A Well-rounded Argument of Crime
Text
General Theory of Crime
In the relatively short period of time since its publication, A General Theory of Crime (1990) has seemed to attract an impressive amount of attention from criminologists. Travis Hirschi, in collaboration with Michael Gottfredson, moved away from his classic social bonding formulation of control theory and developed A General Theory of Crime (1990). In Hirschi’s original social bonding theory (1969), he emphasized the importance of “indirect control”—which allows parents to have a “psychological presence” when youths are not under their surveillance, additionally, this theory contained four elements of control: attachment, commitment, involvement, and beliefs. However, Gottfredson and Hirschi argue “direct control” is the key to the most effective parenting. For this reason, they proposed a theory of crime based solely on one type of control alone—self-control. They offer self-control theory as a generalized theory that explains all individual differences in the “propensity” to refrain from or to commit crime, which they point out includes all acts of crime and deviance at all ages, and circumstances (Akers and Sellers, 2004:122). Gottfredson and Hirschi begin with the observation that: In gods eyes anything is possible with the general theory of crime. Individual differences in the tendency to commit criminal acts… remain reasonably stable with change in the social location of individuals and change in their knowledge of the operation of sanction systems. This is the problem of self-control, the differential tendency of people to avoid criminal acts whatever the circumstances in which they find themselves. Since this difference among people has attracted a wide variety of names, we begin by arguing the merits of the concept of self-control (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 87). Criminology Wiki Popular pages Most visited articles Works Cited 1 Community On the Wiki Contribute General Theory of Crime 52pages on this wiki Add New Page Edit Talk0 Share In the relatively short period of time since its publication, A General Theory of Crime (1990) has seemed to attract an impressive amount of attention from criminologists. Travis Hirschi, in collaboration with Michael Gottfredson, moved away from his classic social bonding formulation of control theory and developed A General Theory of Crime (1990). In Hirschi’s original social bonding theory (1969), he emphasized the importance of “indirect control”—which allows parents to have a “psychological presence” when youths are not under their surveillance, additionally, this theory contained four elements of control: attachment, commitment, involvement, and beliefs. However, Gottfredson and Hirschi argue “direct control” is the key to the most effective parenting. For this reason, they proposed a theory of crime based solely on one type of control alone—self-control. They offer self-control theory as a generalized theory that explains all individual differences in the “propensity” to refrain from or to commit crime, which they point out includes all acts of crime and deviance at all ages, and circumstances (Akers and Sellers, 2004:122). Gottfredson and Hirschi begin with the observation that: In gods eyes anything is possible with the general theory of crime. Individual differences in the tendency to commit criminal acts… remain reasonably stable with change in the social location of individuals and change in their knowledge of the operation of sanction systems. This is the problem of self-control, the differential tendency of people to avoid criminal acts whatever the circumstances in which they find themselves. Since this difference among people has attracted a wide variety of names, we begin by arguing the merits of the concept of self-control (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 87). First, it should be noted that Gottfredson and Hirschi differentiate between “criminality,” which is the propensity to offend, and “crime,” which is an actual event in which a law is broken. They recognize that a propensity cannot be acted on unless the opportunity to do so exists. Consequently, they see crime as a by-product of people with low self-control, who have high criminogenic propensities, coming into contact with illegal opportunities. Still, given the most offenses are easy to commit and opportunities for crime are constantly available, over time people with low self-control inevitably will become deeply involved in criminal behavior. That is, self-control, not opportunities, will be the primary determinant of people’s involvement in crime across their life course (Agnew and Cullen, 1999:175). It is seen that low self-control develops early in life and remains stable into and through adulthood. Gottfredson and Hirschi trace the root cause of poor self-control to inadequate childrearing practices. Parents or guardians who refuse or who are unable to monitor a child’s behavior, who do not recognize deviant behavior when it occurs, and who do not punish that behavior will produce children who lack self-control. As Dennis Giever explains, “children who are not attached to their parents, who are poorly supervised, and whose parents are criminal or deviant themselves are the most likely to develop poor self control” (1995). Consequently, a lack of self-control occurs naturally in a child when steps are not taken to stop its development.
Building the Foundation for a Side-by-Side Explanatory Model: A General Theory of Crime, the Age-Graded Life Course Theory, and Attachment Theory
Abstract A general theory of crime and the age-graded life-course theory are considered disparate explanatory models of the development of criminal behavior. However, both can be linked in a side-by-side fashion utilizing John Bowlby's theory of attachment. Early theoretical work by Travis Hirschi and Delbert Elliott discussed the necessity of theoretical integration to more thoroughly explain multiple pathways leading to deviance without reconciling divergent theoretical assumptions. Using a longitudinal sample of four hundred and eleven men, this research finds that self-control is not a time stable trait and that attachments to coworkers in early adulthood act as constraints on low self-control, leading to desistance.
Gottfredson and Hirschi: A General Theory of Crime
In the late twentieth century, Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi took on the criminal justice and criminological culture by questioning the concept of the career criminal. They challenged to a large extent the life course and developmental criminology theories of the time. In their important work, A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi assert that the propensity to commit crime is tied directly to a person’s level of self-control. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, individuals with low self-control are unable to restrain themselves from the temptations of immediate satisfaction (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Giving notice to classical rational theories, Gottfredson and Hirschi explain that self-interest motivates human behavior and further reflects a universal desire to secure pleasures and avoid pain. They conclude that the amount of self-control someone exhibits is a product of early childhood rearing and that low self-esteem is the primary cause of crime (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Parents who monitor the behavior of their children, supervise them closely, recognize unacceptable behavior, and administer punishment are, therefore, more likely to have children who have the self-control necessary to resist the desire to commit crime. The empirical literature supports Gottfredson and Hirschi’s claim that low self-control has a link to crime or deviance. Harold Grasmick has further developed the theory of self-control. By identifying characteristics of people with low self-control (Grasmick, et al, 1993), Grasmick contends that such individuals are impulsive and seek immediate gratification. Accordingly, Grasmick maintains that individuals with higher self-control are more likely to pursue lasting rewards in lieu of instant pleasure. During the 1990s, dozens of studies explored the utility of self-control theory. Travis Pratt and Frances Cullen conducted a meta-analysis of self-control theory. They confirmed that low self-control was an important predictor of crime and criminal behavior (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). In addition, Carter Hay (2006) studied the role of parenting in the development of self-control and concluded that effective parenting can contribute to self-control in children. Hay revealed that Gottfredson and Hirschi failed to adequately consider the nature of parenting (Hay, et al, 2006). In terms of punishment, Hay found that fair and nonphysical forms of discipline were effective while harsh discipline was not effective (Hay, et al, 2006). An alternative study by Brenda Blackwell and Alex Piquero attempted to explain the relationship between gender and criminality (2005). According to their research, males are more likely to exemplify low self-control than females. The authors conclude that this is due differences in the treatment of boys and girls during early childhood development. Blackwell and Piquero (2005) assert that boys are typically shown less affection and comforted less than girls because of the cultural aspects of the masculine gender role. In recent years, criminologists have provided several criticisms of self-control theory, including its tautological nature. The theory hypothesizes that low self-control is the cause of the propensity toward criminal behavior, yet Gottfredson and Hirschi do not define self-control separately from this propensity. They use the terms “low self-control" and “high self-control" as labels for this differential propensity to commit crime (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). They do not identify operational measures of low self-control as separate from the tendency to commit crime. Thus, the propensity toward crime and low self-control appear to be one and the same. Another criticism of self-control theory is its lack of explanation for white-collar crime. Michael Benson and Elizabeth Moore (1992) studied offenders charged with white-collar crimes, such as embezzlement and tax evasion, and compared them to offenders charged with more common crimes, such as property and drug offenses. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, all criminal offenders commit crimes because of low self-control and have the same propensity to engage in deviant behavior. Benson and Moore (1992) found that some white-collar offenders are similar to common crime offenders, but they do not necessarily engage in deviant behavior as frequently. Moreover, contrary to the theory, white-collar offenders clearly differ from other types of offenders both in versatility and proclivity to deviance. In their research, Gottfredson and Hirschi attempt to account for the policy implications of self-control. According to their theory, official actions taken to deter or control crime in adulthood are no likely to have much affect (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Self-control is the result of early socialization in the family and, therefore, only preventative policies that take effect early in life and have a positive impact retain a chance of reducing crime and delinquency. Gottfredson and Hirschi do not, however, present any new research with general or detailed tests of their theory. The policy implications suggested by Gottfredson and Hirsch warrant further research. According to their theory, an individual can only be prevented from the tendency to commit crime. The theory implies that once a person engages in deviant behavior, whether one time or habitually, he or she cannot be deterred from it. This concept suggests the irrational belief that anyone who commits a crime is destined to always commit crime. The self-control theory directly contradicts the rehabilitation aspect of correctional psychology. Compliant with the self-control theory, individuals who have committed a crime cannot be rehabilitated through treatments such as counseling or behavior modification (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory is reasonably consistent and has the capacity to aid in predicting criminal and deviant susceptibility. While some research reports challenge the theory, all in all the evidence provide some support for the theory. However, sufficient research has not been conducted to justify the empirical validity of self-control theory.
Knowledge Graph
Examples
1 Secondly, the general theory of crime is related to a number of elements that are included in the theory of routine activities because just like other uncontrolled acts, crimes are not planned and it is easy for individuals with low self-esteem to be easily motivated to commit such acts.
2 The general theory of crime of Gottfredson and Hirschi also considers the fundamental argument regarding age and the unlawful act.
3 Their general theory of crime also describes that criminals continue to perform unlawful acts of crime even during marriage and eventually end up as unmarried criminals.