The desire of every parent is for them to raise good children with moral upbringing. I believe no sensible parent would want his or her children to turnout to become a menace to the society. So the question now is, where did these parents miss it? What happened along the way? What made their kids what they are today? The research should throw more light on that and some other things. During the past century, significant changes in family arrangements have occurred; modern family structures vary widely and include many one-parent households as well as extended family arrangements.
Family ,they say is the foundation of human society. We live in a society where everything seems to be upside down-economies, marriages, crime rates are ever on the rise. Peradventure you are sensitive, the more percentage of these delinquents are youths between their teens and early twenties. Therefore this research paper seeks to look into contribution of single parents to the rates of this menace brewing in the society and the world at large. HISTORY OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY Juvenile delinquency under the law profession is defined as crimes or acts committed by children under the age of eighteen (18).
Therefore, the children are termed delinquents. These crimes range from robbery, murder, dope, unwanted pregnancy and an endless list of crimes that you can think of. Differing family structures may directly impact the stability of the family home and the functioning of children and adolescents. The effect of single parenting on juvenile delinquency has its foundation from the beginning. Historically, it has been researched that children who do not have strict parental care engage themselves in these unruly activities.
On the 7th of June, 1995, Michael Tanner, the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Youth Violence. And he made some important statements due to research over the years concerning the subject topic. He said, ‘There is no doubt that juvenile crime is a serious and continuing problem in this country. There are many factors contributing to the rise in juvenile violence and crime, from the glorification of violence in the media to the failure of the “war on drugs.
” But, today, I would like to focus on a factor that has received far less attention — the relationship between the welfare state and crime’. He continued that in 1994, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today. At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth.
Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. CAUSES OF INCREASE IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RATES With the increasing change of family structure in our society today, the traditional family (two biological parents) is becoming the minority. More children than ever are growing up without their fathers. In three decades between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of children living apart from their fathers has more than doubled; from 17% to 36%. More than half of the children born in 1994 will spend some or all of their childhood apart from their biological fathers .
This leads us to question the welfare and fate of our children. You want to ask that, do children need two parents to psychologically develop well? Is their a relationship between fatherlessness and the rising rates of crime and deviance among children, or are other factors the main contributor? These are questions we need to answer in a society where more and more children are being raised by single mothers. Taking a closer look at the subject topic, it looks like we are heaping all the blames of the juvenile increase on the single parents, particularly the single mothers; but NO.
They have their share of the blames but one cannot entirely place the blame on them. Why? The responsibility of two people suddenly became just one person’s responsibility, whether due to sudden death of the father or the irresponsibility of the Father. Never forget that the nature of women is such that they can only hold on for a little while under intense pressure. The single mother has a lot to face – she has to feed the kids, put them through school. That is enough responsibility on her part. In the process of fulfilling doing the above duties, she probably neglects the major thing, which is the Welfare of the Children.
Everything she has done is regarded as a failure because she failed in the most important thing. ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES Time as a major ingredient in building relationships is not left out in the family circle. For the fact that two parents provide for the needs (financial) of their children does not mean that the child automatically builds a relationship with the parents. Children just like adults need care and attention . But in a case where either of the parents is busy with something else, the child goes out of the family circle to fill that arch with something else which could be dangerous not to himself, family but to the society.
Also, in the realm of family functioning there is a theory known as the coercion theory, which suggests that family environment influences an adolescent’s interpersonal style, which in turn influences peer group selection. Peers with a more coercive interpersonal style tend to become involved with each other, and this relationship is assumed to increase the likelihood of being involved in delinquent behaviour. One can never separate juvenile delinquency from Environmental influences. There is this instinct in everyone, which is called the ‘we-feeling’ (the desire to feel among or be in the clique).
The environment has its toll on everyone; it shapes people into different things. Imagine living in a society where all you see daily is drug-dealing; very soon one would be made to believe that it is normal to deal drugs and to indulge in all sorts of crimes. Most and if not every delinquent today has its major influences from his or her environment. That is all they see and since they are conditioned to believe that is the way life is. The environment reshapes their minds, makes them violent, hustlers. They take everything by force .
They believe the only language life responds to is FORCE. CONCLUSION 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 quality time spent with the guardians. Guardians actually need to be “parents” rather than sperm donors and 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.
I believe errors of the pasts can be corrected to avoid future mishaps. Also that is why parents who care about a good name for their generations yet unborn should do everything possible within their means to secure a good future for their children long after they are gone. References: Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geismar, L. L. , & Wood, K. M. (1986). Family and delinquency: Resocializing the young offender. New York: Human Sciences Press. Shaw, C. R. , & McKay, H. D. , (1932). Are broken homes a causative factor in juvenile delinquency? Social Forces, 10, 514-524.