Sociology

ABSTRACT.
Juvenile deviant behavior over the last decade has increasingly become the center of concern in the society as it projects the threat that the nation is facing.  The emergent concerns on the main cause of this problem have resulted to key speculations that requires effective authentication.  This study provides an inherent analysis of the two factors parents and peers to determine which has more effect towards the same behavior.  Through critical analysis of the existing literature with the relevant psychological theories, the paper concludes by indicating that peers have stronger effect towards creation assimilation and solidifying the problem.  The paper finally calls for establishment of further researches on the problem to determine more intrinsic recommendations to addressing the problem.

DO PARENTS OR PEERS CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE DEVIANT BEHAVIORS OF JUVENILES

INTRODUCTION
Background of the problem
Determination of the main contributors to juvenile deviant behaviors remains one of the most critical factors in juvenile justice by creating the ability to holistically understand the problem, address it from the main causes and therefore guarantee future to a nation. At a time when the global lifestyle patterns have assimilated the core outline towards new definition of cultural patterns, juvenile justice must be carefully addressed as the societys future continues shrinking.  In his conclusion which has largely been supported by Salekin (2005) in his analysis, Raymond (2009) indicated that the high levels of recidivism rates among the youths form the greatest threat to the nation as they undermine its ability to establish a clear future with certainty.

The problem evident in the juvenile justice system reflects the urgency of the key reforms needed in the practice.  According to Marsee (2005), every year records about 2.4 million juveniles being charged with different offenses.  While this magnitude invokes the need to address the major causes of the problem, Marshall and Meier (2007) indicates that it is perhaps the high recidivism rate of about 55 within one year of release that is more shocking.  At this point, scholars appear to be sharply divided into two distinct schools of thoughts.  Adlaf et al (2008) explain that while one school indicates that parents are the major causes of delinquent behaviors, another school emphasize on peer influence.  According to the pattern theory of crime, a third school which appears to support the previous ones indicate that the current legal system is largely to blame for the current juvenile defiant behavior.  Though both schools have strong cases on influence towards the juvenile defiant behaviors, the author in this paper considers the role played by peers to be stronger in that it builds on their delicate situations and therefore easily culminating to their conflict with the law.

Research questions
Following the above disturbing figures and the expected extended implications of the problem, this paper seeks to answer the following questions.
What are the income statuses of families for most deviant juvenile offenders
 How effective are the current juvenile correction systems
What role do parents or peers play towards invoking the deviant juveniles deviant behaviors
What are the attitudes held by the family on counseling application and drugs use

LITERATURE REVIEW
Parents contribution to deviant juvenile behavior
Statistics of Juvenile offenders and relation to social economic status

According to Clarke and Delos (2007), juvenile deviant behaviors over the last ten years have slightly gone down after reaching a peak in the year 1994.  Of the total arrests in the United States, 17 constitutes of youths below the age of 18 years. Marsee (2005) indicates that deviant behavior among the juveniles must be used to indicate the extended social fiber breakdown and the need to establish effective response strategies at the lower levels.  While seeking to further explain these statistics, the pattern theory postulates the expected magnification of the problem through carry over to the latter adult stages.  The inculcation of the criminal ideals to a juvenile is bound to present the nation with a long time fight in their lives.

In his view, Clemens (2006) argues that incarceration of juveniles with adults in the correction system is a factor that strongly aggravates their behavior and promoting their recidivism after release.  About 200, 000 juvenile cases are processed in the adult cases (Marshall and Meier, 2007).  Though the criminal justice administration often point out at the poor capacity to address the ever high cases of juvenile crime in the country, there is need to consider the problem of criminal justice from a holistic point of view if the correction mechanisms are to bear fruits.

For years, scholars have held the view that most juveniles from the lower social classes have higher likelihood of being involved in crime compared to their counterparts in the upper social classes.  However, though emergent criminal justice analysts do not necessarily suggest otherwise, their conclusions put across divergent understanding.  Thomas, Sarah, and Bernadette (2004) argue that considering the juveniles from low income families to be the main deviant offenders is an understatement.  He indicates that deviant behaviors are recurrent at all social economic strata of the society but the higher level strata cases are rarely prosecuted.  On the other hand, middle and lower class level juveniles as Marshall and Meier (2007) explain, are equally at higher risk of being involved with the more serious offences such as gang violence and drugs abuse.  At this point, Kendall (2008) explains the critical position that peer influence holds among the juveniles which reduces the key barriers between the upper and lower social classes. Conclusions drawn by researchers on this factor emphasize on the need to change the tactics of addressing the problem from a general to a holistic consideration.

Influence of caregivers with delinquency history
According to Ande and Ebony (2008), children with parents having history of incarceration have a lower likelihood of being involved in defiant behaviors.  Ande and Ebony further support their assertion by indicating that due to these parents understanding of the impacts that incarceration has on an individual, they are likely to be more thorough compared to others in emphasizing the correct behavior.  Particularly, parents who were effectively counseled on the need for changing towards better livelihoods are likely to create the same impacts to their children.  Therefore, their emphasis is not out of imagination, but a practical consideration that makes them go to any length in facilitating their childrens effective upbringing.

Danielle (2007) however indicates that caregivers who have unsuccessfully undergone delinquency may also invoke deviant problem in their children.  To begin with, they may lack the correct moral ground to advise their children on avoiding some malpractices in the society.  In his study, Danielle (2008) explains that in schools, children with delinquent mothers often develop resistance related disorders especially when other peers realize their home status.  While emphasizing on the teachers and other caretakers to provide special attention to such children, Danielle laments that they easily form into a negative peer group with key negative implications. According to Ericksons theory of personality development people at early ages could especially be negatively affected as they search for identity to define themselves and their operations (Damon and Lerner, 2006).  

Though Trentacosta et al (2009) explain that it happens only on several occasions, parents with delinquent behaviors often provide a bad role model to their children who go experimenting through deviant behavior in their daily activities. Besides, even with the understanding that a given action is bad, they easily engage in it with justification from their parents actions.      

Family attitudes towards drugs and alcohol
Family attitudes toward drugs and alcohol are indicated by Adlaf et al (2008) to be an important consideration in determining the deviant behavior levels among the juveniles.  A family is considered successful if it is able to create a strong negative attitude towards drugs and alcohol consumption for its members and particularly in relation with other societal doctrines such as religious connotations.  In a religious set family, a juvenile released from incarceration is considered to hold an important position in its fabric and is therefore constantly encouraged to change his trends.  Therefore, the attitudes held by the family are largely oriented towards facilitating faster recovery of their children and assumption of better lifestyles.  Interestingly, even for parents who have been strongly addicted to drugs and or alcohol, Damon and Lerner, (2006) record that they would prefer their children to avoid similar lifestyles.

On the other hand, families that uphold drugs and alcohol could easily invoke deviant behavior among the children as they are slowly introduced into the world of drugs.  However, the later rarely takes place in the open and its direct relation to deviant behavior has not been directly established.

Family attitudes to law and justice
According to Marshall and Meier (2007), the role played by the juvenile justice is indeed very critical to the society because it creates a holistic emphasis on the expected conduct of behavior in the wider community.  According to the sub-cultural theory of Edwin Sutherland which draws largely from Sigmund Freuds ideology on reaction formation, Larry and Brandon (2008) argue that the deviant behavior is based on the desire to deviate from social norms and therefore slowly creating the deviant subcultures.  As a result, most parents are very supportive of the existing law and justice structures that seek inferring the needed sanity to all in the society. However, Kendall (2008) appears to differ from the findings of other researchers in the same field by indicating that while families indeed are supportive to the current justice system, a strong sense of indifference emerges when their own children are involved.

Though it often lacks the extended support from the society, Salekin (2005) argues that the familys sense of loss when the law catches up with their deviant children is evident with the preference for alternative measures.  The protective preference however comes when it is too late and their juveniles have to go through the correction system.  Salekin (2005) further indicates that at this point, the implications could be interpreted in two different mechanisms.  To begin with, the law creates a route for behavioral change as the juveniles are taken through the correction system.  By indicating the support for to youths after being caught on the wrong, Damon and Lerner, (2006) argues that the attitude creates the sense of justification to the deviant offenders and invokes recidivism.  Consequently, the same deviant behavior may be taken to a higher level especially where the juveniles are mixed with other hard criminals and adults.  This would be directly resulting to increased recidivism in the society.

PEERS CONTRIBUTION TO JUVENILE DEVIANT BEHAVIOR
Peer influence effect and decision making in their school
The concern over the influence of peers on deviant behavior has attracted key researches on the same topic in search for a solution.  Marshall and Meier (2007) cite the special attachments that youths hold to peers in determining the orientation of their opinions at school and the society.  During the school going age, it is agreeable that most youths undergo both physical and biological changes that make them require the need for possible explorations.  At this stage the problem could easily be addressed if the correct guidance that factors operations dynamics at the particular age is provided.  However, this guidance as Raymond (2009) concurs with Chung and Steinberg (2006) is the main missing link and therefore a major projector towards deviant behavior.  Therefore, youths results to gathering information solely and easily employ the wrong methods that result to deviant behaviors.  The adolescent negative stage as Erickson indicated in his theory of personality development represents confusion which obscures the needed identity assimilation (Trentacosta et al, 2009).

Therefore, peer influence becomes the immediate next option for association and creating identity.
In his study, Clemens (2006) centered his blame on the society for assimilating long time rigidity that facilitates poor understanding of the emergent issues as well as mechanisms to address them.  Particularly, Marshall and Meier (2007) emphasize that most parents have lost touch, not with their childrens daily operations, but with their key developmental guideline outsets.   Many parents leave their children to teachers and rarely engage them in defining the societal expectations and values.  Therefore, defiant behavior becomes partly justified in that it is neither condemned nor focused on to evaluate the possible implications.  Owing to the need for further understanding of the reason for the society remaining quiet on such a critical issue, Marsee (2005) recommends that further studies should be established to bridge the gap.

Role modeling and deviant behavior among the juvenile cases
While describing peer influence and its implications in the society, Salekin (2005) explains that it forms a strong central force that youths can neither resist nor desist.  Particularly, it presents strong role modeling that commands their actions.  Considering that most youths are in the process of developing their personality and cognitive capacities, the prevailing guidelines becomes very critical in further interpretations.  Notably, peers tend to view negative models to be presentable and therefore best to imitate. To explain this phenomenon, Kendall (2008) argues that youths mental development is usually in its early stages and therefore making it impossible to arrive at the correct decisions.  At this point, many criminals and the deviant individuals become centers of power as others easily join them.  It is particularly, the formed group creates its own standards that are mostly based on key role models either in drugs or other malpractices (Damon and Lerner, 2006). However, it is the presented inability to resist the groups demands that invokes strong deviant behavior among the members.  The established deviant culture dictates the expected operations by the members which are mainly negative.

While concurring with the views of the, Chung and Steinberg (2006), Tracey et al (2008) argues that the deviant behavior is further aggravated by entry of new ideals such as those presented by youths released from incarceration.  In such circumstances, the new ideals are considered to be superior and the peer members easily assimilate them.  However, Marsee (2005) argues that the new entrants rarely reveal the negative side of incarceration to the peers however, they create the heroic sense of their position and easily take over the leadership of the peer group. Though it could have been hard to cite the problem in the earlier period, the deviant nature of the members becomes more evident either in their classes, their daily routines and even at home.  Consequently, the group becomes highly susceptible to conflicting with the law and the members are charged in the juvenile courts of law.

Response to negative punishment by peers
Fergusson et al (2007) and Ryan et al (2006) arrived at the same conclusion in their studies on the need to employ the correct mechanisms in disciplining youths both in the society and in the incarceration system.  According to rational choice theory of Cesare Beccaria which was later strengthened by Bentham Jeremy, when punishment is employed in a rational penology it creates an effective roadmap for deterring crime (Chung and Steinberg, 2006).  However, the model of punishment employed in the correction systems derives a strong sense of hatred to wards the respective authorities, the offended and to the extended society.  While this negative orientation creates a strong sense of hatred in the offenders mind, it becomes very hard to facilitate assimilation of new personality achievement.

The view point of the juvenile offender is based on the understanding that all entities are directly against him.  Thomas et al (2004) points out that any supportive presentation to offer a consoling hand easily wins the heart of the offender. Whether the punishment and correction is taking place at the governments incarceration units or in the society, the juvenile offender easily gives in to peers who provide the needed support.  To begin with, the peers may provide the juvenile offender with the required consolation by making him comfortable through indicating how their own cases were perhaps even worse.  Then, they could also provide a hand towards revenging against the punishers and or offended.  Presentation of revenge as Thomas ET AL (2004) continues to say, incorporates more peers towards higher level deviant behaviors which raise their chances of getting into conflict with the law.

While trying to further extrapolate the applications of BF Skinner in the correction system, Marshall and Meier (2007) fault the current punishment system for failing to invoke the voluntary application of new traits through associating them with positive returns for behavioral change to be achieved.  From the principle of operant conditioning, behavioral change must be looked at from the long term perspective and where possible, applied at the local setting.  Peers as Tracey et al (2008) predict, will most likely continue creating non-resistible negative forces if the present correctional punishment method are not improved.  

Media and peer strengthening
Access and use of television
One of the factors that have remained very crucial in characters and personality development is the media in the modern society.  Kendall (2008) found out that above over 95 of the children in the United States have accesses to televisions while 55 of them have television sets in their rooms.  As a result, it becomes increasingly impossible for the parents to control the content that their children follow.  By the age of 18 years, Adlaf et al (2008) report that most of the young people will have seen over 200,000 violence acts of violence in their televisions.  Psychologists indicate that the repeated view of violence becomes assimilated as one of the methods to address stresses that youths encounter in their daily lives.  Trentacosta et al (2009) explain that a child who watches television for more hours is likely to overestimate the crime and danger in the real world and therefore seek to associate with various peers to gather the needed sense of security.  This interpretation therefore takes a highly biased consideration in that the viewed information is often twisted to fit the local situations. Therefore, the media becomes a generator and a motivating for the peers to defy the existing societal orders.

Internet effect and peer deviance
With the current development in technology, more youths have further access to other deviant behavior motivating media.  Most of the youths in the nation have access to the internet which has created a new roadmap to not only increase violence, but a link to coordinate the same shenanigan among tem (Trentacosta et al, 2009).  While it has been introduced as a key learning tool that is secretive in facilitating high profile access and management of information, peers take the same profile to link up and even search the extension of their members.  Particularly, pornographic sites and violent games are easy to view and exchange views on how to experiment on the same.  Indeed, as Marsee (2005) argues, the deviant behavior is curved in the peer interaction as they are unable to differentiate between real-life events and make-believe views.  A major concern at this point is linked to the criticality of information technology that seemingly appears to be the core factor shaping the societys future and hosting the deviant behaviors of the peers. Therefore, Damon and Lerner (2006) predict doom to the society if the problem is not addressed conclusively.          

Fantasy impact on peer influence
Every parent or guardian in the society as Chung and Steinberg (2006) explain, remains worried of their juveniles when they are not under supervision.  A major recurrent question is why indeed even the most seemingly innocent juveniles are easily caught up and subdued in the waves of deviant behaviors.

Poor or lack of effective supervision
In his reference to youths, Clemens (2006) indicated that supervision remains very crucial for their operations and therefore, must be employed at all instances to provide the needed guidance to them.  The study on after-school hours revealed the crucial role played by supervision and the great harm it invokes on students who lack the needed supervision.  The three afterschool hours between 3.00 pm and 6.00 pm (renamed the danger zone) has recently turned out to be a major period for deviating against the law (Salekin, 2005).  The three hours are very risky in that children have the time to interact with both the positive and the negative peers.  

While the period is considered important in an individuals development by presenting them with a chance to make choices, apply the taught concepts and therefore move to the next stage of cognitive and personality development, the same is not always evident. As social comparison theory postulates, the group that have stronger influence creates greater attraction to the seemingly idle students in the danger zone.  Tracey et al (2008) indicate that even the students who do not intend to involve themselves with deviant behavior are incorporated in the periphery and therefore easily drawn into the activities of the peers with time. Chung and Steinberg (2006) cite the efforts being assimilated by the federal government of establishing after-school sports programs as complementary mechanisms of addressing juvenile deviance to have a great potential.

Mob psychology in schools
Deviant behavior as Gary (2004) indicates appears to be highly spontaneous among the people at their youthful ages.  Youths in their tender ages are strongly attached to each other and therefore ready to engage in deviant behaviors when one of them is caught even on the wrong.  Minor cases that indeed do not warrant great focus are made into mountains as all students join to defy the rules and break the law.  In most schools, minor aspects such as power interruptions or disciplinary cases invoke major violence that results to key destructions.  Most of the students are unable to make rational decisions and therefore easily participate in the deviant behaviors.   Thomas et al (2004) conclude that there is need to encourage diversified decision making among youths and therefore promote individualistic thinking as opposed to mob psychology.

CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH METHODS
The ability of any in social sciences to create high reliability is based on methodologies capacities to give the most precise results that can be used to address specific problems.  Therefore, they mostly take the qualitative nature in that it creates an expounded viewpoint of analyzing the problem and categorizing the peoples views more effectively.    

Sampling and areas of study
Sampling is an important concept employed in research and is used to determine the participants to be directly involved in the study.  Though, random sampling as Fergusson et al (2007) indicate is considered better due to lack of biases, Adlaf et al (2009) and Trentacosta et al (2009) use of stratified research methods facilitated the ability to incorporate more juvenile cases (both genders and age groups).  On the other hand, the approach employed by Gary (2004) and Ryan et al (2006) that involves review of the previous researches has also been considered to give their studies greater comparative basis and therefore making it possible to draw the correct trends of the juvenile deviant behaviors.  To further increase the probability of getting the correct results that give more precise results, the researchers concentrated in institutions of correction such as incarceration centers, schools and inner cities.  However, this emphasis as Marsee (2005) cited in his study could easily lead to omission of juvenile deviant behavior cases especially in the higher social classes.

Data collection and information sourcing
While emphasizing on importance of employing the correct methods, researchers equally consider the ability of the same methods to provide the most effective data collection methods for latter analysis to be very critical.  Except on cases where previous literature and data was reviewed as it happened with the case of Gary (2004) and Ryan et al (2006), all the other researchers employed use of questionnaires whish were either administer directly by the researchers or filled by the respondents in the representative sample. Particularly, the Likert Five point Scale was largely employed to structure the questionnaires and therefore aligning them with the analysis method.  In addition to that, observations were also made on the trends and characteristics of deviant behaviors recorded by previous researchers. Notably, due to the hardship presented in gathering all the juvenile related data, the juvenile justice records, institutions reports and individual cases were consulted to emphasize on particular concepts in the researchers objectives.  However, this mode of data collection was also risky in that it could reduce the chances of capturing the latest cases of the problem in the society.

Analysis the results
As indicated earlier, the data collected for analysis was mostly quantitative and therefore entailed using comparative analysis to determine the extent of different variables correlation to the deviant behaviors among the juveniles.  Owing to majority of the researchers employment of the computerized programs such as SPSS, the error margin was considered to be very low a consideration that greatly authenticated the literature.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is from the above discussion that this paper concludes by indicating that peers have greater influence towards deviant behaviors of the juvenile compared to the parent.  It came out from the discussion that though parents contribute towards assimilation or strengthening of the juvenile behaviors their orientation is largely inclined towards emphasizing societal values.  Indeed, most researches indicated that parents actually derive great pride when their children are well behaved.  On the other hand, peers came out to be both spontaneous and strategic in creating a special place for the juveniles which incline them towards deviant behaviors.  To address the problem, it is critical that the current correction system assimilates a new inclusive mechanism that seeks to incorporate more responsive methods which reflect the peers dynamics.  Therefore, this paper calls further research to determine both external and internal factors that make the juveniles easily oriented towards deviant behavior as opposed to the values oriented behaviors.