Lecture Social Control Theory

8/6/2019 Lecture Social Control Theory

1/41

Social Control Theory

Muhammad Farooq

Lecturer

Institute of Social & Cultural Studies

University of the Punjab

Lahore


2/41

CONTROL THEORIES OF CRIME

Control theories take the opposite approachfrom other theories in criminology. As their

starting point, instead of asking what drives

people to commit crime, they ask why do

most people not commit crime.

Why people obey law.

They focus on restraining or "controlling"

factors that are broken or missing inside thepersonalities of criminals.


3/41

People who obey the law do so because they are

responding to appropriate social controls. They aresocialized to obey rather than to disobey the law,and this socialization process requires a lot of work.Those who violate the law do so because the socialcontrols are not working; their bonds to law-abiding

persons have been broken or were neverdeveloped. Thus, criminals are not different kinds ofpeople; they are not people who learned the wrongkind of behaviors; they are people who live in thewrong neighborhoods; they are people for whom

social controls have, for whatever reason, beenineffective. Crime results when social controls areweakened or broken down; when controls arestrong, crime does not occur. The problem is


4/41


Control theories maintain that all peoplehave potential to become criminals but that

bonds to conventional society prevent them

from violating the law.

Self-control:A strong moral sense that renders

a person incapable of hurting others or violating

social norms

Personal controls: individual conscience,commitment to law, positive self-concept

Social controls: attachments to and

involvement in conventional social

institutions (i.e. family, schools, religion)


5/41

Reiss and Nyes Control Theory Albert J. Reiss Jr., who maintained that criminal behavior

results from the failures ofpersonal and social controls. Personal controls are internalized, while

social controls result from formal controls (such as laws) and informalcontrols (such as social sanctions from parents, schools, etc.).

Shortly after Reisss work was published, sociologist F. Ivan

Nye analyzed delinquency using three control categories: 1. Direct control, by which punishment is imposed or threatened for

misconduct and compliance is rewarded by parents.

2. Indirect control, by which a youth refrains from delinquencybecause his or her delinquent act might cause pain and

disappointment for parents or others with whom the youth has a closerelationship.

3. Internal control, by which a youths conscience or sense of guiltprevents him or her from engaging in delinquent acts.50


6/41

Social Control Theories

Reckless containment theory a strong

self-image insulates a youth from

crimogenic influences.

Hirshis social bond theory onset of

criminality is linked to the weakening ofsocial ties or bonds.


7/41

Hirschi Social Control Theory

Also known as Social Bonding Theory

People are usually kept under controlbecause they fear that illegal behavior willdamage their relationships with others

Individuals become free to commit crimeswhen their ties to society are broken or

diminished


8/41

Elements of Social Bond Theory


9/41

Attachmentthe emotional and psychological

ties to another person

Commitmenttime energy and effortexpended in conventional action such as a

good job.

Involvementsignificant time and attention

spent in conventional activities

Beliefacceptance of moral legitimacy of law

and authority.


10/41

Hirschi Social Control Theory

Wrote Causes of Delinquency in 1969 We are all animals and thus all naturally

capable of committing criminal acts.

Hirschi describes four basic social bondsthat act as barriers to a youthsinvolvement in delinquency.

1. Attachment

2. Commitment 3. Involvement

4. Belief


11/41

Used self-report surveys to sample about 4,000 junior and

senior high school youths in the San Francisco Bay Area.

He used the results of this study to test his theory as well

as challenge theories that argued delinquency is caused by

social strain or cultural norms.


12/41

Hirschi found no relation between reported delinquency acts andsocial class. These findings did not agree with strain theory

because strain is a class-based theory which explains that crime

is a function of a lack of social status.

Hirschi also found that the educational and occupationalaspirations of delinquents were lower than non-delinquents, as

well as their expectations for success. It contradicts strain theory

in that youths most prone to strain are those with high

aspirations but low expectations.


13/41

Regardless of race or class and regardless of delinquency of

friends, boys who were more closely attached to their parents,

whether they were prone to criminal activity or not, were less likelyto report committing delinquent acts.

Boys who reported more acts of delinquency were less attached to

their peers than boys who reported fewer delinquent acts. These

two findings contradict cultural theories, such as learning theory,which states that attachment to deviant friends or deviant parents

would theoretical lead to increases in reporting of delinquency.


14/41


Testing Social Control Theory Empirical studies revealed a strong support for Hirschis

control theory

Youths strongly attached to parents were less likely

to commit criminal acts

Youths involved in conventional activities were less

likely to engage in criminal behavior

Youths involved in unconventional behaviors such

as drinking and smoking were more prone todelinquency

Youths who maintained weak relationships with

others moved toward delinquency


15/41

Containment TheoryContainment Theory

PREMISEPREMISE

Society producesSociety produces pushes andpushes and

pullspulls toward crime. In sometoward crime. In some

people, they are counteractedpeople, they are counteractedbyby internal and externalinternal and external

containmentscontainments, such as a good, such as a good

selfself--concept and groupconcept and group

cohesiveness.cohesiveness.


16/41

Weak Outer

Containment

Weak InnerContainment

CAN lead to

Subject to the pulls of

the environment which

include distractions,

temptations, advertising,

and propaganda.

Containment Theory

Subject to the internalpushes which include

frustration, restlessness,

disappointment, rebellion,

hostility, and inferiority.


17/41

Reckless Containment Theory

Both internal and external forces operateon individuals as make decisions tocommit or avoid crime

Combination of (a) pushes and pulls and

(b) containments

Containments inhibit crime

Pushes and pulls encourage crime


18/41


1) External pushes

Adverse environment

Poverty unemployment

Lack of opportunities

Economic insecurity or institutions that dont

satisfy your needs

Inequality


19/41


2) Internal pushes Extreme restlessness Feeling hostility

Tension

Anxiety

Disappointment Frustration

Rebellion

Inferiority

Some organic pushes are

Mental retardation

Brain damage

Epilepsy, Psychoses, neurosis


20/41


3) Internal containment Composed on self components

A favorable image of self

High level of frustration tolerance Strongly internalized morals & values

Well developed ego & super ego

An awareness of being inner directed, goal

oriented person


21/41


4) External containments

Attachment to family, community& other parts

of social structure

Greater strength of each will reduce

vulnerability to crime & delinquency, but inner

containment is more important in mobile,industrialized settings


22/41

Inner pressures and pullsdesires, needs, andwants, as well as feelings of restlessness,hostility, and the need for immediate gratification

Inner containmentsself-esteem,responsibility, moral codes, tolerance offrustration

Outer pressures and pullsinfluences of peers,unemployment, living conditions

O

uter containments

parents, police, schools,juvenile justice system


23/41


A persons self-image is a major predictor

of which of these forces will dominate

ones behavior


24/41


25/41

SOCIAL REACTION THEORY

or

LABELING THEORY

This theoryholds that

criminality is promoted by

becoming negatively labeled

by significant others.


26/41

In contrast, labeling theory asks why the personwas designateddeviant. The critical issue is not the

behavior itself but why the behavior is labeleddeviant. Not all who engage in certain kinds ofbehavior are labeled deviant, but some are. What isthe reason for this distinction? Sociologist Kai T.Erikson described this approach as follows:

Some men who drink heavily are calledalcoholics and others are not, some men whobehave oddly are committed to hospitals and othersare not . . . and the difference between those who

earn a deviant title in society and those who gotheir own way in peace is largely determined by theway in which the community filters out and codesthe many details of behavior which come to its

attention.


27/41

Tannenbaum (1938) was perhaps the first labeling theorist.His main concept was the dramatization of evil. With it, heargued that the process of tagging, defining, identifying,

segregating, describing, and emphasizing any individual outfor special treatment becomes a way of stimulating,suggesting, and evoking the very traits that are complained of.

Lemert (1951) is regarded as the founder of what is called the"societal reaction" approach. Briefly, this approach

distinguishes between primary deviance (where individuals donot see themselves a deviant) and secondary deviance (whichinvolves acceptance of a deviant status). Primary deviancearises for a wide variety of reasons, biological, psychological,and/or sociological. Secondary, or intensified deviance

becomes a means of defense, attack, or adaptation to theproblems caused by societal reaction to primary deviation.

According to Becker (1999), being caught and branded asdeviant has important consequences for ones further socialparticipation and self-image,


28/41

Labeling Theory:

The Basis for Self-Concept

InitialInitialCriminalCriminal

ActAct

DetectionDetection

by theby theJusticeJusticeSystemSystem

DecisionDecisionto Labelto Label

CreationCreationof a Newof a NewIdentityIdentity

AcceptanceAcceptanceof Labelsof Labels

DevianceDevianceAmplificationAmplification


29/41


30/41


31/41

5.4 Social Reaction Theories

Social reaction theories examine therole that societal institutions play in

perpetuating delinquent behavior.

These theories argue that the reactionof society to delinquent behavior may

lead to continuation of the behavior.

Slide 31


32/41

Labeling Theory

Labeling theory argues that the law

represents the values and interests of

individuals and organizations that are able

to organize resources to influencelegislation.

Slide 32


33/41

Labeling Theory

Labeling theory is not concerned with

what causes the initial delinquent act, but

is concerned with what leads to continued

delinquency.

Slide 33


34/41

Lemerts Labeling Theory Edwin M. Lemert proposed that the

reaction to delinquency is what causesit in the future.

Most juveniles commit acts ofprimarydeviance, and are not considered

delinquents.

primary deviance: Initial acts of delinquency that go undetected by parents, family,

friends, and the juvenile justice system.

Slide 34


35/41

Lemerts Labeling Theory

Once a youth has been processed bythe juvenile justice system, they are

considered delinquent.

Now that the person has been labeleddelinquent police, teachers, peers, and

others treat the individual as a delinquent.

Slide 35


36/41

Lemerts Labeling Theory The youth internalizes the label, sees

themselves as delinquent, andsecondary deviance occurs.

secondary deviance: Continued delinquentbehavior because the individual is now acting

according to the delinquent label.

Slide 36


37/41

Lemerts Labeling Theory

The label of delinquent is a self-fulfillingprophecy, the process is a status

degradation ceremony.

status degradation ceremony: Term coined

by Garfinkel to describe the labeling process.

Slide 37


38/41

Labeling TheoryLabeling theory has had a significant

impact on the juvenile justice system,including programs such as:

Diversion

Confidentiality standards for records Deinstitutionalization

Slide 38


39/41

Labeling Theory

diversion: The practice of removing juveniles from the juvenile justice process and

providing them with treatment services outside of the juvenile justice system.

deinstitutionalization: The removal of juveniles from institutions because of thelabeling effects and their placement in community-based corrections.

Slide 39


40/41

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists state that delinquentbehavior is due to conflict in society that

arises from an unfair distribution of wealth

and power.

Slide 40


41/41

QUESTION

According to the previous diagram,

is labeling a cause of crimeor,

the result of crime?

Documents

Lecture Social Control Theory