Crime, School, and Parenting Correlations

Why do people commit crimes?

Ferrell says “criminal or criminalized groups busily inventing experiences that variously violate the modernist project of boredom.” The skill and excitement of crime embraces the time period in which modernist rationality did not exist. This drive back to instincts and in-the-moment activity draws people in; crime offers individuals an escape from the monotonous schedule of everyday and the boredom that comes with it. Illicit activities are usually not boring because they “recapture…the lost immediacy of self-made human experience”. This suggests that human involvement is essential to overcome boredom, and illegal activities do this by recapturing the experience. In the beginning of his article, Theoretical Criminology, Ferrell poses an interesting question. Do people commit crimes, not against others or property, but against boredom? Raoul Vaneigem offers some insight to this question in The Revolution of Everyday Life. He says, “Anyone who has felt the drive to self-destruction welling up inside him knows with what weary negligence he might one day happen to kill the organizers of his boredom.” This suggests that crime is indeed committed against people, but specifically against organizers of boredom.

Boredom, Crime, and Criminology

Jeff Ferrell’s article Theoretical Criminology (

explores the undercurrents of rebellion as the force against boredom. He says that boredom has pervaded everyday life, since our experience of it is monotonous. In order to repel this collective boredom experienced by the whole of society, illicit excitement, which he defines as “ephemeral crimes committed against boredom itself”, and political/cultural rebellions are employed. Another buttress against boredom are the analytic abstraction and methodologies of modern criminology; criminology itself is considered a rebellion with intellectual excitement and human engagement. Thus, it seems as though illicit activities and intellectual stimulation are the only things that can combat the boredom. However, it also seems as though boredom can lead to violent crimes. Read this before going on:


For example, these three boys were charged with first-degree murder of a college baseball player. He was just jogging when one of them said, “There’s our target”. When they were questioned afterwards, they said, “We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.” If illicit activity is meant to contest boredom, then what will Ferrell think about this event, when boredom caused illicit activity? Is it any form of illegal activity acceptable, as long as it is a response to boredom? What if instead of crimes combatting boredom, boredom causes crimes? Who is to say which is the cause, and which is the aftereffect? 

The police chief who reported in regards to this event said, “[it’s] alarming that we’re seeing those types of crimes…I don’t think it’s unique. It’s something we’re starting to see nationwide.” If we want to combat crime, then maybe it is necessary to combat boredom first. If we install recreation areas and parks, then perhaps the teenage crime rates will go down. Or, if the government could make the education system more efficient and less boring, then teenage crime rates would go down.

Boredom in School & Prison

Ivan Chtcheglov said, “A mental disease has swept the planet: banalization . . . as all the reasons for passion disappear.” If boredom is considered a mental disease, and it is so widespread, it is even possible to overcome it? As Ferrell mentioned in his article, intellectual stimulation is also another way to combat boredom. How is it that public schools are often a cesspool for boredom, instead of academic inspiration? Ferrell goes on to contradict himself by saying, “public schools emerge as training centers for the new boredom, rehearsal halls for the sublimation of individuality to disciplined efficiency… the prison, the juvenile lockup offer entire institutions dedicated to the enforcement of tedium.”

By saying that public schools are just institutionalized boredom, “dedicated to the enforcement of tedium”, it seems the only thing against this is to launch a revolution. Ferrell’s talking about a political revolution, but there are layers to every revolution; the individuals who are part of this contemporary revolution are students and convicts. They revolt by getting involved in explicit things, more often than not, since they appear more interesting and they give them a drive, since (unfortunately) most public schools don’t stimulate or challenge students enough. The weird connection is that there are aspects of both prisons and schools that oppose boredom: illegal activity and cerebral stimulus. However, in reality, they are breeding grounds for boredom. What is wrong with these systems, especially public school, is that they don’t realize they could become the most interesting aspects of society, instead of banal structures.

 Dropouts, Juvenile Delinquency, and Changing Schools

The statistics in Yvonne Roberts article “BOREDOM ACCOUNTS FOR TEENAGE CRIME” ( analyzes the ubiquity of juvenile delinquency in the UK in percentages of crimes done by repeat offenders. She also relates dropouts to juvenile delinquency. The centers in which crimes rates are high are also areas in which dropout percentages are high.

Schools realized a long time ago that the education system was flawed. Ferrell says that certain schools realized, by the 1940s, that that, “boredom and its mass-made alternatives formed a closed circle of control, an ever-spinning cycle of empty consumption.” Since schools have become nothing more than centers of boredom, locked in an endless cycle of “empty consumption”, then it is no surprise that people drop out. However, there must be some incentives that could be employed in order to increase the retention rates of schools nationwide.



The diagram above illustrates what dropouts wanted in the education system—relating to high school as well as college, and what would have prevented them from dropping out, and would help them graduate. This diagram shows that all of the proposed changes heavily involve students to actively participate, or require some sort of push from the instructors and parents to hold the students accountable for their own education. Based on this information, from Roberts and the diagram, it is clear that in order to make the educational system more efficient at educating students, and keeping them there, it must become student based. Right now, students are shuffled into a large room with upwards of 300 of their peers, talked at for several hours, and then expected to master the information on our own, outside of class. When other Pitt students completed their OMET surveys and were asked what they put as “improvement for the class”, it seemed that more student involvement, as well as interaction with the professor and material in a unique way were the major changes in a class which would contribute to their educations.

Boredom Relieved by Work

Ferrell also relates boredom to work. At first, work appears as a sort of relief to the “crush of modern boredom”. As time goes on, work appears more and more “visceral, all the more unbearable…[full of] unrequited promises of mass-produced excitement accumulate… and … participation becomes just another cheap con.” Relating to Kracauer, work relieves boredom, but only to a slight degree; it seems as though working and being bored by a job is a morally acceptable way to be bored, instead of being bored due to nothing. Kracauer also comments on this by saying that a work ethic appears as a sort of “moral veil…people whose duties occasionally make them yawn may be less boing than those who do their business by inclination”. It seems as though he’s saying that people choose the lesser of two evils by choosing to be bored by their job instead of being bored by a lack of stimulation.

What happens when work becomes boring?

So, why do people still put up with schools? For the promise of a job, which could fill the void of mental inactivity. Kracauer says that we get jobs in order, “to provides a moral veil for their occupation and at least affords them a certain moral erring oneself and ethical being dispels every type of boredom.” As mentioned before, jobs are an acceptable area of boredom.

The main question is how does work become boring, when it is meant to alleviate boredom? According to Ferrell, the boredom relating to a job isn’t a side effect. It comes from “dehumanizing processes and fraudulent promises” that jobs are based upon; they are boring because they force people to act systematically and destroy possibility and skill in the process. Jobs such as these are “devoid of the uncertainty and surprise that comes with human creativity”; the human possibility in these jobs is destroyed because they do not call for any sort of skill or chance. Jobs that need some sort of interaction or creativity on the workers part are, according to Ferrell, successful and truly combat boredom. Unfortunately the majority of jobs today, such as working in the IRS, require humans to become systematic, and create work that is devoid of any human interaction.


Michael Jones goes to school and drifts through the day, extremely bored with the whole idea of school. He doesn’t care about anything because no matter how hard he works, it doesn’t seem as though things are getting better. He gives up around May because he’s become apathetic towards even trying; he’s bored of getting the same results, even when he asks his teachers for help. His family doesn’t even seem to notice that anything is wrong with him. He tires of the world around him—it’s not challenging in any way, so he feel as though there’s no reason to keep trying.

There are no connections to his parents, since he only sees them when the kiss him on the head and then head out to work in the morning. When they come back, he’s already asleep, and the dinner he’s made for them just sits on the table. There’s no one to hold him accountable in the slums of LA, so he walks around the corner to his house and sees a bunch of kids his age and one of the seniors, Phillip, who has known associations with the gang huddled around each other, whispering. It seems interesting, and he has nothing else to do, so he joins them.

As Phillip describes what he would do for the gang, it starts to seem more exciting than his everyday life, so he agrees to become a lackey for the gang. Michael just delivers messages to the other kids in the school, and tries to get some of the other sophomores to join by saying that it makes life so much easier. They don’t have to study, just walk around and do what Phillip tells them to do. It’s such an easy way to make money. Once Michael has enough money, he can move out of his parent’s house, and not think about them ever again.

As he climbs the ranks from a delivery boy and begins to meet the other members of the gang, he sees that the higher-ups get pretty amazing perks like nice cars, women, and it doesn’t seem like they’re even working that hard. His life is filled with purpose again—he wants to be in the top of this gang, so he works harder and harder- there’s no empty space in his mind, no more boredom with school, since it doesn’t even take that much to satisfy his teachers. He’s filled up the emptiness with the excitement and ambition and drive that he never had before. Nothing ever challenged him, and now this is a challenge—to get to the top, to show his parents that he never needed their help anyway. 

Parental Involvement Combatting Teenage Crime

The article Poverty, Parenting, Peers and Crime-Prone Neighbourhoods by Don Weatherburn and Bronwyn Lind focuses on the elements of poverty and parenting in relation to the crime-prone neighborhoods of Australia. The data from this article shows significant correlations between neglect and juvenile crime in certain areas. For example, the graphs from the article (shown below), indicate that neglect and crime rates are directly connected; the rests of Weatherburn’s data suggests a significance of lessening juvenile crime by increasing familial support as well as parenting skills.



Teens are resorting to violence because they are bored. They need parental figures in their lives in order to maintain a semblance of control and normalcy, and to have some ties to their lives. Unless they have positive role models in their lives, they will continue with stupid, reckless behavior, and not care who gets hurt in the end. The involvement from their parents will hold them accountable for their actions.

It is difficult for parents to become involved in their children’s lives because, in our contemporary society, it is easy to get lost in the desire to get money, because that’s what society focuses on. Thus, parents don’t come home, and their presence is integral in their child’s lives. Also, as Kracauer said, we fill boredom with things like work. We also work because in order to live a comfortable life in this society, people need to work to make money, and it’s a morally acceptable route for boredom. However, it also obvious that work can cause boredom because of its dehumanizing and not very interactive nature.

In the end, it seems as though boredom is inescapable, and it is only possible to get a taste of the times before modernist rationality, in which we were deeply involved in everything that we did, through crime and intellectual stimulation as forms of rebellion. Involvement from all fronts (parental, schools, and individual) seems to be the only plausible uniting factor to combat boredom/juvenile crime. If everyone took a step back and tried to get involved with things that genuinely interested them, maybe it would be a simple solution to many problems. 


3 thoughts on “Crime, School, and Parenting Correlations”

  1. I thought that your connection of boredom to crime was very interesting. The news story that you included really helps drive the point that boredom can cause such issues, given that the story was direct about stating that the cause of the murder was boredom. I also thought the fictional segment on Michael helps visualize how crime can be seen as an escape, but I saw it as more of an escape from an unhappy home life rather than boredom itself. Overall, I enjoyed reading this post!

  2. I thought your denkbild was based off a very good idea. Crime in many instances resulted from a person(s) boredom. I would add more suggestions on how to break the cycle you mentioned.

  3. This is a great approach to analyzing boredom. I like the fact that each section is its own and then is tied together at the end with the story of Michael. It seems mind-numbing that people act in criminal ways to avoid boredom. I would like to know more about the links between boredom and crime and why it is not uncommon. It could be argued that getting involved with things that interest you is hard simply because you are forced to go to school and work. Overall, though, I thought everything flowed really well and came to a solid conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s