Introduction
The issue of gang membership presents a substantial concern in many countries across the globe. Since the second half of the 20 th century, the problem of gang violence is prevalent in the USA. Indeed, all of the 50 states and the District of Columbia report gang issues consistently. Youth and teenage gang membership is both a public health and a criminal law concern. Membership in a gang is a high-risk lifestyle that is associated with various adverse effects. Some of the impacts of gang membership include; juvenile delinquency, irresponsible sexual practices, substance abuse and trafficking, and homicide, which subsequently result in underperformance in academics resultantly causing economic and familial hardships. Despite the evident growth and expansion of gangs in the USA and the widely acknowledged statistics on their adverse impact, little is known about the extent of juvenile gang membership and the dynamics associated with their expansion. Understanding the underlying factors that influence youths to join gangs beyond empirical evidence is imperative in devising effective policies and strategies to counter their development. By employing the differential association theory, the article argues that juveniles join gangs as a result of close interactions with other youths engaged in delinquent activities.
The Conceptualization of Gangs
The definition of the terms related to gang activities such as gangs, gang membership, and gang crime involves various variables particularly in the criminal law platform where distinctiveness and precision are imperative. The criteria that a particular region or country adopts in the definition of gangs, particularly juvenile gangs, to no small extent influences the techniques that it implements in addressing the issue. The Massachusetts General Law title 1, chapter 265, section 44 defines a gang as “an organization of more than two people who adopt a common name, identify with a particular sign or symbol and whose members either individually or collectively engage in criminal activity” (Department of Public security, 2007). The MGL definition of a gang perceives a gang as a criminal unit or essentially a “victimizer.”
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, the concept of a gang extends beyond the involvement in criminal activities to encompass the desire of young people to form a social system, where it does not exist, with the intention to pursue their needs and exercise privileges that their families, the administrations or society at large do not offer. In this context, a gang is created out of extreme impoverishes, isolation and the general lack of opportunities (Brownfield, 2003). In the pursuit of their desires such as acquiring territories, gangs employee different methods including illegal activities since they lack supervision. The lack of accountability results in a vicious circle of criminal behavior, which is primarily fueled with their initial intention of achieving a sense of belonging. As such, the applied definition of gangs depends on the discipline, context, and the objective of the subject. For instance, in criminal law gangs are considered victimizers since the law intends to punish and resultantly deter criminal behavior. However, sociology and psychology adapt an eclectic definition of gangs with the intention of addressing the isolation of gang members from the society.
The concept of gang membership became popular in the mid-20 th century. In the 1970s less than 20 states accounted for gang-related issues in their jurisdictions. However, two decades later, in the 1990s, all the fifty states and the District of Columbia were concerned with the issue of gang activities (Howell, 2010). According to the National Youth Gang Survey, since the 1990s, gang activity often increases and decreases at a varying level (Kissner & Pyrooz, 2009). Despite the drop in gang activities in certain periods, the National Youth Gang Survey acknowledges gang membership as consistently increasing in popularity.
The initial step in addressing the issue that is juvenile gang involves an accurate estimation of the enormity and nature of teenage gangs' member population. The link between gang membership and criminal activities in the USA indicates it is a daunting task to ascertain the number of youths involved in gangs and gang-related activities. Certainly, the only national statistics on juvenile gang rely on the representative surveys of law enforcement officers on gang actions in their areas of jurisdiction. For instance, a study in the year 2010 reported there are over 750,000 gang members in the USA and suggested almost 40 percent of these numbers are juveniles (Lachman, Roman, & Cahill, 2013) . However, unlike the figures portrayed by the law enforcement agencies, research commissioned and funded by other agencies indicate that gang activity is highly concentrated among young people.
In the current society, as gang membership continues to expand, there are no typical gang members. Indeed, individuals that join gangs are diverse in age, race, socioeconomic background, gender, religion, and nationalities. Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth using a representative sample of more than nine thousand adolescents across the USA demonstrates that more than eight percent of youth between the ages of twelve and seventeen belonged to a gang at some point. Another survey with more than six thousand eight-graders respondents revealed more than nine percent of the adolescents belonged to a gang while eighteen percent previously belonged to a gang. Statistics reveal gang membership is particularly prevalent in large cities (Howell, 2010). Large urban centers have higher numbers of gangs as compared to small towns.
T he demographic characteristics of gang members also vary depending on geographical location, race, and gender. NYGS research in 2008, suggested that almost half of all of the gang members are Hispanic while more than 30% are African-Americans while Caucasians accounted for a mere 11 percent (Howell, 2010). However, researches that focus entirely on juveniles did not record any substantial differences based on ethnicity and race. The data showcase almost similar numbers for blacks, Latinos, and whites while multicultural groups recorded relatively higher numbers. On the grounds of gender, the society often assumes gang membership is an arena for the male gender. Indeed, a survey conducted more than two decades ago in 1997 ascertained that the number of females in gangs was half that of males (Lachman, Roman, & Cahill, 2013) . However, recent surveys suggest that the ratio of the male and female gender in gangs is almost similar. Indeed, the recent 15-city research concluded that gangs include eight percent of girls and nine percent of boys hence demonstrating gang membership is no longer the previously male-dominated arena.
Differential Association Theory
The differential association theory is one of the most acknowledged theories in criminology. The popularity of this approach is based on its ground-breaking ability to establish a connection between sociological perspectives and criminology. Criminologist Sutherland initially postulated the theory in 1939 in his famous book "Principles of Criminology" (Matsueda, 2001) . Since the theory’s original development, the approach has undergone extensive revisions and extensions that continue to validate its importance in criminology. Sutherland began his extensive study in criminology when he was requested to write a book. Initially, he took a general view in his analysis of the causes of crime. Some of the causes mentioned included; mental illness, age, social status, isolation among others. However, critics insisted that the reasons provided lacked scientific evidence (Matsueda, 2001) . The criticism prompted Sutherland to seek experimental validation which influenced his shift from the multiple factor methodology. As such, Sutherland concluded that giving a scientific meaning to criminology necessitates going beyond providing a list of correlates. He sought for a common explanation that will account for circumstances during the criminal activity or lack of circumstances when there is no criminal activity. The interpretation intended to embrace the multiple approaches correlates as facts facilitating the clarification.
To arrive at a scientific generalization that acknowledged on the different factors that contribute to criminal behavior, Sutherland applied three distinct methods of theory construction. The first method known as logical abstraction involves scientifically abstracting from situations known to cause crime to the application of universal mechanism. It focuses on establishing which common process creates the different correlates of crime. He also applied the differentiation of levels of analysis where he concentrated on a single variable such as a “ person ” and held others constant (Kissner & Pyrooz, 2009). The result of the technique would be the development of a theory that acknowledged, individual, group and community differences while integrating them serially. Moreover, he applied the analytic induction which encompasses a case by case analysis and test of clarifications emphasized through an evaluation for adverse situations. It involves the adamant search for sufficient explanation.
Principles of the Differential Association Theory
Sutherland stated the differential association theory as a set of nine suggestions that introduced three different aspects including normative conflict, differential association, and group organization. Sutherland postulated that normative conflict is the core reason for crime at the societal level. Sutherland described the normative conflict as a society segmented into groups that fundamentally disagree on what constitutes appropriate behavior. At a personal level, the differential association showcases how normative conflicts influence an individual to engage in criminal activities. The differential association asserts criminal behavior is learned through communications and associations in close groups. The process of learning involves both the rationalization of crime and learning the different skills required in committing a crime (Matsueda, 2001) .
Moreover, an individual will engage in criminal activity in the event he or she has an objective opportunity to commit the crime. The differential social organization of crime focuses on group rates of crime. The differential social organization maintains the crime rate in a particular community is influenced by how and the extent to which that community is organized against crime. Indeed, the differential social organization is applicable at the individual level since a society that is disorganized in the criminal management activities has numerous and unclear definition of crime which influences individuals to rationalize their actions.
The differential association theory postulated nine different propositions including the concept that criminal behavior is learned, the learning occurs when individuals communicated or interact in close relationships or groups and insisted that the principle process of learning criminal behaviors often happens within intimate and close personal groups such as friends passing the time together (Brownfield, 2003). Moreover, according to the differential association theory, the learning process encompasses various aspects including acknowledging the techniques associated with committing a crime and establishing the motives, attitudes, and rationalizations related to committing a crime.
Sutherland also postulated that legal codes often influence the motivations and definitions of crime that the society has adapted for the intention of punishing and deterring criminal activities. He insisted the community may adopt either favorable or unfavorable measures which may result in increased or decreased illegal activities respectively. Indeed, an individual engages in delinquent behavior due to the excesses in definitions of what is a crime and favorable consequences in the event of violation of the law. In this sense, criminal behavior is influenced in the process of association with those who commit the crime which is the fundamental principle of the theory. Apart from the aspect of social and personal interaction, Sutherland insisted that conflicts fuel criminal behavior. The theory asserts that the risk of an individual engaging in criminal behavior depends on the frequency and consistency of their interactions with patterns of criminal behavior (Bishop et al., 2017). The theory insists that individual differences between people only cause crime since they affect the differential association or frequency and consistency with contacts with criminal activities. According to the differential association theory, criminal behavior is an expression of the general needs and values and as such cannot be explained using the same general needs and values.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Theory
While no one particular theory can explain the entirety of criminal behavior, Sutherland’s differential association adopts a meta-analysis approach that remains valid in illustrating how antisocial association and attitudes can be indicators of delinquent behaviors. Th e theory is particularly useful in the analysis of peer influences that results in deviant youths and normalization of crime among these individuals (Bishop et al., 2017). Moreover, the theory was adopted during a period where the reasons for criminal activities focused on environmental and genetic factors essentially ignoring the effect of interactions. Additionally, subsequent revisions and criticism of the theory have impacted its growth as criminology theory.
One of the common criticism of the differential association theory is the fact that it is problematic to empirically test the principles and accurately estimate and measure the aspect of "associations." Moreover, it is difficult to measure the duration and frequency of relationship between and among individuals. Critics also mention that the theory ignores the aspect of personality or the function of genetics, biology and psychological attributes in the concept of crime. The criticizers emphasize that the approach has downgraded these factors to an inferior position in the explanation of criminal behavior despite extensive empirical research that suggests otherwise (Kissner & Pyrooz, 2009). According to Sutherland, individual differences only in the way they affect differential associations (Matsueda, 2001) . However, it is acknowledged in both psychology and sociology that a person's combination of genetics and environment often separate him or her from the group. Another weakness of the theory is the fact that the differential theory merely focuses on how crime spreads in the society but does not provide clarifications of how crime came into existence in the first place. Indeed, some writings indicate that the theory concentrates on systematic criminal behavior that is described as criminal behavior that has become a way of that particular person.
Differential Association Theory and Juvenile Gang Membership
Several aspects such as cooperation, loyalty, trust, and collective rationality often explain the growth and facilitation of gang membership. Grounded on such reasoning, it is necessary and practical to conceptualize young adult gang membership from the perception of a theory with a capability of explaining how gangs include individuals that are open-minded to participating on gangs and upholding the principles such as trust and collective reasoning. The differential association theory and gang membership typically operate as a learning process where having a person's friend involved in criminal activities results in natural research in the concept of gangs (Brownfield, 2003). Usually, gangs do not support friendships outside the gang as such, the differential association with members of a gang offers a person gang favorability. Moreover, close interactions with members of a gang may provide other satisfactions that do not necessarily involve the engagement in criminal activities such as companionship. Furthermore, there might be a reinforcement of habits that an individual participated in before the interaction with gang members.
Indeed, when teenagers outside the gang differentially associate with individuals in gangs, they are influenced to join. Gang membership is grounded on the concept that trust often develops on avenues of frequency, priorities, and the period of an association, the same idea that is postulated in the differential association theory. The close interaction allows an individual to decide to join a gang since he or she trusts the other members of a gang (Bishop et al., 2017). Undeniably, for a gang to function as a single unit, it is necessary that the individuals hold positive perceptions towards each other which often insights loyalty and cooperation. Perceiving each other positively despite involved in criminal activities indicate that the individuals share opinions and "definition" of a crime an aspect that Sutherland insists fuels both individual and group illegal activities.
The theory is particularly useful in explaining why juveniles join gangs since it acknowledges close interaction an attribute that is common in young people especially in the current society characterized with social media and other forms of communication. Essentially, the theory postulates that juvenile deviance is a result of an accrual of antisocial associations at an adequate quantity and quality (Brownfield, 2003). In this sense, a person’s antisocial associations with members of the gang overshadow their prosocial bonds with their families as such increasing the risk of young people joining gangs. However, it is important to acknowledge the weaknesses of the theory such as its ignorance on how environmental and biological factors influence a young person’s decision to join a gang.
Several empirical surveys have focused on the association between gangs and the differential association theory and have found an evident association between the two concepts. Brownfield (2003) evaluated the effect of differential association on gang membership and concluded there is a substantial set of control for peer misbehavior and control theory variables of the differential association theory. Indeed, several studies conducted in 10 years with respondents from different categories of young adults including middle school and high school reported there is an apparent affirmative link between association with delinquent peers and an individual's decision to join a gang (Kissner & Pyrooz, 2009). Other two studies conducted in the early 1990s focused on measuring differential association with gang members as a risk factor for gang membership and the conclusions from the research were supportive of the principles Sutherland postulated (Kissner & Pyrooz, 2009). Unlike other research that merely focuses on the association between pro-social and delinquent peers, the two surveys specifically focused on the interaction between members of a gang and others who are not involved in gang activity. A recent study conducted in 2009 with the intention of establishing a link between self-control, differential association, and gang membership using a sample of around two hundred jail inmates concluded restraint is insignificant in the aspect of the differential association with gang members and the sequent decision for a young adult to join a gang.
Conclusion
Acknowledging the shocking statistics linked to juvenile gangs and the resultant negative consequences, it is imperative for policymakers, the judicial system, and the society at large to work together to reduce and eradicate the popularity of gangs in the USA. One of the most effective programs according to the Crime sultions.gov is the Big Brother Big Sisters (BBBS) community-Based Mentoring (CBM) which focuses on crime and drug abuse prevention among juveniles (National Institute of Justice, 2012). The program is valid since it focuses on young people from a tender age of six to eighteen. It offers a one to one mentoring to juveniles. The program positively influenced young adults’ relationships with their parent which is important in preventing differential associations with gang members. Another program mentioned in the Crime Solutions.gov that was unfortunately unsuccessful was the All-Stars program which focused on reducing and preventing criminal activities and drug and substance abuse in young adults aged between eleven and fifteen aspects that associated with juvenile gangs (National Institute of Justice, 2012). The All Stars is a character-based approach to reducing delinquent behaviors such as substance abuse and violence. However, the program evaluation revealed no evident differences between the control and the experiment group illustrating its inefficiency. The policy was not effective because it took a generalized character-based approach rather than designing specific interventions such as mentoring.
I believe the reasons juvenile joins gangs extends beyond their associations with criminal members to their personalities and environment. However, since one particular theory is insufficient to describe criminal behavior such as gangs, the multi-faceted approach of the differential association theory is essential in describing why juveniles join gangs.
References
Bishop, A., Hill, K., Gilman, A., Howell, J., Catalano, R., & Hawkins, D. (2017). Development pathways of youth gang membership: A structural test of the social development model. Journal of Crime Justice, 40 (3), 275-296.
Brownfield, D. (2003). Differential association and gang membership. Journal of Gang Research, 11 , 1-12.
Department of Public security. (2007). Definitions and classifications of gangs: Executive summary. Washington DC. : Department of Public Security.
Howell, J. (2010). Gang Prevention: An Overview of Research and Programs. Juvenile Justice Bulleting , 1-13.
Kissner, J., & Pyrooz, D. (2009). Self-control, differential associations, and gang membership: A theoretical and empirical extension of literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37 , 478-487.
Lachman, P., Roman, C., & Cahill, M. (2013). Assessing youth motivations for joining peer as risk factors for delinquent and gang behavior. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11 (3), 212-229.
Matsueda, R. L. (2001). Differential association theory. Volume 1: Historical, Conceptual and Theoretical Issues , 125-129.
National Institute of Justice. (2012). National Institute of Justice: Juveniles. Retrieved September 12, 2018, from Crimesolutions.gov.
