More handpicked essays just for you.
Parental factors influencing juvenile delinquency
Parental factors influencing juvenile delinquency
How can crime be controlled in the school environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A major component in Gottfredson and Hirschi 's theory is the relationship between parenting and self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). As previously mentioned, Tim and Lionel receive very little parental oversight and guidance. According to low self-control theory, this absence in Tim and Lionel 's life can be seen as an essential factor in their participation in sexting. Due to the lack of parenting in childhood, the youth were unable to develop the necessary self-control to resist the easy temptations offered by crime. Accompanying the lack of parenting, Tim and Lionel 's association with equally perverse individuals at school only served to further exacerbate their impulses and guide them towards delinquency. As such, Tim and Lionel …show more content…
Control theories in general are very common in criminological research and have been successful both theoretically and empirically. As a result, this theory has been comprehensively studied by many researchers and is popular for its cognitive clarity (Brunet, 2002). Furthermore, as Gouldner (1970) notes "some theories are simple experienced as intuitively convincing" and low self-control theory falls into this category for many (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001, p.5). A critique of this approach is that it assumes that self-control is stable across the life course and therefore presupposes that an individual 's propensity for crime also remains stable (Holtfreter et al., 2008). However, when applied to the scenario, even if Tim and Lionel lack proper self-control, it is possible that through a process of socialization, they could adjust in society and operate as law abiding citizens regardless of their low …show more content…
Essentially, through a process of conceptual integration, different aspects of each theory can be used in conjunction to compensate for what each individual theory fails to explain, and thus can further both the scope and policy utility of the theories (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). For instance, low self-control theory asserts that low self-control is the cause of crime all the time. This may be true for some criminals, but many criminals, like those involved in white collar crimes, do not adhere to the principles of low self-control. In addition, while low self-control theory is useful in explaining why individuals may act in a certain way, it does not explain the situations that must be met for a crime to occur (Brunet, 2002). On the other hand, routine activity theory describes the situational factors that must be present for a crime to occur, but it is more difficult to apply this theory to sexting because the offender and victim do not necessarily have to meet for the crime to occur (Wilsem,
...ctivities they do. The theory looks at how the lack of regulation in a community results into crime. Further, it alludes that when an individual faces great strain or pain in the achievement of his or her goals and needs in life, he or she is forced to either give up all together or apply force to accomplish them. This motivation to achieve the needs and objectives of the community, led the other Moore deep into the life of crime (Moore, 2011).
Control Theory focuses on the question, “why do people conform?”. This theory argues that it is easier to satisfy an individual’s needs and wants through crime, but most people still don’t commit illegal acts. The reason for this is because of the restraints placed on people that stop them from breaking the law. But obviously, some people’s restraints exist more than others’. Some people feel freer to engage on crime. There are three major things that stop people from participating in deviant criminal activities: direct control, stake in conformity, and internal control. Jeffrey Dahmer lacked all
Booth, J., Farrell, A., & Varano, S. (2008). Social control, serious delinquency, and risky behavior: A gendered analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 423-456.
Social control theory tries to explain why it is that all of us do not commit crime. Social control theory gained prominence during the 1960s. Travis Hirschi put forth his new theory that was built upon existing concepts of social control. His social control theory declared that ties to school, family, and other aspects of society serve to lessen one 's tendency for deviant behavior. Hirschi believes that because of the bond with co-workers, teachers, friends and family and activities such as education or career goals cause people to have less time to commit crimes. I would have to disagree to some extent. If you chose to hang out with a family member or friend that is into criminal behavior such as drugs or being involved with a gang, that
...y theory, affirms that in order for a crime to be committed, three specific specifications must be involved. These specifications are that there must be a suitable target, a motivated offender, and the absence of a capable guardian. The purpose of this theory is to show that the more criminal behavior in their everyday lifestyle, the higher the likelihood that a person will commit criminal activity.
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.
Based upon the evidence provided on the six elements of a good theory, the Routine Activities Theory is a sound theory. These elements provide that the theory is scientific. The theory has brought together its three elements to help determine why crime occurs. Through research by multiple detached researchers, its hypotheses have been confirmed through tests and empirical evidence.
For instance, Donner & Jennings (2014) contributes to literature built on previous research in low self-control theory. Low self-control theory (as cited by Donner & Jennings, 2014) contends that individuals who lack self control are generally impulsive risk takers with non-verbal skills who have short sighted goals. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) Therefore, many studies in self-control design their measures around impulsive behaviors which are generally manifested in low level crime. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990)
... middle of paper ... ... Understanding psychological theories helps criminologists to design appropriate correctional strategies to mitigate crime. Works Cited Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, G.H. d. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a The causes and cures of criminality.
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.
What are theories of crime? Why are they important? In this paper, will discuss two crime theories. Social learning theory and the labeling theory. We will compare both crime theories. It will also explain how these theories are related to specific crimes. The two theories discussed will also explain the policy implications. Finally, we will address what types of programs can be created to mitigate specific crimes related to the causation theories.
Power-control theory could also explain the differences in total crime rates between adults and youths. This theory identifies family roles as a major factor in determining delinquency. As people age, they begin to take on greater responsibilities within the family. An example is a youth eventually aging and becoming a parent to a child. That individual, no matter the gender, now has greater responsibilities such as providing for and raising the child. With more responsibility, comes less opportunity for delinquency, explaining the lower crime rates amongst adults compared to
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).
When criminals think that the benefit of committing the crime will outweigh the cost if they get caught, they make a choice to commit the crime. There are two varieties of rational choice theory. One, situational choice theory, which is an extension of rational choice theory and two, routine activities theory or RAT, which states that the daily routine or patterns in ones’ activities make it much easier for an individual to become a victim of crime. The theory is, crime is more likely to happen when a criminal and their victim come together in the absence of authority (Schmalleger). A situation made easier to come by when the criminal knows the victim’s daily routines or patterns.
In review of theory integration, it is consider important for the future of criminology because it merges the insights from two or more theories into a single framework to introduction reasoning or cause for crimes that are being committed. Integrated theory involves more than one perspective, It tends to explain the reason for criminal behavior or the causes of crime by varies models within the