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.