The Sociological Theories Of Crime Essay

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.

Causes of crime are arguably criminology’s most important and largest research topic. In this process of research, criminologists and academics have used numerous theories in attempts to explain how and why people resort to crime (Ellis, Beaver, Wright, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine a case study first with the use of strain theories (ST), followed by social learning theory (SLT). The first section will involve a summary of the case of R v Mark Andrew HUGHES (2009) NSWDC 404 involving an outline of the offender’s personal life, of his crimes, and his punishment handed down by

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

The aim of this essay is to compare, contrast and evaluate two sociological theories of crime causation and two psychological theories of crime causation.

Trying to understand why crime happens if a very important concept. Throughout history, criminologist have debated on which theory of crime is most accurate. Currently, social bond and social learning theory are two of the leading theories in the criminological world. Between these two theories there are a variety of differences and similarities. In addition to these theories Gottfredson and Hirschi have published a book where they use the concept of self control to describe crime. Analyzing these three theories can be important to understanding the current criminological world.

There are many different crimes and crime types that individuals can be involved in. Theoretical explanations are an important way of helping criminologists and other individuals figure out what makes people commit crimes and become offenders in the first place. In this essay, two types of crime will be explained; these are anti-social behaviour and hate crime. The theoretical explanations that will help to explain these two crime types are Routine Activities Theory and Social Learning Theory. The theories will be compared and contrasted using the two crime types and the strengths and limitations of the theories will be mentioned.

Sociological theories go into the factors external to the individuals such as environment and society rather than the internal factors such as biological and phycological (Bohm, 2011.) These factors can include neighborhoods, poverty, the raising of an induvial, and even those people surrounding an individual (Bohm, 2011.)

Sociological theories on crime, whether they are macro or micro, look at external factors in determining causative reasons for criminal conduct (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). This process is very different from biological and psychological crime theories, which focus on internal characteristics of a person (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Macrosociological theory accounts for the overall big picture of a society taking into account the physical structure of an area and how it is laid out. This information is used to theorize if they have an influence on criminal activity for that particular location or neighborhood (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Microsociological theories focus in on a more concentrated view of individual’s external interactions with each other or specific programs such as church or school (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). These theories try to explain if these interactions foster a criminal environment or cause the opposite (Bohm & Vogel, 2011).

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;

I will explain the nature of sociological theorizing and the assumptions on which sociological perspectives on crime causation rest. I will consider some of the general features and assumptions of the sociological viewpoint: I will talk about. of three major sociological approaches to crime causation.

As the nineties began, the general theory of crime became the most prominent criminological theory ever proposed; furthermore, it is empirically recognized as the primary determinant in deviant and criminal behaviors. Known also as the self-control theory, the general theory of crime can most simply be defined as the absence or lack of self-control that an individual possesses, which in turn may lead them to commit unusual and or unlawful deeds. Authored by educator Michael R. Gottfredson and sociologist Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1990) essentially “dumbed down” every theory of crime into two words, self-control. The widely accepted book holds that low self-control is the main reason that a person initiates all crimes, ranging from murder and rape to burglary and embezzlement. Gottfredson and Hirschi also highlighted, in A General Theory of Crime (1990), that low self-control correlates with personal impulsivity. This impulsive attitude leads individuals to become insensitive to deviant behaviors such as smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and gambling (p. 90). The extreme simplicity, yet accuracy, of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime (self-control theory), make it the most empirically supported theory of criminal conduct, as well as deviant acts.

Another factor that can influence crime is socialization, which is the process of learning how to properly behave. If someone grew up having a distant relationship with their parents, they might be more likely to commit a crime. A parent is a child’s first and best teacher. A good parent should teach their child right

To start with, people commit crime because of social reasons. The social reasons are poor parenting skills, peer influence, drugs, and education failure. Poor parenting skills includes when children are neglected or abused. Also when there are parents who have a permissive or a neglecting style of parenting. Permissive style is when they have no control over their children

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).

The lack of respect or intergradation within society plays a greater role to crime and criminal behavior. I believed if a person values society, appreciate social orders and engaged themselves within society then crimes would not happen. Hirschi’s theory of social bonding best explained my view on crime and criminal behavior within society. He assumed that all humans can commit criminal acts because it is our nature. If not criminal acts, then born selfish, needy and greedy. It takes the structure of parents, communities and the environment to teach children about structure, rules, morality, and social conducts. As children start to develop a sense of self-awareness, they begin to form an idea of who they want to be within society due to positive or negative experiences with society. As Hirschi suggested, the more attached a person is to society and its offerings, the more they believe in the values of conventional society and become more invested in the betterment of society which makes a person less likely to be deviant (Chriss, 2017). If a person has weak or a fractured bond with society and disregard the value of community, they are most likely to commit crimes. In order for a person to succeed at the unlikeliness of committing criminal offenses, Hirshci created the theory of social bond that assumes that individuals are predisposed to commit crime and that conventional bonds prevent or reduce offending. There are four elements of social bonding that helps to explain