Lately I’ve been thinking of how to marry my interests in the family and crime and deviance. Obvious choices come to mind, in particular looking at crimes committed by family against family, such as domestic violence and child abuse. But another thing that has gotten my attention is the role of the family in deterring deviance, and the responsibility of the family when a member commits an act of deviance.

There are some sociological studies that touch on this issue (there are obviously more than what I am talking about here). In the late 1990s, Olds et al. published several articles about the Elmira Home Visitation Program, where registered nurses visited women for a specified amount of time immediately following the birth of a child. Most of the articles published show a link between the nurse visitation program and decreased levels of child abuse and neglect by the mothers visited towards the focal child, they have also found that low-income children whose mothers received these visits were substantially and significantly less likely to exhibit a range of anti-social behaviors, including running away, drinking/smoking, and committing crimes. The causal mechanism between the program and the outcome is thought to be that

by attending to health, social, and environmental issues all at once, nurse visitors can help families get off to a strong start that enables their children to develop and mature into healthy, productive individuals. In some cases, the positive skills families develop seem to neutralize the negative influence of other risk factors that are harder to reduce or eliminate. 1

This same mechanism is thought to be in play when looking at re-entry for those leaving prison. The MacArthur Foundation is looking at the challenges faced by ex-offenders in the re-entry process, and as a result of that funding, many have looked at how family support impacts the process of re-entry and the outcome of recidivism. It seems that ex-offenders themselves often site family support as key to avoiding going back to prison.

In observing criminal courts, lawyers definitely know that having family in the courtroom – either on the side of the victim or defendant – sends a signal to the judge and jury about the person in question. I’ve seen judges, when sentencing, comment on the support a defendant is receiving from family that is in the courtroom. I’ve seen judges speak directly to the family, placing the responsibility of this person’s lawfulness on the backs of the family who chose to come and support.

In Israel, there is talk of razing the home of an accused terrorist – who has since been killed or committed suicide – so that the family also has to pay for the crime. The family would also lose many rights, such as health care. The government speaks of it as both a deterrent and a punishment:

“I think we need to be tougher in some of the means we use against perpetrators of terror,” Olmert told the conference. “If we have to destroy houses, then we must do so, and if we have to stop their social benefits, then we must do so. There cannot be a case where they massacre us and at the same time they get all the privileges that our society provides,” he said. 2

“Only by destroying the terrorist’s home will we be able to send out a clear message and prevent other youngsters who want to perpetrate terror attacks and kill Jerusalem residents from carrying out their plans,” [the mayor of Jerusalem] said at the scene of the attack. 3

What role can or cannot, should or should not the family play in preventing deviance and how much the family should pay for acts of deviance?