Most theories assume that people naturally obey the lawand that special forces drive people to commit crime

Biological

Psychological

Social

Control theories (there are more than one) are different

Assume that people would commit crimes if left alone

Crime caused by weaknesses in restraining forces

Crime NOT caused by driving forces

▪ Not by biology, not by psychology, not by social structure

Therefore, to prevent crime, must have, devise and apply “controls”

Need cops, judges, parents, social rules, law-abiding friends and groups...

Reiss – personal and social controls

Personal controls thru ego and superego

Failure to submit to social controls

▪ Skipping school, disciplinary problems

Toby – control through “stake in conformity”

Students who do well in school have better prospects, thus have more to lose

Contagion through peer support

Nye – social control through family

Direct control through punishment

Internal control - conscience

Indirect control (ID with parents & others)

Control depends on availability of means to satisfy needs

Most delinquents (D’s) not intrinsically different fromnon-delinquents D’s engage in law-abiding behavior most of the time Most D’s usually grow out of delinquency

Drift: Weakening of the moral bind of the law D’s don’t reject conventional mores: they neutralize them with

excuses and justifications “Sense of irresponsibility” – commit crimes but think they’re guiltless “Sense of injustice” – wrongly dealt with by the CJ system

Once bond is weakened, factors take over that cause juvenile to choose delinquency D’s beset by hopelessness and lack of control over future D’s gain a sense of power through acting

Concept may not apply to serious D’s They may not be “drifters” – may be committed or compulsive

http://youtu.be/RGVXzsTf-U0

Individuals tightly bonded to conventionalsocial groups less likely to be delinquent

Family

School

Non-delinquent peers

There are four elements of the social bond

Attachment to conventional others (affection, sensitivity to their feelings and needs)

Commitment to conventional society

Involvement in conventional activities

Belief in following conventional rules

Attachment to conventional others Boys more attached to parents report less delinquency Boys less attached to or less successful in school report more

delinquency Boys more attached to peers reported less delinquency

▪ Attachment to D peers can increase D if other controls not in place Commitment to conventional society

D’s have low educational and occupational aspirations The higher the aspiration, the lower the D

Involvement in conventional activities Youths who spent more time working, dating, watching TV, reading,

etc. had higher D (inconsistent with control theory) But: youths who reported being bored, spent less time on homework,

more time talking to friends & riding around in cars also had higher D Belief in following conventional rules

Youths who thought it OK to break the law reported more delinquency No support for a “lower-class culture” – Delinquent beliefs held by

academically incompetent youths from all social strata

Hirschi tested only for relatively trivialmisconduct – few seriously delinquent youthsin the sample

Are different causal processes at work for serious delinquency? Hirschi’s delinquency takes little time – it is not an all-consuming

lifestyle, such as an active criminal gang Hirschi assumes that control applies to all D behavior, trivial and

serious Hirschi assumes that D behavior does not need a specific cause – it is

“naturally motivated”, requires no explanation other than it is “fun”

▪ Are shootings “natural”?

▪ Do individual pathologies matter? Aggression? Much support for Hirschi’s theory is tautological

“Youths who thought it OK to break the law...reported more delinquency”

What’s the difference between one group and the other? (It’s like saying that delinquency causes delinquency.)

http://youtu.be/MKHlzp-bf3U

All types of crime can be explained by low self-control + opportunity to commit crime

Self-control is internal

Affected by external factors such as mentioned inHirschi’s social control theory only to age 8

Ordinary crimes have similar characteristics

Immediate gratification, few long-term benefits

Exciting, risky, require little planning or skill

Heavy cost to victim

Ordinary criminals have “low self-control”

Impulsive, insensitive

Physical, non-verbal rather than mental

Risk taking, short-sighted

Above cause smoking, drinking, involvement in accidents

Adequate child-rearing properly “socializes”a child by imposing controls Monitoring and tracking child’s behavior Recognizing deviance when it occurs Consistently punishing the behavior when recognized

Controls are ultimately internalized By age 8 self-control is essentially set After age 8, change in rate of offending determined by opportunities

Low self-control explains many relationships Delinquent peers delinquency: Those with poor self-control seek

each other out School performance delinquency: Those with poor self-control

avoid school Unemployment crime: Those with poor self-control have trouble

keeping jobs

http://vimeo.com/15514634

Tautological: “low self-control” defined by “low self-control” behavior

Can low self-control explain white collar crime?

Can low self-control explain variation (differences) in crime rates across time and place?

Difficulty testing causal connection between poor child-rearing and self-control

Is self-control really set by age 8?

How do opportunities interact with low self control to produce crime?

One test found a relationship between low-self control and opportunity for crimes of fraud, not for crimes of force

Another test found that low self-control and opportunity have an explanatory effect on crime, but it’s very small

Hirschi altered definition of self-control to be the “tendency to consider the full range of costs of a particular act”

Support...

Curfew laws

After-school activities

Job programs

Head-Start & early-childhood education

Parental instruction

Assistance to struggling families

Oppose...

Adult offender programs (may be too late)

Police tactics that create opportunities to commitcrime (e.g., decoys, undercover work)