CYIL 2012

SŁAWOMIR REDO

CYIL 3 (2012)

between parent and child offending. However, the father’s convictions still predicted the son’s convictions even after controlling for these risk factors. Indeed, the links in the intergenerational chain are many. It would be impossible to review them all here. But a criminological meta-analytical review of them, in terms of parent-child attachment, parental monitoring and supervision, parenting competence and parental discipline styles is still very telling. Regarding the first link, loving relationships between parents and children are associated with lower probabilities of delinquency and crime in the child. Regarding the second link, carefully monitored and supervised children are less involved in delinquent activities than are children who receive little parental attention and guidance. Regarding the third link, children with the lowest probabilities of getting in trouble with the law were reared by parents who set firm limits to their children’s behaviour, but used “loving” and “warm” discipline when the limits were exceeded. 22 A key policy implication is that it is important to take steps to reduce the intergenerational transmission of offending. In line with the Riyadh Guidelines, this research suggests important intervention targets such as poor parental supervision and disrupted families. By reducing family and other risk factors (individual and socio-economic), intergenerational transmission of offending can be reduced. This finding confirmed what Sutherland argued as a core of his differential association theory, namely that the principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups (family, colleagues, partners) and that a person becomes delinquent because of an “excess” of definitions favourable to violation of law in relation to definitions unfavourable to violation of law. In other words, criminal behaviour emerges when one is exposed to more antisocial messages than prosocial messages. Sutherland argued that the concept of differential association and differential social organization could be applied to the individual level and to the group level respectively. While the former explains why any individual gravitates toward criminal behaviour, the latter explains why crime rates of different social entities differ from each other. Conversely, criminals may unlearn their behaviour, if and when they are reformed by other former criminals who exert over them their prosocial authority. Restricted to a prison setting, this reflexive reformation principle stops short of applying to broader family criminal traditions. However, at least in theory, it may be seen as an indication that such traditions could be countered by the moral authority and influence of a “significant other” from the family, community and society, depending on the priority of that influence over other influences, its frequency, duration and intensity. But whether or not this may be proven, the role of family in the succeeding generations’ following of (anti)criminal traditions has been primary and verified by other experts.

162

22 Ellis, L., Walsh, A., Criminology. A Global Perspective , Pearson Longman, Boston, MA, 2005, pp. 182-186.