Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
CLASSICAL theory of crime
CLASSICAL theory of crime
Comparing and contrasting theories of crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory is often referred to as the “general theory of crime”. With this bold statement, it is implied that this theory can predict the progress of crime throughout the world. This study will address many issues brought into question in regards to the validity of the “general theory of crime” through the use of many criminal justice journals, texts, and studies. This paper will analyze how the self-control theory came to be as well as the accuracy in its ability to predict crime on both a national global scale.
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Self-Control Theory
In 1990, Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi presented a theory that claimed to explain all types of crime and delinquency. The main concept in the theory was low self-control. The self-control theory not only attempts to explain why individuals engage in criminal acts, but rather why individuals choose to conform to conventional norms. It is not a theory of crime causation, but rather a theory of pro-social behavior used so often by sociologists and criminologists to better explain deviance and criminality (Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould, 2010).
Before delving deeper into the self-control theory’s origins, Hirschi had already made great strides when studying delinquent behavior long before partnering with Gottfredson. In 1969, the control theory of delinquency is a more sociological theory, unlike the theories of Hirschi's contemporaries, which were much more psychological in nature (Lilly et al., 1995). Hirschi presented four social bonds which promote socialization and conformity. He claimed that these bonds, “explained that weak social bonds may set an individual free to weigh the benefits of crime” (Welch, 1998). The first...
... middle of paper ...
... have high self-control and self-image; it made complete sense to me as to how a child could become delinquent. Without these important social bonds to society and to the people that we first build relationships with (parents), it is understandable how a person could choose to find structure in a peer group that consists of people with the same low self-control and self-image. With empirical studies that support the self-control theory as an accurate way to predict crime on both a national and international level, the self-control theory has proven to be a great tool as well as worthy of the title the “general theory of crime”. While there is little research to help take the theory further by proving its validity across all contexts of crime, from a sociological view, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory is a great theory to help explain criminal behavior.
The two theories that are being analyzed in this paper are Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory and Travis Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory. Hirschi's social bonding theory is one of many control theories which all take on the task of explaining the core cause of crime; however, this particular theory seems to be the most popular and able to stand the test of time. The Social Bond theory contains four elements that explain what criminals lack that causes them to be more prone to illegal activity, these elements are attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. On the other end of the spectrum is Akers’ Social Learning Theory, which attempts to explain the correlation between and individual's social environment and their behavior depending on what is praised or punished in an individual's specific social organization. (Walsh & Hemmens)
Booth, J., Farrell, A., & Varano, S. (2008). Social control, serious delinquency, and risky behavior: A gendered analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 423-456.
Wiatrowski, M.D., Griswold, D.B., & Roberts, M.K. (1981). Social control theory and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 46(5), 525-541.
Plenty of children engage in rough-and-tough play and may be a little mischievous from time to time. As they grow into adolescence, they may start committing crimes and get in trouble with the law, but most of these individuals outgrow their behavior and stop offending. What makes individuals persist or desist from crime? What are the key causal factors and mechanisms that help this behavior desist? An in-depth synthesis of John Laub and Robert Sampson’s theory of age-graded informal social control will provide insight as to why individuals desist from offending.
Multiple theories are competing with each other to solve the same puzzle of understanding why people commit crime. General strain theory states that crime is caused by individuals experiencing strain and coping with this by committing crimes (Agnew, 1992). Self-control theory argues that an individual 's level of self-control will stop a person from committing crime. These two theories are in conflict of explaining why people cause crime, self-control theory states that people are inherently capable of crime because people avoid pain and seek pleasure (Gottfredson, & Hirschi,
Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, G.H. (1989). The causes and cures of criminality. Contemporary Psychology, 36, 575-577.
An integrated theory is a combination of 2 or 3 theories that offers many explanations on why crime is occurring, compared to a traditional criminal theory that just focus on one type of aspect (Lilly et al.2010). The purpose of integrated theories is to help explain many aspects into what causes criminal behavior and why one becomes delinquent. From this an argument arises can integrated theories be used to explain all criminal behavior. Integrated theories are successful in explaining certain aspects of crime on what causes one to become deviant; however one theory alone cannot explain why an individual engages in crime. This paper will examine three integrated theories and look in-depth how these theories can explain different aspects on why criminal behavior occurs and the weakness of each theory. The three integrated theories that will be discussed in this paper are Cloward and Ohlin Differential Opportunity theory, Robert Agnew General Strain theory, and lastly Travis Hirschi’s Social Bond theory.
The positivist view of deviance places emphasis on individual's behavior being manipulated by outside forces (Goode, 2007, p. 23). Individual's are unable to contend with these outside forces which are beyond their control. Criminals and other deviants are created through biological defects which were responsible for their behavior, as it was something inherently organic and passed on through birth. The self-control theory of crime was developed by Travis Hirshi and Michael Gottfredson, two famous criminologists. Self-control theory, also known as the General Theory of crime, portrays deviance as stemming from the criminal's lack of ...
Social Control Theory presumes that people will naturally commit crime if there were left to their own devices (i.e. no laws in society) and people do not commit crimes because of certain controlling forces, such as social bonds that hold individuals back partaking on their anti social behavior (Bell, 2011). Examples of controlling forces are family, school, peers, and the law. Young people who are t... ... middle of paper ... ... nd delinquent are more likely to partake in committing criminal behavior (Shaefer and Haaland, 2011, p.155-156).
According to Krohn (1986) bridged together theoretical propositions from the delinquency-enhancing effects of differential association and the delinquency-constraining effects of social bonds, as these interact with social learning and social control. His network theory maintains that the lower the network density in relationship to population density, the weaker the constraints against nonconformity, and the higher rates of
Agnew, R. (1985). Social Control Theory and Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test. Criminology Volume 23 , 47-59.
In today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
Theory is an important part of discovering and understanding why people commit crime. It is difficult to understand how a prejudice or bias towards someone can be linked to criminal behavior. The general theory of crime coined by Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson can be applied to hate crime. The general theory of crime explains that people are born pre-disposed to crime and that they have natural tendencies to commit crime (Tibbetts, 2015, p 161). The only difference between those who are criminals and non-criminals would be their self-control (Tibbetts, 2015, p 161). Self-control is a key component to the general theory of crime. Not everyone acts on his or her thoughts of someone criminally, or even at all. The difference between people who do not choose to commit crime, would be their difference in self-control. People who commit crime have low self-control, and people who are law-abiding citizens have high self-control.
SLT examines the learned behavior and attitudes as a result of having relationships with deviants and Strain Theory explores how strains pressure juveniles into committing acts as a coping mechanism. Strain theory highlights why youths engage in more crimes than adults do and clarifies the causations of delinquency by taking a social approach, clarifying how strains trigger delinquency. Strain Theory provides an answer for delinquent causation, not an excuse. Strain Theory reveals how strains often resulting in delinquency as a result of wanting to change a situation. The pressure a child faces between their aspirations and the actuality of a situation is what creates a strain. Therefore, juvenile delinquency is one way to cope with feelings of frustration or unpleasant situations. Juveniles have far less behavioral control over themselves, which leads to impulsivity. Responsible adults have far much more to lose (job, assets, relationships, etc.) and as a result of their strong morals, values, and self-disciple do not engage in acts of crimes. Strains are defined as dissatisfied relationships one finds him or herself
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.