Childhood trauma is a more intricate problem than some may assume. Therefore, understanding it, or rather attempting it, often provides similar experiments with different results. The factors for this difference could be caused by the difference in parents, neighborhoods or simply by misunderstood stereotypes. As times change, experiments change. Because of this, the understanding of such a delicate topic becomes deeper, thus leading to different results, despite the similarity of the experiments. For decades the question has been whether childhood trauma actually has a serious impact on a person's likelihood of committing a crime. Some even wondered if it had any impact, or rather, if it had other ways of harming people's emotional state. A delicate topic that sought harsh answers. However, over the decades of research, one thing has become clear. The connection between childhood trauma and the possibility that one's past influences one's future by making one more prone to commit violent acts is more complex. Because there are many factors that play a role in determining someone's outcome. However, these factors may be the fruits that come from the seed that is childhood trauma. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The problem with child abuse is that it is one of the rare horrors where color is not limited. Unfortunately, it is also a horror that often begins with parents as the primary abusers. For example, in an article titled Abuse-Resistant Youth: Some Factors That May Inhibit Violent Criminal Behavior, which focused on factors that may well influence violent behavior, he discussed the likelihood of abused children becoming abusive parents (Kruttschnitt, Ward, Sheble , 1987). They agreed that this cycle of violence was instilled in their parents' minds as children, and as they grew up, they saw their actions as parenting rather than abuse. Therefore, the theory at the time followed a simple rubric, which provided a very simple result. The conclusion then was that if a parent abused a child, it was because his or her parents abused that parent. Therefore the question was not raised whether the child would be associated with the crime, as in their eyes this was inevitable. The question suited when they would become violent. A 2015 article titled Early Life Risks, Antisocial Tendencies, and Preteen Delinquency focused on just this. They concluded that it was not just the age at which parents were warned to pay close attention to their child's changing aggression (Staff, Whichard, Siennick, Maggs 2015). The age at which children in these categories were expected to have police contact and/or criminal records also changed. For example, research has shown that children who were aggressive at age 3 were not only at high risk of exhibiting antisocial behavior by age 11, but were also estimated to have had contact with the police as early as age 15 (White et al. 1990). However, Murray et al. (2010) looked at data from a British cohort study (born in 1970) and concluded that if a child had “conduct problems” at age 5, he or she would not only be expected to show aggression age of 10, but also have adult criminal convictions. As time has passed, the ages have only increased, if only slightly. The gap between the time both studies took place was 20 years. In both cases, the ages thatwould determine the criminal behavior of the teenagers not only were they extremely close to each other as they were only 2 years apart, but they were also considerably young in age. This is an interesting finding because it implies, if not proves, that the age factor in determining whether a child will become a criminal is only questionable when talking about a specific age. It proves that the specific age can only fall between 0 and 10 years. Parents have always been a factor to consider when analyzing a child's behavior. The parent study, therefore, was about finding the depth to which the parents' bond with their child influenced the child's future. In an article titled General Strain, Street Youth And Crime: A Test Of Agnew's RevisedTheory, Agnew in 2001, for example, suggested that child abuse was a type of strain that should be linked to criminal activity (Baron 2004). He suggested that parental violence, along with hostility and sexual abuse, often lead to “undermining attachments and commitments” which would inevitably lead to poor social skills and, subsequently, criminality. Like Kruttschnitt (et al. 1987), Baron (2004) also agrees that children from violent homes would model such behavior. However, unlike 1987, the research went deeper. They found that in many cases children not only modeled violent behavior but also used it as a form of problem solving. This will then be analyzed even further and it will be suggested that children with such mannerisms would seek out peers who behaved similarly (Baron 2004). The connection between the two journals is important because not only did they obtain extremely similar results in data analysis. Over time, they were able to delve deeper into the previous hypothesis about why children behave in certain ways. While many have simply studied what would happen in an abusive family, studies have also been conducted to support these claims. on, most of whom studied houses that were not illegal. An article that studied this aspect in particular was entitled Family relationships, juvenile delinquency and adult crime. After their study of how changes in delinquency were related to children's interaction with their parents, Liska and Reed (1985) noted that children who had a strong relationship with their parents were less likely to commit crimes (Mccord 1991) . Upon further examination, they were also able to conclude that not only would a close relationship with parents decrease the child's involvement in crime, but it would also strengthen his attachment to school. A strong relationship with parents would also make socializing and creating friendships a much more enjoyable task. Although a child's bond with his parents still remains an important factor in determining whether he will commit a crime in his adolescent or adult life, there are other important factors that come into play. Not all factors are their seed, however, some are branches of the same tree. An important factor that was added to further understand child abuse was the study of the definition itself. Child abuse reports occurred more often in urban communities. In an article titled Child Abuse, Neglect, And Violent Criminal Behavior they argued that those reported for child abuse in poorer areas were not necessarily abusing their own children. It could simply mean that they did not have sufficient funds to make ends meet, or that they were unemployed (Widom et al., 1989). That is, the poorer the child, the more likely it waswas reported for child abuse. The fear of being reported could very well push a parent, or even a child who fears being taken away from their parents, to commit some type of crime (theft, robbery), in order to make ends meet. Widom (et al., 1989) even pointed out that “many of these same family and demographic characteristics relate to delinquency and subsequently crime.” The relationship between reporting of child abuse and crimes committed by children, highlighted by this magazine, contradicts what many other magazines have claimed for decades. In this case perhaps it is the fear of being reported for child abuse that pushes children to commit crimes they wouldn't even think about if they weren't afraid of being taken away from home. This would then add another factor to study when it comes to childhood trauma. This meant that childhood trauma was not just about child abuse, but neighborhoods could also have an effect in traumatizing it. Given the inexplicit definition of what childhood trauma was, it was therefore important to study the ways in which people, both noncriminals and criminals alike, viewed certain neighborhoods (Carter, Hill 1978). An article titled Criminals' and Noncriminal Perceptions Of Urban Crime did just that. What they did was take random non-criminal residents of Oklahoma City, both black and white, and asked them a series of questions. The questions focused primarily on 15 poor and upper-class neighborhoods. They had to classify them and give their perception of them. They found that noncriminals labeled other parts of the city as more dangerous than criminals. This was considered normal, since “criminals perceive the city as more crime-ridden, better protected and more difficult to commit crimes” (Carter et al., 1997). The reason this is important is because it ties into other research and how, not just non-criminals, see other parts of the city. Specifically, criminals' perceptions of their neighborhood and how the neighborhood itself can shape their opinions. For example, some studies show that certain lifestyles/routines might put children at risk and increase their chances of committing crimes in the future (Hindelang et al., 1978). For example, if a child grows up in a poor neighborhood, depending on whether their influences are drug dealers, gangsters or drug addicts will therefore be significant in determining which path they follow. The previous paragraphs have discussed child abuse, the definition of said child abuse, and the many different factors that can coincide when added together. In an article titled How Child Maltreatment Affects Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency in a Cohort of Low-Income Urban Youths, they found that when it came to the topic of crime, one study showed that if you assumed that there was actually a connection between maltreatment and delinquency , then youth crime would be inevitable, this theory was later confirmed (Lemmon, 1999). This finding was similar to that of Carter (et al., 1997) because it concluded that youth crime was particularly prevalent among urban communities, particularly among the poor. To further prove their point, they conducted another study in which 908 children who had documented histories of abuse and neglect were compared to 667 children who had not experienced such abuse. They were equally matched in terms of gender, age, race, and even social class in 73% of all cases (Lemmon, 1999). They found that maltreatment played a significant role in future delinquency. From most studies, it appears that not onlyparents serve as a strong indicator of whether a child will commit a crime in the future, but that where they live could influence abuse. Therefore, influencing the child's subsequent connection to crime. Not only did crime seem inevitable, given the studies that were conducted, but they also previously hypothesized that childhood trauma might not necessarily be seen as bad by children themselves. For example, when Baron (2004) found that in many cases where children used aggression they used it in forms of problem solving. This meant that this was normal for them. Their actions were what they saw at home and therefore they considered such behavior not only normal but also as possible in other homes. Similarly, an article titled The Cycle Of Violence In Context: Exploring The Moderating Roles Of Neighborhood Disadvantage And Cultural Norms suggests that if children grow up in neighborhoods where fights and shootings are an everyday thing, after a while they become accustomed to such violence. In fact, they normalize such violence and become emotionless towards it (Wright, Fagan, 2013). This conclusion is extremely similar to that of Baron (2004) and that of Kruttschnitt (et al., 1987), where Kruttschnitt (et al., 1987) concluded that those who grow up with abusive parents later become abusive parents themselves. However, they do not see this mistreatment as abuse, but rather as simple discipline. It is the normalization and insensitivity towards this issue that has been repeatedly shown by studies to be one, if not the main reason why crime does not stop. Or, more importantly, why children continue to be subjected to such terrible abuse and trauma. Another factor to consider when establishing the link between maltreatment and delinquency would be the ethnic origin of the child. For example, in an article titled Incarceration and Intergenerational Social Exclusion, it was hypothesized that Hispanic immigrants are healthier than American-born citizens. Not only could they be healthier, but they would also have a better social life and emotional state (Foster, Hagan, 2007). Their explanation for that conclusion was that immigrants, particularly Hispanics, not only have stronger family ties but also had stronger community backgrounds overall. Again, very similar to the journal written by Liska and Reed (1985) and McCord (1991), who both concluded that a strong family foundation would decline significantly following delinquency. These studies were not only extremely substantial in their own right, but were also helpful to other studies that concluded that children who lived in violent families or rough neighborhoods were at greater risk of committing wrongdoing later in life. A topic that always seemed to come up when analyzing someone's childhood. the trauma was their life at home and how this affected their overall danger of becoming a criminal later in life. A study was conducted in which homes where parents were very strict were compared to when children were raised in a more passive home (Welsh, 1978). The psychological data contained in his research favored families in which children were raised passively. He concluded that children from more submissive backgrounds were more creative and sociable. In addition to this, the children were also more independent and expressed more “positive feelings towards others and were less likely to express hostility” (Welsh, 1978). This research conclusion is similar to that of Liska and Reed (1985) and McCord (1991). Unfortunately, this has not been the case for all American families. In an article titledDelinquency, Corporal Punishment, and the Schools, in 1968, a decade before this research was conducted, Louis Harris surveyed child discipline in the United States (Welsh, 1978). Its poll showed that 86% agreed that children need to be strongly disciplined by their parents, 49% saw a teacher hitting a child not as abuse, but a form of discipline. Based on these polls alone, it would appear that not only did Americans approve of strict house rules, but that most of them practiced them in their own homes. The stereotype that Americans at home were passive was contrary to what Americans actually practiced at home. One perception many people have about criminals is that once they are put in prison, they are likely to return when released. This thought process is no different when it relates to mental patients. In an article titled Trends In Violent Crime Among Ex-Mental Patients, the main goal of the study was to see whether a mental patient was actually more likely to commit a crime than anyone else in the general population (Cocozza, Melick, Steadman, 1978) . They used data from patients released in 1947 in New York State and found that mental patients were indeed more likely to be arrested than the general population. That said, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that mental patients experienced something traumatic during their childhood. It may also be, as the journal states, a “change in the relationship between the mental health and criminal justice systems that may be more responsible for the increased rates of violent crime among former patients” (Cocozza et al. , 1978). This may be related to the definition of child abuse and why it is incredibly prevalent in urban communities. Not being able to make ends meet or currently unemployed could also lead to someone being reported for child abuse (Widom et al., 1989). This then becomes a question of whether the justice system is truly reducing crime or increasing it among certain groups of people. As the more one looks into the topic, it becomes abundantly clear that childhood trauma goes in many directions. Not all of these directions lead to a criminal future. In support of those who concluded that a strong relationship with loved ones would reduce the likelihood of delinquency, in an article entitled Parents And Drugs Revisited: Some Further Evidence In Support Of Social Learning Theory, Hirschi's (1969) social control theory it focused on explaining why instead of breaking social norms, people follow those norms (Dembo, Grandon, Le Voie, Schmeidler, Burgos, 1986). Studying Hirschi's theory (1969), they found that Hirschi believed that there were some bonds that, when broken or weakened, resulted in the breaking or weakening of other bonds that pushed people to follow social norms (Dembo et al., 1986). Having a strong relationship with parents, school, pillars and even religion were key and if one weakened, it was only a matter of time before the other also weakened. This goes back to previous research on normalizing behavior observed at home and/or in one's neighborhood. A child is simply more likely to use drugs or commit certain crimes if the people around him, especially those he is closest to, are in those circles and further push those kinds of influences toward the child. However, this wouldn't be the only way childhood trauma could affect people in their future. Other studies showed that there were many.