Summary Of Worldview Of High Risk Juvenile Delinquents

The article “Worldview of high-risk Juvenile Delinquents” written by Julie H. Goldberg is focused on the relationship between violent juvenile offenders and their devastating past experiences. The participants of this research were male adolescents between the ages of 15 and 18 incarcerated who were also in the high-risk offenders Unit of a juvenile hall. The study was to predict participants’ willingness to shoot. Preexisting risk factors (delinquency, exposure to violence, and victimization) was required to be factored into any findings.
There were 3 research questions and they are as follows: Firstly, are there different worldviews among these juvenile offenders, despite having nearly identical pasts filled with violence and death? Second,

Some major findings in this study were that participants were significantly more violent than the average juvenile delinquent. They were also asked about the most serious crimes that they had ever committed finding that among the 34 participants, 5 terrorist threats, 5 murders, 2 attempted murders, 1 manslaughter, 12 burglaries, 11 strong-armed robberies, 9 assaults with a deadly weapon, 8 drug possessions with intent to deal, 6 gun possessions, and 5 shootings.
There were many preexisting risk factors that included exposure to violence, vicarious victimization, and criminal and delinquent acts. In the aspect of their future expectations, they mostly had negative expectations. When the young males were asked about future risks, they really felt like they would be the victim of a violent crime or even shot at. Ordinarily they felt little could protect them, and the only means of protection would be a gun, followed by their gang. Any association with said gang members put them at risk for being

“Within this world, these juveniles could envision no future, at least one that lasted beyond the age of 20; and given the reality of their existence, that is probably fairly accurate.” (Page 13) On the other hand, juveniles in the other half of the sample were able to imagine a world where there was the possibility of a different outcome from the one the shooters predicted. The nonshooters perceived there to be a choice about shooting in this situation and were willing to choose nonviolence. It may seem they believed that they could talk their way out of the situation. Their worldviews can be related to their decision in the fictional scenarios given. Since their life may be in jeopardy, they feel as if it is okay for them to use guns for protection, even if that means killing someone. “They perceived their best option for protection to be a gun (mean and median = 50%).” (Page 8) Furthermore, the nonshooters’ had a very optimistic worldview where they believed that there was a real possibility of getting out of “the life” (gang or street life) and maybe even getting an education and regular job. The participants can envision a nonviolent response in dangerous situations. They were asked an open-ended question about what could protect them (if not gangs or a gun) and several