Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Family effect juvenile delinquency
Family effect juvenile delinquency
Influence of family in adolescents
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Family effect juvenile delinquency
Holding Parents Responsible for the Anti-Social and Criminal Behaviour of their Children
The case for holding parents responsible for the anti-social and
criminal behaviour of their children has been long disputed. This
essay will assess whether parents should in fact be held responsible
or whether the child should be punished for their behaviour. Many
areas will be discussed, the first of which will be the historical
context of criminalizing motherhood. The first issue in this section
is whether family factors, such as poor parental supervision, are an
influence on behaviour as investigated by researchers such as the
Committee for Investigating the Causes of the Alarming Increase of
Juvenile Delinquency in the Metropolis in 1816, which will be compared
to modern theorists such as Loeber and Dishon (1983) and Smith and
Stern (1997). Another area to be considered within the historical
context of holding parents responsible will be the idea that crime
runs in families and so if a child is exposed to criminal activity
when growing up, they will turn to criminal activity when they are
older. Other matters to be deliberated are problems with child rearing
methods as researched by Carpenter (1853) which will be compared to
McCord’s (1979) theory of the same idea. Burt’s (1925) ‘The Young
Delinquent’ will also be examined as will Bowlby’s popular theory in
1944 that parental conflict and disrupted families cause delinquency.
The second area will be the theoretical context of criminalizing
motherhood including communitarianism which emphasises that ‘rights
come with responsibilities’. The risk agenda shall also be explored
which is a risk m...
... middle of paper ...
...(Maguire, 2002).
To conclude, I think that parents can be held responsible for the
anti-social and criminal behaviour of their children to a certain
degree but it must be remembered that children have their own minds
once they have learnt right from wrong. I have looked at many theories
including control theory and attachment theory and views from
Carpenter and McCord as well as others.
Bibliography
Internet
University of California (2004) The Development of Informal
Reformatory Sentences for Juvenile Offenders in the Late Eighteenth
and Early Nineteenth Centuries
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/csls/King%20paper.pdf
Books
Clutterbuck, R (1998) Families, Drugs and Crime. London: Macmillan
Press Ltd
Maguire, Muncie & Reiner (2002) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology.
London: Oxford.
Throughout the book, Samenow states that most parents blame themselves for the way their children behave. A lot of the time parents are blamed by others for their child’s irresponsible actions, which then causes the parents to blame themselves. Children begin to make their own choices at a very early age, as they grow older the choices they make become more complex. Although parents can be very influential to a child, they cannot control the child’s mindset. The parenting techniques that parents use may play a small role in a child’s behavior, they do not create antisocial children. Parents need to stop blaming themselves whenever their children make bad choices because it is the child himself that makes that decision, not the parents.
Many theories, at both the macro and micro level, have been proposed to explain juvenile crime. Some prominent theories include Social Disorganization theory, Differential Social Organization theory, Social Control theory, and Differential Association theory. When determining which theories are more valid, the question must be explored whether people deviate because of what they learn or from how they are controlled? Mercer L. Sullivan’s book, “Getting Paid” Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City clearly suggests that the learning theories both at the macro level, Differential social organization, and micro level, Differential association theory, are the more accurate of the two types of theory.
ically based control policy (punish and deter individuals) address the issues that surround the social construction of crime and deviance? References and Related Readings Bureau of Justice Statistics-1989, UNCRIM Gopher, SUNY-Albany, 1994. Marcus Felson, Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society, Pine Forge Press, 1994. Allen Liska, Perspectives on Deviance, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, 1987. Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld, Crime and the American Dream, Wadsworth, 1994.
Kreager, Derek A., Ross L. Matsueda, and Elena A. Erosheva. 2010. “Motherhood and Criminal Desistance in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods.” Criminology 48:221–58.
Webster’s Dictionary defines diversity as, “the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.” Although most people associate diversity with race gender or social class, it also applies to the styles a family chooses to raise their children. Throughout many different cultures around the world, we find many an array of styles in which parents raise their children. Though one culture might looks at another’s style of raising children as abusive, merciful, manic, or rudimental, these vast differences play a key roll in the success of the children that will go on to mold the worlds societies after we pass. Authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved parenting is three of many parenting techniques guardians embrace to raise their
This paper looks at the different theories of criminal behavior that explain why people commit crimes. It goes deeper to analyze the specific theories in a bid to determine why a person may commit a certain crime and another person under the same circumstances may not. The paper focuses on key factors that motivate unruly behavior among people and why such factors are present in some people and not in others. In doing so, the paper leans more on children in order to determine how delinquency behavior is progressively imparted on them as they undergo developmental trajectory.
A progressively predominant phenomenon is the formation of gangs that is crosscutting all ages and backgrounds. Gangs are always in an outgoing state of evolution and transformation, influenced by numerous factors; such as social exclusion, racism, bias, community disorganization, availability of drugs and weapons within the society. The previously mentioned factors contribute to developing a personality that focuses on the negative side of life. It is worth noted that the decisions people made in their life is strongly interlinked to their historical background. Consequently, it is important for children to have a stable relationship with their parents from birth to adolescences, since that period of time shapes their personality and impacts their life choices. In order to find a proper solution that may help reduce gang formation, it is essential to focus on the main problem behind developing a gang and the motives that foster the development of gangs. A solution that may help reduce gang violence is passing a law that forces all parents to meet a child psychologist before having children and provide them with incentives to recognize the seriousness of meeting a child psychologist. The logic behind is that it raises their awareness of the consequences of becoming parents and its associated responsibilities. Besides, it offers the parents with the relevant information about the dangers of psychological aggression, and maltreatment and it guides them on the potential means of dealing with children’s behaviour. This paper will shed the light on some of the arguments supporting the solution stated above.
Onwediwe, I. (2004). “Theoretical Perspectives on Juvenile Delinquency: Root Causes and Control.” ProQuest Criminal Justice, 66, 153-156.
One of the main ideas that cover the link between crime and the role of the family was that single parenthood is a risk factor. It was suggested that father absence in childhood was a cause of crime but this may not be as relevant in today’s society as divorce is much more common and it may have been more about the social exclusion the children experienced from the outside world because of their parents divorce (ref). Both Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) along with Farrington (1991) researched into the affect of the number of siblings in the family on the likelihood of committing crime. Both pieces of research found that if the family contained more children, money was short creating chaos and mischief was generally less detectable (ref). Altogether this can lead to children not being able to distinguish good behaviour from bad due to lack of punishment/operant conditioning which may carry on to them performing the same behaviours (such as using violence to get their way) in the outside world, making them more likely to commit crime. Another way OC affects the likelihood of committing violent crime is if violent behaviour was observed within the family in childhood. For instance many studies have been conducted into this topic and findings generally conclude that if children witness or experience violent physical or sexual abuse within the family it is
The Criminal Justice system is suppose to be a process that helps people receive a sentence which is appropriate for their offence, however this is not the cause for youth. Youth require a qualitatively different response that adult offenders (Minaker & Hogeveen 2009), this is specifically seen in the case of special populations such as criminalized girls and aboriginal youth.
In the article “In Defense of Permissive Parenting” Tony Decouple addresses how parenting skills can be a great effect to children. According to a pair of new studies, they state how minor communication style can have an impact to children. A Mexican-American woman by the name of Xenia was in a store with her four years old son named Paulson; she had to battle his son over buying a soft drink. There are several studies that can help parents to raise their children. A study shows that battling youngsters rather than reasoning may get them to do what they want. The studies suggest that parents should explain decisions with their children, and let them talk back at least a little bit. According to Bruce Fuller a UC Berkeley professor; white parents deploy reasoning techniques more compared to other cultures. There are different ways, cultures, and techniques to raise children between whites, blacks and Mexican-American. Reasoning with children is the best way to raise youngsters.
This “circle” may include family and friends. Over the years, the constituents of a typical household have evolved. Extended families are increasing and the probabilities of a child growing up with one or no parent are more likely to happen now than they did years ago. Studies have found that families with both parents involved in a child’s life are less likely to have delinquent juveniles than families with one or no parent as long as the parents displayed healthy communication and lifestyles among themselves and their children. Furthermore, extended families seem to have a healthier lifestyle than that of nuclear families. The main point focuses on the idea that the happier and healthier a family is, the less likely the children will grow to commit offenses. Bad parenting falls under this idea. Parents who abuse, neglect, and communicate poorly with their children will more likely raise a child who will be involved in criminal acts. Household abuse also tends to work in a cycle. If a child is abused then he or she will more likely be at risk of abusing his or her future children. Studies also show that parents who are involved in criminal offenses are more likely to have juvenile delinquents because children learn from their parents. Thus, abuse and delinquent behavior correspond with each other. Additionally, if the child has a delinquent sibling, that also
There are as many parenting styles as there are children, and every child requires a unique approach because every child is a unique individual[4]. However, when the middle ground is removed and one is forced to choose between the two extremes of parenting, a permissive style is more beneficial to a child’s development than an authoritarian style. Children raised by more permissive parents generally tend to grow up to be more creative individuals[2], have a better grasp on the consequences of their actions[1] and maintain better relationships with their parents[2].
If parents are held accountable for the actions of their children does that send a message that the children themselves are blameless for their actions? My belief is that these two ideas are not mutually exclusive, and that children and parents can both be held liable. I see no reason why the children and the parents and the teens shouldn’t share in the responsibility for criminal behavior on the part of the child.
Juveniles are defended by the argument that they are not aware of their actions because of their age but adolescents do have a sense of their actions. A California boy without emotion shot his father in 2011 when his father was lying on the couch. The father, Jeffrey hall, was the leader of a new Nazi organization called the National Socialist Movement. The National Socialist Movement have Adolf Hitler as an idol and go against Jewish, immigrants and not pure blood white. In the article Judge: California boy murdered new Nazi dad, knew it was wrong by Greg Botelho, CNN says, “A California judge ruled Monday that a 10-year old boy committed second-degree murder--and knew what he was doing was wrong—when he fatally shot his father, a local new-Nazi