Gottfredson And Hirschi Theory Of Reckless Behaviour

. Reckless behaviour as self-control
Imprudent behaviour is included by some scholars when attempting to measure self-control and the majority of these scholars forms a concept of reckless behaviour as a dependant element (Dodson, 2009:61). However, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1993:50) state that reckless behaviour can also be utilised as a lone element which can specify self-control.

Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway and Benson (1997:475) utilised reckless behaviour as a dependant element, while testing their theory, as well as an independent element during future testing. The dependant measure used by Evans and his colleagues was successful, however the independent measure proved controversial when indicating self-control (Dodson, 2009:61).

However, with the great success of the general theory of crime came extreme controversy (Goode, 2008:20). Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory has been analytically evaluated by many other criminologists, and have even been completely disregarded by some criminologists. Shortly after the publication of A General Theory of Crime, Title (1991:1610) stated that this theory is capable of convincing readers of something which is not the entire truth. Furthermore, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory results in a “confrontational approach” which does not fulfil the theoretical needs in the field of criminology (Tittle, 1991:1611). Geis (2000:44) is of the opinion that the general theory of crime has certain shortcomings, specifically in terms of their white-collar crime analysis. The fact that Gottfredson and Hirschi so boldly claims to have a general theory of crime which can be applied to all criminal acts and criminal behaviour is regarded as a questionable statement (Goode,

The general theory of crime is praised for its remarkable and aspiring approach to crime, which brought about a new way of explaining crime (Goode, 2008:20). However, the theory is also criticised for not addressing important issues and completely disregarding evidence, which may be inconsistent with their theory (Polk, 1991:576). With a vast amount of opinions on the general theory of crime, it is easy for readers to become confused (Goode, 2008:20). Thus, resulting in a controversial outlook on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s