There's a lot of dysfunction to unpack there, but lemme take one step back...
I studied criminal justice in college. Some people made careers trying to get to the root causes of crime. My senior paper covered "Marxist theory" in social control (spoiler alert: that route is a dead end). I'm sure today you'll hear experts bemoan the "causes" of crime, as they purport them. I've heard them all, and studied them all. For what it's worth, I don't make a living at this, so I'm not beholden to any ideological Think Tank, or the like. Nope, I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Crime is committed by men, primarily young men. That's it. I'm dropping the mic now...
Ok, some meat for those bones. When you control for factors such as education, income and race, it's young men that commit 90% of crime in modern society. That number is even higher for violent crime. Sociologists have muddied the waters with such assertions that if we get a young man a degree in... something... they will be less likely to commit a crime. But they push Four Year degrees on both men and women. Are we worried about women committing violent crime as well? Nope. Look in any jail or prison. Old ladies are not the primary custodial demographic.
So, can we stop with the insulting assertions about economic status and crime as well? Most poor folks are law abiding, I daresay a majority are. Or, do we really want to admit our bias that we think lower income people are one repossession away from a life of crime? Absurd. There's a great book called "Crime in the Streets, Crime in the Suites". It turns out rich people commit a lot of crime. Who knew? (EVERYONE).
Persons of color are over-represented in arrests, convictions and time served in custody. I'm not going "into the weeds" with this, but it is sufficient to say that the man had to be doing something prior to police contact. There's a lot of societal stuff we need to fix with race relations in general. But let's not lose focus: We're not locking up old black women (even if they're poor and uneducated).
So here's the facts: Young men are more likely to lack impulse control, reasoning skills and life experience necessary to navigate situations where they may stray into criminality. As I've noted before, if you want crime to drop precipitously, lock-up every male at age 16, and release them at 35 or 40. In lieu of that, what?
I hate socialist, "nanny state" programs, but we need some form of National Service. Aside from age and gender, the only other constant among offenders is low self worth. Sending unprepared kids to college only makes that worse. We need rigid, structured programs that teach real skills, and give young men a feeling of accomplishment. And when they contribute to society, they are invested in it.
Not everyone is "boot camp" ready, but any program needs to be rigorous enough to give participants a real feeling of accomplishments. People may be uneducated, but they aren't stupid. They can tell when they're just getting a participation ribbon. Any program should have participants up early and hitting the rack exhausted. Infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, irrigation and reclamation are prime candidates. They can learn marketable trade skills, and after a term of service, EARN a two or four year degree (if they choose).
Young men have a certain "energy". Pretending they don't is just idiotic. So, here's a crazy idea: Instead of trying to force young men into acting like old ladies, howabout we use their strength to benefit us all? Or, there's the "same old same old". That ain't working. And it's only getting worse.