Professor Isaacs
ENG 123-L
7 April 2017
How Divorce Influences Juvenile Delinquency
Abstract:
There have been cornucopias amounts of attempts to link juvenile crime with other factors. One of which being a leading factor of divorce. Divorce has many effects on the well-being of adolescents under the age of 18, more so negatively rather than positively. A multitude of studies have been performed to link the connection between youth delinquency and the effects of divorce. Within a small assemblage of studies, the results are fairly consistent in their hypotheses of the correlation between the two factors being true. Divorce, being a leading cause for juvenile crime, can be prevented and the rate can potentially drop, thus causing juvenile crime to a minimum as well.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, a UCR, an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes committed amongst the nation of the U.S.as of 2015 (Investigation). In 2014, the rate of violent crimes of juvenile arrests were 157.8 per 100,000 adolescents (between the ages of 10-17) (Snyder and Mulako-Wangota). The UCR compiles official data on crime in the United States, published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The amount of juvenile arrests has gradually gone down in the past half century as well as the divorce rate in the U.S. There have been several hypotheses of the correlation for what makes adolescents lash out in criminal conduct.
There have been hundreds of studies and cases of the link between divorced parents and juveniles, if they are a prominent reason of. Studies say that more children who have divorced parents as they grow up are more likely to commit crimes between the ages of 10 to 17. One reason of this being is that the children who do grow up with only one parental figure develop mental illnesses that lead the children into thinking and acting differently. One study concluded that mental illnesses caused by divorced parents were a reason for their delinquent actions.
The result of a longitudinal survey of high and middle school students in the U.S. indicated that children from families with two married biological parents had a lower level of delinquency compared to single-mother, cohabiting stepfather and married stepfather families. Rebellion examined the relationship between broken homes and delinquency in a national survey-based study conducted on 11–17 aged adolescents in the USA. Broken homes were associated with higher levels of delinquency and criminal offending, including minor status offences and more severe property/violent offences; however, single mother status per se was not a significant risk for children’s delinquency.
In this case study, they observed the different environmental effects of different family structures— single paternal/maternal parent (includes mixed families, cohabiting, and shared physical custody), both parents, child welfare placement, or other family structures, (ie. foster parent(s), foster homes, adoptions, or living alone). The adolescents they chose to experiment with are psychiatric inpatients from Northern Finland. Out of the four categories of family structures, they’re put into parental employment status and so forth. It was then concluded that when two biological parents are present, postponed the onset age of criminal offending of adolescents (Ikaheimo).
Iceland is considerably one of the safest countries to live in because of their government, population, and ideology. Compared to the United States, the divorce rate is 74% more likely in the U.S. than in Iceland. In 2011, the total in divorces was significantly different between the two countries. Iceland had a total of 516, while the U.S. had 877,000 divorces. Marriages in the U.S. lead to divorce 1,700 more times compared to that of Iceland (NationMaster). Iceland is said to have a significantly lower percentage of divorce than the United States because of its population. Almost 20% of Iceland’s population is elderly (55+ years of age) people. This percentage might play a bigger role in Iceland’s crime rates too. Although, if the correlation between the two, youth delinquency and divorce, are instilled in Iceland, this would debatably a reason for their low percentage in juvenile crime and divorce.
A school in Iceland was a part of an anonymous questionnaire in regards to investigate how family conflict contributes to the relationship between parental divorce and adolescent (14 to 16 year olds) cigarette smoking and alcohol use. It resulted in that family conflicts are important contributors to the relationship between parental divorce and adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Conflict between parents and adolescents, but not inter-parental conflict, appears to be the most important factor in the relationship between family conflict and adolescent substance use (Kristjansson).
Alcohol abuse in adolescents can potentially cause them to lead a violent life in their future as they grow older. Alcohol alters the mind and effects the brain in a notorious amount of ways. A study done by American School Health Association, ASHA, resulted in students who consume/use alcohol regularly in seventh grade also were associated with 1-1/2 times greater odds of being suspended from school a year later in eighth grade. Because of these results, one can only assume the reasons the students were suspended (ie. breaking the rules of the school) (Hemphill).
Hypothetically, students who are continuously present in breaking school rules propose the idea that they have not learned their wrongdoing from their prior mistake(s). Potentially, the desire to do bad could carry on with them until they eventually get incarcerated and charged as an adult. Theoretically, if the said students from these case studies were to all be the same students, divorce would be the starting factor. When adolescents are effected mentally by the choice their parents made of becoming divorced, studies showed potential risks that lead to alcohol use and problematic school behavior and truancy.
Another study from the Three Cities Studies tested the effects of nonresidential father relationships in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio. The findings from this study increase knowledge concerning the connection between father–child relationship characteristics and adolescent delinquency trajectories. Extant research also emphasizes how positive father–child relationships are associated with fewer delinquent behaviors (Amato), and negative father–child relationships are associated with greater delinquent behaviors (Cowan)
Although, as youth grew older in these cities, delinquency increased marginally, but the rate of increase slowed. In other words, youth exhibited increased stability in their levels of delinquency as they aged. These findings are consistent with delinquency theories wherein rates of delinquency peak during adolescence, then slowly begin to taper (Yoder, Brisson and Lopez).
Table 1 (Yoder, Brisson and Lopez)
Trust–Communication Rate of Change in the Father–Child Relationship.
Note.“Low” indicates 25% lower quartile and “high” indicates 75% upper quartile in trust–communication scores. Simple slopes tests: low trust–communication, t = −1.96, p = .050, and high trust–communication, t = 1.96, p = .050. Figure was created through HLM using the model graph option.
If divorce is linked to youth delinquency and the cause of crime, it might be preventable for both. The prevention and potential solution for high divorce rate can also lower youth rate because of the parents’ effects on their children. Methods for solutions to this prolonging problem could be that the government takes a bigger role in marriage and divorce across America. This is a controversial topic since it governs with the emotions of people more so than with law. The probability of the government taking a stand on divorce without governing “too much” is unlikely considering all of the different points of views and ideologies nationwide. But proper manners should be taken into consideration to build and uphold a safer United States.
The government made a divorce called the “No-Fault” divorce which means one does not need to show any proof of wrongdoing by either partner in their marriage (ie. adultery, etc.). A controversy made by Stephen Baskerville, a political scientist at Howard University, argues that no-fault divorce rewards wrongdoers, reduces the need of marital binding agreement contracts at the public's expense, and helps women take custody of their children at the husbands' expense in many cases where the man has done nothing wrong. He also adds that a ban on divorce will not work, because people will separate themselves and be in a permanent state of adultery, or they will create a hostile home environment for the children (Baskerville). Today, there are 17 states that follow the no-fault divorce law.
According to Patrick Fagan, the Senior Fellow in Family and Cultural Issues at the Heritage Foundation, for every $1,000 that government spends providing services to broken families, it spends $1 trying to stop family breakdown. He says what society receives in return for this lopsided "investment" is more of what it subsidizes—broken families, troubled children, and social problems (Fagan, Encouraging Marriage and Discouraging Divorce). An analysis of the data shows that: For every 100 children born in any recent year, almost 60 entered a broken family, and out-of-wedlock childbearing has increased significantly, from 7 percent of all births in the mid-1960s to 33 percent today (Fagan, The American Family).
Markman and Scott Stanley, now at the University of Denver, along with others developed PREP—the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program. (Markman and Stanley, with Susan Blumberg, are the authors of Fighting for Your Marriage, first published in 1994.) PREP is a short course, usually given over one full day and two evenings, that provides tools for talking about important relationship issues without fighting. It also teaches skills for preserving the positive elements in a relationship, such as making sure that time is available for friendship and fun, when problems are not discussed.
How the government can prevent divorce in a successful and blissful way is that they can require couples to attend divorce education classes to possibly save their marriage when they are on the verge of divorce. Especially those with children who are minors. This way it could help enable parents to revive and save their marriage and not leave the children in despair, leading them into possible mental health issues or such others. They could attend an arbitration before their case is brought before the court. Another way to lower divorce rate by the government would be to repeal the “no-fault divorce” in couples with children under 18. This meaning, couples can not follow through with a divorce without a proper case of wrongdoing.
The US has had a fairly high divorce rate for the past half century with forty (40%) to fifty (50%) percent of marriages leading into divorce. The controversial issue of the government taking initiative to lower the rate is that they should not have such a big role on the happiness of its people. Although, the government should have some role because of the funds that go to broken families who don’t have two incomes to depend on. This could potentially lower tax payers’ taxes or the funds can go towards a more efficient source of government spending.