mother soon placed him in a foster home. His substitute parents died when he was ten and he
ended up in a children’s home. Here he was systematically sexually abused by a member of
staff. At the age of 16, soon after leaving the home, Black was convicted of his first sexual
offence… Once released, his offending multiplied and reached at least seventy in number.
Black suffered from a lack of a stable, affectionate family. Institutional care exposed him to
sexual abuse which appeared to shape the way he then behaved towards others. It was not the
family life but lack of it which moulded Black’s warped personality.’ This is a great example
of how ‘youth problems’ are socially constructed as, in this case, the subject was placed in a
society where he experienced abuse which had a definite effect upon his personality and
caused him to offend. The family is the major means of the socialization of children; it is
where they should to be taught to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong; the
limits of tolerated behaviour and where they can acquire the skills to live one day as adults.
‘Not least, it is within the family that children can gain identity for themselves, can perceive
themselves as good or bad, liked or unliked.’ There are also more specific ways in which the
family can have a negative effect on the way that a youth behaves. Firstly, there may be a lack
of discipline at home. Although children do not benefit from harsh or inconsistent discipline,
they do need firm discipline within a context of love. Without it they do not learn when and
how they are misbehaving, do not learn what is right and wrong. The type of parenting that
does work is simply called authoritative parenting. This type of parent assumes a role of
authority in the child's life, but the rules and structure are sensible and flexible to
accommodate the child's growth toward adolescence and young adulthood. The parent's
intelligent explanations of the rules plus reasonable enforcement help to maintain a steady
reduction of control as the child matures. Secondly, there may also be lack of attention from
the family, for example there may not be sufficient attention to problems like bullying within
the home. Outside of the home, the family may neglect to monitor what their children may be
doing and who they may be doing it with. The children could therefore acquire bad habits and
friends which could later mean trouble. Lastly, there may be a lack of example coming from
within the family (lack of a good example anyway.) Children model their behaviour on that of
their parents. Children of criminals therefore are more likely to become offenders themselves,
not because of some kind of criminal gene inheritance, but because they often copy and take
on the values held and practised by their parents. I can therefore be seen that the role of the
family can be vital in the social construction of ‘youth problems.’ Violent, destructive or
neglectful families are without doubt a major cause of juvenile delinquency.
Another way in which ‘youth problems’ are socially constructed is the effect that
poverty can have upon the behaviour of the individuals which must endure it. Unfortunately
poverty is extensive in Britain, which ever of the three main measures are used:
- The Benefits Poverty Level counts as poor all those dependent upon incomes at or below the basic level of Income Support. By this measure in 1989, some 11.3 million people were poor.
- The Income Poverty Level regards as poor all those with incomes less than 50 per cent of average income. In 1990-91, 13.5 million citizens, 24 per cent of the population, were in this plight.
-
The Basic Essentials Level stems from the Breadline Britain survey conducted by London Weekend TV. It asked members of the public which items they considered as essential necessities and they chose items like a damp-free home, an inside toilet, a waterproof coat, an annual holiday, heating for living areas and so on. People without three or more of these items were then graded as poor. The total for Britain was 11 million people.
Large-scale studies are agreed that delinquents have a tendency to come from low-income and
socially deprived families. The survey Continuities of Deprivation, established that six out of
ten boys from such backgrounds acquired a criminal record. The main reasons for this are
that because they come from a very poor background, without money many young people
turn to theft so that they can still have the things that they want. The overlap between crime
and poverty is also revealed in the kinds of groups with high incidences of crime. For
instance, homeless young people are probably the poorest members of society. Often they
have no money at all and no permanent shelter. They are tempted to commit offences in order
to obtain food and clothes, and are also prey for those wanting to lure into prostitution and the
drug culture. A report by the housing charity Shelter found that 37 per cent of young
homeless people had been in trouble with police within the lat twelve months. However, one
reason why poorer people feature more prominently in crime statistics is that their wealthier
counterparts are much less likely to be investigated, apprehended or prosecuted. Inner city
areas and council estates tend to have a higher concentration of police and other officials
whereas residential suburbs are less regulated and hence offenders are less visible. Having
said that, I still believe it to be accurate to say that a youth coming from a poor background is
more likely to offend than one coming from a wealthy background, usually because they
don’t have enough money and so resort to crime, but also but there is the increased chance
that their parents themselves could be criminals. Also, poor people tend to inhabit areas of
deprivation, usually inner-city council estates, where there is already a high offence rate and
youths which have turned to crime. If youths are living around areas where other youths are
committing offences, there is a very likely chance that they too will follow suit.
Youths are often subjected to peer pressure from their friends or peer group. Friends
often can have a huge influence over the actions of a young person, there is a real need or
desire to fit in with a group of people and so will often to as they are told by their friends so
that they are not the odd one out. ‘It is firmly established in criminology that the more an
adolescent keeps company with delinquent friends, the more likely he will tend to commit
crimes himself.’ There are four main reasons why delinquent peers lead others astray;
imitation, instigation, assistance and approval. ‘Imitation’ is copying a crime committed by a
friend. Belson asked a group of London youths why their associations with thieves had
prompted them to steal also. Among several answers, the one that came second in terms of
frequency was that they wanted to copy their mates and be just like them. People tend to
behave like everyone else because there is a good chance of winning approval when we do so
or because we have found that what someone else has done has had the results we would like
to achieve ourselves. ‘Instigation’ is being induced to commit a crime because of the pressure
brought to bear by friends. ‘Adolescents often act out because a friend has encouraged them
to do so or because they have been dared to.’ ‘Assistance’ is when friends co-operate to carry
out an offence. ‘The presence of obliging friends and accomplices makes it easier to commit
an offence. In the company of another or several others the delinquent act seems much easier.
The group gives courage; it lessens the responsibility; it gives assistance and support.’
‘Approval’ is the knowledge that friends consider the offence commendable. Many acts of
delinquency would probably be avoided if their authors were not assured of their friend’s
approval. From this we can therefore identify a major reason why ‘youth problems’ can be
socially constructed. Poverty can drive youths to commit crime just to get by, however it can
also place an individual into a situation where there have to commit crime just to gain the
approval of those around them.
Aside from family reasons, poverty and peer pressure, many people argue that
juvenile delinquency or ‘youth problems’ can be brought around by the media, particularly
images on television. Television is such a powerful means of modern communications, even
more influential than newspapers, simply because it reaches into almost every home. ‘In one
average week in 1993, British TV showed 737 dead bodies, 1,117 people injured and 343 sex
scenes.’ So does modern television have a harmful effect upon young people? Critics would
say that it provides impressionable young minds with mountains of violence and crime.
Defenders of film and television would say that millions of people enjoy television yet they
do not all become unruly offenders. However, there is one case which suggests that life can
imitate art in an adverse way. The killing of two-year-old James Bulger by eleven-year-old
boys Robert Thompson and Jon Venables shocked a nation which was already well used to
media coverage of juvenile crime. During the case the judge criticized a film, Childs Play 3,
which had been apparently viewed by the guilty boys and showed shocking similarities with
the ways in which they attacked James Bulger. Previously, the same film had been referred to
in another murder trial in which one of six killers chanted a line from the film as the victim
was tortured. Without any doubt, not every child who watches violent programmes or films
will become a criminal; most will not be affected in the slightest. However, a minority may
well have their already violent tendencies reinforced to the point that their subsequent
hostility copies the offensive methods they have seen on TV. I therefore argue that crime
within the media perhaps is not a direct cause for ‘youth problems’ but could perhaps be
reinforcing the offensiveness of an already troubled mind. Media can therefore be seen as a
social constructor of ‘youth problems.’
It is true that a large percentage of crime is carried by juvenile offenders, yet crime is
committed regularly by people from all age groups. So why is it that whenever something
goes wrong; a certain crime has been committed, that the adult generation’s eyes
automatically focus upon youths? As we move in the twenty-first century, childhood and
youth are becoming increasingly controversial and confused notions. Older people can often
be heard to retort ‘kids today’ or something similar, but why is there such mistrust in young
people. One reason for this may be the emergence of ‘youth’ as a recognised age group.
Going back only a hundred years or so ago, people were children and then they became
adults. Nowadays, people see youths as children acting ‘like adults’ and somehow perceive
this as some sort of threat. When much of the older generation were at this age, they were not
doing the sort of things that the youth of today are doing. They would have finished school,
got a job etc, whereas the youth of today appear lazy because they do not go into work at as
early an age, therefore they have less money and are often penned as scroungers. There is a
huge drinking culture among youths now which did not exist back when old age people were
in their teens. All of these factors add up to create a general mistrust of youths, completely
aside from how much crime they commit. I am confident that many ‘youth problems’ today
are not actually youth problems, they are merely problems which have been labelled this
because of the mistrust of young people by the older generation.
In conclusion, I certainly believe it to be true that ‘youth problems’ can be socially
constructed and are not just some offensive gene within juvenile delinquents. Many different
strands of society can have many different effects upon individuals causing them to act in
many different ways. The family can have a huge effect, either through home abuse, neglect
or absence; Poverty can socially construct ‘youth problems’ in that having a lack of money
can lead youths into theft or drug dealing to get by, it can also force kids into living in rough
areas where they are subjected to other delinquents and inevitably peer pressure; and finally
the media could perhaps influence impressionable into committing copy-cat crimes in a life
imitating art scenario. However, how many problems are accredited to youths, even when
they are not to blame, purely because of the mistrust that older generations have for the young
people of today?
