Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
genetics and criminality
principles of differential association theory
human behavior influenced by environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: genetics and criminality
Social Ecology versus Differential Association
Which is a better theory of crime Social ecology or differential association? While both have good concepts I feel that both are somewhat flawed in their concepts of crime. But for the purposes of this paper I will chose differential association as the better predictor and concept for criminal behavior as a whole.
Social ecology says that most criminal behavior is centered around those areas that are central to a neighborhood. So if a neighborhood is one of great social and economical pressures then crime is more prevalent in that area as this is true it is not true of all residents of that area. I feel some of the views of the social ecologists are somewhat racially bias. Although most criminals are young poor urban black males this does not mean that all that all young poor urban black males are criminal. Although, it is true that neighborhoods do have a great influence on young criminal behavior in my view criminal behavior itself is multi causational. Although, it is true that crime seems to decrease when you look at crime in the central part of a city and travel out from there I submit that criminal behavior may not be as different as one might think. I submit that although most criminals are young poor urban black males that those in rural setting are prone to an equal amount of criminal behavior but the police tend to look the other way instead focusing in on those who are in their view more apt to commit crime.
Not only do neighborhoods help to influence and not deter criminal behavior they also are influenced from other sources such as family, friends, schools etc. This is the view of most sociologists that adhere to the view of differential association. These views are also somewhat flawed but are a much better predictor of criminal behavior than the latter. Differential association tends to look as criminal behavior as a learned behavior this I agree with in some aspects most behavior is learned from parents, friends and family but can also be caused from psychological factors and biological factors such as some personality disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders and genetic irregularities such as XYY super males that are more prone to suffer from anti social personality disorder or psychopathy.
Differential association theory was founded by Edwin H. Sutherland (Lilly, 2012, p. 43). This theory states that “any person will inevitably come into contact with definitions favorable to violation of the law and with definitions unfavorable to violation of the law” (Lilly, 2012, p. 44). Whichever definition is more prominent in a person’s mind, will lead to their decision of “whether the person embraces crime as an acceptable way of life” (Lilly, 2012, p. 44). Sutherland composed nine propositions that explained the theory. He explained that “crime is learned through the process of differential association” (Lilly, 2012, p. 45). The nine propositions explained that “criminal behavior is learned” (Lilly, 2012, p. 45). He explained that by communicating with others, especially those that are close to them they are more likely to pick up behaviors from those people. Differential association theory also explains that learning criminal behaviors “involves all the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning” (Lilly, 2012, p. 45). While learning a criminal behavior one not only learns “the techniques of committing the crime” but also the “specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes” involved with crime (Lilly, 2012, p. 45). This is theory is shown throughout the book when the young Mr. Moore was influenced by the life of crime that was present in his
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1969). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (Revised ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Two major sociological theories explain youth crime at the macro level. The first is Social Disorganization theory, created in 1969 by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. The theory resulted from a study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago using information from 1900 to 1940, which attempts to answer the question of how aspects of the structure of a community contribute to social control. The study found that a community that is unable to achieve common values has a high rate of delinquency. Shaw and McKay looked at the physical appearance of the neighborhoods, the average income of the population, the ethnicity of the neighborhood, the percent of renters versus owners, and how fast the population of the area changed. These factors all contribute to neighborhood delinquency.
One might believe that if an individual is more educated and hold an adequate job, this person would have a lot to lose if involved with crime. This makes education and employment a type of deterrent to crime.The community is the „other parent‟ for children. They are going to follow what the community around them does. If there is violence, drugs, and weapons frequenting the streets, they are more likely to participate in it. Alcohol and drugs is a complex issue relating to crime. Looking at newspapers, most of the crimes committed involved were from people under the influence of alcohol or
Secondly, differential association varies based on the intensity, duration, frequency, priority, and timing of one’s process of learning. Through this notion, the individual’s self is disregarded and more emphasis is placed on the extrinsic factors. Furthermore, “it is an individual’s experiences and the ways in which the individual defines those experiences which constitute to the learning of criminality”. (Gongenvare & Dotter, 2007,
Crime has always been a hot topic in sociology. There are many different reasons for people to commit criminal acts. There is no way to pinpoint the source of crime. I am going to show the relationship between race and crime. More specifically, I will be discussing the higher chances of minorities being involved in the criminal justice system than the majority population, discrimination, racial profiling and the environment criminals live in.
This theory however as some have argued has emerged from social disorganisation theory, which sees the causes of crime as a matter of macro level disadvantage. Macro level disadvantage are the following: low socioeconomic status, ethnic or racial heterogeneity, these things they believe are the reasons for crime due to the knock on effect these factors have on the community network and schools. Consequently, if th...
Is it a coincidence that highly urbanized areas are full of crime and always statistically higher than small towns and rural areas? A child that is being brought up in a metropolitan area that is full of violent crimes is flooded in a sense and has nothing to do but to breath in some of the negative influences that go on around him. Therefore, I believe that the most influential scene in a child’s life is the neighborhood that he grows up in. Parents cannot constantly watch over their children, ask about whom they are hanging out with, constantly check where they are, and find out what they are getting themselves into? (Statistics p348)
Differential association theory best explains the burglary deviance. There are many principles associated with this type of learning theory. Edwin Sutherland’s theory discusses how crime is a learned behavior where one’s family, peers, and environment are of great influence. Differential association theory seeks to prove that criminal behavior is learned and this paper will evaluate the connection between the two.
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...
According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) the deferential association theory was created by Edwin Sutherland beginning in 1939. Cullen and Agnew (2011) provided some historical perspectives into the history of the creation of the differential association theory of crime. According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) Edwin Sutherland developed the basis of his differential association theory from the work of Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory. According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) Edwin Sutherland developed his theory based on Shaw and McKay’s argument that crime differences in neighborhoods or communities resulted from the exposure to and learning of criminal values, mainly by association with others in the same neighborhood. Sutherland capitalized on these ideas in his theory of differential association which according to Cullen and Agnew (2011) was the first attempt at explaining crime from an individual’s perspective to what societal factors cause this individual to commit crime.
The study of criminology involves many different theories in which people attempt to explain reasoning behind criminal behavior. Although there are many different theories the focus of this paper is the comparison and contrasting sides of The Differential Association Theory (DAT) of Edwin Sutherland and the Neoclassicism Rational Choice Theory. The Differential Theory falls under Social Process Theories which focuses on sociological perspective of crime. The Rational Choice Theory falls under Neoclassicism which believes that criminal behavior is ultimately a choice.
Crime and criminalization can be ambiguous; crime is only crime until certain authorities deem the actions illegal. However, social inequalities can lead to increased crime rates, notions such as gender, age, race, and class influence crime and provide criminologist with the date to determine who is most likely to commit a crime and where.
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