Self-Control,Social Consequences,and Criminal Behavior - Term Paper Example

Crime In the modern world, crime has developed many definitions and universally agreed upon definitions do not exist. One definition of crime is acts which go against societal norms and which a state has the right to punish in order to achieve deterrence. In circumstances where sanctions and informal warning have become inefficient in the deterrence of crime, responsibility of punishing individuals for criminal acts lies with the state. This formalization of crime deterrence involves such practices as the use of incarceration as well probation as a means ensuring that those individuals who commit crime are not only punished but also discouraged from committing similar acts. Crime has many diverse definitions and instances and these include conditions for its development, victims of criminal acts, circumstances under which it occurs, and many others. According to Baron (2003), whether an individual commits a crime or not depends on the level of self-control that he possesses. He theorises that in most circumstances, those individuals who commit crime tend to be those that lack any sort of self-control and this makes them develop impulsive behaviours that make them take risks for the thrill that they are going to derive from it. One would agree with Baron and argue that self-control is a character that individuals develop from childhood and it is strengthened as individuals grow into adulthood. However, Baron fails to mention that it is those children who are not taught self-control that they grow up into individuals who do not develop skills that enable them to regulate their behaviour from an early age and these develop a high potential for committing crimes simply because they cannot control their impulses. This statement is especially related to a number of criminals who have a background of childhood where there was a lack of self-discipline and these more often than not ended up getting into delinquent activities, which later turned them into hardened criminals later in their lives. One would therefore conclude that ineffective childrearing rather than socialization and a lack of positive learning have been blamed for the impulsive behaviours of those individuals who are likely to commit crimes. Leverentz (2012), states that different places, namely neighbourhoods or districts, more often than not determine the prevalence of criminal activities within them. He further states that in most instances of crime, media points out the place where it has occurred and through this determines why it took place. In agreement with Leverents, one would argue that media has over the years developed stereotypes of black or Latino neighbourhoods as being more prone to crime than other areas. Media has come to associate these neighbourhoods with crime because of the massive poverty as well as the persistent belief that people of colour are more prone to committing crime than people of European descent. A result of such negative views is that whenever crimes take place in black and Latino neighbourhoods, it is often taken for granted that it was more likely to happen than not and that it was a normal occurrence. Harding (1994) seems to agree with Leverentz that media has played a significant role in ensuring that both residents and the public believe that crime is to be expected in poorer neighbourhoods, which are occupied by black, and Latino communities. However, he goes further by arguing that media has also developed a perspective among many in the public that crimes taking place in white and middle-class areas are to be completely unexpected. Therefore, according to the views taken by Leverentz and Harding, one would argue that criminal activities have been given an economic perspective through the actions of media, which often sensationalize criminal activities that take place in poorer neighbourhoods and fail to give the same significance to those that take place in well-to-do areas. Van Dijk (2009) declares that western conception of victims of crime is very restricting on them because it creates an impression that they were passive in the events that happened to them. This is especially true considering that many languages of European origin have definitions of victim, which mean sacrificial animal or lamb. In relation to this perspective, an argument can be made that such meanings ascribe to victims an aura of passivity where they did not have any choice or that they willingly chose not to do anything to resist the perpetrators of crimes against them. Abrams, Viki, Masser and Bohner (2003), seem to agree with Van Dijk by pointing out that because of the negative meanings associated with victims, a large number of victims develop problems in recovering from incidents of crime such as rape. One would argue that victims develop problems in recovery especially in the case where because of their portrayal as passive individuals, victims increasingly prefer to be distanced from the idea of victimhood and this is especially true of circumstances where society values strong independent individuals. Moreover Lusignan (2007) argues that in some situations, victims choose not to report incidents of crimes against them in fear that they will be seen as helpless; a circumstance which might lead to their laying low self-esteem as well as developing an unreasoning fear that they might become victims again. One would agree with Lusignan’s argument and would go further by stating that a number of high profile individuals who are victims of crime tend to publicly distance themselves from victimhood which can be considered to be a strong statement of their desire to continue living their lives without the weight of their passivity. This argument is especially true in instances where many individuals choose to consider themselves as survivors rather than as victims because the latter, in most languages, carries with it an aura of passivity, which is not in line with modern, independent thinking. Thus, the arguments made by Van Dijk (2009), Abrams, Viki, Masser and Bohner (2003) and Lusignan (2007) end up with the same conclusion; that the negative meanings of victim in language makes it difficult for them to cope with their situation and that most victims are even in a state of denial. Polinsky (1980), argues that when a government criminalizes certain actions, it does so for taking pre-emptive action against those individuals who might cause harm to others. He further suggests that despite criminalization taking place, many in society tend to take extremely different views concerning the subject. Polinsky’s argument has validity because the state is the only institution that takes an active part in developing and implementing criminalization since it has the necessary resources to investigate and bring criminals to justice. Moreover, one would argue that the state takes an active part in criminalization because even though individuals might recognize their own roles as victims, it would be extremely difficult for them to attain redress because they do not have resources to carry out investigations. This argument is further validated by Garkawe (2001), who argues that without state protection, victims might end up feeling intimidated by perpetrators of crime because of fear that they might become targets of retaliation from criminals. Therefore, one would agree with both Polinsky and Garkawe that the state plays a significant role in ensuring protection for victims as well as carrying out investigations to ensure that criminals are prosecuted and punished. This is because as an important aspect of crime prevention or deterrence, the state has come to take a central role in ensuring that there are enough resources available to not only investigate crimes, but also to make possible punishment of criminals since individuals in society by themselves cannot undertake such a process. However, Polinsky and Garkawe fail to show that there is a deficiency in the state’s role in criminalisation since despite its primary role in crime deterrence; there are instances where the state might choose to criminalize minor actions for the sake of ensuring it gains more revenue through collection of fines. In this manner, one would argue that it might end up infringing on the rights of its citizens in a bid to raise extra revenue through its justice system. In conclusion, crime can be considered one of the most significant issues that affect societies today. As has been seen above, there are numerous circumstances, which influence individuals to commit crimes, and one of these is a lack of self-control. Furthermore, as a result of media influence, poorer neighbourhoods have come to be perceived as areas which are more prone to criminal activities than in neighbourhoods occupied by whites and the middle class. Moreover, the definition of victimhood in most languages makes it extremely difficult for victims to develop an acceptance of their situation, especially in the modern world where individuals prefer to be viewed as being highly independent in nature. In addition, the criminalization process has an effect on how individuals conduct themselves in society because there are instances where even minor actions can be criminalized and these carry fines for offenders rather than jail time. Finally, crime, despite its numerous definitions and its prevalence in society is a reality, which has to be studied even more extensively in a multidisciplinary perspective in order to attain lasting solutions for it. References Abrams, D., Viki, G.T., Masser, B., and Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84. pp.111–125. Baron, S.W. (2003) Self-­‐Control,Social Consequences,and Criminal Behavior: Street Youth and the General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 40(4). pp.403 - 425. Garkawe, S. (2001) Modern Victimology: Its Importance, Scope and Relationship with Criminology. Acta Criminologica. 14(2). pp. 90–99 Harding, R. (1994) Victimisation, Moral Panics, and the Distortion of Criminal Justice Policy. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 6. pp.27-42 Leverentz, A. (2012) Narratives of Crime and Criminals: How PlacesSocially Construct the Crime Problem. Sociological Forum. 27(2). pp.348 - 371. Lusignan, R. (2007) Risk Assessment and Offender–Victim relationship in Juvenile Offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 51(4). pp.433 - 443. Polinsky, A.M. (1980) Private versus Public Enforcement of Fines. The Journal of Legal Studies. 9(1). pp.105–127. Van Dijk , J. (2009) Free the Victim:A Critiqueof the Western Conception of Victimhood. International Review of Victimology. 16(1). pp.1 - 33. Read More