In the early 1960's, a reporter was asked to complete a project and study on juvenile delinquency.

(this image is not mine however I thankfully have access to a copy.)

I will begin by briefly summarizing the key points as I think now more than ever they are important to recognize as being applicable, and substantial in observation of the various societal nuances that can be observed within the very early development of modern society.

In the early 1960's, a reporter was asked to complete a project and study on Juvenile delinquency.

In the early 1960's, a reporter was asked to complete a project and study on juvenile delinquency.

Examples of the modern representations can be seen in truancy, general malaise behavior, formal delinquency, and more extreme cases like terrorism (the most poignant example being the group ||764||)

In what can only be surmised as the early 1950's to late, the study garnered traction and assistance on a global scale allowing for a diverse range of data and inquiry. Regardless of this and the inapplicability of the statistics involved, I would like to draw attention to the similarity in potential that children had in the pre nuclear era with the classically defined modern era. The most poignant thing to note is that successful countries did not merely correlate with delinquency but often times had a unique social relationship based on the nations structure.

During the study it was found that amongst first world countries the average rate of juvenile delinquency not including traffic citations was around 12% (those who received some sort of court mandate). In some areas it was found to be even higher at 20%. This is offset by the fact that the proportion of male to female delinquents was as low as 10-1 in some areas. Roul notes that these sorts of numbers were not found in ancient monarchies or even in such inflated numbers from even only 100 years ago and surmises that it likely has a strict correlation to "potential" and the quest for material wealth or possessions.

In respect of these observations I'd like to observe the ramifications of the correlations he draws. For a monarchy, he cites that a rather banal observation is the lack of an idealized parental figure, something that a monarchy naturally substantiates with a lack of contact and the overwhelming acknowledgement of their power and control in respect to the rather dim and unchangeable lives that the peasantry had during the relevant era's. Upon inspection, while a ideal parental figure is important, this drew attention for me to the notion of idealization and the fulfillment of such. Peasants were not necessarily happy or even productively functional with the morale substantiated by their rulers, but they were generally appeased by the idealization being fulfilled and would in fact gather for spectacles, this leads me to believe that it wasn't fear from a strong figure that fostered less malaise but a figure with proper characterization in a generally moral direction.

Richard Jenkins, another researcher who Tunley briefly mentions, developed the maladaptive(frustrated) and adaptive(non-frustrated) delinquency theory as a method of classifying the needs and reasons of delinquency. The frustrated were generally in need of some sort of social resolution, catharsis, or support; adaptive's had a tendency to display more anti-social and un-empathetic behavior as a means of expression and akin to hedonistic thrill seeking. This functions well with the previous sentiment of idealized characterization effectively. Noting that it was often in more successful locations such as Japan, Moscow, Hong-Kong, and the United States that had deeper issues with delinquent saturation.

The following topic is much more divisive and I will hold off momentarily to settle my nerves and properly discuss the previous acknowledgements and their relation to the terrorist group ||764||.