Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

What would your solution be to stopping children committing crime?

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel


    "Bad Parenting" is a bit simplistic for me. Someone already brought it up on the thread but I see they subsequently withdrew the post. What do we even mean by "Bad Parenting"?

    When I look at the group of kids I mentioned above and how awful they were (loitering, graffiti, drink, drugs, intimidation, physically accosting, calling out foulness at people, littering, smashing glass and more) - it would have been easy to join everyone else claiming "bad parenting" and that they were "irredeemable". The two things I heard most.

    When I look at the massive change I helped instill in them with some moderate effort I realized that all but one of them did not have "Bad Parenting". The one exception had truly awful parents though who not only did absolutely nothing positive for the kid but took personal pride exception to me taking any effort in that direction either. Lacking all self awareness or interest in their son. It was a personal slight to them that anyone would try to better their own child. Everything from screaming to physical (failed) assault on me to try to get me to back off.

    The others though did not have "bad parents". They had parents who were doing their best but failing in one or two areas. They were doing everything they could as parents and hitting a wall on their limits of time, resources, energy and money based on their situation. And while the basic and core requirements of their kids were being met (food, home and so forth) some other things were falling by the wayside.

    I did not perform any magical miracles or feats of heroics with those kids. I simply augmented what their parents were already doing with an imaginative and inventive side project and it met the needs those kids were missing. Their parents were not "bad". They were just ill equipped or pushed to their personal contextual limits.

    And the turn around in the kids was awesome to behold. The self same little old ladies they were previously accosting, intimidating and even physically jostling - they would later be doing their shopping, weeding their gardens, listening to them talk about their old days while eating the freshly baked cookies and more. It was a complete turn around by supposedly "irredeemable reprobates".

    I do not know the answer to the OPs question. The "Jedi Acadamy" thing I formed was effort and not scalable really. But I'd say the first step in any solution is - like my own - not to simply throw our hands up and give up and call people "irredeemable" and wave it away with simplifications like "its just bad parenting". If we give up on them first and foremost then the OP will never really get a good answer to his query.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    If youths are regularly involved in scumbag behaviour then this is very clearly bad parenting. parents are suppossed to provide consequences for doing the wrong thing. I am in favour of spending more on facilities and 3rd spaces for youths but some youths find acting the scumbag to be more fun. We should have mandatory community service for these and actually enforce this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel


    That is why "Bad Parenting" is simply too simplistic for me. It's clearly subjective and means something to you that it does not to me. If a parent is doing everything they can but is falling short because they have hit a point they simply can not do any more then for me that is not "Bad Parenting". For you clearly it is because you have a rigid list of "Shoulds" that if a parent does not reach them all they are "bad parenting". We have two differing subjective definitions therefore.

    And that is before you point out that "providing consequences" does not always work. The parents in question might be providing numerous consequences. The child might be acting out / acting poorly anyway regardless. So seeing a child consistently doing "the wrong thing" does not at all support assuming the parent is not "providing consequences". Sometimes consequences are just ineffectual. Not just with parenting and children. In everything. Our justice and prison system for example - people know the consequences and might have even suffered them numerous times - many still re-offend. Worse sometimes consequences PROMOTE the bad behavior because children are so desperate for attention that often "negative attention" is better than no attention at all. So the consequences might reinforce the behavior rather than prevent it because despite it being uncomfortable or horrible it is still serving a need in the child that they need/crave.

    I am absolutely with you on the idea of more facilities and spaces too. The issue is that often those facilities go unused. And I do not think like you do that this is just because "acting the scumbag is more fun". Rather it is that a lot of those facilities are "do it yourself" hands off affairs.

    An analogy. At Christmas I have seen many parents buy stacks of gifts for their kids. Often maxing out credit cards to achieve it. They bring the kids down on Christmas morning - let them at the gifts - and then think "Right now I can have my sherry and cake and enjoy time with the other adults and these kids have all they could want". It rarely turns out that way. The kids act out the parents think they are selfish because they are acting out despite this pile of expensive gifts.

    Other parents I have seen buy little or no gifts. They get nothing or something quite small like a single new board game. They spend Christmas WITH their children. Learning and playing that new game. Doing XMAS things together and so forth. And those children act perfectly fine.

    Why? Well like the facilities you suggest - a kid on Christmas morning wants something more than piles of gifts. They want the adults time, and attention. You could live in Clontarf for example where there is not one but MULTIPLE football pitches and play ground and excercise machines and table tennis and the like. Beaches. Sea Fronts. But we expect the kids to just use them and if they do not use them it must be because "they have more fun being scumbags"???

    I do not think so. And my experience with the kids I mentioned was that I invested some of my time in them. I got their attention. I started to train them Juijitsu. I got other adults to invest a bit of time teaching them other things. I created a "Jedi Acadamy" where we each spend a little time teaching them pretty much exactly all the things Jedi would learn. And it was that little bit of adult attention, time and guidance that was the trigger for them un-scumbagging. Not the "facilities" or "spaces".

    I think very often it is the "there is your toys/facilities now run along and play and leave us grown ups in peace" mentality that is the trigger for the boredom and scumbaggery. Not the quantity and quality of the facilities in and of themselves. But as I said that's not exactly scalable. Im just fortunate I had time and resources and skills to invest - and some mates who had the same - so we could form the academy at all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭apache


    Pats should never have being made to close down.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Its not that i have a rigid list, its the fact that many parents dont do all they can as its too much hassle. Consequences for wrongdoing are required for a functional society. Yes preventing trouble with better options is wonderful but its also fair to point out the fact that many youths grow up with feck all options and dont commit crime



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel


    Definitely some parents fall under your description. The number is not 0 for sure. But I do not think you know any better than I do how many it is. 1%? 10%? 75%? 95%? We can only guess. And our guesses will likely be fueled by nothing more that confirmation bias of opinions we already hold.

    I know from the group of boys I ended up "turning around" only 1 of them had parents I would consider bad. The other parents all fall under the "doing everything they could and literally could not do any more" category.

    I repeat though that simply saying "consequences" is not enough. Because depending on WHY a kid is acting out or acting badly consequences are often likely to A) achieve nothing at all and B) actively incentivize further bad behaviors.

    Some kids with consequences change their ways. Some Don't.

    Some kids with as you say "feck all options" commit crimes. Some don't.

    Some kids with only a single parent go bad. Some don't.

    I could go on. And on. And on. The truth is that there is no one size fits all conclusion and there is NO WAY to look at any kid acting badly and simply decide it is "bad parenting". It can be quite the opposite and I've seen that up close for real.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Well for the sake of the victims we have to do something. Parenting is a very difficult job and part of that is the fact that a parent is responsible for how their teenager turns out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel


    Again I agree with you almost entirely but again I think my use of language strays from yours a bit. And I think that linguistic difference probably makes you and I feel like we differ more than we actually do.

    But for example the word "responsible" to me gives the impression it is totally on the parent in every way. That they have to be held accountable entirely for how a kid turns out. And I do not think that is true. Maybe that is not what you mean and again its just a linguistic difference. Or maybe its PARTLY what you mean and we differ but not as much as the words make it SOUND like we do.

    But a parent can do EVERYTHING wrong and their child turns out amazing. A parent can do EVERYTHING right and their child can turn out horrific. In either case of those extremes is the parent "responsible" for it?

    If we agree "no" which I think we would - then the question becomes where on the continuum between those extremes does the word "responsible" actually start to a) make sense or more importantly b) be at all useful? I think the word has it uses, but it is FAR down the list of being useful.

    ""we" have to do something" however I can more get behind. Especially because I am in the privileged position of being someone who has/does so. What I did with those boys I mentioned above means a lot to me. It's one of the prouder things in my life. And as a Martial Arts Teacher I "do something" more often than you might expect. Not just because Martial Arts in and of itself tends to turn many young people around - but also because BEING a martial arts instructor puts you in a position that many lost kids will suddenly out of nowhere open up to you in a way they feel they can't with their parents or peers.

    For this reason BJJ started out for me as a hobby but now as a Black Belt and a Teacher it has become a privilege and a responsibility.

    But under the idea of "we have to do something" I think the first thing we can do is drop the "shoulds" the "respobsibilities" the "good/bad parenting" and realize that the successful upbringing and nurturing of ANY individual child tends to be as individual as they are. And a template you think "perfect" for one child that results in a perfect child - when applied to another entirely different child will mess them up and turn them into a disaster.

    This is why I do not like the idea of "good parent" and "bad parent" I think. There seems to be no such thing. Because quite often the outcome any one child has seems to be at best lightly correlated with a parental template (outside extreme abuse of course).

    KPAX the movie and more so the book is an interesting thought experiment on that. The human/alien (played by kevin spacey in the movie) suggests the "nuclear" family is a virus and a more communal approach to upbringing of the young of an intelligent species is optimal. And for many reasons - not least of which is my own truple rather than couple relationship - I find that although I do not subscribe to it outright I am sympathetic to a lot of the thinking behind it. My Jedi Acadamy and the results of it are also a testament to that. It's basically an expression of communal parenting of a group of boys.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    The vast majority of children in the criminal justice system have very chaotic parents, more often than not with serious substance abuse issues.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,728 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    some of the most common causes of crime is largely due to long term unmet needs and ultimately trauma induced from living conditions, especially at the early stages of life, cutting welfare payments, increasing taxes and jailing parents, would actually escalate these issues, the belief being, if the state pressurises the individuals more, that they would have the capabilities to self-reflect and change their behaviors, but reality shows us, if effectively doesnt work, hence why we still have extremely high rates of re-offending, even after incarceration, as the heavily traumatised mind tends to have extremely poor abilities to self-reflect, and change behaviors, due to their traumas.

    children require stability, particularly in the first few years of life, if parents cannot provide this, the state has to step in, and provide these needs, critical needs such as adequate housing, health care, education etc etc are critical, in order to try prevent escalation of traumas and trauma responses, but since this is very unlikely to happen, we now must prepare ourselves for rising rates of child related crimes!



  • Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement