Parents Accountability for Their Childrens Delinquency - Research Paper Example

Introduction The legal definition of delinquency varies from state to state as well as across different institutions. For instance, the United States Code defines delinquency as a breach of a law committed by a person or persons who are not yet 18 years of age; and that the offence would be considered a crime if committed by a person of 18 years and above (Simonsen, 1991). In practical and scientific literature on violence and crime committed by juveniles, various approaches are used to explain and define young people’s delinquent behaviour. Criminologists refer children or juvenile delinquency as all wrongs committed in public by people of the age between 12 and 20. The social definition on the other hand is to a great extent less specific. It includes level of seriousness variables of the offense, the act rate of recurrence, and the juvenile attitude (Simonsen, 1991). Sociologists believe that child delinquency as a concept needs to be viewed more broadly as it covers several violations of social and legal norms, as well as minor to serious crimes committed by children. Status offence is the name given under the juvenile delinquency umbrella as they very much are connected to the offender’s age status. Action such as running away and truancy are considered violation of law if committed by a juvenile. Similarly, sociologists relate particular childhood behaviour with the family, peers, home, neighborhood, and various additional variables that jointly or independently sway the development of adolescent people’s communal surroundings. Delinquency behaviour has a close link or relation to the antisocial behaviour. Antisocial conduct is defined as harmful or hostile acts to an organized society or simply as behavior that sharply deviates from the norms of a society (Merriam-Webster, 2001). According to Mayer (1995) antisocial behavior is recurring violations within a society’s normative behavior involving breaking rules, destruction of property, aggression, defiance of authority, among others. A number of circumstances in the juvenile’s residence have been found to predict the start and persistent patterns of children and youth unsociable behavior (McEvoy & Welker, 2000). These factors consist of criminality of the parents, cruel and futile parental discipline to adolescence, antisocial/violent behavior, lack of parental participation in the adolescence activities, constant conflict in the family, abuse and or abandonment of a children, and negative response by parents (Patterson, Forgatch, & Stoolmiller, 1998; Walker et al., 1991). Should Parents be held accountable for their children’s delinquency? As much as the threat factors for criminal act during child’s tender age are more probable to be genetic, personality, and family unit factors, the fundamental position of recognized risk factors remains with the need to be elucidated, and no particular reason justifies or explains child delinquency. Somewhat, there are bigger quantity of risk factors. According to Demuth & Brown (2004), a juvenile’s resolution to participate in offending behavior is contributed by the parent or parental figurers’ use of direct, indirect and internalized controls. Usually, a parent begins to use these controls in formative years and continues their usage throughout the adolescence age. The juvenile development of psychological attachment and affection to his or her parents entails indirect control. The creation of a juvenile conscience throughout his or her life involves internalized control by parental figure or parents of a juvenile. On the other hand direct control involves supervision, restriction and punishment (Demuth & Brown, 2004). Family processes and delinquency research by Demuth & Brown (2004) resolute that control by parent especially via direct control through monitoring, parental involvement, supervision and closeness are negatively associated with delinquency. The research put into consideration different actions of parental direct control, for instance, obliging juvenile children to home at a given time, and threat of punishment in case of a wrongdoing. The General Theory of Crime (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2001) bravely claims that low or lack of self-control among juveniles is the source of illicit and other unexpected behaviors. Self-control primarily in children is acquired in their formative years, often through socialization by parents and other responsible adults. It therefore apparent that parents are the authority best known to children and they take care of them as their obligation, monitor their change in behaviour as they grow and should be able to recognize the positive and negative behavioral changes. In response, the parents ought to reprimand the bad behavior, and in so doing high instill self control level in children. Low-self control and deviance ensue in case there are missing elements of socialization between the child and the parents or any parental figures in their life. When parents care for their children, monitor their behavior for deviance, recognize such behavior when it occurs, and admonish the wrongdoing, high levels of self-control is instilled in the children. However, lack of these elements of effective socialization, translates to low-self control and deviance. In their theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) further maintain that this theory has universal application, because the mechanism involving low self-control and deviance transcends demographic groupings, and national and cultural boundaries. The Social-learning theory by Akers (1998) and Patterson (1982), in contrast, views the relatives in a family including the parents responsible for metering punishments and reinforcements for delinquent deviant or criminal behavior. It is frequently referred to in the study of the effects of peer groups, somewhat than parents; this is because parents are viewed as often discouraging their children against their involvement in criminal acts (Warr, 1993). However, as noted by Akers (1998:54-56, 62-63) parents or parental figures for a juvenile can involuntarily encourage crime by being over aggressive (particularly in their use of bad disciplinary methods such as spanking, use of abusive language and undermining a child’s potential) or by being permissive or punitive and not properly emphasizing good behavior. With such upbringing, crimes might increase as a result of modeling bad behavior and negatively influencing a child’s peer associations and choices later in life. While parenting skills are the main predictor of a child’s delinquency trajectories, the parents being the closest care takers are in a better position to closely observe the child’s growth and development than any other external party (Akers, 1998:54-56, 62-63). Therefore, parents have a higher chance of molding child characters positively or negatively, and thus are not entirely to be held accountable for their children delinquency. Whereas there are confirmations linking “bad” parents to their children’s delinquent behavior, obviously parents are not entirely to blame. Other conditions of delinquent trajectories Other conditions and/or causes of delinquent behavior include external risk factors present in the environment that create contexts for daily living, specifically the family environment, the school setting, the neighborhood or larger community environment, and the persons with whom children associate. The conditions include: Cultural change In a cultural setting with broken norms for acceptable behaviour the probable behaviour among the juvenile population is that delinquency behaviour more often occurs in such social settings. Under such situations, a lot of of the ordinary regulations that discourage populace from committing such improper socially acts might be unable to find their significance for a number of society members. Juveniles are most likely to respond rebelliously, participate in criminal activities and even deviance in response to the destructive changes in the society’s normality (Gilmore, 1990). Economic and social factor Juvenile delinquency is primarily determined by the negative consequences of social and economic growth, and in particular political instability, economic crises, and the poor performing institutions. Socio-economic volatility is mainly linked with persistent redundancy in employment among the youth and hence low incomes amongst the young; in turn increases the probability of their involvement in crime (Tolman and Pittman; Cervone, et al., 2001. Urbanization United Nations Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs (UNCSDH) Geological study report 1993 suggests a higher crime rate registration in a more popularized urban area than in among communities the rural setting and lifestyle. Perhaps this difference is attributed to the differences in social cohesion and social control of the urban and rural setting. Family and community controls are relied upon in the rural areas as a way of dealing with antisocial behaviour; and as a result lower crime rates are reported. On the other hand (UNCSDH, 1993) postulate that industrialized urban societies resort to judicial and legal measures unfriendly approach despite its link with advanced crime rate. Family Children who obtain sufficient parental direction are less probable to be involved in criminal activities. A family characterized by conflict, insufficient parental control, and parental autonomy, translate to juvenile delinquency among their children (En-Ling and Farrell, 2006). Similarly, children from families that cannot offer them main opportunities such as education and lawful employment face exclusion hence are more to engage in delinquency behaviour in order to obtain their basic needs and wants. Families within transitioning countries have to contend with such challenges as turmoil and insecurity that contribute to increasing parental neglect, juvenile abuse and violence Compared to other institutions, the family social institution has received more attention from criminologists in pursuit of juvenile delinquency or crime cause. This is because Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986); Simons, Simons, and Wallace (2004) relate significant variables to criminal involvement such as the quality of parent-child relation and effectiveness of parent supervision as well as discipline measures for certain acts of deviance. Composition of families is one of the factors associated consistently with delinquency. Children from a two-parent family are less likely to be involved in behavioral and emotional problem than their counterparts from a single-parent, or disrupted marital relationship such as divorce or separated parents (Wells and Rankin, 1991). Media Social media such as television and magazines have popularized the “cult of heroes”, which promotes integrity through the corporal elimination of opponents. Wolfgang, Thornberry and Figlio (1987) concluded that juvenile delinquents who watch violence in media tend to conduct themselves more aggressively or violently, especially when provoked. This is generally common among 8 to 12 year-old boys who are more susceptible to such influences. Peer Influence Childhood course of action hardly ever replicates an understanding of the peer group responsibility as an organization of socialization. Association in a delinquent gang, like association in any other normal grouping, can be an element growing up. In the course of such prime relations, a person acquires a sense of wellbeing and protection, develops understanding of social relations, and can display such characters such as allegiance or leadership (American Psychological Association, 1993). Where is the line between discipline and abuse? The line between discipline and abuse is very clear. Discipline and punishment are different. In that, discipline is supposed to make a person prefer not to reiterate bad behaviour. On the other hand, punishment, in particular physical punishment, children find out how the influential persons create set of laws and the weaker is obliged to go along with it, or else be punished. They might learn to opt to lies concerning mistakes or to redirect the responsibility on to others in an effort to escape punishment. For the reason that little children do not decide to behave badly, they feel like failures if punished time and again (Eric Slade and Lawrence Wissow). The goal of discipline is to teach (Thomas, 2003). It teaches self-control and socially acceptable behaviour. Good behaviour encouraged by correcting misbehavior and praising good behaviour. Discipline is an opportunity to model the children’s virtue unlike punishment which can cause harm (Coloroso, 2001). With a good disciplinary measure, there is no power struggle and never does it involve physical violence or threats of violence. In case of physical discipline such as spanking one needs to re-assess the overall discipline strategy and look into ways to replace it. Surprisingly, abusive parents interpret “discipline” to mean yelling, blaming, and demeaning the child. This makes the child feel like a bad person, and a victim bad judgment. A good disciplinary measure refrains from insulting or demeaning (Thomas, 2003). Unlike abuse, discipline does not involve anger and over-reactions Good discipline is a well planned strategy to encourage good behaviour and discourage bad behaviour. It is consistent and fair with clear expectations, clear consequences, and consistent “enforcement” Using correct discipline children learn not only what is wrong, but what is right as good discipline is neither permissive nor punitive (Coloroso, 2001). Abuse In 1999, the WHO Consultation on Child Abuse Prevention drafted the subsequent definition ‘‘Child abuse or maltreatment as constituting entire forms of physical, sexual abuse, emotional ill-treatment, abandonment, negligent treatment, profitable mistreatment, consequential causing real or possible injury to the child’s health, endurance, progress or self-esteem in the framework of a association of accountability, belief or authority.’’ The definition above covers a wide range of abuse. The prevalent causes and penalty of four types of child ill-treatment by caregivers, that is: sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect. Physical abuse of a child is defined as those acts of commission by a caregiver that cause real bodily harm or are likely to cause harm (Kirschner and Wilson, 2001). Pathology. Sexual abuse is defined as the acts wherever a caregiver uses a child for sexual satisfaction. Emotional abuse includes failure of a caregiver to offer suitable and helpful surroundings, and includes acts that have an unfavorable consequence on the emotional health and growth of a child, such as restriction of a child’s actions, defamation, derision, bullying and intimidation, among other nonphysical forms of antagonistic treatment. According to Costa and Nelson, (1978), neglect refers to the inability of a parent to offer for the advancement of the child yet the parent is in a position to provide basics and necessities such as shelter health, education, nutrition, emotional development, and secure living environment. Bibliography American Psychological Association, “Violence and youth: psychology’s response”, summary report of the APA Commission on Violence and Youth (Washington, D.C., 1993). Barbara Coloroso (2001). Kids are Worth It! Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline. Penguin Canada. Callie Harbin Burt, Ronald Simons, Leslie Simons, "A Longitudinal Test of the Effects of Parenting and the Stability of Self-Control: Negative Evidence for the General Theory of Crime," Criminology 44:353-396 (2006). D. Gilmore, Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity (London, Yale University Press, 1990). delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Demuth, S., & Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure, Family processes, and adolescent En-Ling Pan and Michael Farrell, "Ethnic Differences in the Effects of Intergenerational Relations on Adolescent Problem Behavior in U.S. Single-Mother Families," Journal of Family Issues 27:1137-1158 (2006) Judith Smetena, "Adolescents' and Parents' Reasoning about Actual Family Conflict, Child Development 60:1052-1067 (1989). Paul Robinson, "Parents of 'Beyond Control' Adolescents," Adolescence 13:116-119 (1978). Carter Hay, "Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of Self-Control Theory," Criminology 39:707-736 (2001). Stephanie Hicks-Pass, "Corporal Punishment in America Today: Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child? A Systematic Review of the Literature," Best Practices in Mental Health 5:71-88 (2009). Eric Slade and Lawrence Wissow, "Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective Study of Infants and Young Toddlers,: Pediatrics 113:1321-1330 (2004). Laurence Steinberg, Ilana Blatt-Eisengart, and Elizabeth Cauffman, "Patterns of Competence and Adjustment among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Homes: A Replication in a Sample of Seious Juvenile Offenders," Journal of Research on Adolescence 26:47-58 (2006). Jang and Smith, "A Test of Reciprocal Casual Relationships among Parental Supervision, Affective Ties, and Delinquency"; Linda Waite and Lee Lillard, "Children and Marital Disruption," American Journal of Sociology 96:930-953 (1991). John Paul Wright and Kevin Beaver, "Do Parents Matter in Creating Self-Control in Their Children? A Genetically Informed Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi's Theory of Low Self-Control," Criminology 43:1169-1202 (2005). Lazalere, R.E. and Gerald R. Patterson 1990 Parental management: Mediator of the effect of socioeconomic status on early delinquency. Criminology 28:301-324. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (2000). In defense of self-control. Theoretical Criminology, 55–70. J. Tolman and K. Pittman, with B. Cervone and others, Youth Acts, Community Impacts: Stories of Youth Engagement with Real Impacts, Community and Youth Development Series, vol. 7 (Takoma Park, Maryland, Forum for Youth Investment, 2001). Joseph J. Costa and Gordon K. Nelson, Child Abuse and Neglect: Legislation, Reporting, and Prevention (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1978), p. xiii. Justice, Vol. 7, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kirschner RH. Wilson H. Pathology of fatal child abuse. In: Reece RM, Ludwig S, eds. Child abuse: medical diagnosis and management, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:467–516. Loeber, Rolf and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber. 1986. “Family Factors as Correlates and Predictors of Juvenile Conduct Problems and Delinquency.” Pp. 29-149 in Crime and M.E. Wolfgang, T.P. Thornberry and R.M. Figlio, From Boy to Man, from Delinquency to Crime (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1987). Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 28 (4), 467-478. McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 (3), 130-140. Merriam-Webster OnLine: The Language Center: Retrieved on July 6, 2001 from: http://www.m-w.com Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, K. L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1998). Variables that initiate and maintain an early-onset trajectory for juvenile offending. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 531-547. Pratt, T., & Cullen, F. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi‟s general theory of crime: A metaanalysis. Criminology, 38, 931-64. Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(1), 58–81. Ruth Inglis, Sins of the Fathers: A Study of the Physical and Emotional Abuse of Children (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), p. 131. Simons, Ronald L., Leslie Gordon Simons, and Lora Ebert Wallace. 2004. Families, Delinquency, and Crime: Linking Society’s Most Basic Social Institution to Antisocial Behavior. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Terence P. Thornberry, Carolyn A. Smith, Craig Rivera, David Huizinga, and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, "Family Disruption and Delinzuency," Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Office of Jevenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999, Thomas P. Phelan (2003). 1-2-3- Magic: Effective Discipline for Children 2 to 12. Child Management. (also available as a video) United Nations, Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs, “The global situation of youth in the 1990s: trends and prospects” (ST/CSDHA/21) (1993). Read More