Taking as a criteria the chronologic one, it can be observed that the first studies in this context have centred their attention on the physical, bio anthropological and genetic aspects of deviance. We can think, for instance, to the “corporal” school and its subsequently evolutions (1). Through time, these studies have shown their ability to give a complete explanation of the phenomenon. In fact, these researches takes place from suppositions that are characterized by an excessive generalization and they take in consideration a sample or an entire population that is neither representative of a criminal population, nor of a criminal behaviour.

There is another error additional  to this.

The flaw of all these researches is that using a methodological setting which, since founded on a deterministic paradigm, is not able to think of all the variables that can interfere on the behaviour of the teenager, addressing him to a deviant prospective.(2)

Studying the deviance, particular has been the sociological approach to the phenomenon. For which it needs to be remembered, above all, the “symbolic interactionism”. Being a criminal paradigm, that bring a new prospective.

With this interactionism we are participating in a etiological, deterministic vision, instead of a processing interactive vision that allows us to take into consideration, in regard to the study of the deviance phenomenon, the complex interaction that can interfere between a deviance subject, rules and social reactions.

The most precious resource of this conception is the willingness to consider, in a system of reciprocal influences, people with their actual context and the processes in which is explained the change or the support of personal, familiar and community balances (3).

The eighties sees the beginning of a new criminal paradigm, which is the result of the so called “Rome’s School”, and it relies on the various scientific schools (4).  This is the theory of the “complex constructivism”.

However, the subject, in the new constructionistic approach, interpret and elaborate in a social way the social rules and balance its behaviour, with a supervision that defines the developing of the action.  In this particular model, the intra-physics dynamics of the subject and its cognitive representations, interacts with the meanings and the social rules and this complexity determines the actions. To every action done, correspond a phase of mental anticipation of its effects from the person (5).

On the basis of the advocator’s theory, from a functional view, the effects of the action can be deceptive and communicative. The deceptive dimension refers to the action seen as a means to reach something. According to various types of crimes, often the specious function, appears to be not sufficient to explain the action itself. Hence, to this function is adjoined the expressive one, which assume a communicative value auto and hetero direct. The auto - direct expressive function implies a range of messages that the author sends to himself and through them he recasts its own identity. Indeed, the hetero - direct expressive function implies a series of messages that the author sends to the other generalised. The hypothesis at the base of these theory elaborations, is therefore the one who set the juvenile deviance as a phenomenon with a structural power that can widen the communication and highlights the messages (6).

The analysis of violent actions from minors, indeed, has allowed to highlight precise communicative dimensions.

One of them can be explained in auto-representative terms: the deviance action announce to the author and to the others, signs and meanings regarding the subjective identity.

This would be representative of the interpersonal relation’s scheme which is either with the victim and with its related groups as the family or the institutions in general. Or else, the violent actions seems to express in other terms, the necessity of developing and change (7).

In the outlined prospective, the choice of a theory of the deviance such as the communication, would allow the interpretation of the behavioural juvenile deviances as complex expressions of subjectivity in evolution, or rather as an action that speaks. Therefore, the deviant action of the minor is not to be read as a life choice of criminal type but, on the contrary as a request of help to the adult world.

It emerges clearly the necessity of an accurate analysis of the transgression of the young deviant, in sight of the individuation of a suitable solution to solve the problems linked to a personality in construction. A solution that implies the empowerment of the deviant minor through the individuation of a backup path, characterized by the predisposition of models able to allow the young deviant the access to attachment figures, which absolve a functional role for the developing passage that the young goes through as a person(8).

Notes and bibliographic references

1. Gaetano De Leo, Appunti di psicosociologia della criminalità e della devianza. Parte Prima, Roma, Bulzoni Editore, p.34
2. Gaetano De Leo, La devianza minorile. Metodi tradizionali e nuovi modelli di trattamento. Roma, La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1992, p.98;
3. Gaetano De Leo, Patrizia Patrizi, Psicologia giuridica , Bologna, Il Mulino, 2011, p. 209;
4. In particular,  it refers to the theoric branch of the Social Reaction; to the Symbolic Interactionism; to the theory of the Action; and finally to the systematic theory according to whom the negative behaviour has to be analyzed in regard to the dynamics of the system to which it belongs.
5. Aspect developed not by the Von Cranach in its theory of the action but by Rome’s School;
6. G. De Leo, P. Patrizi, Trattare con Adolescenti devianti. Progetti e metodi di intervento nella giustizia minorile, Roma, Carocci editore, 2008, p. 37;
7. Gaetano De Leo, Appunti di pscicosociologia della criminalità e della devianza. Parte Seconda, Roma, Bulzoni Editore, 1987, p. 65;
8. I. Mastropasqua, M. Totaro, 2° Rapporto sulla devianza minorile in Italia, Gangemi, p. 188