Family and Juvenile Delinquency

Family and Juvenile DelinquencyThe family is the foundation of humanity. Children who are rejected by their parents, who grow up in homes with considerable conflict, or who are inadequately supervised are at the greatest fortune of becoming overdue. Adolescence is a beat of expanding vulnerabilities and opportunities that go along with it, widens favorable and geographic flick to life beyond school or family.Family is one of the close to influential institutions in socializing a child. Being raised in a unity parent home can lead to depravity, regardless if it was because of divorce/separation, death, or incarceration. The outcome of the childs life is considerably different compared to a child who has a immutable life with both parents. With only one parent, a child may receive only half the guidance given by ii parents. This commonly results in the child making wrong decisions like getting involved with other happen factors such as school problems or dropping out. The m anner we are socialized by our surroundings has a dramatic impact on whether we become delinquents.The composition of families is one aspect of family life that is consistently associated with delinquency. Children who bide in homes with only one parent or in which marital relationships confirm been disrupted by divorce or separation are more likely to display a range of styleal problems including delinquency, than children who are from two parent families (Thornberry, et al. 1999). Children who witness marital discord are at greater risk of becoming delinquents. Previous research has demonstrated associations amid exposure to parental divorce and marital conflict while growing up and childrens psychological inconvenience in adulthood (Amato Sobolewski 2001). Social learning theory deliberates that aggressive look is learned as parents display aggressive behavior, children learn to imitate it as an welcome means of achieving goals (Wright Wright 1994).When parents are div orced and in that respect is just one parent to take care of the child, the child is quick to feel just half there. If it is the spawn who has the child, she may have to work to support him, and she would not be able to be home when he comes home from school. If he comes home and finds the home empty, he would not stay there, but he give go out with his peers. The gang will then get bored and look around for something to do. This will lead to stealing possibly, and these activities can go on until they end in murder or drug addiction.Parents teach children to control unacceptable behavior, to delay indulgence, and to approve the rights of others. On the contrary, families can teach children aggressive, antisocial, and violent behavior (Wright Wright 1994). This statement alone could easily explain how the juvenile may end up becoming a delinquent. Wright and Wright (1994) suggest positive parenting practices during the early years and later in adolescence appear to act as buffe rs preventing delinquent behavior and assisting adolescents involved in such behavior to desist from delinquency.Gorman-Smith and Tolan (1998) found that parental conflict and parental aggressiveness predicted violent offending whereas, lack of agnate affection and paternal criminality predicted appointment in property crimes. Familial characteristics suggesting familial antisocial behavior or values such as family history of criminal behavior, harsh parental discipline, and family conflict have been among the most consistently linked. In another study conducted by Gorman-Smith and her colleagues, data show that children are more likely to resort to furiousness if there is violence within relationships that they may share with their family (Gorman-Smith, et al. 2001).In the realm of family functioning there is a theory known as the coercion theory, which suggests that family environment influences an adolescents interpersonal style, which in turn influences peer group selection ( Cashwell Vacc 1996). Peers with a more coercive interpersonal style tend to become involved with each other, and this relationship is faux to increase the likelihood of being involved in delinquent behavior. Thus understanding the nature of relationships within the family, to include family adaptability, cohesion, and satisfaction, provides more information for understanding callowness (Cashwell Vacc 1996). The cohesiveness of the family successfully predicted the frequency of delinquent acts for non-traditional families (Matherne Thomas 2001). Family behaviors, particularly parental monitoring and disciplining, seems to influence association with deviant peers throughout the adolescent period (Cashwell Vacc 1994). Among social circumstances which have a hand in determining the future of the individual it is enough for our present purpose to recognize that family is central (Wright Wright 1994). Juby and Farrington(2001) claim that there are three major classes that explain t he relationship between disrupted families and delinquency trauma theories, life course theories, and selection theories. The trauma theories suggest that the dam sequence of a parent has a damaging effect on children, most commonly because of the effect on attachment to the parent. Life course theories focus on separation as a long drawn out process rather than a discrete event, and on the effects of multiple stressors typically associated with separation. Selections theories argue that disrupted families are associated with delinquency because of pre-existing differences in family income or child rearing methods, for example (Juby Farrington 2001).Communication also plays a big role in how the family functions. Clark and Shields (1997) state that the importance of positive communication for optimal family functioning has major implications for delinquent behavior. They also discovered that communication is indeed related to the commission of delinquent behavior and differences a re shown within categories of age, sex, and family marital status.Klein and Forehand (1997) suggest that the prediction of juvenile delinquency in early childhood depends on the type of maternal parenting skills that are imposed upon the child during early adolescence. Muehlenberg (2002) poses the question of how do children from single parent family homes fare educationally compared to children from intact two parent families.In most cases, delinquents have been viewed as individuals who come from less intact families, often referred to as broken homes. Typically, the term broken home has been structured to mean children residing in single-parent households or any type of household other than a household in which both biological parents are present (Rankin, 1983 Geismar Wood, 1986). In contrast, an intact family usually refers to a nuclear family arrangement in which both biological parents reside in the household with their biological children (Kierkus Baer, 2002). Intact family arrangements differ from other modern-day family arrangements including single-parent arrangements, two-parent arrangements involving a stepparent, wide family member arrangements, and the adoptive/foster family arrangement (Wells Rankin, 1986).Since 1970, the proportion of American households that have children who live with both parents has declined substantially. In 1970, 64 percent of African American children lived with two parents, compared with 35 percent in 1997 comparable figures for white children are 90 percent and 74 percent, respectively (Lugaila, 1998). According to some estimates, as many as 40 percent of white children and 75 percent of African American children will experience arental separation or divorce before they reach age 16 (Brayand Hetherington, 1993) and many of these children will experience multiple family disruptions over time (Furstenberg and Cherlin, 1991).Sometimes the focus is taken off the mother and shifted towards the father. The lack of emphas is on the role of fathering in childhood conduct problems is especially unfortunate given that there are several reasons why fathers can be expected to be particularly significant in the initiation and persistence of offspring offending. For example, fathers are particularly likely to be involved with sons who are at higher risk than daughters of delinquent behavior (Flouri Buchannan 2002). Popenoe(1997) states that fatherlessness is a major force behind many disturbing US social problems. The institution of marriage acts as cultures chief fomite to bind men to their children. The absence of fathers from childrens lives is one of the most important causes related to childrens well being such as increasing rates of juvenile crime, first and eating disorders, teen suicide, and substance abuse. Two parent households provide increased supervision and surveillance of property, while single parenthood increases likelihood of delinquency and development simply by the fact that there is one less person to supervise adolescent behavior (Wright Wright 1994).Children, regardless of whether they are a product of a single parent or dual parent household, are more likely to become juvenile delinquents if there is a minimum amount of prime(a) time spent with the guardians. Guardians actually need to be parents rather than just provide for the child. Parents provide structure which entails rules, encouragement, and any type of consistent adult behavior that a juvenile can use as guidelines throughout his or her own adolescent years. Although a majority of delinquents are from single parent households, delinquency is fostered by a lack of parental/juvenile interaction. Monitoring the child is also a major contribution towards the creation of delinquency. By spending time with a juvenile as a family through family activities, it not only provides that necessary supervision for being aware of the whereabouts of the child, how the child is functioning emotionally, and how he or she is doing as an adolescent, it creates positive interaction with the parents that is needed for a healthy upbringing.Reference PageAmato, Paul and Juliana M. Sobolewski. 2001. The effects of divorce on adult childrens psychological well-being. American Sociological Review. 66 900-921.Cashwell, Craig S. and Niccholas A. Vacc. 1996. Family Functioning and RiskBehaviors Influences on adolescent delinquency. School Counselor. 44 105-15.Geismar, L.L., Wood, K.M. (1986). Family and delinquency Resocializing the young offender. New York Human Sciences Press.Gorman-Smith, Deborah and Patrick H. Tolan. 1998. Relation of family problems to patterns of Delinquent involvement among urban youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 26 319-34.Gorman-Smith, Deborah, Patrick Tolan, Ashli J. Sheidow, and David B. Henry. Partner Violence and Street Violence among Urban Adolescents Do the Same Family Factors Relate? Journal of question on Adolescence.11 273-95.Hagan, John and Holly Foster. 2 001. Youth violence and the end of adolescence. American Sociological Review. 66 874-899.Immarigeon, Russ. 1996. Families know best. State Government News. 39 22-4.Juby, Heather and David P. Farrington. 2001. Disentangling the Link between Disrupted Families and Delinquency. British Journal of Criminology. 41 22-40.Kierkus, C., Baer, D. (2002). A social control explanation of the relationship between family structure and delinquent behavior. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 44 (4), 425-458.Klein, Karla and Rex Forehand. 1997. Delinquency during the transition to early adulthood Family and parenting predictors from early Adolescence. 32 61-81.Muehlenberg, Bill. 2002. The case for two-parent family Part II. National Observer. 53 49-58.Popenoe, David. 1997. Life without Father. New Jersey, US Annual collection of the NCFR Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World.Prochnow, Jane E. and James V. DeFronzo. 1997. The impact of economic and parental characteristics on juve nile misconduct. Journal of Emotional behavioural Disorders. 5119-128.Rankin, J. H. (1983). The family context of delinquency. Social Problems, 30, 466-479.Thornberry, Terence P., Carolyn Smith, Craig Rivera, David Huizinga, and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber. September 1999. Family Disruption and Delinquency. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. 1-7.Wells, L.E., Rankin, J.H., (1986). The broken homes model of delinquency Analytic issues. Journal of Research in shame and Delinquency, 23, 68-93.Wright, Kevin N. and Karen E. Wright. 1994. Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime A Policymakers Guide. Research Summary. Washington DC OJJDP. 4-21.