Some people certainly think so. I myself, though, am skeptical about psychological theories that confirm what conservatives have been saying right along.
Well, is it true? Do broken homes lead to crime?
Broken homes, by themselves, do not lead to crimes, but may be a contributing factor, in combination with other things such as parental involvement, living in a higher-crime area, peer pressure, etc. in promoting criminal behaviour. There is no one single cause that can be pointed to as leading to crime.
Bad homes grow troubled children, even if the parents stay together.
Could be more correlation than cause.
The only mechanism for that, which occurs to me, is if there’s reverse causation. Kids who will eventually become criminals cause their parents to have problems.
I could see that, but then you’re saying that these kids are inherently bad eggs, which is also a liberal faux pas.
Overall, I don’t understand the reasoning on the left which tries to shoot down the idea that a poor upbringing causes people to grow up stunted and give their own children a poor upbringing. If you’re not going to come down on the side of “nurture”, then you’re supporting “nature”, which would mean saying that “badness” is an inherent, genetic trait that can be passed on from one generation to the next. The leap from there to straight-out racism is pretty small.
Define “poor upbringing” and “broken home.”
For a lot of people on the right, a single-parent home is automatically “broken” (so is a home with same-sex parents, or non-traditional lifestyles or religious beliefs). While I think single parents face more challenges (the correlation between single parenthood and poverty, e.g.), I don’t see that being raised by one parent automatically equals poor upbringing, or having two parents automatically equals good upbringing.
I’m sure it makes you higher risk of being a criminal. But it also puts you at higher odds of becoming a social worker. Many of the therapists, social workers and religious figures I’ve met who tried to help others and make the world a better place came from broken homes.
Being socially marginalized, being genetically predisposed to aggression or psychopathy, poverty, etc. can all contribute to crime. I don’t know if any one can be labeled ‘the’ cause.
Even conditions like psychopathy don’t have to lead to a life of crime. A person who is predisposed to it who grows up in a good environment full of love and free of abuse can grow up to be a pro-social psychopath like James Fallons.
Short of sitting in someone’s house with a panel of judges, there’s no knowing which person’s upbringing was or wasn’t a good upbringing (and even that would be a bit hazy). I agree that a single-parent home isn’t bad, ipso facto, just as I wouldn’t say that a low-income home, nor a home in a bad neighbourhood, nor a school with a bad test score rating, nor anything else is going to say anything at all about an individual who passed through them. That individual may have had a wonderful parent, not have been impacted at all by the incomde level of his parents, associated with good kids, and listened to his teacher and read through his books diligently.
It’s like the Bechdel Test for movies. It’s not a useful metric at the individual level. It’s only when you pull back and examine the greater ecosystem that it has any value.
‘Badness’ isn’t a genetic trait, but there are absolutely certain genetic traits that influence traits like aggression, low impulse control, low agreeableness, etc., which can predispose one to commit crime. There are environmental influences, including prenatal ones, on these traits too. Of course, we have free will and can choose to resist our predispositions: that’s just easier for some people than others. Nature and nurture both influence what we are like, but I think for many personality traits the evidence is pretty clear that in the context of modern American/Western European societies, nature matters more.
I know a professional stats guy who loves to look at this sort of thing, and he thinks the causation is the reverse: men with high aggression, low impulse control, etc. are less likely to find partners willing to marry them, and also more likely to pass their traits on to their children.
Sociopaths are apparently overrepresented among the clergy, and I would suspect also in finance, business, politics, etc., though I’d have to look at the data first.
I’m okay with the idea, but I see problems in quantifying it, i.e. coming up with some useful way to identify the bad eggs early on, and of course environment will be a huge factor anyway.
I spent more time with my kids post-divorce than pre. I was happier, better company, and swamped with guilt.
I don’t think anyone’s bad, there’s just a wider set of personalities that do poorly in low-income, single parent, etc. settings than in upper-crust, dual-parent, etc. settings. There’s probably a way to turn anyone bad, if the stars align just right, or into a saint.
Well, there is a statistical correlation between family breakdown and poverty, and a statistical correlation between poverty and crime. As for causation, though . . .
My first hypotheis would instead be that parents with various problems are more likely to a) break up, and b) raise criminals, whether or not they break up.
I don’t believe it leads to Crime, I feel it is the putting of things on a higher plane than people. Our culture is very thing focused, there is nothing wrong with things it just isn’t as important as people. There are many people from broken homes that do not lead to crime, and some intact that do. We seem to forget that all people have dignity, And we fail to try to understand why they act the way they do. So much crime is committed to get things,
In a large Dutch study that followed teens for years in a few bad neighbourhoods in Rotterdam found that in families of single mothers the children were only very slightly more criminal, described by the authors as “not significant”. Children in families of single fathers were slightly less criminal at first, slightly more at 18. Overall the difference was minimal.
Children in foster homes were quite a bit more criminal, but probably were before they went to the foster home.
Children who reported that their parents loved them were less criminal. 
I dunno, we have examples of sociopathic and/or psychopathic behavior manifesting in early childhood, and not due to any obvious environmental influence.
It has been my experience that bad homes always grow troubled children. The better question from my perspective is do these troubled children tend to commit more crime. I would guess that no, they don’t necessarily commit more crime. I think they will have things such as low academic performance, subpar ability to adapt to situations, more unemployment, fewer close binds with people. Doesn’t necessarily lead to crime, more likely to lead to bad relationships and being poor.
Broken homes don’t ‘lead to’ any of that stuff, they (may) increase the likelihood. When discussing human behaviour it’s always important to rember that most influences on our behavior are probabilistic and statistical , not deterministic. Lots of children from broken homes turn out fine (which is why your ‘always’) there is a big exaggeration.
More generally, I’m not super interested in any piece if sociological research that doesn’t even try to control for genetics. If you can find a twin study on the effect of broken homes, or even one that does their best to control for genetic factors, then I think that would be a lot more convincing.