top of page
  • Writer's pictureSam Wilks

The Importance of Parenting in Shaping Children's Character and Reducing Crime


Good parenting plays a critical role in reducing crime. It helps to shape a child's character and reduce the likelihood of criminal behaviour. As part of my security series on Crime and Crime prevention In this article, I'll explore the importance of parenting in shaping children's character and reducing crime.


The family is the most important institution in society and parenting is a critical factor in shaping children's behaviour. Good parenting is characterized by warmth, affection, and consistency. Parents who are warm and affectionate create a sense of security and trust in their children, which is essential for healthy development. Consistency is also crucial because it helps children to understand boundaries and expectations.

Parenting is crucial in shaping a child's character, which could have a significant impact on their likelihood of engaging in violence and criminal behaviour. Good character is defined by traits such as honesty, self-control, and empathy, which are critical in preventing crime. Children who develop these traits are less likely to engage in criminal behaviour because they have a strong moral compass and a sense of empathy for others.

Good parenting helps to reduce crime by providing children with a strong sense of social support. Children who grow up in supportive environments have been shown through several studies since the 1960s are less likely to feel isolated and disconnected from their community and society, which can be a significant risk factor for criminal behaviour. Parents who are involved in their children's lives and provide them with emotional support, guidance, and structure help to create a sense of belonging and connection that protects against crime, and criminal behaviour.

Good parenting helps to reduce crime by teaching children to respect authority and the law. Children who learn to respect authority figures, including parents and educators, are more likely to follow rules and laws as they grow older. By instilling these values in their children, parents can help to create a culture of respect for the law and authority, which can reduce crime rates in their communities and society.

Good parenting also helps to reduce crime by providing children with opportunities for positive socialization. Children who are exposed to positive role models and social activities are less likely to engage in criminal behaviour because they have alternative outlets for their energy and emotions.

Parents who encourage their kids to participate in sports, clubs, and other positive activities help to create a sense of purpose and belonging that can protect against crime.

I believe that parenting plays a critical role in shaping children's character and therefore reducing criminal behaviour. While there are many factors that contribute to crime rates in society, I want to highlight the critical role that good parenting plays in shaping a child's pathways into the future. The parent in Australia however, has been under attack by “social justice warriors”, “do gooders” and bureaucratic crusaders since the early 1900's.

Here are some examples of Australian government interventions that have been linked to negative outcomes for children and families include:

  • The Forced Removal of Indigenous Children from their Families: Between 1910 and 1970, the Australian government removed tens of thousands of Indigenous children from their families as part of a policy of assimilation. This practice, known as the Stolen Generations, has had long-lasting effects on Indigenous communities, including higher statistical rates of mental illness, substance abuse, and involvement in the criminal justice system. The legacy of many of these children has created a new term called “Generational victimisation”, with each of their offspring and immediate family members experiencing higher rates of suicide, mental illness, physical, mental and sexual abuse and high rates of FASD (Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder).

  • Institutionalisation of children in care: In the mid-20th century, many Australian children who were deemed "wards of the state" were placed in institutional care. These institutions were often overcrowded, understaffed, and provided inadequate care for children. Many children who were institutionalised experienced abuse (sexual, physical, and mental), neglect, and other forms of mistreatment.

  • Over-reliance on the child protection system: In recent years, there has been a trend toward greater reliance on “the child protection system” to address a range of social problems, including poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse. This approach has been criticised for being too punitive and for failing to address the underlying causes of these problems. It has also been linked to higher rates of child removals, which can have negative consequences for children and families. The gathering of statistical data on children in care is extremely difficult, due in no small part to privacy laws aimed at protecting the child, inadvertently protecting offenders. The only reliable data on this type of care was substantiated during the Boston trials when the church was being taken to task for “transferring pedo priest”, however, the data provided showed that 8% of children in the church's care were sexually abused, that was abhorrent, but the average outside the church was 15% and for those in Government (bureaucrat run) foster care the number was over 27%.

It is important for government interventions to be carefully designed and implemented with the best interests of children and families in mind. When interventions fail to address the underlying causes of social problems or are implemented in a punitive or neglectful way, they can have negative consequences for both the children and families. Institutional care settings often fail to provide adequate rehabilitation programs and support services to help individuals address the underlying causes of their behaviour. The institutional culture itself may be counterproductive to rehabilitation, reinforcing negative attitudes and behaviors instead of promoting positive change. Institutional care often reportedly lacks social support networks and many in care experience social isolation, which increases the likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour.

In contrast, individuals in family homes statistically have a stronger sense of social belonging and support, which helps reduce the risk of recidivism. Sometimes we must remember to be far more weary of those who claim to be virtuous, compared to those dealing with vices, for there is no regulation to their conscience, and like most fanatics, they are willing to drown the baby in the bathwater, rather than return it to struggling parents. Parents require support to become good parents, that support needs to come from the community, not from government, that children in the care of bureaucrats often experience over 300% more abuse and have higher recidivism statistics, show that they have little or no place in the family home.


From the author. The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.

8 views0 comments

コメント


bottom of page