The Artefact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJNNtsJmZb4
This television advertisement was released throughout Australia in 2008. The
company responsible for creating this campaign ‘Drinkwise’, are candid
supporters of responsible drinking and targeted the Australian public due to the
knowledge of its drinking culture. The sole purpose of the advertisement is to
target the parents and make them aware of how strong an influence they are on
their children, “kids form the attitude to alcohol long before they ever have a
drink themselves, from their most important role model – you”.
This sentiment could not be closer to the truth in regards to criminals, who look
up to their parents and are made from those actions.
The Public Health Issue:
Nature v nurture - are criminals born or made? This question is one of the
greatest debates and a highly complex issue where paper after paper can be
found supporting each side of the nature v nurture debate. Acknowledging
research for both nature and nurture, it is overwhelmingly clear that people are
influenced by and model their subsequent behaviour by what they see, hear and
feel around them, particularly in their formative years as children. What makes a
criminal, no-one will ever know. However the up-bringing of the child such as
the socio-economic environment in which they grew up, the level of education,
their relationship with their peers, adult role models and most importantly their
parents are all believed to have a major effect on how a child develops.
Literature review:
As mentioned previously, the nature v nurture debate has lasted for decades,
with study after study putting forward new research. With these extensive
studies, a wide variety of literature is available providing both corroborating and
differing information on what factors influence the make-up of a criminal
through childhood.
A publication from the Australian Institute of Criminology aims to determine the
intergenerational transfer of criminality. With previous research already
establishing the relationship between the criminality of the father and
subsequent offending of his sons and grandsons, this study focuses on the impact
of a father's criminality on the offending of his daughter and the impact of a
mother's criminal history on the offending of her sons and/or daughters
(Goodwin & Davis, 2011). From the studies undertaken of 6 Tasmanian families
(n=313), the results suggested that the children of parents with a criminal record
have a much greater likelihood of becoming involved in crime themselves, than
the children of parents who do not have a criminal record (Goodwin & Davis,
2011). This research has been corroborated by two similar studies undertaken
in Cambridge and Pittsburgh with all three studies uncovering similar insights
(Farrington, Coid & Murray, 2009; Farrington et al. 2001). However it must also
be taken into account that a study such as this does have some flaws. The
conclusion of the study does point out that there are many other variables that
influence the intergenerational criminal behaviour, such as sibling/spouse
criminal behaviour, the age of the criminal at the time of conviction and the
actual sentence set (Goodwin & Davis, 2011). However, even with these
variables considered, and the fact that two similar studies corroborate these
findings, it is evident that this study clearly indicates the strong environmental
impact that criminal behaviour has on the impressionable youth.
The study above focussed on the likelihood of children becoming criminals if
their parents are involved with criminal behaviour. Continuing to focus on the
topic of how people model their behaviour from what they witness, this next
piece of literature, once again from the Australian Institute of Criminality, looks
at a child’s exposure to domestic violence and how that impacts on their actions
in the future (Richards, 2011). One of the key points made through this report is
that “children from violent families of origin carry violent and violence-tolerant
roles to their adult intimate relationships” (Kovacs & Tomison, 2003). This
statement once again supports the notion that a child’s up-bringing has a major
impact on their actions as an adult. Another important observation made in this
report, is that there are numerous programs that are currently set up or are in
the implementation stage in Australia that cater for children who have
experienced violence in their up-bringing (Bunston, 2006; Pavlidis, 2006). The
fact that these facilities are opening more regularly and are being used more
often, supports the fact that the environmental aspects of one’s up-bringing has a
direct and critical impact on their future beliefs and actions.
With the previous two studies focussing on how a child is impacted by what they
witness, it is important to consider how socio-economic factors affect the
development of a child and ultimately influences their actions as an adult. Once
again from the Australian Institute of Criminology, Weatherburn & Lind (2006)
have undertaken a study looking at poverty, parenting, peers and crime-prone
neighbourhoods. The interesting observation that arose from this study in
regards to the topic, was that low-income families are less likely to be nurturant
and more likely to be distracted in their parenting (Harris & Marmer, 2004). It
clearly shows a strong relationship between economically disadvantaged
communities and distracted parenting. Again it highlights the strong relationship
between factors such as poor parental supervision of children, inconsistent,
harsh and erratic parental discipline, and a weak parent-child bond, and
subsequent juvenile and adult involvement in crime (Weatherburn & Lind,
2006). Supporting this evidence, the table included in this study looks at areas of
low socio-economic backgrounds in New South Wales and its relationship to
juvenile participation in crime. There is no ambiguity in the findings that an
increase in child neglect, directly impacts on increased juvenile participation in
crime. Ultimately, this evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that
people are influenced by and model their subsequent behaviour by their
experiences within their environment.
Now that it is understood how and what socio-economic factors affect the
development of a child and their future actions, this next piece of literature
released by Yale University focuses on the vulnerability of juveniles in their
developing years and highlights the many influences from which juveniles define
the actual source of their behaviour (Wickliffe, 2000). One key point mentioned
in this article is that “family exerts the most influence on a human being”
(Wickliffe, 2000). From what they observe in adults, to what they listen to, to
what they learn from peer groups, parents, relatives and society at large, it is
clear that if these influences are carried out in a negative way, the juvenile has
the opportunity of also adopting those behaviours as they move through to their
adult life. The real-world example provided in this article is that of Nathaniel
Abrahams, a young African-American male whose parents fought, undertook
criminal behaviours regularly and disappointed him from a very young age. He
absorbed the way his parents acted (believing this was acceptable) and at the
age of 11 began to commit crimes such as murder, robbery and flashing guns to
intimidate. He was arrested and charged with adult crime (Robins, West, &
Herjanic, 1975). From this real-world example, it can be simply concluded that
children are influenced by and model their subsequent behaviour by what they
see, hear and feel around them.
The Cultural/Social Analysis:
The studies above provide statistical information on research that has been
undertaken on its specific topic. However, while this research highlights the
critical nature of this issue, it is important to understand why it is happening,
who it is affecting and then ultimately, how it can be rectified. One of the early
theories is by that of Durkheim, who wrote in a time when biological theories
that explained individual differences between criminals and non-criminals to
explain the abnormality of crime were the norm in the scientific community
(Zembroski, 2011). He wrote about the normality of crime in society, explaining
that, “human conduct and misconduct lay not in the individual but in the group
and social organisation” (Durkheim, 1951). On top of this theory Durkheim also
stated that during his time, the division of labor was a major contributor to social
differentiation and strained social relationships to the point that society could be
held together only by an external entity such as the state (Durkheim, 1951). He
believed that simpler societies that undertook monotonous work and that
conformed to the norm were stronger and more unified than those that focussed
on divisions of labor as people became more individualistic and independent and
therefore partook in devious behaviour (Zembroski, 2011).
Relating Durkheim’s theory to today’s world, it can be suggested that when he
talks about the unified society that undertakes monotonous tasks, he is talking
about the majority of society who conform to the norm and have a stable family,
stable job, attend school daily and are basically happy. However when he talks
about the other group that focuses on ‘divisions of labor’ and a group that
encourages individualistic and independent behaviour, he is talking about those
in low socio-economic communities with disfunctional family’s who are more
likely to become involved in criminal behaviour.
It can be learnt from Durkheim’s social theory that if someone is living a
structured life with tangible boundaries, where everyday has predicted
behaviours, then they are less likely to become involved in devious behaviour. In
contrast to this is the person who’s structure and boundaries are not clear.
Awareness of this issue is extremely important as research shows that children
are learning from the structure and actions provided by their parents and are
seeing them as acceptable and following in those footsteps. However this
mindset needs to change to prevent more children becoming criminals.
Durkheim’s theory provides a way of how health care workers need to tackle the
issue. If children are given structure and stability in their lives, then there is a
reduced chance that they will become involved in deviant behaviour.
The Analysis of Artefact/Reflection on Learning:
Although the artefact is based on alcohol and responsible drinking it is clear as to
how it relates to my hypothesis that children are influenced by and model their
subsequent behaviour by what they see, hear and feel around them. In this
advertisement it is blatantly clear that the child has seen his father’s actions and
recognises that this is acceptable behaviour. He is influenced by his father’s
actions and demonstrates them as an adult. Relating to the topic ‘are criminals
born or made’, throughout childhood, he has seen and observed the criminal
actions of his parents, siblings or people of higher authority. He has recognised
that they are acceptable actions and then is influenced enough to replicate those
criminal actions in adulthood.
Through researching this topic more in-depth due to this assessment I have
understood the complexities around the nature v nurture debate. Arguments for
both sides of the debate are very strong, however I can’t help but take the side
that criminals are made and not born. One part that I was very surprised with
was how much of an impact your childhood can have on your actions in the
future. The research I found clearly backs up this point, with the strongest
influences regarding criminal records of both parents, witnessing domestic
violence as a child and being raised in a lower socio-economic environment.
With the knowledge that these factors do influence a child’s up-bringing in a
critical way, I believe it is our duty to prevent any child from growing up in those
circumstances where it is seen that criminal activity is acceptable. Yes it will be
an extremely difficult task to undertake, but if something is implemented to
reduce the rates of crime in society, than this can only benefit everyone in the
future.
References:
Bunston, W. (2006). One way of responding to family violence: ‘Putting on
a PARKAS’, in Bunston W & Heynatz A (eds), Addressing family violence
programs: Groupwork interventions for infants, children and their parents.
Melbourne: Royal Children’s Hospital, 24–39.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York, Free Press.
Farrington, D.P., Coid, J.W. & Murray, J. (2009). Family factors in the
intergenerational transmission of offending. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health 19(3), 109–124.
Farrington, D.P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M. & Kalb, L.M.
(2001). The concentration of offenders in families, and family criminality
in the prediction of boys' delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 579–
596.
Goodwin, V. & Davis, B. (2011). Crime families: Gender and the intergenerational
transfer of criminal tendencies, Australian Institute of Criminology, 414, 16.
Harris, K. M. & Marmer, J. K. (2004). Poverty, paternal involvement, and
adolescent well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 17(5), 614-640.
Kovacs, K. & Tomison, A. (2003). An analysis of current Australian program
initiatives for children exposed to domestic violence. Australian Journal of
Social Issues, 38(4), 513–539.
Pavlidis, T. (2006). What’s in a name? A group ‘just for kids’, in Bunston W &
Heynatz A (eds), Addressing family violence programs: Groupwork
interventions for infants, children and their parents. Melbourne: Royal
Children’s Hospital, 40–44.
Richards, K. (2011). Children’s exposure to domestic violence in Australia,
Australian Institute of Criminology, 419, 1-7.
Robins, L.N., West, P.A., & Herjanic, B.L. (1975). Arrests and delinquency: a study
of black urban families and their children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry. 16, 125-140.
Weatherburn, D. & Lind, B. (2006). Poverty, Parenting, Peers and Crime-Prone
Neighbourhoods. Australian Institute of Criminology. 85, 1-6.
Wickliffe, J.A. (2000). Why Juveniles Commit Crimes. California: Yale University.
Zembroski, D. (2011). Sociological Theories of Crime and Delinquency. Journal of
Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 21(3), 240-254.