(Institute/University)
Abstract
Society would like us to see young parents living in squalid environments with children who are dressed in common “criminal attire” and packing firearms. Observations proffer that children from families where the parents started raising their family during their juvenile years have a higher propensity to commit crime compared to children born into families where the parents have already reached adulthood or are more prepared. In this light, the debate centers on the age of the parents as the main factor in having children prone to criminal actions. In this light, the statement would be interpreted that if people reach a certain age, then the possibility for having criminally inclined children will be lessened. However, the question is whether age is the sole factor in making this statement or whether the ages of the parents are only contributory to the development of criminally inclined children. The paper seeks to determine the validity of this claim, the policy impacts of the concern, and the possible actions that can be taken in this light.
Keywords: Juvenile Parents, Delinquency, Poverty, Teenagers
Thesis: “The instance of adolescent parenthood greatly contributes to producing crime prone children.”
Introduction
Research into the connection of juvenile delinquency and adolescent parenthood, particularly motherhood, wherein absent, single and maladapted mothers contribute to producing children that are inclined to commit crime expanded particularly in the 1990s. Academics posit that wide ranging public issues regarding the negative effects of mothers having to find work, the dissolution of the family unit, and teenage parents were motivated partly by the cultural conflicts that attended the circumlocutory of the “family values” canon during the administration of then President Reagan, the welfare restructuring era, and the “Contract with America” espoused by Rep. Newt Gingrich.
Social scientists suggest that social depreciations, such as criminality, deviance, and juvenile delinquency were triggered by the collapse of the family unit in American society, and research also showed that US policy makers had a responsibility in reversing this unfortunate slew of events. Other social analysts and scholars suggest that the American family unit was not in decline; rather, it was in the process of adapting to acquiesce with the changing needs of a shifting society.
As the rate of teenagers becoming mothers remained high, the concern among the American public also stayed high on the social effects of “kids having kids.” In the work of Maynard, the view regarding juvenile motherhood was significantly driven by increasing rates of economic marginalization and welfare reliance in the 1990s. Juvenile parenthood was considered not only as a precursor to welfare addiction, and in this context, a bigger tax burden. However, what is significant in this line of argument is that teenage parents are seen as major contributor to the production of a number of social malaises such as criminality (McShane, Williams, 2007, p. 160).
Literature Review
Studies have shown that having children in one’s teenage years is the result as well as the cause of impoverishment. What has been evinced at this point is that the same complex set of social and economic elements that expose teenagers to having children at this precarious social period are the same elements that contributes to the reasons that make teenagers live in poverty (Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy, 2008, p. 7). Odegaard and Skardhamar (2015, p. 4) avers that in general, becoming parents is interlinked with positive impacts; hence, it follows that there are a number of mechanisms operating at different age groups that determine the outcome of the family unit if the family is started at different ages.
A number of studies have proffered that teenage parenthood can be interrelated with higher propensities to commit crime. In the study of Farrington and West (1995), it was found that children born to juvenile fathers have a higher inclination to commit crime if the child was illegitimate, or born outside the marriage bonds.
In this light, it can be postulated that when a person becomes a parent when these reach adulthood, this can decrease or restrain criminality in their children; this is not so the case for teenage parents. Juvenile parenthood is connected to a number of adverse elements; poverty, delaying or putting off educational opportunities, unfinished education, and decreased socialization with peers. It is also correlated that teenage parents breed children who are at higher risks to commit crime.
Juvenile fathers will experience much of the same societal problems that will be posed against juvenile mothers. For example, the impacts of teenage parenthood are reflected in the diminished rates for educational attainment for the mother as well as the child. Trying to recoup the wasted time and decreased societal and economic opportunities given to these groups is not only expensive, but also time consuming.
In 2006, New York recorded close to 63,000 high school students who dropped out of school. According to the Schuyler Center (2008), it would not be presumptuous to believe that a good number of these dropouts were teenage parents-mothers and fathers. Childbearing can greatly complicate one’s academic pursuits. Anticipating mothers will have to confront the unwanted treatment and the onus on their person from society. Aside from having decreased opportunities to rest and to comply and accomplish their academic responsibilities, these will be ill-prepared to handle new responsibilities that are usually given to adults. These new responsibilities include balancing child care regimens and giving financial support for the expenses of childrearing. As a result of having to provide for the new family, many of the teenage parents dropped out of school in order to find a job. None of these situations are contributive to teenagers being able to finish school or gaining a high paying job (p. 10).
Methodology
Parks (2013) cites the work of Price and Kunz (2003) wherein it was stated that early research into the subject displayed the link between children raised in “non-traditional” family units to be involved in criminality. However, current research centering on a diversified concept of family construction have discovered that juveniles in “traditional” homes-comprised of the biological parents of the child in one home-have decreased potentials for the child to engage in criminal delinquency (p. 17).
Sample
Parks (2013) engages data derived from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in studying this area. Youths from grade levels 7-12 were layered by grade level and gender and randomly chosen to participate in the survey. The sample were given single interview format and incorporated into computers. Variables were also administered such as race, gender, and whether the individuals were either involved or not in criminal activities; if yes, then whether the crime was violent or not (p. 21).
The manner that a pregnancy or the expectation of a baby will impact the psyche will likely differ from that of an adult. Adults are given more behavioral adjustments to respond to changes in their maturation process, or that adults have more leeway in terms of developing adaptive practices to cope with difficulties, teenagers are more inclined to act in a “knee jerk” fashion sans any thoughtful consideration of their actions or seeing through their actions and choices. In the study of Elder (1994), the ‘life choices’ of an individual must be timed properly in order for these options to fully appreciate and benefit from its results. The “off time” events that teenagers commonly choose will collect and accumulate over the lifetime of the teenagers. In this context, having a baby at this difficult state in one’s life is definitely considered as “off time.”
Teenagers that become parents are held as delinquent; this event is associated as having a number of negative outcomes and consequences. In the study of Kierman et al (2001), these negative studies will further accumulate as the teenage parents grow into adult hood and will prove to be a significant motivator for the development of criminal behaviors (Odegaard and Skarhamar, 2015, p. 6).
Pilot Study: research studies
Studies evince that there is a strong association between elements inclusive of deficient parental monitoring of the children, sporadic but brutal discipline as well as an apathetic bond between the child and the patent and a subsequent drift to juvenile, and ultimately into adult criminal activities. Dysfunctional parenting can offer a pathway connecting economic paucity and involvement in criminal activity (Weatherburn, Lind, 1998). This angle was codified in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act indicates a clear separation with family units that produce “beneficial” offspring and the family type that will become a financial burden to society.
In praising the former, Congress declared that, among others that “marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children and promotion of responsible fatherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children.” This is in contrast to the assessment of Congress of the family that is seen to become a societal and financial problem. In particular, Congress noted this family as economically marginalized and single parent units, particularly single mother which are perceived as units that produce criminally predisposed, antisocial children (Ridzi, 2009, pp. 180-182). McShane and Williams (2007, p. 162) cite the work of Nagin, Pogarksy, and Farrington in striving to link juvenile motherhood and criminal disposition. Their methodology engaged a cartographic approach to the impact of juvenile motherhood by way of three separate and distinct avenues developed to raise the likelihood of criminal engagement in the adult children of these mothers.
The first reasoning, the “life course immaturity” argument, envisions juvenile mothers develop antisocial dispositions in their children owing to their immaturity and inability to be sensitive, effective parents. Adolescent mothers are perceived as completely maladapted to resolve and address the challenges of motherhood as a result of their psychological and mental callowness. The efficacy of a parent, in this context, is seen as an operation of developmental maturation; though it is widely held that juveniles are too immature to become parents, these juveniles should be given the materials and resources to become good parents as these mature into adulthood.
Results
In the methodology applied by Parks (2013), it was shown that children from stable homes with well-adapted parents will be less likely to engage in criminal activities compared to children raised in broken or dysfunctional homes. Nonetheless, as stated in the work of Apel and Kaukinen (2008) and Demuth and Brown (2004), the prevailing definitions of family units whether it is a stable or dysfunctional unit is simplistic to cope with the changes to the structure; it was also noted that the changes must be reflected in future research actions.
Limitations
Specifically, these varied units must be better isolated from one another for enhanced comparative studies in addressing differences between traditional and nontraditional family structures. Research centering on these varied family structures have found that youths who are either cohabitating or in “blended” families have a higher incidence for involvement in crimes compared to those in two parent family structures.
Policy implications and Future Research
Weatherburn and Lind (2000) states that though there is recognition that there are effective early interdiction programs that can deter juvenile delinquency, there is a stubborn tendency among policy developers to undervalue the significance to crime deterrence policy. There are a number of reasons that can be gleaned in this light. The first is that the reduction in crime statistics reduction benefits that can be derived from these early interdiction programs will not be felt immediately; rather, the effects will be felt only after several years while the costs will be immediately be encumbered on society. This factor greatly diminishes its political capital among law and policy makers. Others view the prevention of child abuse as mandating forceful, heavy handed forms of intervention geared to separate children from their parents or guardians. Lastly, there are those that believe that establishing early intervention programs as being outside for their core functions (p. 181).
Children who live in family units mired in poverty and marginalized family units are at higher risks for offending compared to children raised in more affluent settings. In addition, impoverished and disconnected communities that have no or negligible social controls that tolerates or does not have influence in preventing or restricting criminal activity. Lastly, studies also show that social disconnection and undiluted paucity ultimately translates to a general apathy among residents of the community to intervene among the children of the community when these engage in criminal acts.
This disinclination among the community members further heightens the potential for the outbreak of violence within these communities. There will be certain communities that will contribute “better” to the development of sociopathic behaviors; juveniles in high crime incidence neighborhoods are inordinately exposed to norms that are at high risk for offending (Wasserman, Keenan, Tremblay, Coie, Herrenkohl, Loeber, and Petechuk, 2003, pp. 8-9).
References
McShane, M.D., Williams, F.P (2007) Youth violence and delinquency. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group
Odegaard, C., Skardhamar, T (2015) “Crime and the transition to teenage parenthood” Retrieved 19 February 2016 from <https://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/232157?_ts=14e1adb6a00
Parks, A.B. (2013) “The effects of family structure on juvenile delinquency” Retrieved 19 February 2016 from <http://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3380&context=etd
Ridzi, F (2009) Selling welfare reform: work-first and the new common sense of employment. New York City: NYU Press
Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy (2008) “Teenage births: outcomes for young parents and their children” Retrieved 19 February 2016 from <http://www.scaany.org/documents/teen_pregnancy_dec08.pdf
Wasserman, G.A., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R.E., Coie, J. D., Herrenkohl, T.I., Loeber, R., and Petechuck, D (2003) “Risk and protective factors of child delinquency” Retrieved 19 February 2016 from <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193409.pdf
Weatherburn, D., Lind, B. (2000) Delinquent-prone communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Weatherburn, D., Lind, B. (1998) “Poverty, parenting, peers and crime-probe neighborhoods” Retrieved 19 February 2016 from <http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi085.pdf
