Sampson and Laub's Life Course Perspective Theory - Essay Example

Running Head: SAMPSON AND LAUB’S LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE THEORY SAMPSON AND LAUB’S LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE THEORY Introduction The study of crime and the underlying causes of criminal behavior have often preoccupied many researchers. The interest in these subjects is not surprising considering that crime present an impediment to the enjoyment of society of the benefits of progress that advanced civilization has brought to society. This interest and study has engendered a host of theories and schools of thought regarding the motivations of crime. Among those that have emerged from the many researches and studies made are the Social Control Theories that stresses on the role and function of social institutions, values and beliefs that help control and dissuade potential criminals from committing crimes. The Social Control Theories is an umbrella of various theories written and formulated by several researchers and sociologists, one of which is the Life Course Perspective Theory by the tandem of Sampson and Laub (1992). This theory is distinct from other theories within this umbrella not only because it does not subscribe to some of the principles adhered to by the theorists of the Social Control school of thought, but also because of its potential broader utility in the study of criminology. Sampson and Laub’s Life Course Perspective Sampson and Laub (1992) formulated a theory that seeks to remedy the ‘either or focus’ of researchers in explaining the origin of criminal behavior, one that attempts to resolve two opposing research findings by harmonizing them. Calling this theory life course perspective, these two researchers observed that one group of researchers emphasizes youth in crime in a theory called age-crime curve where criminality starts and peaks during teen years while the other group believes that criminal behavior persists even in adulthood. The ‘overemphasis’ of these two groups on their respective theories result in the failure of sociologists, as a whole, to link childhood propensity to criminality to adult criminal behavior. Life course perspective, which Sampson and Laub (1992) defined as “pathways through the age differentiated life span” (p. 65), synchronizes the aforesaid theories by taking a comprehensive view of the criminal behavior from childhood to adulthood particularly noting the various events that incite changes in the course of an individual’s and affects criminal propensity. The life course perspective is a theory under the broad umbrella of social control theory, but differs from all others in the group by advocating, not for a single factor, but for a more comprehensive multi-factor underpinnings of criminal behavior (Sacco & Kennedy p. 74). It is underpinned by two elements: trajectories, and; transitions. Trajectories, according to Sampson and Laub (1992), are the general direction that an individual is expected to take on the basis of his overall pattern of behavior while transitions are significant life events that occur in a person’s life that cause changes in the general trajectory of his life. Furthermore, life events, however significant, may or may not cause transitional change, but depends on “timing, duration and ordering of major life events and their consequences for later social development” (p. 66). The way a person reacts to a significant life event is underpinned, according to this theory, to his childhood past, but also acknowledges that events in themselves can be a cause for a redirection of life trajectory. Overall, the life course perspective concerns itself with the study of life trajectories, the connection between childhood and adult behavior, the social implication of age, the transmission of social patterns from one generation to another, and the effects of significantly big events such as international catastrophes (Sampson & Laub, p. 66). Sampson and Laub’s (1992) theory necessarily departs from the general theory of crime of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990). In the latter, it is hypothesized that there is no need to scrutinize differences in criminal behavior to explain the underlying reasons of a person’s criminal behavior as criminality is merely a manifestation of a universal low self-control, which is applicable to all (Cartwright p. 155). Moreover, this theory believes that the age-crime curve is the same for all persons even under different circumstances, locations and economic strata and that therefore, life events have no or little bearing on individual criminal behavior. Gottfred and Hirschi (1990) therefore, do not subscribe to longitudinal studies as Sampson and Laub do. Sampson and Laub (1990) points out, however, that the stability of criminal behavior that the general theory of crime and similar traditional theories advocate stem not from factual justifications but from partialities of theorists and is insufficient to explain discontinuities in criminal behavior. Furthermore, Sampson and Laub (1990) believes that the supposed continuity in criminal behavior and pattern that make Gottfred and Hirschi (1990) justify reject the necessity of longitudinal studies of criminal behavior is mere relative stability, which does not necessarily engender constancy of behavior over time (Sampson & Laub pp. 65, 70, 73, 75-76, 78-79). The Life Course Perspective and Other Theories Sampson and Laub’s (1992) Life Course Perspective theory, as well as other theories such as the General Theory of Crime earlier discussed, is part of the Social Control Theories umbrella. This group of theories is distinct from other groups of criminal theories because of its emphasis on the factors that control crime rather than what factors lead to crime. These factors particularly dwell on social institutions, values and beliefs that help in the containment or control of crimes because of their effect on individuals. Some of these theories, aside from the two already mentioned are: the Containment Theory by reckless (1967); the Social Bond Theory by Hirschi (1969); the Power-Control Theory by Hagan (1989); the Interactional Theory by Thornberry (1987); Social Disorganization Theories by Shaw & McKay (Sacco & Kennedy pp. 67-77). On the other hand, the difference of Sampson and Laub’s (1992) theory from other Social Control theories is primarily that it does not hinge itself on one single factor, but on a host of any factor that can occur at any stage of a person’s life span that effect to control or redirect a person away from the criminal path. In Reckless’ Containment Theory, for example, he ascribed to family and social bonds as the elements that can help individuals gain self-control and veer away from crime, which resonates with Hagan’s Power Control Theory. Gottfredson and Hirsch, as earlier stated, attributes criminality to low self-control and Thornberry’s Interactional Theory subscribes to the idea that weakened bonds may lead a person susceptible to criminality. Finally, Shaw and McKay believe that the “breakdown in informal social controls caused by problems associated with rapid urbanization” is the underpinning culprit behind criminal behavior (Sacco & Kennedy pp. 67-75). Sampson and Laub (1992) likewise do not subscribe to the common belief of other criminologists that criminal behavior is, more or less, stable in a person’s life span – hence, once a criminal always a criminal. The two believe that an individual may and can deviate from criminal propensity given the right circumstances and because of the confluence of certain events and factors. For example, a rewarding employment or a good marriage can affect a person and dissuade him from committing crimes (Sacco & Kennedy p. 71). Another distinction noted by Cartwright (2010) on the Life Course Perspective theory of Sampson and Laub (1992) is that this theory not refuses to single out a factor as underpinning criminal behavior, but it also seeks to understand and explain how and why different factors influence a person’s decision to commit crime at particular times in his life. Cartwright correctly attributes Sampson and Laub’s (1992) emphasis on life-changing events to “social investment” that a person has taken on a particular relationship as the underpinning element that makes an event life-changing for the individual. He also praises the interpretative value of the Life Course Perspective theory as one that goes beyond individual cases and has utility in bigger and broader aspects such as statistics of specific crime rates in particular places. He cites as a specific example the Canadian rates of crime property for several decades as used by McMillan in 1995. Using the principle of Life Course Perspective, McMillan concluded that certain events, such as the propensity of young people to leave their homes early and marry late make them also less likely to connect to “networks of informal control.” This would likely lead, according to McMillan to an increase in criminality among males particularly. Furthermore, Cartwright believes that Sampson and Laub’s theory is useful in resolving a number of issues and problems in the field of criminology as shown in several instances in the past and illustrated by such criminologists as Kazemian and LeBlanc (2004) where the theory was used as an adjunct to the study of criminal events to show that changing patterns of criminal behavior from childhood to adulthood (pp. 164-165). Conclusion The Life Course Perspective Theory of Sampson and Laub (1992) is a Social Control Theory that is distinct from other theories of this class because of its non-adherence to a single factor that underpins criminal behavior or control of that behavior. The General Theory of Crime by Gottfredson and Hisch, for example, homes in on low self-control as the most possible factor that explains criminal behavior. Others attribute criminal behavior to the breakdown of social relations or the weakened social control. The advantage of the Life Course Perspective Theory is its potential use in a host of problems in criminology as illustrated by some researchers who utilized it to explain the increase and decrease of certain crimes in specific areas or clarify the underpinning reasons for the change of criminal patterns in certain stages of an individual’s life. References: Cartwright, B. (2010). Introduction to criminology: Study guide. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University. Sacco, V.F. & Kennedy, L.W. (2008). The criminal event: an introduction to criminology in Canada. Toronto: Thomas Nelson. Sampson, R. & Laub, J. (1992). ‘Crime and deviance in life course.’ Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 18:63-84. Read More