Childhood trauma can be a more complex issue than many people think. The understanding or even the attempts to do so often produce similar results. Such differences can be attributed to different factors, such as parents’ backgrounds, neighborhoods and stereotypes that are not understood. The experiments also change as the times do. The experiments are similar, but the subject is more complex. For decades, people have been wondering if childhood trauma has a major impact on criminal behavior. Many questioned if childhood trauma was even having an effect, or if emotional damage could be caused. It was a sensitive issue that required harsh responses. One thing became apparent over the course of decades of study. It is complex to determine the link between childhood trauma, and future violence. Many factors can influence someone’s fate. Those factors may be the fruit of childhood trauma.
When it comes to child abuse, color does not matter. It is unfortunate that it often begins with parents who are the primary abusers. In an Abuse Resistance Youth article, focused primarily on factors which may have a direct impact on violent behavior, they discussed the likelihood that abusers will become abusive parents. In their opinion, this cycle of abuse was ingrained in parents’ minds as children. When they grew up and saw it as parental behavior, instead of the abuse, they were able to see. So, back in the day, the theory was simple and had a straightforward result. Back then, the conclusion was that abusive parents would abuse their children. In other words, they didn’t ask if their child would get involved in crime. They assumed that it was inevitable. It was asked when they were likely to become violent. A 2015 article called Early Life risks, Antisocial tendencies, and Preteen Delinquency centered on that. The conclusion was that the age of parents who were warned about their child’s aggressiveness had changed. In addition, the age at which children with these characteristics were expected to have a criminal record or contact with police changed. A study found that children who displayed aggressive behavior as young as 3 years old were at a high risk for antisocial behaviors at 11 years of age. They also had a higher chance of having contacted the police at 15 years of age (White and al. 1990). However, Murray et al. 2010 analyzed the data of a British Cohort Study and concluded that children with “conduct difficulties” at 5 years old would likely be aggressive by age 10, as well as have criminal convictions at adulthood. In the long run, the age of the children did not change much, only slightly. The time gap between these two studies was about 20 years. The age ranges that determined criminal behavior among adolescents were very close in both instances. There was only a two-year difference between them. It is a fascinating finding, as it suggests, if not shows, that age is only relevant when discussing a particular age. This study proves the age of that child can only be in between 0-10.
The parents’ influence on a child was always taken into consideration when analyzing their behavior. It was important to understand how parents influence their children’s behavior. In a piece called General Strain Street Youth And Crime A test of Agnew’s revised
Agnew’s theory in 2001 suggested, for instance, that criminal activity should be associated with child abuse (Baron 2004). He suggested the parental violence, coupled with hostility and abuse of children, could lead to “undermined attachments and committments” that would eventually lead to low-social skills and crime. Like Kruttschnitt (et al. Baron (2004), like Kruttschnitt (et al. The research was more in-depth than it was in 1987. In some cases, children used abusive behavior to solve problems. The data was analyzed further and the conclusion reached that children who display such behavior would look for peers with similar behaviors (Baron, 2004). Both journals have a connection because their data analysis results were not identical. The researchers added more detail to their initial hypothesis of why kids act as they do.
Many studies were conducted to prove these claims, but most focused on non-abusive homes. One article that looked at this in detail was titled Family Relationships and Juvenile Delinquency.
Liska, Reed and Mccord (1985) observed that children who were close to their parents were more likely not to commit crime. After further investigation, they were also able to conclude, that a close relationship between a parent and child would not only decrease the likelihood of a kid committing crime, but would also make them more attached to their school. Socializing with friends and forming a relationship is easier when you have a close bond with your parents. The bond between a parent and child is still an important factor that determines if a person will commit a criminal act in adulthood or as a teenager. However, other factors are equally important. Some factors may not be their own seeds, but they are all branches of the same tree.
The definition of child abuse has been added as a key element to understanding the problem. In urban areas, child abuse is more likely to be reported. They stated in an article entitled Child Abuse, Neglect, and Violent Crime Behavior that people who are reported for child abuse from poorer areas don’t necessarily abuse their children. It may be because they are not employed or don’t earn enough to support themselves (Widom and others, 1989). It means that the poorer someone was, the greater the chance of them being reported as child abusers. Fear of being reported can influence parents or children to commit crimes (theft, theft, robbery) to survive. Widom, et.al. 1989, even stated that a lot of these family and socio-demographic characteristics have a direct correlation to delinquency. This journal’s conclusion about the relationship between child abuse reporting and criminal acts committed by children contradicts many other journals that have made similar claims for years. Perhaps it’s the fear of reporting child abuse which drives children into committing crimes. Children would not even consider committing such crimes if there was no fear they’d be removed from home. It would be interesting to add this as a factor in the study of childhood trauma. This meant that traumatizing children was not limited to abuse. It could also be caused by neighborhoods.
In light of the lack of a clear definition for childhood trauma, it was necessary to look at the way people, non criminals as well as criminals, viewed specific neighborhoods (Carter and Hill 1978). This was the purpose of an article titled Criminals’ And Noncriminal Perceptions On Urban Crime. They asked a series of questions to noncriminals in Oklahoma City of both races. Questions were asked mainly about 15 poor and upper-class neighborhoods. The participants were asked to classify these neighborhoods and share their opinions. Noncriminals classified other areas of the city more dangerously than criminals. The criminals regarded this as normal because they perceive the city to be more crime-ridden and better protected. It is important to note that this research is connected with other studies and how other people view the city. A criminal’s perception of his own neighborhood is important, as it shapes their opinion. According to some studies, certain lifestyles and routines can increase the risk for children of becoming criminals later in life (Hindelanget al. 1978).
In the paragraphs that preceded this one, we’ve discussed child maltreatment, its definition and how many factors can be present when combined. The article How Child Mistreatment Affects the Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency among Low-Income Youths found that if maltreatment was assumed to cause delinquency and youth crime, it was inevitable. Later, this theory (Lemmon) was confirmed. Carter (et.al., 1997) also came to the same conclusion, that youth crimes are more prevalent in poor urban communities. They also conducted a new study, comparing 908 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect with 667 other children. In 73% of the cases, they were matched equally in terms of gender, age and race, as well as social class. They concluded that maltreatment had a strong influence on future delinquency. According to the majority studies, parents are not the only factor that can predict whether a future criminal will be committed, but the location of their home could also influence abuse. The child’s subsequent connection to crimes is influenced by the parents.
They also believed that traumatized children might not always be perceived as a bad thing by them. Baron (2004) discovered that many children who used aggressive behavior did so to solve problems. They viewed this as normal. As they had seen it at home, the children considered this to be normal. A similar article, The Cycle Of Violence in Context: Examining The
In the article, Moderating roles of neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms, it was suggested that after some time children become accustomed to violence. They even become emotionally numb to violence (Wright and Fagan 2013). This conclusion is similar in many ways to Baron’s (2004) as well as Kruttschnitt’s (et.al., 1987), which concluded that parents who abuse their children will become abusive themselves. These children do not view abuse as such, but as a simple form of discipline. In studies, it’s been repeatedly proven that normalizing such issues and being numb to them is one of the reasons crime continues. Or, perhaps even more important, why the abuse of children continues.
A child’s ethnicity would also be taken into consideration when attempting to connect maltreatment with delinquency. In an article entitled Incarceration and Intergenerational Social Exclusion for example, it was speculated that Hispanic migrants were healthier than American-born citizens. In addition to being healthier, they may also be happier and more social (Foster & Hagan, 2007). The authors explained their conclusion by stating that Hispanics and immigrants in general have a strong family bond, but they also have a solid community background. It is worth noting that this journal was written in the same vein as Liska and Reed’s (1985) or Mccord’s (1991) conclusions, which both stated that a good family foundation can help reduce delinquency later on. These studies were not just very substantial, but they also helped other studies to conclude that children who live in bad neighborhoods or homes with abuse are at an increased risk for wrongdoing.
In analyzing someone’s traumatized childhood, the subject of their home life and its impact on their future criminality is always brought up. One study compared the homes of parents who were extremely strict with their children to those in which they were raised by passive parents (Welsh, 1978). His research showed that the passively raised children had better psychological results. He concluded that the children who were raised in a submissive environment are more social and creative. Welsh (1978) also noted that these children expressed “positive feelings toward others” and were less likely to show hostility. This research’s conclusion is similar in many ways to Liska & Reed (1985), and Mccord (1991). Unfortunately, it wasn’t true for all American families. Louis Harris conducted a survey in 1968 on child discipline. This was ten years before the research that led to the findings of this study. In his poll, 86% of respondents agreed that parents should discipline their children severely. 49% thought that a teacher hitting a student was not abuse but rather a form discipline. These polls show that Americans are not only in favor of strict households but they also follow them. Americans don’t live up to the stereotype of passive Americans.
Many people believe that criminals will return to prison after they have been released. This same thinking is used when talking about mental patients. In an article titled Trends in Violent Crime among Ex-Mental patients, the study was primarily focused on determining if a person with a mental illness was more likely to commit a violent crime than anyone else (Cocozza Melick Steadman 1978). Data from 1947 New York State released patients was used to determine that mental patients had a higher likelihood of being arrested. It is not a stretch to believe that mental patients experienced trauma in childhood. According to Cocozza et.al. (1978), it may also be due to a “change of relationship between mental health care and criminal justice system” that has led ex-patients commit more violent crimes. It could have something to do with the definition of abuse, and why it’s so prevalent in urban areas. Inability to earn a living or unemployment could lead someone to report child abuse. This raises the question as to whether justice is trying to deter crime or increase criminal activity among certain people groups. It becomes evident that childhood trauma has many different effects the more you study the issue. The path to criminality is not the only one. Hirschi’s (1969), social control theories focused on explaining the reasons why people don’t break social norms. Hirschi’s (1969), social control theories was examined. Hirschi believed certain bonds were broken when they weakened. This led to the weakening or breaking of the bonds that caused people’s behavior to conform with social norms. It was important to have strong relationships with your parents, teachers, piers, and religion. If any of those weakened, then the other ones would follow. The research shows that the behavior of people at home, or in their neighborhood is normalized. If the people who surround a child, particularly those closest to him or her, are involved in such circles, they will be more likely to influence them to do drugs or commit crimes. Childhood trauma does not only affect the person in their adult life. There were many other studies that showed a wide range of outcomes. Delinquency is just one.
Children who have been mistreated can suffer from a variety of symptoms. This includes stomachaches, fear of being alone, insomnia and self-consciousness. In an essay titled “Child Maltreatment and Young Problem Behavior”, they found that many victims suffer from stomachaches or insomnia. They also experience self-consciousness issues, trust problems, and even aggressiveness. When they looked at how the differences between sexes would be, it was found that girls are more likely to run from issues such as sexual abuse and being in a family with excessive restrictions. Boys on the other had a tendency to run away when they were rejected or in a hostile family environment. Other research also shared this view. In an article titled The Relationship Between Childhood Mistreatment and Adolescent Victimization, researchers compared maltreated and non-maltreated youths and concluded that maltreated youths were more likely than their peers to exhibit antisocial behavior, behavioral issues, and emotional problems (Tillyer (2012)). In an essay called Child Maltreatment And Young Problem Behavior, researchers who study children’s development assumed that brain structures didn’t change very much after age 5 and 6. (Ireland Smith Thornberry,2002). This is related to research by Staff (et.al. 2015), White et.al (1990), Murray.et.al (2010). Even though they conducted their research years apart, this assumption led them to be biased in favor of their own work. They only looked at younger age groups, and this could explain why they came to the same conclusions despite decades having passed.
In the past, the findings of research into childhood trauma have changed. The same is true for the conclusions based on child abuse. Early on, people thought that the actions of a child when he or she was younger would determine whether they became a delinquent. They realized as time went on that the researchers were focusing so much attention on young ages because they assumed that the brain structure didn’t change after a certain point. Early studies on trauma also showed that the focus was more on household issues and that maltreatment of children almost ensured future delinquency. These views didn’t change as the years went by, but they were influenced by other factors like neighborhoods. The conclusion was also expanded to include other issues, such as anxiety, trust issues, etc. This trauma could have a number of different outcomes. The subject of child trauma will continue to grow more complex as time and research progress.