Dealing With Juvenile Delinquency

[AllSeeingEar]

I just finished taking a class on the juvenile justice system, and the class was split into groups to work on an assignment (I was not thrilled about having a group assignment, since I paid for MY grade, and not everyone else's. But that's a different rant for a different time). The goal was to propose a method to cut juvenile delinquency by a third over the next several years.

The groups basically came up with the same ideas: Government-mandated parenting classes, government-mandated pre-natal care, and assorted other government-mandated odds and ends. Also proposed were hefty fines and even jail time for the parents, should their little darlings prove to be serious repeat offenders. My contribution to the group was: Don't worry so much about not inflicting a stigma upon the little urchins-- a little embarassment might encourage them to change their ways.

It seems as though society has always had issues with certain youths, and it seems as though it will be a major problem for the forseeable future. Many things have been tried, and yet the problem continues.

My professor, bless his heart, seems to believe that America's problem with delinquency is because of a decline in religious values. I respectfully disagree with that. You don't have to be religious to raise decent children, and you don't have to be a non-beliver to raise a career criminal.

Since parents have a legal responsibility for their children until they reach adulthood, should they be punished for repeat offenses? Should the parents be punished on their child's first offense? Should it be the government's responsibility to tell parents how to raise their children? Would it save taxpayer money in the long run to address the problem before it's a problem, if it would save us from having to pay for their long-term incarceration?

How do you think we wound up with such a problem with delinquency?

What would be a moral way to deal with the problem?

[Jill]

Who's to blame for crime should be decided on a case to case basis. For instance, if a small child who has no concept of property and is outside throwing bricks at windows, the parents are neglecting the child and should to blame in a way it does not distress the child. If a teenager who knows the concept of property is vandalizing or stealing, he is to blame, regardless of how crappy his parents are.

The government can solve those problems. The problems exists because people become parents with no sense of responsibility towards the individual they chose to bring into the world.

[Zip]

Who's to blame for crime should be decided on a case to case basis. For instance, if a small child who has no concept of property and is outside throwing bricks at windows, the parents are neglecting the child and should to blame in a way it does not distress the child. If a teenager who knows the concept of property is vandalizing or stealing, he is to blame, regardless of how crappy his parents are.

The government can solve those problems. The problems exists because people become parents with no sense of responsibility towards the individual they chose to bring into the world.

I'm going to assume that you meant the government can't solve those problems...

Don't be so quick to blame parents exclusively. I've know kids from very good families who were taught all the right things that ended up as vicious little criminals in spite of it.

[DavidOdden]

Since parents have a legal responsibility for their children until they reach adulthood, should they be punished for repeat offenses?

That's the essential principle: a parent may reasonably not know that the child will commit a first offense, but once they do know, they have an strong obligation to prevent recurrences. Thus a repeat offense is evidence of a parental failure. (Not an absolute proof, but "presumptive proof"). The question which the law should ask is, has the parent been negligent in his parental duties in a fashion that contributes to the offense?

Should it be the government's responsibility to tell parents how to raise their children?

Only to the extent of defining what acts are prohibited -- there must be laws against murder and theft, which are established and promulgated by the government. That defines "what the parents must teach the child". It is not the prerogative of government to define for the parent the allowed methods of teaching that.

Would it save taxpayer money in the long run to address the problem before it's a problem, if it would save us from having to pay for their long-term incarceration?

I don't care. There shouldn't be taxation, anyhow, so that is not a valid concern.

[AllSeeingEar]

There shouldn't be taxation, anyhow, so that is not a valid concern.

Well, since we're stuck with it for the time being, I might as well take it into consideration and explore ways in which we can save a few bucks here and there.

I suppose the best way to deal with these things would be on a case to case basis, as there are some children who are just plain out of control. There are kids whose parents try mightily to keep their kids straight, but the kids will have none of it. And there are parents who don't care what their child does.

In my brief time as a Deputy Sheriff in the city jail, there were many teenagers (16 and up, but we did have a 14 year old that had been convicted of murder.) already with long records. It seemed that it was only when they did something serious and had the prospect of a long stay in prison that their parents suddenly cared.

As for how society has come to have such a major problem with delinquency, I believe it started as a result of over-reliance on the government as far as every aspect of a child's education, the fear of hurting a child's feelings if they commit an error, lazy people having kids and not raising them properly, etc.

My classmates seemed to have this fetish for letting the government solve everything, and individuals on this particular assignment were not encouraged to deviate from the particular group's norm, lest we be faulted severely on our grade (and this group-assignment grade counted for a quarter of the over-all grade).

The government has has plenty of time, but has failed to even put a small ding in the problem.

[Jill]

I'm going to assume that you meant the government can't solve those problems...

Yes, I did!

Don't be so quick to blame parents exclusively. I've know kids from very good families who were taught all the right things that ended up as vicious little criminals in spite of it.

Well, no parent today possesses absolute knowledge in parenting. There's room for improvement. The best parent of today is not the best parent ever. But it wasn't my idea to place the blame. I was talking about responsibility in the sense that it's up parents to prevent these problems, if it's possible to prevent them, not society.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Jill

[DavidOdden]

I suppose the best way to deal with these things would be on a case to case basis, as there are some children who are just plain out of control. There are kids whose parents try mightily to keep their kids straight, but the kids will have none of it. And there are parents who don't care what their child does.

Only in the sense that the facts of one case are not the same as the facts of another case. The principle is basically invariant: a parent to allows a child to do evil is responsible for the evil that the child does. You must then judge from the known facts whether the parent did clearly allow the child to do evil, or (innocently) failed to be omnipotent.

As for how society has come to have such a major problem with delinquency, I believe it started as a result of over-reliance on the government as far as every aspect of a child's education, the fear of hurting a child's feelings if they commit an error, lazy people having kids and not raising them properly, etc.

That's absolutely correct. The big divide is between parents who understand what it means to be a parent, and those who don't. I blame Dr. Spock (and his followers / successors).

[themadkat]

Only in the sense that the facts of one case are not the same as the facts of another case. The principle is basically invariant: a parent to allows a child to do evil is responsible for the evil that the child does. You must then judge from the known facts whether the parent did clearly allow the child to do evil, or (innocently) failed to be omnipotent.That's absolutely correct. The big divide is between parents who understand what it means to be a parent, and those who don't. I blame Dr. Spock (and his followers / successors).

What did Dr. Spock do? I mean first of all, who is he, and secondly, what was his error?

[softwareNerd]

... who is [Dr. Spock]...

He calls himself "the world's best known pediatrician".

[DavidOdden]

I mean first of all, who is he, and secondly, what was his error?

Benjamin Spock was a (fairly famous, in the 50's and 60's) pediatrician who wrote for the masses, and was known for advocating what I suppose is best termed "soft and mushy" parenting, who disapproved of teaching children discipline and favored satisfying children's wants. The error is, basically, that there is a line that (as a child) you may not cross but he does not admit, much less teach this.

[JMeganSnow]

If you're going to consider a child or youth committing a crime to be a result of parental negligence (assuming it is proven to be such), then the result should be the same for other examples of gross parental negligence: the child is removed immediately and irrevocably from the parents' custody.

I think the main reason for youth delinquency is because the young people don't have anything to do or any reason to do it. They're largely unsupervised because they aren't *working* with adults in any significant capacity (their parents are at work or whatever ), and I'm sorry, but high school teachers can't supervise 40+ students any more than one manager can really supervise 40+ employees.

Get rid of government-mandated schooling and get these kids into the workforce, whether as apprentices, *voluntary* students, or employees. It pulls them into adult society and starts giving them the kind of freedom they can use.

[Scott_Connery]

Back to these young criminals-- They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning -- a scolding, often without a trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished--and then it would merely be confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation--'paroled' in the jargon of the times."

"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then, suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal--and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder.

-Heinlein

[JMeganSnow]

Heinlein never had any children. If he had, he would be aware of the fact that children don't associate the pain of a beating with whatever it is they did wrong--they associate it, correctly, with the parent or authority figure delivering the punishment. The only thing punishments of this type accomplish is teaching the children to hate and distrust their parents and become experts at deception.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Heinlein never had any children. If he had, he would be aware of the fact that children don't associate the pain of a beating with whatever it is they did wrong--they associate it, correctly, with the parent or authority figure delivering the punishment. The only thing punishments of this type accomplish is teaching the children to hate and distrust their parents and become experts at deception.

Agreed; Heinlein's "corporal punishment philosophy" is completely irrational (just as irrational as the system he attacks).

[Zip]

Heinlein never had any children. If he had, he would be aware of the fact that children don't associate the pain of a beating with whatever it is they did wrong--they associate it, correctly, with the parent or authority figure delivering the punishment. The only thing punishments of this type accomplish is teaching the children to hate and distrust their parents and become experts at deception.

Really? Do you have any children Jenn?

I know I was spanked, I was disciplined and I ALWAYS knew it was because of my actions, not because Mom and Dad wanted to beat me because they were evil or mean or cruel.

I'm not talking about thrashings and beatings and being tied up in the cellar but normal corporal punishment.

I don't hate my parents and my kids don't hate me. As a matter of fact I don't know a single person who was raised in this manner that hates his/her parents or blames them for their actions.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Back to these young criminals-- They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning -- a scolding, often without a trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished--and then it would merely be confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation--'paroled' in the jargon of the times."

"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then, suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal--and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder.

-Heinlein

I wish you would indicate somehow you are quoting someone with quote tags, when you do this. Last time, you quoted Barack Obama and I thought it was you. (I was glad I was mistaken.) This time you put his name under it, which is an improvement, but since you didn't start the first pararagraph with a quotation mark, I was unsure if that was you or him.

[JMeganSnow]

I don't hate my parents and my kids don't hate me. As a matter of fact I don't know a single person who was raised in this manner that hates his/her parents or blames them for their actions.

I do . . . ME! And I helped raise both of my MUCH younger brothers--and made a lot of money babysitting, so I have more experience with kids than most adults my age.

Oh, mild physical pain *by itself* won't do severe damage to your kids, but it won't teach them anything, either, and if you approach it the way my parents did--erupting in bursts of uncontrolled rage and doing things like body-slamming a three-year old on the floor and choking him or withholding food for days on end, your kids WILL despise you and boy will you ever deserve it. I don't hate my parents because I try to be fair to them, but at best they are strangers to me and our relationship will NEVER improve.

Children are not animals to be trained. They are independent persons to be guided.

[themadkat]

Children are not animals to be trained. They are independent persons to be guided.

It's interesting that you raise that point. In fact, your description of how children react applies to animals too. If you physically punish an animal, especially severely, it will not associate the suffering with its supposed wrong, it will associate that suffering with you. This has limited usefulness, but it won't be long before the animal either turns on you or suffers other behavioral problems. Much more effective is any negative stimulus associated with the incorrect behavior that can't be traced back to you, such as if you shoot your cat with a water gun from around a corner where it can't see you if it starts trying to pee in the corner. If harsh punishment isn't even good for training animals, why in the world should it be good for children?

I'm not going to discard corporal punishment entirely, especially for a quick swat on a non-delicate part of the body for a very young child who is about to endanger himself. But a spank on a youngster is one thing. A full-blown beating, especially on a middling or older child, is absolutely terrible and I wouldn't blame a child for reacting badly to it. There has to be another way to get your point across. If we expect children to grow up into adults that live by reason and not force, how are we ever going to convey that lesson if we demonstrate that we ourselves must resort to force?

I remember one time that my father slapped me across the face. I don't remember exactly how old I was, but I was either a teenager or very nearly one. He hit my cheek, and physically it didn't hurt very badly. My father's not very physically intimidating, and as an older teen I could have probably taken him down, although I doubt I ever had or have it in me to try. But that wasn't the point. I started crying, simply because I was so shocked and hurt that he struck me - in a word, heartbroken, especially because that was not how I was used to being treated and because my father and I were very close at that point. The physical pain was negligible, but the emotional pain was awful. I emphasize how bad it was because the physical act itself was not anything special, just a slap. But I would have rather undergone a group beating by a bunch of kids my own age than have Dad hit me like that. To this day I don't have any recollection of what we were fighting about or why he hit me. So much for the lesson.

[Zip]

I do . . . ME! And I helped raise both of my MUCH younger brothers--and made a lot of money babysitting, so I have more experience with kids than most adults my age.

Oh, mild physical pain *by itself* won't do severe damage to your kids, but it won't teach them anything, either, and if you approach it the way my parents did--erupting in bursts of uncontrolled rage and doing things like body-slamming a three-year old on the floor and choking him or withholding food for days on end, your kids WILL despise you and boy will you ever deserve it. I don't hate my parents because I try to be fair to them, but at best they are strangers to me and our relationship will NEVER improve.

Children are not animals to be trained. They are independent persons to be guided.

Jenn there is a quite obvious distinction between discipline and abuse. I'm sure you can recognize the difference.

[JMeganSnow]

Jenn there is a quite obvious distinction between discipline and abuse. I'm sure you can recognize the difference.

If it's so obvious, then why don't you articulate it instead of sneering about it?

I am adamantly against any sort of "punishment" of children that gives an adult an excuse to vent their temper. I very much agree with Rational Jenn's use of Positive Discipline (helping your child to achieve self-discipline via a variety of strategies focused on emphasizing reality-imposed results) rather than adults imposing arbitrary restrictions backed up with pain and screaming and calling that "discipline".

Making behavior the subject of a contest of wills between you and your kids is never a good idea. The stubborn ones like me and my youngest brother will refuse to back down and you will wind up having to back up your threats and landing in child services or even in court. If the two of us were less intelligent and less literate, we'd be your stereotypical "child delinquents", blindly "acting out" in stupid and self-destructive ways. Both of my parents fell into that mold, btw, they're just lucky that their children have the brains not to drink (dad) and/or get pregnant (mom).

Hitting your children is not necessary. It's not *necessarily* directly harmful, either, but if it's not necessary, why do it? Is that really the response you want to have automatized when your kid is 15 and has done something REALLY bad, like drive your car off a cliff? Punching? Or are you, as a parent, going to want to have built up a pattern of speaking rationally and as calmly as you can manage?

[softwareNerd]

Hitting your children is not necessary.

True, and back to the Heinlein quote, sparing the rod does not create juvenile delinquents. In fact it would be my guess that statistically (but not necessarily) the opposite relationship might hold.

MadKat: A quick point about the pat on the butt to stop a dangerous situation. While it would surely be justified if true, it's really a contrived (though very, very oft-used) example.

I wonder if we should split the posts to an earlier spanking thread ...like this one, since I don't think anyone (except Heinlein) is really suggesting a relationship.

Edited May 10, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Zip]

If it's so obvious, then why don't you articulate it instead of sneering about it?

Look, I'm not 'sneering' about it. Your initial response about Heinlein was to disregard him because "he didn't have children" Well in the strictest sense nor did you, and you should be disregarded. Both those statements are ridiculous. Heinlein could have had just as much experience at babysitting as you.

Besides, we all start off as children. Heinlein was probably raised much as I was like me he probably was never the worse for wear because of some sensible (in my opinion) discipline.

You on the other hand were obviously subject to abuse. There is little wonder why you have your opinion in that case. But that abuse does not render you an expert on raising children and I do not claim to be an expert on raising children. You have your opinion I have mine.

My wife and I have raised two well adjusted, stable kids, the proof is in the pudding.

I am adamantly against any sort of "punishment" of children that gives an adult an excuse to vent their temper. I very much agree with Rational Jenn's use of Positive Discipline (helping your child to achieve self-discipline via a variety of strategies focused on emphasizing reality-imposed results) rather than adults imposing arbitrary restrictions backed up with pain and screaming and calling that "discipline".

Making behavior the subject of a contest of wills between you and your kids is never a good idea. The stubborn ones like me and my youngest brother will refuse to back down and you will wind up having to back up your threats and landing in child services or even in court. If the two of us were less intelligent and less literate, we'd be your stereotypical "child delinquents", blindly "acting out" in stupid and self-destructive ways. Both of my parents fell into that mold, btw, they're just lucky that their children have the brains not to drink (dad) and/or get pregnant (mom).

Hitting your children is not necessary. It's not *necessarily* directly harmful, either, but if it's not necessary, why do it? Is that really the response you want to have automatized when your kid is 15 and has done something REALLY bad, like drive your car off a cliff? Punching? Or are you, as a parent, going to want to have built up a pattern of speaking rationally and as calmly as you can manage?

You are obviously very emotional about this subject. If you honestly do not see the difference between shouting and screaming at a child and beating a child because you have lost your temper and giving a child a pat on the rear and a stern admonishment for trying to run out into traffic then I can't help you and this conversation is over.

[JMeganSnow]

You are obviously very emotional about this subject. If you honestly do not see the difference between shouting and screaming at a child and beating a child because you have lost your temper and giving a child a pat on the rear and a stern admonishment for trying to run out into traffic then I can't help you and this conversation is over.

If you can't *explain* the difference, then you don't *know* the difference.

I certainly know the difference--it is one of degree. But it is not a difference in *kind*. I've seen many parents give their kids "swats" and accomplish nothing. At best, it startles. It does not communicate. If accompanied by emotional outbursts it generally elicits similar emotions in the child and many parents wrongly believe this indicates contrition or a "lesson learned".

And yes, I think even *admonishing* a child for trying to run out into traffic is bad. Grab them and physically prevent them? Yes. Display sudden fear? Sure. Say "you're bad" or "that's bad!" No. They didn't know any better, otherwise they wouldn't be running into traffic. A much better approach is to say "I'm upset because you could have gotten hurt!" (a la Positive Discipline) and explain that moving cars are dangerous and precautions must be taken. Even better to additionally explain "I know you get excited and run out into the street, so that's why I watch and grab you."

It's a small difference, but small differences over a long period of time add up to big differences. That is why I prefer a method that is different in *kind*, not just in *degree*. What happens with Positive Discipline if you get the degree wrong? You talk too long and maybe bore the kid, or maybe you explain too little and have to explain many more times (you'll probably have to explain several more times, anyway, but you can increase the number by deficient explanations). What happens with "regular" discipline if you get the degree wrong? You just hurt your own kids. For nothing. They may get over it, but that doesn't make it right.

Oh, and on an unrelated note, I don't consider "well-adjusted" to be a desirable trait. Adjusted to what? Why? It's a euphemism for "conformist". The niceties of civilized behavior should be adopted because one understands and embraces the reasons for them, not because one has been "adjusted" to fear deviating from them. Oh, I'm sure that's not what you meant--the term is used as mealy-mouthed filler to mean "no immediately obvious dysfunctions". But I don't consider raising children who are *not* dysfunctional to be an impressive achievement, either, any more than describing a house as "well, it hasn't fallen down" inspires confidence. Say "it's f*ckin' earthquake-proof" and I might be impressed.

Edited May 11, 2009 by JMeganSnow

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

Regarding the religion issue - cultural and moral relativism results in a nihilistic society where ones behavior isn't regulated by either a religious or philosophical framework (implemented by the individual over their own life rather than by some external force) but instead simply floating through life doing what people want based on irrational immediate satisfaction with little consideration of the long term consequences.

Reminds me of the chapter in Michael Onfray's "Atheist Manifesto" where he points out that we aren't in an atheist society but instead it is a nihilistic society. Ayn Rand saw the result of the decline of religion - and the consequences of something didn't rise in its place. Objectivism is an attempt to step in where religion once stood (but without the elements that come with religions).

[Jill]

Children are individuals. It's not moral to use force on them.