More handpicked essays just for you.
Contributing factors to youth crime
Social learning theory and youth crime
Contributing factors to youth crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Contributing factors to youth crime
The last thirty years have witnessed an emergence of numerous theories that are meant to explain and understand criminal behavior in the society. While some of these theories are not currently in use, most of them have metamorphosed and are used in numerous criminal studies in the modern society (Haynie, & Osgood, 2005). Today’s criminologists combine aspects that have been drawn from various disciplines to advance their comprehension on criminal behavior. In most cases, the discussion on criminal behavior centers on social and environmental factors with the social learning theory and the social structure theory being the biggest theories that are fronted to explain the prevalence of crime in the society. While these two factors are the biggest …show more content…
A clear example of this is the case where all the major theories on crime stress on the role of social factors in the rise of criminal behavior. The rational choice theory points out that people who engage in criminal activities do so willingly and as such the criminal justice system has come up with deterrence measures as a way of dissuading people from engaging in criminal activities. The criminal justice system tends to believe that the rate of crime increases depending on the social ranking of individuals and hence the reason why crime is relegated mostly in slum areas (Haynie, & Osgood, 2005).
The social learning theory points out that people learn to engage in crime mainly due to their association with other people in the society. Due to the exposure to crime, individuals end up seeing crime as something that is desirable or justifiable in some instances. According to theorists, juveniles learn to engage in criminal behavior just in the same manner that they learn to engage in the desired behavior. This means that for delinquent behavior to be abolished, young people must be taught on how to desist from people with delinquent
They can be easily learned from parents, relatives, friends, or other peers. In other words, delinquency can be learned through interactions and associations with other people. This is because “people learn behaviors and definitions of behaviors [through] interactions with [others]” (Brauer & Coster, 2012, p. 378). In the interview, the man mentions how he didn’t know why exactly he behaved the way he did, but he does come to the conclusion that paying close attention to those who you decide to surround yourself with is quite significant. The social learning theory is founded on research that has indicated that the strongest factors that correlate with delinquency are the affiliation with delinquent peers. From the very beginning he knew that his social sphere was toxic as they participated in delinquent behavior together. Peers are powerful influences and incredible learning tools, thus when an adolescent is exposed to negative influences, the learning process and imitation of criminal behavior facilitates. Although, in some instances, learning delinquent behaviors is more of a genetic makeup problem rather than a social issue. According to research “some people may be more receptive to the [type of] learning they receive from their delinquent peers” causing a “more readily [reinforcement of] their own delinquent behavior by
In addition to biological and psychological elements, there are the social factors that can influence people to engage in criminal activity. As a matter of fact, social and economic pressures play a major role in the cause of crime, since people are more likely to break the law when they have nothing else to lose. Therefore, the biological, psychological, and social factors should all be considered when trying to establish a reason for every crime. Word Count = 1,378
There are many different views on the origins of criminal behaviors within societies. One possible reason for why people commit crimes could be because they learned it from others. Edwin Sutherland works to explain this tactic through his theory of differential association. His theory states that criminal behavior is learned in interaction with others in intimate, personal groups. The learning of criminal behavior depends on the strength of the relationship with those who commit deviant actions. This learning also depends on their definitions of legal codes. For example, some people in society rationalize traffic speeding if it is only a couple miles over the speed limit while others are strongly against speeding at any degree. When a person’s
The others commonly give focus on the individuals while the social learning theory looks at a criminal activity in an aspect that involves the entire community. The social learning theory suggests that it is the societies that will a condition under which an individual will be tempted to engage in a criminal activity. This simply implies that people who live in a given geographical area will be influenced by other people to commit crimes. This is from the immediate activities of people who live close to one another. A person will learn the act of crime from what is observed from the other person and this may be a neighbor, relative, family member or any other person that they share something in common with. In some cases, this may come from the peer pressure where individuals will be forced to learn on different ways of committing crime from each other. For instance, a youth may simply feel left behind by the age-mates within their community who are well conversant with criminal activities and decide to as well learn on how crime is done. The other aspect that may drive someone towards learning criminal activities is the issue of social gaps that exist within our society. Social conflict is brought about the big wealth gaps and class warfare (Helfgott, 2008). The undermined class may be tempted to learn from other people who commit crimes such a stealing so as to leave a good life. The social learning theory also suggests that people are not born criminals but it is their environment which influences them to learn and participate in criminal
A highly debated topic concerns whether criminals commit crimes because of a social pressure or an individual urge. The strain theory supports crime as a social pressure because, as Frank Schmalleger suggests in Criminology Today 222, crime is an adaptive behavior that coincides with problems caused by frustration or unpleasant social surroundings. Also, culture conflict theory states the cause of delinquent behavior is because different social classes conflicting morals of what is appropriate or proper behavior, (Schmalleger 228). Other people believe blaming crime on the economy or where they grew up is making an excuse for criminals instead of making them take responsibility for their actions, as stated by CQ writer Peter Katel. These different views started with statistics taken on crime in the early 1800s. Andre Michel Guerry of France was one of the first examiners of “the moral health of nations” in the early 19th century, (Schmalleger 35). Another early crime statistician was Adolphe Quetelet of Belgium . Quetelet evaluated the crime rates between weather, sex, and age. His findings that climate contributes to high or low crime rate is a main factor in today’s fight against crime. It is doubtful this issue will ever be settled since there are too many pros and cons to each side. However, while specialists’ dispute this, crime is not stopping. There needs to be a way, or possibly several ways, to reduce criminal activity. It is doubtful criminal activity will ever be put to an end. The same is to be said about why people commit crime, but knowing if it is done socially or individually can help with the fight against it. In the end, individuals should take responsibility for their actions, but...
These theories include the anomie, strain, labeling, and social control theories of a crime. Throughout the paper, I will explain what each theory is arguing, while also including its strengths and weaknesses. I will then choose which theory I think explains crime the best. The first theory I will introduce is the anomie theory. This theory challenges biologically based theories by arguing that our internal drives and motives are not impacted in crime, instead crime is motivated by society. Basically, anomie theory eliminates the idea of being born as a criminal based on genetics. To go more in depth, anomie theory suggests that crime is motivated by the “American
What are theories of crime? Why are they important? In this paper, will discuss two crime theories. Social learning theory and the labeling theory. We will compare both crime theories. It will also explain how these theories are related to specific crimes. The two theories discussed will also explain the policy implications. Finally, we will address what types of programs can be created to mitigate specific crimes related to the causation theories.
While this may help adults desist from crime, it may not be as effective in helping juveniles. Most delinquency occurs during young adulthood and then the individual ages out of crime. When looking at juvenile desistance other explanations exist as to why some juveniles continue a life of crime and others desist. One idea places responsibility on the ability to make conscious decisions. A study, by Haigh, of desistance among juveniles and their transitional period to a law abiding life suggest that most juvenile offenders simply make the decision to stop committing crime. Haigh conducted the study using one on one interviews in order to capture the former offender’s interpretation as to why they stopped committing crime. Through the interviews she found that most juveniles held this preconceived idea that they had to commit crime based on where they lived. Crime was a part of a regular daily routine for many. Participants state things such as, “you have to do crime, if you don’t you get stomped on” or “we didn’t think it as dangerous, we got off on the buzz of doing it” (Haigh, 2009). Some did not have reasons as to why they made the decision to stop committing crime. Others stated that they wanted to stop committing crime because of new found relationships, making their parents happy, or from fear of being sent to jail. For this set of juveniles in the study it can be said that as they
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 individuals commit crime through their association with or exposure to others. According to Akers, people learn how to be offenders based on their observations around them and their association with peers. Theorist Akers states that for one, “people can become involved in crime through imitation—that is by modeling criminal conduct. Second, and most significant, Akers contended that definition and imitation are most instrumental in determining initial forays into crime” (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 2011:57). Although Akers’ theory has been linked to juvenile delinquency in the past, it has also been tested as a possible cause of crime overall. Individuals learn from observation that criminal behavior is justifiable in certain circumstances. In connection with juvenile delinquency and crime, peers and intimate groups have the most effect on individuals when associated with criminal behavior. One is more likely to mimic the behavior of someone who they have close ties with, whether the behavior is justifiable or...
Throughout the years criminologists have tried to come up with explanations for what makes individuals more prone to engage in criminal activity. The explanations can range from labels given to individuals to the bonds individuals have with others. Over the years, the theories have been tweaked and integrated to help gain a better understanding of why individuals commit crimes. Some theories also call for explanation on how to reduce crime in the future as well. Everything in society is caused by something, which produces the effect. The cause is generally what goes unknown most of the time. This paper will analyze Labeling Theory and Social Bond Theory. First I will clearly describe
In today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
Criminology has evolved over history into becoming a discipline all its own, along the way it grew and developed from a multiple sources of disciplines to become an integration of various theories. Reasons that seek to explain crime and deviant behaviors has mirrored the time in which research was being conducted and as time continues to change it is to be expected more theories will arise to incorporate past theories to become ever more inclusive. It is important to understand this development from the formulation of theories, the evolution of, the determining factors in testing, particular process such as social learning that are upheld as strong empirically sound theories in order for scholars to continue to advance further studies. But it is unlikely crime will ever be solved completely, for in some instances it is a necessary evil, yet it can be hoped that with the knowledge obtained thus far and that to be discovered crime and deviance might be reduced, prevented and controlled in the future to come.
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near
The causes of crime seem to be indefinite and ever changing. In the 19th century, slum poverty was blamed; in the 20th century, a childhood without love was blamed (Adams 152). In the era going into the new millennium, most experts and theorists have given up all hope in trying to pinpoint one single aspect that causes crime. Many experts believe some people are natural born criminals who are born with criminal mindsets, and this is unchangeable. However, criminals are not a product of heredity. They are a product of their environment and how they react to it. This may seem like a bogus assumption, but is undoubtedly true.