Essay on Crime and Delinquency

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of Differential Association theory is about an individual learning criminal behaviour through interaction with intimate groups. His theory includes four modalities, which are frequency, duration priority and intensity. Sutherland’s theory is seen

High crime rates are an ongoing issue through the United States, however the motivation and the cause of crime has yet to be entirely identified. Ronald Akers would say that criminality is a behavior that is learned based on what an individual sees and observes others doing. When an individual commits a crime, he or she is acting on impulse based on actions that they have seen others engage in. Initially during childhood, individuals learn actions and behavior by watching and listening to others, and out of impulse they mimic the behavior that is observed. Theorist Ronald Akers extended Sutherland’s differential association theory with a modern viewpoint known as the social learning theory. The social learning theory states that

And on the other hand how “Code of the Streets” shows links to the Differential Association and Social Learning theories of crime. The Differential Association (closely related to Social Disorganization theory), developed by Edwin Sutherland, and Social Learning theory, developed by Ronald Akers, both theories of crime are theories that try to explain, at a micro-level, why individuals rather than groups of individuals commit crime (Feldmeyer, Differential Association and Social Learning, 2015).

Social Science theories in criminology builds frameworks of empirical evidence which are used to study and interpret the social phenomenon of crime (Callinicos, 1999). Of the many theories developed over the course of the study of the science of criminology, Robert Agnew’s General Strain and Edwin H. Sutherland’s Differential Association theories stood out the most while I indulged in Carl Hiaasen novel Bad Monkey. In this essay I will be using Carl Hiaasen novel Bad Monkey to draw out examples of Robert Agnew’s General Strain and Edwin H. Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory. In this essay, I will be reviewing Andre Yancy and his newest lover Dr. Rosa Campesino in an effort to better understand Agnew and Sutherland’s theories respectively.

The age of onset, duration, intensity and frequency are important in analyzing the influence on Ortiz 's learned behaviors. Differential association states that with overexposure to non-law abiding attitudes and values, such as the ones present in the 500 Block gang and at the home of Ortiz, comes the learned behavior that committing homicide is acceptable. Like any other learned behavior, Ortiz learned that

Sutherland, both a sociologist and professor, developed Differential Association theory in 1939. Sutherland made a realization that crime happens in all social standings, not just the lower class. According to Sutherland, criminal activity is not inherent but learned. For example, children are not born to be racist but learn racism either through a family member or a close group of friends or acquaintances. Although Differential Association theory is a learned behavior, one needs to mentor someone on how to engage in deviant behavior and also how to have the right motivation and attitude to commit illegal corruption. What is the person undertaking the activity going to get out of the deviant behavior money, approval from friends or a better job? Criminals know that committing a crime is wrong, but they somehow have to rationalize to themselves that its alright because of the guilt they feel. Differential Association theory also states that people committing these crimes are doing it because it's more promising to violate the law than not too. Likewise, just because people commit deviant acts doesn’t mean they will continue to engage in those acts later in life according to

The limitation of the differential association theory lay in the question: if deviant behaviour is learned and is indeed "contagious", then why do so many in high crime areas, including criminals own siblings not become criminals? . Sociological conceptions, which regard an individual as a hapless victim of pernicious influences, are limited in providing a critical explanation of deviance, as they ignore the role of personal choice .

Differential Association theory was designed by Sutherland and Cressey (1960) which has a concept that mainly states criminal behavior is learned. The theory itself brings forward nine separate points that’s described what can lead to criminal behavior being learned. Some of those include; criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons, the setting is within intimate personal groups, techniques of committing the crime are learned, a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of the law. However the final point of this theory defines that while “criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values”

     Sutherland argued that the concept of differential association and differential social organization could be applied to the individual level and to the group level respectively. While differential association theory explains why any individual gravitates toward criminal behavior, differential social organization explains why crime rates of different social entities differ from each other's. In his fourth edition of Principles of Criminology he presented his final theory of differential association. His theory has 9 basic postulates:

The famous criminologist Edwin Sutherland developed Differential Association Theory in 1939. He felt that criminal behavior is behavior, learned, and is learned in face-to-face interactions with others. Differential association, which operates on the individual level, is where behavior is learned through interaction with others. Through this interaction an individual will learn the techniques and skills necessary to commit crime as well as the motives, rationalization, and attitudes necessary for the crime. This is achieved by determining whether the pros outweigh the cons using the factors of frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.

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

The Differential Association Theory, established by Edwin Sutherland in 1947, explicit the deviance of an individual's behavior and how it is learned through interaction with others or associations. There are several components that play a role in this theory that determines the main causes of delinquency. One of the components of this theory is, a person do not inherently become a criminal, it is a learned behavior. A person cannot decide one day he wants to commit a crime if he is not influence or challenge by others. When someone engages in criminal acts, they are most likely influence in some way that motivates them to commit the crime.

On the other hand, theorists have taken a different stand point to explain criminal and delinquent behaviour. Firstly, Edwin Sunderlands (1939) theory of differential

Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment. There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behavior, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory,.

Figuring out why people commit crimes is one of the central concerns of criminology. Do most criminals act rationally after weighing the costs of crime? Is society ever to blame for an individual to commit a crime? Do mental diseases or even genetics factor into whether a person will live a life of crime. Over the years, many people have developed theories to try to answer these questions. In fact, the number of theories of why people commit crimes sometimes seems to equal the number of criminologists. I explore these questions and much more in the paper that follow.