juvenile delinquency: the influence of family, peer and ... agriculturae/2015... · juvenile...
TRANSCRIPT
App. Sci. Report.
9 (1), 2015: 37-48
© PSCI Publications
Applied Science Reports
www.pscipub.com/ASR
E-ISSN: 2310-9440 / P-ISSN: 2311-0139
DOI: 10.15192/PSCP.ASR.2015.9.1.3748
Juvenile Delinquency: The Influence of Family, Peer and
Economic Factors on Juvenile Delinquents
Muhammad Nisar 1, Shakir Ullah
1, Madad Ali
1, Sadiq Alam
2
1. Department of Rural Sociology The University of Agriculture Peshawar Pakistan
2. Department of P olitical Science Qurtaba University Peshawar
*Corresponding author: Muhammad Nisar
Paper Information A B S T R A C T
Received: 21 October, 2014
Accepted: 19 December, 2014
Published: 20 January, 2015
Citation
Nisar M, Ullah S, Ali M, Alam S. 2015. Juvenile
Delinquency: The Influence of Family, Peer and Economic Factors on Juvenile Delinquents. Scientia Agriculturae, 9
(1), 37-48. Retrieved from www.pscipub.com (DOI:
10.15192/PSCP.SA.2015.9.1.3748)
The concept of juvenile delinquent means a child or young person guilty of
some offence, or anti-social behavior or whose conduct is beyond parental control and who may be brought before a juvenile court. Juvenile crimes
are a popular issue of social research. Juvenile crimes slow down the
development of a society. The present research thesis aimed to explore the family, peer group and economic factors of juvenile crime. The research
has been conducted in Central Jail Peshawar. Interview schedule has been
used as a tool of data collection. A sample of 45 out of 50 juveniles was selected through purposive sampling technique. This study found that
majority of the respondents was illiterate (31.1%) and belong to nuclear
family system; most of the delinquents were in the age group of 15-18 years. Most of them belonged to low income profile (42.2%) and were
prone to friend’s bad association (75.6%) which increase the rate of
juvenile crimes. In the light of research findings we recommend a strong need to educate every child this may further help to eradicate poverty.
There is also a strong need on the part of parents to keep check on their
children in this way they will restrain them to develop delinquent personality.
© 2015 PSCI Publisher All rights reserved.
Key words: Juvenile delinquent, juvenile crimes, family, peer group, economic
Introduction
Crimes remained always a major problem for society. Crimes violate sacred customs, laws and values. Criminal acts
of young people are called juvenile delinquency. Sometimes the term Delinquency is also used to refer to conduct that is
antisocial but not against the law. However, it usually describes activities that would be considered crimes if committed by an
adult. This excludes “status offenses,” or actions that become legal matters only if conducted by children, before the
establishment of juvenile courts, children under the age of seven were never held responsible for criminal acts. The law
considered them incapable of forming the necessary criminal intent. Children between the ages of 7 and 14 were generally
thought to be incapable of committing a criminal act, but this belief could be disproved by showing that the youth knew the act
was a crime or would cause harm to another and committed it anyway. Children over the age of 14 could be charged with a
crime and handled in the same manner as an adult (Hogen et al., 2001).
Today all states set age limits that determine whether a person accused of a crime is treated as an adult or as a
juvenile. In most states, young people are considered juveniles until age 18. However, some states set the limit at 16 and 17. In
most states, a juvenile charged with a serious crime, such as robbery or murder, can be transferred to criminal court and tried
as an adult. Sometimes prosecutors make this decision, or some states that allow transfers require a hearing to consider the age
and record of the juvenile, the type of crime, and the likelihood that the youth can be helped by the juvenile court. As a result
of a get-tough attitude involving juvenile crime, many states have revised their juvenile codes to make it easier to transfer
youthful offenders to adult court (Vataro et al., 2002).
Recent years have seen an increase in serious crime by juveniles. This has included more violent acts, such as murder,
which are often related to drugs, gangs, or both. Consequently, there has been a movement in congress and in a number of
states to further reduce the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults. Some people believe all juveniles should be tried as
adults if they commit certain violent crimes. Juvenile Crimes, in law, term denoting various offenses committed by children or
youths under the age of 18. Such acts are sometimes referred to as juvenile delinquency. Children’s offenses typically include
delinquent acts, which would be considered crimes if committed by adults, and status offenses, which are less serious
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
38
misbehavior such as truancy and parental disobedience. Both are within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court; more serious
offenses committed by minors may be tried in criminal court and be subject to prison sentences. Under certain circumstances,
youthful offenders can be tried either as juveniles or as adults. But even in these situations, their treatment is different from
that of adults, for example, a juvenile who is arrested for an adult offense can be adjudicated in either juvenile court or adult
court; if convicted, he or she can be placed with either other juvenile or adults. In contrast, an adult charged with the same
offense would be tried in an adult court; if convicted, he or she would be incarcerated by the state and would be housed with
adults. Explaining crime and delinquency is a complex task. A multitude of factors exist that contribute to the understanding of
what leads someone to engage in delinquent behavior. While biological and psychological factors hold their own merit when
explaining crime and delinquency, perhaps social factors can best explain juvenile delinquency. Juvenile delinquency is a
massive and growing individual while others view delinquency as a macro level function of society. Many of the theories that
will be presented will be applicable to at least some instances of crime and delinquency in society. Crime is such a diverse
topic, that the explanation of this social problem is just as diverse. This perspective sees delinquency as a function of the
surroundings or environment that a juvenile lives in. The saying, society made me does it could help to better understand this
perspective (Keller et al., 2002).
Psychologists, sociologists and criminologists the world over have long debated the various causes of delinquency.
Theses focuses on some of the causes the have been and are considered viable from a theoretical and conceptual framework of
the study. Some of the theorists point out family problems includes parental attitudes, monitoring, family structure, family
organization and disorganization etc. Others indicate socio-economic conditions (especially poverty) are of prime importance
in a young person’s life. There is also the factor of peer influences. Young people are especially vulnerable in their early teen
years and subject to a great deal of peer pressure to conform to certain values, norms and behaviors. Delinquency continues to
be a salient topic today and we continue to search for answers to its causative factors. It is clear from the beginning of the
introduction that not one but a combination of factors are the strongest predictor of delinquent behavior. Like familial
relationships combined with an association with delinquent peers offers the highest predictor for delinquency although it might
be tempting to assume that parental abuse of their children would be the conclusion here in terms of familial influence, the
authors note this is not necessarily the case. There are parents who give poor directions to children, fail to structure their
behavior and do not reward or punish appropriately. Our prediction was that the highest levels of antisocial behavior would
occur where poor attachment between parent and child was combined with poor controls”. (Hoge et al., 1994)
Justification Of The Study “The child of today is the father of tomorrow”. A nation cannot get development without providing healthy
environment to its children. Children are the assets of any nation in future but the poor children suffer from the date of their
birth in Pakistan. No basic facilities, food and clean water etc. and these criminals that have nothing to offer to society except
misery. Could the state of these millions of juvenile delinquent be improved with a more effective socialization? Or
educational attainment can improve their status? And how one will minimize the adverse effects of peer?
Review Of Literature Aoulakh (1999) argued that crimes violate sacred customs, laws and values. Crimes interrupt the smooth operation of
the social and political orders. The cited factors responsible for juvenile delinquency are: broken home, delinquent community
environment, bad company of peer/school group, slums with criminal neighborhood, poverty, and unemployment. The rising
trend of big crimes and juvenile delinquency amongst youth leads them to arrest by police. Children from the poor and
working class backgrounds are much more likely to engage in delinquent behavior.
Robert (2002) concluded that children exposed to risk factors such as behavioral problems and family dysfunction,
follow a well described and documented path beginning with behavioral manifestations and reactions such as defiance of
adults, lack of school readiness and aggression towards peers. This leads to negative short term outcomes including truancy,
peer and teacher rejection, low academic achievements, and early involvement in drugs and alcohol. These factors lead to
causes school failure and eventual dropout, leading to negative and destructive attitudes such as delinquency, adult criminality
and violence.
Anika (n.d) highlighted that how family life influences juvenile delinquency. Juveniles are more likely to become
juvenile delinquents if there is little structure provided for them in their families, furthermore families are one of the strongest
socializing forces in life. They teach children to control unacceptable behavior, to delay gratification, and to respect the rights
of others. Conversely, families can teach children aggressive, antisocial, and violent behavior. He further stated that social
circumstances have a hand in determining the future of the individual it is enough for our present purpose to recognize that
family is central. Communication also plays a big role in how the family functions. They further revealed that social learning
theory argues that aggressive behavior is learned; as parents display aggressive behavior, children learn to imitate it as an
acceptable means of achieving goals. Their research shows that single parent families, and in particular mother-only families,
produce more delinquent children than two parent families. Sometimes the focus is taken off the mother and shifted towards
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
39
the father. The lack of emphasis on the role of fathering in childhood conduct problems is especially unfortunate given that
there are several reasons why fathers can be expected to be particularly significant in the initiation and persistence of offspring
offending. For example, fathers are particularly likely to be involved with sons who are at higher risk than daughters of
delinquent behavior.
Clark (1997) stated that the importance of positive communication for optimal family functioning has major
implications for delinquent behavior. Hagan (2001) Indicated that various exposures to violence are important sources of early
adolescent role exits, which means that not only can juvenile witness violence within the family but on the outside as well.
Cashwell (1996) quoted that 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. He
further explains those family behaviors, particularly parental monitoring and disciplining; seem to influence association with
deviant peers throughout the adolescent period.
Smith (1997) founded that parental conflict and parental aggressiveness predicted violent offending; whereas, lack of
maternal affection and paternal criminality predicted involvement in property crimes. He further found that parental conflict
and parental aggressiveness predicted violent offending; whereas, lack of maternal affection and paternal criminality predicted
involvement in property crimes. Familial characteristics suggesting familial antisocial behavior or values such as family
history of criminal behavior, harsh parental discipline, and family conflict have been among the most consistently linked. He
further stated that children are more likely to resort to violence if there is violence within relationships that they may share
with their family. Thornberry et al., (1999) stated that for family disruption and delinquency, the composition of families is
one aspect of family life that is consistently associated with delinquency. Children who live in homes with only one parent or
in which marital relationships have been disrupted by divorce or separation are more likely to display a range of behavioral
problems including delinquency, than children who are from two parent families. Further they stated that for family disruption
and delinquency, the composition of families is one aspect of family life that is consistently associated with delinquency.
Children who live in homes with only one parent or in which marital relationships have been disrupted by divorce or
separation are more likely to display a range of behavioral problems including delinquency, than children who are from two
parent families.
Klein (1997) suggested that two parent households provide increased supervision and surveillance of property, while
single parenthood increases likelihood of delinquency and victimization simply by the fact that there is one less person to
supervise adolescent behavior. They all seem to play a very big role in the life of the child. Family is very important in
creating a law-abiding child. Separating the influence of these three main categories is a challenge.
Loeber (1986) reviewed approximately 300 families and delinquency studies and concluded that the greatest
predictors of future delinquency were parental supervision, parental rejection, and parent-child involvement. Marital relations,
parental criminality, parental discipline, and parental absence were also identified as having moderate levels of influence on a
child's subsequent behavior.
Stattin (2000) argued that monitoring of children’s behavior is an essential quality of parenting and has been known to
affect many areas of child development. Parental monitoring is defined as “active surveillance or tracking of children’s
behavior”. Crouter (1990, 1991)
Wallerstein (1996) stated families that disintegrate into divorce can also exhibit a higher incidence of delinquency if
the resulting arrangement continues to promote intra-family dysfunction. This certainly does not mean that all single-parent
homes are likely to produce dysfunctional children; the key is whether the family unit is healthy. Discord and divorce in two-
parent households are much more disruptive than stable, loving one-parent households. Mahmood (2004) quoted that juvenile
reforms such as Child-Saving Movement focused their attentions on urban poor and working-class youths. The experts argued
that class background was a significant explanatory variable for delinquent propensities. However, to some resources,
delinquency is also quite common among middle class youth. The land dispute, honor killing inferiority complex, large family
size, income disparity and friend’s motivation are the main determinants of the juvenile heinous crime.
According to American Psychological Association (1993) juvenile delinquency is driven by the negative
consequences of social and economic development, in particular economic crises, political instability, and the weakening of
major institutions (including the State, systems of public education and public assistance, and the family). Socio-economic
instability is often linked to persistent unemployment and low incomes among the young, which can increase the likelihood of
their involvement in criminal activity.
Ahmadi (2005) argued that the relative deprivation feeling is also among the factors effective in delinquency. As there
are less welfare schemes and facilities available to the lower social classes ‘adolescents, they are prone to frustration because
they view the society dominant values and norms as obstacles to achieve their goals. Aggression is the usual reaction to the
frustration and deprivation.
Walklate (2003) noticed that strain theory holds that crime is caused by the difficulty those in poverty have in
achieving socially valued goals by legitimate means. As those with, for instance, poor educational attainment have difficulty
achieving wealth and status by securing well paid employment, they are more likely to use criminal means to obtain these
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
40
goals. Social and economic conditions outside the family may also contribute to juvenile delinquency. The difficulty of living
in poverty in slums or blighted areas may breed contempt for oneself and for others, a girl may turn to shoplifting to get
cosmetics or jewelry or a boy may steal a car to impress his girl. The older youth who has dropped out of school is especially
prone to delinquency. The dropout is idle because his skills are not sufficient to get a job, and in order to get money he may
turn to burglary or mugging. Discrimination against minority groups may also encourage delinquency. Youths who belong to
minorities may strike back in resentment against society.
Agnew (1992, 1993 & 2001) argued that a key motivational factor in delinquency and adolescent misconduct is
strain, which is some perceived or actual state of discomfort. Since adolescent’s desire money and the things that money can
buy nice clothes, movies, and so on, the lack of money can produce strain. This Strain may in turn lead to attempts to resolve
the problem through theft (a direct attempt to resolve financial insolvency) or alcohol and drug use.
Metzler (1994) claimed that most notably, lack of parental monitoring is a strong predictor of delinquent behavior.
Pettit et al., (1999) explored that monitoring has been consistently found to moderate delinquent peer influences on children’s
subsequent delinquent behaviors by buffering the effects.
Farjad (1995) concluded that the economic status is effective in delinquency causation. The crime and delinquency
rate among the black peoples of America suffering from low economic status is higher. Perhaps economic status would not
account for offence and crime, but the feeling of personal inferiority or the restrictions caused by finance in person may lead to
enhanced aggression. Low quality and insufficient food, low level of living, insecurity, low health status and parents'
employment status are effective in delinquent behavior. Osgood (1999) argued that entering
the work force substantially alters the manner in which youths spend their time. They hypothesize that working youths,
especially those who are employed for longer hours, are more likely to spend time in “unstructured socializing with peers, in
the absence of authority figures” than nonworking youths.
Felson (1986) concluded that more specifically, youths who work have more disposable income and are less likely to
be home and more likely to be “out and about” and “making the scene” shopping, cruising in a car, going on dates and to
parties, and going to bars. In sum, work releases youths from their “handlers” such as teachers and parents, who are more
likely to exert informal social control, into the waiting arms of peers and adults working in the secondary labor market who are
less likely to serve as a conventional“ handler”.
Lipsey (1998) noted that for youth ages 12–14, a key predictor variable for delinquency is the presence of antisocial
peers. McCord et al., (2001) Stated "Factors such as peer delinquent behavior, peer approval of delinquent behavior,
attachment or allegiance to peers, time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated with
adolescent antisocial behavior." Conversely it is reported that spending time with peers who disapprove of delinquent behavior
may curb later violence.
Steinberg (1987) founded that influence of peers and their acceptance of delinquent behavior are significant, and this
relationship is magnified when youth have little interaction with their parents.
Elliott al., (1989, 1986) explained that there is considerable evidence that not all types of delinquency are typically
group offences. While some offences (such as drug and alcohol use, burglary, and vandalism) are committed mainly in groups,
others (such as assaults, robberies, and most status offenses) are committed as often or even more often by solitary offenders as
by groups. Agnew (1991) in an analysis of data from the national youth survey, found that the influence of delinquent peers on
delinquent behavior depends not only on the amount of time spent with friends but also on the extent to which delinquent
patterns are presented in group interaction. The more peers are involved in delinquent behavior; the more likely a youth will be
to engage in similar forms of delinquent behaviors. Research consistently shows that the more involve a youth is with
delinquent friends, the more likely he or she is to engage in delinquent behavior. His general strain theory identifies additional
sources of strain beyond the structural feature of anomie. In particular, he focuses on strain that result from negative social
relationships and efforts to avoid unpleasant or painful situation. As such, he emphasizes the social psychological aspect of
strain. Peggy et al., (1986) for instance, found that friendship of adolescent males allow them to gain prestige, status; and
self-identity more than do the friendships of adolescent females. More frequent and extensive association with delinquent peers
leads to greater involvement in delinquency. Gang members commit more frequent and more serious crime as compared with
delinquent youth who are not gang members.
Cohen (1955) observed that much of the delinquent activity in inner-city areas is committed by gang members and
that most of these acts are done not for economic gain, but “for the hell of it.” He argued that most people adapt to strain
collectively, by joining with others to find solutions. Confronted with the common problems of status frustration, lower class
boys turn to each other to achieve status.
According to Brochu (1995) illegal drug use is “almost automatically” associated with criminal behavior. The
statistical relationship between illegal drug use and crime is convincing at first glance, but it is not possible to draw a
conclusion regarding a definite cause-and-effect link between the two phenomena. The suggestion that drugs lead to crime
ignores the impact that living conditions can have on an individual and takes no account, according to Serge Brochu (an expert
in this field); of a body of data showing that most illegal drug users in Canada and elsewhere will never be regular users. It
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
41
bears repeating that drug use is still, for the most part, a sporadic, recreational, exploratory activity. Most people are able to
manage their drug use without any difficulty. Very few will become regular users, and even fewer will develop a drug
addiction.
Materials And Methods
The basic purpose of the study was to dig out the root causes of juvenile delinquency and to know about the
underlying factors like economic, family, peer group and the role of parents towards their children. Non
probability sampling was chosen for this study, in non probability sampling, purposive sampling techniques was used. Total
population was comprised of 50 juvenile delinquents. Out of this population, a sample size of 45 respondents was taken as
suitable sample size as indicated by Sekaran (2010). Central jail Peshawar was taken as a research universe due to the easy
access to juvenile delinquents. Male juvenile delinquents (a person usually below the age of 18) were selected as the potential
respondents for carrying out this research activity. Interview schedule was used as a tool of data collection. The interview
schedule was pretested from five respondents so that to clear any ambiguity and confusion in the questions and if needed so to
add new questions required for the issue at hand.
The collected data was analyzed by using a computer program i.e. Statistical Package for Social Research (16
Version) by drawing frequency.
Results and Discussion
Q: 1. Age, educational status, marital status, type of family and type of home of the respondents. Table comprises on the age, educational status, marital status, type of family and type of home of the respondents. It
shows age of the respondents comprises on age, of 10 to 12 years, 04.4% of the respondents were of the age of 10 to 12 years
and 37% of the respondents were of the age of 13 to 15 years and 57.8% of the respondents were the age of 16-18 years our
finding fact that most of the delinquents were in the age of 16-18 years is supported by the standard definition of American
Psychological Association that Juvenile delinquent is a person who is under age (usually below 18). Most of the respondents
were unmarried 95.6%, except two 04.4%. 0ut of 45 respondents 31 were educated and the rest of the respondents were
uneducated. Among the educated respondents 28.9% were having primary qualification, 28.9% having middle qualification
while 11.1% each having secondary qualification respectively. It is mentionable here that all the respondents having poor
educational background and this fact is further supported by Walklate ( 2003) study that Children with low intelligence are
likely to do worse in school. This may increase the chances of offending because low educational attainment, a low attachment
to school, and low educational aspirations are all risk factors for offending in themselves. Data concerning type of family
shows that out of total 45 respondents, 12 being 26.7% were having joint family background, 31respondents 68.9% a
reasonable figure were having nuclear family system while the rest of the 02 respondents 04.4% were having extended family
background. As Anika (n.d) highlighted that how family life influences juvenile delinquency. Juveniles are more likely to
become juvenile delinquents if there is little structure provided for them in their families. Out of 45 respondents it was found
that majority of the respondents, 31 being 68.9% were their own homes further the table revealed that 14 being 31.10% of the
respondents were residing in rented homes.
Family Aspect
Peer Aspect
Economic Aspect Juvenile Delinquency
Independent Variables
Dependent Variable
CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
42
Table1. Showing the result of age, marital status, educational status, type of family and type of home of the respondents Age Frequency Percentage
10-12 02 04.4
13-15 17 37.8 16-18 26 57.8
Total 45 100
Marital Status Frequency Percentage Married 02 04.4
Unmarried 43 95.6
Total 45 100 Educational status Frequency Percentage
Primary 13 28.9
Middle 13 28.9 Secondary 05 11.1
Nil 14 31.1
Total 45 100
Type of family Frequency Percentage
Joint 12 26.7
Nuclear 31 68.9 Extended 02 04.4
Total 45 100
Type of home Frequency Percentage Rental 14 31.1
Ownership 31 68.9
Total 45 100
Table 2. Showing result of parents alive or not, occupation before imprisonment, father occupation and number of family
members of the respondents. Parents alive or not Frequency Percentage
Yes 32 71.1 No 03 06.7
Mother died 05 11.1
Father Died 05 11.1 Total 45 100
Occupation before imprisonment Frequency Percentage
Student 19 42.2 Mechanic 06 13.3
Labor 20 44.4
Total 45 100 Father Occupation Frequency Percentage
Business 14 31.1
Govt. employ 09 20.0 Farmer 08 17.8
Driver 09 20.0
Unemployed 01 02.2 Labor 04 8.9
Total 45 100
Number of Family members Frequency Percentage
0-03 04 08.9
04-07 19 42.2
08-11 15 33.3 12-18 07 15.6
Total 45 100
Q: 2. Parents alive or not, occupation before imprisonment, father occupation, and number of family members of the
respondents. The table explained that 32 being 71% of the respondents disclosed that their parents were alive, 03 being 06.7%
replied with option no while 05 being 11.10% revealed that their mother has died and the remaining 51 being 11.10% were
stated that their father has died as Juby and Klein (2001, 1997) study indicates that The major area within juvenile delinquency
and families is single parent households versus two parent households. The absence of fathers from children’s lives is one of
the most important causes related to children’s wellbeing such as increasing rates of juvenile crime. Out of total 45
respondents, 19 being 42.2% were students, 06 being 13.30% were mechanics, while rest of 20 being 44.4% were related to
labor respectively. According to the exact data cited above out of total 45 respondents 14 being 31.10% fathers were having
their own business, 09 being 20.0% were engaged in government services, 08 being 17.8% were farmers, 09 being 20% were
related to public transport vehicle as drivers while 01 being 02.20% were unemployed and the rest of 04 being 8.9% were the
profession of labor the calculated data revealed that most were their own businesses but were belong to poor working class as
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
43
Aoulakh (1999) argued that Children from the poor and working class backgrounds are much more likely to engage in
delinquent behavior.
The data in the table below also shows family numbers of the respondents that 04 being 08.9% were in the numbers of
0-03, nineteen 19 being 42.2% were in the numbers of 04-07, fifteen 15 being were in the numbers of 08-11 and the rest of
seven 07 respondents being15.60 were in the numbers of 12-18. This shows that majority were from nuclear families and
according to Anika (n.d) that Juveniles are more likely to become juvenile delinquents if there is little structure provided for
them in their families mean if they belong to nuclear families.
Q: 3. Monthly income, income matches with expenses, need fulfillment of the respondents, run away from home and
who is responsible. Table showed that majority of the respondents, 29 being 42.2% were 6000/ rupees and 10000 rupees per month
income. It further revealed that 14 being 31.10% of the respondents were having monthly income of 110000/ rupees and
15000/ rupees respectively, 6 being 13.30% were 00 rupees and 5000 rupees monthly income, 3 being 6.70% of the
respondents were 16000 rupees and 20000 rupees monthly income and consequently 3 being 6.70% of the respondents were
having 21000 rupees and 25000 rupees per month income respectively. Majority of the respondents
24 being 53.3% realized with the sense that income doesn’t meet basic needs of the family. While the rest of the respondents
21 being 46.7% were satisfied with their income and revealed that it meet the expenses of the family. And this fact is clearly
implicated by American Psychological Association (1993) that Socio-economic instability is often linked to persistent
unemployment and low incomes among the young, which can increase the likelihood of their involvement in criminal activity.
The table also revealed that 21 being 46.7% of the respondents were of opinion that their needs were fulfilled by parents while
03 being 6.7% fulfill it with borrowing, 07 being 15.6% fulfill their need from stealing and 14 being 31.1% were stated that
their needs were fulfilled by themselves respectively.
The table also showed that that few respondents 08 being 17.8% ran away from home while majority 37 being 82.2%
of the respondents had never escaped from their homes. There are some common problems with the respondents like poverty,
problems in family and influence of peer group. Among the respondents 02 being 04.4% were caused to run away from home
by family problems, consequently 02 being 04.4% were caused by financial problems and the rest of the 04 being 08.9% were
influenced by their peer group to run away from their homes. But on the other hand Matherne et al., (2001) found that
delinquency is most definitely on the rise today. The number of youths who run away from home and the number of drop-outs
are increasing every year. They agree that family influence is one of the predictors in the development of delinquent behavior.
In fact, they go so far as to state that family influence can be much more powerful than the influence of one’s peer.
Table 3. Showing result of monthly income, income matches with expenses, need fulfillment of the respondents, run away from
home and who is responsible. Monthly income of family Frequency Percentage
0-5000 06 13.3
6000-10000 19 42.2 11000-15000 14 31.1
16000-20000 03 06.7
21000-25000 03 06.7 Total 45 100
Income matches with expenses Frequency Percentage
Yes 21 46.7 No 24 53.3
Total 45 100 Expenses Fulfill Frequency Percentage
from parents 21 46.7
Borrowing 03 06.7 Stealing 07 15.6
Self 14 31.1
Total 45 100 Run Away From home Frequency Percentage
Yes 08 17.8
No 37 82.2 Total 45 100
Who is Responsible? Frequency Percentage
Not run away 37 82.2 Family 02 04.4
financial problems 02 04.4
peer group 04 08.9 Total 45 100
Majority of the respondents 34 being 75.6% were not arrested before their first imprisonment. The table also revealed
that 11 being 24.4% of the respondents were arrested before their first imprisonment. Out of 45 respondents 34 being 75.6%
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
44
were not arrested. Among the arrested 9 being 24.4% respondents 06 being 13.3% were arrested once while the rest of the 5
being 11.1% arrested twice respectively.
Table also explained the respondents spending time. It reveal that majority of the respondents 34 being 75.6% were
spending time with their family members while the rest of 11 being 24.4% were happy to spend their time with their friends
this fact is negated by Vitaro et al., (2002) that spending time with deviant friends exerts a great deal of pressure on a young
person to adopt the same behaviors. Table also shows types of crimes committed by respondents. out of 45 respondents 18
being 40.0% were committed stealing while 10 being 22.2% were arrested due to quarrelling and it is important to mention
here that 03 being 6.7% juvenile delinquents were found guilty with murder, few 03 being 06.7% were found in jail due to
assault while The rest of the respondents 11 being 24.4% were kept in prison because of other unlawful activities. Further the
table revealed causes of their crimes, Out of 45 respondents 17 being 37.8% committed crime because of their poverty and low
income. 16 being 35.6% came to jail due to friends, 9 being 20.0% a reasonable numbers committed crimes due to their
families negative attitudes as well. The rest of the respondents 03 being 06.7% were considered themselves as responsible for
their crimes. Table revealed that during research work it was found that 14 being 31.1% of the respondents were engaged in
illegal activities along with peer group while the rest of the 31 being 68.9% were not engaged in any sort of illegal activities
with peer group.
Table 4. Explaining the cases arrested before, frequency of arrested before, time spending with, type of crime, compulsion
factors and unlawful activities with friends of the respondents. Are you arrested before Frequency Percentage
Yes 11 24.4 No 34 75.6
Total 45 100 How many time Arrested Frequency Percentage
Not arrested 34 75.6
Once 06 13.3 Twice 05 11.1
Total 45 100
Time spending with Frequency Percentage
Family 34 75.6
Friends 11 24.4
Total 45 100 Type of crime Frequency Percentage
Murderer 03 06.7
Stealing 18 40.0 Quarreling 10 22.2
Assault 03 06.7
Unlawful activity 11 24.4 Total 45 100
Compulsion Factors Frequency Percentage
Friends 16 35.6 Financial problems 17 37.8
Family negative attitudes 09 20.0
Own self 03 06.7 Total 45 100
Unlawful activities with friends Frequency Percentage
Yes 14 31.1 No 31 68.9
Total 45 100
The table below indicates that respondents 28 being 62.2% were not taking drugs while the rest of the respondents 17
being 37.8% were found users of different drugs. This fact is negated by Brochu (1995) that Illegal drug use is “almost
automatically associated with criminal behavior. Further Altschuler et al., (1991) explained that study conducted in 1988 in
Washington, D.C., found that youth who both sold and used drugs were more likely to commit crimes than those who only
sold drugs or only used drugs. Heavy drug users were more likely to commit property crimes than nonusers, and youth who
trafficked in drugs reported higher rates of crimes against persons. further table also revealed that 10 being 22.2% respondents
viewed their friends are responsible for drugs taking while the remaining of the respondents 07 being 15.6% claim poverty is
the root cause for their drugs taking, The above author further argued that Consequently, they get involved in wrong activities.
For instance, if a young person has peers around him who are addicted to smoking than it is very much likely that he will
develop the same habit, no matter how much he tries to avoid but one day he will also be one of them. It was also found in the
table below that 27 being 60.0% of the respondents’ friends were not liked by their parents. While the remaining 18 being
40.0% of the respondent’s friends were liked by their parents.
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
45
Table also revealed that majority of the respondents 29 being 64.4% were of the opinion that their friends were caring
good moral character while 16 being 35.6% were of the opinion that their friends were having bad moral character. It also
revealed that Out of 45 respondents 22 being 48.9% were of the opinion that their friends advised them for good deeds or
stopped them from evil deeds while the remaining 22 being 48% were of the opinion that their friends had never advised them
for good deeds or to avoid evil deeds while only one 1 being 2.2% replied that he had been encouraged by friends for evil
deeds. The table also explored 22 being 48.9% of the respondents were of the opinion that their father behavior was normal
and caring while 13 being 28.9% of the respondents were of the opinion that the behavior of their fathers loved. It was also
revealed that 10 being 22.2% of the respondents were of the opinion that their parents had never loved them and their father
behavior was harsh toward them. Smith et al., (1998) observe in his research findings that the consequences of maltreatment
can be devastating. For over 30 years, clinicians have described the effects of child abuse and neglect on behavioral
development of children. Behaviorally, the consequences of abuse range from poor peer relations all the way to extraordinarily
violent behaviors. Thus, the consequences of abuse and neglect affect the victims themselves and the society in which they
live. Out of 45 respondents 42 being 93.3% of the respondents were of the opinion that their parents had never discriminated
them at all while 2 being 4.4% of the respondents were of the opinion that parents had discriminated them. The remaining 1
being 2.2% of the respondent was of the opinion that his parents preferred sons.
Table 5. Showing cases of drug uses, responsible person for involvement in drugs, and family like and dislike of the respondent’s
friends, respondents views regarding their friends, friend’s advices to stop unlawful activities, father behavior and
equality/discrimination of parents among entire sibling. Drug Taking Frequency Percentage
Yes 17 37.8 No 28 62.2
Total 45 100
Who is responsible Frequency Percentage Not drug users 28 62.2
Friends 10 22.2
Financial problems 07 15.6 Total 45 100
Respondents family like or dislike their
friends
Frequency Percentage
Yes 18 40.0
No 27 60.0
Total 45 100 Respondents views regarding their friends Frequency Percentage
Good 29 64.4
Bad 16 35.6 Total 45 100
Friends advised to stop unlawful activities Frequency Percentage
Yes 22 48.9 No 22 48.9
They encourage 01 02.2
Total 45 100 Father behavior Frequency Percentage
Harsh 10 22.2
Caring 22 48.9 Loving 13 28.9
Total 45 100
Parents equally treat their children Frequency Percentage Yes 42 93.3
No 02 04.4
Prefer son 01 02.2 Total 45 100
Q: 6. Parents check over respondents, family members have been to jail as a criminal, specified members as criminal in
jail, responsible persons for their negative/delinquent personality and future intentions of the respondents.
The table revealed that all 45 being 100.0% of the respondents were of the opinion that their parents asked them, keep
them under monitoring if they remained late at night from home A thorough study by H. Wilson (1950) confirms the Gluecks'
conclusions in a contemporary British environment, and points to the role of the father in reducing the likelihood of criminal
activity in his sons It correlated juvenile delinquency with parental strictness Parental strictness was measured by such factors
as whether a child was required to be in at a certain time, and whether his mother could find him when he was not at home.
Wilson summarizes her findings that delinquent rate in lax families is over seven times that in strict families. In addition out of
45 respondents 36 being 80% were of the view that none of their family members have been to jail whiles the remaining 9
being 20.0% viewed that their family members have been to jail in life. It was also revealed that 1 being 2.2% was father of the
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
46
respondents while 5 being 11.1% were brothers of the respondents and 3 being 6.7% were uncles of the respondents above
author further summarized that the rate in families with a police record of parental criminality is just under twice that in
families with no police record.
Majority of the respondents 17 being 37.8% considered their friends/peer group responsible for their negative attitude,
while 9 being 20.0% viewed that their family is responsible for this. 10 being 22.2% of respondents were of the view that
financial problems were responsible for their negative personality, while 9 being 20.0% of the respondents hold their own self
is responsible for their negative attitude Elliott et al., (1989, 1986) explained that there is considerable evidence that not all
types of delinquency are typically group offences. While some of the offences such as drug and alcohol use, burglary, and
vandalism are committed mainly in group. It was revealed that all of the respondents 45 being 100.0% were ready to be good
citizen in future and they would like to lead a normal life after go out of the prison.
Table 6. Parents check over respondents, family members have been to jail as a criminal, specified members as criminal in jail,
responsible persons for their negative/delinquent personality and future intentions of the respondents. Parents monitoring Frequency Percentage Yes 45 100
No 00 00
Total 45 100 Family members in jail Frequency Percentage
Yes 09 20.0
No 36 80.0 Total 45 100
Specified members in jail Frequency Percentage
Not 36 80.0 Father 01 2.2
Brother 05 11.1
Uncle 03 6.7 Total 45 100
Who is responsible for negative attitude Frequency Percentage
Family 09 20.0
Friends 17 37.8
Financial problems 10 22.2
Own self 09 20.0 Total 45 100
Good Citizen Frequency Percentage
Yes 45 45 No 00 00
Total 45 100
Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusion
The basic goal of the study is to highlight the problem of juvenile delinquency and the influence of family, peer and
economic aspects on juvenile delinquents. Findings of the study revealed that the delinquents belong to age group of 16-18
years were more probable to commit crimes as compare to those with adolescents ages. Those who live in joint family system
were found less likely to involve in juvenile crimes as compare to those living in nuclear family. Most of the respondents
involve in labor and they were not satisfied from their income, low economic and poor educational background was the basic
reason for the juvenile behavior. Peer group had a social influence on the child behavior because majority of the respondents
spend most of the time with their friends which result in negative personality formulation.
In the research study two theories i.e. Merton’s Stain Theory and Sutherland Differential Association Theory were
found the most suited to explain the phenomena of juvenile delinquency. Agnew (1992) concluded Merton theory and stated
that there are institutionalized paths to success in society. Strain theory holds that crime is caused by the difficulty those in
poverty have in achieving socially valued goals by legitimate means. They are more likely to use criminal means to obtain
these goals. This theory has close association with our research findings. The Differential Association Theory also deals with
young people in group context, and looks at how peers influence and existence of gangs could lead them into crime. The
theory is very much in consonance with our research findings because the study found that peer group has social influence on
child behavior, most of the respondents agreed that they spend most of the time with their friends and also blamed them for
their negative personality. However, other factors i.e type of family and unstable economic background was found
significantly contributed towards the occurrence of juvenile delinquency.
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
47
Recommendations On the basis of the findings and conclusions of the study the researchers are extending the following suggestions to
decrease the increasing rate of juvenile delinquency in Pakistan.
The role of family in socialization process of a child plays pivotal role. The study shows that the respondent’s parents
did not play an effective role in their socialization. On the basis of the study it is suggested that parents must play an effective
role by giving more attention and care to their children.
The study shows that peer group has social influence on child behavior. On the basis of research work conducted on
juvenile delinquents it is suggested that the family must have check on their peer group. It is also suggested that the parents or
elders of the family must create awareness among their children to avoid such peer groups.
During research study it was observed that most of the respondents were carrying poor educational background. On
the basis of data collected in this regard it is suggested that every effort must be taken into practice to provide quality education
to every child. By doing so, difference between right and wrong would be inculcated in their minds.
Authorities inside the prison should provide professional education to delinquents. It would help them to raise their
living standards after release from jail.
It is suggested that the concerned authorities should strictly implement the legislations related to juvenile delinquents.
Poverty alleviation programs. It was found during research study that most of the respondents were compelled by poverty and
financial problems to commit heinous crimes so it is the responsibility of the state to eradicate poverty and enhance standard of
living through welfare programs.
References Agnew R.1991. “The Interactive Effects Of peer Variables on Delinquency.”Criminology
Ahmadi H.2005. Sociology of Deviances, Tehran: Universities' Humanities Books Compilation and Study Organization (SAMT). A Study of Socioeconomic
Factors Affecting Male Juvenile Delinquency in Ahvaz City 288. Altschuler D, Brounstein P. 1991. Patterns of drug use, drug trafficking, and other delinquency among inner-city adolescent males in Washington, DC.
Criminology 29(4):589-622.
American Psychological Association.1993. “Violence and youth: psychology’s response”, summary report of the APA Commission on Violence and Youth: Washington, D.C.
Aoulakh A.1999. Police management and law enforcement in Pakistan. S & S Publishers, Urdu Bazaar Lahore.
Chaudhery SM, Kamal S.1996. Introduction to statistical theory, part ii 2nd edition, Ilmi Kitab Khana, Kabeer Street, Urdu Bazar, Lahore. Pakistan 113 p. Clark Richard D, Shields G. 1997. “Family Communication and Delinquency.” Adolescence. 32: 81-91.
Doggett A. (n.d). Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure: Elon University.
Elliott DS, Scott M.1996. “Delinquent Friends and Delinquent Behavior: Temporal and Development Patterns.” In Delinquency and Crime, Edited by J. David Hawkins, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elliott DS. 1993. Youth violence: An overview. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Youth Policy.
Elliott DS.1994. Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination, The American Society of Criminology 1993 presidential address. Criminology 32(1)21.
Farjad Hossein M. 1995. Criminal Psychology and Sociology, Tehran: Hamrah Press.
Felson M. 1986. “Linking Criminal Choices, Routine Activities, Informal Control. Giordano Peggy C, Stephen A. Cernkovich, Pugh MD.1986. “Friendship and Delinquency.” American Journal of Sociology.
Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Loweber R, Henry DB.1998.Relation of family problems to patterns of delinquent involvement among urban youth. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 5. Hoge RD, Andrews DA, Leschied AW.1994. Tests of three hypotheses regarding the predictors of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 22(5), 547-
557.
Huizinga D, Loeber R, Thornberry TP.1994. Urban delinquency and substance abuse: Initial findings, research summary. Washington, D.C: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Keller, at al. 2002. Parent figure transitions and delinquency and drug use among early adolescent children of substance abusers. Journal of Drug and Alcohol
Abuse, 28(3), 399-423. Klein K, Forehand R.1997. “Delinquency during the transition to early adulthood: Family and parenting predictors from early Adolescence”. 332: 61-81.
Klein K, Forehand R.1997. “Delinquency during the transition to early adulthood: Family and parenting predictors from early…” Adolescence. 32: 61-81. Lipsey MW, Derzon JH. 1998. Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In
Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, pp. 86–105. Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M. 1986. Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry& N. Morris
(Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (pp.29-149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mahmood K, Cheema A.2004. Determinants and maximum likelihood functions of juvenile crime in Punjab Pakistan (An international journal). Department of Rural Sociology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad–38040, Pakistan
Matherne M, Thomas A.2001. Family environment as a predictor of adolescent delinquency. Adolescence, 36(144), 655-664.
Mccall and Robert B. 1975. Fundamental statistics for psychology, 2nd edition, Harcourt brace Jovanovich inc., Newyark. Pp. 303-304. McCord J, Widom CS, Crowell NA, eds. 2001. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control. Washington,
DC: National AzcademyPress.
Metzler CW, Noell J, Biglan A, Ary D, Smolkowski K.1994. The social context for risky sexual behavior among adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 419-438.
Osgood D, Wayne. 1999. “Having the Time of Their Lives: All Work and No Play?” Pp. 176-86 in Transitions to Adulthood in a Changing Economy, edited
by Alan Booth, Ann C. Crouter, and Michael J. Shanahan. Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA, Meece DW.1999. The impact of after school.
App. Sci. Report. 9 (1), 2015: 37-48
48
Robert D. 2002. Living with crime. The implications of racial/ethnic differences in suburban location state Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, J. social forces. 74:20. Sekaran U. 2003. Research for Business. The hermitage publishing services.
Serge B.1995. Drogue et criminalité. Une relation complexe, Collection perspectives criminologiques, Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
Smith CA, Stern SB. 1997. Delinquency and antisocial behavior: A review of family processes and intervention research. Social Services Review, 71, 3. Stattin H, Kerr M.2000. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child
Steinberg L.1987. Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child Development 58(1):269–275. Thornberry,
Terence P., Smith, Craig Rivera, David Huizinga, and Magda Stouthamer Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Tremblay RE.2002. Influence of deviant friends on delinquency: searching for moderator variables. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 28(4), 313-322.
Vitaro, et al. 2002. Influence of deviant friends on delinquency: searching for moderator variables. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28(4), 313-322. Walklate S.2003. Understanding Criminology – Current Theoretical Debates, 2nd edition, Maidenhead: Open University Press.