Criminological Perspectives Essay

Various variables in unitys life fundament contri only ife to deviant looks, which is analyzed and condoneed through supposition. These variables atomic number 18 but non limited to where one grows up, what type of people you march yourself with, season, gender, etc. The scenario that this essay im let forth prominently prefer to and use extensively passim this essay is close a male named Colin in his teens. When maturement up, he live on the bad side of town as opposed to close to of his friends who lived on the right side of town, and who were a dope to a greater extent privileged.Colin was from a weakened town that had many a nonher(prenominal) altercations relating to the youth of that community. there was nothing productive for Colin to do in the small town, which pillow slipd excessive ennui for him. Colin had been arrested at the age of 15 for stealing gas from a inhabits truck, charges were not laid, but the entire community knows of his transgression. A lso, Colin took the brunt of the responsibility for a theft in which he was not acting alone. Finally, at the age of 17, Colin left the small town behind and was accepted into a occupation college. Colins age, where he lives, and his criminal involvement at a green age pull up stakesing be the focus for the rest of the essay. In turn, this makeup is going to analyzing a youth from a small town, where there is turn out higher rates of horror, and explaining it using 2 theoretical theories.Thus, by examining the two most highly recognized theories in depth, the showtime egotism swan possible action and Akers fond scholarship guess, and analyzing their strengths and weaknesses, we can then experience to understand why certain aversions occur, particularly in Colins scenario. By exploring the Low Self harbor hypothesis, also known as the universal scheme of abhorrence, criminologists can explain why crime occurs. Low Self master Theory and its presumption about h uman behavior has been corporate into contrasting criminological theories all over the past decades (Wright, 2000). Low Self reserve Theory was created in 1990 by Gottfredson and Hirschi and expanded on the earlier working of Durkheim (1987), Reiss (1951) and also Hirschis (1969) earlier work on bonding.The speculation evolved to signify that monomania is the widely distributed c erstwhilept around which all of the known facts about crime can be organized (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). This possibility focuses on the own(prenominal)ity of crime that is crimes argon committed in the search of pleasure and evasion of pain (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The Low Self reckon Theory is understood to explain an undivideds tendency to perform or refrain from committing crimes, undecomposed as high abstemiousness explains an individuals likelihood of conforming to loving norms and laws (Akers, 1991, pg. 201). Gottfredson and Hirschi explain that the concept of self-control is a give awayed behavior (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).They note that individuals who be involved with crime also engage in behaviors that translate short-term gratification (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Speeding, unprotected sex, gambling, smoking, and drinking atomic number 18 a few examples of risky behaviors that whitethorn be evident in criminals who look immediate satisfaction (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The most prominent individual difference is ones self control or lack of which is composed of half-dozen elements impulsivity, risk taking, a preference for simple tasks, a preference for strong-arm activity, temper and finally self-centeredness (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The speculation then alludes that individuals who gull these psychological traits curb the opportunity to partake in criminal behaviors and ar more plausibly to participate in criminal activity (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Gottfredson and Hirschis (1990) theory has received attention fr om theorists and researchers (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, Arnekley, 1993).They focused on the proposition that self-control, adopted earlier in life, disapprovemines who will be likely to commit crimes (Grasmick et al, 1993). harmonise to Low Self Control Theory, children with behavioral problems tend to grow into delinquents and eventually into prominent offenders (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Gottfredson and Hirschi further argue that the level of self-control largely depends on the whole tone of parenting in a childs early years, as the cart track for or against crime happens early in life (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).Furthermore, the theory asserts that parenting is the most crucial factor, which will determine an individuals level of self-control. If a child has a neglectful procreation, he or she tends to take on the six-spot elements outlined by Low Self Control Theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Children whose parents provide adequate care and punish misconduct w ill develop the self-control needed and resist the easy temptations offered by crime. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Low Self Control Theory argues that a lack of self-control is neither a competent nor essential condition for crime to occur as other factors may offset an individuals likelihood of committing criminal acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).Although lack of self-control and the familys subprogram in its failed development do not designate that an individual will become deviant and take part in criminal events, it will provide situations that will make conditions favorable for immorality (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Gottfredson and Hirschi unmistakably identify the role of parents as the most essential cause of socialization for adolescent youths (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Hirsch has provided the dynamics of the familys important role in reducing the misadventures of childhood delinquency (Hirschi, 1995). As the Low Self Control Theory states, individuals who a re ineffectively parented prior to age 10 develop less self-control than their similarly aged and better-parented counterparts. This makes them prone to mobile and easy gratification when condition the opportunity (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990).Opportunity of crime is evident for individuals living in a small town, which is prone to crime. Partaking in variant types of crimes, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as Colin does, tend to be exciting, risky, or thrilling and they get an adventurous point of view. This is especially the case, since Colin is bored in a small town where no action is available to him. As most of the theory is focused on good parenting, and lack of opportunity, small communities will have a tough time deterring criminals in taking part in crime. However, having more police presence will deter individuals from committing crimes throughout the community, as the criminals will partake in crime as long as the opportunity presents itself. On the contrary, if the indi viduals are neglected as children or have been in an abusive household it will be extremely knockout to deter individuals to commit crimes.Colin has no friends to play with because he does not watch on the wealthy side of town which could bring about neglect, and/or his parents could be abusive or absent in his childhood years. Akers companionable attainment Theory consists of four key elements. Firstly, imitation refers to the score of which an individual mimics behaviour that others may admire. Whether or not the behaviour is imitated is touch by outside characteristics such as the characteristics of the model, the behaviour observed, and the observed consequences (Akers & Jenson, 2003). These individuals are more than likely to be people that have a personal relationship.Definitions refer to the level of approval individuals hold regarding ethical motive and laws as well as specific deviant behaviour. These definitions are both general (religious, moral) and specific (Akers & Jenson, 2003). Differential association is the third element of Akers social learning model as it refers to attitudes and patterns of behaviours, which are exposed in interaction with others (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). Differential association has both behavioural interactional and prescriptive dimensions (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). Finally, polarial reinforcement refers to the anticipated costs and rewards associated with an individuals given behaviour. An act or action that is considered to experience more rewards than costs is more likely to be performed or repeated (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001).In 1998, Akers promulgated a book entitled Social Learning and Social construction, where he expands further on Social Learning Theory by explaining crime rates as a function, called the Social Structure-Social Learning Theory. While, Social Learning Theory focuses on individual criminal behaviour, Social Structure-Social Learning focuses on the macro-level causes of crime stat ing that environments impact the individual through learning (Akers 1998). This theory has the same key principles as Social Learning Theory but due to criticism that he received, Akers elaborates on the topic. By examining the principles of Akerss theory, crime that takes pip in Colins scenario can be explained. Akers developed a theory that can be apply to many different types of criminals and crimes. However, it is best utilize to behavior within groups from which receive reinforcement such as gangs and social/peer groups (Akers, 1998).Furthermore, the theory can be applied to any crime that beings any kind of gain. The gain can admit positive attention from their group, or pleasure. In most cases an individual will learn behavior from others and then the behavior is reinforced. Taking into consideration when Colins participated in the theft with peers and took all of the blame for it once he was caught. As most of his friends are from the right side of town, and he is not, he may have felt draw from the upper class to take blame. Also, if crime is being committed in a small town and individuals are witnessing it, it can give other criminals the opportunity to join in as the police work loads double, the chances of getting caught for committing a crime decreases.As per Social Learning Theory, Akers states that if the risk is the worth the reward than an individual will proceed in committing crimes. Thus, soul Akers 4 elements of social learning and applying them to Colins scenario will give individuals a better chance of successfully avoiding crime. However, the only effective way to do so is to deter criminals by adding the use of security cameras, added police forces, and making examples out of those individuals who are caught. Which is not what happened when Colin was caught for stealing gas out of his neighbors truck. If he were to be make an example out of, the likelihood of it happening again would be low. come out of the two approaches that ar e being examined, I believe for the example for Colins scenario that the Low Self Control Theory is more convincing in explaining the opportunities of committing crime. Although Low Self Control Theory can be applied to the situation, Akers Social Learning Theory gives a better discernment of when and why individuals would commit crimes in small towns, such as where Colin is from. As the individuals involved do not necessarily have to have a criminal past, through imitation of their peers and the other elements of social learning, can haunt to committing crimes. Other factors that can be included are alcohol, drugs, and peer pressure but as long as the behavior is positively enforced, the individuals will take part in it.Akers Social Learning Theory provides a micro perspective on why individual offenders judge to commit specific crimes people choose to engage in crime because it can be rewarding, easy, satisfying, fun, and in this case, entertaining. Most of the individuals that would be taking place in these crimes would be heavily influenced be external factors and may comely fall under the gang mentality. Although both theories have been studied throughout the history of criminology and continue to be expanded, there are many strengths and weaknesses that can be examined. The Low Self Control Theory has received many criticisms as Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that there is only one type of offender and only a single factor, which causes crime.Many researchers found that there are various paths that criminals can take (Goode, 2008). People behave criminally at a different speed than others, commit different types of crimes, and have different external influences that contribute to the behavior (Goode, 2008). Moreover, Low Self Control Theory argues that criminal tendency is unable to change. Therefore, according to this theory, an individuals constitution and behavioral patterns will also never change over the stemma of a lifetime. However, research shows that life altering events and traditional events such as starting or finishing school, abusing drugs, recovering from drugs, and beginning or goal personal relationships, all clearly impact the probability of behaving criminally (Goode, 2008). This applies to Colins scenario, as he may change his criminal ways once being committed to school.On the contrary, Gottfredson and Hirschi were quite popular in the views of American criminologists in the early 1990s. As they identified parenting as the most important factor in determining the likelihood that a person will commit crimes, child rearing became an important factor for parents. Despite untold criticism, the body of empirical tests of the general theory of crime has been fairly reconciled in revealing a link between self-control and crime.Studies have shown that individuals with higher self-control are less likely to engage in criminal activity (Goode, 2008). In the context of Colins scenario, the weaknesses that can be exploited is that individuals that are not necessarily criminals may take part in criminal activity due to a number of external factors that have been presented in this paper. These individuals may have had a great upbringing from their parents, but failed to make a positive decision, such as out of boredom.Akers Social Learning Theory has also received criticisms over the years although it is not nearly as much as Gottfredson and Hirschi. According to many criminologists, Social Learning Theory does not provide relevant advice for controlling or preventing crime (Jeffery, 1990). It does explain how criminal behavior is genetic from one person to another, which can explain increases in types of crimes. The theory does not address the issue of how crime can be prevented (Jeffery, 1990). Moreover, Akers work is that it ignores the role of opportunity in criminal behavior (Jeffery, 1990).The assumption that people who learn criminal behavior must have come into contact with such beha vior is the base of the theory. However, the theory does not explain exactly how a person comes into contact with people exhibiting criminal behavior (Jeffery, 1990). Akers has provided counter arguments or explained why the criticisms are not valid. The criticism that social learning theory ignores social context was dealt with in the expansion of social learning theory to social context-social learning theory.Gottfredson and Hirschis Low Self Control Theory and Akers Social Learning Theory are not likely to be integrated. Colvins Differential Coercion Theory combines elements from both theories (and others) and applies them in the context of his own. However, Akers heavily criticizes Gottfredson and Hirschis Low Self Control Theory and the key components that make up that theory.Therefore, I do not believe it is possible to integrate both theories while keeping the primary(prenominal) concepts together. To conclude, Low Self Control Theory and Social Learning Theory both provide exceptional analysis of Colins scenario. By understanding the key concepts of the Low Self Control Theory and Social Learning Theory, the explanation of where and why crime occurs would give reassurance to individuals of Colins town. By comparability and contrasting these two theories, an individual can apply them to how growing up in a small town might affect them and potentially provide methods and opportunities to deflect crime.ReferencesAkers, Ronald L. (1998). Social Learning and Social Structure A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Boston Northeastern University PressAkers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2003). Social learning theory and the explanation of crime a guide for the natural century. New Brunswick, N.J. Transaction.Akers, Ronald L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. diary of Quantitative Criminology. 7(2), 201-211.Akers, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure a general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, N.J. Transaction Publishers .Clarke, Ronald V. (1995). Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice, Vol. 19, Building a Safer Society Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention (1995), pp. 91-150Goode, E. (2008). knocked out(p) of control assessing the general theory of crime.Stanford, Calif. Stanford Social SciencesGrasmick, Harold G., Charles R. Tittle, Robert J. Bursik Jr, and Bruce J. Arneklev (1993)..Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschis General Theory of Crime, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 305-29.Hirschi, Travis. (1995). The Family. In James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia (eds.). Crime. (pp.121-140). San Francisco Institute for Contemporary Studies.Jeffery, C. Ray. (1990). Criminology. New Jersey prentice Hall.Paternoster, R., Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining criminals and crime essays in contemporary criminological theory. Los Angeles, Calif. Roxbury Pub. Co.Wright, Richard.A (2000) Recent Changes in the Most-Cited Scholars in Criminology A Com parison of Textbooks and Journals. Journal of Criminal Justice.