**4. Empirical evidence and research findings**

The research was carried out between 2012 and 2017 in the judicial district of the Juvenile Court of Naples12 and has developed as an assessment of the application of Presidential Decree 448 and in particular as an examination of the performance of juvenile probation in a context where serious deviance, juvenile crime is essentially indigenous. 287 files of juvenile offenders receiving m.a.p. (out of 882) were analyzed between 2000 and 2007 by the Juvenile Social Service Office (USSM). This set constituted the experimental sample of which it was also possible to draw a profile of the child tested. The sample was compared with three different control samples among those against whom a sentence of "irrelevance of the fact" art. 27 d.P.R. 448 (Nc1 199 subjects out of 523), those who have benefited from the "judicial forgiveness" art. 169 cp. (Nc2 286 out of 2518) and those sentenced to imprisonment (Nc3 238 out of 914).

The general objective of the work was to evaluate the performance of juvenile probation in the indicated district going beyond the sole verification of positive or negative outcomes with which the trial may end and including a longitudinal analysis that takes into account the biography of the subject post-trial. A monitoring of the operational practices of psycho-social recovery interventions over a limited, albeit broad, period.

To achieve this goal it was necessary to articulate further operational subobjectives, such as:


To trace the *profile of the minor in m.a.p.* was built and validated according to the pre-testing procedure, a detection board that allowed the implementation of a data matrix. Four macro-areas were explored: in the registration books, judicial, socioeconomic, as well as related to the educational content of the project (**Figure 3**).

The sample observed (Ns1 287) is strongly marked with respect to gender, 92.3% male and nationality, 95.1% Italian, in line with the general trends of both juvenile

<sup>12</sup> The territories that fall within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court of Naples, besides the administrative centre, are provinces of Avellino, Benevento and Caserta.

*Juvenile Delinquency between Probation and Criminal Careers DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94339*

#### **Figure 3.**

*By comparing the experimental and control samples.*

crime recorded in the country, where the constant prevalence of complaints against male minors is observed, both with the more limited readiness of judges to apply the probation measure to foreign defendants because of the difficulties of implementation that are often encountered13. In fact, it is in the regions of the Centre-North of the country that the involvement of foreign minors is greater: the complaints reach almost 39%, compared to 8% in the southern regions14.

Expecting that the trial path was positive for almost 86% of the minors in m.a.p., for the remaining 14% the negativity is motivated by "non-adherence to the program" (56,1%), commission of a new crime (34,1%), other reasons (9,8%). The nuclear family structure is based on the bad breadwinner function of the father who in 45.2% sees him perform a private job and in 33.5% public, while in 65.2% of cases the mother does not work15. The cultural capital of parents is very low (54%), compared to 39.3% with medium and 6.7% medium-high education16. The proband, instead, for the 78% is in possession of a medium license, followed by a 15% holder of elementary license and a 6.6% of higher license. The school commitment affects 41.8% of minors in m.a.p., compared to 37.9% who works of which 39.8% occasionally and 34.7% permanently but not regularized.

Examination of the files of the experimental sample shows that only almost 23% of legal practitioners were aware of the existence of previous pending loads. The

<sup>13</sup> See, [107–110].

<sup>14</sup> Di Pascale M., *Distribuzione e modificazione della delinquenza minorile, op. cit*., pp. 204 e ss.; nonché Di Pascale M., *La criminalità minorile nelle città metropolitane italiane*, in G. Di Gennaro e R. Marselli (a cura di), *Criminalità e sicurezza a Napoli. Secondo Rapporto*, Napoli, FedOAPress, 2017: 56 ss. Inoltre, vedi Raspelli S., *Baby gang di minori stranieri immigrati in Italia: uno studio esplorativo*, Milano, Fondazione ISMU, paper novembre 2016.

<sup>15</sup> The family work employment index was not significantly correlated (*r* Pearson = −.38) with the position of the minors charged with further crimes in addition to the one for which the trial is being carried out. Only 37.5% of the sample (out of 68.8% of the total) comes from a family whose employment rate is low.

<sup>16</sup> The cultural capital of the parents appeared to be a strong predictor of the outcome of the test course. 70% of minors who received a negative outcome have parents with low education.

age of the proband should not be understood, then, as criminal onset, indeed these subjects could already be considered recidivists, in a literal and not legal sense.

Although the art. 28 of the d.PR. speaks of juvenile, 25,2% of the subjects - that is the over-eighteen-years-olds - has been recipient of the m.a.p. in a time that varies from one to over four years after the commission of the crime. If we add to these the share of eighteen-year-olds, the percentage rises to 56 points: more than half of the sample has concretely carried out the trial period as an adult!

It seems legitimate to ask: what is the value and what could be the effectiveness of a rehabilitation practice if the crime was committed years ago? It is clear that this conflicts with the primary objective of juvenile justice to ensure a rapid release of the child from the criminal circuit.

With regard to the judicial position of the juvenile ex ante the m.a.p. in 46.3% of cases awaits the trial and the application of the evidence on the loose. In fact, one of the fundamental criteria governing the provision or not of precautionary measures in the juvenile criminal trial is the non- interruption of educational processes already in place (Art. 19 of Presidential Decree 448). Therefore, where there are no particular precautionary requirements (art. 275 c.p.p.), it is good for the subject to continue with the normal course of life, also to avoid being burdened by unnecessary stigmatizing labels.

Compared to the application of the typical precautionary measures prescribed for the juvenile ritual, instead, from the data the following distribution emerges: prescriptions 7,7%; permanence in house 20,4%; placement in community 18,6%; precautionary custody 6,7%.

A further element can be deduced from the observations obtained from the cross-table between the place of residence of the subject and the place where the crime was committed: in 71.7% of the cases, the place where the crime was committed and the place of residence of the offender coincide, indicating a low level of criminal territorial mobility17. The maturation and practice of a deviant subculture overlap with the same urban space. Here again an inevitable question: does it make sense to return the child to the family, to relationships, to that environment that directed him to the deviant experience knowing that these are high risk factors?

In fact, the information on the percentage of correctness in crimes tells us that in 79.9% of cases the subject has acted in complicity with other people of which 40.6% with adults, 53.8% with minors and 5.6% is mixed complicity18. In addition, when the subject acts as a member of a dyad or a group his action becomes more ruthless and violent. It is the strength that comes from the pack that

<sup>17</sup> Territorial criminal commuting and territorial criminal mobility are very low in the life cycle of the juvenile age and this for two reasons: a) the tendency to carry out acts in company (or with another minor or with older young more adult) whose complicity is limited to those contiguous relationships, interactions and aggregation models that mature within shared residential spaces; b) the need to operate in places not very far away where the conditions fulfill the fundamental "hunting" requirements: knowledge of the territory; escape route; count on ad hoc protections that can be activated; infungibility of the victims.

<sup>18</sup> The only national study produced by the Department for Juvenile Justice records that in 38% of cases the crime is committed individually while "the cases of co-incidence represented 62% of the total, with a prevalence of crimes committed with other minors"; see, Dipartimento per la Giustizia Minorile-Centro Europeo di Studi di Nisida, *La recidiva nei percorsi penali dei minori autori di reato*, Gangemi, Roma 2013: 48. Studies carried out in the district of Bari and Foggia (Puglia) also show that the majority (63.3%) of the crime is committed in conjunction with other children and this data is transversal to the three groups considered by the research: those who have benefited from the put to the test (68.5%); the group of repeat offenders (65%) and the group of non-repeat offenders who did not benefit from probation (58.3%); see, [111].

#### *Juvenile Delinquency between Probation and Criminal Careers DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94339*

legitimizes and exalts the accomplishment of actions that perhaps alone would condemn or hesitate to carry out.

We speak of crimes such as sexual violence, committed in conspiracy for 86.7% of cases; or robberies, 92.6%19. The seriousness of the crime does not affect the application of m.a.p. which, moreover, as said, can be given several times20. Certainly, the discretion of the judge in not a few cases can become an arbitrary use of judging power, since the judge is called to decide whether or not to suspend the trial simply on the basis of a predictive effort and the same opinions of the operators (social workers, psychologists, educators) are not binding for the purposes of the decision, so much so that there are no residual decisions of a routine nature.

Considering that the most serious indictment has been reported, 52% of the crimes ascribed are against property, 24% against the person and the remainder for so-called other crimes. Specifically, among the first, robbery dominates with 64.4%, followed by theft (23.5%) and with lower percentages extortion, damage, handling of stolen goods21. Among the crimes against the person, personal injury (31.9%), crimes of sexual violence (21.7%), manslaughter 14.5% and with lower values those of brawl, will-full murder and attempted murder. The other crimes are drug trafficking (63%), crimes against the public administration (17.1%) and, more residual, weapons possession, conspiracy and traffic violations.

Finally, the problem of recidivism and criminal relapse22. In the two initial tables below we have summarized the results found between the different samples. In the third reported the data of other researches that allow the comparison.

The criminal relapse rates detected for the experimental sample of N1 287 subjects receiving the m.a.p. are 18.5%. This value is interposed between 15.1% produced by the sample of subjects who were granted a judgment of irrelevance of the

<sup>19</sup> The neapolitan metropolitan area in the period between 2004 and 2017 recorded the highest number of robbieres followed by Milan and Rome, but with an almost total indigenous component; see, Di Pascale [112]. A positive correlation (*r* Pearson = .82) emerged in our sample between the low or average capital endowment of the parents and the propensity to carry out robberies by minors, which affects 82.7%; while minors whose parents have a medium-high cultural capital are in 24% of cases involved in drug dealing (*r* = .57).

<sup>20</sup> The average duration of a trial run recorded in the sample is 12 months (38.1%); for crime against the person and for the category of other crimes, the duration of the trial is respectively 44.1% and 43.3%, below the average. The duration of the trial for crimes against property for 46.9% coincides with one year. Personal injuries can be occasional, robberies plus an orientation to serious deviancethis would explain why crimes committed against the person aren't subject to a longer probationary period than those against property.

<sup>21</sup> The comparison with the same criminological researches indicated and the National study referred to report much lower percentages and the same entry into the Italian juvenile criminal circuit is mainly determined by the carrying out of thefts (27%) and robberies (8%).

<sup>22</sup> To study the recidivism rate, a comparable criterion was used between the samples and the indicator was evaluated after 5–6 years from the date of the first crime. Therefore, recidivism must be understood not only according to the technical-legal meaning referred to in art. 99 of the Criminal Code, as in the sense of "relapse into a new crime". The Central Criminal Records database and that of the Department of Penitentiary Administration (DAP) were interrogated with different name lists – provided by the Juvenile Court and the Center for Juvenile Justice in Naples – corresponding to the samples adopted in the survey. The outcomes produced by the first source made it possible to derive the recidivism rate, as the sentences of convinction, or acquittal, became irrevocable. The feedback received from the DAP allowed the calculation of the criminal relapse rate, obtained from the calculation of the entries in a prison attributable to a single person for the commission of a new crime. In this last regard, there is an obligation to clarify that, given the particularity of this source, it is not certain that the subjects not present in the DAP databases have not committed any further crime.

fact (Nc2 199) and 24.1% of those against whom a judgment of judicial forgiveness was pronounced (Nc2 286). To these is added the data that belongs to the sample of Nc3 238 subjects who between 2000 and 2007 entered a prison for minors as a result of a prison sentence (**Tables 1** and **2**).


#### **Table 1.**

*Percentage of criminal relapse differentiated by sample.*


#### **Table 2.**

*Percentage of relapse differentiated by sample.*

If in the first three samples the data produced already open to wide considerations, since we speak on average of a relapse in crime attributable to one in five subjects who had originally been granted a measure designed specifically for minors (testing, irrelevance of the fact and judicial forgiveness, measures that in practice interrupt the crime-penalty contract), the data obtained from the sample of former juvenile offenders open to a nefarious scenario, even if expected. Out of 100 former juvenile offenders, about 63 adult offenders have committed at least one new offense for which they entered a Prison for Adults (**Table 3**).


#### **Table 3.**

*Relapse estimated in different researches that report data on juvenile recidivism.*
