Theories of Crime - Essay Example

? Theory of Crimes Paper 2 Theory of Crimes Paper 2 Theories of crime are a necessary step towards understanding criminal justice.Defining crime from a legalistic perspective rather that a normative one, sociologists have incorporated the assumptions, causation principles and structure to predict and explain theories that they have proposed (Arrigo & Williams, 2006). Assumptions address debates on contentious matters such as conflict against consensus, or determinism against free will. Through these, theories of crime primarily simplify the study of reasons and causes of crime and occasionally address the stakeholders in the criminal justice system including offenders, victims, correctional institutions and the police. Among the oldest theories in crime are the control theories that have previously dwelt extensively on social control. They have focused on people’s relationships with socialization agents including parents, law enforcers, preachers and teachers and how bonding with them translated into social bonding and staying away from crime. This was termed as indirect control. However, further studies on social control by Hirschi and Gottfredson narrowed it down to self control, which they also referred to as direct control under the General Theory of Crime (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). This paper will discuss the theory of self control in relation to theories of crime and explain its assumptions and empirical status. It will then apply it to the White family from the movie the Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia using specific examples and give the writer’s opinion on how well the theory explains the criminality of the White family. Indirect control was based on attachment, beliefs, involvement and commitment to explain how parents could have a psychological presence in their children’s lives and deter them from criminal tendencies (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). The General Theory of Crime presents the notion of self control as one that details individual differences in the inclination to commit a crime or desist from committing it. It is noted that this includes acts of deviance and crime under all circumstances including race, age and gender. The key assumption of this theory is that the differences in the propensity among unique individuals will remain considerably unwavering when the individuals change their social locations. However, changes are observed when the individuals acquire knowledge of how the sanction systems operate. This assumption also presents the key challenge of self control in the context of the degree of difference of the inclination of individuals to shun crime under whatever circumstances they are in. To give a better understanding of the explanation of self control as it applies to crime, Hirschi and Gottfredson distinguished crime and criminality. While crime constitutes the actual incidents through which laws are broken, criminality is not an act but the tendency to offend (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). Hence, a tendency can only be acted upon and materialized in the existence of an opportunity. In that sense, crime can only be a consequence of individuals who have low self control and high levels of criminality being exposed to opportunities to commit the crime. The theorists further point out that the opportunities themselves are often illegal. Basing on the constant availability of the opportunities and ease of committing crime, it follows that individuals with low self-control will, as anticipated, slip deeper into involvement with criminal behavior. This argument offers an empirical support to the theory of self control that self control, rather than opportunity, is the fundamental determining factor as to whether individuals will involve themselves in crime in the course of their lives or not (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). Using the concept of self control, which also includes the lack of it, the theorists presented a process through which crime is thought to occur. The process is believed to start with a spontaneous personality; then the absence of self control; weakened social bonds; presence of opportunities to commit a crime; and finally, deviant behavior. The general theory of crime discusses crime from the perspective of being a medium to achieving instantaneous gratification and links the capacity to resist such short-term yearnings to self control. Those with low or no self control and involve themselves with crime are believed to have acquired it (low self control) from childhood (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). It is in childhood that the theorists suggest that deviant behavior emerges and takes root. This is because the propensity away from or towards crime begins early in life. Individuals who possess low self control continue with their involvement in deviant behavior into adulthood. After tracing low self control to early childhood, the theorists of the General Theory of Crime have linked the phenomenon to poor practices of parenting. The blame is more specifically directed to parents and guardians who do not monitor behavior in children under them; those who do not recognise, or acknowledge the presence of, deviant behavior; those who fail to punish deviant behavior in children; and those who are continuously absent (Unnever, Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Such parents and guardians have the highest likelihood of producing children with limited self control. Lack of attachment between children and their parents or guardians that occurs under the above circumstances, and additionally, through parents who are deviant or criminals themselves, develops poor self control. Children reared under such circumstances have a tendency to be insensitive, impulsive, shortsighted, and physical rather than mental (Shoemaker, 2000). Therefore, lack of self control is a naturally occurring phenomenon in children that leads to deviant behavior in the absence of the necessary steps to curb its development. In contrast, individuals with high levels of self control are considerably less likely to engage in acts of crime at any stage of life, effectively cutting down on the rate of occurrence. They are not inclined to spontaneous responses to tangible stimuli occurring in their surrounding or, in other words, are not oriented to act for the moment (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). They do not derive the same gratification from rewards they did not work for, unlike the ones with low self control that cannot withstand situational delays caused by diligence, persistence and tenacity in their course of action. Low self control gives its bearers a misconception of crime as thrilling, exciting and adventurous as they engage in the risks it involves. They are not deterred by the significant lack of long-standing gains but rather, thrive on the little skill required in executing their delinquency. The self control theory, according to Hirschi and Gottfredson, demonstrates the great adaptability of the different types of crime people commit (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). It explains the involvement by all ages, cultures, sexes at any time and under any circumstances. Empirical research has established that the association of crime and low self control is evident in the way such persons achieve short-term satisfaction including little and quick money and excitement without the barriers of aggravations caused by situations (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). Criminal acts are often accompanied by corresponding behaviors that endow immediate gratification like irresponsible sex, drug abuse, smoking and road rage. Often, such acts are not planned, sophisticated or specialized, but occur in the form of a response to any easily available illegal opportunities that persons with low self control come across. To emphasize on the extent to which low self control encroaches on social behavior, Hirschi and Gottfredson point out that the failures of the offenders are also mirrored in failing marriages, careers and school work (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011). These are all areas of the social domain that demand delayed gratification, enduring efforts and planning. This culminates into the idea that engaging in crime is a stable concept whereby children who exhibit deviant behavior have a tendency to develop into juvenile delinquents and, consequently, offenders in adulthood. The White family from the movie The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia exhibits the characteristics explained by the General Theory of Crime under the self control theory. Their criminality can be narrowed down from the concept of social bonds to self control, with each individual having their own criminality. Starting from the late head of the family, D. Ray, they could not resist the illegal opportunities that presented the chances to engage in crime. The movie illustrates the rampant corruption that characterized the coal industry. D. Ray saw other workers enrich themselves through corrupt means, yet he remained behind in poverty. He also wanted to be rich, but did not have the means to it fast enough. He could not exercise self control to enable him make money in legal ways. Considering that the industry itself had already exposed him to health and life risks, he saw no need to fight the urge to get into more risk: crime. His self control was not high enough to stop him from joining the corrupt ranks and make quick money. With many illegal opportunities surrounding him in the form of corrupt mine workers, his self control was defeated by the appeal of quick, risky and exciting money that he could always earn so long as he was willing to be corrupt. His criminal activities soon become evident in his children, although he is not shown anywhere trying to be a father and role model to them. This is a manifestation of what Hirschi and Gottfredson term as parents not being there to punish the deviant behaviors in their children. The children are not attached to their parents enough to develop their self-control, since even the parents appear to be deviant and possess criminal tendencies. Many of the White children died at a young age in violent circumstances all stemming from crime. Violence, according to Hirschi and Gottfredson, is a characteristic of low self control (Piquero, MacDonald & Cullen, 2005). The justification of the self control theory that explains the occurrence of crime among persons of all age and both sexes is also seen among the members of the White family. All of them, male and female, young and old, are portrayed as enjoying unlawful activities including murder, robberies and drug abuse, even if only for the sake of the moment. Kirk, a niece to the Whites, admits that she loves fighting, while another young man is in prison. The extent of criminality in the family is also seen when Kirk says that she stabbed her husband as her seven year old son cheers her on. None of the White family members can muster enough self control to hold back spontaneous reactions, and each of them has vowed to kill anyone who as much as looks at them in a way they do not like. This shows that, apart from self-control, they are not bothered by the consequences of their actions, let alone their legality. One male (Hastings) who became a member of the family by virtue of being the boyfriend of the first borne daughter also finds himself involved in crime even though no previous history of him in crime is given. But from an analytic point of view, it can only be concluded that Hastings met the lady under conditions of crime, since she is shown to have been involved in it throughout her life. Therefore, Hastings must have had illegal opportunities to commit crime prior to his meeting the lady, even if the movie does not show his participation. However, according to Hirschi and Gottfredson’s theory, opportunity is not as much of an influence as self-control. Therefore, when he came into the family, it is only the environment that changed, and opportunity remained as illegal as what he must have gone through before. His self control is what succumbed to the opportunity and led to his involvement in crime, including the killing of his girlfriend’s father. In conclusion, the General Theory of Crime as presented by Hirschi and Gottfredson justifies the theory of self control, which expounds on the notion of juvenile delinquency stemming primarily from family control and social influences. The association of child and adult criminality are drawn against internal factors of self control and self concept (Akers & Sellers, 2004). The theory shows that although children may be more influenced by external and social factors than internal forces, the internal factors become more significant in determining the odds against conformity on their part away from supervision. As adults, they will have more of their own power to determine their involvement in crime than they will have family or social control, which are external factors. If self-control can be exercised in all situations at all times, the role of social control will have less significant and consequential effects in an individual. References Akers, R., & Sellers, C. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (4th ed.). California: Roxbury Publishing. Arrigo, B. & Williams, R. (2006). Philosophy, crime and criminology. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Bohm, R. (2001). A primer on crime and delinquency theory. California: Wadsworth. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. California: Sage. Piquero, A., MacDonald, A., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 55?70. Shoemaker, D. (2000). Theories of delinquency. New York: Oxford University Press. Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F.T., & Agnew, R. (2006). Why is “bad” parenting criminogenic?: Implications from rival theories. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4(1), 3?33. Read More