Transcript Correctional Theory: Past to Present

Part VI

Sociological explanations of crime have been
dominated by three main traditions
◦ Anomie/strain theory (Robert Merton)
◦ Differential association/social learning theory
(Edwin Sutherland and Ronald Akers)
◦ Control theory (Travis Hirschi)

Focus of this chapter is on control theory


Unlike strain and cultural deviance theories,
control theories do not see humans as “blank
slates” onto which society writes its script
Control theories argue it is human nature for
people to “naturally” break the law
◦ Like other animals, humans seek gratification; crime
is often an easy means to secure gratification
 Gives ample motivation to commit crime
◦ Since all humans have motivation, theories that seek
to explain motivation (e.g., strain and cultural
deviance theories/social learning) are not needed

Instead of asking, “Why do they do it?”
criminologists need to ask, “Why don’t they do
it?”
◦ What prevents them from acting out on their impulses
 Control theorists argue that the control
society exerts over individuals is why
people do not commit crime
 Control theories assume that delinquent
acts result when an individual’s bond to
society is weak or broken
 Variation in control, not variation in
motivation, explains why some people
break the law more than others

Early control theories
◦ Shaw and McKay (1942, 1972) tied delinquency to the
attenuation of control in inner-city areas
◦ Reiss (1951) discussed personal and social controls
◦ Nye (1958) emphasized internal, direct, and indirect
controls
◦ Sykes and Matza (1957) focused on the neutralization
of restraints
◦ Reckless (1961) developed containment theory

Both embraces and departs from the
differential association perspective
◦ Provides insights on the specific definitions or beliefs
that might encourage offending
◦ Argues learned beliefs and definitions lead to crime
but do not see society wracked by culture conflict
 There is a dominant normative system in which
everyone is socialized
 Controls are present over most of us most of the time
◦ Techniques of neutralization permit law-breaking to
take place


Many delinquents do feel guilt and shame after
engaging in criminal behavior and seek the
approval of law-abiding people (e.g., parents,
church leaders, etc.)
Delinquents often draw a line between those
who can and cannot be victimized
◦ Certain groups are off limits (e.g., friends, kin, etc.)

Thus, delinquents have not fully embraced a
delinquent value system

Argue against subcultural theories that state
youths become so enmeshed in a criminal
value system that they ignore prosocial
standards
◦ Rather, most youth internalize the dominant
normative system, and when they violate those
norms, they feel guilt and shame

People are able to commit crime by
neutralizing these controls
◦ The techniques of neutralization are a set of beliefs
that justify criminal behavior in certain circumstances
◦ The individual remains committed to the dominant
normative system and qualifies his/her violations as
acceptable
◦ Deviance is seen as valid by the delinquent but not by
the legal system or society at large
◦ Groups these crime-justifying beliefs into five
categories
Denial of responsibility
1.
◦
Function is to deflect blame attached to violations
of social norms and to establish the violation as
independent of a particular personality structure
◦
Extends further than saying the
act was an “accident”
◦
Can be asserted that the delinquent act was
outside the individual and beyond his control

Sees self as hopelessly propelled into the situation
Denial of injury
2.

◦
Centers on the harm involved in the delinquent
act
◦
Whether anyone has clearly been
hurt by his/her deviance
Delinquent feels that his/her behavior does
not really cause any great harm despite the
fact that it runs counter to law
Denial of victim
3.
◦
Argues injury is not wrong in light of the
circumstances
◦
Not really an injury, rather a rightful retaliation or
punishment
◦
Sees self as an avenger and the victim as a wrongdoer
Condemnation of the condemners
4.
◦
A rejection of the rejectors
◦
The deviant shifts the focus of attention from
his/her own deviant acts to the motives and
behavior of those who disapprove of his/her
violations
◦
The deviant argues his/her condemners
are hypocrites, deviants, etc.
◦
Can harden into bitter cynicism
Appeal to higher loyalties
5.
◦
Sacrificing the demands of the larger society for
the demands of smaller social groups to which the
delinquent belongs (e.g., peer groups, gangs,
cliques)
◦
Sees self caught up in a dilemma that must be
resolved at the cost of violating the law
◦
Other norms are held to be more pressing or
involving a higher loyalty

Empirical support
◦ Scattered and fragmentary research
◦ Some support found
 Offenders commonly justify crimes using
neutralizations
 True of rapists, white-collar criminals, and others
 Individuals differ in the extent to which they accept
neutralizations
 If accept more neutralizations, engage in more crime
 Neutralizations more likely to lead to crime among
individuals who associate with delinquent peers
 Do not cause crime, but make it easier for motivated
individuals to engage in crime

Identified two categories of theories that were
popular in his day:
◦ “Push” theories: argued forces pushed/propelled
people into criminal behavior
 Example: strain theories
◦ “Pull” theories: argued people could be pulled/lured
into criminal behavior by antisocial models and
companions
 Example: differential association/social learning
theories

Believed an exclusive focus on “pushes” or
“pulls” was incomplete
◦ Argued social disorganization was an important
source of deviant behavior
◦ Asked how there were “good boys” in “bad areas”
 How did they resist criminal influences?
 Reckless argued that a “good self-concept” insulated
these boys from the “bad neighborhoods”

His theory included external and internal
sources of control
1. “Outer containment”: opposite of social
disorganization

Occurs when individuals are enmeshed in “effective
family life and an effective supporting structure in
the neighborhood and larger society”

Often weak and not strong enough to control the
pushes and pulls of crime

His theory included external and internal
sources of control
2. “Inner containment”: good self-control, ego
strength, well-developed sugerego (conscience),
good self-concept, high resistance to diversions,
high frustration tolerance

This was the insulator between the individual and a
bad environment

Travis Hirschi (1969) set forth in Causes of Delinquency his
social bond theory

Divided criminological theories into three main perspectives:
1. Control
2. Strain
3. Cultural deviance (differential association/social learning)


Argued the three perspectives are incompatible and should be
seen as rivals and tested empirically against one another
Used survey research to obtain theoretical concepts and selfreported delinquency to test theories



Presented data showing the merits of his
perspective and the comparative weaknesses
of strain and cultural deviance perspectives
Focused on how an individual’s bonds to
society influence decisions to break the law
Controls originate and are sustained by the
person’s bonds to society

Discussed four elements of the bond
1. Attachment

Sensitivity to the opinion of others

Cares about the wishes and expectations of others

The internalization of norms (the conscience) lies
in the attachment of individuals to others
Involves an emotional connection


Relationships with parents most crucial
Involves indirect control


Psychologically present although not physically present

Discussed four elements of the bond
2. Commitment

Rational component—an assessment of the
costs and benefits of crime

Committed to conformity

Fear of consequences

People invest time, money, energy, etc. into conventional
behavior and must take into account the costs of deviant
behavior


Runs the risk of losing the investment in conventional behavior
If uncommitted, have nothing to lose by committing crime

Discussed four elements of the bond
3. Involvement

Time and energy are limited

“Idle hands are the devil’s workshop”

Engrossment in conventional activities
keeps a person too busy to find time
to engage in deviant behavior

Discussed four elements of the bond
4. Belief
Variation in the extent to which people believe they
should obey the rules of society


The less a person believes s/he should obey the rules,
the more likely he/she is to violate them

When a person’s beliefs in the moral validity of
norms are weakened, the likelihood of crime
increases

Argues there is a common value system

Overall, there is fairly consistent support for
the general thesis that weak social bonds
increase the risk of being involved in criminal
behavior
◦ However, Hirschi’s claim that other theories are not
empirically viable is incorrect
◦ Also, Hirschi does not examine how macro-social
changes in society affect the strength of social
bonds for people in different sectors

In 1990, Hirschi partnered with Michael
Gottfredson and wrote A General Theory of
Crime

Argue that the lack of “self-control” is the
chief source of criminal behavior
◦ Self-control is the source of resistance against
criminal temptations

This was a marked departure from Hirschi’s social bond
theory
◦ Social bond theory located control in a person’s
relation to society, while self-control theory located
control inside the individual
◦ Social bond theory argues experiences beyond
childhood can affect a person’s ties to society; selfcontrol theory argues criminal propensities are
established in childhood
◦ Self-control theory argues any relationship between
social bonds and crime is spurious


Argue crime is rooted in individual
differences
Embrace the view that criminal behavior is
gratifying
◦ Easy source of immediate short-term pleasure
◦ Requires few skills
◦ Similar to early control theories

Self-control is an enduring propensity or
individual difference that has general effects
in a person’s life
◦ Explains stability across the life course
◦ Explains why offenders engage in many
noncriminal deviant behaviors


Differentiate between “criminality” and “crime”
◦ Criminality: the propensity to offend
◦ Crime: an actual event in which a law is broken
◦ Gottfredson and Hirschi use the concept of self-control and
not criminality because criminality connotes causation
Propensity cannot be acted on
unless the opportunity to do
so exists
◦ See opportunity as ubiquitous
◦ People with low self-control act
upon these numerous
opportunities for crime

Argue differences in self-control remain
relatively stable over the life course with
changes in the social location of individuals
and changes in their knowledge of the
operation of sanction systems explaining
changes in criminal behavior

Elements of self-control
◦ “Here and now” orientation—very impulsive
◦ Lack of diligence, tenacity, or persistence
◦ Adventuresome, active, and physical
◦ Unstable relationships and employment
◦ Lack manual skills that requiring training
◦ Self-centered, indifferent, insensitive to suffering, unkind,
antisocial
◦ Tend to pursue noncriminal immediate pleasures
◦ Minimal tolerance for frustration
◦ Little ability to respond to conflict through verbal rather
than physical means
◦ Short-sighted

Manifestations of low self-control
◦ Since both crime and analogous (noncriminal) behavior
stem from low self-control, they will all be engaged in at a
relatively high rate by people with low self-control
◦ No evidence of specialization in behavior—rather, much
versatility with crime and analogous behaviors
 Commit a wide range of criminal acts
 Very difficult to predict the specific form of deviance the person
is going to engage in
 More likely to use drugs, drink, skip school, be involved in
accidents (e.g., fires, crashes, unwanted pregnancies)

Argue the root causes of crime lie in the first
years of life
◦ Search for causes of crime in childhood
◦ Causes of low self-control are negative, not positive
 Absence of effort to create it

No social group purposely attempts to lower
the self-control of its members

The critical social milieu in childhood is the
family
◦ Experiences in childhood are shaped by our
parents

Self-control is not caused by biological
predispositions
◦ Rather, it is caused by ineffective parenting
 Direct control is the key to effective parenting

In order to instill self-control in children,
four factors must be present
1. Attachment of the parent to the child

Parents must have concern for the welfare and
behavior of the child

Invest in the child

Care for the child

In order to instill self-control in children,
four factors must be present
2. Parental supervision

Prevents criminal and analogous acts while training
the child to avoid them

Parents must monitor their children

Those children who are less monitored
are more likely to commit crime

In order to instill self-control in children,
four factors must be present
3. Recognition of deviant acts

In order for supervision to have an impact on selfcontrol, the supervisor must perceive deviant
behavior when it occurs

Must see the deviant behavior as something wrong

In order to instill self-control in children, four
factors must be present
4. Punishment of deviant acts
If the child engages in deviant acts, he/she must be
punished

Punishment does not need to be legal or corporal


Rather, disapproval by people one cares about is one of the
most powerful sanctions
Do not be too harsh or too lenient


Harsh: undermines the attachment between the parent and
child

Lenient: does not teach the child the behavior is wrong

When parents themselves lack self-control
and are criminal, they do not socialize their
children well
◦ West and Farrington (1977) showed delinquency is
seen across generations
◦ These parents do not encourage crime in their
children, but often do not become attached to their
children and do not supervise their children
 They also do not recognize and punish deviant
behavior

Empirical support
◦ In general, there is fairly consistent support
◦ Pratt and Cullen (2000) found in a meta-analysis of
the existing research that low self-control had an
effect size exceeding .20
◦ However, low self-control does not fully explain
away the effects of other sociological factors (e.g.,
differential association/social learning variables),
which is counter to the theory

Social bonds across the life course
◦ Robert Sampson and John Laub revitalized Hirschi’s
original social bond theory
 Argue there is both continuity and change in criminal
behavior across the life course
 Continuity: people are usually on trajectories that
result in the continuity of behavior
 Change: people experience turning points that evoke
behavioral change
 Establishing social bonds through employment or marriage
can redirect people out of a life of crime

There are some major differences between Sampson and
Laub’s age-graded social bond theory and Hirschi’s social
bond theory
◦ Hirschi focused on the juvenile years, while Sampson and
Laub focused on the entire life course
◦ Sampson and Laub developed an integrated theoretical
perspective accepting that individual differences and social
bonds combine to explain the onset and desistance of
criminal behavior
◦ Sampson and Laub look at the quality of the bond
 Different bonds affect individuals at different stages
of life (e.g., bonds to parents in childhood, bonds to
school/peers in adolescence, bonds to work and spouse
in adulthood)




Unlike the other sociological theories, control
theories ask why people do not commit crime
Argue crime is easy and provides immediate
gratification and thus people must be
restrained/controlled in order to not commit
crime
Some theories place the locus of control
outside the individual (social bond theory, agegraded social bond theory), while others place
the locus of control inside the individual (selfcontrol theory)
The research shows control theories have
considerable support