More handpicked essays just for you.
Contributing factors to youth crime
Social learning theory and youth crime
Contributing factors to youth crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Contributing factors to youth crime
The last thirty years have witnessed an emergence of numerous theories that are meant to explain and understand criminal behavior in the society. While some of these theories are not currently in use, most of them have metamorphosed and are used in numerous criminal studies in the modern society (Haynie, & Osgood, 2005). Today’s criminologists combine aspects that have been drawn from various disciplines to advance their comprehension on criminal behavior. In most cases, the discussion on criminal behavior centers on social and environmental factors with the social learning theory and the social structure theory being the biggest theories that are fronted to explain the prevalence of crime in the society. While these two factors are the biggest …show more content…
A clear example of this is the case where all the major theories on crime stress on the role of social factors in the rise of criminal behavior. The rational choice theory points out that people who engage in criminal activities do so willingly and as such the criminal justice system has come up with deterrence measures as a way of dissuading people from engaging in criminal activities. The criminal justice system tends to believe that the rate of crime increases depending on the social ranking of individuals and hence the reason why crime is relegated mostly in slum areas (Haynie, & Osgood, 2005).
The social learning theory points out that people learn to engage in crime mainly due to their association with other people in the society. Due to the exposure to crime, individuals end up seeing crime as something that is desirable or justifiable in some instances. According to theorists, juveniles learn to engage in criminal behavior just in the same manner that they learn to engage in the desired behavior. This means that for delinquent behavior to be abolished, young people must be taught on how to desist from people with delinquent
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)
Social behavior responds to a complicated network of rewards and punishments. The more a behavior is rewarded, the more likely it is to continue. On the flip side of this, the more a behavior is met with negative consequences, the more it is likely to stop. In any given social situation, whether someone commits a crime is largely dependent on his past behavior, or whether someone has received a positive reinforcement to a that crime. According to Social Learning Theory, crime is a direct response to this reinforcement. So in other words, if rewards are greater than punishments, the crime will be committed. Social Learning Theory is meant to operate as a general theory of crime.
First and foremost, the theory states that criminal behavior is learned, meaning that the behaviors of an individual are influenced and shaped by those they associate with (Clinard & Meier, 2015). The primary reference point here is the nuclear family. Parents teach their children how to walk and talk, who grow up with siblings or in some cases, elderly relatives. With good reason, it is widely held that these interactions create the foundation of the individual’s conception of societal norms and values. That being said, if the individual is capable of assessing proper behavior in society, they are also capable of learning what is considered
There are many different views on the origins of criminal behaviors within societies. One possible reason for why people commit crimes could be because they learned it from others. Edwin Sutherland works to explain this tactic through his theory of differential association. His theory states that criminal behavior is learned in interaction with others in intimate, personal groups. The learning of criminal behavior depends on the strength of the relationship with those who commit deviant actions. This learning also depends on their definitions of legal codes. For example, some people in society rationalize traffic speeding if it is only a couple miles over the speed limit while others are strongly against speeding at any degree. When a person’s
In addition to biological and psychological elements, there are the social factors that can influence people to engage in criminal activity. As a matter of fact, social and economic pressures play a major role in the cause of crime, since people are more likely to break the law when they have nothing else to lose. Therefore, the biological, psychological, and social factors should all be considered when trying to establish a reason for every crime. Word Count = 1,378
High crime rates are an ongoing issue through the United States, however the motivation and the cause of crime has yet to be entirely identified. Ronald Akers would say that criminality is a behavior that is learned based on what an individual sees and observes others doing. When an individual commits a crime, he or she is acting on impulse based on actions that they have seen others engage in. Initially during childhood, individuals learn actions and behavior by watching and listening to others, and out of impulse they mimic the behavior that is observed. Theorist Ronald Akers extended Sutherland’s differential association theory with a modern viewpoint known as the social learning theory. The social learning theory states that individuals commit crime through their association with or exposure to others. According to Akers, people learn how to be offenders based on their observations around them and their association with peers. Theorist Akers states that for one, “people can become involved in crime through imitation—that is by modeling criminal conduct. Second, and most significant, Akers contended that definition and imitation are most instrumental in determining initial forays into crime” (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 2011:57). Although Akers’ theory has been linked to juvenile delinquency in the past, it has also been tested as a possible cause of crime overall. Individuals learn from observation that criminal behavior is justifiable in certain circumstances. In connection with juvenile delinquency and crime, peers and intimate groups have the most effect on individuals when associated with criminal behavior. One is more likely to mimic the behavior of someone who they have close ties with, whether the behavior is justifiable or...
A highly debated topic concerns whether criminals commit crimes because of a social pressure or an individual urge. The strain theory supports crime as a social pressure because, as Frank Schmalleger suggests in Criminology Today 222, crime is an adaptive behavior that coincides with problems caused by frustration or unpleasant social surroundings. Also, culture conflict theory states the cause of delinquent behavior is because different social classes conflicting morals of what is appropriate or proper behavior, (Schmalleger 228). Other people believe blaming crime on the economy or where they grew up is making an excuse for criminals instead of making them take responsibility for their actions, as stated by CQ writer Peter Katel. These different views started with statistics taken on crime in the early 1800s. Andre Michel Guerry of France was one of the first examiners of “the moral health of nations” in the early 19th century, (Schmalleger 35). Another early crime statistician was Adolphe Quetelet of Belgium . Quetelet evaluated the crime rates between weather, sex, and age. His findings that climate contributes to high or low crime rate is a main factor in today’s fight against crime. It is doubtful this issue will ever be settled since there are too many pros and cons to each side. However, while specialists’ dispute this, crime is not stopping. There needs to be a way, or possibly several ways, to reduce criminal activity. It is doubtful criminal activity will ever be put to an end. The same is to be said about why people commit crime, but knowing if it is done socially or individually can help with the fight against it. In the end, individuals should take responsibility for their actions, but...
While this may help adults desist from crime, it may not be as effective in helping juveniles. Most delinquency occurs during young adulthood and then the individual ages out of crime. When looking at juvenile desistance other explanations exist as to why some juveniles continue a life of crime and others desist. One idea places responsibility on the ability to make conscious decisions. A study, by Haigh, of desistance among juveniles and their transitional period to a law abiding life suggest that most juvenile offenders simply make the decision to stop committing crime. Haigh conducted the study using one on one interviews in order to capture the former offender’s interpretation as to why they stopped committing crime. Through the interviews she found that most juveniles held this preconceived idea that they had to commit crime based on where they lived. Crime was a part of a regular daily routine for many. Participants state things such as, “you have to do crime, if you don’t you get stomped on” or “we didn’t think it as dangerous, we got off on the buzz of doing it” (Haigh, 2009). Some did not have reasons as to why they made the decision to stop committing crime. Others stated that they wanted to stop committing crime because of new found relationships, making their parents happy, or from fear of being sent to jail. For this set of juveniles in the study it can be said that as they
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.
Throughout the years criminologists have tried to come up with explanations for what makes individuals more prone to engage in criminal activity. The explanations can range from labels given to individuals to the bonds individuals have with others. Over the years, the theories have been tweaked and integrated to help gain a better understanding of why individuals commit crimes. Some theories also call for explanation on how to reduce crime in the future as well. Everything in society is caused by something, which produces the effect. The cause is generally what goes unknown most of the time. This paper will analyze Labeling Theory and Social Bond Theory. First I will clearly describe
Criminology has evolved over history into becoming a discipline all its own, along the way it grew and developed from a multiple sources of disciplines to become an integration of various theories. Reasons that seek to explain crime and deviant behaviors has mirrored the time in which research was being conducted and as time continues to change it is to be expected more theories will arise to incorporate past theories to become ever more inclusive. It is important to understand this development from the formulation of theories, the evolution of, the determining factors in testing, particular process such as social learning that are upheld as strong empirically sound theories in order for scholars to continue to advance further studies. But it is unlikely crime will ever be solved completely, for in some instances it is a necessary evil, yet it can be hoped that with the knowledge obtained thus far and that to be discovered crime and deviance might be reduced, prevented and controlled in the future to come.
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.
The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.
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.
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near