NCJ Number
146877
Date Published
1983
Length
148 pages
Annotation
This study applied Cloward and Ohlin's differential opportunity theory to the study of the causes of delinquency, gang delinquency and the formation of different types of gangs in Taiwan.
Abstract
Flaws in Cloward and Ohlin's theory are discussed. This research found that most juvenile offenders in Taiwan are lower class males from urban areas. The data did not support the hypothesis that lower class adolescents in the cities experience a stronger degree of economic relative aspiration than other youths. It also failed to show a relationship between relative aspiration and delinquency involvement. On the other hand, the study did find a relationship between the perception of limited opportunities and the variables of age, social class, and residence. It also supported the hypothesis that the involvement in delinquency is related to low perceptions of opportunity. It is suggested that the perception of limited opportunity will lead most lower class youths to revise their aspirations downward to avoid frustration and the sense of failure. Those who become delinquent take a different approach and adopt a new set of aspirations, termed subterranean success- goals, which usually require resorting to illegitimate means to achieve. With regard to gang delinquency, the study concluded that the key factor leading to the development of gangs is the self-defense mechanism against feelings of guilt and fear about engaging in criminal conduct. Some common self-defense mechanisms are described. Collective support and communication opportunity among alienated youths were found to be necessary but were not causal. Demographic factors were not found to explain participation in the different types of gangs. The study looked at 35 gangs of Liu- mangs (criminal gangs), 23 gangs of Tai-paus (conflict gangs) and three quasi-retreatist gangs. The existence of one over the others within a neighborhood was found to be related to the degree of integration of different age levels of offenders and between criminal and conventional elements in the neighborhood. References, 2 appendixes