The Nature of Crime - Essay Example

The Nature of Crime Question Compare the major tenets of strain/anomie and social disorganization theories. Your answer should be a discussion of: (1) the core propositions made by both theories concerning crime causation, (2) how these theories are similar (what do they have in common?), and (3) how these theories differ with regard to the role that middle-class values play in the causation of crime. The strain/anomie and the social disorganization theories both take interesting positions on how crime comes to exist in a society and although they agree on some points, there are also differences between the theories since neither is fully applicable to all situations which are present in the human condition. However, an understanding of both these theories is important because they help in knowing the nature of crime. The central proposition made by the strain theory is the idea that social structures and individual situations within a society may be the causes of crimes since the strain put on the individual due to them encourages criminal behavior. This theory emerges from the work of Émile Durkheim and has been further developed by many social scientists following in his footsteps (Cullen, & Agnew, 2006). With regard to the strain which causes crime, there are two possible sources i.e. social structures and individual experiences (Miller et. al., 2002). The first one comes from the social structures which define how the needs of an individual are to be satisfied. If the social structures are inadequate, especially with regard to satisfying the needs of the middle class, then more people from the middle class may turn to crime if they see a lack of opportunities and have limited means (Miller et. al., 2002). Therefore, in this respect, the blame for criminal activity or the increased rate of crime comes from a failure of social institutions rather than individual negligence. The second strain can come from the individual since the experience of a person within society can lead him/her to a life of crime (Wikipedia, 2006). For example, if a middle class person sees enough things which lead him to desire more than his/her means then s/he may choose to do things which are illegal to attain those things (Miller et. al., 2002). Of course that person may not actually need those things for their basic survival but the creation of the need can come from their own experiences. Similar to the strain theory, the social disorganization theory also focuses on the relationship between the individual and the social setup. However, the primary focus of the theory is on the individual and how s/he internalizes the given culture over time. As per the theory, every person has certain desires which can be categorized as a desire to be recognized, the desire to be dominant, to be secure and to have new experiences. As the need to fulfill these desires grows in the middle class, individuals from this class may not worry too much about the means they use to get what they want. Instead of focusing on social institutions or social bodies, the social disorganization theory focuses on the idea of the city and how large cities would have higher crime rates than smaller towns. Additionally, the idea of competition between individuals and the Darwinian idea of survival of the fittest also helps this theory since it suggests that competition between individuals can also lead some people to crime because the resources they are sharing are scarce (Cullen, & Agnew, 2006). This condition might be worse in larger cities because the middle class may not have the resources to get everything they want and some of them may not agree with the fact that they can not have everything they desire (Wikipedia, 2006). In conclusion, it seems that these theories are more similar than they are different because they both focus on the individual and the social setup a person is placed in. The only significant difference between them seems to be that the strain theory looks at how the individual is or can be in conflict with society at large while the social disorganization theory looks at how individuals are in conflict with each other. I feel that both these theories are applicable to how we can understand the causes of crime as well as means to reduce and eliminate crime from our society because both theories provide valuable insights into crime causation and the relationship of the middle class to crime. Question 2 Discuss how the social bond/control and social learning perspectives are often viewed as "competing" with each other. Your answer should include a discussion of: (1) the core propositions made by both theories concerning crime causation, (2) the fundamental issue on which they differ, and (3) a strategy for looking at how these theories can "fit together" as opposed to being at odds. The social bond/control and the social learning perspectives on crime are said to be in competition over explaining the causes of crime and while these theories differ on a number of fundamental principles, they can be used together to understand the nature of crime itself. Before an analysis can be made on how they can be joined for a better understanding of crime causation, it is important to understand their differences with regard to each other. The social bond/control theory suggests that the socialization process for an individual leads to his/her social learning and helps create their internal self control methods. Social learning establishes control over the person which makes it less likely that s/he would engage in criminal activities. The control of society over the individual is established in four different ways as explained in Wikipedia (2006) which are: 1. Direct Control: Misbehavior and criminal activity might be punished with physical or emotional consequences while compliance with social rules and norms could be rewarded by acceptance and admiration. The direct control over an individual could be established by authority figures, established laws or senior family members for an individual. 2. Indirect Control: Indirect control comes from the inner voice which is an internalization of the influence of the direct control. Freudians may consider indirect control to be the superego which tells an individual how to behave in social situations. 3. Internal Control: This control is established with the process of identification with a certain group who might be hurt by the criminal activity of the individual. For example, a person may not commit a crime for the fear that their friends and family would be disappointed with them if the crime were to be discovered. 4. Control via Satisfaction: Finally, if all the needs and wants of a person are satisfied, it becomes unlikely that they would engage in criminal activity since there would clearly be no point in such behavior. In effect, the social bond/control theory suggests that criminal activity is largely controlled and negated in all individual by the influence of society in general and the presence of social networks in particular (Miller et. al., 2002). At the same time, it does not give then intrinsic motivation towards crime any special importance since (as per the theory) the criminal activity in society results only when the individual’s control over him/herself or the individual’s social connections become weak. On the other hand, the social learning theory takes a different approach by not looking at what prevents criminal behavior but rather what causes criminal behavior. In this regard the focus of the theory is that criminal behavior is a learned behavior and people can become criminals by things like peer pressure or through the negative influence of the company they keep. Additionally, the lenient or relaxed attitude of parents or other authority figures would also add to a person’s likelihood of engaging in criminal activity (Cullen, & Agnew, 2006). In the learning theory, whenever criminal behavior is applauded or seen to be good by a group of peers, a person would be more likely to perform the same act (Cullen, & Agnew, 2006). Moreover, if authority figures or other persons in power neglect to punish criminal behavior and it seems more and more likely that a person is able to get away with crimes, they would be more willing to take greater risks and go deeper into the underworld. While the approach taken by the two theories is competing, since one focuses on preventing crime from happening at all by looking at the control placed on a person with social or internal methods and other focuses on the causes of crime by looking at learned behavior and social acceptance, they can be used together to fully understand the nature of crime. Using the theories together would mean looking at both the causes of crime through examining a criminal’s past behavior and friends circle as well as looking at how social control over the criminal was weak or relaxed. It is clear to me that both the social control theory and the social learning theories are useful in understanding the causes of criminal behavior and if used in conjunction, they can be very applicable when it comes to understand why crimes take place in society. Overall, I feel that no one theory can be said to be better than all the rest because there can be as many theories about crime as there are individuals and crimes. Works Cited Cullen, F. & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological Theory: Past to Present Essential Readings. Roxbury Publishing Company. Miller, J., Schreck, C. & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Criminological Theory: A Brief Introduction. Allyn & Bacon. Wikipedia. (2006). Crime. Retrieved September 28, 2006 from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime Word Count: 1,589 Read More