John Laub And Thomson's Theory Of Crime

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

Based on the social disorganization theory; Shaw and McKay account for high crime begins with poverty, low socioeconomic status and the inability to “control the teenage population,” (Sampson, 2016). Shaw and McKay also knew that within the community, delinquency was a trait that was picked-up by and from other delinquents. Furthermore, if the ability to control young

Social learning theory argues that crime and the manifestation of deviant behaviors are socially learned behaviors (Schram, & Tibbetts, 2018). The key factor in the

Juvenile delinquency is a strong predictor of adult criminality. Therefore, professionals aiming to reduce overall crime can benefit by seeking preventative and early intervention methods with troubled youth. This article seeks to address the “psychosocial and psychopathological risk factors as predictors of adult criminal outcomes” (Aebi et al., 2013). The design of the study replicates an older longitudinal study performed by Zurich Adolescent Psychology and Psychopathological Study, or ZAPPS. First, the researchers utilized data from the original study to determine which risk factors have the possibility impacting future adult criminal behavior. Next, the coping strategies of offenders are analyzed to determine if poor coping skills attribute to long-term antisocial behavior.

According to Laub and Sampson, “persistent offenders come to change their life course and desist from crime” (Cullen, et al., 2014, p. 545). There are four features that are described for this change process. First, an offender experiences a turning point in their life (marriage, job, family). Secondly, the individual is exposed to an informal social control because of this turning point. Third, the individuals routine activities are changed and now unstructured toward where they once were (bars), Now they are more responsible. Lastly, there is the individuals commitment to their new

It is unfortunate that crime exists in our daily lives. There really is no way to stopping crime completely, no matter how many laws or punishment are present, people will continue to keep breaking rules. There are many theories of why that may be the case, for example, Caesar Lombroso and his “atavistic” theory with the Positivist School theory and how people were “born criminals”, or the Rational Choice Theory, devised by Cornish and Clarke, described that people could think rationally and how people will naturally avoid pain and seek pleasure referred to as “hedonism” (Cartwright, 2017, lecture 4). Since it is apparent that crime will continue to exist, it is not only important to understand the study of crime and the feedbacks to it,

“In 1993, Moffitt states that manifestations of antisocial behavior emerge very early in the life course and remain present thereafter, suggesting childhood behaviors are links to adult criminality.” This notes the importance of exploring why these antisocial tendencies come to light in adolescence, in order to prevent future criminality. Thus, researching the differences and similarities between conduct disorder (CD), antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), and their rehabilitation can influence the likelihood of future crime, in addition to studying future criminality based on gender, individuality, and the effectivity of treatment in relation to CD.

Social control theory and life course theory focus on people’s lives and how they interact with one another.

The first factor that often leads to juvenile delinquency involves the child’s social influences within their communities. The community of individuals that a child is normally around on a normal basis includes family, friends, and neighbors. Depending on the overall quality of the relationship that the child has with each member of their community, they maybe more or less inclined to commit crimes. According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, juveniles who experience abuse or neglect from any member of their community may be more inclined to become deviant (n.d.). For example, if a father abuses his child, the odds of the child’s willing to resort to deviance becomes significantly higher than a father who treats his son like a normal parent. Another way a child can be socially exposed to deviance is through example. If a parent is always in a run with law enforcement on a constant basis, that child may grow up to be just like them simply because that is how they were raised. The third and final social influence comes outside of the family circle where the actions that a child’s friends partake in can also determine whether or not the child will pursue acts of deviance. The influence of a friend’s actions can either be positive or negative depending on the values of the friend. For instance, say a child named Johnny hangs around a group of troublemakers who always wreck havoc, smoke joints, and talk trash about everyone. This kind of relationship between Johnny and his friends can lead Johnny to becoming just like the troublemakers because of peer pressure.

Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy suggests that many people behave antisocially but this can either be temporary or persistent. Temporary antisocial behavior is common among adolescents and many of them grow out of it. If the antisocial behavior is persistent, it can later predict criminal behavior down the road. Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy is an integrated theory made up of strain and social learning theories with a positivism approach. Consistent, stable antisocial behavior is found among a small amount of males whose behavior is extremely problematic (Moffitt, 1993). Temporary versus persistent antisocial persons have two qualitatively different types of individuals and none of them, up to this point, have obtained the research of

Terrie Moffitt’s Dual Pathway theory is based on a longitudinal study of a New Zealand birth group (Walsh & Hemmens, p. 344). The data for this study was collected by scientists of various professions, allowing for testing of both psychosocial and biosocial hypotheses. Moffitt divides offenders into two categories: Adolescence-limited (AL) offenders, who largely cease offending later in life, and Life-Course-Persistent (LCP) offenders, who demonstrate stable levels of criminal activity and are characterized by “neuropsychological and temperamental deficits that are manifested in low IQ, hyperactivity, inattentiveness, negative emotionality, and low impulse control” (Walsh & Hemmens, p. 344).

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.

Terrie E. Moffitt’s theory argues that antisocial behavior can be 1) life-course persistent offenders who spend the majority of their life exhibiting antisocial behavior and 2) adolescence-limited offenders who grow out of the antisocial behavior as they age. (Cullen & Agnew, 2011, Pg. 477) While it may be disputed that there are only two categories of antisocial individuals, Moffitt’s theory is supported by our other course readings. For example, Patricia Brennans study concluded that a lack of cognitive abilities due to

The social learning theory states that criminal behavior is learned. Criminals learn their bad behaviors from close relationships they may have with criminal peers (Siegel & Worrall, 2016). Children look up to their parents; they want to be just like them. So, if children grow up surround by crime, they think that it is both normal and acceptable, and it is likely that they will participate in criminal behavior when they are older. As a result of learning this behavior, it is passed down through generations and is never broken. This can also be learned from friendships people may have with negative influences. Young adults and children want to fit in with their peers, so if they are surrounded with those who commit crimes, they are probably going to do the same because “everyone is doing it”.

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