For All We Think We Know About Crime There Is Still Much

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

Rational choice theory and social control theory both show why an individual may commit a criminal act, but they both also draw criticism of their approach. Rational choice theory critics point out that “The first problem with the theory has to do with explaining collective action. That is, if individuals simply base their actions on calculations of personal profit, why would they ever choose to do something that will benefit others more than themselves?” (Crossman, 2015). The theory focuses only on the individual’s mindset and doesn’t take into account any of their social structure. The society an individual grows up in may make them more prone to commit crime. Social control theory, in particular the study conducted by Travis Hirschi, also

There are numerous perspectives that explain the sociological criminology theories and social process criminology theories that have essential roles with individuals who choose to commit crime. Social process criminology theory have social forces that affect individuals when it comes to committing crime. Whether the cause of behavior is learned through alcohol abuse, domestic violence or group affiliations, social process theory has an adversarial effect on criminal behavior. Social process theory stresses the importance of group involvement and socializing with non-criminal peers within the groups. Social process theorists believe that criminality is determined by a person’s participation within different individual group affiliations.

In his article, Crime as Social Control, Christian Parenti discusses crime’s impact on society. Crime acts as a deterrent and an incentive, in both cases adding to the concept of social control. As a deterrent, crime produces anticrime movements in neighborhoods throughout the states. However, fear of crime and the repercussions of combating crime block further mobilization. The result is an incentive towards increased criminal activity due to the incapability of society to get involved or focus on the actual issue. As social control, crime dwells into the fear of people, beckons society to stay away from the issues, and leaves minorities in the hands of government intervention. This leads to the fragmentation of neighborhood ties resulting in mistrust and broken family ties, especially when dealing

The social control theory suggests that “people engage in criminal activity when their bond to society has weakened” (Ortiz, 2011). This theory

As asserted by Bohm & Vogel, Conflict Criminology assumes that society is based on a conflict between competing interest groups which may not always be equal in resources and power and where one group is dominate and the other subordinate. Examples of such groups are women vs. men, corporations vs. labor groups, whites vs. minorities and children vs. authority figures (2011). Here the assertion is that one’s behavior is based on their position in society, and as the stigma associated with crime and criminal behavior is the result of the dominant groups' ability to do so. As the dominant group uses crime as a means of diverting the attention away from their actions, it redirects the focus of the subordinate groups on one another thereby allowing

Two theorist and theories that have been recognized by many involved in the criminal justice field are Ross L. Matsueda's Theory of Differential Social Control, and, Charles R. Tittle's Control Balance Theory. Matsueda's theory, (1) identifies a broader range of individual-level mechanisms of social control, (2) specifying group and organizational processes for controlling delinquency, (3) conceptualizing classical criminological theories as special cases of a general interactionist framework, and (4) testing the interactionist model empirically against specific hypotheses drawn from competing theories. Tittle's theory believes deviance results from the convergence of four variables: (1)

This final theory is an extension of Hirschi 's (1979) original idea of micro and macro dimensions which are called cross-level or multilevel integrations (Barak, 2002). The general strain theory is also known as cross-level or multilevel integrations including the reintegrative shaming theory, power control theory, control balance theory and general integrated theory (Barak, 2002). These theories combine theories like social bonding and social learning theories with structural theories such as social disorganization and strain theories but does not address macro level factors that influence crime, and instead focus solely on criminal behavior at the micro level. So far, very little theories suggested have encompassed all levels of explaining criminology (Barak, 2002). This is a social structure- macro model which states that differential opportunities are not only crime class specific, but also are accompanied by motivations for both crime and punishment.

Crime is the product of the social structure; it is embedded in the very fibres of society. In this essay, I aim to explore different theories as to why crime exists within society and how we as a society therefore construct it. Crime is a social construct; it is always in society and is on the increase. It is inevitable. Where does it come from? It comes from legislation, from the making of laws.

Social control/bond theory was developed by Travis Hirschi in1969. The social control approach is one of the three major sociological perspectives in understanding crime in our contemporary criminology. The theory holds that individuals will break the law as a result of the breakdown of the social bonds (Akers & Sellers, 2004, p. 16). Control theorists believe that an individual conformity to societal social values and rules produced by socialization and maintained through social ties to the people and institutions. The social bond may include family attachment, an individual commitment to social norms or institutions like school, employment, churches and mosques. The key elements of the social bonds theory are an attachment to other individuals in the society and the desire to remain committed to following rules. In addition, an individual involvement in typical social behaviours as well as one 's belief or the value systems a person ascribes. According to the theory, crime and delinquency will result when a person bond to society is weak or lose (Demuth & Brown, 2004, p.65). Moreover, as social bonds increase in strength, individual costs of crime increases as well and this ultimately act as a barrier for committing a crime.

Society consent that social behavior is a direct result of an outside source. With regards to this, there has been raging debates over the years about why individuals commit crimes, how crimes should be handled and deterred. This has led to emergence of a myriad of criminological theories that attempt to give a hunch on the cause of criminality behavior. The ongoing exploration of the possible cause of criminal behavior has been in the quest to seek the best remedies in ultimately reducing types and levels of crime. Criminological theory is the explanation of the relation between the characteristics of individuals and the likelihood that the will engage in criminal behavior (Akers, 2013; Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2014).

The idea that societal strains are a contributing factor in the causation of crime in society isn’t a new one. Conversely since it was first proposed as a theory on criminology by Merton, it has been a hotly debated subject among sociologists. Trying to discern the reasons that people commit crimes or societal wrongs has been a topic for scholars and philosophers throughout written history. Ever since society moved past the age of believing in devils, sociologists have attempted to define the causation of misdeeds in order for societal leaders to better prevent and control crime. Much like treating the cause of a disease instead of just the symptoms; enter Social Strain Theory.

behavior occurs because relatively powerless individuals are unable to achieve society’s goals through socially acceptable means. (Perry, 2001). The unfairness of the justice system often goes unnoticed especially when it affects people different than ourselves. Crime is a product of social interaction and therefore the intersection of people’s identities plays a role in the way the crime is punished and labelled. Inequalities of gender, race, and class produce criminal activities (conflict theory).

What makes a criminal a criminal? Can anyone become a criminal? Answering and understanding these questions is the core work of criminologists as most criminologists attempt to make sense of why people do certain things (Garland, Sparks 2000). This essay will consider the notion that any person could become a criminal and in so doing consider the initial question. This essay will outline a range of theories that attempt to describe human behavior in relation to criminal behavior given the complexities of behaviour. Several theories will be considered as no single theory of behavior can account fully for the complexities and range in criminal behaviour. The theories range from social-control, to classical, to biological, to personality

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.