The Japanese Journal of Criminal Psychology
Online ISSN : 2424-2128
Print ISSN : 0017-7547
ISSN-L : 0017-7547
Volume 6, Issue 2
Displaying 1-7 of 7 articles from this issue
  • Yasushi Ishigooka
    1969Volume 6Issue 2 Pages 41-46
    Published: 1969
    Released on J-STAGE: April 02, 2020
    JOURNAL RESTRICTED ACCESS
    Download PDF (7376K)
  • Toshio Utena
    1969Volume 6Issue 2 Pages 47-53
    Published: 1969
    Released on J-STAGE: April 02, 2020
    JOURNAL RESTRICTED ACCESS

    The problem of the juvenile delinquency has been studied either from the psychological molecular viewpoint or from the sociological molecular viewpoint so far. Present study attempted to investigate the problem especially with the emphasis upon the family relation, which seemed to serve interviewing function between the two viewpoints mentioned above. However, it was not that the study was encouraged by the presumption that the juvenile delinquency always designated the family pathology.

    Subjects were 20 families whose juvenile members were on probation, due to their involvement in delinquencies. Members of these families were interviewed at their own houses by the probation officers who inquired about their attitudes toward the probation officers and toward the juveniles concerned, as well as about characteristics of their communities and of domestic arrangements inside their houses. Then, relations between the parents’ attitudes and environmental characteristics were classified typologically, especially regard with norms accepted in each part. As the result, the following 5 types were found to be typical among the present subjects.

    1. Those families whose parents had their own norms corresponding to those of the society, but whose juveniles concerned had deviant norms due to some defects.

    2. Those families whose norms were not corresponding well to those of the society, although they knew what socialized norms were. These families were found to have tendencies of inactive social participation.

    3. Those families who misunderstood social norms through their own biased norms.

    4. Those families who knew what socialized norms were, but who practiced different kinds of norms actually.

    5. Those families who scarcely had established norms.

    Download PDF (5434K)
feedback
Top