17 < 17 < 17

1964 31 .0 25.0 27,.9 29.6 3.6 5.0

1965 28.7 24.1 25,.6 28.1 5.6 9.2
1966 25.4 23.4 25,.6 23.1 5.6 8.9
1967 24.9 20.7 23..2 15.2 5.4 8.4
1968 23.8 19.5 24,.8 15.0 6.5 11.1
1969 21.8 15.0 27,.3 34.1 3.8 5.3
1970 20.4 14.9 28,.2 34.0 3.9 5.1
1971 18.3 13.7 26,.3 29.9 4.0 6.3
1972 18.7 13.0 28,.2 30.1 3.6 5.7
1973 16.6 12.2 29,,5 30.9 4.1 6.6
1974 18.0 13.1 27,.9 29.1 4.5 6.7
1975 16.5 12.1 25,.3 26.9 4.4 6.0
1976 16.4 11.5 25,.5 27.2 4.2 5.6
1977 17.0 11.9 26.4 28.3 4.4 4.6
19 7B 17.2 12.4 27,. 1 30.3 4.8 5.3
1979 16.8 11.8 28,.4 28.8 4.3 5.9
 13

Table 10.7

UNITED STATES

BOYS AND GIRLS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE AS PROPORTION OF ALL MALES

AND ALL FEMALES RESPECTIVELY ARRESTED FOR SELECTED OFFENCES,
1960-1980

Aggravated
Homicide Assault Robbery Burglary
Year "Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
<18 <18 <18 <18 <18 <18 <18 <18

1960 7.2 3 .4 11 .2 4 .5 26.0 27 .5 52.6 51.7

1961 9.4 3 .4 13 .6 10 .1 23.2 21 .2 48.5 45.0
1962 8.7 3 .3 14 .1 10 .5 25.3 23,.5 50.2 43.5
1963 9.0 3 .5 14 .2 11 .5 28.2 25 .2 52.0 50.6
1964 9.7 3 .4 15 .5 12 .3 28.3 26 .5 51.6 50.8
1965 10.1 3 .3 16 .1 14 .5 31.3 26 .7 52.2 48.4
1966 10.5 4 .8 17 .3 17 .4 31.6 28 .6 54.5 54.9
1967 9.9 5 .3 17 .6 17 .7 31.9 30 .8 53.7 50.8
1968 11.0 4 .7 17 .0 15 .9 33.5 32 .0 55.0 51.5
1969 10.5 5 .3 17 .2 17 .2 35.0 38 .2 55.2 55.4
1970 12.0 5 .1 16 .7 18 .5 33.5 38 .8 52.1 50.2
1971 11.3 6 .0 17 .6 20 .9 32.2 37 .3 50.9 48.8
1972 12.3 6 .1 17 .6 21 .0 29.8 38 .2 51.8 48.7
1973 11.2 6 .1 16 .8 18 .8 34.0 35 .0 54.4 51.3
1974 11.3 5 .9 17 .2 20 .6 33.2 34 .1 53.8 51.4
1975 10.2 6 .2 17 .6 21 .7 34.9 37 .2 52.8 50.9
1976 9.6 7 .2 16 .4 20 .9 31.6 31..2 52.6 51.8
1977 10.6 5 .7 16 .2 19 .1 32.4 31 .2 51.7 50.8
1978 9.4 6 .7 15 .3 18 .4 30.7 28,.7 52.8 52.3
1979 9.8 6 .9 15 .0 18 .2 31.7 29 .3 48.7 50.2
1980 9.9 5 .9 14 .2 17 .9 30.3 29,.0 44.9 46.4

Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Fraud Forgery

Year Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
< 18 < 18 < 18 < 18 < 18 < 18

1960 52.0 43.1 63 .5 65.8 4.4 6.1

1961 51.5 41.9 60 .8 61.5 3.7 5.8
1962 54.8 43.7 62 .8 66.1 4.2 5.6
1963 53.8 43.1 63 .7 65.2 4.6 4.3
1964 56.1 45.2 64 .8 65.8 5.4 5.4
1965 57.2 48.2 62 .8 65.2 5.9 8.3
1966 58.8 50.0 63 .2 65.6 6.1 5.6
1967 59.7 47.6 61 .6 64.4 7.3 5.9
1968 56.8 46.4 60 .6 63.1 7.5 6.1
1969 56.0 48.4 59 .2 62.2 7.5 7.8
1970 52.5 46.8 55 .8 58.5 6.6 6.4
1971 52.3 46.6 53 .2 49.6 5.9 5.4
1972 51.9 46.2 53 .9 56.3 6.0 5. U
1973 50.2 44.3 56 .8 59.2 b.b 5.b
1974 50.9 45.3 55 .1 57.4 8.9 7.0
1975 47.8 41.5 54 .3 58.3 b .8 5.5
1976 45.7 38.9 53 .9 59.0 5.7 4.5
1977 45.2 38.2 52 .5 59.1 8.3 7.9
1978 44.8 37.7 52 .1 60.7 6.0 4.3
1979 42.5 36.0 48 .7 56.4 7.1 4.4
1980 39.2 33.8 44 .4 52.7 6.0 3.9
 14

FIGURE 1
Juveniles as Proportion of Population and as Arrests for Violent Offences

ni AUSTRALIAN tOYS AUSTRALIAN OIRLS

Proportion Population
Proportion Population

Affravatad Attaglt
V \ "
Aggr»*atad Auault

X
 15

arrests during the late 1960s to early 1970s both in Australia and in England
and Wales are difficult to explain, but is is known that in both the countries
major changes in the recording procedures were introduced about that time.
During approximatley the last two decades, therefore, male youths who
constitute over 80 per cent of all youth arrestees for violent offences have
not been murdering and maiming people in increasing proportions. Girls,
however, present a slightly different picture. The change in their ratio of
participation in violent offences needs to be examined carefully because this
could have significant implications for research in the area of women and
crime. If indeed girls engage in violent crimes in proportions higher than
their representation in the population, the hypotheses that boys and girls of
the 1970s and the 1980s have been acting in a less sex-differentiated behaviour
pattern holds promise. Also the claim that women's movements have led to
an increase in violent crimes by women must be re-examined.

Offences in which property constitutes the primary element present an

altogether different pattern. Although youth participation in offences such
as robbery, burglary, larceny, and automobile theft has been higher than
their proportion in the population, the extent of participation varies accord-
ing to type of offence. Data in Tables 3.1 to 3.3 seem to indicate that there
exists an inverse relationship between youth participation and the seriousness
of the property offence, so that robbery being the most serious property
offence attracts a lower proportion of youths than other property offences.
Another general observation with regard to arrest data for property offences
is that youths, as a proportion of all arrests, do not show any set pattern of
stability or fluctuation.
Australia shows a lower representation of boys and girls in robbery
arrests than in the other two countries; also compared to England and Wales
and the United States, boys as proportion of all male arrests for robbery in
Australia have remained remarkably stable. The recent levels of youth involve-
ment in robbery in the three countries are not the highest; the late 1960s
and the early 1970s encountered higher proportions of boys and girls than at
present. It is also interesting to note that by and large the proportion of boys
and girls shows similar movements at a given point in time. Furthermore
girls form a higher proportion among all females arrested for robbery than
boys among all males arrested for the same offence.

Arrests for burglary present an interesting situation — the patterns of

adult-juvenile composition of the arrested population vary between countries.
The highest proportion of juvenile involvement is obtained in arrests for
burglary in Australia and England and Wales, in the United States this is so
in the case of automobile theft. It is important to remind the reader however,
that in this study the juvenile status continues to age 17 in the United States
and only to age 16 in the other two countries. This difference in involvement.
 16

therefore, could be ascribed to higher age limits in the United States. Again,
as in the case of robbery arrests, girls are represented in higher proportions
than boys in arrests for burglary in Australia and the United Kingdom; in
the United States the participation of boys and girls is at the same level.
And finally, while proportion of juveniles in burglary arrests has increased
gradually in Australia, in England and Wales this has declined slightly and in
the United States this proportion of juveniles has remained fairly stable until
1978.
There has been appreciable decline in the participation of juveniles in
larceny in the United Kingdom and currently girls, proportionate to their
population, areunderrepresented in larceny arrests. Although the proportions
are declining in the United States as well, juveniles still constitute over twice
as high a proportion among larceny arrestees as in the general population. In
arrests for automobile thefts the trends in the three countries are at variance
— in Australia juveniles as proportion to all arrests are increasing, in England
and Wales they maintain a stable 25 to 30 per cent and in the United States
they demonstrate a slight decline. In all the three countries however, girls
form a higher proportion of all female arrests than boys of all male arrests.
Among arrestees for property offences juveniles are least represented in
arrests for fraud and forgery. Juveniles arrested for this offence not only
constitute lower than their proportion in the population but lower than
their proportion in arrests for any other offence except homicide; in the
United States their participation is even lower than those for homicide.
Logically, this is what one would expect the situation to be. The kinds of
violations that are included in the category of 'fraud and forgery' and
reported in the official crime statistics are those which are not only minor in
nature but also those which can be perpetrated mainly by adults. Cheque
fraud, passing valueless cheques and credit card frauds constitute a large
majority of reported cases of fraud and forgery; misappropriation and
embezzlement constitute approximately one-fourth of these offences.
In sum, therefore, the above analysis of representation of juveniles
among those arrested for selected offences tend to show that adults dominate
the violent crime scene and in property related offences, excluding fraud and
forgery, juveniles figure in a much larger proportion than their component in
the general population. Among the seven offences examined, juveniles
constitute higher proportions in arrests for burglary and automobile theft
than for any other offence. It was also found that fluctuations in the pro-
portions of girls have been more pronounced than those of boys.

Arrest rates
An analysis of ratio of juvenile to adult participation, described above,
does not provide any clues on the extent of involvement in arrest. This is
based on absolute number of arrests and the proportions of juveniles may
 17

alter without any change in total arrests. Furthermore, when the number of
arrests is really small, a minor change in the juvenile/adult composition
would result in a higher proportional change.
As stated in the introduction, the inference that crime problem in
many industrialised nations is primarily a problem posed by the youth is
based on arrest figures published by official agencies. It is well known that
these arrest figures relate only to a portion of the known crimes. Therefore,
whether a segment of the population is involved in criminal activity in
increasing numbers is not known. Arrest figures could be biased against
certain groups. Furthermore, official statistics which are the bases for
assertions and speculations, do not offer information on the severity of
offences. Again, it is possible that certain sections of the population may
commit relatively less serious offences (within an offence category) and
hence their criminality could be exaggerated by arrest data. And finally,
while it is difficult t o disprove the assertion that youths are overrepresented
in arrests for serious offences, this may not be true for every specific offence.
Violent Offences: Tables 4.1 to 4.3 present arrest rates for the t w o
violent offences in the study. Note that while the juvenile arrest rates are
based on the population aged 10 to 17 in the United States and 10 to 16 in
the other two countries the adult crime rate is based on the population 18
and over or 17 and over as the case may be. Thus, the true arrest rates for
the age group, young adults, which commits overwhelming majority of all
offences committed by adults is minimised. I am thinking of the age group
18 to 25. Since this study examines juvenile crimes only, it is necessary t o
concentrate on the adult-juvenile dichotomy.

With regard to homicide, data in the tables show that arrest rates for
juveniles, boys or girls, have never surpassed those for adults in any of the
countries under study. In fact, the highest arrest rate for juveniles is about
half that of adult rate (in the United States only). The general trend that is
obtained from the figures is that arrest rates for boys and men have increased
over the years, rates for women have remained remarkably constant and the
rates for girls show slight increases. In this analysis data from England and
Wales cannot be used because of very low rates.

Since this study is concerned primarily with youth crime it would be

interesting t o know whether juvenile arrest rates for homicide have been
increasing faster than the adult rate. Having established that arrest rates f o r
men, boys, and girls have increased over the years in Australia and the
United States, one way to assess the rate of increase for each of these sub-
populations would be t o examine ratios. The ratio of juvenile to adult male
arrest rates was 1:2.9 in the United States in 1960, this ratio increased t o
approximately 1:2 in 1980. That is to say that in 1960 for every boy arrested
for homicide, there were three men arrested for the same offence, in 1980
 18

Table 10.7

AUSTRALIA

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 16 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Homicide

1964 6.35 1.21 1.35 .14

1965 5.68 2.53 1.14 .14
1966 6.86 2.20 1.03 .14
1967 6.07 1.02 1.13 .13
1968 6.77 1.75 1.06 .13
1969 5.33 1.47 1.30 0.00
1970 6.88 2.75 1.20 0.00
1971 7.13 1.04 .89 .48
1972 8.07 1.93 1.05 .24
1973 8.55 1.23 1.14 .23
1974 12.24 1.54 1.03 .35
1975 12.19 3.06 1.15 .35
1976 11.71 1.32 1.07 .35
1977 12.14 2.20 1.42 .35
1978 10.35 1.10 1.21 0.00
1979 11.70 3.20 1.52 .47
1980 11.88 2.42 1.26 .35

Aggravated Assault

1964 48.81 21.32 2.30 .85

1965 43.82 19.15 1.77 .42
1966 48.15 18.39 2.88 .27
1967 45.47 13.12 1.94 1.07
1968 48.03 18.90 2.49 .66
1969 51.90 21.05 2.56 .51
1970 62.38 30.74 2.55 1.38
1971 72.01 40.63 3.57 1.44
1972 76.79 51.81 1.43 1.54
1973 59.55 27.87 2.84 2.10
1974 40.22 23.05 2.59 1.73
1975 37.28 21.33 2.29 .81
1976 46.97 22.09 2.74 2.09
1977 46.59 20.81 2.93 2.33
1978 53.80 25.44 3.03 3.62
1979 58.05 29.06 3.77 4.33
1980 73.50 40.44 5.18 6.52
 Table 4.2

ENGLAND & WALES

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 16 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Homicide

1964 1.50 .45 .20 0.00

1965 1.89 .21 .21 0.00
1966 2.17 .47 .23 .04
1967 2.18 .34 .22 .04
1968 2.47 .42 .31 .18
1969 2.67 .91 .35 .04
1970 3.03 .73 .29 .09
1971 3.28 .74 .44 .04
1972 2.84 1.37 .40 .04
1973 3.27 1.34 .49 .04
1974 3.41 .36 .40 .19
1975 3.41 1.03 .50 .07
1976 3.07 .42 .41 .04
1977 2.04 .49 .30 .04
1978 2.48 .94 .38 0.00
1979 2.73 .56 .35 .07

Aggravated Assault

1964 6.69 3.28 .32 .09

1965 6.82 4.13 .29 .13
1966 7.16 3.47 .32 .13
1967 7.91 3.69 .35 .18
1968 8.66 3.60 .35 .22
1969 9.18 4.37 .46 .17
1970 10.98 5.80 .51 .17
1971 11.34 7.62 .48 .46
1972 12.20 8.38 .65 .32
1973 13.63 7.98 .89 .31
1974 13.90 5.73 .85 .34
1975 14.78 5.76 .99 .94
1976 15.62 4.81 .88 .37
1977 15.20 4.42 1.01 .84
1978 15.83 4.73 1.0C .48
1979 16.31 4.84 1.08 .44
 20

Table 10.7

UNITED STATES

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 17 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Aduft Juvenile

Homicide

1960 11.30 3.84 2.66 .45

1961 13.57 6.08 2.97 .49
1962 12.43 5.00 2.95 .47
1963 11.07 4.46 2.28 .37
1964 12.76 5.45 2.86 .45
1965 13.51 6.05 2.96 .44
1966 13.82 6.49 2.77 .62
1967 15.33 6.66 2.94 .72
1968 17.21 8.28 3.27 .71
1969 19.05 8.73 3.33 .82
1970 20.52 10.84 3.68 .88
1971 22.83 11.34 4.26 1.19
1972 22.56 12.47 4.11 1.19
1973 21.82 10.99 3.73 1.10
1974 24.91 12.87 4.14 1.19
1975 22.52 10.75 3.96 1.25
1976 16.94 7.83 2.93 1.12
1977 19.77 10.57 3.24 1.00
1978 19.02 9.18 3.13 1.19
1979 19.71 10.40 2.99 1.22
1980 20.46 10.90 2.84 .99

Aggravated Assault

1960 123.12 68.40 24.32 5.46

1961 158.32 108.00 28.17 14.91
1962 151.70 105.40 26.15 14.21
1963 124.98 85.18 19.69 11.56
1964 154.64 112.30 24.76 15.22
1965 155.75 119.46 23.78 17.89
1966 167.17 139.02 24.07 22.44
1967 172.14 144.85 24.17 22.99
1968 170.14 136.35 23.07 19.09
1969 173.91 140.99 23.29 21.16
1970 192.60 150.39 25.77 25.66
1971 206.01 172.08 28.02 32.63
1972 222.71 187.61 30.37 35.98
1973 220.25 177.89 29.95 31.47
1974 255.13 215.22 35.39 42.31
1975 253.78 225.97 33.70 44.24
1976 218.67 185.06 28.95 37.53
1977 243.57 211.17 31.80 38.35
1978 240.29 202.82 30.67 36.84
1979 272.09 233.64 34.02 42.03
1980 274.45 220.77 34.05 41.12
 21

only two men were arrested for each boy. This ratio decreased in England
and Wales, that is, the number of men arrested for each boy increased in
recent years. In Australia there was practically no change in the ratio,
meaning that the rate of increase for both boys and men has been similar.
A much more noticeable change occurred in the ratio of girls to women
arrest rates. Since the arrest rates for adult women did not demonstrate any
significant change, the above ratio increased. That is, for every girl arrested
for homicide in the United States in 1960 there were about six women,
this ratio rose to 1:3 in 1980. In Australia, the figures were even more striking;
these ratios in 1964 and 1980 were 1:10 and 1:4 respectively. Obviously,
arrest rates for homicide in Australia are generally lower than those in the
United States. But whereas the girls to women arrest ratio in the United
States halved between 1960 and 1980, in Australia the ratio in 1980 reduced
to about 40 per cent of that existed in 1964.
Another interesting change, which is of passing interest in this study, is
the ratio of adult female to male arrests. In the United States this ratio
increased from 1:4 in 1960 to 1:7 in 1980, the corresponding figures for
Australia in 1964 and 1980 were 1:5 and 1:9 respectively. Again, this finding
is important where allegations are made with regard to increasing violent
crimes by females. One must distinguish between persons belonging to differ-
ent age groups.
The last ratio I would like to mention is the one that is obtained in the
arrest rates of juvenile girls and boys. The data seem to indicate that although
the homicide arrest rate for girls in the United States has been increasing,
the rate of increase is slower than that for boys and as such the girls to boys
arrest ratio has increased.
The homicide arrest data, while indicating that arrest rates among
juveniles have been increasing, still suggest that homicide is predominantly
an adult offence. If the arrest rates of young adults are separated from all
adults, these rates will be much higher than those of juveniles. However, the
most hopeful signs are that during the 1970s homicide arrest rates per
100,000 relevant population have remained virtually constant in the three
countries. This, it would seem, refutes the claim of sharp increases in violent
crimes.
The general trend of arrest data for aggravated assault is similar to that
exhibited by arrest data for homicide; the difference lies mainly in the
magnitude of rates. Certain facts, however, need to be highlighted. Arrest
rates of juvenile females have shown the sharpest increases over the period
across countries, and in recent years these rates have surpassed those of adult
females in Australia and the United States. At the beginning of the 1960s
for every juvenile girl arrested for aggravated assault there were three arrests
of adult women in Australia and four in the United States, corresponding
figure for 1980 in both the countries is 1:0.8. Similarly, the girls to boys
 22

arrest ratios in the early 1960s were 1:25 in Australia and 1:13 in the United
States; in 1980 these were 1:6 and 1:5 respectively.
These findings, and others, emerging from the data clearly indicate
increasing involvement of juveniles in violent offences. One must, however,
take caution in drawing such conclusions. Unlike homicides the offences of
aggravated assault vary enormously in severity. T w o offences, say one involv-
ing a blow on the person and the other involving an injury which resulted in
serious and permanent physical disability, could both be classified under
aggravated assault. Although no systematic evidence is yet available, it is
possible to speculate that most offences of juveniles will fall at the less
serious end of the spectrum. Also, as I have pointed out in the previous
section, if separated f r o m all adults, arrest rates of young adults would be
much higher than juveniles. The age and sex specific arrest rates for violent
offences confirm at least one hunch, that boys and girls are found in higher
proportions in these rates in recent than in earlier years. But a much more
significant aspect of the data is that the involvement of young girls in arrest
have been producing the highest rate of increase in violent offences among
the four groups examined. This situation is obtained only in case of arrests
for aggravated assaults, which numerically are the largest among all violent
offences. This is quite consistent w i t h my suggestion that the youth cultures
of the 1960s onward have significantly minimised sex differentiation in
roles, behaviours and attitudes.
Property Offences: trends in arrest rates for property offences tell a
different story. Generally, these rates for youngsters, both boys and girls,
have (at least during the study period) always been higher than for adults.
The magnitude of arrest rates however, vary from offence t o offence. Tables
5.1 to 5.3 provide arrest rates of adults and juveniles for robbery and burglary.
Few studies on robberies have been carried out in these countries and
usually these are area specific. McClintock and Gibson 21 studied robbery
incidents in London the major focus of which was on the location of the
victim, offender/victim relationship, and place of occurrence of the incident.
They were able to place the robbery incidents in five groups which were
later used by Normandeau in his study in Philadelphia. 22 In both the studies
the largest proportion of robberies (over one-third in London and more than
half of the robberies in Philadelphia) were found t o occur in the open,
following sudden attack on the individual. Robberies occurring in private
premises were few. Conklin, 2 3 in his study of convicted robbers in Massa-
chusetts, classified offenders in five categories on the basis of motive of theft,
modus operandi, and criminal career. Conklin based his study on interviews
w i t h 67 offenders and 90 victims. None of these studies provide sufficient
information on the age of the offenders. Similarly, in a study of armed hold-
ups in New South Wales and Victoria, 2 4 no information is given on the age
of the robbers. Dunn, in his study of patterns of robbery characteristics 25 in
 23

Westchester County, provides limited information on juvenile/adult distri-

bution of offenders and victims. According to this study juveniles constitute
about half of robbery offenders and over 30 per cent of robbery victims.
Potentially an important work, this study misses out some of the vital pieces
of information which could have made significant improvement on the earlier
studies. Dunn provides another interesting piece of information and that is
that almost 60 per cent of the robberies in Westchester County involved two
or more offenders. In the context of the present study, details on the adult/
juvenile composition of group robberies and the relationship between single/
multiple offender, robbery and type of target would have been highly valu-
able. Equally interesting would have been the knowledge on age and use of
weapon.
Data in Tables 5.1 to 5.3 seem to support Dunn's findings. In all the
three countries the robbery arrest rate for boys has been generally higher
than that for men and the rate for girls has been higher than that for women.
There are a few other observations that are difficult to ignore. First, for
some reason robbery rates in all the three countries increased almost simul-
taneously in the early 1970s; this pattern is apparent in all the four age and
sex categories. Second, whereas the robbery arrest rates in Australia and the
United Kingdom are relatively low, those in the United States are several
times higher than in these two countries. Currently, Australia-United States
and United Kingdom-United States ratio of arrest rates of boys to men are
1:15 and 1:9 respectively. Third, the robbery arrest rates of adults, males
and females, in the United Kingdom have been lower than in Australia and
the United States. Fourth, in all the three countries, it is the gap between the
arrest rates of boys and girls which has reduced the maximum. Thus, at the
beginning of the study period, in Australia for every girl arrested for robbery
there were 19 arrests of boys; at the end of the study period this ratio changed
t o 1:7. Declines of lesser magnitude are obtained in the other two countries.
And finally, the trends of robbery arrests in the three countries are very
similar.
Burglary arrest rates, although presenting patterns similar to those
obtained for robbery, are many times higher in each age and sex categories
as compared to robbery arrest rates. In my earlier work, 26 I found burglary
to be one of the fastest growing serious offences in post second world war
years. Data from the three countries show that juveniles constitute approxi-
mately half of those arrested for burglaries. It is also evident from these
statistics, statistics from several other Western countries and victim survey
findings in various countries, that the incidence of burglary is substantially
higher than homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, motor vehicle
theft, etcetera. The economic cost of losses from burglaries runs into hund-
reds of millions of dollars each year. These costs will be substantially higher
if burlgaries, which are not reported to police are also included. According to
 24

Table 10.7

AUSTRALIA

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 16 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Robbery

1964 11.02 10.39 .68 .56

1965 13.97 7.18 .34 .14
1966 14.43 13.60 .77 .68
1967 14.25 13.63 .63 .13
1968 17.35 12.77 .86 .39
1969 21.00 20.81 1.11 1.53
1970 24.92 23.21 .90 .75
1971 25.91 27.43 .82 1.68
1972 29.72 30.05 1.16 1.54
1973 26.50 32.89 1.38 1.40
1974 17.62 18.88 1.09 2.54
1975 20.95 25.16 1.20 3.24
1976 17.29 19.78 .82 3.37
1977 16.43 16.85 1.27 3.50
1978 17.95 18.61 1.57 2.10
1979 19.25 17.68 1.03 1.87
1980 19.20 20.77 1.85 3.14

Burglary

1964 267.48 1238.87 9.48 55.71

1965 297.23 1291.22 3.91 49.58
1966 323.48 1287.82 4.04 39.30
1967 301.19 1115.41 8.65 34.00
1968 324.24 1347.68 5.75 48.75
1969 342.24 1699.02 8.13 51.41
1970 365.53 1797.85 4.88 64.12
1971 375.26 2058.33 8.88 80.02
1972 386.97 2314.06 10.12 70.26
1973 329.59 2174.58 9.18 80.14
1974 155.79 1004.72 4.73 50.87
1975 159.83 1066.41 5.37 71.10
1976 145.65 1092.86 5.19 60.12
1977 150.31 1074.34 5.54 55.66
1978 157.20 1101.32 7.55 77.71
1979 175.29 1112.71 8.11 73.22
1980 177.78 1259.67 8.74 79.05
 25

Table 10.7

ENGLAND & WALES

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 16 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Robbery

1964 7.23 10.73 .23 .68

1965 8.43 17.59 .30 1.53
1966 9.78 16.62 .34 1.11
1967 11.06 17.88 .33 1.11
1968 12.03 20.32 .46 1.41
1969 14.29 19.94 .50 3.21
1970 13.69 33.64 .63 2.47
1971 16.06 41.56 .60 1.95
1972 16.92 55.03 .78 4.18
1973 12.69 53.36 .62 5.09
1974 13.33 40.41 .66 4.09
1975 18.34 44.40 .93 3.45
1976 17.72 38.43 .92 4.85
1977 18.48 33.55 .86 3.63
1978 18.91 36.91 1.03 4.21
1979 16.00 29.69 .90 3.37

Burglary

1964 147.25 768.10 3.11 25.34

1965 160.55 785.79 2.93 26.30
1966 177.67 841.33 3.34 28.56
1967 176.65 816.91 3.30 28.44
1968 192.45 858.48 3.65 27.57
1969 252.48 1070.00 5.82 41.20
1970 260.11 1069.84 6.60 40.55
1971 256.29 980.57 6.68 35.61
1972 230.07 938.95 6.37 32.46
1973 191.76 885.04 5.49 34.77
1974 214.22 1092.20 6.74 41.87
1975 245.40 1074.35 8.07 48.22
1976 245.54 1005.90 8.12 46.34
1977 259.72 1035.43 8.31 43.99
1978 245.96 1019.95 8.68 47.48
1979 226.38 806.27 8.15 36.43
 26

Table 10.7

UNITED STATES

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 17 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female ___

Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Robbery

1960 66.52 102.62 3.01 5.46

1961 99.26 129.95 4.96 6.31
1962 86.65 123.76 4.71 6.70
1963 59.64 96.19 2.98 4.53
1964 73.11 114.41 3.92 6.20
1965 77.29 140.72 4.22 6.83
1966 74.55 137.49 3.93 6.99
1967 89.69 165.92 4.68 9.17
1968 98.70 194.17 5.57 11.49
1969 101.84 213.84 5.83 15.83
1970 120.44 235.84 6.69 18.63
1971 139.76 259.02 8.07 21.21
1972 149.51 249.90 8.40 23.21
1973 127.05 262.18 8.29 20.31
1974 165.26 334.78 10.98 26.22
1975 146.70 328.63 9.78 27.43
1976 102.09 204.58 7.32 16.35
1977 117.82 253.30 8.80 20.31
1978 101.20 209.11 7.40 15.84
1979 117.47 264.98 8.91 20.43
1980 127.35 269.90 9.22 20.86

Burglary

1960 206.33 1007.19 5.58 28.51

1961 243.10 991.73 8.07 31.13
1962 225.12 957.33 9.22 32.84
1963 193.51 860.93 6.10 28.21
1964 227.24 961.53 8.27 37.50
1965 225.99 986.35 8.88 36.99
1966 203.54 972.24 7.60 41.09
1967 237.95 1090.27 10.03 45.76
1968 244.92 1172.63 10.71 49.83
1969 239.86 1150.00 9.76 53.16
1970 275.30 1164.54 13.20 58.48
1971 302.04 1225.75 14.90 62.73
1972 287.18 1218.36 15.11 63.97
1973 271.15 1294.38 15.12 72.30
1974 347.94 1650.42 19.09 92.97
1975 355.75 1663.93 19.04 93.75
1976 295.73 1420.18 15.57 82.16
1977 308.22 1481.38 18.31 96.62
1978 291.96 1526.64 17.89 104.27
1979 319.38 1477.77 19.28 107.41
1980 349.60 1385.21 20.54 98.21
 27

victim survey data the burglary rate is two and a half times that reported in
official statistics. In spite of these dimensions, the offence of burglary has
been researched relatively rarely.
Among the few works on burglary, two bear some relevance to the
present investigation (i) research undertaken by the Santa Clara Criminal
Justice Pilot Program; 27 and (ii) Crime Specific Analysis by Pope.^-Accord-
ing to the Santa Clara study, 58 per cent of the offenders were adults, 38
per cent were juveniles, and four percent were adults and juveniles involved
in the same incidents. This study also revealed that 54 per cent of the burg-
laries involved two or more offenders.
Pope's inquiry, which covered the state of California, found that 51 per
cent of the apprehended burglary offenders were juveniles. Also, 70 per cent
of the burglaries involved two or more offenders (group), and only 30 per
cent of the apprehended offenders committed burglaries without accomplices.
Pope also makes available data on single versus multiple offenders by age and
shows 80 per cent of the juvenile offenders as against 60 per cent of adult
offenders acted in company. Another important finding relates to the
distance which an offender travels to commit burglary. Pope found that
about two-thirds of the juvenile offenders in California travelled less than a
mile from their residence; approximately two-thirds of the adult offenders
travelled more than a mile from their residence to commit burglary. This is
not an unusual finding. Adults have legitimate as well as illegitimate accasi
to automobiles and they can afford to be more selective in target aress and
the type of items t o be burglarised.
I have shown in Tables 3.1 to 3.3 that between 40 and 60 per cent of the
offenders apprehended for burglary across countries and over time have been
juveniles. Data in Tables 5.1 to 5.3 further demonstrate the dominance of
juveniles in burglary incidents. Data from all the three countries very clearly
indicate that boys are involved in a disproportionately large volume of
burglary incidents. Although increases in the rates have generally been higher
for the other_three age and sex categories, burglary arrest rates for boys have
been so high to begin with that even a small increase in these rates literally
neutralises the increases in the rates of other groups. (The Australian data
differ from those of the United Kingdom and the United States primarily
because a major change in counting rules took place in 1973). In both, the
United Kingdom and the United States, burglary arrest rates for adult males
increased by approximatley 50 per cent during the study period, yet these
rates are about one-fourth of those of boys. And, although the arrest rate of
girls in the United States increased by 250 per cent between 1960 and 1980,
the ratio of this rate to that of boys is still 1:14.
More systematic research on burglary incidents and offenders are needed,
without which most of what can be said is speculation. If indeed it could be
established that juveniles tend t o commit these crimes in company, then their
 28

incident-related arrest rate is exaggerated. That is to say that although

burglary arrest rate of boys is more than three times higher than that of men,
the number of burglary incidents cleared by arrests of men may be the same
as those cleared by arrests of boys. Furthermore, it is also probable that
proportionately more offences committed by juveniles than by adults are
reported to the police and proportionately more of these reported offences
are cleared by arrest because as current literature (albeit limited) indicates,
juveniles tend to travel shorter distances from their residence than adults.
This means that juveniles could be identified easily and that arrest becomes
highly likely.
As in burglary, male juveniles are overrepresented in motor vehicle theft
and girls outnumber adult females by seven to one in Australia and the
United States and three to one in England and Wales. However, as shown in
Tables 6.1 to 6.3, the volume of motor vehicle theft by juveniles and adults
is substantially lower than that of burglary. And again as observed earlier on
several occasions, girls exhibit the fastest rate of increase in motor vehicle
theft. It is difficult to come across research studies in this criminal activity
and therefore at this stage onecan only speculate on the pattern of automobile
theft. First, the lower rates of adults as compared to those of juveniles are
in line with rates in other property offences. Second, whereas juveniles may
steal an automobile for joy-riding, an adult may use the stolen vehicle for
some other serious offence so that if caught, the charge is usually an offence,
like robbery or burglary, considered more serious than an automobile theft.
If this is the case, then automobile theft by adults is masked. Third, auto-
mobile theft has a high reportability rate, this is evident from the relative
similarity of victim survey findings with official crime statistics. In the arrest
figures juveniles are likely to be overrepresented because they can be caught
relatively easily. Law enforcement officials may notice cars driven by young
persons and find out in the course of routine investigation that the car was
stolen. Not being a qualified driver the youth may get involved with accidents
and thus draw attention of the police. Again, auto thefts by juveniles are
generally for joy-riding and the culprits may be spotted while deserting the
car. If the stolen car is brought to the neighbourhood where the juveniles
live, it may be spotted by neighbours and reported to the authorities. Finally,
juveniles could be used by adults and once the adults accomplish their
objectives, they may desert the young persons with the stolen car.
Among all the offences selected in this study, larceny provides the most
frequent arrests. Larceny includes some of the most trivial offences and
shoplifting constitutes a substantial part of all larcenies reported to the
police. Studies have shown that women indulge in shoplifting more often
than in other offences. This phenomenon is strongly evidenced by arrest
rates for larceny for England and Wales and the United States. Data in Tables
6.2 and 6.3 show that larceny arrest rate for girls is four times their combined
 29

Table 10.7

AUSTRALIA

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 16 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Motor Vehicle Theft

1964 155.29 467.61 2.49 7.48

1965 152.17 453.59 1.64 13.61
1966 140.28 457.90 2.14 10.84
1967 136.13 480.76 1.49 9.07
1968 134.00 468.96 4.74 7 .47
1969 142.60 559.49 3.06 11.00
1970 158.04 677.27 2.71 14.81
1971 200.48 897.45 3.92 32.37
1972 221.87 1007.82 5.13 36.61
1973 186.03 912.82 3.96 28.62
1974 113.51 525.58 2.54 23.01
1975 127.89 567.07 2.81 22.54
1976 121.84 520.66 2.74 22.44
1977 121.75 531.72 3.14 25.20
1978 127.92 596.26 3.51 23.45
1979 117.00 515.36 3.56 26.20
1980 122.34 517.47 3.90 29.80

Fraud & Forgery

1964 285.79 43.45 .02 17 .49

1965 316.77 48.27 62.17 26.53
1966 277.65 54 .27 51.75 21 .(.8
1967 248.89 36.43 78.44 17 .07
1968 335.34 36.42 57 .23 13.76
1969 342.67 71.11 74 .08 22.38
1970 327.45 85.89 124.94 20.95
1971 360.78 60.53 84.61 21 .06
1972 415.83 72.79 113.86 45.02
1973 342.21 71.91 117.71 27.69
1974 119.58 48.08 29.06 13.99
1975 132.42 51.86 29.44 25.66
1976 129.24 57.80 31.73 24.7 7
1977 133.69 54.63 32.34 23.57
1978 134.58 55.07 40.13 25.44
1979 130.88 60.44 40.44 25.38
1980 145.14 80.00 49.53 29.80
 30

Table 10.7

ENGLAND & WALES

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 16 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Motor Vehicle Theft

1964 11.28 29.55 .10 .34

1965 12.29 29.85 .12 .39
1966 13.84 34.22 .16 .40
1967' 14.85 32.54 .21 .31
1968 14.45 34.10 .18 .26
1969 113.11 301.07 2.03 8.58
1970 121.74 333.68 2.33 9.66
1971 130.56 312.04 2.80 9.32
1972 128.98 332.13 2.84 9.29
1973 139.99 375.31 3.14 10.42
1974 149.47 363.55 3.65 10.86
1975 167.72 351.51 4.32 11.32
1976 169.62 355.74 4.40 11.58
1977 170.65 373.64 4.70 13.04
1978 179.01 406.81 5.07 15.47
1979 156.49 382.81 4.71 13.47

Larceny

1964 451.39 1374.09 108.86 283.29

1965 498.62 1415.34 118.88 305.51
1966 556.73 1367.60 119.75 301.37
1967 584.05 1404.07 132.09 286.60
1968 646.76 1449.27 142.55 284.56
1969 634.68 1249.61 187.47 269.93
1970 686.12 1229.35 201.63 284.00
1971 673.74 1010.01 183.64 226.87
1972 641.04 966.62 184.71 208.77
1973 719.64 917.08 196.64 201.76
1974 808.45 1109.76 234.29 255.22
1975 850.90 1038.35 263.19 257.29
1976 877.48 1055.36 281.83 257.44
1977 921.88 1150.97 296.13 279.45
1978 891.91 1137.23 290.67 288.92
1979 842.40 1052.21 268.19 253.09
 31

Table 10.7

UNITED STATES

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 17 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Motor Vehicle Theft

1960 74.15 566.07 2.47 22.71

1961 87.08 584.35 3.06 23.13
1962 85.43 608.02 3.07 27.72
1963 75.90 546.73 2.61 22.07
1964 86.55 632.94 3.49 29.50
1965 92.09 622.83 3.50 29.20
1966 90.40 618.08 3.40 28.69
1967 98.16 622.69 3.78 30.18
1968 104.67 630.44 4.73 35.53
1969 103.85 587.78 4.87 35.11
1970 114.22 562.16 5.34 33.03
1971 120.93 536.18 7.61 33.17
1972 107.98 497.61 5.69 32.75
1973 96.24 506.05 5.26 34.68
1974 104.84 522.72 6.24 38.83
1975 92.53 458.92 5.71 37.91
1976 74.57 377.34 4.75 33.63
1977 89.14 442.91 6.20 45.65
1978 84.64 430.31 6.1b 50.51
1979 95.69 442.24 7.32 52.36
1980 92.44 359.36 6.83 42.08

Larceny

1960 344.78 1639.69 77.54 279.82

1961 343.90 1578.63 87.33 297.43
1962 322.68 1654.47 91.43 327.b8
1963 304.91 1452.80 84.19 287.66
1964 324.44 1645.73 98.90 358.54
1965 320.54 1718.96 105.69 436.15
1966 303.61 1728.52 104.71 464.22
1967 299.88 1752.57 120.53 482.73
1968 337.16 1731.69 126.29 479.64
1969 373.74 1855.79 147.15 603.91
1970 446.16 1922.40 180.35 697.64
1971 479.60 2057.73 194.36 750.01
1972 462.11 1968.86 201.97 775.12
1973 436.65 1763.60 206.30 745.52
1974 583.17 2459.76 266.53 1017.03
1975 613.62 2344.57 293.91 988.41
1976 582.05 2116.87 277.74 866.99
1977 566.90 2104.07 273.86 862.96
1978 576.34 2188.44 280.28 899.83
1979 628.06 2261.67 279.00 869.00
1980 683.54 2140.46 278.40 785.00
 32

arrest rates for robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and fraud and forgery.
Likewise, adult women arrested for larceny produce a rate per 100,000 adult
women which is much higher than the rates for the remaining four property
offences put together. This is indicative of the fact that girls and adult
women seem to specialise in larceny which probably is the most trivial of all
the seven offences examined in this study. This has been the trend during the
entire study period. 29
Among males, the larceny arrest rates for adult men exhibit patterns and
trends similar to those exhibited by adult women. Although juvenile males
arrested for larceny also produce a higher rate than those arrested for any
other offence, they are also arrested for burglary at a high rate.
The high rate of larceny arrests for girls, and adult women can be des-
cribed in another way. Girls and adult women arrested for each of the five
offences examined other than larceny have constituted only a small portion
of arrest and their arrest rates have always been much lower than those of
boys and men. Larceny data, especially of the United States, present some
remarkable shifts in this relationship. The rate of girls arrested for larceny
has always been higher than the arrest rate of adult women. But what is
striking is the fact that since 1964 the larceny arrest rate for girls has also
been higher than those for adult males, 785 and 684 respectively in 1980.
The current suggestion that crimes by women are increasing rapidly can,
therefore, be explained by the increase in the arrest rate of juvenile girls.
That juveniles make up a higher proportion of arrests for property
offences cannot be disputed. The male juveniles' arrest rate for robbery,
burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny combined was 4,154 per 100,000
boys in 1980 in the United States; more than half (2,140) of that was for
larceny alone. This combined arrest rate was more than three times the
arrest rate for adult males. Similarly, girls were arrested for these property
offences at a rate of 946 per 100,000 girls, over three-fourths of which (785)
was for larceny alone. And again, juvenile girls were arrested for these
offences at a rate three times that of adult females.
The situation in the United Kingdom is somewhat different. Actually,
there appears a declining trend in the larceny arrest rates for boys and girls
and a reverse trend for adult males and females. Thus, the arrest rate for
boys was thrice that of men in 1964, and in 1979 this ratio dropped to
1.25:1. The adult male arrest rate almost doubled between 1964 and 1979
and the boys' arrest rate declined by about 25 per cent during the same
period. Similarly, the adult women's arrest rate for larceny doubled during
the study period, while the arrest rate of juvenile girls declined. Furthermore,
the girls' arrest rate was more than two and a half times that of adult women
in 1964, while currently girls are arrested less often than women.
This brings me to the last set of tables showing arrest rates for fraud and
forgery offences. The limitations of statistics on these offences have been
 33

noted by various researchers. This category of offences does not necessarily

contain a large majority of employee fraud as we are made to believe. A
large majority of these offences consist of cheque fraud, passing valueless
cheques, credit card fraud, false pretences, misappropriation, etcetera. As the
data in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 indicate, arrests for these offences are on the
increase both in England and Wales and in the United States. (The Australian
data, because of a series of changes in counting rules, do not offer a clear
picture of trend. However, the arrest rate for this offence category has been
shown in Table 6.1). In England and Wales, it appears that all the four age
and sex groups show similar increases, of approximately 200 per cent, in
their arrest rates between 1964 and 1979. In the United States, adult women
have shown the sharpest increases in arrest rates for fraud and forgery.
Whereas, in 1960 this arrest rate was only 31 per 100,000 adult women, in
1980 this rate increased by over 430 per cent to 166.7 per 100,000 adult
women. Compared to this, increases in the arrest rates for adult men were
minimal. Aside from larceny, fraud and forgery is the most frequent offence
for which adult women get arrested. Among juveniles, boys and girls, this is
not a frequent illegal activity.
Although the arrest rates of adult women for fraud and forgery have
been increasing, it is difficult to say who commits these offences: the house-
wife, unemployed women, women in particular occupations, etcetera. It is,
therefore, not particularly relevant to examine the relationship between
women in particular occupations and women arrested for fraud and forgery.
Nevertheless, an attempt in this regard will be made in the next chapter.

Peak arrest age and the burning-out process in crime

So far I have described arrest statistics in terms of a juvenile/adult
dichotomy. This description has been most useful in verifying the claims
made by various researchers. No matter how one looks at the data, it is
eminently clear that juvenile boys and girls, proportionate to their population,
are not overrepresented in arrests for violent offences, for example, homicide
and aggravated assault. In all three countries the overwhelming majority of
persons arrested for homicide and aggravated assault come from the adult
population. It is a remarkable finding because it explodes the myth created
by certain researchers and the media that youths commit disproportionately
large numbers of violent offences.
While useful in this regard, my description of youth crime is not partic-
ularly helpful in specifying such issues as age of onset of crime, peak age of
crime, growing out of crime, etcetera. A study based on annual statistics
cannot adequately address these issues. However brief explanations can be
offered from other works. Wolfgang found that the largest number of cohort
subjects established their first police contact when they were 16 years old. 3 0
 34

Table 10.7

ENGLAND & WALES

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 16 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Fraud & Forgery

1964 37.97 9.76 8.35 3.44

I9b5 38.12 15.92 '8.03 6.56
1966 40.91 17.34 8.60 6.96
1967 46.11 18.98 9.24 7.08
1968 27 .99 14.03 6.23 6.42
1969 73.36 20.35 13.58 6.24
197U 77.10 21.81 15.55 6.68
1971 79.97 22.17 14.94 7.87
1972 87 .09 21.49 19.05 8.81
1973 77.36 21.02 16.60 8.65
1974 84.25 24.95 19.34 10.10
1975 93.60 26.33 21.29 9.64
1976 100.69 27.26 24.08 10.18
1977 98.79 27.36 24.14 8.24
1978 93.32 28.75 23.43 9.29
1979 98.12 27.50 24.52 10.91

As will be shown shortly, the importance of this age in criminal activity

needs to be considered seriously. As regards peak age of crime, Greenwood
observed that the peak arrest age varies according to offence; it is highest for
the most serious offence of homicide and lowest for vandalism.31 On the
issue of growing out of crime, some earlier studies indicate that very few
individuals initiate criminal activity after the age of 30. 32
The age of onset of delinquency and crime is an important guide post for
police options and one can examine this with the help of data on peak arrest
age of alleged offenders. As I have shown in the previous section, in high
frequency serious crimes such as burglary, motor vehicle theft and larceny
where approximately half of the perpetrators are juveniles, it would be
interesting to find out at what age peak involvement in these crimes is reached
and when this involvement begins to recede. Data in Table 8 enable us to
examine this issue for the United States for 1980 only. It is abundantly clear
 35

Table 10.7

UNITED STATES

ARREST RATES FOR ADULTS AND JUVENILES PER 100,000

ADULT POPULATION AND PER 100,000 POPULATION
AGED 10 TO 17 RESPECTIVELY BY SEX

Male Female
Year Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Fraud & Forgery

I960 179.73 35.90 31.45 9.70

1961 171.40 28.24 32.38 9.50
1962 165.87 30.84 33.58 9.28
1963 170.51 33.86 35.03 7.11
1964 168.25 37.72 36.20 9.04
1965 164.12 41.33 36.27 14.55
1966 155.28 40.36 38.69 10.23
1967 153.23 47.47 41.29 11.44
1968 152.15 48.11 43.09 12.38
1969 161.48 50.86 40.63 15.16
1970 181.14 49.79 58.87 17.62
1971 203.89 50.08 70.19 17.85
1972 202.61 50.77 73.98 17.31
1973 171.50 48.79 66.27 18.00
1974 186.27 73.97 76.40 26.51
1975 220.33 67.71 99.65 27.73
1976 229.96 60.48 114.72 26.29
1977 241.18 98.62 118.98 52.07
1978 261.67 78.58 148.71 35.17
1979 262.76 97.12 150.54 38.54
1980 278.80 85.97 166.70 37.20

that although peak arrest age varies, this variation is determined only in
relation to the main element of an offence. That is t o say that peak ages of
arrest for violent offences are different from those for property offences.
For pure property offences, namely, burglary, automobile theft and larceny,
the peak arrest age is the same, for example, 16 years. What is striking is the
fact that from age 17 upward the arrest rate for these property offences
decline systematically and without a single incidence of irregularity. Thus
the highest arrest rate of 1,267.4 per 100,000 relevant population for burg-
lary, which relates t o age 16, declined uniformly to only 361.4 at age 24.
Similar trends are obtained for larceny and motor vehicle theft. Robbery,
which undoubtedly has property as the primary motive, also presents a
 36

Table 8

ARREST RATE PER 100,000 POPULATION BY AGE

AND TYPE OF OFFENCE, UNITED STATES 1980

Aggravated Auto
Age Homicide Assault Robbery Burglary Larceny Theft

15 7.0 181.2 225.5 1135.6 1997.5 369.3

16 12.9 245.9 286.6 1267.4 2259.4 411.3

17 19.6 294.4 312.3 1242.4 2244.9 359.6

18 22.6 308.5 294.5 1046.0 1921.2 261.2

19 25_._2 325.2 267 .5 835.6 1607.4 211.4

20 23.0 316.5 224.1 647 .8 1311.5 166.8

21 24.5 33_S^_3 210.1 551.5 1142.0 143.8

22 23.4 323.6 180.9 472.8 1038.2 126.1

23 24.6 324.4 174.1 432.3 975.2 116.0

24 24.3 303.4 153.1 361 .4 870.2 94.3

similar trend with the only variation being that the peak age of arrest is 17.
The two pure violent offences not only present different patterns they also
indicate that there exists not one peak age of arrest but rather similar arrest
rates for young adults between the ages of 18 and 24. For homicide the
highest arrest rate of 25.2 per 100,000 relevant population is obtained at
age 19 but the arrest rate of each subsequent age is only marginally low;
there is no uniform decline in rate however. In the case of aggravated assault,
the peak arrest rate is obtained at age 21 and there was no steady increase in
rate before this age nor was there steady decline in rate after age 21. It is
clear, therefore, that whereas adults of 18 to 24 age group dominate violent
offences, juveniles of 15 to 17 prevail in arrests for property offences.
The figures presented in Table 8 must not however be considered as
indicators of true offence rates for each age, especially juveniles. All the
offences examined in this study incorporate a wide range of behaviours and
it is highly likely that juveniles are arrested for behaviours that are less
serious than adults. Also, as stated earlier, juveniles tend to operate in groups,
at least in property offences and as such several juveniles may be arrested to
clear only one offence. It is difficult with the help of annual statistics to
prove the point that juvenile illegal behaviour tends to fall at the less serious
 37

end of the seriousness scale. Thus, although I maintain that among those
arrested for burglary the 15-year olds probably committed the least serious
offence in terms of property loss or damage, I cannot prove this. This is
precisely the issue that I want to address in the second part of this study.
I may, however, point out that where it concerns an extremely serious
offence, for example, homicide, the number of juvenile arrests is relatively
small. The arrest rates for aggravated assault are relatively high but I must
point out that this offence category involves behaviour which may range
between inflicting an injury resulting in a black eye to one which permanently
handicaps a person, and juveniles may be arrested for inflicting minor
injuries.
The high arrest rates of persons under the age of 18 in property offences
may not overestimate the delinquency of juveniles but it most certainly
overestimates the risks of being a victim of juvenile property crime. In other
words, because juveniles tend to commit serious property offences in groups,
the official arrest rates for juveniles need not necessarily be an exaggeration.
But because several juveniles may be arrested for one offence, and this fact
is never disclosed in official statistics, members of the community are likely
to feel threatened by the misinformed notion of increasing youth crime.
Let me approach the subject of peak arrest age and the decline of arrest
age. When talking of reforming criminal offenders, there is an expression
often used by workers in the criminal justice services to describe the phenom-
enon of criminals growing out of their crime. This process is often called the
'burning-out' process. Across the spectrum of rehabilitative and reformative
measures, there is none more effective in reducing crime than simply growing
up. In fact if maturity be something independent of age, it may have an
effect in restoring offenders to good citizenship which is quite disproportion-
ate to the aging process. The follow up of Wolfgang's cohort study indicates
that not many of the cohort subjects continued on the delinquency path
much beyond their eighteenth birthday.
The significance of this 'burning-out' process is quite clear from Figure 2.
The consistent and regular decline in arrest rates for robbery, burglary,
motor vehicle theft, and larceny shown in Table 8 appears dramatic when
presented graphically. Statistics on arrests do not provide figures for individ-
ual years after age 24. The trends in arrest for the four pure property or
property dominated offences shown in Figure 2 suggest the continuing sharp
declines beyond age 24. Arrests for violent offences are quite different. A t
least up to age 24, shown in the Figure, there is no convincing sign of decline.
Violence, therefore, is an adult preoccupation: to be categorical, it is an
adult male problem. All that is made of increasing you in violence, therefore,
is an exaggeration beyond proportions. That violence is an adult pastime is
receiving strong support from recent literature on domestic violence. The
frequency of violence within the family, including wife bashing and physical
 38

FIGURE 2

Arrest rate per 100,000 population by age and type of offence. United States 1980
 39

and sexual assault on children, most of which do not ever come to the
attention of official agencies, is claimed to be several times higher than the
violent offences reported to the police. Violence in the family is almost
exclusively perpetrated by adults.
 Section III - AGE A N D CRIME IN A U S T R A L I A N JURISDICTIONS

Comparison of how one stands vis-a-vis others is almost instinctive in

human beings. This is as true for children in schools as for adults in every
walk of life. Therefore, a comparison of how a country stands against another
in social, economic, political, technological, and other spheres, is merely an
extension of the wishes of its people. In a federal setting like Australia there
is also an increasing interest on the part of authorities in various political
units to compare their successes and shortfalls with each other. This study
deals with only one aspect of our society, that is, involvement of individuals
in selected illegal activity. In the preceding section I have attempted to
compare Australia with the United Kingdom and the United States. In this
section my aim is to present statistics on the persons arrested for selected
crimes in the eight Australian jurisdictions. This will be done with the help
of two sets of tables: (1) showing the number and percentage of persons
involved in crimes cleared by age (adult/juvenile), sex and type of offence;
and (2) rates of persons involved in crimes cleared per 100,000 relevant
population. The second set of tables will relate only to offences in which the
number of individuals involved is large enough for meaningful interpretation.
Before looking at the tables, let me mention that statistics presented in
this section do not add up to the Australian totals analysed in the preceding
section. Data in the earlier section were collected from the annual reports of
the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Australia wide statistics produced by
the Bureau are based on submissions from the police departments of each
jurisdiction on the basis of rules set by the Bureau. Statistics in the present
section have been collected directly from the police departments and in most
cases these statistics are not available in published form. In describing the
data, however, I shall rely on the analysis in the preceding section and
highlight similarities or differences in trends.

Proportion arrested
Tables 9.1 to 9.8 present frequency of persons involved in crimes cleared
in the eight Australian jurisdictions of New South Wales, Victoria, Queens-
land, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, and
the Australian Capital Territory, respectively.
Looking first at the data for violent offences, for example, homicide and
serious assault, it is quite apparent that juveniles are not involved in numbers
disproportionate to their population nor is their number escalating at an
unprecedented rate. In this regard the patterns exhibited in various Australian
jurisdictions follow closely those observed in the national data. Interpreting
the data any further would involve repeating what has already been said
earlier. Actually, the number of persons, especially juveniles and females,
 41

arrested for these two violent offences is such that only in the three largest
jurisdictions (New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland) can the data be
adequately examined. Before I describe trends in property offences, I must
note two minor points:
(i) disregarding their number, girls account for a higher proportion
of female arrests than their share in the population. This again is
what was observed in relation to national data; and

(ii) in only one jurisdiction, that is, South Australia, the proportion
of juveniles arrested was high but here too between 1972 and
1980 this proportion has reduced by half.

As we move from pure violent to the mixed offence of robbery one sees
immediately the changes in patterns of juvenile participation. Although the
number of persons arrested for robbery in all the eight jurisdictions is lower
than those arrested for serious assault, juvenile representation in arrests for
robbery is relatively high. In three states, Victoria, South Australia, and
Western Australia, boys and girls are present in arrest data in a slightly higher
proportion than in the general population. In the pure property offences,
except fraud and forgery, juvenile representation increases sharply. By and
large, they constitute from a low of about 40 per cent to a high of over 80
per cent of all arrests for property offences. However, some differences are
observed when arrest data are examined separately for each property offence.
Proportionately, boys and girls are arrested more often for burglary than for
motor vehicle theft or larceny. This is in spite of the fact that larceny is by
far the most frequent serious offence for which individuals are arrested.
What is more interesting is that this proportionate distribution is obtained
over time and across all the eight jurisdictions. There is no doubt that this is
characteristic of youth of today and I shall attempt to present my explan-
ation in Section IV of this monograph.
Next to arrests for burglary, juveniles constitute a higher proportion of
arrests for motor vehicle theft than for larceny. In fraud and forgery, as
observed in the previous section, boys and girls are underrepresented. This
would suggest that children do not indulge in trickery, deceit and the like.
But there are also limitations which an underage person encounters. By
virtue of the fact that he/she is a minor, a juvenile is not permitted to sign
legal contracts, not many can obtain credit cards, not many have bank
accounts, not many acquire driving licences, and so on.
The above description must be accepted with caution mainly because
examination of proportions does not provide any clues as to the extent of
juvenile participation in crimes. These proportions may remain stable over a
number of years, yet the number of arrests may indeed have increased or
decreased substantially. In Tables 9.1 to 9.8 actual number of arrests has
 42

Table 9.8

PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED BY SEX AND OFFENCE

POLICE DATA,AUSTRALIANCAPITALTERRITORY

Persons Males Females

Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
Year Total N X Total N X Total N X

Homicide

1974 125 18 14.4 114 7 6.1 11 - -

1975 173 14 8.1 146 14 9.6 27 - -

1976 128 4 3.1 115 3 2.6 13 1 7.7

1977 153 8 5.2 126 8 6.3 27 - -

1978 149 2 1.3 128 2 1.6 21 - -

1979 159 9 5.7 133 7 5.3 26 2 7.7

1980 184 11 6.0 164 10 6.1 20 1 5.0
1981 164 11 6.7 137 10 7.3 27 1 3.7

Serious Assault

1974 631 52 8.2 573 50 8.7 58 2 3.5

1975 701 51 7.3 650 49 7.5 51 2 3.9
1976 637 46 7.2 593 43 7.3 44 3 6.8
1977 741 48 6.5 698 42 6.0 43 6 13.9
1978 850 58 6.8 782 54 6.9 68 4 5.9
1979 889 72 8.1 824 64 7.8 65 8 12.3
1980 1094 87 7.9 1017 73 7.2 77 14 18.2
1981 1150 109 9.5 1069 65 6.1 81 5 6.2

Robbery

1974 574 98 17.1 541 85 15.7 33 13 39.4

1975 481 61 12.7 447 50 11.2 34 11 32.3
1976 406 74 18.2 381 68 17.8 25 6 24.0
1977 442 60 13.6 404 48 11.9 38 12 31.6
1978 558 60 10.9 505 56 11.1 46 4 8.7
1979 541 66 12.2 491 54 11.0 50 12 24.0
1980 665 101 15.2 610 91 14.9 55 10 18.2
1981 651 82 12.6 610 71 11.6 41 11 26.8
 43

Persons Males Females

Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
Year Total N X Total N X Total N X

Burglary

1974 5003 2468 49.3 4778 2339 48.9 225 129 57.3
1975 4759 2555 53.7 4568 2430 53.2 191 125 65.4
1976 4798 2554 53.2 4629 2462 53.2 169 92 54.4
1977 4468 2344 52.5 4232 2220 52.5 236 124 52.5
1978 4505 2178 48.3 4292 2063 48.1 213 115 53.9
1979 4797 2308 48.1 4538 2173 47.9 259 135 52.1
1980 4920 2438 49.6 4671 2308 49.4 249 130 52.2
1981 5778 2849 49.3 5401 2690 49.8 377 159 42.2

Motor Vehicle Theft

1974 3435 1598 46.5 3331 1530 45.9 104 68 65.4

1975 3324 1417 42.6 3217 1343 41.7 107 74 69.2
1976 3460 1515 43.8 3357 1453 43.3 103 62 60.2
1977 3351 1469 43.8 3239 1415 43.7 112 54 48.2
1978 3476 1403 40.4 3352 1354 40.4 124 49 39.5
1979 3335 1373 41.2 3207 1323 41.2 128 50 39.1
1980 3862 1713 44.4 3657 1604 43.9 205 109 53.2
1981 4271 1938 45.4 4027 1799 44.7 244 139 57.0

Fraud

1974 2491 127 5.1 2092 98 4.7 399 29 7.3

1975 2596 166 6.4 1109 124 11.2 487 42 8.6
1976 2696 175 6.5 2182 128 5.9 514 47 9.1
1977 2796 156 5.6 2172 94 4.3 624 62 9.9
1978 2825 155 5.5 2142 109 5.1 683 46 6.7
1979 2938 165 5.6 2215 116 5.2 723 49 6.8
1980 3373 206 6.1 2488 135 5.4 885 71 8.0
1981 3341 116 3.5 2491 136 5.5 850 80 9.4

Note: A juvenile is a person under 17 years of age.

 44

Table 9.4

PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST BY SEX AND OFFENCE

POLICE DATA,SOUTHAUSTRALIA

Persons Males Females

Year Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
Total N X Total N I Total N X

Homicide
1972 141 8 5.7 131 8 6.1 10 _ _
1973 101 - - 90 - -
11 - _
1974 99 6 6.1 88 6 6.8 11 _ -

1975 74 2 2.7 67 2 3.0 7 - -

1976 86 4 4.6 69 3 4.4 17 1 5.9

1977 76 5 6.6 61 5 8.2 15 - -

1978 86 2 2.3 74 2 - -
2.7 12
1979 124 9 7.3 103 9 8.7 21 - _
1980 113 ~ - 101 - - 12 - -

Serious Assault

1972 2849 299 10.5 2741 281 10.2 108 18 16.7

1973 904 118 13.0 866 107 12.4 38 11 29.0
1974 730 80 11.0 698 78 11.2 32 2 6.2
1975 893 89 10.0 852 85 10.0 41 4 9.8
1976 930 91 9.8 879 84 9.6 51 7 13.7
1977 860 87 10.1 803 76 9.5 57 11 19.3
1978 1048 107 10.2 981 92 9.4 67 15 22.4
1979 1146 149 13.0 1073 129 12.0 73 20 27.4
1980 1062 153 14.4 985 128 13.0 77 25 32.5

Robbery

1972 274 45 16.4 260 45 17.3 14 - _

1973 289 70 24.2 274 67 24.4 15 3 20.0
1974 258 74 28.7 241 70 29.0 17 4 23.5
1975 274 64 23.4 255 60 23.5 19 4 21.0
1976 296 62 21.0 268 58 21.6 28 4 14.3
1977 259 54 20.8 242 53 21.9 17 1 5.9
1978 275 53 19.3 256 50 19.5 19 3 15.8
1979 269 51 19.0 256 51 19.9 13 -

1980 362 84 23.2 326 73 22.4 36 11 30.6

Burglary
1972 4477 2703 60.4 4315 2583 59.9 162 120 74.1
1973 3872 2453 63.4 3711 2340 63.1 161 113 70.2
1974 4020 2665 66.3 3802 2502 65.8 218 163 74.8
1975 3967 2550 64.3 3757 2403 64.0 210 147 70.0
1976 4264 2757 64.7 4040 2602 64.4 224 155 69.2
1977 3782 2204 58.3 3583 2095 58.5 199 109 54.8
1978 4579 2767 60.4 4346 2635 60.6 233 132 56.6
1979 4821 2769 57.4 4552 2626 57.7 269 143 53.2
1980 5498 3075 55.9 5149 2877 55.9 349 198 56.7
 45

Persons Males Females

Year Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
Total N X Total N % Total N X

Theft

1972 10630 3824 36 .0 7104 2726 38 .4 3526 1098 31 .1

1973 10477 3942 37 .6 7014 2908 41 .5 3463 1034 29 .9
1974 10703 4438 41 .5 6911 3184 46 .1 3792 1254 33 .1
1975 11187 4522 40 .4 6715 3027 45 .1 4472 1495 33 .4
1976 11974 5162 43 .1 7306 3579 49 .0 4668 1583 33 .9
1977 11201 4313 38 .5 6910 3162 45 .8 4291 1151 26 .8
1978 13232 5402 40 .8 8316 3745 45 .0 4916 1657 33 .7
1979 14610 5882 40 .3 8921 4059 45 .5 5689 1823 32 .0
1980 14721 5605 38 .1 10286 3842 37 .4 4435 1763 39 .8

Fraud

1972 895 69 7,.7 735 51 6.9 160 18 11.2

1973 714 65 9,.1 569 52 9.1 145 13 9.0
1974 1816 277 15,.2 1460 193 13.2 356 84 23.6
1975 1678 235 14,.0 1347 165 12.8 331 70 21.2
1976 1859 243 13..1 1488 189 12.7 371 54 14.6
1977 1832 195 10.,6 1393 149 10.7 439 46 10.5
1978 1961 211 10,.8 1481 144 9.7 480 67 14.0
1979 2167 224 10,.3 1636 165 10.1 531 59 11.1
1980 2105 249 11,.8 1548 176 11.4 557 73 13.1

Motor Vehicle Theft

1972 2871 1348 47.0 2801 1313 46.9 70 35 50.0

1973 2254 1119 49.6 2207 1097 49.7 47 22 46.8
1974 2198 1029 46.8 2145 998 46.5 53 31 58.5
1975 2282 1053 46.1 2227 1025 46.0 55 28 50.9
1976 2529 1161 45.9 2483 1139 45.9 46 22 47.8
1977 2576 1221 47.4 2524 1194 47.3 52 27 51.9
1978 2808 1374 48.9 2745 1345 49.0 63 29 46.0
1979 2549 1167 45.8 2477 1124 45.4 72 43 59.7
1980 2972 1382 46.5 2858 1322 46.3 114 60 52.6

Note: A juvenile is a person under 17 years of age.

 46

Table 9.8

PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED BY SEX AND OFFENCE

POLICE DATA,AUSTRALIANCAPITALTERRITORY

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N Z Total N Z Total N Z

Homicide

1972 41 _ - 36 - -
5 - -

1973 56 1 1.8 53 1 1.9 3 - -

1974 88 3 3.4 78 3 3.9 10 - -

1975 79 2 2.5 71 2 2.8 8 - -

1976 57 2 3.5 49 2 4.1 8 - -

1977 79 1 1.3 67 - - 12 1 8.3

1978 67 - - 55 - - 12 - -

1979 90 4 4.4 76 4 5.3 14 - -

1980 66 7 10.6 53 6 11.3 13 1 7.7

1981 75 3 4.0 65 3 4.6 10

Serious Assault

11 7.2 9 - -
1972 162 11 6.8 153
1973 189 6 3.2 175 5 2.9 14 1 7.1
4.0 246 10 4.1 5 - -
1974 251 10
1975 224 23 10.3 213 21 9.9 11 2 18.2
1976 421 27 6.4 409 25 6.1 12 2 16.7
1977 418 30 7.2 393 28 7.1 25 2 8.0
1978 622 37 5.9 601 34 5.7 21 3 14.3
1979 792 47 5.9 749 42 5.6 43 5 11.6
1980 973 79 8.1 902 72 8.0 71 7 9.9
1981 1103 79 7.2 1032 66 6.4 71 13 18.2

Robbery

1972 116 12 10.3 109 12 11.0 7 - -

1973 114 9 7.9 110 9 8.2 4 - -

1974 123 11 8.9 115 10 8.7 8 1 12.5

1975 145 23 15.9 137 23 16.8 8 - -

1976 153 18 11.8 146 14 9.6 7 4 57.1

1977 162 28 17.3 144 23 16.0 18 5 27.8
1978 132 17 12.9 121 14 11.6 11 3 27.3
1979 136 22 16.2 126 16 12.7 10 6 60.0
1980 132 22 16.7 123 20 16.3 9 2 22.2
1981 140 23 16.4 128 14 10.9 12 9 75.0

Burglary

1972 2577 938 36.4 2519 898 35.7 58 40 69.0

1973 2698 1116 41.4 2602 1054 40.5 96 62 64.6
1974 2591 1270 49.0 2517 1240 49.3 74 30 40.5
1975 2814 1399 49.7 2727 1348 49.4 87 51 58.6
1976 2820 1633 57.9 2762 1588 57.5 58 45 77.6
1977 3017 1516 50.2 2920 1452 49.7 97 64 66.0
1978 3352 1787 53.4 3201 1700 53.1 151 87 57.6
1979 3479 1925 55.3 3301 1814 55.0 178 111 62.4
1980 3401 2049 60.2 3191 1909 59.8 210 140 66.7
1981 3942 2482 63.0 3695 2273 61.5 247 209 84.6
 47

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N % Total N X Total N X

Theft

1972 5631 911 16.2 NA 775 - NA 136 -

1973 5852 1210 20.7 NA 993 - NA 217 -

1974 5853 1181 20.2 NA 944 - NA 237 -

1975 6241 1814 29.1 NA 1449 - NA 365 -

1976 6474 1620 25.0 4959 1311 26.4 1515 311 20.4
1977 7044 2276 32.3 5679 1630 28.7 1365 646 47.3
1978 9022 3700 41.0 6715 2476 36.9 2307 1224 53.1
1979 10187 4175 41.0 7543 2958 39.2 2644 1217 46.0
1980 10945 4963 45.3 7631 3313 43.4 3314 1650 49.8
1981 11493 5254 45.7 7683 3409 44.4 3810 1845 48.4

Fraud

1972 1152 33 2.9 NA 23 - NA 10 -

1973 1048 24 2.3 NA 18 - NA 6 -

1974 972 27 2.8 761 22 2.9 211 5 2.4

1975 1316 77 5.8 1130 60 5.3 186 17 9.1
1976 1271 59 4.6 1101 47 4.3 170 12 7.1
1977 1249 58 4.6 1088 37 4.0 161 21 9.3
1978 1489 101 6.8 1202 74 6.2 287 27 9.4
1979 1415 111 7.8 1115 80 7.2 300 31 10.3
1980 1391 173 12.4 1061 141 13.3 330 32 9.7
1981 1490 178 11.9 1027 127 12.4 463 51 11.0

Motor Vehicle Theft

1972 1412 432 30.6 1343 404 30.1 69 28 40.6

1973 1655 588 35.5 1622 573 35.3 33 15 45.5
1974 1592 732 46.0 1556 713 45.8 36 19 52.8
1975 1905 773 40.6 1855 757 40.8 50 16 32.0
1976 1610 603 37.5 1568 591 37.7 42 12 28.6
1977 1747 638 36.5 1704 620 36.4 43 18 41.9
1978 1912 738 38.6 1848 699 37.8 64 39 60.9
1979 1712 644 37.6 1649 611 37.1 63 33 52.4
1980 1545 587 38.0 1462 535 36.6 83 52 62.7
1981 1562 540 34.6 1492 512 34.3 70 28 40.0

Note: A juvenile is a person under 17 years of age.

 48

Table 9.4

PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST BY SEX AND OFFENCE

POLICE DATA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N X Total N X Total N X

Homicide

5.6 - - -
1972 18 1 5.6 18 1
1973 21 1 4.8 18 1 5.6 3 - -

1974 27 1 3.7 25 1 4.0 2 - -

1975 24 2 8.3 20 2 10.0 4 - -

1976 29 2 6.9 23 1 4.3 6 1 16.6

1977 24 1 4.2 22 1 4.5 2 - -

1978 25 2 8.0 23 2 8.7 2 - -

1979 22 - - 20 - - 2 - -

1980 37 - - 30 7

Serious Assault

1972 66 21 31.8 64 21 32.8 2 - -

1973 80 20 25.0 74 18 24.3 6 2 33.3

1974 96 22 22.9 74 21 28.4 22 1 4.5
1975 114 25 21.9 106 25 23.6 8 - -

1976 129 40 31.0 125 37 29.6 4 3 75.0

1977 110 30 27.3 102 26 25.5 8 4 50.0
1978 135 21 15.6 125 20 16.0 10 1 10.0
1979 196 34 17.4 190 33 17.4 6 1 16.6
1980 280 46 16.4 250 42 16.8 30 4 13.3

Robbery

1972 88 22 25.0 82 21 25.6 6 1 16.6

1973 85 27 31.8 78 22 28.2 7 5 71.4
1974 94 30 31.9 82 23 28.0 12 7 28.0
1975 128 40 31.2 115 28 24.3 13 12 92.3
1976 132 57 43.2 122 48 39.3 10 9 90.0
1977 86 25 29.1 75 19 25.3 11 6 54.5
1978 93 31 33.3 92 30 32.6 1 1 100.0
1979 126 29 23.0 113 24 21.2 13 5 38.5
1980 135 36 26.7 126 34 27.0 9 2 22.2
 49

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N % Total N 7. Total N X

Burglary

1972 1715 1189 69.3 1673 1162 69.5 42 27 64.3

1973 1625 1146 70.5 1531 1072 70.0 94 74 78.7
1974 1516 1104 72.8 1472 1069 72.6 44 35 79.5
1975 1691 1244 73.6 1630 1196 73.4 61 48 78.7
1976 1522 1041 68.4 1471 1007 68.5 51 34 66.7
1977 1763 1144 64.9 1685 1085 64.4 78 59 75.6
1978 1803 1292 71.7 1720 1226 71.3 83 66 79.5
1979 2539 1804 71.0 2377 1669 70.2 '.62 135 83.3
1980 2271 1422 62.6 2137 1329 62.2 134 93 69.4

Theft

1972 4225 2170 51.4 3339 1787 53.5 886 383 43.2
1973 4381 2278 52.0 2981 lb39 55.0 1400 639 45.6
1974 4367 2183 50.0 2983 1562 52.4 1384 621 44.9
1975 6072 3140 51.7 3599 1988 55.2 2473 1152 46.6
1976 4930 2702 54.8 3099 1693 54.6 1831 1009 55.1
1977 5873 3473 59.1 3679 2165 58.8 2194 1308 59.6
1978 5949 3159 53.1 4052 2246 55.4 1897 913 48.1
1979 7011 3686 52.6 4792 2616 54.6 2219 1070 48.2
1980 7552 3612 47.8 4693 2377 50.6 2859 1235 43.2

Fraud

1972 612 107 17.5 495 77 15.6 117 30 25.6

1973 580 95 16.4 461 65 14.1 119 30 25.2
1974 541 111 20.5 426 68 16.0 115 43 37.4
1975 522 130 24.9 390 84 21.5 132 46 34.8
1976 416 89 21.4 320 65 20.3 96 24 25.0
1977 474 121 25.5 364 77 21.2 110 44 40.0
1978 514 112 21.8 404 87 21.5 110 25 22.7
1979 671 185 27.6 504 143 28.4 167 42 25.1
1980 992 227 22.9 679 150 22.1 313 77 24.6
 50

Table 9.8

PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED BY SEX AND OFFENCE

POLICE DATA,AUSTRALIANC A P I T A LTERRITORY

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N X Total N X Total N X

Homicide

1971 16 1 6.2 14 1 7.1 2 _ _

1972 35 1 2.9 30 - - 5 1 20.0
1973 29 1 3.4 25 - - 4 1 25.0
1974 30 1 3.3 27 1 3.7 3 - -

1975 61 3 4.9 56 3 5.4 5 - -

1976 50 - - 47 - - 3 - -

1977 52 1 1.9 49 1 2.0 3 - -

1978 30 - - 26 - - 4 - -

1979 38 3 7.9 36 2 5.6 2 1 50.0

1980 31 - - 29 - - 2 - -

1981 33 3 9.1 30 2 6.7 3 1 33.3

Serious Assault

1971 79 6 7.6 75 6 8.0 4 _

1972 103 7 6.8 91 7 7.7 12 - -

1973 97 3 3.1 85 2 2.4 12 1 8.3

1974 151 5 3.3 140 5 3.6 11 - -

1975 200 21 10.5 193 21 10.9 7 - -

1976 276 21 7.6 242 16 6.6 34 5 14.7

1977 305 20 6.6 279 20 7.2 26 - -

1978 318 25 7.9 296 23 7.8 22 2 9.1

1979 262 22 8.4 243 21 8.6 19 1 5.3
1980 395 15 3.8 360 10 2.8 35 5 14.3
1981 392 29 7.4 364 28 7.7 28 1 2.8

Robbery

1971 64 9 14.1 62 7 11.3 2 2 100.0

1972 77 6 7.8 75 6 8.0 2 - -

1973 . 69 26 37.7 61 21 34.4 8 5 62.5

1974 69 6 8.7 69 6 8.7 - - -

1975 72 16 22.2 62 13 21.0 10 3 30.0

1976 87 17 19.5 81 15 18.5 6 2 33.3
1977 84 18 21.4 75 15 20.0 9 3 33.3
1978 100 19 19.0 86 16 18.6 14 3 21.4
1979 91 16 17.6 86 15 17.4 5 1 20.0
1980 98 9 9.2 82 8 9.8 16 1 6.3
1981 91 17 18.7 85 15 17.6 6 2 33.3
 51

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N X Total N X Total N X

Burglary

1971 3589 2267 63.2 3422 2117 61.9 167 150 89.8
1972 3695 2045 55.4 3550 1930 54.4 145 115 79.3
1973 3995 2320 58.1 3832 2205 57.5 163 115 70.6
1974 2253 1238 55.0 2158 1164 53.9 95 74 77.9
1975 2869 1670 58.2 2670 1518 56.9 199 152 76.4
1976 3100 1930 62.3 2907 1779 61.2 193 151 78.2
1977 3093 1347 59.7 2951 1748 59.2 142 99 69.7
1978 3492 2099 60.1 3262 1921 58.9 230 178 77.4
1979 3009 1622 53.9 2842 1492 52.5 167 130 77.9
1980 3529 2090 59.2 3330 1945 58.4 199 145 72.9
1981 3495 2144 61.3 3237 1940 59.9 258 204 79.1

Motor Vehicle Theft

1971 2054 1291 62.8 1935 1202 62.1 119 89 74.8

1972 2336 1289 55.2 2192 1188 54.2 144 101 70.1
1973 2381 1226 51.5 2270 1154 50.8 111 72 64.7
1974 1341 717 53.5 1283 679 52.9 58 38 65.5
1975 1241 596 48.0 1195 568 47.5 46 28 60.9
1976 1480 722 48.8 1411 685 48.5 69 37 53.6
1977 1478 742 50.2 1392 688 49.4 86 54 62.8
1978 1588 782 49.2 1518 740 48.7 70 42 60.0
1979 1198 615 51.3 1141 573 50.2 57 42 73.7
1980 1340 667 49.8 1282 621 48.4 58 4b 79.3
1981 1174 623 53.1 1100 549 49.9 74 56 75.7

Fraud

1971 1735 89 5.1 1594 59 3.7 141 30 21.3

1972 1635 37 2.3 1428 20 1.4 207 17 8.2
1973 1653 39 2.4 1499 33 2.2 154 6 3.9
1974 519 28 5.4 453 25 5.5 66 3 4.5
1975 552 49 8.9 484 27 5.6 68 22 32.4
1976 540 31 5.7 448 27 6.0 92 4 4.3
1977 541 23 4.2 466 16 3.4 75 7 9.3
1978 568 44 7.8 463 30 6.5 105 14 14.7
1979 676 62 9.2 531 45 8.5 145 17 11.7
1980 782 73 9.3 607 51 8.4 175 22 12.6
1981 855 84 9.8 638 59 9.2 217 25 11.5

Note: A juvenile is a person under 17 years of age.

 52

Table 9.6

PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST BY SEX AND OFFENCE

POLICE DATA, TASMANIA

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total Total H Z~ Total N Z

Homicide

1972 26 - - 22 - - 4 - -

1973 19 - - 17 - - 2 - -

1974 8 - - 8 - - - - -

1975 14 3 21.4 10 - - 4 2 50.0

1976 12 - - 11 - - 1 - -

1977 14 1 7.1 12 1 9.3 2 - -

1978 11 1 9.1 11 1 9.1 - - -

1979 14 1 7.1 11 - - 3 1 33.3

1980 10 1 10.0 9 1 11.1 1 - —

Serious Assault

1972 12 _ - 9 - - 3 _ _
1973 14 2 14.3 12 2 16.7 2 - -

1974 34 - - 32 - - 2 - -

1975 20 1 5.0 20 1 5.0 - - -

1976 36 2 5.6 35 2 5.7 1 - -

1977 14 - - 14 - - - - -

1978 21 2 9.5 18 2 11.1 3 - -

1979 23 2 8.7 23 2 8.7 - - -

1980 31 3 9.7 31 3 9.7 - - -

Robbery

1972 30 4 13.3 30 4 13.3 _ _ _

1973 28 4 14.3 28 4 14.3 - - -

1974 27 - - 27 - - - - -

1975 38 3 7.9 36 3 8.3 2 - -

1976 12 3 25.0 12 3 25.0 - - -

1977 21 1 4.8 19 1 5.3 2 - -

1978 16 3 18.8 14 3 21.4 2 - -

1979 20 3 15.0 19 3 15.8 1 - -

1980 23 3 13.0 23 3 13.4 - -

Burglary

1972 1653 936 56.6 1594 916 57.5 59 2') 33.9

1973 1324 752 56.8 1283 726 56.6 41 26 63.4
1974 1012 - - 978 - - 34 - -

1975 875 448 51.2 834 424 50.8 41 24 58.5

1976 728 365 50.1 683 329 48.1 45 36 80.0
1977 675 351 52.0 646 352 51.3 29 19 65.5
1978 749 422 56.3 728 406 55.8 21 16 76.2
1979 896 436 48.7 852 403 47.3 44 33 75.0
1980 876 435 49.7 838 418 49.9 38 17 44.7
 53

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N X Total N X Total N X

Theft

1972 3634 1627 44.8 3156 1483 47.0 478 144 30.1
1973 3458 1661 48.0 2880 1366 47.4 578 295 51.0
1974 1279 - - 978 - - 301 - -

1975 1140 396 34.7 867 298 34.4 273 98 35.9

1976 1142 384 33.6 782 267 34.1 360 117 32.5
1977 1073 335 31.2 773 245 31.7 300 90 30.0
1978 1020 375 36.8 743 270 36.3 277 105 37.9
1979 1161 350 30.2 787 246 31.3 374 104 27.8
1980 1493 418 28.9 860 236 27.4 633 182 28.8

Fraud

1972 473 30 6.3 341 24 7.0 132 6 4.6

1973 831 61 7.3 717 56 7.8 114 5 4.4
1974 200 - - 184 - - 16 - -

1975 149 8 5.4 125 2 1.6 24 6 25.0

1976 132 19 14.4 104 14 13.5 28 5 17.9
1977 123 13 10.6 100 11 11.0 23 2 8.7
1978 124 li 8.9 93 6 6.5 31 5 16.1
1979 97 7 7.2 72 3 4.2 25 4 16.0
1980 121 9 7.4 91 4 4.4 30 5 16.6

Motor Vehicle Theft

1972 625 373 59.7 612 368 60.1 13 5 38.5

1973 624 369 59.1 597 353 59.1 27 16 49.3
1974 404 - - 390 - - 14 - -

1975 293 117 39.9 288 115 39.9 5 2 40.0

1976 260 122 46.9 258 122 47.3 2 - -

1977 296 156 52.7 290 154 53.1 6 2 33.3

1978 241 103 42.7 232 98 42.2 9 5 55.6
1979 231 105 45.5 217 93 42.9 14 12 85.7
1980 207 77 37.2 199 75 37.7 8 2 25.0
 54

Table 9.8

PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED BY SEX AND OFFENCE

POLICE DATA,AUSTRALIANCAPITALTERRITORY

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N X Total N X Total N X

Homicide

9 - - - -
1973 9 - -

1974 14 - - 13 - - 1 -

1975 24 - - 19 - - 5 -

- - 25 - - -
1976 25 -

1977 27 1 3.7 25 1 4.0 2 -

1978 21 1 4.8 20 1 5.0 1 -

1979 11 1 9.1 11 1 9.1 - -

1980 32 5 15.6 28 4 14.3 4 1

Serious Assault

1973 66 - - 65 - - 1 -

1974 61 2 3.3 58 1 1.7 3 1

- - 35 - - - -
1975 35
1976 31 1 3.2 30 1 3.3 1 -

1977 45 1 2.2 43 1 2.3 2 -

1978 35 3 8.6 33 3 9.1 2 -

1979 47 4 8.5 46 4 8.7 1 -

1980 362 23 6.4 346 22 6.4 16 1

Robbery

1973 6 - - 5 - - 1
1974 12 1 8.3 12 1 8.3 -

1975 12 1 8.3 12 1 8.3 -

1976 19 4 21.0 19 4 21.0 -

2 - - -
1977 2 - -

1978 16 1 6.2 14 1 7.1 2

1979 10 3 30.0 10 3 30.0 -

1980 15 4 26.7 15 4 26.7 -

 55

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N X Total N X Total N X

Burglary

1973 465 262 56.3 445 248 55.7 20 14 70.0

1974 628 434 69.1 585 400 68.4 43 34 79.1
1975 487 242 49.7 463 220 47.5 24 22 91.7
1976 452 266 58.8 440 257 58.4 12 9 75.0
1977 710 394 55.5 681 371 54.5 29 23 79.3
1978 646 297 46.0 607 280 46.1 39 17 43.6
1979 629 290 46.1 598 280 46.8 31 10 32.3
1980 993 468 47.1 984 463 47.0 9 5 55,6

Motor Vehicle Theft

1973 240 93 38.8 230 93 40.4 10 _

1974 422 226 53.6 418 225 53.8 4 1 25.0
1975 362 141 39.0 361 141 39.1 1 _ _
1976 214 78 36.4 214 78 36.4 - _ _
1977 345 131 38.0 335 126 37.6 10 5 50.0
1978 433 203 46.9 430 202 47.0 3 1 33.3
1979 535 231 43.2 534 230 43.1 1 1 100.0
1980 606 208 34.3 602 207 34.4 4 1 25.0

Fraud

1973 183 _ _ 181 _ _ 2

1974 149 2 1.3 127 2 1.6 22 _ _
1975 131 4 3.0 99 - - 32 4 12.5
1976 100 2 2.0 94 1 1.1 6 1 16.7
1977 172 2 1.2 159 2 1.3 13 - _
1978 63 4 6.4 59 4 6.8 4 - _
1979 123 3 2.4 95 3 3.2 28 _ _
1980 344 5 1.4 305 4 1.3 39 1 2.6

Note: A juvenile is a person under 17 years of age.

 56

Table 9.8

PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED BY SEX AND OFFENCE

POLICE DATA, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N % Total N X Total N X

Homicide

- - 2 - - - -
1973 2
1974 1 - - 1 - - -

1975 1 - - - - - 1
1976 1 1 100.0 - - - 1 1 100.0
—
1 - 1 - - - —
1977 -
- — —
1978 2 - - 2 - -

3 - - — — —
1979 3 - -

1980 —

Serious Assault

- - 2 2 100.0
1973 34 2 5.9 32
1974 34 1 2.9 33 - - 1 1 100.0
1975 28 5 17.9 28 5 17.9 - -

1976 29 1 3.4 26 1 3.8 3 - -

1977 36 1 2.8 33 1 3.0 3 -

1978 40 4 10.0 39 4 10.3 1 -

1979 48 3 6.2 46 3 6.5 2 -

1980 47 3 6.4 45 3 6.7 2

Robbery

- - 8 - - - - -
1973 8 —
1974 11 6 54.5 11 6 54.5 -
-
7 38.9 - —
1975 18 7 38.9 18 -
1976 8 1 12.5 8 1 12.5 - -

1977 13 - - 12 - - 1 —
—
1978 6 - - 5 - - 1 —
1979 23 3 13.0 23 3 13.0 —
— —
1980 10 8 2

Burglary

1973 309 211 68.3 302 208 68.9 7 3 42.'

1974 209 108 51.7 201 100 49.8 8 8 100.1
1975 272 154 56.6 252 139 55.2 20 15 75.1
1976 206 121 58.7 197 114 57.9 9 7 77.1
1977 245 121 49.4 236 114 48.7 9 7 77.1
1978 301 142 47.2 285 130 45.6 16 12 75.1
1979 273 122 44.7 262 115 43.9 11 7 63.i
55.9 291 161 55.3 4 4 100.
1980 295 165
 57

Persons Males Females

30 Juveniles Juveniles Juveniles
June Total N Z Total N X Total N Z

Theft

1973 804 302 37.6 479 172 40 .1 325 130 40.0

1974 345 113 32.8 243 75 30 .9 102 38 37.3
1975 512 201 39.3 313 121 38 .7 199 80 40.2
1976 603 321 53.2 373 192 51 .5 230 129 50.1
1977 571 230 40.3 410 181 44 .1 161 49 30.4
1978 708 241 34.0 450 172 38 .2 258 69 26.7
1979 822 311 37.8 567 226 39 .9 255 85 33.3
1980 756 309 40.9 530 246 46 .6 226 63 27.9

Motor Vehicle Theft

1973 93 50 53.7 93 50 53 .7 _ _ _
1974 111 55 49.5 111 55 49 .5 - - _
1975 153 78 51.0 152 77 50 .7 1 1 100.0
1976 120 51 42.5 120 51 42 .5 - - _
1977 141 79 56.0 138 78 56 .5 3 1 33.3
1978 122 48 39.3 122 48 39 .3 - - _
1979 123 47 38.2 122 47 38 .5 1 - -

1980 111 41 36.9 111 41 36 .9 - - -

Fraud

1973 335 8 2.4 263 5 1.9 72 3 4.2

1974 86 6 7.0 75 4 5 .3 11 2 18.2
1975 83 4 4.8 67 4 6 .0 16 _ _
1976 116 12 10.3 83 6 7 .2 33 6 18.2
1977 207 4 1.9 163 3 1 .8 44 1 2.3
1978 130 14 10.8 99 8 8 .1 31 6 19.4
1979 152 12 7.9 108 11 10 .2 44 1 2.3
1980 156 12 7.7 125 10 8 .0 31 2 6.5

Note: A juvenile :Ls a person under 17 years of age.

 58

been provided and the reader can examine the data. To respond to the
extent of juvenile participation in arrest, I now present an analysis of rate
of arrest.

Arrest rates
Arrest rates per 100,000 relevant population have not been calculated
for each offence mainly because numbers were not large enough. For the
two largest states, New South Wales and Victoria, data on rates have been
provided for four offences, for others rates were calculated for two or three
offences. Data in Tables 10.1 t o 10.8 show arrest rates in each of the eight
jurisdictions by type of offence. One fact which has been highlighted on
numerous occasions, stands out most clearly, and that is that juvenile arrest
rates for serious assaults are much lower than those for adults. And again,
as I have pointed out earlier, juvenile arrest rates for pure property offences
in every jursidiction are several times higher than those for adults. A t this
point it is important to remember that the rates presented in Tables 10.1
to 10.8 are seriously biased in favour of the adults, much more so in pure
violent offences than in pure property offences. Violent offences are per-
petrated primarily by adults and as shown in Table 8 and Figure 2, not only
the peak arrest age is high but also at least up to age 24 the arrest rate con-
tinues to be very close to the peak arrest rate. This does not mean that the
high arrest rate continues during the rest of adult life. What is meant is that
the 'burning-out' phenomenon takes effect a little later and gradually, so
that by age 40 the arrest rate for violent offences will approximate zero.
Therefore, if the adult rates are calculated on the basis of a population aged
18 to 40, the arrest rates shown in Tables 10.1 to 10.5 for serious assaults
will be substantially higher. For property offences the peak arrest age is
usually 16 and thereafter the rate recedes swiftly and consistently. If the
trend shown in Figure 2 continues, a negligible arrest rate might arrive well
before one reaches the age of 40. However, juvenile arrest rates for property
offences may still remain high.

In describing proportion of arrests, differences between jurisdictions

were somewhat masked. The rate data presented in Tables 10.1 to 10.8 make
the differences very obvious. It is of interest to know who is arrested for
what offence in what proportion. But it is much more important to know
the relative representation of specific population segments in arrests for
particular offences. While legal definitions of offences and enforcement
practices across jurisdictions vary, rough comparison of arrest rates between
jurisdictions can still provide the situation of one area vis-a-vis others.
I shall now attempt to highlight briefly the differences in arrest rate
across jurisdictions for some offences.
 59

Serious assault
It is clear from data in Tables 10.1 to 10.5 that in general the arrest
rate for serious assault has been increasing steadily in four states and holding
stable in Victoria. When examined by sex and age it becomes apparent that
the major part of this increase is due to increase in the arrest rate of males,
and, although the arrest rate of boys has been increasing as well, it is the
adult male who contributes most to the arrest rate.

Burglary
Information on arrests for theft was available only for South Australia.
Therefore, of all the offences in each of the eight jurisdictions burglary was
the one for which the largest number of arrests were made. The two largest
states, New South Wales and Victoria, show a remarkable degree of stability
in arrest rates. This is true for all the sex and age categories. In Queensland,
although the general arrest rate for burglary during the nine year period
1972 to 1980 showed only a marginal increasing trend, the arrest rate of
juveniles more than doubled. Thus the arrest rate for boys increased from
672 t o 1,357 per 100,000 boys and the corresponding increase for girls was
from 32 to 105. Girls in South Australia also showed an increase of similar
magnitude. Burglary arrests in Western Australia present a general declining
trend and this situation is attained as a result of a decline in the arrest rate
of males. Nevertheless, excluding Northern Territory, this state produces the
highest arrest rate for burglary. On an average one in 50 boys is arrested
every year for this offence. Tasmania in spite of a sharp decline between
1972 and 1974, presents a high rate of arrest.
Northern Territory, the smallest jurisdiction in the country in terms of
population, is the burglary capital of Australia. Not only is the general burg-
lary arrest rate high, in 1980 one out of every 100 residents aged 10 years
old and over was arrested for burglary. When sex and age distributions are
examined, the rates produce a frightening picture. Again, in 1980 one out of
every 50 male and one out of every 20 boys aged 10-16 were arrested for
burglary. Noting that an offence of burglary has a roughly 25 per cent chance
of being cleared, to imagine how many more children would have been
arrested had all burglaries been cleared makes a depressing scenario. Con-
tinuing on this gloomy picture, remember that according to victimisation
surveys only about 40 per cent of all burglaries are ever reported. A little
adding tells us that if all burglaries are reported and if all are cleared then
every other boy would be arrested for burglary in a year. Add arrests for all
offences and I doubt if any citizen could escape arrest. Call it fantasy, call it
scaremongering, that is what the figures say. If these figures have any cred-
ence, they show how absurd is the whole criminal justice system — from
legislation to release from correctional institutions. I shall return to this issue
in the concluding section of the report.
 60

Table 10.1

RATE OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED PER 100,000 RELEVANT

POPULATION BY SEX AND OFFENCE,
NEW SOUTH WALES

Persons Males Females

Year Total Juveniles Total Juveniles Total Juveniles

Serious Assault

1974 15.8 8.5 28.9 16.0 2.9 0.7

1975 17.4 8.4 32.5 15.7 2.5 0.7
1976 15.7 7.6 29.4 13.8 2.2 1.0
1977 18.1 8.0 34.2 13.6 2.1 2.1
1978 20.5 9.7 37.9 17.5 3.2 1.4
1979 21.0 12.1 39.3 20.9 3.1 2.8
1980 25.5 14.6 47.6 23.8 3.6 4.8

Robbery

1974 14.4 16.1 27.2 27.2 1.6 4.4

1975 12.0 10.0 22.3 16.0 1.7 3.7
1976 10.0 12.3 18.9 21.9 1.2 2.1
1977 10.8 10.0 19.8 15.5 1.8 4.1
1978 13.4 10.0 24.5 18.2 2.2 1.4
1979 12.8 11.1 23.4 17.6 2.4 4.2
1980 15.5 16.9 28.6 29.6 2.5 3.5

Burglary

1974 125.7 404.6 240.6 748.2 11.3 43.4

1975 118.3 420.4 228.1 776.7 9.4 42.4
1976 118.3 424.3 229.6 792.3 8.3 31.6
1977 109.0 391.4 207.6 717.8 11.4 42.8
1978 108.6 364.8 208.0 669.4 10.2 39.8
1979 113.6 388.1 216.3 708.4 12.2 46.9
1980 114.5 408.8 218.8 751.1 11.5 45.0

Motor Vehicle Theft

1974 86.3 262.0 167.8 489.4 5.2 23.9

1975 82.6 233.2 160.6 429.3 5.3 25.1
1976 85.3 251.7 166.5 467.6 5.0 21.3
1977 81.7 245.3 158.9 457.5 5.4 18.6
1978 83.7 235.0 162.4 439.4 5.9 17.0
1979 79.0 230.9 152.9 431.3 6.0 17.4
1980 89.9 287.3 171.3 522.0 9.5 37.7
 61

Table 10.2

RATE OF PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST PER 100,000 RELEVANT

POPULATION BY SEX AND OFFENCE,
VICTORIA

Persons Males Females

Year Total Juveniles Total Juveniles Total Juveniles

Serious Assault

1973 30.8 25.0 59.4 44.2 2.6 4.8

1974 24.5 16.8 47.1 31.8 2.1 0.9
1975 29.5 18.6 56.6 34.4 2.7 1.7
1976 30.3 19.2 57.7 34.4 3.3 3.0
1977 27.7 18.3 52.1 31.1 3.6 4.8
1978 33.2 22.4 62.7 37.5 4.2 6.4
1979 35.8 31.2 67.7 52.6 4.5 8.6
1980 32.7 31.7 61.3 51.9 4.7 10.6

Robbery

1972 9.5 9.7 18.1 18.9 1.0 _

1973 9.9 14.8 18.8 27.7 1.0 1.3
1974 8.7 15.5 16.3 28.5 1.1 1.7
1975 9.0 13.4 16.9 24.3 1.2 1.7
1976 9.6 13.0 17.6 23.7 1.8 1.7
1977 8.3 11.4 15.7 21.7 1.1 0.4
1978 8.7 11.1 16.4 20.4 1.2 1.3
1979 8.4 10.7 16.1 20.8 0.8 -

1980 11.2 17.5 20.3 29.6 2.2 4.7

Burglary

1972 155.4 579..9 301.0 1086.1 11.2 52.6

1973 132.1 518..9 254.5 967.0 10.9 49.0
1974 134.9 558..2 256.5 1020.1 14.6 70.2
1975 131.0 532..6 249.5 973.8 13.8 63.4
1976 139.0 580,.3 265.4 1064.3 14.5 67.2
1977 121.7 463,.1 232.4 856.8 12.7 47.1
1978 145.2 579,.2 277 .9 1074.7 14.7 56.8
1979 150.7 579,.2 287.0 1071.5 16.7 61.4
1980 169.5 639,.1 320.2 1167.1 21.3 84.4

Motor Vehicle Theft

1972 99.6 289.2 195.4 552.1 4.8 15.3

1973 76.9 236.7 151.3 453.3 3.2 9.5
1974 77.8 215.5 144.7 406.9 3.5 13.4
1975 75.4 219.9 147.9 415.4 3.6 12.1
1976 82.5 244.4 163.1 465.9 3.0 9.5
1977 82.9 256.6 163.7 488.3 3.3 11.7
1978 89.1 287 .6 175.6 548.6 4.0 12.5
1979 79.7 244.1 156.2 458.6 4.5 18.4
1980 91.6 287.2 177.8 536.3 7.0 25.6
 62

Table 10.3

RATE OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED PER 100,000 RELEVANT

POPULATION BY SEX AND OFFENCE,
QUEENSLAND

Persons Males Females

Year Total Juveniles Total Juveniles Total Juveniles

Serious Assault

1972 10.4 4.2 19.6 8.2 1.2 -

1973 11.8 2.2 21.7 3.6 1.7 0.8

1974 15.1 3.6 29.5 7.1 0.6 -

1975 13.2 8.3 25.0 14.8 1.3 1.5

1976 24.5 9.7 47.4 17.6 1.4 1.5
1977 23.8 10.9 44.7 19.9 2.9 1.5
1978 34.7 13.5 66.9 24.3 2.4 2.2
1979 43.4 17.4 82.0 30.2 4.7 3.8
1980 51.8 28.8 96.0 51.2 7.6 5.2

Burglary

1972 164.9 361.1 322.0 671.7 7.4 31.7

1973 167.7 416.8 322.8 766.6 12.0 47.6
1974 155.7 463.2 301.7 879.9 8.9 22.5
1975 165.9 502.4 320.7 947.3 10.3 37.4
1976 164.0 586.7 320.4 1119.2 6.8 33.0
1977 172.1 551.2 332.4 1033.4 11.1 47.6
1978 186.9 654.0 356.2 1215.6 16.9 65.2
1979 190.6 710.6 361.2 1306.2 19.5 84.1
1980 181.2 748.1 339.5 1357.1 22.4 105.1

Motor Vehicle Theft

1972 90.3 166.3 171.7 302.2 8.8 22.2

1973 102.8 219.6 201.2 416.7 4.1 11.5
1974 95.7 267.0 186.5 506.0 4.3 14.3
1975 112.3 277 .6 218.1 532.0 5.9 11.8
1976 93.6 216.6 181.9 416.5 4.9 8.8
1977 99.7 232.0 194.0 441.3 4.9 13.4
1978 106.6 270.1 205.6 499.8 7.2 29.2
1979 S3.8 237 .1 180.4 440.0 6.9 25.0
1980 82.3 214.3 155.5 380.3 8.9 39.0
 63

Table 10.4

RATE OF PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST PER 100,000 RELEVANT

POPULATION BY SEX AND OFFENCE,
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Persona Males Females

Year Total Juveniles Total Juveniles Total Juveniles

Serious Assault

1972 6.7 11.2 13.2 22.2 0.4 -

1973 8.0 10.6 15.0 18.9 1.2 2.2

1974 9.4 11.6 14.6 21.8 4.3 1.1
1975 11.0 13.1 20.7 25.7 1.5 -

1976 12.3 21.1 24.1 38.1 0.8 3.2

1977 10.4 16.0 19.4 26.9 1.5 4.4
1978 12.5 11.2 23.3 20.8 1.8 1.1
1979 18.0 18.5 35.2 34.8 1.1 1.1
1980 25.5 25.3 45.9 44.8 5.4 4.5

Burglary

1972 174.9 636.3 343.8 1227.4 8.5 29.3

1973 162.8 609.4 309.3 1124.3 18.7 79.8
1974 148.8 582.8 291.2 1109.2 8.6 37.6
1975 163.8 652.9 318.0 1229.4 11.7 51.5
1976 145.5 548.8 283.5 1036.5 9.7 36.8
1977 165.9 608.4 319.7 1123.2 14.6 64.5
1978 166.8 692.1 320.8 1277.2 15.2 72.8
1979 233.3 981.3 440.7 1760.3 29.5 151.6
1980 206.8 781.7 392.0 1416.0 24.2 105.6

Theft

1972 430.8 1161.3 686.1 1887.6 179.4 415.4

1973 439.0 1211.4 602.2 1719.0 278.4 689.3
1974 428.0 1152.5 590.0 1620.7 269.6 667.5
1975 588.0 1648.0 702.2 2043.5 475.4 1235.4
1976 471.4 1424.6 597.2 1742.6 347.4 1090.6
1977 552.8 1846.9 698.0 2241.8 409.8 1429.9
1978 550.4 1692.3 755.8 2339.8 348.2 1006.9
1979 644.3 2005.0 888.5 2759.1 404.3 1201.9
1980 687.8 1985.5 861.0 2532.6 517.1 1402.5
 64

Table 10.5

RATE OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED PER 100,000 RELEVANT

POPULATION BY SEX AND OFFENCE,
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Persons Males Females

Year Total Juveniles" Total Juveniles Total Juveniles

Serious Assault

1972 12.0 4.8 20.8 9.3 2.9 -

1973 11.1 2.0 19.0 2.6 2.8 1.4

1974 16.8 3.3 30.5 6.4 2.5 -

1975 21.5 13.7 40.8 26.8 1.5 -

1976 29.0 13.7 50.0 20-3 7.3 6.7

1977 31.3 12.9 56.3 25.1 5.4 -

1978 31.7 15.9 58.2 28.4 4.5 2.6

1979 25.7 13.9 46.9 25.8 3.8 1.3
1980 37.8 9.4 68.0 12.2 6.8 6.5

Burglary

1972 431.8 1389.9 812.7 2552.1 34.6 160.8

1973 456.5 1554.7 858.3 2881.9 38.0 158.2
1974 250.0 814.8 469.7 1491.1 21.5 100.2
1975 309.1 1091.4 565.0 1936.6 43.7 203.7
1976 326.1 1258.3 600.8 2259.9 41.4 202.2
1977 317.3 1190.9 595.6 2190.9 29.6 131.4
1978 348.5 1335.3 641.3 2373.6 46.6 233.4
1979 294.9 1027.3 548.4 1830.9 33.2 170.2
1980 337 .8 1312.8 629.2 2370.0 38.6 188.0

Motor Vehicle Theft

1972 27.30 876.1 501.8 1570.9 34.4 141.2

1973 272.1 821.6 508.4 1508.2 25.9 99.0
1974 148.8 471.9 279.2 869.8 13.1 51.4
1975 133.7 389.5 252.9 724.6 10.1 37.5
1976 155.7 470.7 291.6 870.2 14.8 49.6
1977 151.6 478.4 280.9 862.3 17.9 71.7
1978 158.5 497.5 298.4 914.4 14.2 55.1
1979 117.4 389.5 220.2 703.2 11.4 55.0
1980 128.3 419.0 242.2 756.7 11.2 59.6
 65

Table 10.6

RATE OF PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST PER 100,000 RELEVANT

POPULATION BY SEX AND OFFENCE,
TASMANIA

Persons Males Females

Year Total Juveniles Total Juveniles Total Juveniles

Burglary

1972 528.0 1620.2 1016.2 3119.2 37.8 70.4

1973 416.7 1301.8 806.7 2461.5 25.8 92.0
1974 313.7 - 606.9 - 21.0 -

1975 267.3 776.9 510.5 1435.2 25.0 85.4

1976 219.8 639.4 413.4 1126.2 27.1 129.1
1977 201.3 624.3 386.5 1225.1 17.2 59.1
1978 220.7 760.5 430.9 1432.9 12.3 58.9
1979 260.1 795.9 496.8 1441.2 25.4 123.1
1980 249.4 799.6 481.5 1505.1 21.4 63.8

Motor Vehicle Theft

1972 199.6 645.7 390.2 1253.2 8.3 17.6

1973 196.4 638.8 375.4 1196.8 17.0 56.6
1974 125.2 - 242.0 - 8.7 -

1975 89.5 202.9 176.3 389.3 3.0 7.1

1976 78.5 213.7 156.2 417.6 1.2 -

1977 88.3 277 .4 173.5 536.0 3.6 7.3

1978 71.0 185.6 137.3 345.9 5.3 18.4
1979 67.1 191.7 126.5 332.6 8.1 44.7
1980 59.0 141.6 114.3 270.1 4.5 7.5
 66

Table 10.7

RATE OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED PER 100,000 RELEVANT

POPULATION BY SEX AND OFFENCE,
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Persons Males Females

Year Total Juveniles Total Juveniles Total Juveniles

Burglary

1973 620.6 2226.2 1022.9 3912.3 63.7 257.8

1974 808.4 3315.0 1308.7 5754.6 130.4 553.7
1975 719.9 2327.8 1153.8 3928.6 87.2 458.7
1976 580.2 2263.6 997.6 4202.8 35.5 159.7
1977 885.6 3050.2 1512.4 5523.3 82.5 371.0
1978 764.0 2061.4 1287.8 3742.8 104.2 245.4
1979 718.5 1828.0 1224.4 3408.0 80.1 130.8
1980 1077.5 2729.2 1957.9 5214.6 21.5 60.5

Motor Vehicle Theft

1973 320.3 790.2 528.7 1467.1 31.8 -

1974 543.2 1726.2 935.1 3236.9 12.1 16.3

1975 535.1 1356.3 899.6 2517.9 3.6 -

1976 274.7 663.8 485.2 1275.6 - -

1977 430.3 1014.2 744.0 1875.8 28.4 80.6

1978 512.1 1408.9 912.2 2700.2 8.0 14.4
1979 611.1 1456.1 1093.4 2799.4 2.6 13.1
1980 657.6 1213.0 1197.8 2331.3 9.6 12.1
 67

Table 10.8

RATE OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN CRIMES CLEARED PER 100,000 RELEVANT

POPULATION BY SEX AND OFFENCE,
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Persons Males Females

Year Total Juveniles Total Juveniles Total Juveniles

Burglary

1973 236.7 943.1 455.6 1820.1 10.9 27.4

1974 151.5 442.2 288.1 800.3 11.7 67.1
1975 184.9 602.9 340.3 1061.3 27.4 120.5
1976 129.4 459.1 244.8 847.6 11.4 54.2
1977 150.0 452.6 285.3 831.8 11.2 53.7
1978 177.8 518.6 332.2 925.2 19.2 90.0
1979 155.8 429.4 295.7 784.5 12.7 50.9
1980 164.2 565.4 320.9 1066.6 4.5 28.4

Motor Vehicle Theft

1973 71.2 223.5 140.3 437.5 - -

1974 80.5 225.2 159.1 440.2 - -

1975 104.0 305.4 205.2 587.9 1.4 8.0

1976 75.4 193.5 149.1 379.2 - -

1977 86.3 295.5 166.8 569.1 3.7 7.7

1978 72.0 175.3 142.2 341.6 - -

1979 70.2 165.4 137.7 320.6 1.2 -

1980 61.8 140.5 122.4 271.6 - -

Arrest rates for motor vehicle theft present trends similar to those
observed for burglary, the only variation being that the magnitude of rates
is about two-thirds that for burglary. In this offence as well, arrests in
Northern Territory are highest, followed by Western Australia and the rest.
My final comments in this section relate to the arrest rate for theft in
South Australia, see Table 10.4. These rates are high for every sex and age
group (although not as high as the burglary arrest rate in Northern Territory)
but what makes these rate trends interesting is the arrest trend for girls.
During the nine year period the arrest rate for girls has increased from 415 in
1972 to 1,403 in 1980 per 100,000 girls. Similarly, the arrest rate for
women has jumped from 179 to 517 per 100,000 women during the same
period. These theft rates for girls and women are several times higher than
their rates for burglary. What is striking is the magnitude of these rates and it
is no exaggeration to say that the arrest rates of girls and women for theft is
several times higher than their rates for all other offences combined.
 Section IV - CONCLUSIONS: In Defence of Youth

This report attempted to establish the validity or otherwise of the claim

that juveniles have been committing more and more serious violent and
property crimes than ever before. Data from the United Kingdom, the United
States, and Australia and its eight jurisdictions were collected for the past
several years and the above claim was examined with the help of arrest
proportions and arrest rates. Also these proportions and rates were calculated
for four demographic groups, namely, adult male, adult female, juvenile male
and juvenile female. The analysis has produced a convincing denial of the
above claim with regard to certain offences and raised questions with regard
to others. Before I recapitulate major findings of this study and their implic-
ations in terms of further research and policy I would briefly comment on
the population used by other researchers to examine the issue and the need
for a tighter definition of a juvenile.
The usual and the most common ways of defining the status of individ-
uals in societies is in terms of ability to exercise certain rights and obligations
to discharge certain responsibilities. These definitions are usually clarified in
the constitution of the country. The most important provision in this docu-
ment relates to the age at which an individual can exercise his/her civic
rights, especially voting. As we know until the mid 1960s this age was 21 in
all countries. After the Vietnam war and widespread protests by young
people in North America, Europe, some parts of Asia and Australia and New
Zealand, this was lowered to 18 in the late 1960s. The higher age of 21 was
an anomaly which existed for an unusually long time, because whereas an
individual under this age had no say in the running of the affairs of his/her
country, persons of 18, 19 and 20 (and older) were compelled to register for
military duties and fight in wars if the government of the day so decided.
The historical reasons for prescribing 21 as the age at which one could
exercise civic responsibilities are not clear except on the assumption that
individuals become 'mature' at that age and are able to make rational choices.
Admittedly, no test for this transition was ever used and this cut-off age was
seemingly an arbitrary one. Since this anomaly has now been removed in
most countries (a person aged 18 years and over can now be expected to
defend his/her nation, exercise discretion in selecting representatives to
legislatures, and enter into contracts), why do some authorities, when
thinking of criminality, continue to aggregate persons between the ages of 16
to 24 or 16 to 21 and describe them as 'youths'? The constitution of the
country and other laws have created two distinct demographic entities and
there seems no persuasive reason to combine portions of these two entities
to form a special group to explain crime. This is artificial and stigmatises
the 'youth'. Once we separate a group of people howsoever irrational that
 69

separation may be, we have effected a classification. Therefore, if we deal

with persons aged 18 or over differently from those under this age in all
legitimate activities we must deal with them differently in illegitimate
activities as well. Considering that propensity and proclivity to crime decline
with age, there is no objection to explaining criminality of 'young adults'
separately from other adults. Such a separation may actually prove to be
quite useful.
Long-term arrest data distributed by age and offence are difficult to
assemble. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation in its annual
report 'Crime in the United States' does provide a table entitled 'Total
Arrests, Distribution by Age'. Forages 15 to 24, number of persons arrested
for individual age years is shown in this table. Total population covered and
the number of agencies reporting in each year are also given. Sex distribution
of arrestees is not provided in this table (since 1981 such information is
available) nor is there any information on the general population by age and
for the agencies reporting. Considering time required for collecting such data
I have concentrated on data for 1980 only. With the help of arrest data for
1980 I wish to examine arrest rates per 100,000 population of juveniles,
young adults and adults. As the data will soon indicate, if population data
for reporting agencies broken down by age and sex can be obtained the issue
of increasing youth crime can be examined more fully.
In Table 11, I have presented arrest rates of three age groups for six
major offences. The definition of young adult, especially in terms of maximum
age, is an arbitrary one. I have deliberately chosen age limits higher than
usually used. In the Table, I have defined juveniles as those between the ages
of 10 and 17 and their arrest rates have been calculated on the basis of
general population of 10 to 17 year olds. Young adults have been defined in
two ways - those 18 to 29 and 18 to 34; and consequently an adult is one
aged 30 years and over and 35 years and over respectively.
Data in Table 11 totally dispel the notion that arrest rates of juveniles
for violent offences, for example, homicide and aggravated assaults, is unusu-
ally high. Whether we define young adults as between the ages of 18 and 29
or between 18 and 34 their arrest rate for homicide is more than three times
that of juveniles. In fact, the arrest rate of adults aged 30 years and over is
also marginally higher than that of juveniles. Similarly, young adult arrest
rates for aggravated assaults are more than twice that of juveniles. At this
point I must refer back to Table 4.3 which describes arrest rates for homicide
and aggravated assaults for the United States. This table, which also offers
data by sex, clearly demonstrates that males outnumber females by at least
8:1. Extrapolating this information in Table 11 offers some very interesting
results. Juvenile arrest rate for homicide in 1980 is slightly over six per
100,000 juveniles. When this rate is calculated on the basis of juvenile
population distributed by sex the male juvenile arrest rate for homicide is
 70

Table 11

Arrest rate per 100,000 relevant population

by age groups and offence,
United States, 1980

Offence AGE GROUPS

Adult Adult
Juvenile Young Adult Age 30 and Young Adult Age 35 and
Age 10-17 Age 18-29 over Age 18-34 over

Homicide 6.03 21.93 6.74 20.21 5.14

Aggravated
Assault 130.37 291.40 84.41 264.47 65.20

Robbery 145.08 173.02 17.69 143.63 9.79

Burglary 727.51 478.9 43.59 389.79 26.28

Larceny 1405.87 1040.19 201.15 890.91 151.78

Motor Vehicle
Theft 203.75 124.49 13.55 102.43 8.67

10.90 (see Table 4.3). Therefore, if this male attribute is used to calculate
young male adult (18 to 29) arrest rate for homicide, it will jump from
approximately 22 (Table 11) to about 40 per 100,000 young male adults.
Similarly, the young male adult arrest rate for aggravated assault will be
much higher than the rate of 291 of young adults. From these data the
major conclusion to be drawn is that homicide and aggravated assault are
offences committed primarily by males in the age bracket 18 t o 29.
Before I highlight the pattern in arrests for robbery and for all the
property offences I may point out an important fact which in recent years
has emerged as a disturbing phenomenon in modern societies. I wish t o draw
attention t o increasing incidents of child bashing. Examination of this fact
falls outside the scope of this study but its relevance t o the present study can
hardly be ignored. Statistics on the subject of juveniles as victims of violence
are hard to come by. Statistics Canada, however, publishes an annual volume
entitled Homicide Statistics. According to these statistics, between 1976 and
1981, on an average there were 650 victims of homicides per year of which
about 11 per cent were children under the age of 16 years. Again, on an
average there were 615 suspects each year of which only three per cent were
 71

under the age of 16. Therefore, chances of children becoming victims are
about four times that of becoming suspects in homicide incidents. Statistics
Canada publication also shows that between two-thirds and three-fourths of
all child victims die in homicides involving relatives. When only victims and
suspects in domestic relationship are examined, some frightening results are
obtained. Children under 16 constitute about 24 per cent of all victims of
domestic homicides, but they form only two per cent of suspects in such
homicides. 33 The conclusion is inescapable. That children are likely to be
victims of homicide much more frequently at home than elsewhere, t o be
killed by his/her own relatives more often than by strangers, is the ultimate
form of cruelt" and does not speak well of our society. The above description
relates only t o the most extreme form of violence. If data were available on
the number of children not killed but maimed or severely beaten they could
further corroborate the fact that violence against children is a much more
common phenomenon than violence by children. This leads us to ponder if
violence by children is indeed a reflection of violence against them. It is an
area worth investigation.
It is the robbery arrest data which, however, demonstrate clearly the
mistaken notion of increasing violent crimes by juveniles (in the United States
robbery is considered to be a violent offence). From Table 5.3 we learn that
in 1980 the male juvenile arrest rate for robbery was more than twice that
for adults aged 18 years and over. Data in Table 11, however, show that
when the adult population is broken down into young adult (18 to 29) and
adult (30 and over), the robbery arrest rate of young adults is about 20 per
cent higher than that of juveniles. Data in Table 5.3 also show the female
arrest rate for robbery is less than 10 per cent of the male arrest rate. There-
fore, if we can separate the data in Table 11 by sex it will show that the
robbery arrest rate of young male adults will be well over 300 per 100,000
corresponding population.
I have categorised robbery as a primarily property motivated offence.
Although data in Table 11 show that the juvenile arrest rate for robbery is
not the highest among all age groups, this rate is substantial. For burglary,
larceny, and motor vehicle theft, there is no doubt that juvenile arrest rates
are higher than those of other population groups. However, when juveniles
are compared with young adults the arrest rates differences reduce signific-
antly. Thus another major conclusion is that juvenile participation rate is
higher than adult rate for relatively less serious offences.
Data in Table 11 also highlight low participation rates of adults (those
30 years and over and 35 years and over). Especially, for robbery, burglary,
and motor vehicle theft arrest rates of persons aged 35 and over are indeed
very low. Besides indicating the burning-out phenomenon, the data suggest
that present method of dichotomising arrest data into juvenile and adult is
not only biased against juveniles but also against middle-aged and the elderly.
 72

Major findings
The findings of this study must be considered with caution. It is an
undeniable fact that there exists widespread selectivity in arrest data. I shall
summarise the major findings in terms of arrest for violent offences (homicide
and aggravated assault), mixed offences (robbery), and pure property offences
(burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and fraud and forgery).
With this prior word of caution this study reveals at least two funda-
mental and significant facts:
(i) there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that juveniles, proport-
ionate to their population, are overrepresented in the total arrest
for violent offences. The juvenile propensity for violent crime,
that is, of those under 18 is not greater than the adult propensity.
Therefore, certain scholars, some journalists, and some law
enforcement officials, counting only those actually arrested
without reference to their total number in the community have
presented a misleading account of juvenile crime; and

(ii) if statistics from different sources are added together, perhaps

there will hardly be a juvenile without an arrest record. Both are
serious indictments on our societies. To elaborate:

1. Perhaps the most significant finding of this study is that the involvement
of juveniles in arrest for violent offences, for example, homicide and aggrav-
ated assault, is less than their share in the general population. This finding is
strongly supported by data over time and across countries. Analysis on the
basis of age and sex specific arrest rates also show that rates for juvenile
males are much lower than those for adult males. The only change that has
occurred during the last two decades is in the proportion and rate of juvenile
girls; in some instances arrest rates of girls are higher than those of adult
women. One must not, however, forget that women and girls in violent
offences constitute a small part of all arrests.
When data for homicide and aggravated assault are analysed separately,
one immediately notices the low representation of juveniles in homicide. It is
of interest to point out that the arrest rate of adult males and females calcul-
ated for this study and for others is evidently under-estimated. Whereas
rates for juveniles are calcualted on the basis of population aged 10 to 17,
rates for adults are calculated on the basis of total population aged 18 and
over. It is known and shown in Figure 2 and Tables 8 and 11, that young
adults are arrested much more frequently than adults in the higher age bracket.
In other words, whereas adults arrested for violent offences include a very
high proportion of those in the age group 18 to 24, in calculating rate the
denominator is the total adult population.
Finally, a large portion of violent offences in which death or injury occur,
 73

involves the use of a lethal weapon such as a gun or knife. There is evidence
to suggest that juveniles tend to be less lethally armed than adults 34 and so
inflict less serious injuries.
2. Analysing arrest data and the burglaries estimated in victimisation studies
from Australian jurisdictions one can observe that if all burglaries are reported
and if all are cleared by arrest, one in every two juveniles would be arrested
each year. This could be an exaggeration. But before submitting an alternative
scenario, it is necessary to present the situation in the United Kingdom and
the United States. When one adds arrest figures for burglary, larceny and
motor vehicle theft in these two countries it emerges that one in 44 male
juveniles in the former and one in 26 in the latter is arrested for one of the
three offences each year. Assuming that only 25 per cent of these offences
are ever cleared, it would seem that one in 11 and one in seven juveniles
respectively would be arrested had all reported offences been cleared. And
finally, if only 40 per cent of the total of these three offences are reported,
it seems one in four juveniles in the United Kingdom and one in three
juveniles in the United States would be arrested if all offences were reported
and cleared. Admittedly, the figures are less frightening than those from the
Northern Territory in Australia, but these lower figures are nonetheless
discomforting.
Even if this is an exaggeration, the alternative scenario does not bring
much comfort. Suppose that the figures collected here indicate that some
juveniles are arrested more than once during the year. What conclusions may
be drawn from this? Does it mean that their offences were not serious enough
to warrant institutionalisation? Some such assumption follows if the juvenile
offender is released. But this being so the suggestion already made above that
juveniles tend to commit rather less serious offences would appear to be
supported. Yet if we accept that juveniles commit less serious offences, and
keep in mind the low overall clearance rate of property offences, two alarm-
ing possibilities present themselves: (i) that many serious property offenders
are on the loose; and (ii) juveniles are arrested unnecessarily. Because if as
seems to be the case, not many adults are arrested for comparable offences,
then the higher juvenile arrest could be a device intended to bolster the
clearance rate. This can be adequately verified. Part II of this research project
will try to match offences of adults and juveniles and examine possible biases.
In a mixed type of offence, for example, robbery, in which property is
an important element, the proportion of arrestees who are juveniles begins to
increase. Also, the arrest rates of juveniles for robbery has in recent years
surpassed those of adults. Criminal victimisation surveys have shown that
juveniles tend to commit robberies in groups more often than adults.
In most Western countries robbery is considered t o be a violent offence.
Thus, the inclusion of this offence in broad category of 'violent offence',
adds another complication. Data from the three countries under investigation
 74

indicate that, in terms of number of offences reported or becoming known

to police, robbery and aggravated assault constitute over 90 per cent of all
violent offences. In terms of arrest data over 80 per cent of those arrested
for violent offences are for these two offences only. Thus, the more serious
of violent offences, for example, homicide and rape, account for only a minor
portion of offences reported as well as persons arrested, and the involvement
of juveniles in these offences is indeed infrequent. I am deliberately emphasis-
ing this point to stress that juveniles participate in relatively less serious
offences. The two violent offences in which juvenile participation is measur-
able, for example, aggravated assault and robbery, are also the ones which
offer law enforcement the opportunity to define seriousness. Furthermore,
these two offences present an enormous number of possible variations in
seriousness. Research in violent offences indicate that persons under the age
of 18 commit relatively less serious robberies and aggravated assaults.35
The evidence presented in Section II and III is direct and it challenges
the notion of increasing violent crimes by juveniles if juveniles be defined
(as they should be) as those under 18. All the data from each of the countries
in Section II were collected from published sources. Why then do certain
scholars and the media tend to exaggerate crimes by juveniles? One can only
speculate as follows:

1. Juveniles as pawns of the society. Historically adults have always used

juveniles to their (adults') advantage. The control which parents exercised
over their children all through the ages began to be shared by institutions
such as the school, the church, and the state. Thus the control over children
was formalised and currently the state has taken over almost all the con-
trolling role. It is now possible to blame juveniles for all kinds of social
ailments and the state can legislate to control 'misbehaviour'. Thus, the state
compels children up to a certain age to continue in school, it prescribes the
age at which one can drive an automobile, buy liquor, etcetera. Therefore,
juveniles are easier to control or to be confronted with their misdemeanors
and they live under the ever watchful eyes of adults.

2. Juveniles are easy targets and used successfully t o cover-up adult mis-
deeds. In spite of the fact that violent crimes by juveniles are relatively
infrequent, certain scholars, the media, and the criminal justice agencies
continue to make headlines on increasing youth violence. This may be
deliberately to hide extensive violence perpetrated by adults. Violence in the
family has just begun to surface as one of the most tragic indictments on our
societies and all of it iscommitted by adults, quite frequently against children.
Violence by organised crime is committed solely by adults. Current research
seems to indicate that whereas family-related homicides are declining, drug-
related homicides are increasing. By artificially inflating juvenile violence,
adults shift attention from themselves.
 75

Nowhere does this emerge more clearly than in relation to property

offences committed by juveniles. As already shown if all the burglaries are
reported and cleared the total amount of property loss from theft and damage
will be several times more than the figures provided by various law enforce-
ment agencies. The important point is however, that property loss as a result
of all property offences by juveniles examined in this report would be only a
fraction of those losses attributable to offences committed by adults but
seldom prosecuted. Organised crime alone probably costs a nation the
equivalent of its annual national budget. Illicit traffic in narcotic drugs,
consumer fraud, medical fraud, illegal gambling all result in losses amounting
to hundreds of millions of dollars and all of these are perpetrated solely by
adults. Yet, the amount of publicity given by insurance companies, and
security and protective agencies to burglary by juveniles is out of all propor-
tions to the losses incurred by such juvenile burglaries.

3. Juvenile crime is adult instigated. A clear example of adult instigated

juvenile crime is drug abuse among school children. Extensive use of narcotic
drugs, observed by various studies since the late 1960s, could not have been
possible without the deliberate and active efforts by dealers, pushers, traf-
fickers and sellers of narcotic drugs, who all happen to be adults.

4. It is in the best interests of the adult 'illegal world' to create the myth of
increasing youth crime, and stigmatise youth. Once a juvenile is arrested,
convicted and institutionalised, he/she becomes an unwelcome person in the
society. In his/her desire to survive one is drawn to influences which provide
support. The 'illegal world' of the adults requires workers, and individuals
who have been processed through the criminal justice system are easily
attracted because they are not wanted in the 'legal' world.

5. The society's efforts have been inadequate in preparing individuals for

the transition from juvenile to adulthood. Data from different streams
indicate that crime rate is highest among the 18 to 20 year old youths. 36
Some studies have also shown that the largest number of individuals begin
their delinquent careers at age 16.37 Numerous social, psychological and
economic factors, all interlinked, come to play a major role in an individual's
life between the time he/she is 16 and the next few years. In many Western
societies, individuals can legally quit school at age 16. Families in the Western
world have become almost obsessed with the idea that young persons should
be on their own at the earliest. This leads to a different emotional adjust-
ment and economic independence. The main agency which is expected by
the society to prepare individuals for this transition is the school. Questions
have been raised with regard to the capacity of schools to fulfil this role by
providing a suitable environment for growing up. 38 It is not yet apparent
that systematic preparation for this transition is underway in any country.
 76

Future Research
This report has presented some very convincing evidence on the crimin-
ality of various segments of population in three countries. However, much
work is still to be carried out to identify options and recommend action.
The issue which data in the present study seem to strongly dispute is the one
dealing with positive relationship between juveniles and increasing violent
crimes. Not only the arrest rates of juveniles for homicide and aggravated
assault were much lower than those of adults, but when the adult population
is separated into young adult (18 to 29) and adult (30 and over), the arrest
rates of young adults were found t o be several times the rates of juveniles.
This finding alone suggests that further research be directed in the following
areas:
(i) Examination of trends in age and violent crimes. With the help of
data for the past two decades from several countries, an attempt
should be made to firmly establish the link between age and
violent crimes, to identify the age at which these crimes escalate
and the age at which they start declining. This will be a statistical
analysis.

(ii) Identification of juvenile violence continuing to adulthood.

Although available evidence points to the contrary, there is a
growing concern among knowledgeable circles that today's adult
criminals are yesterday's juvenile delinquents. What proportion
of juvenile delinquents continue their illegal activities to adult-
hood? Does violent behaviour usually have traceable antecedents?
Current knowledge through systematic research seems t o indicate
that only a small proportion of delinquents continue to commit
crimes as adults and that there exists no specialisation in offensive
behaviour. The type of research which would effectively respond
to such issues is the one known as 'cohort study'. By studying
individuals born during the same period, their life experiences,
their responses to contemporary socio-economic, political, and
technological environment, and their involvement in criminal
activity, would provide persuasive evidence upon which effective
counteraction can be mounted.
(iii) Investigation of the impact of violence at home in general and
violence against children in particular on the violent behaviour of
children. This is an area which is becoming of paramount concern
in many Western countries. Literature in the area indicates that
youth violence could be considered .as a reflection of violence
against children; yet systematic research in this area is still scarce.
Much careful thought and planning must be given to develop an
appropriate research strategy.
 77

This report has also pointed out that juveniles are arrested for property
offences in a much greater proportion than their representation in the general
population, and their arrest rates for burglary, motor vehicle theft and
larceny are much higher than those of adults. As is well known, the number
of arrests does not necessarily reflect the number of offences committed.
It has been submitted earlier that the juvenile arrest rate may be high because
juveniles tend t o c o m m i t these crimes in groups, and a number of juveniles
may be arrested for one offence. Therefore, while juveniles may participate
in property offences in high proportions their offence rate may indeed be
lower than that of adults. I have also suggested that juveniles are less likely
t o be lethally armed than adults, they tend to travel a short distance f r o m
their residence t o commit crimes and hence likely to be identified by neigh-
bours, shopkeepers, etcetera, they commit less serious offences, and that
they are less efficient in avoiding arrest. These hypotheses can be tested with
the help of data. This precisely is the objective of Part II of the project
Youth and Crime.
In Part 11,1 wish to investigate a major offence, for example, burglary, in
which juvenile involvement, in terms of arrest, is disproportionately high.
Negotiations are currently underway to obtain a 10 per cent systematic
sample of all persons arrested for burglary in a metropolitan city in Australia
in one year. Detail information on factors that would enable the testing of
the above hypotheses will be collected.

1. Attorney-General's Task Force on Violent Crime ( A G T F V ) , Final Report, Washing-

ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981.
2. Mukherjee, S.K., Crime Trends in Twentieth-Century Australia, Sydney: George
Allen & U n w i n Australia in association w i t h the Australian Institute of Criminology,
1981.
3. Mukherjee, S.K., Jacobsen, E.N. and Walker, J.R., Source Book of Australian Crim-
inal and Social Statistics, 1900-1980, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1981.
4. Australia-wide data were collected f r o m Australian Yearbooks. Figures presented in
various tables in this report were extracted from 'Persons involved in crimes cleared'.
Data for the States and Territories were obtained f r o m the annual reports and police
departments of various jurisdictions.
5. Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M. and Sellin, T., Delinquency in a Birth Cohort, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1972.
6. Ibid, p. 254.
7. Ibid.
8. Wolfgang, M.E., From Boy to Man - From Delinquency to Crime. Paper presented at
the National Symposium on the Serious Juvenile Offender, Minneapolis, September 1977.
9. Wilson, J.Q., Thinking About Crime, New Y o r k : Basic Books Inc., 1975, (Vintage
Books. 1977).
10. Emphasis mine.
11. Wilson, J.Q., Thinking About Crime, 1977, p. 224.
12. See for example, Van Dine, S., Conrad, J.P. and Dinitz, S., Restraining the Wicked,
Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1979.
 78

13. Wolfgang, M.E., etal., op. cit., p. 252.

14. Boland, B. and Wilson, J.Q., 'Age, Crime and Punishment', The Public Interest,
No. 51, Spring 1978, p. 23.
15. Block, R., and Zimring, F.E., 'Homicide in Chicago, 1965-1970', Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 10(1): 1-12, 1973.
16. Boland, B. and Wilson, J.Q., op. cit., p. 23.
17. Ibid, pp. 23-24.
18. Ibid, p. 24.
19 Greenwood, P.W., Petersilia, J. and Zimring, F.E., Age, Crime and Sanctions: The
Transition from Juvenile to Adult Court, Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, October
1980, p. 11.
20. Galvin, J. and Polk, K „ ' A n y T r u t h Y o u Want: The Use and Abuse of Crime and
Criminal Justice Statistics', Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19(1): 135-
165, 1982.
21. McClintock, F.H. and Gibson, E., Robbery in London, London: Macmillan and Co.
Ltd., 1961.
22. Normandeau, A., Trends and Patterns in Crimes of Robbery, Ph.D. dissertation.
Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1968.
23. Conklin, J.E., Robbery and the Criminal Justice System, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott
Co., 1972.
24. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Armed Holdup, Sydney: New South Wales
Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 1976.
25. Dunn, C.S., Patterns of Robbery Characteristics and Their Occurrence Among Social
Areas, Analytic Report 15, Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice,
L E A A , 1976.
26. Mukherjee, S.K., Crime Trends, op. cit.
27. Santa Clara Criminal Justice Pilot Program, Burglary in San Jose, Springfield, Va.:
United States Department of Commerce, 1972.
28. Pope, C.E., Crime Specific Analysis: An Empirical Investigation of Burglary Offender
Characteristics, Analytic Report SD-AR-11, 1977. United States Department of Justice,
L E A A , Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1977.
29. The substantial j u m p in the larceny arrest rate in the United States between 1973
and 1974 can be attributed entirely t o the reclassification of the definition of larceny.
From 1958 forward the UCR crime index included only larcenies of $50 or more; the
1973 reclassification included all larcenies, irrespective of the amount stolen.
30. Wolfgang, M.E., etal.. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort, op. cit.
31. Greenwood, P.W., etal., op. cit.
32. Mannheim, H., Social Aspects of Crime in England Between the Wars, London: Allen
& Unwin, 1940; Wilkins, L.T., Delinquent Generations, A Home Office Research Unit
Report, London: H.M.S.O., 1960; Morris, N., The Habitual Criminal, London: University
of London, 1951.
33. Statistics Canada, Homicide Statistics, 1980 and 1981, Ottawa.
34. Cook, P.J., 'A Strategic Choice Analysis of Robbery' in W. Skogan (ed.). Sample
Surveys of the Victims of Crime, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1976.
35. Cook, Ibid; Strasburg, P.A., Violent Delinquents: A Report to the Ford Foundation
from the Vera Institute of Justice, New Y o r k : Monarch, 1978.
36. United States, Department of Justice, L E A A , Analysis of National Crime Victimis-
ation Survey Data to Study Serious Delinquent Behavior. Monographs in this series include:
Juvenile Criminal Behavior in the United States: Its Trends and Patterns; Juvenile Criminal
Behavior: Analysis of Rates and V i c t i m Characteristics; Juvenile Criminal Behavior in
 79

Urban, Surburban and Rural Areas; Juvenile Criminal Behavior and Its Relation to
Economic Conditions; and Juvenile Criminal Behavior and Its Relation to Neighborhood
Characteristics.
37. Wolfgang, M.E., etal., op. cit.
38. Coleman, J.S. and others. Youth: Transition to Adulthood. Report of the Panel on
Y o u t h of the President's Science Advisory Committee, Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1974.