to understand the vital link between decision-making and crime, self-concept, and assertive behaviour.
Session 11 explores the consequences of irrational and negative thinking. After completion of this session, the participants are expected to be aware of the negative and irrational thinking cycle that they are caught in and that limits their potential to follow their dreams in life. It is also expected that they should be able to apply visualization thoughts, and that they should be able to stop and reframe strategies to change negative and irrational thinking. They are also taught to be committed to choosing a different life path than their current one, and they are encouraged to apply a more positive attitude to their daily lives and to develop high levels of motivation. The last session is based on mapping the future. The main goal of session 12 is to support the participants in realising that their past does not dictate their future (NICRO, 2013).
offenders to participate in a meaningful process through which they will come to recognise that their actions were offensive to society and their victims. Furthermore, the Act envisions restitution and reducing the possibility of re-offending.
The Child Justice Act No. 75 of 2008 represents a central break from the manner in which South Africa treated its youth in conflict with the law in the past. It is a prominent example of legislation that gives not only content to the rights of the youth as advocated in the Constitution, but it also provides a practical basis from which such rights may be realised. Moreover, it allows all those involved, in their various services, to acquire the necessary tools with which to truly break the cycle of crime (Bezuidenhout, 2013). Data from previous studies have shown that both individual variables and environmental conditions are essential in taking responsibility for offending behaviour. Data have also revealed that youths’ behaviour is most likely to be influenced by how society views them. It is therefore very important that youths’ perception of fair treatment by the criminal justice system and the community as a whole has a positive effect on their emotional attitude and behavioural outcomes. Effective diversion programmes for youth in conflict with the law can be achieved through supportive structures. Such structures will enable them to avoid future criminal behaviour and will involve them in activities that should promote constructive growth and enhance self-esteem.
However, it is a matter of concern that diversion is not without danger; thus, a good balance needs to be achieved between appropriate diversion initiatives and what is known as widening the net.
Despite some success in reducing crime among youth offenders by means of diverting them away from the formal criminal justice system, there is limited evidence of their perspectives and understanding of diversion programmes in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether the Youth Empowerment Scheme programme altered youth offenders’ understanding of
their own criminal behaviour and to identify the factors that contributed to their criminal behaviour. In the latter instance, the literature suggests that factors such as family background, schooling, peer pressure, and environmental influences be investigated. The following chapter discusses the theoretical framework within which the study was located.
CHAPTER THREE
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Introduction
Different theories are used in research in order to locate a study within a particular framework. As a result, various theories have been developed to explain crime and deviance and to guide crime prevention initiatives. Theories are used as the theoretical framework that can hold or support a theory that guides a research study (Swanson & Chermack, 2013). For example, a theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists (Swanson & Chermack, 2013). The theories that will be illuminated in this chapter framed the concepts of youth offending and diversion programmes as the central themes of this study.
Youth offenders learn to engage in crime in the same way that they learn to engage in confirming behaviour through association with significant others. In this context, the theories that were employed in this study aimed to support an understanding of youth offending within the social context. Therefore, misbehaviour among youth occurs not only as a result of biological factors, but psychological and social factors are predominant in creating deviant behaviour (Regoli, Hewitt
& DeLisi, 2008).
Various theories are used to explain crime and deviance, and the application of these theories creates a better understanding of the reasons why youth commit offences. The current study was guided by two theories, namely the labelling theory (Becker, 1963) and the differential association theory (Sutherland, 1947).
The social process approach theory encompasses several spheres. These include:
The social learning theory: This theory suggests that individuals learn the techniques and attitudes of crime from close relationships with criminal peers. This theory emphasises that crime is a learned behaviour.
The social control theory: This theory maintains that every person has the potential to become a criminal, but most individuals are controlled by their bonds to society. Crime occurs when forces that bind people to society are weakened or broken.
The social reaction (labelling) theory: This theory holds that people become criminals when significant members of the society label them as such and they accept those labels as a personal identity (Siegel, 2011:168).
Social learning theories support the view that crime is a product of learning the norms, values, and behaviours associated with criminal behaviour. There are two branches of the social learning theory: the differential association theory and the neutralisation theory. The differential association theory suggests that people commit a crime when their social learning leads them to perceive more definitions favouring crime than favouring conventional behaviour. The neutralisation theory proposes that law violators learn to neutralise conventional values and attitudes, which enables them to move back and forth between criminal behaviour and conventional behaviour (Siegel, 2011:176).
According to Wilson and Hoge (2012:497), “theoretical support for the use of diversion, whether involving therapeutic interventions or not, is provided by the labelling theory of Becker (1963) and the differential association theory of Sutherland (1947)”. Therefore, the labelling theory and the differential association theory were used to guide the research project, as these theories hold the principle that when youth offenders are diverted away from formal court procedures to re-
integrative diversion programmes, both the potential for being labelled a criminal and the learning of criminal behaviour are reduced.
3.2 Theoretical Basis for the treatment of Offenders