Reducing the Risk of Reoffending in Young Offenders - Literature review Example

Name: Tutor: Title: Reducing the Risk of Reoffending in Young Offenders Institution: Date: Introduction In the United States, there exists a tendency for people to explain elements of day to day life in individualistic ways. However, one’s individual circumstances cannot be adequately understood in isolation, but is usually impacted by larger social processes. Therefore, most sociologists hold that explanations of divorce cannot be understood as ones’ individual problem or one individual’s fault but rather they both emerge from and reflect deeper social problems in society as a whole. Sociologists view divorce as a societal problems that is shaped by both internal and external factors. Sociologists focus mainly on human interrelations, entailing the way social relationships impact individual’s attitudes and the way societies change and form. They focus their studies on the way the society and people affect other people, since social or external factors shape majority of personal experiences. The social forces subsist in the type of interpersonal relationships among friends and family and also among individuals encountered in economic, religious and political institutions. Sociological imagination is the capability to see the influence of social forces on individual’s public and private lives. Sociological imagination is needed to understand the society within an individual level, along with forces that shape human behavior (Mill, 2000). Sociological perspectives on divorce Sociology of family stresses the transforming trends of social institutions such as marriage, kinship and family in the transforming context of society that might differ from one society to another. According to Macionis (2007), marital interruptions in the process of desertion, divorce and separation are very significant subject matters being studied in sociologist of family. Each society supports and accepts marriage institutions stoutly. In modern society, sociologists view marriage as a source of satisfaction, entertainment and support to the married couple. Nevertheless, marriage at times breakdown or falls highly at modern context. The breakdown of marriage and the consequent divorce is not a matter of misunderstanding between the wife and the husband; it occurs due to social, economic and cultural factors in the society. From the functional perspective, divorce, as a behavior, is highly a response to shared values and norms. It thus, demonstrates that a transformation in the extent of marriage breakdown is to a similar degree a reflection of the transforming values and norms in general, and particularly those connected with divorce and marriage. Durkheim (1938) argues that from the functional perspective, divorce is happening in the society due to adoptive procedure of partners who belong s to diverse socio-economic backgrounds along with discrepancy of their anticipations. Mental discomfort within joint family is at times unavoidable as a consequence of its economic strains, size and subsequent wrangling anticipations of young members along with their expectations and conservative, restrictive norms set up by elders. Divorce is not solely a social dilemma and is highly influence by socio-economic ground through which restrictive social values and norms, which might not be performed well, raise greater anticipation amid the couples. Marxian view divorce as occurring from diverse economic background with the domination and transforming nature of production system. The increasing rates of divorce can be viewed as an outcome of conflict amid the transforming economic system and its ideological and social superstructures particularly the family. Marx’s conflict theory looks at oppressive schemes of the society as they link to economic relations. In this regard, the tension that is felt in a family or marriage is a direct outcome of these soci0-economic pressures. Therefore, conflict theory deduces the matters surrounding divorce ans affected and aggravated by economic and social traditions. Other than being a symptom of the relationship of the couple, it’s a manifestation of exterior aspects that work on them (Macionis, 2007). Understanding divorce as a social, economic, cultural and religious trend Secularization as a cause of divorce Secularization is a key factor that is leading to the increased divorce rates in Australian society. Religion has had reduced effect on the society, which minimized the stigma of getting a divorce. In the early twentieth century, the society viewed and believed that marriages were sacred events and needed to last forever. Nevertheless, these views have drastically changed and individuals have placed less significance on marriage. In addition, the society doesn’t link marriage with religion as before, and this is evident in the decease of church marriages. Thus, secularization is a vital religious explanation for the increased rates of divorce in Australia. In modern days, there is an increased expectation of marriage as individuals are inclined to believe in happy marriages. Whilst in the past individuals could have entered into marriages for economic reasons, the focus of modern day marriages is on happiness and love. This is also connected with secularization because in the past people often had lower expectations (Amato, & Previti, 2003). Divorce has been highly socially accepted than before. In the past, people feared to get a divorce because it was viewed as a sin. According to Call and Heaton (2002), the belief schemes of several religions see marriage as a sacred bond between a wife and a husband and greatly emphasizes on everlasting marriages. This lessens the likelihood of breakdown of marriage for individuals who abide to these religious beliefs. Several studies have established that it isn’t essentially affiliation with a certain faith but religiosity or the degree of engagement with a certain religion that is significant. Religiosity possesses a strong negative connection with breakdown of marriages because individuals with greater levels of religiosity have a greater commitment to, as well as an increased conventional perspective of marriage. Social factors influencing divorce According to Baxter (2005), the social correlates of breakdown of marriages entail life-course, temporal, economic and attitudinal factors. Temporal factors connected with marriage breakdown reflect the effect of historic time, like the broad social trends and social contexts that influence marriage breakdown. Recent generations have a high likelihood of divorcing than the older generations. Several social transformations that has took place in Australia over the last century that have a high possibility of contributing to the disparities amid older and younger generations willingness to take a divorce entail an increasing approval of divorce, legislative transformations that have made the process of divorce less time consuming and less costly, a considerable increase in participation of married women in workforce and a change in social expectations and gendered roles of marriage (Finlay, 2005 & Baxter, 2003). Attitudinal factors like attitudes towards religious beliefs and gender roles have been demonstrated to be connected with marital breakdown. Beliefs and attitudes might directly influence divorce risk via their influence upon anticipations of conduct of family and marriage life, devotion to marriage, as well as views of approval of divorce. The key attitudinal measures that influence divorce are gender roles attitudes. Conventional gender role attitudes supports a gender-focused labor division and support of the subsequent power and interdependence differentials amid partners, where husbands are viewed as the key providers with wives being the primary carers and homemakers. Contemporary gender role attitudes highlight negotiated and shared division of labour, with both the wife and husband participating in home based and economic activities with a highlight on shared power (Baxter et al, 2005). Gender disparities are present in the connection amid marriage breakdown and gender role attitudes. A study by Blake and Heaton (1999) established that in marriages where wives did not agree with assertions of equal sharing of household tasks had a less likelihood of ending in separation. On the contrary, in marriages where husbands held a similar perspective, there was a high risk of divorce. The same study established that wives who had non-conventional beliefs had inferior marital quality, but husbands who had non-conventional beliefs had superior marital quality. When combined, this prove presumes that non-conventional gender role roles of men lessen the risk of divorce but n0n-conventional gender role beliefs of women increase divorce risk( Blake & Heaton, 1999). Socioeconomic factors influencing divorce According to Norris and Bradbury (2005), the most examined and tested structural elucidation of the increased divorce rates in western nations is the entire improvement in the socio-economic status of women relative the socioeconomic status of men, especially over the 2nd half of the twentieth century. The increased access of women to economic resources leads to a reduced level of economic dependence on men, which in turn makes it simpler for these women to abandon an unsatisfactory marriage. Socio-economic factors determine whether a marital relationship ends or continues, where the lack of socio-economic resources by the husband and the access of wife to socio-economic resources acts as subverting forces for marital relationship (Beck-Gernshein, 2002). A man’s lack of economic resources and a woman’s increased economic independence or access to economic properties are destabilizing marital relationships because economic resources are increasing wife’s choices outside marriage. Men of greater socioeconomic position have highly stable marriages compared to males of low socioeconomic status. The greater consistency of marriages in which a husband has a greater socioeconomic status is attributed by increased financial stability of household and the consequent fulfillment of conventional gender roles. The access of socioeconomic by husbands increases the benefits of wives staying in marriages, expands the cost of leaving the marriage and lessens attractiveness of latent options (Hassan et al, 2003). Cultural factors influencing divorce The key family background factors connected with divorce are ethnicity and race According to De Vaus, (2002), the culture of a certain place determines divorce rates. There are higher rates of divorce in societies where divorce is acknowledged. The acceptance and approval of divorce easily results to an increase in the rate of divorce. The rates of divorce within a conservative society are less while they are high in less conservative countries like Australia that offers no fault divorce. Ethnic origin has been demonstrated to be connected with breakdown of marriages in Australia. This body of research presumes that in comparison to Australian-born populaces, immigrants form English speaking backgrounds display increased rates of divorce whilst migrants from non- English speaking nations have a reduced risk of divorce. There is a high probability that family life and marriage practices in immigrant populaces is different from mainstream populace since they maintain the religious and cultural practices and beliefs of their nations of origin. In addition, whilst particular ethnic groups have a high likelihood of experiencing diverse divorce rates in comparison to Australians, marriages that go beyond ethnic boundaries are especially susceptible. De vaus, ( 2004) asserts that an increased divorce rate within cross ethnic marriages is probable as a result of cultural disparities between wife and husband in their anticipations of the marriage institution and the way these disparities need to be negotiated. Early marriages and divorce Early marriages are a key cause of divorce in Australia. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2000), people who enter into marriages when they are less than 25 years have an increased risk of splitting up those individuals who marry when they are over the age of 25. Entering into a marital relationship at a young age reflects an inferior partner selection procedure because it means that a shorter time was spent looking for the ideal marriage partner. Poortman, 2006) argues that early marriages are faced with an increased risk since partner have a less probability of having developed the social skills and maturity needed to consult the long term marriage relationship and usually lack access to sufficient financial and socioeconomic resources. Children born in early marriages have the probability of increasing risk breakdown of a marriage. An early birth might designate an unplanned wedding whereby partners decide to enter into a marital relationship due to pregnancy. This subverts marriage since it accelerates the process of mate selection. In addition, children born early in a marriage might add strain and stress to developmental phases of marriage. Conclusion Divorce can be understood as a larger cultural, social, economic and cultural trend. Other than viewing divorce as a problem that merges due to a misunderstanding between a husband and wife, sociologists’ perspectives views divorce an event that is shaped by social, cultural, religious and economic forces in the society. Divorce is not merely a social dilemma and is greatly influenced by socioeconomic, religious and cultural factors. The increased rates of Australia are as a result of improved socioeconomic positions of women due to the ability of women to access education and employment. The increased access of women to economic resources has led to a reduced level of economic dependence on men, which has subsequently led to more women abandoning unsatisfactory marriages. In addition, a woman’s increased economic independence is destabilizing marital relationships because economic resources are increasing wife’s alternatives outside marriage. Secularization is a key factor influencing the increased rates of divorce in Australia. In the past, people viewed marriage as a sacred bond between two people that should not be broken. Nevertheless, in modern days, the society doesn’t link marriage with religion and there is a decrease in church marriages. In addition, divorce has been accepted in the Australian society. Bibliography Macionis, J., 2007, Sociology, Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2000). Special article: lifetime marriage formation and marriage dissolution patterns in Australia, Marriage and Divorces, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Amato, R., & Previti, D., 2003, People’s reasons for divorce: Gender, social class, the life course and adjustment, Journal of Family Issues, 24, 602-626. Baxter, J., 2005, To marry or not to marry: marital status and the household division of labour, Journal of Family Issues, 26, 300-312. Baxter, J., (2003). Families and households, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hassan, R., Dowrick, S., & McAllister, I., 2003, The Cambridge Handbook of Social Sciences in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Australia: Baxter, J., Western, M., & Hewitt, B., 2005, Post-familial families and the domestic division of labour: A view from Australia, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36, 583-600. Beck-Gernshein, E., 2002, Reinventing the family: in search of new lifestyles, Cambridge: Polity Press. Norris, K., & Bradbury, B., 2005, Income and separation, Journal of Sociology, 41, 425-446. Call, A., & Heaton, B., 2002, Religious influence on marital stability, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392. De Vaus, A., 2002, Australian family profiles: social and demographic patterns, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. De Vaus, A., 2004, Diversity and change in Australian families: Statistical profiles, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Finlay. A., 2005, To have but not to hold: a history of attitudes to marriage and divorce in Australia, The Federation Press, Sydney. Blake, M., & Heaton, B., 1999, Gender differences in determinants of marital disruption, Journal of Family Issues, 20, 25-45. Mill, W., (2000). The sociological imagination, Oxford University Press, USA. Durkheim, E., 1938, The Rules of Sociological Method, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Read More