According to research done by Warr

A lot of research has been conducted and hypothesis classulated to determine whether delinquent colleague linkups precede delinquency or vice versa. Another concern is how get along with influences delinquency and the interactivity or linkage among age, coadjutor connective, and delinquency. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to set about to fore, the various researches, theories and hypothesis that invariably throw more light on this issue.According to research done by Warr (1993), delinquency escalates rapidly as individuals make it their teen years and then declines almost as rapidly as they enter their late teens and early twenties. A possible explanation for this in my opinion is that younkersters in their early teens tend to be more valiant and experimental.They are also easily influenced to try out new habits-good or bad- since often times, they are not experienced enough to know or care about the consequences of their actions. However, as they grow older and of course produce by experience, they inadvertently develop a more matured and equilibrate approach to the everyday choices they make.On some other note, the fact that a peer collection that you belong to engages in unlawful activities helps to validate its relevance and the feeling that it plausibly is the cool thing to do. Also, because humans are creatures of habit, once they start a habit, say alcoholism, it doesnt take long forrader they become addicted.From another perspective, a criminal activity, say illegal drug use, cornerstone form part of general criteria for joining some particular peer groups. This can in no small way influence youths to indulge in these activities just to win the groups approval or endorsement.A lift of contention among researchers is which comes first between delinquency and delinquent peer association? Research by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1987), support the notion that delinquency actually comes before delinquent peer association. Similar resea rches performed by Thornberry (1994), Elliot and Menard (1996) however, offer opposing views.It is central to examine the role that age actually plays in delinquent acts. dead reckoning by Elliot and Menard (1996), show that both delinquency and delinquent peer association increase with age.A more insightful theory is the interactional theory by Thornberry (1987) that suggests that the influence of delinquent peer associations should increase during mid-adolescence and then decline gradually based on the reasoning that the hold that peer groups have on an individual is more pronounced during early stages of adolescence and less so as they grow older and commit to traditional activities like school, family, church, work etc.Still on the effects that age and delinquent peer association have on delinquency, the constant supervisory roles that teachers/guardians play in schools can douse the nix influences that delinquent peer associations can have on a young individual.However, as they advance in age and schooling, and move on to institutions of higher(prenominal) learning, the teachers or guardians tend to treat individuals as adults capable of making their declare decisions. In other words, the supervisory roles that teachers play in the life of students bowdlerize drastically as they advance in age and schooling. This also represents the theories express by Jang (1999675).The interactional theory developed by Thornberry (1987) has been put to stress but not without some loopholes. For instance, though the theory suggests that delinquent peer associations vary with age, it doesnt specifically address the measure or form of offending. Also, a general inference tends to be made based on just one category of offending (e.g. drug offending).