The General Theory Of Crime Essay

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.

This essay will outline how crime theories are able to assist in recognizing the causes of criminal activity, as well as demonstrating two criminological theories to two particular crimes. Overviews of trends, dimensions and victim/offenders characteristics of both crime groups will be specified. The two particular crimes that will be demonstrated throughout this essay are; Violent Crime (focusing on Assault) being linked with social learning theory and White Collar crime (focusing on terrorism) being linked to General Strain theory. In criminology, determining the motive of why people commit crimes is crucial. Over the years, many theories have been developed and they continue to be studied as criminologists pursue the best answers in eventually diminishing certain types of crime including assaults and terrorism, which will be focused on.

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

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,

Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a

Crime is a social construction, and behaviour defined as criminal varies across time and place. Crime is an act that violate moral behaviour, but why is that not all behaviours that violate moral behaviour are labelled as crime? This is because crime is defined differently across different societies and different times. Neutralisation and drift theory helps us to explain why people abuse children by showing us how perpetrators rationalise their guilt for these actions before they physically, sexually, emotionally abuse or neglect children. They do this by blaming their actions on other people, higher forces or believing their acts are harmless. In this essay I will begin by talking about crime as a social construction then touch on child abuse in New Zealand followed by a discussion of how my social contract theory helps us to explain this crime.

The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.

To this day, there are several questions that have remained unanswered when talking about their theory. As well as criticisms. The general crime theory has failed to address ecological patterns in the crime rate. There is not a lot of evidence of regional differences in self control or impulsivity. The views of Gottfredson and Hirschi is that opportunity is controlled by culture and the economy. Something that was not recognized by the general crime theory is that environments can interact with personality to shape behaviors.

In their influential book, A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that people with low self-control are inclined to antisocial behaviors and/or imprudent behaviors, such as substance use, accidents, careless driving etc. They also draw a general behavioral framework for those individuals arguing that they are more likely to be impulsive, insensitive, physical, risk-takers, short-sighted, and nonverbal. Empirical evidence so far found general support for the link between low self-control and various problem and criminal behaviors (Arneklev, Grasmick, Tittle, & Bursik, 1993; Burton, Evans, Cullen, Olivares, & Dunaway, 1999; Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993; Keane, Maxim, & Teevan, 1993; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999). However, there is more consensus on the consequences than the sources of low self-control. Following sections discuss different sources of self-control.

Every theory of crime has at least 2-3 meta-theoretical levels above it. The fundamental issues are usually addressed at the approach level, and are often called the assumptions, or starting points, of a theory, although the term "assumptions" more strictly refers to the background or domain boundaries one can draw generalizations about. Above the approach level is the Perspective level, the largest unit of agreement within a scientific community, and in fact, the names for the scientific disciplines. Perspectives are sometimes called paradigms or viewpoints, although some people use the term paradigm to refer to untestable ideologies such as: (1) rational choice; (2) pathogenesis; (3) labeling;

Gottfredson and Hirsch’s self-control theory revolves around one’s inclination to commit a crime or refrain from committing a crime based on low or high self-controls. It is a general crime theory that explains all crime at all periods in time. The principal factor is self- control. In this theory, a person with low self-control is much more likely to commit a crime then a person with high self-control. For Gottfredson and Hirsch’s definition of crime, they state that a crime is an act undertaken in a person’s pursuits of self-interests. People that are involved in criminal acts in this theory are also prone to impulsive behaviors that provide some form of short term gratification. These impulsive behaviors include speeding, drinking and

A common theory in criminology and in sociology suggests that class and race are vital roles regional crime rates. Previous research indicates that the distribution of class and race within certain residential areas has a key role in the outcome of certain violent acts. In his study, Income Inequality, Race, and Place: Does the Distribution of Race and Class within Neighborhoods Affect Crime Rates, John R. Hipp states “Specifically, studies have tested how the distribution of economic resources across neighbor-hoods, as measured by income or poverty, affects neighborhood crime rates or the how the distribution of racial/ethnic minority members across neighborhoods, as measured by the percent nonwhite, and so on, affects neighborhood crime rates (Hipp 2007). While one may traditionally assume that minorities neighborhoods yield a more intensive crime rate, this is not necessarily true.

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime proposes that low self-control is the cause of crime. Self-control is defined as a person’s ability to control their emotions, behaviors and desires in the face of external demands. Hirschi argued that everyone is born without self-control but it is gained through familial interactions. Parents who supervise their children, recognize deviance and punish deviant acts build self-control in their children. Therefore, low self-control is the product of unsuccessful parenting, such as failing to recognize and correct children’s wrong behavior. Children with low levels of self-control end up being more prone to crime, and their criminal tendencies continue into adulthood. If a child is never told

Many people have different theories as to why crime exists. Some believe crime happens because of the individual’s culture, education (or lack there of), or even their race. Others believe crime is associated with whom we surround ourselves with. There are three sociological theories that suggest why crime happens in society; they are social learning theory, social control theory, and social reaction (labeling) theory. These theories suggest it is our relationships and social interactions that influence our behavior.

Biological theory states that the individual will have certain traits will be transmitted from parent to children through genetics and not from social learning. Along with the juvenile having similar facial characteristics, which some believe also predisposes them to criminal behavior (Palmerin, 2012).