Lecture
Three
Crim 361 Juvenile Delinquency
Influences
on Delinquency
Overview
As social explanations of delinquency, social disorganization and anomie offer significant contrasts to individualistic explanations. In both instances, the logic of the theory appears to be fairly sound, if not complete. Furthermore, in the case of social disorganization, there has appeared a rather impressive collection of supporting evidence. A persistent problem of both explanations of delinquency, however, is the lack of explanation as to how social or societal conditions exert an influence over one’s behavior. In this sense, other theories are incomplete. While they provide a solid base from which to launch other theoretical explanations of delinquency, they should not be interpreted as providing the ultimate sociological understanding of delinquency.
In particular, the theory of social disorganization has provided the basis
for many significant contributions to delinquency theory and research in the
later half of the 19th century.
The explanatory value of social disorganization lies in its implication
of institutional factors in the etiology of delinquency. Although these factors were largely invoked
in an attempt to explain the ultimate acceptance of delinquency behavior in
delinquency areas, subsequent research has pointed to institutional factors,
as significant influences in theory own right.
In additional, the culture transmission aspect of social disorganization
utilizes interpersonal concepts in describing the process of learning and
conveying criminal values. These concepts
have also proved useful in explaining delinquency.
Lecture: The Application of the Theory
The theory of anomie, particularly Merton’s means-end interpretation, is also not without promise as an explanation of delinquency. Anomie theory might best be applied to delinquency in the form of means and goals that are relevant to the status of youth, such as pressures and expectations associated with school or home, rather than solely as terms of economic issues.
Within the context of general strain theory, delinquency, or youth deviance in general, is viewed as escape mechanism from the negative aspects in one’s life, or as a kind of compensation for the loss of a loved one, or a prized goal. As such, this conceptualization of anomie stresses the individual adaptations to personal strain, rather than to the societal factors that produce the stress in the first place. Nonetheless, a larger part of the literature relating anomie to delinquency has focused on the distribution of economic opportunities in society, particularly among lower-class youth. The application of anomie theory, and other theories, to delinquent behavior among lower-class youth is president in the themes of the textbook.
The importance of ecological theories is stress in many
delinquency writings. Shaw and McKay,
members of the
Merton’s social structure and anomie theory states that the social structure of a society influences the behavior that occurs within the society. Youths who are caught in anomie or normlessness are more likely to become delinquent. Albert Cohen’s theory of lower-class gang cultures (status Frustration) was influenced by the work of Merton. Cohen suggested that lower-class youth aspire to middle-class values, but their inability to attain them causes an inversion of values in which youths engage in delinquent behavior. Similarly, Cloward and Ohlin argue that youths become involved in delinquent behavior when unable to attain legitimate pursuits and are therefore forced to pursue illegitimate avenues. Conversely, Miller suggests that lower-class youths do not aspire to middle-class values, rather they develop their own set of focal concerns which encourage delinquent behavior.
The context of all these theories relates to the structure of society. The structural theories view delinquency as a respond to social inequalities. They vary in the mechanisms they describe as mediating the impact of inequalities, but their focus is still to identify an explanation to help one understand delinquent behavior. Social structural theories propose that structural and cultural disorder results in high rates of crime, unsafe and disruptive living conditions, and the breeding ground for unsocialized individuals who strike out against society.
To recap social disorganization remember, Durkeim’s Anomie
(normlessness) theory resulting from society’s failure to regulate its member’s
attitudes and behaviors. Shaw and McKay
focused on social characteristics of the community. Delinquency results from breakdown of social
control among primary groups. Influences
of rapid industrialization, urbanization, and immigration were contributing
factors. Burgess and Park, the
Evaluation of Shaw and McKay’s Disorganization Theory was criticized for using the delinquency rates and both the problem and the cause in the research study.
How is Cultural Deviance Theory Related to Delinquency?
This theory starts by viewing delinquency as an expression to conform to opposing values and norms. Miller’s Lower-class cultural AND delinquency values focal concerns of lower class are trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate, and autonomy. The dimension of law abiding and non-abiding behavior often determines personal status. Physical prowess is demonstrated by strength and endurance and smartness is necessary to achieve material goods and personal status. The search for excitement and thrill typically accompany alcohol and gambling. There is a tendency to believe that forces exist in life they have no control over and thus leads to their destiny. Miller contends the lower-class have a distinctive culture of their own, which they have established. Also noted is the desire of males to prove their masculinity and this attracts one-sex peer groups.
The evaluations of Miller’s thesis of lower-class culture was criticized and charge with not all the youths are affected by the same subculture values, and some youth hold the values and norms of dominate cultures…even if they are not part of them.
How does strain affect delinquent behavior? Views of delinquency as a consequence of frustration when persons are unable to achieve the goals they desire are aid to contribute to this dilemma. Merton’s Theory of Anomie culturally defined goals as legitimate objectives for society and the expectations of juveniles. Institutional means to achieve the goals are acceptable and when culture lacks integration or a state of normlessness, anomie, occurs.
Evaluations of Merton’s Strain theory, which was popular in the 1960s due to the notions of, blocked opportunities, Agnew’s revised general strain theory with three sources of strain. These three include failure to achieve valued goals, removal of positive stimuli, and presentations of negative stimuli.
Cohen’s theory of delinquent subcultures focus o n the lower class youths, who are protesting against middle class goals. These youths experience a status frustration when unable to achieve the goals the set. Reaction formation is used to cope with the status frustration and delinquent subculture offers status to lower-class males. Non- utilitarian crimes are committed “for the hell of it” and subculture characterized by “short run hedonism.”
Evaluation of Cohen’s theory of delinquency subcultures falls short and agreements presented by the critics because delinquency is viewed in the theory as a process. Critics charge most delinquent boys become law abiding even though their lower class status does not change. Also, little empirical evidence has been conducted to state otherwise.
Cloward and Ohlin’s opportunity theory conceptualized success and status as separate striving operating independently of each other. Type I and Type II boys are striving to increase their status and values are consistent with the middle class, yet Type II experience the greatest conflict and they are most likely to be delinquent. Criminal subculture is based on illegal acts of extortion, fraud, and theft. These acts are performed to gain success. Conflict subculture consists of violence, force and threats are used to gain status or a reputation, and the retreatist subculture is concerned with drugs for gaining the “kick.”
Evaluation of Coward and Ohlin’s opportunity theory brought forth a mobilization of youth in NY based on the opportunity theory, Critics charge the concepts are not clearly defined and they portray lower-class delinquents as talented whey they are in fact may not be at all.
What is the relationship between social stratification and delinquency? A youth may become delinquent because they live in a disorganized community or because class is a significant variable; however, some challenge this association. Coleman’s social capital theory suggests lower class individuals lack the social recourses such as norms, social networks and interpersonal relationship necessary to success.
What are the social policy implications of structural explanations of delinquency? Lower class members are forced to struggle to make their basic survival needs. Lower class also must deal with cultural patterns conducive to delinquent behavior and encounter way to cope with unemployment, poverty, and crime. These disruptive behaviors all become obstacles when the lower class is unable to meet the success goals of society. Recent evidence supports a relationship exists among the class and economic structures of society and delinquency.
Overview of Social Process
Theory:
Each social process theory contributes to understanding how adolescents become delinquent. Sutherland’s differential association theory suggests that individuals learn delinquent behavior from various interactions with antisocial groups. Thus, if they are involved with antisocial groups, they are more likely to accept antisocial conduct norms and definitions. Matza’s drift theory attempts to explain why juveniles may choose to drift between conventional and delinquent behavior through a process of neutralizing responsibility of their actions. Recless’ containment theory states that positive experiences in the home, school and community will lead to good self-concepts and insulate individuals from crime and delinquency. Hirschi’s social control theory suggests that the moiré strongly attached adolescents are to various social bonds, the more likely it is they will refrain from becoming involved in delinquent behavior.
Social process theories explain delinquency on the individual level, which is the strength of their analysis. The process of bonding to significant others, drifting in and out of delinquent behavior, and developing strong self-concepts are key conceptual constructs of these theories. Several of these theories suggest a decision-making process by the juvenile. Although the strength of these theories is found in their microanalysis of the behavior and interactions of the individual delinquent, their significant weakness is ignoring the macro analysis. These theories fail to place adequate emphasis in regard to the impact of political and economic systems on the delinquent. The paradox that emerges between social structural and social process theories is, while one is preoccupied with structural causes, the other fails to include them. Thus, integrated theory attempts to combine two or more existing theories eradicate any deficiencies created by strictly social process and social structural theories. Gottfreson and Hirschi, Elliot, Thornberry, and Hawkins and Weiss all have contributed significantly to understanding delinquency.
Differential
Association Theory:
What exactly is the differential association theory? Sutherland purposed that delinquents learn crime from others as a part of social interaction. Individuals internalize definitions that favor law violations when learning delinquency. Learning criminal behavior occurs with in intimate personal groups. Excessive contact with those who favor violations of the law increase the likely hood of problems. The theory assumes those who are not delinquent have been socialized to conventional values; however, difficulties to reject the notion of learning and appeal of the theory are positive. Glaser’s modification applied the interactionist concept to self in his theory of differential identification theory. Glaser suggests a delinquent identifies themselves with real or imaginary people who find criminal behavior acceptable. Burgess and Akler’s social learning theory contends that learned behavior comprises the individual’s main source of reinforcements and behavior can be imitated or modeled.
In the evaluation of differential association, critics charged the conceptual terms were vague and they do not explain why some youths do not succumb to delinquency. The delinquent is viewed as a [passive vessel with no room for purpose or meaning.
Drift
Theory:
How is the drift theory related to delinquency? Delinquency occurs when a juvenile neutralizes himself or herself from the moral bounds. The delinquent transiently exists in limbo between convention and crime. The drift theory places greater emphasis on a juvenile’s choice than differential association. Delinquency is permissible when responsibility is neutralized, which occurs through denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to a higher loyalty are present. Sub cultural delinquents are filled with injustice and depend on a memory file of inconsistency. Demonstration of valor is related to assertion of harmful wrong tort instead of crime. Not all of the breaking of the moral bind will result in a delinquent act. The drift theory can be used to account for those who commit occasional delinquent acts. Hate crimes are a good example of the drift theory. Thus leading to the development of neutralization theory.
Evaluations of the drift theory have resulted in critics charging the theory with limitation is and of its scope.
What is the relationship between social control and delinquent behavior? The core ideas of the control theory suggest an absent or defective controlling force. Reckless’ containment theory has two reinforcing elements of inner and outer control. It assumes a stronger inner and outer containment provides insulation against deviant behavior. The Inner containment includes, self-control, positive self-images, well-developed superego, high frustration tolerance, high resistance to diversion, and high sense of responsibility, ability to find substitute satisfactions, goal orientations and tension-reducing rationalizations. The outer commandment represents structural buffers that include norms, goals, expectations, effective supervision and discipline, provision for reasonable accountability opportunity for acceptance, identity, and belongingness. The internal pushes its consists of drives, motives, frustrations, restlessness, disappointments, rebellion, hostility, and feelings of inferiority that encourage a person to engage in unacceptable behavior.
Society pulls consist from distractions, attractions, temptations, patters of deviance, patterns of delinquent patterns and criminogenic advertising and propaganda in society. Reckless theorized if a youth has weak inner and outer containment and the pushes and the insulation qualities of inner and outer containment are strong enough, then delinquency will likely be diverted. Reckless also suggests that a “Good self-concept” is a precondition of law-abiding behavior. The critic’s share the concepts are difficult to define and measuring self-concept is questionable.
Social Control or Bonding
Theory:
Social Control or bonding theory, developed by Hirschi, states delinquent acts result when one’s bond to society is weak or broken. Humans are basically antisocial and sinful, and are all naturally capable of committing crime. Hirschi suggested those tightly bonded to social groups such, as family, school, and peers are less likely to commit delinquent acts. Four main elements exist, attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Attachment includes ties to parents, teachers, and fiends while commitment includes the degree of commitment for conventional activates such as educational goals, property, and reputation. Involvement consists of the amount of time one devotes to conventional activates. The belief includes respect for the law and social norms.
Evaluation of social control theory provided a valuable insight into intra-family relationships. A great amount of imperial research has stemmed from this area. Critics charge that the questionnaire used by Hirschi to measure delinquency was limited and only measured a few relatively minor acts. The social control theory fails to describe what chain of events that weaken social bonds.
How does integrated theory explain delinquency? It implies the combination of two or more existing theories on the basis of their perceived commonalties are present. Hirschi identified three types, the side-by-side, end-to-end, and the up and down integration. The end-to-end integration is the most widely used and refers to placing variables in a temporal order so variables of some theories can be operationalized in the integrated theory. Concerns of integrated theory include which propositions of a particular theory should be used and some theories tend to explain only certain types of delinquent behavior. Additionally, concerns included generalization of theories and different assumptions various theories make in respect to motivations, attitudes, and contributing factors to delinquency.
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime states that to lack self-control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical, and risk-taking, short sightedness, and nonverbal, and will tend to engage in criminal acts. Self-control is the degree to which an individual is vulnerable to temptation. The ineffectiveness or incomplete socialization is what causes the low self-esteem.
Evaluation of the general theory notes that it is largely favored and has been cited in many textbooks. Critics charge that the lack or conceptional clarity and key elements remain to be tested.
Elliot and Colleague’s integrated social process theory synthesized the strain, social control, and social learning theory in to a single paradigm. It contends that living in socially disorganized areas leads youths to develop weak bonds with conventional groups, activities, and norms. Antisocial peer groups provide both positive reinforcement for delinquent behavior and role models for this behavior.
Evaluation of integrated social process theory states that it represents a pure type of integrated theory. The examinations are largely positive. Questions have been raised concerning its power and utility in regard to certain behaviors.
Thornberry’s interactional theory is the impetus toward delinquency comes from a weakened bond to conventional society. Associations with delinquent peers make up the social setting in which delinquency is learned and reinforced. The process of delinquency develops over the person’s life cycle.
Evaluation of the interactional theory views delinquency as a result of events
that occur in the development process.
It fails to address the presence of middle-class delinquency and ignores
race and gender.
Social development model, developed by Weis and Hawkins integrated social control and cultural learning theories, developed the concept that attachments of parents will lead to attachments to school and a commitment to education, as well as belief in conventional behavior and the law. This implies that families, schools, and peers are appropriate subjects for intervention. Intervention that seeks to increase the likelihood of social bonding mechanisms would be appropriate.
What are policy implications of social process theories? They focus seems to be on the process of becoming delinquent and if delinquency continues it may become a career.
Lets examine three explanations used to understand juvenile delinquency. Social reactions are the key concepts used to evaluate labeling and symbolic interactionist theories of delinquency, and the conflict approach to delinquency. All three of these theories focus on the role that social and economic groups and institutions have in producing delinquent behaviors.
Social reaction takes place in the particular context what will vary within certain individuals, and groups, such as family, groups, school settings, the justice system, and society’s political decision makers. Social reaction also takes place during the process of interaction. The process will vary from the formation of the social self, to how one responds to given labels for what is perceived as unacceptable behavior, and to the relation of what is interpreted as economic exploitation by the larger society. Oppression is instrumental when evaluating what takes place during the labeling process and to understanding exploitation of the lower-class youth.
Conflict Theory:
Various in conflicts theory include the dimensions of socioeconomic
power and authority, and group and cultural conflicts. Marxist theorists relate delinquency to issues
of alienation and powerlessness among lower-class youth. The dominant classes, in an attempt to control
the subordinate groups, create definitions of delinquency traditionally for
economic gain. Thus, the lack of social
justice in
How does the labeling theory explain delinquency? The social reaction theory focuses on the role social groups and institutions have in producing delinquent behavior. Frank Tannenbaum (1938) developed an early labeling theory which suggested juveniles were labeled as different when coming to the attention of the authorities, and theorized the process produced a change in how individual’ were handled by the system and how they viewed themselves. Tannenbaum referred to the process as the dramatization of evil.
Lemer focused on the interaction between social agents and rule violators. The primary deviation consists of the individual’s behavior, and the secondary deviation is society’s response to the behavior. Societal reaction to the deviant results in a transformation in the person’s identity. The sequence or interaction is the primary deviation, social penalties, further primary dedication, stronger rejection, further deviation (or perhaps with hostility and resentment), community stigmatization, strengthen of deviance as a reaction to stigmatization, and the ultimate acceptance of deviant social status by the person.
Becker conventionalized the process of the outsider being labeled in the deviant career. Once caught and labeled, a person gains a new social status with consequences for the person’s self-image and his or her identity. The individual is assigned a status within a social structure.
Labeling:
New developments in the effects of labeling are being studied. Ole theory cane under attack for implying labeling, as being responsible for persistent deviance and labeling seemed to increase the likelihood of subsequent rule breaking. The resurgence included separating labels into formal and informal labels. Formal labels resulted from reactions by official agents. Informal labels resulted form reactions by parents, neighbors and friends. John Braithwaite suggests that shaming the family is a good example of informal labeling. Triplett and subjective and objective labels indicated that informal labels of significant others affects whites more that nonwhites. Links have suggested that deviant labels led to loss of jobs, social rejection, and reduced access to social support.
Evaluations of labeling theory, conducted by Foster, Dinitz and Reckless found that labeling by the justice system did not produce changes in self-concept or increase delinquent behavior. Matsueda’s recent research supports the labeling theory. The study strengths included explaining why youths continue delinquent acts, importance of rule making and power in the creation of deviance, individuals do take on roles and self-concepts that are expected of them (self-fulfilling prophecies), and labeling perspective itself has been moved from the unidirectional basis to examining multi contingencies of labeling effect. Critics charge that the labeling approach lacks clear-cut definitions and testable hypothesis, and thus fails to produce a coherent set of interrelated propositions. The critics also charge that the labeling perspective excuses the delinquent’s behavior.
What does symbolic interactionist theory contribute to understanding delinquency? Central to the importance of the process of the theory is the shared meanings, behavioral expectations, and reflected appraisals are constructed in interaction and applied to behavior. Role Taking and delinquency is the unit of analysis as the transaction takes place in interaction between two or more individuals. The transaction is built up through reciprocal role taking and can lead to delinquent behavior. Matsueda’s risk-taking included four features (1) self formed by how an individual perceived that others view them, (2) the self is an object that arises partly endogenously within situations and partly from prior situational self being carried over from pervious experience, (3) the self as an object becomes a process that has been determined by the self at a pervious point in time, and (4) delinquent behavior takes place partly because of the formation of habits, and partly because the stable perception of oneself is shaped by others.
Evaluation of the symbolic interactionist theory and delinquency builds on the tradition of symbolic interactionist theory. It also adds further insight into the labeling theory. This research is also insightful in regards to how youths form conceptions of themselves.
How does the conflict theory explain crime and delinquency? This answer developed through the relationship created to “dialectics” or the art of conducting a dispute. Marx and dialectical materialism (competition of economic systems) and Simmel argued unity and discord are intertwined and social unity does not exist. Functionalism presents a utopian society that does note exists and never will. Conflict perspective views social control as an outcome of deferential distribution of economic and political power in society. Quinney argued that law is a control instrument to serve the interest of capitalist ruling class. Peacemaking criminology suggests replacing the idea of making war on crime with the idea of making peace on crime and escalating violence.
Dimensions of conflict criminology can be explained through
looking at the importance of socioeconomic power and authority, group and
cultural conflict. Marx wrote very
little on crime, he viewed crime as a result of class struggles. The capitalist society divided into
bourgeoisie and proletariat with increased strain. Ownership class is guilty of the brutal
exploiting of the working class. Quinney
describes this theory as the crime of domination (elite class) and crime of
accommodation (working class). Weber
focused on power-authority-prestige to study stratification in society, and
discussed “life-chances” that are differentially related to the social
class. Turk constructed an analysis
based on the conflict and domination between authorities and their
subjects. Authorities create, interpret,
and enforce right-wrong standards.
Theory employs biological ideas, sociological and psychological theories about behavior stating that (1) parents emphasize order, (2) preoccupation that children are inferior, (3) social control becomes oppressive, (4) children develop negative attitude towards parents, (5) deviant behavior by children escalates parental control, (6) abuse and neglect diminishes parent-child relationship, and (7) deviant behavior is an attempt to hurt the coercive parent. Additionally, the theory contends that oppression is widespread.
Sellins and Vold advocate that conflict criminology from group and cultural perspective must disclose conduct norms, as the ways members of a group should act. The more complex a culture becomes, the more likely the number of normative groups will affect a person’s behavior. The groups will fail to agree and lead to conflict of norms. Sellins also developed the primary and secondary cultural conflict concepts. Vold also states that as groups move into each other’s territory competition is inevitable and results in a winner and loser unless compromise is reached. This theory also states that minority groups are at odds with police that are maintained by society.
Marxist
Criminology and Explanations of Delinquent Behavior:
The alienation and powerlessness exists among youth. Typically these youth remain in holding until they enter the workforce. There is limited voting power, a lack of organized lobbies and few are in positions of power. Quinney stated that violent gang activity might be a collective response of adolescents. Marxists purport lengthening of the rites or passage contributes to alienation of youths. Certain acts are termed delinquent because it is in the interest of the ruling class to maintain this control. Those that “Have” exploit those that “have-not” and children become a marginal class. Instrumental theory also suggests that status is relative to delinquency. Therefore, social injustice is linked (1) poor youths, (2) sexist treatment of female offenders and (3) racism. Chambliss in the study of “The Saints and the Roughnecks” suggests inequality in justice. Because the structural and integrated Marxists theory contends that power relations subjected to most lower-class workers are coercive and juvenile s are alienated form parental bonds; moreover becoming likely to be placed in a coercive school control situations.
Evaluation of the conflict theory conclusively points to the macrostructural flaws that exist in the studies. Radical humanism is rooted in structural inequalities of social order.
Family
and Delinquency:
American families are filled with multiple problems that include divorce, single-parent families, blended families, out-of-wedlock births, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty and violence. The more family related problems an adolescent faces, the more likely their chances of becoming delinquent. Studies on the relationship between family and delinquency generally conclude that quality of life at home is more important than whether or not the home is intact. Parental rejection and inconsistent lax, or sever discipline are associated with increased delinquency. Accumulation of unfavorable factors within the family increases the propensity of delinquent behavior among children.
The concept of parental supremacy rights has perpetuated the mistreatment of children by their parents. The state has been reluctant to interfere in families unless severe injuries or situations have occurred. Additionally, the acceptability of violence in society and social isolation, especially of lower-class families, has further contributed to the mistreatment of children.
Mandatory reporting or measures and funding of treatment programs are aimed at reducing family violence, and creating public awareness to the nature and extent of the abuse problem. Research findings have consistently linked child abuse and neglect to delinquent behavior and status offenses. Abused children runaway from home and become involved in truancy, disruptive school behaviors, drug and alcohol abuse, deviant sexual; behaviors, and aggressive acts toward others.
A number of strategies area called for to reduce the extent
of child abuse and neglect in the
How do adolescents and family problems affect delinquent behavior?
The high divorce rate in the
What is the relationship between the family and delinquency? The importance of family as a contributing factor has varied: (10 role of the family was emphasized, (2) the role of family was minimized and the focus shifted to school, social class, and influence of peers, and (3) there was revised interest in the family. Issues reviewed:
(a) The broken home: The debate ranges; however, studies indicate that delinquency is 10 to 15% higher in broken homes. The type of family breakup affects delinquency (divorce is the highest, death is the lowest). Broken homes are not related to gender or age differences, and there is no consistent relationship to the negative impact of Stepparents as often cited.
(b) Birth order: Some evidence supports the middle children are more likely to be delinquent, in that parents guard the first born more closely and are more lenient, tired, or experienced with the last “baby”.
(c) Family size: The large the family, the more likely the delinquency. Parents are unable to effectively supervise larger families (often delegating older children to help) and they typically have fewer finances.
(d) Delinquent siblings or criminal parents: Siblings seem to learn delinquency from other siblings and significant others. Children of fathers with criminal records are more likely to be poor and have an increased risk for an early first conviction.
(e) Quality of home life: Good marital relationships are consistent with strong family cohesiveness. Happiness of marriages is key to the parental love and reduction of delinquency.
(f) Family rejection: Parental rejection related to delinquency, in regard to the father appears to be more significant that mother’s rejection with children. Rosen’s study supports the data.
(g) Discipline in the Home: Inadequate supervision is related to delinquency. Discipline that is too strict or too lax and inconsistency were all associated with increased delinquency.
(h) Evaluation: Overall, broken homes, birth order, family size, delinquent siblings, quality of life, family rejection, and home discipline appear to be instrumental in rates of delinquency for juvenile offenders.
Overall Belief:
Children’s behavior is mainly determined by the success of socialization process. (Bynum, & Thompson, 2003, In Press, p. 223). Socialization is a process where persons learn and internalize views, values, beliefs and certain behavior styles characteristic to one or another culture. The process is lifelong. A person is affected in one way or another by all the factors that come his/her way, but sociologists tend to highlight those social institutes that have an immense bearing on the person formation. These include: (1) the family, (2) the school, (3) the media, and (4) friends. Sociologists argue as to which one is the most influential factor, but there is no doubt that the family is the primary social structure that conveys certain behavior patterns to a child. Therefore, it is important to speak about the family influence on delinquency prevention, or on the contrary, its influence on crime. No child is born a criminal, thus the family is the primary institute potential of criminal commencement. For this reason a lot of criminological researches have been carried out, to investigate the interrelations between crime and home environment.
Psychological and social perspectives:
Studies on the problem of the juvenile deviation generally present two theoretical perspectives: (1) sociological and (2) psychological. Despite the fact that psychology and sociology focus on different aspects of crime (sociology stresses the system, psychology - the person), both disciplines concentrate their attention on the theme of “control.” Psychology emphasizes the personal or inner control that is determined by superego or by learned behavior patterns. Sociology pays attention to the society or community institutions that have a direct effect on the processes of outward social control. According to Reiss, deviation depends both on the personal and social controls (Trojanowicz & Morash, 1992,121). The lack of personal and social control may result in crime involvement. There is little doubt that the family is significant for both personal and social control.
The family environment:
What environment stimulates young people to get involved in crime? Scientific literature presents a plethora of research that has been analyzed to determine the family factors that influence delinquency.Scientists suggest various typologies of delinquents’ families. One of them is as follows: (Taroza, 1998, 243)
- a typical traditional family: children commit crimes by chance, being influenced by friends, or adults (10-15 pr cent)
- a structurally (or most often culturally) deformed family; crime threat is 1,5 times bigger than that in a typical family (60 per cent)
- a
completely deformed family. The degree of the risk for committing a crime
is the highest. The number of this particular kind of families is
increasing in
Tendencies
that lead towards deviant behavior are provoked by different factors. While
carrying out or conducting research, it should be taken into consideration
that only a combination of factors help to determine the tendency for crime.
The work usually concentrates on the problematic aspects that are related to delinquency such as: one-parent families, crime within families, child abuse, employed mothers. As mentioned above, the one parent family.
Some
scientists tend to think that there is a close relationship between one-parent
families and juvenile delinquency. Monaha (1957) had been making a research in
the courts of the state of
Some criminologists, however, think differently. They do not agree that broken families is one of the main factors that stimulates juvenile misbehavior. Such families can be referred to only as a secondary source of crime (Rosen, 1985, Wells and Rankin, 1985; Van Voorjis 1988; Bynum & Thompson, 1999, 354-356). To elucidate the weak connection between the incomplete family and juvenile delinquency, the following factors can be used (Sutherland, Cressey, Luckenbill, 1992, p. 205-211):
- Firstly, the broken families can influence certain misbehavior. Wilkinson (1980) research revealed the results that absence of a parent caused alcohol and drug consumption, runaways and riots, however, the family structure did not influence car thefts.
- Secondly, it was discovered that the one-parent family effects differ according to the juveniles’ sex and age. Sociological research demonstrated that the syndrome of a one-parent family tells more in the area of girls than it does on boys (Monahan, 1957; Cilton & Markle 1972; Wilkinson 1980 & et. al.). In addition to that, it was discovered that delinquents from one-parent families are younger (10-13 years of age). Jackson Toby (1957) states that boy control is weak both in normal and one-parent families. The girls, however, are strictly controlled in a normal family, but control abruptly decreases if one of the parents is lost. This increases the possibility for the girls to get involved into the deviant behavior. Yet, there is no definite opinion about the one-family influence on children of different sex. Rankin, for example, claims that both sexes are equally influenced. (Trojanowicz, Morash, 1992,113)
- The third group of arguments that negates the correlation between one-parent families and deviation of their children is connected to the survey and registration of juvenile delinquency. Especially the earlier scientific works concentrated more on the juveniles who had been arrested and put on trial. But it has been noted that teenagers who come from one-parent families are more often arrested and brought to trial than those who come from a normal family. (Cicourel 1968, Thomas and Sieverdes 1975) Polk (1958) noticed a strong tendency to arrest children from one-parent families (Sutherland, Cressey, Luckenbill, 1992, 209). Therefore, the claim that one-parent family is the most influential is not exact and not even properly grounded. This is the opinion of present criminologists. Wilkinson 1980, Canter 1982, Franworth, 1984).
- The fourth argument that disclaims the strong correlation between the one-parent family and juvenile delinquency states that it is the family character and its atmosphere and not its structure that matters the most (Bartoll, 1990, 268). Nye (1958) found out that boys and girls from unhappy but complete families more often commit crimes (4%) than teenagers from one-parent families (36%).
Crime at home:
One
of the most evident circumstances that determine teenagers’ crimes is the
criminal behavior of other family members (Sutherland, Cressey, Luckenbill,
1992, 204-205). The research that had been carried out by Sheldon and Eleanor
Glueck (1930, 1934) revealed that 87% of juvenile delinquents came from like
families. West and Farrington (1977) noticed, that the possibility to become a
delinquent increases 4 times if there are two persons with criminal experience
in the family (Kratocki, Kratocki, 1990, 123).
There
are two explanations for the relation between criminal parents and their child
deviant behavior (Sutherland, Cressey, Luckenbill, 1992, 204-205). Firstly,
criminal parent families are usually poor in comparison to others. The second
explanation is that criminal parent behavior sets a bad example for children.
Parents most often do not stimulate children to commit a crime but their views
and values influence children’s philosophy of life (Kratocki. Kratocki, 1990, 123).
Child abuse:
As noted above, the aggressive parent behavior is one of the essential causes of juvenile delinquency. Three violence categories can be singled out (Bartoll, 1990, 270-289): (1) child neglect, (2) physical and or emotional violence and (3) sexual abuse.
Usually,
the first officially encounter the children after they have experienced
violence are the doctors/ physicians.
Child abuse is first of all determined by the social-economical situation in the society. Housing problems, high level of unemployment, alcoholism, all are leading factors contributing to child abuse. A close connection exists between violence and neglect. In 1994, 95 % of all abused children under one year of age were neglected. Abandoned or emotionally abused children are more prone to ignore school, misbehave, and become criminals.
Employed mothers and
juvenile delinquency:
The phenomenon of working mothers is important
to juvenile delinquency. Women employment has been constantly increasing since
World War II. According to the data (1980, the
The connection between employed mothers and juvenile delinquency is not so strong. The facts reveal that there is little difference between the crime numbers of teenagers who have working mothers and those whose mothers stay at home. Hill and Statford study (1979) highlights that women after a working day try to spend more time with their children in order to compensate the absence during the day, as indicated in the above URL report.
Another essential point, stressed by the researchers is the quality and not the quantity of the time spent together with a child. A mother after a working day may spend the rest of the day more amusingly together with her child. In Guidubaldi research (1986) that had lasted for five years revealed that employed women’s children were more successful at school in comparison to those whose mothers stayed at home.
In
recent years, a sociological survey of juvenile delinquents and their parents
has been carried out in
In conclusion, the family occupies an important place among other groups that socially influence juveniles. Therefore the problem of relation between the family and the juvenile should be taken into consideration while designing effective programs for the prevention of juvenile delinquency.
For additional reading on this
subject matter please view the following URL’s:
The Official Juvenile Justice Delinquency and
Prevention (OJJDP) 21st Century Family concerns:
Schooling and Delinquency Among White and African
American Adolescents
http://www.ria.buffalo.edu/summaries/rib/rib992a.htm
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse: The Facts
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues2.htmlCopyright @2003-2006 Lee Ayers Schlosser, Southern