MODULE - 07

CRIME AND SOCIAL

PROCESS
1. Socialization and Crime – Differential Association Theory
 Introduction
 In the mid-60’s, criminologists and sociologists were interested in the exploration of the
relationship between socialization and crime.
 Socialization encompasses the idea that all individuals have the potential to be criminal. They
believed that things like family relationships, peer group associations, educational experiences, and
interactions with authority figures can all come together to influence criminal behaviour within an
individual.
 Some criminologists and sociologists, however, wanted to focus mainly on how labels, social
bonds, learned behaviours have the ability to affect someone’s lifestyle.
 Thus, the exploration of socialization and crime influences the production of three theories:
 the Labelling Theory / the Social Control Theories / and the Social Learning Theories.
 these theories have all combined to give a general idea of the relationship between socialization and
crime and how one thing can effectively influence another.
 Each theory represents important implications that can give substantial theories and how they came
about.
 The interactions that people have with society and its institutions can be vital in the study of
criminology and sociology.
  Social and structural factors also give criminologists and sociologists a good gateway explanation
as to why people commit crime and why people choose not to commit crime.

 Differential Association Theory

 Meaning - is when individuals base their behaviours by association and interaction with others.
 Edwin Sutherland
 Much of Sutherland’s theory relied upon the work of Chicago school theorists, Shaw and McKay
 Sutherland proposed differential association theory in 1939 and elaborated it in 1947.
 Initially, he applied his theory only to systematic criminal behaviour, later on, extending his theory,
he applied it to all criminal behaviour
 According to Sutherland - individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for
criminal behaviour through interaction with others. Differential association theory is the most
talked-about of the learning theories of deviance. This theory focuses on how individuals learn to
become criminals, but it does not concern itself with why they become criminals.
 Sutherland forwarded mainly two explanations for criminal behaviour:
 situational - which explains crime on the basis of situation that exists at the time of crime,
 genetic or historical - explains crime on the basis of a criminals life experiences
 Sutherland used the second approach i.e. genetic or historical, in developing his theory of criminal
behaviour
 differential association theory explains why any individual gravitates toward criminal behaviour,
 differential social organization explains why crime rates of different social entities different from
each other’s
 The principle of differential association - asserts that individual will choose the criminal path
when the balance of definitions for law-breaking exceeds those for law-abiding. The earlier in life
an individual comes under the influence high status people within a group, the more likely the
individual is to follow in their footsteps. To some extent, both non-criminal and criminal
individuals are motivated by the need for money and social gain
 Sutherlands main thesis (Principles of Criminology, Philadelphia, 1947) is that individuals
encounter many inharmonious and inconsistent social influences in their lifetime and many
individuals become involved in contacts with carriers of criminalistic norms and as a consequence
become criminals. He called this process differential association.
 Sutherlands 9 Points / postulates - The principles of Sutherlands theory of differential association
can be summarized into nine key points.
1. Criminal behaviour is learned.
2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of
communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal
groups.
4. When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes techniques of committing the crime
(which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple) and the specific direction of
motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as
favourable or unfavourable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of
law over definitions unfavourable to violation of the law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and anti-criminal
patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by
those needs and values, since non-criminal behaviour is an expression of the same needs and
values.
 Quality of differential association theory
 the frequency and intensity of interaction.
 The amount of time that a person is exposed to a particular definition and at what point the
interaction began are both crucial for explaining criminal activity.
 The process of learning criminal behaviour is really not any different from the process
involved in learning any other type of behaviour.
 Sutherland maintains that there is no unique learning process associated with acquiring non-
normative ways of behaving.
 it works to explain more than just juvenile delinquency and crime committed by lower class
individuals.
 Since crime is understood to be learned behaviour, the theory is also applicable to white-collar,
corporate, and organized crime.
 Criticism
 failing to take individual differences into account - personality traits may interact with ones
environment to create outcomes that differential association theory cannot explain. For example,
people can change their environment to ensure it better suits their perspectives. They may also
be surrounded by influences that dont espouse the value of criminal activity and choose to rebel
by becoming a criminal anyway. People are independent, individually motivated beings. As a
result, they may not learn to become criminals in the ways differential association predicts.
 the theory does not take into account personality traits that might affect a persons
susceptibility to these environmental influences - One critique levelled against differential
association stems from the idea that people can be independent, rational actors and individually
motivated. This notion of one being a criminal based on his or her environment is problematic.
 Cressey pointed out 2 major weaknesses
 the first problem was that the concept of "definitions" in the theory was not precisely defined,
and the statement did not give good guidance on how to operationalize the ratio or "excess of
definitions" favourable to criminal behaviour over definitions unfavourable to criminal
behaviour.
 The second real problem was that it left the learning process unspecified. There is virtually no
clue in Sutherland's theory as to what in particular would be included in "all the mechanisms
that are involved in any of other learning.
 is defective because it omits consideration of free will,
 is based on a psychology assuming rational deliberation,
 ignores the role of the victim,
 does not explain the origin of crime,
 does not define terms such as "systematic" and "excess“
 does not take "biological factors" into account,
 is of little or no value to "practical men",
 is not comprehensive enough because it is not interdisciplinary,
 is not allied closely enough with more general sociological theory and research,
 is too comprehensive because it applies to non-criminals, and
 assumes that all persons have equal access to criminal and anticriminal behaviour patterns.
2. Differential Reinforcement Theory (Burgess & Akers)
 Introduction
 During the 1950s and the 1960s there had been a number of new theories in the sociology world.
 In 1965 Ronald Akers an assistant professor at the University of Washington and Robert Burgess
came together to introduce a new theory. They published an article on “Differential Association
Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behaviour
 In Proposition of differential association theory, Sutherland (1947) states that all the mechanisms of
learning play a role in the learning of criminal behaviour. This suggests that the acquisition of
criminal behaviour involves more than the simple imitation of observable criminal behaviour, but
Sutherland does not fully explain how exactly definitions from associates facilitate criminal
behaviour.
 Building off the recommendations of C.R. Jeffery (1965) to integrate concepts of operant
behavioural theory into differential association theory, Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers (1966)
reformulated the propositions developed by Sutherland into what was initially called differential-
reinforcement theory. Akers (1998) eventually modified differential reinforcement theory into its
final form, social learning theory (SLT).
 SLT is composed of four main components:
1. Differential Associations -
 Differential association was expanded to be inclusive of both direct interactions with others who
engage in criminal acts, and more indirect associations that expose individuals to various norms
or values.
 For example, friends of friends who may not directly interact with an individual still exert
indirect influence through reinforcing behaviours and definitions of a directly tied friend.
2. Definitions –
 Definitions were similarly described as attitudes or the meanings attributed to behaviours and
can be both general and specific.
 General definitions reflect broad moral, religious, or other conventional values related to the
favourability of committing a crime, whereas specific definitions contextualize or provide
additional details surrounding one’s view of acts of crime. For example, a general definition of
crime may reflect an individual’s belief that they should never hurt someone else, but the use of
substances is acceptable because it does not harm anyone else.
 Recent efforts have also underscored that attitudes towards crime can be even more specific and
depend on situational characteristics of the act (e.g., Thomas, 2018, 2019).
 For instance, an individual may hold the general definition that they should never fight someone;
however, they may adopt a specific definition that suggests that if someone insulted your family
or started the conflict first, then perhaps fighting is acceptable.
3. Differential Reinforcement -
 Burges and Akers argues that differential reinforcement are the driver of whether individuals
engage in crime. This concept refers to the idea that an individual’s past, present, and anticipated
future rewards and punishments for actions explain crime. If an individual experiences or
anticipates that certain behaviours will result in positive benefits or occur without consequences,
this will increase the likelihood that the behaviour will occur
 This process is comprised of four types of reinforcements or punishments:
 Positive reinforcement: reinforcements that reward behaviour, such as money, status from
friends, and good feelings, that will increase the likelihood that an action is taken.
 Positive punishment: the presentation of a negative or aversive consequence, such as getting
arrested, injured, or caught, after a behaviour is exhibited to decrease the likelihood it will
happen again.
 Negative reinforcement: reinforcements that help a person avoid the negative consequences
of a behaviour, such as avoiding getting caught, arrested, or facing disappointment from
others, that will increase the likelihood that an action is taken.
  Negative punishment: the removal of a positive reinforcement or stimulus after an undesired
behaviour occurs to decrease the likelihood a person will engage in the behaviour again. For
instance, if a child gets into a fight with a friend their parent may take away their cell phone,
cut off their Netflix access, or remove other privileges.
4. Imitation -
 is the mimicking of a behaviour after observing others participate in the behaviour. Within
intimate personal groups, individuals will observe criminal acts or substance use that are often
are used to facilitate the initiation of the behaviour. Once the behaviour has been engaged in,
imitation plays less of a role in the maintenance of or desistance from that behaviour.
 Some deviant behaviours that Akers focused on and tested included those of smoking among
adolescents, drinking behaviour, and drug use.
 Aker and Burgess developed a theory that can be applied to almost any kind of crime on an
everyday basis. Specifically any crime that has some type of gain can be applied. The gain can
range from positive attention from the group or person.
 The criminal behaviour is also shown to have some type of reward whether good or bad. This can
lead to higher status, a better name, and more attention. The feedback from the peer group was also
proven to determine if the person will continue to commit deviant behaviour or not. Akers and
Burgess also give examples of each preposition in which they proposed.
 7 propositions by Burges and Akers
 To show that criminal behaviour is activated by discriminative cues Burgess and Akers cut down
Sutherlands nine propositions to seven propositions.
 Criticism
 Though Akers and Burgess may have had some high points in their theory there are still some
issues that were not addressed.
 The theory does not apply the significance of individual differences among people.
 The theory does not take into account that individual difference may be biological,
psychological, and sometimes physical. These differences may affect the groups and individual
attitudes.
 Everyone is not the same and we don’t come from the same backgrounds. We all have a mind of
our own and our thinking abilities are not the same. Akers fails to explain the fact that we are all
different and the causes of why some people may absorb criminal behaviour and others will not.
 One factor he could have addressed was how our home life and beliefs can affect the outcome of
participation in criminal behaviour. Our genetic makeup and family relations could alter our
views on life and the people around us. Some people are slower then others and others are just
gullible. Other factors could be the lack of love and affection that one receives on a daily basis.
 If criminal behaviour is learned then somebody had to teach it. Akers also fails to address the
amount of opportunity that was present. The assumption that people who learn criminal
behaviour must have came into contact with such behaviour in the basis of the theory. But, the
theory does not explain how the person came in contact with the people exhibiting criminal
behaviour
 Aker and Burgess fail to explain if it was a relative, peer, sibling, broken home, or even a teacher
that led that person to the teacher. Many people have idols that they look up to and at times
imitate. Could the person have been and idol? In schools popularity is also a major issue maybe
the person only committed an act to get attention from a certain person or group but not because
the group told them to do it. Street life is also a cause to being led to criminal behaviour.
Homeless people and runaways are often exposed to criminal behaviour. People who sell drugs
might approach a dealer trying to make a few dollars and instantly get pulled into the game.
What if a person is born into criminal activity such as a criminal family? That person really
didn’t have a choice so is this still considered differential reinforcement.
 Aker also fails to explain how some people who have never came in contact with any criminal
behaviour still manage to commit criminal activities. For example, say a child who has not
started school yet and is about three years old and steals a cookie from the cookie jar after their
mother told him not to. This child is committing a criminal behavior by stealing the cookie and
hiding so they can eat it before there mother comes back. Where did this child pick up this
criminal activity if they have never come in contact with children their age or a person that
engages in criminal behavior? Could this be natural instinct? Empirical Study
 https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/introcrim/chapter/9-4-social-learning-theory/
 https://criminology.fandom.com/wiki/Differential_Reinforcement_Theory(Akers)
3. Neutralization and Drift Theory
 Introduction
 Neutralization theory was developed in 1957 by Dr. Gresham Sykes and his former student, Dr.
David Matza
 Different perspective based on Edwin Sutherland theory - Dr. Matza felt rational choice was being
left out and developed the Neutralization and Drift Theory to help explain why delinquents drift in
and out of delinquency.
 Dr. Matza felt, “that if delinquents had established a subculture with norms that differ from those of
the larger society, they would not have exhibited shame or guilt when violating the social order.”
 What do Neutralization and Drift Theory Explain
 Gresham and Matza put out the hypothesis - that young delinquents often switch between lawful
and illegal actions - This implies that young offenders are assumed to be aware of the distinction
between appropriate and inappropriate conduct and that they recognize the immorality of engaging
in lawbreaking. (juveniles sense an obligation to the law. This obligation to the law remains in
place most of the time. However, when this obligation is strained, juvenile delinquents tend to drift
into crime)
 Example - When an employee sees their wages cut they are able to rationalize stealing from their
employer because they are earning less money than before, essentially, the employee feels they
“deserve” it.
  According to Sykes and Matza, most delinquents have the same values, beliefs and attitudes as
those of law-abiding citizens. Some juveniles, however, learn techniques that allow them to
“neutralize” such values and attitudes temporarily.
 Such a theory proposes that delinquents disregard the controlling influences of rules and use these
techniques of neutralization to weaken the hold of society.
 Techniques of Neutralization and Drift Theory
 Young people, feel responsible for following the rules, and this duty to comply with the law often
persists. Nevertheless, young offenders often turn to criminal habits once this responsibility is
overburdened.
 Most criminals possess the same morals, perspectives, and ideals as upstanding members of
society. Juveniles may acquire skills that "neutralize" such values and convictions for a while.
 According to this line of thinking, lawbreakers intentionally flout societal norms and utilize these
neutralizing strategies to lessen society's grip on them.
 Principles of Neutralization and Drift Theory
 In the original theory, Sykes and Matza discuss why juveniles experience guilt and negative self-
concepts when engaging in delinquency, why there is a need to neutralize guilt, and the five
neutralization techniques that allow them to do this. These principals are the basis for how
criminals rationalize their actions.
 Principles of Neutralization and Drift Theory
 Denial Responsibility − This is where the individual who committed the criminal act (or accused of
committing a criminal act) views himself as a victim based on circumstance.
 Denial of Injury − This is where an individual who commits a criminal act (or is accused of
committing one) feels like the actions committed were victimless because no one was physically
hurt or the crime committed was committed against another criminal.
 Denial Victim − This goes back to circumstances. Victims in this case are considered outcasts by
the general population so they deserved this type of treatment.
 The Condemnation of the Condemners: This is when the individual who committed the criminal
act (or accused of committing a criminal act) sees the labeller as a deviant in disguise, they are just
out to get them, or by attacking them the wrongfulness of their behaviour is confused.
 Appealing to Higher Loyalties: The requirements of larger society have to be pushed to the side
because of affiliation in smaller groups, who directly provide fidelity and protection to the
individual, e.g., gangs.

 What a criminal is doing when applying these techniques is not trying to justify their actions as
“normal”, but trying to lessen the punishment that goes along with whatever crime they have
committed.
 Principles
 Another core principal of Neutralization is what Sykes and Matza called “Subterranean values.”
These values exist along with conventional values.
 The example that Sykes and Matza use is thrill-seeking by the individual deviant.
 These subterranean values can be found in many social settings.
 Sykes and Matza argue that these values are reinforced by potential role models at school, and
home by teachers, parents, and in the working environment. - When an adult uses any kind of
bias (favouritism, gender, race, or grades) instead of teaching the importance of learning a
specific job, they are training the juvenile deviant that what matters most is getting ahead by any
means.
 Sykes and Matza argue that it is not necessary for a child to join a gang; they will learn these
subterranean values through normal and conventional values taught in traditional environments
of modern society.
 Sykes and Matza further argue that U.S. Legal Code is full of contradictions that give the deviant
rationalized outs for their deviant acts. This double standard in the law allows people to use various
circumstances of why the law is not relevant to their actions.
 A term like self-defence in our legal code loosens the control of society and allows the deviant the
ability to freely drift back and forth between legal and illegal activity.
 Neutralization, according to the law in Sykes and Matza terms, is the deviant using legal concepts
in different ways; this freedom from the law allows the delinquent to choose to commit crime.
  Most of the empirical research suggests that delinquents do not follow the traditional values of
society.
 Michael Hindelang (1970, 1974) and Ball and Lilly (1971), “found that delinquents are
committed to different values than those in of non-delinquents in mainstream society.”
 As of 1994, Agnew found that in reviewing research that, “delinquents were more likely to
accept techniques of neutralization then non-delinquents”.
 Another study by Landsheer, Hart, and Knox (1994) found that delinquents knew what they
were doing was wrong but did it anyway, this finding supports neutralization; because the
delinquents were doing something that they felt was morally wrong but did it anyway.
 Criticism
 When looking at the Neutralization theory and its application to criminal justice there are many
concerns that have been presented, including causality.
 When does neutralization occur, before or after a criminal act?
 There are also methodological issues because no one has been able to develop an effective
operational definition which has limited research. These issues have also led to policy
implications. As Matza and Sykes explained, “neutralization and drift suggests that
contradictions in the dominant culture, injustice, and double standards need to be eliminated to
lessen the possibility of people being able to neutralize.”
 Donald Cressey also discussed the policy implications of neutralization and drift theory at the
institutional level of control. Cressey’s employee/employer example explains some of the policy
implications that the criminal justice area must resolve.
 “That to reduce the probability of verbalizations allowing embezzlement, employers should
adopt educational programs that allow employees to discuss emerging financial problems from
losses and that phrases used to excuse and justify such behavior should be repeatedly corrected
to reveal their harm and crime. Some retail stores have begun to implement this suggestion
through weekly meetings with sales staff, pointing out to them the precise losses from internal
theft and how the company suffers. The aim is to undermine any neutralizing use of “denial of
injury” by employees tempted to steal from the store
 More recently, Natti Ronel and Ety Elisha are making the argument for developing “positive
criminology.” They suggest that a theory should focus on how successful people have been able to
achieve their goals, within the standards of socially allowed norms. By changing the focus, Ronel
and Elisha also suggest that sociology as a discipline will be better suited to structure a framework
that will be able to provide policies that will benefit a larger segment of society and further
diminish the usefulness of neutralization of criminal acts by delinquents.
4. Hirschi’s Social Control or Social Bond Theory
 Introduction
 Travis Hirschi, an American criminologist, created the social bond theory in the1960s based on his
work assessing the reasons why people commit crimes.
 He felt there was some type of pattern within the lives of those who chose to commit criminal acts.
Hirschi felt people who weren't able to form positive social bonds (relationships) in various ways
within their community would ultimately be more likely to pursue deviant behaviours.
 What Are Social Bonds?
 Think of social bonds as unwritten contracts between family members, friends, co-workers, and
strangers within a given community, along with the world.
 Communities can also be individualized, such as religious communities, sports teams, cultures,
and fan groups.
 For example, a person typically forms social bonds with family members in their household,
their friends and peers at school, and their eventual co-workers, all of which play a part in
forming unspoken contracts with the strangers who make up their town/city, state/province, and
country.
 It's these connections that Hirschi felt ultimately decided how a person would behave in regards
to criminal activity.
  Within these bonds, Hirschi attributed four elements to the outcome of possible criminal behaviour.
 According to Hirschi attachment, commitment, involvement, and common values would ultimately
dictate if a person was more likely to commit a criminal act and or forge a path away from societal
norms.

 Theory
 Hirschi’s social bonds theory is based on the basic assumption that humans naturally tend towards
delinquency. The interesting question for him is what prevents people from deviating from norms.
 Hirschi assumes that the stronger the degree of social control and the denser the network of social
bonds are, the more likely people are to behave in accordance with standards.
 Hirschi explicitly refers his theory (but not only) to adolescent delinquents and thus contradicts the
assumption that delinquent adolescents exert a decisive influence on their peers of the same age.
 By “social bonds” Hirschi understands elements of social cohesion (bonds). These include
attachment to the family, commitment to socially accepted norms and institutions, involvement in
activities and belief that these things are important.
 Attachment
 Attachment describes the strength of the bonds and relationships that exist with an
individual’s social environment. The relationship with parents is particularly important, but
other institutions and actors such as school or friends also play a role. The attachment to the
circle of friends can also prevent deviance, but only as long as the circle of friends does not
represent deviant norms.
 Commitment
 Commitment describes the level of dedication invested in conventional standards and goals.
Hirschi assumes that someone who has already invested resources, time and energy in
achieving compliant goals has more to lose through deviant behaviour than someone who has
invested little devotion in pursuing socially accepted goals. For example, a student who has
invested a lot of time to achieve good grades has more to lose through expulsion than a lazy
student who has less importance for grades.
 Involvement
 By involvement Hirschi means that someone who is intensively involved in conventional
activities has less time and opportunity to engage in deviant behaviour. Structured, socially
accepted activities such as school, work or raising children also strengthen the self-discipline
needed to resist the impulses of deviant behaviour.
  Belief
 Hirschi sees belief as the fourth factor in social bonding. This refers to the belief in and
validity of the values and norms of the mainstream society. The more these values and norms
have been internalized, the more difficult it becomes to violate them. When the meaning of
norms is questioned, the intrinsic motivation to obey them also decreases.

 Criticism of the Theory

 One can criticize Hirschi’s control theory for the fact that the motivation to behave defiantly is
simply assumed. Individual reasons for deviant behaviour are ignored.
 Hirschi’s four variables are not easily applicable to all forms of crime. White Collar Crime can be
seen as an example. - People who commit this form of crime are usually well integrated into
society and have strong bonds, at least at the levels of involvement and commitment.
 Empirically, the Social Bonds theory has been extensively studied. The results differ for the
different variables:
 Strong correlations can generally be found between attachment and commitment and compliant
behaviour
  There tends to be a connection between belief and conforming behaviour. However, deviance in
this case could be better explained by learning theories: Does a person deviate because his belief
in conventional values is weak, or does he deviate because he has learned new values?
 The relationship between involvement and deviance is unclear and inconsistent results have been
found in various studies. Involvement correlates partly positively, partly negatively with
deviance. Involvement with delinquent peers correlates strongly with deviance, independent of
other variables. This form of social control, which is exercised by deviant groups and thus
promotes deviance, is ignored by Hirschi.
 Finally, Hirschi himself strongly criticized his theory and in 1990, together with his colleague
Gottfredson, he refined it into the “General Theory of Crime”.
5. Becker’s Labelling Theory – 161
 Introduction
 A question became popular with criminologists during the mid-1960s: What makes some acts and
some people deviant or criminal?
 Labelling theory, in criminology, a theory stemming from a sociological perspective known as
“symbolic interactionism,”
 The first as well as one of the most prominent labelling theorists was Howard Becker, who
published his groundbreaking work Outsiders in 1963.
 scholars tried to shift the focus of criminology toward the effects of individuals in power
responding to behaviour in society in a negative way; they became known as “labelling theorists”
or “social reaction theorists.”
 Howard Becker is often considered a symbolic interactionist sociologist. Although he rejects this
association, his labelling theory of deviance became the lead theory of the interactionist perspective
on Crime and Deviance.
 Interactionists argue that certain acts are labelled as criminal by the majority, and that is how
deviance is socially constructed. Acts are not inherently deviant.
 Edwin M. Lemert
 In his work Social Pathology (1951) described two types of deviations – Primary and Secondary
 Primary –
 Secondary
 Labelling Theory
 Becker’s labelling theory (1963) argued that: ...deviancy is not a quality of the act a person
commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an
“offender”
 No act has inherent deviance in it, it becomes deviant when people label it as such. In every
society, there are common, acceptable values and rules and when these are crossed through an
act, both the act and the person committing it are labelled ‘criminal’.
 Becker used the example of drugs to support his argument.
 He claimed ...the act of injecting heroin into a vein is not inherently deviant. If a nurse gives the
patient drugs under a doctor’s orders, it is perfectly proper. It is when it is done in a way that is
not publicly defined as proper that it becomes deviant."
 Master status
 Becker argued that the deviant label can become a ‘master status’ in a person’s identity, overbearing
all other identities. This process happens through five stages:
 The public label an individual as deviant. Social groups (family, friends, co-workers, etc.) reject the
individual.
 The individual may turn to more deviant behaviour as a response to the label and rejection.
 The official punishment of deviant behaviour often drives individuals into committing further
crimes. For example, people with a criminal record find it hard to get a job, which might make
them turn towards criminality again for survival.
 The continuance of criminal acts might result in a deviant career. A deviant career is usually
completed when the individual joins an organised criminal group. Becker says this is the stage
when the individual fully accepts their deviant identity and lets it overbear all other identities.
 The deviant label becomes a master status. The deviant group becomes the most important
relationship for the individual, and the deviant identity determines the individual’s identity.
 https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/social-studies/famous-sociologists/howard-becker/#:~:text=Beck
er%20created%20the%20influential%20labelling%20theory%2C%20initially%20used%20in%20studies,Acts
%20are%20not%20inherently%20deviant
.
 Criticisms of labelling theory
 Labelling theory is too deterministic, according to some sociologists. They argue that labelling
theory ignores people who actively reject the labels they were given.
 Some sociologists take issue with the application of labelling theory to The Media. They argue that
interactionists tended to attribute the existence of crime to media construction, which is a reductive
approach. Yes, The Media might exaggerate crime, but it does not cause it.
 Labelling theory focuses on how deviance impacts society, and not on why deviant acts are
committed by individuals in the first place. Labelling theory only comes into use once a crime was
committed. But first, we must understand why the crime was committed.
6. Self-Control and Self Esteem as related to crime (Travis Hirschi &
Michael Gottfredson)
 Introduction
 Springing from interest in bonding theory, Travis Hirschi in co-operation with Michael Gottfredson
has developed the "General Theory of Crime" or self-control theory from 1990 onward.
 The self-control theory of Crime is a criminological theory that helps to explain why certain
individuals commit crimes / is a criminological theory about the lack of individual self-control as
the main factor behind criminal behaviour.
 The theory holds that individuals who did not receive effective parenting before age 10 are more
likely to lack self-control, or the ability to give up acts that grant immediate pleasure, than those
who had good parenting. Good parenting occurs when parents care for their children, monitor their
behaviour, and both recognize and punish deviance when it occurs. As a result, those who lack this
form of parenting are more likely to commit a crime.
 Research has also found that low levels of self-control are correlated with criminal and impulsive
conduct.
 Individual self-control improves with age as a result of many factors: changing biology through
hormonal development, socialization and increasing opportunity costs of losing control. In
addition, criminal acts are often markedly non-controlled; they are both opportunistic and short-
sighted.
 It is essentially the extent to which different people are vulnerable to the temptations of the
moment.
 the self-control theory of crime advocates for the role of the environment (in this case, how a child
is parented) in determining who will engage in criminal behaviour.
 The pair observed that there was a strong correlation between age and criminal behaviour, whereby
the vast majority of individuals commit their first crime by the age of 20, and most individuals who
commit crimes, in general, are under the age of 30
 This gave Gottfredson and Hirschi reason to believe that something unique about child
development motivated certain individuals to have a high propensity for violence and crime.
 An absence of self-control often explains criminal acts, and this ability improves with age as an
individual develops and becomes socialized. Thus, limited self-control helps account for why the
majority of crimes are committed by younger people.
 The Self-Control Theory of Crime is a generalized theory. Therefore it is meant to apply to all
forms of behaviour where an individual cannot resist the temptation of immediate gratification and
thus impulsively engage in criminal activity that requires little to no long-term planning, such as
drunk driving, fraud, petty and grand theft, assault, and property and personal crimes.
 This theory is not the first of its kind. Rather, it stems from a body of literature beginning in the
1950s that classified a broader Social Control Theory as the way in which socialization and social
learning build self-control and reduce the tendency to engage in antisocial behaviour.
 From there, Travis Hirschi developed his bonding theory which stated that the strength of a
person’s social bonds determines the likelihood that they will commit a crime (Hirschi, 1969), and
from there, the Self-Control Theory of Crime was born, focusing specifically on the role of
parenting in hindering the development of self-control and increasing the likelihood of petty
crimes.
 The theory operates on a couple of assumptions regarding individuals who commit crimes. It
assumes that criminal offenders are predisposed to commit crimes by external factors (in this case,
bad parenting).
 It also assumes that, if all else is equal, crime-prone people have a much higher probability of
violating the law than non-crime-prone people.
 The Self Control Theory of Crime helps us understand one important factor in why individuals
commit crimes: insufficient parenting, which leads to a lack of self-control. But what does an
individual with low self-control look like?
 What Are The Characteristics Of Someone With Low Self-Control?
 As we know, individuals who grow up with parents who don’t properly care for and monitor their
behaviour have low self-control.
 These individuals become impulsive, attracted to simple rather than complex tasks, self-centred,
risk-seeking, attracted to physical rather than mental activities, and hot-tempered, among other
characteristics (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
 This is not to say that all individuals with low self-control possess all of these traits or even that
individuals with low self-control exhibit these traits in identical ways, but rather that these are the
most common manifestations of having low self-control.
 Thinking about these characteristics allows us to not only better understand these individuals but
also be able to better predict how their personalities may translate into harmful actions.
 Elements of Self Control Theory
 Parental management/socialization thesis
 This component is the core of the self-control theory of crime. It holds that inadequate parenting
is what is responsible for lower levels of self-control.
 When parents insufficiently monitor the behaviour and recognize and punish deviance (i.e.,
when parents don’t exhibit traits that resemble those of good parents) at early stages of a child’s
life, this encourages the child to have an overall lack of self-control that motivates their criminal
activity.
 Stability thesis
 This thesis states that self-control is developed early in childhood and remains relatively stable
throughout the course of a person’s life after a person reaches the age of 10 (Hay & Forrest,
2006).
 It also argues that not only is self-control stable throughout time but so is continuity in
offending. In other words, after an individual commits their first crime, the likelihood that they
will re-commit a future crime (defined as recidivism) is high.
 This is a result of persistent heterogeneity or the idea that there are stable underlying differences
across individuals that affect how people behave in all situations and make them unique from
one another.
 Spuriousness thesis
 The third and final key element of the self-control theory is the idea that many social experiences
and relationships that researchers often attribute to being the cause of crime are, in reality, not
true causes and rather spurious (or fake) correlates of crime that is really a result from low self-
control (Junger & Tremblay, 1999).
 This thesis emphasizes that low self-control, above all other potential explanations for crime,
best explains why an individual may engage in such lawless activity and disregards other
explanations.
 Self Control Theory applied
 Self control Theory and Victimization
 Research demonstrates how a lack of self-control does not only contribute to criminal activity
but can also often lead to the victimization of an individual (i.e., being victims of crime; Pratt et
al., 2014).
 Specifically, low self-control has been found to be positively associated with both violent and
property victimizations
 Self control theory and Cybercrime
 a lack of self-control also motivates cybercrimes. Research has found that low self-control is
positively correlated with cyber deviance in general
 Self control theory and domestic violence
 A study conducted by Christine Sellers (1999) found that low self-control, opportunity, and the
perception of immediate gratification were significant predictors of using violence in a dating
relationship.
 Self control theory and serial killers
 Although misdemeanours are definitely more common among those with low self-control, there
is also a relationship between low self-control, bad parenting, and being a serial killer.
 Those who grow up in neglectful environments not only develop low levels of self-control but
also become unable to form meaningful relationships and resort to extreme forms of crime.
  In accordance with this, research reveals that serial killers do appear to have low-self control
 Self control theory and white collar crimes
 having a lack of self-control makes people more impulsive and less likely to consider the
consequences of their actions, including engaging in white-collar activity, such as identity theft
and money laundering.
 Self control theory and juvenile delinquency
 self-control theory also plays a role in explaining broader juvenile delinquency. The interaction
of genetic and environmental factors previously discussed helps to make sense of why a juvenile
would engage in such behaviour.
 Additionally, a lack of self-control also helps to explain why an individual would re-commit a
crime (i.e., why recidivism rates are high among juveniles
 Self-Control Theory Strengths And Weaknesses
 there is insufficient empirical evidence to actually support this claim. Additionally, this theory does
not help explain why some children who are raised under nonideal circumstances turn to crime and
others do not. Thus, it is unclear the extent to which this theory is truly a general theory of crime.
 Furthermore, while bad parenting is certainly one factor that helps to explain why certain people
have lower levels of self-control, this is by no means the only factor. Neighbourhoods, attachment
to teachers and peers, and other factors also play a strong role in the development of self-control.
 Therefore, while this theory has obvious strengths in contributing to our collective understanding
of why people commit crimes, the Self-Control Theory of Crime does not paint the full picture and
thus, more research is needed to fully understand the drivers behind criminal activity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8095718/

https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-control-theory-of-crime.html