Gottfredson And Hirschi

Akers & Sellers (2013) noted that there are various common theories that are pertinent to the study of crime as the extents of crime explanations range from the genetic/biological through to the economic and social perspective. Howitt (2012) divided these theories into four categories: macro-level or societal theories; locality or community level theories; group and socialisation influence theories; and individual level theories. This essay first describes the major theories of crime in the discussion section, which also discusses the impacts of crime at the individual and societal level, followed by conclusion based on the previous discussion.

Sociological theories of crime contain a great deal of useful information in the understanding of criminal behavior. Sociological theories are very useful in the study of criminal behavior because unlike psychological and biological theories they are mostly macro level theories which attempt to explain rates of crime for a group or an area rather than explaining why an individual committed a crime. (Kubrin, 2012). There is however some micro level sociological theories of crime that attempts to explain the individual’s motivation for criminal behavior (Kubrin, 2012). Of the contemporary

It is unfortunate that crime exists in our daily lives. There really is no way to stopping crime completely, no matter how many laws or punishment are present, people will continue to keep breaking rules. There are many theories of why that may be the case, for example, Caesar Lombroso and his “atavistic” theory with the Positivist School theory and how people were “born criminals”, or the Rational Choice Theory, devised by Cornish and Clarke, described that people could think rationally and how people will naturally avoid pain and seek pleasure referred to as “hedonism” (Cartwright, 2017, lecture 4). Since it is apparent that crime will continue to exist, it is not only important to understand the study of crime and the feedbacks to it,

In 1990, a new theory was brought to the public’s eye, which is able to explain all types of crime at all times. This new theory was called the theory of low self-control otherwise known as the general theory of crime. Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson were the two theorists that came together to the form general theory of crime. The theory recognized that many individuals are not always born well. These individuals are “born predisposed toward selfish, self-centered,

This is highly evident in the city of Chicago and its suburbs because in the inner city in some places the homicide rate is 116/100,000 but in suburbs like Naperville the homicide rate is 1/100,000. So there must be something about the ecological differences in which people live that shapes their choices in the first place. One reason there is a great difference in the rates of crime in places that are so proximal to each other is the norms and beliefs that are upheld in that community. For example, in the inner city many people commit crimes due to the “street culture” that in a way provides an incentive to commit the crime if they want to have the lavish styles that their peers are part of. So in reality, it is difficult to determine a single force that drives a criminal to commit a certain crime. Hence, it has been difficult for the criminal justice system to implement programs and control methods in order to control crime. For example, if the criminal did act on rationality than implementing harsher punishments would deter the criminal from committing the crime. However, this control method has provided mix results and in some cases crime has even gone up more when harsher penalties were implemented. This is partially because some criminals don’t act on just rationality but on uncontrollable forces as well. Finally, there is some criminals that don’t even care about the consequences of committing the crime and only think about the

1. The theories and perspectives in this unit focus on the environmental and social influence of crime. Do you think that environmental and social conditions influence crime? Why or why not? Between biological, psychological, and social factors, which one do you think plays the biggest role in crime? Why?

theory has experienced empirical support as a means to explain crime from adult and youth

Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.

(Torrence, 2016) "The psychological theory uses the biology of the brain to explain the intelligence, in large measures, which determines an individual’s ability to control or restrain their impulses; therefore, most crime is caused by individuals unable to control their impulses" (Bohm & Vogel, 2011, p. 53). The psychological theory assumes that crimes are the result of abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual. (Seiken, 2016) "Therefore, it is believed that criminal behavior may be purposeful for the individual because it addresses individual felt needs" (Torrence, 2016, para. 27).

Gottfredson and Hirschi started with the concept that low self-control was the underlying establishment of criminal behavior and that low self-control was the result of parents failing to supervise their children, failing to recognize their deviant behavior, and failing to punish and correct the behaviors when they occur (Cullen, Francis, Robert Agnew, and Pamela Wilcox, 2014).

There are also many perspectives related to these theories including the biological and physiological perspective of explaining crime. The biological perspective tend to suggest that mankind commits crime because of several factors, which include; brain damage, head trauma, blood abnormalities, genetic predispositions, hormonal imbalance, brain abnormalities, hypoglycemia, lack of neurotransmitters in the brain and fetal alcohol syndrome (Canter, 2014). Theories of deviant behavior emanating from biological explanations are not widely accepted more so in the field of criminology, since criminologists center academically on social sciences. This is more so because the society of today perceives biological explanations as if they tend to suggest “hopelessness” (Sutherland et al, 1992). This is an assumption that is totally misguided bearing in mind that the brain is the center of personalities as well as

This reading was about the nature of criminality viewing the low self-control. One of the points that I took for the theory was that the differences remain reasonably stable with a change in the social location of individuals and change in their knowledge of the operation of sanction systems when it comes to committing criminal acts. It was shocking to read that Gottfredson felt that the major benefit of many crimes was not pleasure but relief from momentary irritation. From what I got from the reading people who commit the crime in adulthood won’t change. That being because of their perspective that those with low self-control can be predicted from crime at any earlier stage of life. And if parents or peers don’t intervene it will just end

Crime has existed in societies across the world for centuries, and is defined as any offense harmful against the public. However, the true nature of crime is more complex as there are many different motives and causes behind a criminal act, which cannot be contributed to a single factor (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Within the field of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why some individuals commit crime, while others abstain from it. Some theories attribute crime to the specific environment; they believe that an individual commits crime when certain ecological conditions are met (Felson, 2001). Others argue that crime is caused by the individual themselves; that criminals are the result of unrestrained thoughts and low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). This paper will analyze aspects of a real world scenario using both routine activity theory and low self-control theory, for the purpose of better understanding and evaluating certain criminal behavior.

First off, there have been ample amounts of disapproval in relation to the general theory of crime, because many scholars feel that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) failed to include the

It is possible to consider the notion that some people may be more predisposed to committing a criminal behaviour or could become a criminal by committing an offence (Gottfredson, Hirschi 1990). For example, people in certain areas have a higher rate of crime. This higher crime rate in those areas seems to remain constant over time (Hayes, Prenzler, 2009). There may be many reasons influencing this phenomenon including socio-economic, and the limited resources associated with this (including less money and fewer services). This may be a factor contributing to the reason people living in these areas become a criminal – that is, to survive (Baumer & Gustafson, 2007).