Introduction
Marriage is normally related with the onset of adult outcomes, implying that there is an association between marriage and crime. This is due to the fact that marriage is usually associated with individual well being. This theoretical approach has been a subject of contention concerning the causal conclusions of the subject matter. The basic argument is that transition to adulthood normally has an effect of reducing deviance, which may ultimately result to a reduction of crime depending on the context of marriage (Brown, 2000). Basing on the research findings reported on the article Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effect, the paper attempts to draw a conclusion in order to determine whether marriage reduces crime and a counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects.
Does marriage reduce crime?
Various quantitative and qualitative researches have reported a strong relationship between marriage and a reduction of crime at the individual level. It is difficult to evaluate the core aspects behind marriage that makes it an inhibitor to individual involvement in criminal activities (Sampson et al, 2006). The first reason why marriage can play an integral role in reducing crime is that an adjustment in deviant behavior normally takes place as a reaction to an attachment or a social bond, which is established by marriage. This approach is based on the social control theory, whereby the social bond associated with marriage is vital due to the fact that it helps in the establishment of mutual support and the creation of interdependent systems, and a restraint that can be used to convert criminal propensities into positive action.
A second reason as to why marriage can be used to reduce crime is because it results to key adjustments inn the daily routines and personal relationships with others. It is arguably evident that variations in daily event routines and trends of association with other people are a major contributor to individual involvement in crime. With this respect, marriage helps in the elimination of unstructured social associations and activities; therefore reducing the frequency of contact with peer groups involved in deviant behavior (Antonovics & Town, 2004). This is due to the fact that marriage comes with a lot of obligations that help to decrease involvement in other unimportant activities outside the family. The basic argument is that marriage results to a reduced social time that a person spends with friends and deviant peer groups. Changes in daily routines can be attributed ton parenting responsibilities because marriage shifts the attention to family-centered chores compared to unaccounted time with social peers.
The third argument why marriage can help in reducing crime is because of the gendered resistance. This results to a direct social control that is put forth by the spouse, especially the female spouse. Gendered desistance plays an integral role in reducing the social time and offering the social support for their partners. A typical example of this is that wives are playing a vital role in the control and management of various domestic activities, which implies that they serve as the custodians of social lives of the spouses. Married couples usually have an effect on the behavior of their spouses, in the sense that it provides a framework through which couples can exercise social control through supervision (Sampson et al, 2006).
The fourth reason why marriage reduces crime is that it results to identities that are likely to impose an alteration of the sense of the self in terms of cognitive transformation. This is evident through the perception that marriage is associated with seriousness and adulthood, which is related to the aspect of accepting responsibility. Therefore, cognitive mechanisms are important in reducing the individual involvement in deviant behavior.
In summary, marriage provides a framework for long term responsibility and obligations, which prioritizes the realization of the success of the marriage than any other thing. Therefore, an inference that can be made from this is that marriage helps in crime reduction.
A counterfactual approach to marriage
The validity of the evaluation of the causal effects of marriage is normally difficult due to the fact that it is not easy to take into account the non-random selection of married individuals. Marriage is not just a random occurrence, and that partner characteristics are well determined prior to engagement in marriage. Since marriage is usually as a result of self-selection, implying that the relationship between marriage and crime is false. Therefore, the critique of the role of marriage in affecting adult social forces that foster involvement in crime is constrained by selection. The fundamental claims are frequent, but the frameworks that used to support such claims are not adequate. An example of this is the aspect of the control variables perspective, in the sense that marriage cannot be perceived as a random occurrence; as a result, the vital solution to this is to control confounding factors such as the lagged crime states, and factors that can impose crime and result to marriage in the later course of life such as unemployment. An analogous approach to this perspective is through accessing the effects that marriage has on the earnings of an individual (Sampson et al, 2006).
Another approach is to weigh married men against unmarried men in the family context. This aims at analysis of the marriage has on wages, and its causal effects it has on reducing crime and other deviant behaviors. This is vital in ascertaining the relationship that exists between marriage and individual involvement in crime. Another strategy that can be deployed in ascertaining this relationship is make use of instrumental variables in order to determine the causal effects associated with a social variable and its outcome. The counterfactual approach integrates all of the above strategies in order to effectively determine causal association between marriage and crime over the long term course of an individual life. The counterfactual approach evaluates the causality of effects of marriage on crime reduction by assessing the consequences of a definable treatment such as marriage, on a given outcome such as crime. With this respect, the sample population comprises of two major groups of those who marry and those who don’t marry as the treatment and control group respectively. During analysis, this approach bases on the perspective that there are two potential outcomes for each of the groups, in order for the hypothesis to be positive. Confounding variables should be dealt with (Brown, 2000).
Conclusion
It is clear that marriage plays an integral role in reducing crime through a shift of priorities that are family centered and the transition to adulthood. This is achieved through the establishment of social bonds, adjustments in the daily routines, gendered desistance and cognitive transformation.
References
Antonovics, K., & Town, R. (2004). Are all the good men married? uncovering the sources of marital wage premium. The American Economic Review , 317-321.
Brown, S. (2000). The effects of union type on psychological well being:depression among cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health and Social behavior , 455 451.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (2006). Does Marriage reduce Crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology , 465-508.