Family Origins of Violent Delinquents*

Abstract

Family is central to contemporary theories of delinquent and violent behavior. Yet, the processes by which families shape violent behavior in their children are not well understood. In the past, structural views posited that a weak family exposed a child to the evils of the street. More recently, functionalists have suggested that the family plays an active role in socializing youths to violent behaviors through supervision and discipline practices and modeling and reinforcement of antisocial behaviors. Integrated theories presume that socially disorganized families weaken children's conventional bonds and attachments, leading to associations with delinquent peers and in turn antisocial behavior. However, the influence of the family as a socializing environment may shift over time, and some suggest that its influence is overshadowed during adolescence by that of other social domains—schools, neighborhoods, peers, and work. This study describes the family processes and environments of (n = 98) chronically violent delinquents. Interviews with youths and their mothers assessed family social process and environments and the social domains and institutions with which they interact.Analyses of youth reports of family environments and processes yield three family types: “interactionist” families exhibiting a high degree of internal interaction and bonding; “hierarchical” families characterized by parental dominance and the presence of family bond and interaction patterns; and “antisocial” families marked by criminality and family violence. Family variables have weaker explanatory power than do other social influences on violent delinquency. The relative contributions of family supervision practices and school environment varied by crime type. Social influences outside the family appear as stronger contributors to delinquency and violence during adolescence, regardless of early childhood experiences. The results underscore the importance of integrating social policies regarding family, crime, and neighborhood.

Do juvenile curfew laws work? A time-series analysis of the New Orleans law

“…Proper supervision and appropriate, consistent punishment decrease delinquency; poor or excessive parental discipline increases such activities (e.g., Cernkovich and Giordano 1987;Denton and Kampfe 1994;Fagan and Wexler 1987;Laub and Sampson 1988;Messner and Krohn 1990;Sampson and Laub 1994;Wells and Rankin 1988). Also, attachment to the parents can lessen exposure to delinquent peers, while rejection by parents can enhance this exposure (e.g., Agnew 1991;Conger 1976;Hirschi 1969;Jensen 1972;Kaplan, Martin, and Robbins 1982;Poole and Regoli 1979;Warr 1993b).…”

“…Hence they have several hours to spend with friends and to learn about and engage in delinquent deeds. Many studies demonstrate that youths who have delinquent friends are more likely to commit deviant acts, often in the company of these friends (e.g., Agnew 1991; Erickson and Jensen 1977;Fagan and Wexler 1987;Giordano 1978;Giordano and Cernkovich 1979;Johnson 1979;Matsueda and Heimer 1987;Messner and Krohn 1990;Patterson and Dishion 1985;Warr 1993a;Warr and Stafford 1991). Delinquent friends increase many types of deviance, especially substance abuse (e.g., Aseltine 1995;Dinges and Oetting 1993;Kaika and London 1991;Kandel and Davies 1991).…”

“…Similarly, curfew laws do not affect juveniles' relationships with the school, nor how problems in this relationship can motivate delinquency and increase exposure to delinquent friends. School reduces delinquency for youths who are committed to school (believe in the goals of school), like school, and are achieving in school; but it can increase delinquency for those who are not committed, who dislike school, and are not doing well in school (e.g., Agnew 1985; Denton and Kampfe 1994;Fagan and Wexler 1987;Frease 1973;Hagan 1991;Jenkins 1995;Joseph 1995;Krohn and Massey 1980;Lauritsen 1994;Mann 1981;Pink 1982;Rankin 1980;Schafer andPolk 1972a, 1972b;White, Pandina, and LaGrange 1987). Seydlitz and Jenkins (1998:71) summarize the problem as follows: "[S]tudents who do poorly in school are shunned by teachers and other students, dislike school, view school as dull and boring, devalue themselves, develop a negative attitude toward schoolwork and school rules, perceive school as irrelevant, spend more time with friends, have more friends who are dropouts, and view peers as more salient."…”

Système familial et conduite délinquante au cours de l’adolescence à Montréal en 1985

“…Les premiers, assez peu nombreux et généralement plus anciens, rapportent des corrélations allant de faibles à moyennes entre deux ou quelques caractéristiques de la structure de la famille et/ou de son fonctionnement (Hirschi, 1969 ;Kagan et Moss, 1962 ;McCord, 1979McCord, , 1982Nye, 1958 ;Patterson et Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984 ;Pulkkinen, 1982 ;Wells et Rankin, 1988 ;West, 1969;West et Farrington, 1973). Les seconds, plus récents et encore plus rares, s'attachent aux rapports entre les facteurs structuraux et le fonctionnement de la famille (Cernkovich et Giordano, 1987 ;Fagan et Wexler, 1987;Laub et Sampson, 1988;Van Voorhis et al, 1988); ces études, qui utilisent des procédures dérivées de l'analyse de régression multiple, en arrivent à la conclusion que l'effet des facteurs structuraux est indirect sur la conduite délinquante, le fonctionnement de la famille s'éta-blissant comme une variable intermédiaire. Une seule étude entreprend de bâtir un modèle explicatif qui représente la famille comme un système (HiIl et Atkinson, 1988), mais elle tient peu compte de toute la gamme des facteurs familiaux puisqu'elle s'attarde uniquement aux contrôles externes et internes.…”

Street Gangs and Aggregate Homicides

“…Most studies instead address individual level explanations for gang violence and use self-report data (Deschenes & Esbensen, 1999) or attempt to understand group-level processes (Curry & Spergel, 1988;Fagan & Wexler, 1987;Hagedorn, 1998;Rosenfeld et al, 1999). Research since the early 1970s emphasizes gangs "as a social threat that requires intervention from enforcement and judicial institutions" (Coughlin & Venkatesh, 2003, p. 53) but the accumulation of studies has been theoretically eclectic rather than cumulative.…”