The Self-Control Theory of Crime - Essay Example

Evaluate the Self-Control Theory of Crime Introduction Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, has lately created the "self-control theory." In this theory, having low self-control on the persona and character weaknesses within offenders. Individuals with low self-control are narrow-minded. Because of their aggressiveness, they respond to stimuli quickly instead of sorting it out first. ("MicroCase exercise #9", n.d.). General Theory of Crime, also known as self-control theory, is still the most popular and highly debated criminological theories. In past studies, criminologists was able to procure several criticisms of the theory, one of which is the inadequacy to discuss white-collar crime (Simpson and Piquero 2003; Benson and Moore 1992; Tibbetts and Gibson 2002; Agnew 1995) its verbose nature; and its conceptual overlap with other leading crime theories (Akers 1991; Agnew 1995; Brezina 1998; Higgins and Ricketts, 2004). Negative feelings such as guilt, shame, inferiority, depression, self-pity, anger, fear, revenge, unforgiveness, resentment, jealousy, envy, etc., are just to name a few that emotionally affects self-control. The Self Control Theory Man is a rational creature - is the notion assumed at first by self-control theory. A person usually balances sound judgment before making a sensible decision. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, crimes are restraints or deception that a person continues to do since he gains maximum benefits with little effort. Illegal act or violation of laws pledges great compensation with little harm present. Because of these findings, Gottfredson and Hirschi regarded a person's tendency to perpetrate crimes with their level of self-control. People with low self-control usually can't suppress themselves from the tempting instant gratification. The two authors discussed the root of low self-control prosper at a young age because of futile or defective environment. There are several studies that established on the basis that a man's development is conditioned by his past experiences, specifically the formative years. A healthy, pleasant experience during childhood may be considered as most conducive to the development of an emotionally stable and mature individual. Conversely, the growth of a child in a traumatic, unpleasant atmosphere particularly with parents, guardians, siblings and peers conditions the development of personality disorder. Low self-control is a behavioral problem that may be seen among people with childhood hang-ups and traumas. Frail or deficient relation, guidance, and cultivation from parents before the child is eight years old are possible reason of unsuccessful personality. Gottfredson and Hirschi's reports gain support from empirical literature in regards to the connection of low self-control to crime or deviance. Low self-control was considered at least a moderate predictor of crime and deviance, according to Pratt and Cullen's (2000) meta-analysis that was shown in more than twenty studies (Higgins and Ricketts, 2004; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). The following are characteristics of an individual who has weak self-control: adventurous, troublemaker, lack perseverance, involved in prohibited sexual activities, not interested in long-term work and educational goals and has difficulty in keeping a stable work and enduring personal relationships. With respect to crime, people deprived of needed satisfaction and demands when growing are those who resort to violence and commit petty crimes. They engage in such unlawful act to win attention or recognition or just to exercise freedom. Gottfredson and Hirschi also asserted that people who enter into a pseudo-abnormal manner such as smoking or drinking have low self-control. A noted comment or criticism of self-control theory is that it reduces the importance of the outcome of race and economics status instead it was concentrated on parenting as the resort of having low self-control in the early stage of life ("MicroCase exercise #9", n.d.). Self-control is proposed to be an "inclusive theory" that can justify all criminal and deviant behaviors, regardless of seriousness or demographic factors. Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990:96) theorized that low self-control is acquired from ineffective or insufficient need for satisfaction of the socio-cultural environment. The low self-control trait remains unstable throughout life and, in fusion with inadequate opportunity, contributes to the ultimate cause of criminality (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Low self-control is said to be a product of combined characteristics through the socialization process instead of inherited traits. (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Lack of parental supervision and discipline result in misbehavior of a person are considered a major contributing factor in the development of low self-control. As the authors of the theory state, "the main determinant of low self-controlappears to be ineffective child-rearing" (Gottfredson and Hirschi1990). Gottfredson and Hirschi imply that proper parenting includes monitoring a child's attitude, identifying deviant manners present and bestowing disciplinary action on such behavior. The concept of socialization greatly differs from supervision. Socialization is the process that determines the ability of a child's sense of right and wrong in the absence of direct supervision. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) claim the fact that parents may look after their children differently (in terms of gender differences), yet does not mean that they socialize them differently. The proposed theory focused on socialization of children and the supervision of parents as having great implication on one's level of self-control. The social environment consists of individuals, groups and institutions with whom the person interacts with from childhood to adulthood. From them, one acquires, learns and internalizes set of norms, ideas, values, attitudes and behaviors through socialization. Though parents are not the sole defense against low self-control, they play a great influence as a role model. Aside from parents, schools and peers may help detect and correct self-control problems.Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) reported that in "contemporary American society", schools have a hard time teaching self-control. From their findings, the parents are still responsible for disciplinary purposes and should make sure that it develops a higher level of self-control (Mcmullen, 1999). Case Studies In the published article of Grasmick et al. (1993). to test the general theory of crime, the dependent variables consisted of fraud (altered the truth) and force, (threatened to use force against another person to accomplish a goal). As a result, low self-control itself has little causal effect on either criminal fraud or force. Grasmick et al. (1993). On the other hand, the ability to predict behaviors improved upon looking at the cases of individual who have both low self-control and abundant opportunity to perpetrate crimes of force or fraud. But, the result revealed a weaker connection of self-control and criminal chances and the occurrences of criminal fraud. There is a proposal from this case study that criminal opportunity may be much more relevant than low self-control or balanced the interaction between them. As a predictor of crime, the chances of crime in our data emerges to be relatively as strong as (in case of fraud) or stronger than (in case of force) the term representing the interrelation of low self-control and crime opportunity. (Grasmick et al. 1993). Self-control alone was not proven to be a strong predictor of offenses of force or deception. Another author assessed predictive factors of self-control on plunder, vandalism, personal violence, and substance abuse. Wood et al. (1993). It showed that self-control have a great influence on all attitudes in the case study Grasmick et al. (1993), It is not the objective reality that serves as determinant of behavior but rather the perceived meaning by the individual. The "meaning" that a person attributes to events in life is conditioned by paradigms, beliefs and values---in turn determines his decisions. Though, the quantity of unidentified differences across all behavior is still quite large. Eventually, self-control is still the strongest determinant for imprudent actions, such as tobacco use, alcohol consumption, excessive eating, gambling, and being an irresponsible student and citizen. As researchers look deeper at the implication of self-control as a composite measure, they see at the sub-components of the self-control scale as independent variables Wood et al. (1993). Results showed the risk-taking attitude and ability to control types of rage to gain the most relevant analytical power regarding the behaviors. Risk-taking was eloquently connected to all behaviors except for substance abuse, but the rage coefficient was relevantly linked to theft and imprudent behaviors only. In accordance with race it tended to be the weakest determinant of deviance and imprudent manners. Additionally, every time self-control is regarded as six independent dimensions the identified variations increases for each kind of delinquency. (Wood et al. 1993). Longshore et al. (1996) another analyst, found a poor relationship between self-control (using the Grasmick et al. scale) and criminal behavior in a case study of convicted criminals. They found self-control to be associated, though modestly, with a number of crimes of fraud and force reported by such cases. (Longshore et al. 1996). Using a different set of convicted drug offenders, Longshore (1998) formed a positive correlation with self-control and crime. When low self-control is present and the chances are great, convicted drug offenders have frequent involvement. There is an abundance of documented references in the professional literature of criminology and sociology that convey that the breakdown of family relationships is the real root cause of crime in America. According to the orthodox thinking in official Washington consider that crime is accounted by material conditions, such as poor employment opportunities and inadequate funds and federal social programs to help an individual. ("The Real Root Cause of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of the Family", 1995). The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, supported by Pres. Clinton's administration and was enforced last year, perfectly embody official Washington's perspective about crime. It funded billions of dollars for new spending, aside from adding 15 new social programs on top of a welfare system that has cost taxpayers $5 trillion since the "War on Poverty' was declared in 1965. But there is no reason to assume that increased spending and new programs will have any denoting positive impact. Since 1965, welfare spending has increased 800 percent in real terms, while the number of major crimes per capita today is approximately three times the rate before 1960. As Republican Senator Phil Gramm rightly noticed, "If social spending stopped crime, America would be the safest country in the world." ("The Real Root Cause of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of the Family", 1995). Official Washington also affirms that race is the second most important root of felony. The large distinction in crime rates between whites and blacks is often cited as evidence. Anyhow, a closer perspective at the data reveals that the true variable is not race but family relationships. Sometime in 1988, a major case study of 11,000 individuals found that "the percentage of single-parent households with children between the ages of 12 and 20 is significantly connected with rates of violence and burglary" The same case makes it evident that the popular assumption of connecting race and crime is not true. Illegitimacy or lack of education is the key factor not race. Broken families and single-parent It is the absence of marriage and the failure to form and maintain intact families that expounds the incidence of crime in whites as well as black people ("The Real Root Cause of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of the Family", 1995). Conclusion Winners and losers are not born- neither is they borne out of fate -good luck or bad luck. We are the author of our own story. It is not the trials in our life that makes us who we are but relatively the way we retort to given situations. Our decisions and dealings decide our fate. Many people turn out to be miserable because they let obnoxious events to take charge or pessimistically influence them. Coping in the midst of challenges and life situations in an attempt to thrive and flourish requires a secure, established, and a captivating character. What is poignant is that because of lack of education, much bloom on viewpoint and paradigms that are distorted, values that are not appropriately united. Race and economical status may also cause felony though little because of the craving to justify freedom, fulfill dreams or satisfaction and to prove to others of their potentials. It is also the social environment that pushes us to do crime because of blackmail. In anyway, people are forced to do crime to supply their basic needs to survive such as psychological need (food, shelter, clothing, sex, etc), safety needs (protection, freedom from fear), social need (family, friends, and marriage) and esteem needs (recognition, affirmation). Deprivation of such basic needs will definitely cause crime and violence. References Akers, Ronald. 1991. Self-Control as a General Theory of Crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 7:201-11. Agnew, Robert. 1995. Testing the Leading Crime Theories: An Alternative Strategy Focusing on Motivational Processes." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:363-398. Benson, Michael L. and Elizabeth Moore. 1992. Are White-Collar and Common Offenders the Same An Empirical and Theoretical Critique of a Recently Proposed General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:251-272. Brezina, Timothy. 1998. Adolescent Maltreatment and Delinquency: The Question of Intervening Processes. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:71-99. Grasmick, Harold G., Charles R. Tittle, Robert J. Bursik Jr., and Bruce J. Arneklev (1993) Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:5-29. Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi. 1990. General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Higgins, George E. and Melissa L. Ricketts. Motivation or Opportunity: Which Serves as the Best Mediator in Self-Control Theory Western Criminology Review 5(2), 77-96 (2004) Longshore, Douglas, Susan Turner, and Judith A. Stein (1996) Self-control in a Criminal Sample: An Examination of Construct Validity. Criminology 34:209-228. Longshore, Douglas (1998) Self-control and Criminal Opportunity: A Prospective Test of the General Theory of Crime. Social Problems 45:102-113. McMullen, John C. September 17, 1999. A Test of Self-control Theory Using General Patterns of Deviance. Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology. Retrieved May 15, 2006 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-112399-162321/unrestricted/JMdiss.pdf. "MicroCase Exercise #9: An exploration of low self-control theory" n.d. Retrieved May 15, 2006 from http://sociology.camden.rutgers.edu/theorystf/micro-9c.pdf Pratt, Travis C. and Francis Cullen. 2000. The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis. Criminology 38:931-964. Shoemaker, Donald J. 1996. Theories of Delinquency, Third Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Simpson, Sally and Nicole Leeper Piquero. 2002. Low Self-Control, Organizational Theory, and Corporate Crime. Law and Society Review 36:509-539. "The Real Root Cause of Violent Crime:The Breakdown of the Family" IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College. October 1995, Vol. 24, No. 10. The LibertyHaven Foundation. Retrieved May 15, 2006 from http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/ crimeandterrorism/realroot.shtml Tibbetts, Stephen G. and Chris L. Gibson. 2002. Individual Propensities and Rational Decision-Making: Recent Findings and Promising Approaches. Pp. 3-24 Wood, Peter B., Betty Pfefferbaum, and Bruce J. Arneklev (1993) Risk-taking and Self Control: Social Psychological Correlates of Delinquency. Journal of Crime and Justice16:111-130. Read More