General theories of crime profess to explain all types of criminal behaviour regardless of the contextual framework and individual differences in which the criminal act in question is embedded (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball, 2011, p.110). Consequently, not only are these the most ambitious explanations of criminality in the field of criminology, they are also subject to considerable scrutiny from rival criminologists who hold that such theorizing is implausible. Nonetheless, the general theories of crime that have been proposed over the past century have been amongst the most influential in the field and shifted the paradigm of criminal thought forever. Furthermore, the contemporary criminological focus seems to be to generate a more comprehensive explanation of criminality; a generalizable theory which can serve as the panacea to the question of what causes people to commit crime (Adams, 1996).
In this paper, I will discuss several attempts to generate a general theory of crime with a particular emphasis on Travis Hirschi’s two control theories and Robert Agnew’s general strain theory. I will also discuss that while these theories have been somewhat successful in the attempt to formulate a theoretical umbrella under which all criminal behaviour can be enveloped; there remains a need for considerably more empirical research to fully substantiate the claims made by these theorists. Ultimately, I will defend the position that while the creation of a general theory of crime is a goal that should be aggressively pursued by those in the field of criminology, such theorizing is fraught with peril and remains a utopian ideal which has yet to be achieved despite the best attempts of some of the most innovative and influential minds in criminol...
... middle of paper ...
...explanations of criminal behaviour that exist in the current literature.
However, even if said theory is possible, the field of criminology is too young and the body of research to narrow at the present moment to suggest that individuals who commit crimes of passion due so for the same reason individuals commit white collar crime, rape, property crime, the distribution of contraband, or any other overt act that the state chooses to deem illegal. Indeed, as this paper has attempted to demonstrate, some of the most influential minds in the history of criminology have yet to create a true general theory that can consistently hold up to the rigours of empirical research by current criminologists who subject criminological theories to tremendous scrutiny. As a result, the search for a general theory of crime remains elusive at best and at worst, akin to chasing ghosts.
Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R., (2001). Explaining criminals and crime. Essays in contemporary criminological theory. New York City, N.Y.: Oxford University
When delving into the various theories under the umbrella of criminology, one must research and gain knowledge about each idea to understand how it stands alone and among all of the theories. These should be compared against each other to determine what similarities they may have, which overlap and strengthen the foundations of understanding criminal behavior. Then they shall be examined for contrasting points, which distinguish and possibly prove weaknesses within the theories. Doing so can help criminologists determine the accuracy and credibility of the theories and help achieve a deeper knowledge of criminals and antisocial behaviors.
Akers, R, & Sellers, C. (2009). Criminological theories: introduction, evaluation, and application. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current state of the world, and may even be reinvented.
In conclusion, both strain/anomie and social disorganization theories are both very important theories in explaining the causation of crime and deviance. Many theorists today often rely heavily on these theories. As crime and society continue to change, these theories will continue to provide a solid foundation for future theories created.
People are uniquely different and because of this reason, they do have different behaviors. Crime is one kind of behavior that an individual can engage in. They are punishable by the law and may be prosecuted by the state (Helfgott, 2008). There are different theories existing that try to explain the actions of criminals. They deeply explain what causes an individual to commit a criminal activity. This paper discusses some examples of the biological theories, social theories and psychological theories of crime.
Rational Choice Theory is the belief that man is a reasonable actor who decides means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes rational choices. Routine activity theory provides a simple and powerful insight into the causes of crime problems. At its heart is the idea that in the absence of effective controls, offenders will prey upon attractive targets. Social Control Theory gives an explanation for how behavior conforms to that which is generally expected in society. Social disorganization theory explains the ecological differences in levels of crime based on structural and cultural factors shaping the nature of the social order across communities. This approach alters the sociological studies on which is any of two or more random variables exhibiting correlated variation of urban growth to examine the concentration and stability of rates of criminal behavior. Strain Theory. Conflict theory explains the belief that individuals choose to commit a crime, which many po...
Winslow, R. W., & Zhang, S. (2008). Contemporary Theories of Crime. Criminology: a global perspective (). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Crime exists everywhere. It is exists in our country, in the big cities, the small towns, schools, and even in homes. Crime is defined as “any action that is a violation of law”. These violations may be pending, but in order to at least lower the crime rate, an understanding of why the crimes are committed must first be sought. There are many theories that are able to explain crimes, but three very important ones are rational choice theory, social disorganization theory and strain theory.
In order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the criminal behavior theories, the word theory needs to be defined. “A theory is an explanation. It tells why or how things are related to each other. A theory of crime explains why or how a certain thing or certain things are related to criminal behavior.” (Bohn and Vogel)
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009) Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (Fifth ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
An integrated theory is a combination of 2 or 3 theories that offers many explanations on why crime is occurring, compared to a traditional criminal theory that just focus on one type of aspect (Lilly et al.2010). The purpose of integrated theories is to help explain many aspects into what causes criminal behavior and why one becomes delinquent. From this an argument arises can integrated theories be used to explain all criminal behavior. Integrated theories are successful in explaining certain aspects of crime on what causes one to become deviant; however one theory alone cannot explain why an individual engages in crime. This paper will examine three integrated theories and look in-depth how these theories can explain different aspects on why criminal behavior occurs and the weakness of each theory. The three integrated theories that will be discussed in this paper are Cloward and Ohlin Differential Opportunity theory, Robert Agnew General Strain theory, and lastly Travis Hirschi’s Social Bond theory.
Strain theories of criminal behaviour have been amongst the most important and influential in the field of criminology. Taking a societal approach, strain theories have sought to explain deficiencies in social structure that lead individuals to commit crime (Williams and McShane 2010). Strain theories operate under the premise that there is a societal consensus of values, beliefs, and goals with legitimate methods for achieving success. When individuals are denied access to legitimate methods for achieving success, the result is anomie or social strain. This often leads an individual to resort to deviant or criminal means to obtain the level of success that they are socialized to pursue. This is the basic premise of strain theory. This paper will explore the evolution of strain theories by first examining their intellectual foundations which laid the foundation for Robert Merton’s theories of anomie and strain. Merton’s strain theory will be discussed in detail including the modes of adaptation that people use when faced with societal strain. Finally, the paper will conclude with the strengths and weaknesses of Merton’s strain theory and an examination of the criminological theories and social policies it has influenced.
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