Family Anomie and Juvenile Deliquency in Post-Communist Romania

The sensitivity of crime rates to social, economic and political influences has long aroused the interest of sociologists who have attempted to explain what kind of relationships might be associated with variations in crime rates between different social groups at different times. The earliest views were put forward by Emil Durkheim, and while later writers have developed (R.K. Merton, L. Srole, A, K. Cohen, etc.) have developed some aspects of his ideas further, his basic ideas of the divorce of the individual from normative standards and the lack of social integration are still valid. Ms. Voicu-Minea looked at the theoretical background in detail but then limited it to a specific social group, the family, asking first why certain individual within vulnerable families and/or negative social influences commit offences while others do not. In modern times the family has undergone massive structural and functional changes. Its former economic function, which once endowed it with a great capacity for social inclusion, has generally vanished, while its formerly crucial role in children's education has been massively reduced. These changes, which are still not complete, can lead to dysfunction and in certain social contexts such as that in post-communist Romanian society, this risk of dysfunction is still greater as unfavourably social circumstances more easily affect such families. The number of cases of juvenile delinquency in Romania has increased sharply ever since the end of the communist system and in 1996 reached the level of 18,317 cases. The sample examined included 1012 juvenile delinquents aged between 14 and 18, taken from all areas of Bucharest. Over 80% of charges related to theft, with more serious offences being relatively rare. The children underwent a series of psychological tests, accompanied by a questionnaire relating to family situation. The results showed that juvenile delinquency in Romania is overwhelmingly male, with 91.8% of offences being committed by boys. Two thirds of the research group were under the age of 16 and only just over one third attended school, with over half having left school before the legal age. While the majority of subjects had a lower than average level of education, they did not always recognise this, with two thirds seeing their level of education as being as good as or better than average. Nearly half the children (43%) did not live with both natural parents and majority came from families with three or more children. This applied both to their original families and to the families in which they were living at the time of the survey. The overwhelming majority of families were living in or around Bucharest, but under one third originated from there. Almost 25% of parents were under-schooled and around one third were unqualified workers. At least 30% of families lived in inadequate accommodation and family incomes were generally low. Ms. Voicu-Minea does however point out that over half the minors from the sample saw their family income as satisfactory or even more than satisfactory. When factors such as bad relationships between parents, corporal punishment, alcohol consumption and criminal records of family members were taken into account, the picture was bleak, making it understandable why over 36% of subjects had run away from home at least once, and in many cases repeatedly and for longer periods. The overwhelming majority of offences (80.8%) were committed in groups of between 2 and 11 persons, usually "friends" but in about 10% of cases member's of the family. IQ tests put about 75% of the sample at slightly under average, the difference being too slight to account for the behaviour problems of the majority. Personality tests, however, showed a different picture. Over 70% of those tested manifested an acute need of tenderness and a similar number a high level of potential aggressiveness. Almost half of the minors expressed such feelings as intolerance or a desire for revenge, and Ms. Voicu-Minea found a clear weakness of the Self. Around half the sample expressed sentiments of abandonment, renunciation and solitude.

Juvenile delinquency, El Paso, Tex. Hearing before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Deliquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, second session, pursuant to S. Res. 89, investigation of juvenile delinquency in the United States. September 17, 1954.

Robert C. Hendrickson, chairman of subcommittee.

La perception de l'aide reçue, les délinquants juvéniles et la récidive : l'effet de modération de la prise en charge

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

A atitude frente a impunidade do menor infrator: um estudo comparativo

Este trabalho teve por objetivo um estudo comparativo da atitude frente à impunidade penal do menor infrator face a crescente criminal idade juvenil e à perspectiva de redução da idade referente a esta prerrogativa penal, com a justificativa de aumentar a responsabilidade social dos jovens. O trabalho abrange duas partes: Na primeira, é analisado o fenômeno da criminalidade, com relação na ilicitude dos jovens, procurando situar seus condicionantes sócio-econômico-culturais e reportando-se, ainda, a estudos empíricos sobre o tema. Paralelamente, e levado a efeito um estudo de atitudes, embasado no referencial teórico da Sociologia do conhecimento do Peter Berger e Thomas Luckmann. Serviram como respondentes da escala 120 sujeitos, divididos segundo os atributos de sexo, idade, nível de escolaridade e profissão. As seis categorias profissionais compunham dois amplos grupos: humanistas e não humanistas. O instrumento, escala de atitude tipo Likeri, foi construído e aplicado pela pesquisadora, obedecendo a etapas definidas e tratamentos estatísticos, tendo a forma experimental definitiva contado com 18 proposições. A análise de itens e fidedignidade da escala comprovaram a eficácia do instrumento. As hipóteses estatísticas levantadas foram testadas através da análise da variância (no grupo como um todo) e o teste do qui-quadrado (com os sujeitos já agrupados em humanistas e não humanistas), ambos com nível de significância fixado em 0,05. Os resultados da análise da variância demonstraram não haver diferenças significativas na atitude, quanto a sexo, idade e nível de escolaridade. Relação significativa foi encontra da entre profissão e a atitude pesquisada. Pelo teste do qui-quadrado evidenciaram-se diferenças significativas entre humanistas e não humanistas somente em relação ao atributo nível de escolaridade

Ações sociais de ressocialização na Fundação Casa em regime de semiliberdade: avanços e desafios

Pós-graduação em Ciências Sociais - FCLAR

Safeguarding rural Australia : addressing masculinity and violence in rural settings. Data report no. 5. Consequences of violence - juvenile offenders, long-term health consequences, anxiety and repression, other chronic disabilities

This report considers extant data which have been sourced with respect to some of the consequences of violent acts and incidents and risky behaviour for males living in regional and remote Australia . This has been collated and presented under the headings: juvenile offenders; long-term health consequences; anxiety and repression; and other chronic disabilities. Additional commentary resulting from exploration, examination and analyses of secondary data is published online in complementary reports in this series.

Juvenile justice in Queensland and Canada : new legislation reflecting new directions

Due to their similar colonial histories and common law heritage, Australia and Canada provide an ideal comparative context for examining legislation reflecting new directions in the field of juvenile justice. Toward this end, this article compares the revised juvenile justice legislation which came into force in Queensland and Canada in 2003 (Canada, Youth Criminal Justice Act, enacted on 19 February 2002 and proclaimed in force 1 April 2003; Queensland, Juvenile Justice Act, amended 2003). There are a series of questions that could be addressed including: How similar and how sweeping have been the legislative changes introduced in each jurisdiction?; What are likely to be some of the effects of the implementation of these new legislative regimes?; and, how well does the legislation enacted in either jurisdiction address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children who have been caught up in juvenile justice systems? This article addresses mainly the first of these questions, offering a systematic comparison of recent Queensland and Canadian legislative changes. Although, due to the recentness of these changes, there is no data available to assess long-term effects, anecdotal evidence and preliminary research findings from our comparative study are offered to provide a start at answering the second question. We also offer critical yet sympathetic comments on the ability of legislation to address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children caught up in juvenile justice systems. Specifically, we conclude that while more than simple legislative responses are required to address the difficulties faced by youth offenders, and especially overrepresented Indigenous young offenders, the amended Queensland and new Canadian legislation appear to provide some needed reforms that can be used to help address some of these fundamental difficulties.

Juvenile justice and truancy legislation : The move towards parental responsibilisation in Queensland

Much current Queensland media rhetoric, government policy and legislation on truancy and youth justice appears to be based on ideas of responsibilisation – of sheeting responsibility for children’s behaviour back onto their parents. This article examines the evidence of parental responsibility provisions in juvenile justice and truancy legislation in Queensland and the drivers behind this approach. It considers recent legislative initiatives as part of an international trend toward making parents ‘responsible’ for the wrongs of their children. It identifies the parental responsibility rhetoric appearing in recent ministerial statements and associated media reports. It then asks the questions – are these legislative provisions being enforced? And if so, are they successful? Are they simply adding to the administrative burdens placed on teachers and schools, and the socioeconomic burdens placed on already disadvantaged parents? Parental responsibility provisions have been discussed at length in the context of juvenile offending and research suggests that punishing parents for the acts of their children does not decrease delinquency. The paper asks how, as a society, we intend to evaluate these punitive measures against parents?