Empirical observation has shown that South Africa is characterised by high rates of crime and that a high number of young people are in conflict with the law. Arguably, these youth derive predominantly from poor communities. Moreover, youth who experience failure at school associate themselves with peers who are engaged in deviant behaviour and this results in their involvement with the criminal justice system. Scholars such as Tshiwula (1998), Bezuidenhout (2013) and Siegel (2008) maintain that criminality in the home, broken homes, domestic violence, environmental influences, school and parenting factors (such as parents’ inability to communicate
and provide proper discipline) may play a significant role in determining whether youth misbehave. Godttfredson and Hirschi (in Regoli, Hewitt & Delisi 2008: 214) maintain that parents should consistently and appropriately supervise and punish their children for disruptive or dangerous behaviour. Should they fail to do so children will not develop self-control. They further explain that self-control is a characteristic that is unlikely to be learned later in life.
Godttfredson and Hirschi (in, Regoli et al. 2008) view deviant behaviour as essentially unsocial behaviour and hold that self-control is an acquired characteristic that is produced through early childhood socialisation. They therefore highlight the importance of the stability of self-control over the life course and emphasise how, in the absence of self-control, criminal and related behaviours tend to remain stable over time. Both the social theory and the self-control theory observe the importance of family-related variables in reducing deviant behaviour.
Hirschi’s social bonding theory (1967) ascribes delinquent behaviour to the quality of the bond an individual has with society, and explains that delinquent acts result when an individual’s bond with society is weak or broken. Hirschi further identifies four elements of social bonding: attachment, involvement, commitment and belief. Attachment is the main element because it owns the most attention in Hirschi’s theory. A young person’s level of attachment to significant others − for example to parents, peers and role models or institutions such as a club or a school − may inhibit deviant behaviour. An assessment of conformity is to ask juveniles whether it matters what their parents think of them. Attachment is crucial in creating conformity even when others are delinquent, for example in the case where a parent committed a crime for which he/she was convicted (Siegel, 2011).
Involvement refers to the type of activities that youth are involved. Research has shown that youth who participate in conventional leisure activities, such as supervised social activities and
noncompetitive sports, are less likely to engage in delinquency than those who are participating in unconventional leisure activities and unsupervised, peer-oriented social pursuits. In spite of the gender differences in involvement, members of both sexes are less likely to commit a crime if they are engaged in conventional activities (Siegel, 2011).
Commitment represents a person’s long-term goals (such as educational or occupational pursuits) and reduces the likelihood of deviant behaviour, because it might endanger the individual’s potential to attain these goals. Hirschi assumes that children who are committed to a school and educational achievement are less likely to become involved in delinquent behaviour than those who lack such commitment. Children who commit themselves to deviant behaviour are more likely to fail in school and children who fail in school are more likely to later to drink and engage in deviant behaviour (Siege, 2011).
According to Bezuidenhout et al. (2009), belief in Hirschi’s theory refers to the acknowledgement that society’s rules are legitimate. An individual with this belief obeys society’s rules and norms, feels morally obliged to obey them, and is less likely to deviate from them. Siegel (2011) points out those children who live in areas marked by strong religious values and who hold strong religious beliefs themselves are less likely to engage in delinquent behaviour than adolescents who do not hold such beliefs or who live in less religious communities.
Based on these four elements, it is clear that the bond between the individual and society plays a huge role in a person’s life. It is likely that if any of the bonds are weakened, the sense of freedom to commit a crime may increase. Tshiwula (1998:23) indicates that the difference between the personal and social control theories of delinquency “lies in the assumption of the social control theory that social bonds and attachments are stronger protection against delinquency than are personality characteristics”. Matza (in Tshiwula, 1998) views juvenile delinquents as young people
who have an extent of will and choice. At the same time, he realises that there are social forces surrounding the individual. He observes the delinquent in the middle between freedom and control.
This explains why some delinquents are not committing delinquency all the time and why they later stop committing crimes.
Matza (in Tshiwula, 1998) shares many of the assumptions found in the theory of differential association. The main difference seems to be that drift assumes that delinquency is based largely on a juvenile’s choices at a specific moment in a current situation. The second assumption is that delinquents’ behaviours are aggravated because of a sense of injustice and they are angry about what they perceive to be discriminatory law enforcement practices and community reactions to their misbehaviour. In other words, youth offenders are likely to be influenced by both adult and peer perceptions. Tshiwula (1998:25) concludes, “Juveniles seem to be caught between parents and peers” and further argues, “juveniles’ choices are based on the strength of their bonding with parents and peers. If the bond is strong with parents or peers, juveniles will choose the one that affirms their good feeling about themselves”.
Lemert (in Tshiwula, 2008) developed the concepts of primary and secondary deviance, which became the central elements of the development of the labelling theory. This theory contends that if a young person is labelled as deviant, this may perpetuate delinquency, especially if the society responds to them as if the negative description were correct. Basically, this means that repetition of delinquency is a consequence of having been labelled as delinquent in the first place. This label may eventually change a youth’s self-image to a point where the youth begins to identify himself or herself as delinquent. Scholars support the conclusion that the most serious consequences occur when negative labels are introduced in a setting that has continuing significance to the individual who has been labelled in a way that blocks any future opportunities for the individual. For example,
some youths are labelled as troublemakers in school and they are placed in a class of similar pupils.
As a result, their capacity to change is almost impossible in such an environment.