The Association Between Traumatic Events in a Child’s Life and Criminal Behavior

Childhood trauma is a problem that is more intricate than some may assume. Thus, making the understanding of it, or rather the attempt of thereof, often provide similar experiments with different results. Factors for such difference could be cause by the difference in parents, neighborhoods, or simply misunderstood stereotypes. As times change, experiments change. Due to this, the understanding of such delicate topic becomes deeper, hence ending up with different results, despite the similarity in the experiments. For decades the question has been whether childhood trauma in fact had a severe impact in a persons’ likely hood to commit crime. Some even questioned if it had any impact at all, or rather, if it had any other ways of harming the persons’ emotional state. A sensitive topic that sought out harsh answers. However, throughout the many decades of research one thing was made clear. The connection between childhood trauma and the likely hood having ones’ past affect their future in ways of making them more prone to commit violent acts is more complex. For there are many factors that play role in determining someone’s outcome. However, those factors can be the fruits that come from the seed that is childhood trauma.

The thing about child abuse, is that it is one of the rare horrors in which color is not restricted. Unfortunately, it is also one horror that often starts with the parents as the main abusers. For instance, in an article called, Abuse-Resistant Youth: Some Factors That May Inhibit Violent Criminal Behavior, focused on factors that could very well influence violent behaviors, spoke about the likelihood of abused children, becoming abusive parents (Kruttschnitt, Ward, Sheble, 1987). They concurred that this cycle of violence was instilled into the parents’ mind as children, and as they grew up, saw their actions as parenting rather than the abuse that it was. Thus, the theory back then followed a simple rubric, which gave a much simple result. The conclusion back then was that if a parent was abusive with a child, it was because their parents were abusive to said parent. Therefore, the question wasn’t shown much of if the child would become associated with crime, since that was in their eyes inevitable. The question adapted to when they would become violent. An article in 2015 called Early Life Risks, Antisocial Tendencies, And Preteen Delinquency, focused on just that. They concluded that it was not only did the age in which parents were warned to pay close attention to their child’s aggressiveness change (Staff, Whichard, Siennick, Maggs 2015). The age where children who fit into these categories were predicted to have police contact and/or criminal records also changed. For example, one research showed that children who were aggressive at 3 were not only in high risk of displaying antisocial behavior at age 11, they were also estimated to have police contact at the mere age of 15 (White et al. 1990). However, Murray et al. (2010) observed the data from a British Cohort Study (born in 1970) and came to the conclusion that if a child had “conduct problems” at age 5, it should be expected that he not only would show aggressiveness at age 10, but also have adult criminal convictions. As time went on, the ages only increased, though only by a little. The gap between the time that both studies took place was 20 years. In both instances, the ages which would determine adolescent criminal behavior were not only extremely close together as they only had a 2 year difference, they were considerately young ages. This is an interesting finding because it implies, if not proves, that the age factor for determining if a child will grow into a criminal is debatable in only when discussing a specific age. It proves that that specific age can only fall into the ages between 0 and 10.

Parents have always been a factor that was considered when analyzing a child’s behavior. The study of parents therefore, was to find the depth in which parents connection to their child influenced the child’s future. In an article called General Strain, Street Youth And Crime: A Test Of Agnew's Revised

Theory, Agnew in 2001, for example, suggested that child abuse was a type of strain that should be linked to criminal activity (Baron 2004). He suggested that parental violence, along with hostility and sexual abuse, often lead to “undermine attachments and commitments” which would inescapably lead to low social skills and later on, crime. Like Kruttschnitt (et al. 1987), Baron (2004) also agreed that children who came from violent homes would model such behavior. However, unlike in 1987, the research went deeper. They discovered that in many cases, children would not only model abusive behavior, they would use it as a form of problem solving. This then would later be analyzed even deeper and it would be suggested that children with such mannerisms would seek out peers who acted in a similar manner (Baron 2004). The connection between both journals is important because they didn’t just have an extremely similar result when analyzing data. With time, they were able to add to the previous assumption of why children act the way they do, and add more depth to it.

While many simply studied what would happen in an abusive home, there were also studies being made to back these statements up, most of which studied homes that weren’t abusive. On article that studied this in particle was called Family Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency, And Adult Criminality.

After their study of how changes in delinquency were related with children’s interaction with their parents, Liska and Reed (1985) noticed that children who had a strong relationship with their parents were less likely to commit crime (Mccord 1991). In further examination, they also were able to conclude that not only did a close relationship with parents would decrease a child’s involvement with crime, it would also strengthen their attachment to school. A strong relationship with parents would also make socializing and creating friendships a much more leisure task. Though a child’s bond with their parents still remains much of an important factor to determine their possibility of committing a crime in their adolescent or adult life, there are other important factors that come into play. Not all factors are their own seed, however, some are branches from the same tree.

An important factor that had been added to further understand child abuse was the study of the definition itself. Being reported for child abuse happened more often in the urban communities. In an article called Child Abuse, Neglect, And Violent Criminal Behavior they stated that those who were reported for child abuse in poorer areas weren’t necessarily abusing their children. It could just mean that they didn’t have sufficient funds to make ends meet, or that they were un employed (Widom et at., 1989). That is, the poorer one was, the more likely one was to get reported for child abuse. The fear of being reported could very well influence a parent, or even a child who is afraid they will be taken away from their parents, to commit some type of crime (theft, robbery), to be able to make ends meet. Widom (et al., 1989) even pointed out that “many of these same family and demographic characteristics relate to delinquency and later criminality”. The relation between reporting of child abuse, and crimes that children commit pointed out by this journal contradicts what many other journals have been saying for decades. In this case, perhaps it is the fear of being reported for child abuse that drives children to commit crimes they wouldn’t even think about if they weren’t in fear to be taken away from their home. This would then add another factor to study when it came to childhood trauma. It meant that childhood trauma was not only when it came to child abuse, neighborhoods could have an effect in traumatizing a child as well.

Given the inexplicit definition of what childhood trauma was, it was then important to study the ways in which people, both non criminals and criminals alike, viewed certain neighborhoods (Carter, Hill 1978). An article called Criminals' and Noncriminal Perceptions Of Urban Crime did just that. What they did was take random noncriminal residents of Oklahoma City, both black and white, and asked them a set of questions. The questions were mainly focused on 15 neighborhoods both poor and upper class. They were to categorize these, and give their perceptions of them. They found that the noncriminals’ labeled other parts of the city to be more dangerous than criminals. This was viewed as normal, since “the criminals perceive the city as more crime ridden, better protected, and more difficult in which to commit crimes,” (Carter et al., 1997). The reason this is important is because it connects with other research, and how not just noncriminals’ view other parts of the city. Specifically, the perception criminals have of their own neighborhood, and how that neighborhood itself can shape their views. For example, some studies show that certain lifestyles/routines could be put children at risk and increase their chances of committing crime later in the future (Hindelang et al., 1978) For example, if a child grows up in a poor neighborhood, depending on whether their influences are drug dealers, gangsters, or drug users will then be significant when determining which path they will follow.

Previous paragraphs have discussed child abuse, the definition of said child abuse, and the many different factors that can coincide when they are added together. In an article called How Child Maltreatment Affects Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency in a Cohort of Low-Income Urban Youths, they found that when it came to the subject of criminality a study showed that if one assumed that there indeed was a connection between maltreatment and delinquency, then youth crime would be inevitable, this theory was later confirmed (Lemmon, 1999). This finding was similar to that of Carter’s (et al., 1997) because it concluded that youth crime was especially widespread among the urban communities, specifically the poor. To further prove his point, they conducted another study where 908 children who had a substantiated record of abuse and neglect were compared with 667 children who didn’t suffer from such abuse. They were equally matched in gender, age, race and even social class on 73% percent of all the cases (Lemmon, 1999). They found that maltreatment did play a significant role in future delinquency. For the majority of studies, it seems that not only do parents serve as a strong indicator of whether a child will commit crime in the future, but that where they live could influence the abuse. Therefore, influencing the child’s later connection to crime.

Not only did crime seem inevitable giving the studies that were performed, they also made previous assumptions that childhood trauma may not necessarily be viewed as bad by the children themselves. For example, when Baron (2004) found that in many cases where children used aggression they used it in forms of problem solving. Meaning, to them, this was normal. They actions were what they saw at home, and therefore viewed such behavior as not only normal but as to be practiced in other homes as well. Likewise, an article called The Cycle Of Violence In Context: Exploring The

Moderating Roles Of Neighborhood Disadvantage And Cultural Norms suggested that if children grow up in neighborhoods where fighting and shootings are an everyday thing, they become accustom to such violence after a while. In fact, they normalize such violence and become emotionless to it (Wright, Fagan, 2013). This conclusion is extremely similar to that of Baron (2004) and to that of Kruttschnitt (et al., 1987), where Kruttschnitt (et al., 1987) concluded that those who grow up with abusive parents later become abusive parents themselves. However, they don’t see such maltreatment as abuse, rather, as simple discipline. It is the normalizing and numbness to such issue that has been proven again and again by studies to be one if not the main reason why crime does not stop. Or more importantly, why children keep being subjects to such awful abuse and traumatization.

Another factor that would have to be considered when making the connection between maltreatment and delinquency would be a child’s ethnic background. For instance, in an article called Incarceration and Intergenerational Social Exclusion, Hispanic immigrants were speculated to be healthier than American born citizens. They not only might be healthier but they would also have a better social life and emotional state (Foster, Hagan, 2007). Their explanation for such conclusion was that immigrants, specifically Hispanics, not only have stronger family bounds, but also had an overall stronger community background. Again, much like the journal written by Liska and Reed (1985) and Mccord (1991) who both concluded that a strong family foundation would significantly decrease later on delinquency. These studies were not only extremely substantial on their own, they were also beneficial to the other studies that concluded children in abusive homes, or rough neighborhoods had an increased risk of wrongdoing later on life.

One subject that always seemed to surface when analyzing someone’s childhood trauma was their life at home and how that factored into their overall endangerment of becoming a criminal later on in age. There was one study conducted where they compared homes where parents were very strict to home were the children were raised in a more passive home (Welsh, 1978). The psychological data in his research favored the homes where children were raised passively. He concluded that children from a more submissive background were more creative and social. Adding to that the children were also more independent and expressed more “positive feelings towards others and were less inclined to express hostility,” (Welsh, 1978). This conclusion of research is similar to that of Liska and Reed (1985) as well as Mccord’s (1991). Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case with all American households. In an article called Delinquency, Corporal Punishment, and the Schools, in 1968, a decade prior to this research being conducted, Louis Harris took a poll on child discipline in the U.S. (Welsh, 1978). His poll showed that 86% agreed that children needed to be strongly disciplined by their parents, 49% saw a teacher hitting a child as not abuse, but a form of discipline. By these polls alone, it would seem that not only did Americans approve of strict households, most of them practiced this in their own home. The stereotype that Americans home were passive, was contrary to what Americans actually practiced in their home.

One perception that many people have about criminals is that once they are put in jail, they are likely to return once they are released. This thought process is no different when the refer to mental patients. In an article called Trends In Violent Crime Among Ex-Mental Patients, the study’s main focus was to see if it was indeed more likely for a mental patient to commit a crime than for anyone in the general population (Cocozza, Melick, Steadman, 1978). They utilized data from patients that were released in 1947 in New York State and found that mental patients were in fact more likely to be arrested than the general population. That being said, it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that the mental patients suffered something traumatic in their childhood. It could also be, as stated by the journal, a “change in relationship between the mental health and criminal justice systems that may be more responsible for the increasing rates of violent crimes among ex-patients,” (Cocozza et al., 1978). This could be connected to the definition of child abuse and why it is incredibly widespread in urban communities. Since being unable to make ends meet or currently being unemployed could also get someone reported for child abuse (Widom et al., 1989). This then becomes a question of whether the justice system is really out here decrease crime, or increase it among certain groups of people. Since the further the subject is analyzed, it becomes abundantly clear that childhood trauma goes into many directions. Not all of those directions lead to a criminal future. In support to those who concluded that a strong relationship with loved ones would decrease the likelihood of delinquency, in an article called Parents And Drugs Revisited: Some Further Evidence In Support Of Social Learning Theory, Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory focused on explaining why instead of breaking social norms, people follow such said norms (Dembo, Grandon, Le Voie, Schmeidler, Burgos, 1986). Studying Hirschi’s (1969) theory, they found that Hirschi believed that there were certain bonds that when broken or weakened, resulted in the breaking or weakening of the other bonds that made people follow social norms (Dembo et al., 1986). Having strong relationship with parents, school, piers and even religion were key and if one weakened, it was only a matter of time before the other one weakened too. This falls back to previous research about the normalization of behavior seen at home and/or around one’s neighborhood. A child is simply more likely to use drugs or commit certain crimes if people around him, especially those they are most close to, are in those circles and further pushing those type of influences towards the child. However, this would not be the only way that childhood trauma could affect people in their future. Other studies showed that there were a whole lot of different outcomes, and delinquency was only one of them.

Though victims who are mistreated in any way often become criminals as previous studies have shown, there are other ways that a person can be affected by their childhood trauma. In an article called Child Maltreatment And Youthful Problem Behavior, they observed that often, victims can suffer from stomachaches, fear of being alone, insomnia, self-consciousness, trust issues, and yes, aggressiveness (Zingraff, Leiter, Myers, Johnsen, 1993). Another interesting fact when they analyzed how these would differentiate when it came to different sexes was that young girls were more likely run away from problems such as sexual abuse or being in an over restricted family. Boys, however, tended to run from being rejected and being in an abusive family environment (Young et al., 1983). This view point was shared amongst other researches as well. For example, in an article called The Relationship Between Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescent Violent Victimization, studies that were conducted in the comparing of maltreated kids with non-maltreated kids came to the conclusion that maltreated kids were more likely to suffer from anti-social behavior, emotional problems, and behavioral problems (Tillyer, 2012). In an article called Child Maltreatment And Youthful Problem Behavior, the assumption was that the brain structure wasn’t changed much at all after the ages of 5 and 6, people who studied children development focused on the early ages of life (Ireland, Smith, Thornberry, 2002). This could be connected to the research of Staff (et al., 2015), White et al (1990), and Murray et al (2010) and how even though the research being done was years apart, the previous assumption made them bias to their own research. Therefore, they only focused on younger ages, which could be why even though decades had passed, they still came to the same conclusion.

Throughout time, it is not only the research in childhood trauma that has changed, but also the conclusions that come because of child abuse. From the very early stages, it was apparent that people believed that a child’s actions when they were younger could very well determine their likelihood in become a delinquent. As time progressed, they realized that it was because of the assumption that brain structure hardly changes after a certain age that researchers focused on such early ages. Like-wise when it came to trauma, the early studies show that they were focusing more on households, and concluded more or less that child hood maltreatment almost guaranteed future delinquency. Again, it was as time moved forward, that these views didn’t really change, but different factors such as neighborhoods were added into determining a child’s outcome. Not only that, but the conclusion of the outcome was expanded from delinquency, to other possible issues (anxiety, trust issues etc.) that could branch from the trauma suffered as a young child. There’s no doubt that as research continues, and times keeps moving, more factors and conclusions will be added to the already complex subject of childhood trauma.