Under the Life course perspective there is also the argument, being an anti-developmental theory, stating that individuals can turn to crime due to low self-control. The text asserts that in 1990, Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson proposed a general theory of low self- control as the primary cause of all crime and deviance (Tibbetts, 2013:188). Self- control is the ability of a person to control their thoughts, feelings, or actions. The low self-control theory makes since as well if a person cannot control themselves and make rational decisions they will often result in acting on impulse when the opportunity to commit a crime is presented to them.
In addition there is also the Developmental Taxonomy presented by Terrie Moffitt. This developmental taxonomy distinguishes two types of offenders adolescence-limited and life-course persistent offenders (Tibbetts, 2013:191). Adolescence-limited offenders make up most of the general public and include all persons who committed offenses when they were teenagers (Tibbetts, 2013:191). This is more than likely due to the associations that the adolescent had acquired in their attempt to make decisions as an adult that in turn are not as positive. The text defines Life-course persistent offenders as the most violent and chronic of offenders committing the vast majority of serious violent offenses such as murder, rape, and armed robbery (Tibbetts, 2013:192).
In summarizing the Life-course perspective the cause of crime is presumed to stem from how a person has evolved in their criminal career. One of the key criticisms of Life-Course theory was the anti-developmental Low Self-control theory that assumes that individuals are born predisposed toward selfish, self-centered activities and that...
... middle of paper ...
...results of adoption studies (Tibbetts, 2013:89). Some of the policy implications for the biosocial perspective are universal funded preschool for all children, screening for hormone levels, and healthcare for pregnant mothers (Tibbetts, 2013:99).
In concluding these topics I have discussed the social process theory. In addition I have discussed the Life-Course perspective. I have also discussed the biosocial perspective. These three attempts to define the reason behind criminal behavior in individuals had good arguments to support their hypotheses. It is understandable that a person can be influenced by significant others, life events, genetic makeup, and environments. There is not one particular theory that defines the cause of criminal behavior within an individual and I feel as though at some point all the theories presented in criminological study integrate.
The self-control theory suggested that people engaged in criminal behaviors as they believed that crime was an advisable way of fulfilling their self-interest, which provided them a sense of pleasure immediately. Everyone has different ability to control their impulses for instant satisfaction, the ability mainly developed before puberty and relatively stable over the life span. The probability for engaging in criminal behaviors was greater in people with low self-control than those with high self-control. Moreover, the self-control theory suggested that the relationship between self-control and the involvement in criminal behaviors was less affected by factors like peer influences or cultural influences (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Therefore, self-control theory is totally different from differential association theory. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), the major cause of children with low self-control may be inefficient parenting. Parents should monitor their children, keep the children under surveillance, and actively react to improper behaviors. They should be able to recognize when deviance occurs, then punished and disapproved that misbehaviors. If the parents failed to do so, children with low self-control may be produced and thus the children may have a greater likelihood to commit in
Within the past decade there has been a wide range of research and evidence available based on both sides of the nature or nurture debate. Along with further research that identifies a number of determinants that have some form of influence towards criminal behavior and activity. This researc...
Laub and Sampson (2003) discuss the prominent theories of crime over the life course with an emphasis on the work of Terrie Moffitt. Moffitt (1993) attempted to explain life course persistence and some discontinuity. According to Moffitt (1993), there are two distinct categories of offenders concealed by early offending: adolescent-limited offenders and life-course persistent offenders. In this taxonomy, adolescent-limited offenders are those who offend temporarily and discontinue use while life-course persistent offenders are those who offend continuously, with an earlier beginning in delinquency (Moffitt 1993). Adolescent limited offenders only participate in antisocial behavior during adolescence while life-course persistent offenders participate in anti-social behavior throughout the life course beginning in early childhood and into adulthood (Moffitt 1993). Moffitt’s theory (1993) all...
As Laub and Sampson (2003) analyze crime over the life course, they highlight Terrie Moffitt’s theory and discuss the limitations of her developmental explanation. In Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, she acknowledges two categories of offenders...
Essentially, through a process of conceptual integration, different aspects of each theory can be used in conjunction to compensate for what each individual theory fails to explain, and thus can further both the scope and policy utility of the theories (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). For instance, low self-control theory asserts that low self-control is the cause of crime all the time. This may be true for some criminals, but many criminals, like those involved in white collar crimes, do not adhere to the principles of low self-control. In addition, while low self-control theory is useful in explaining why individuals may act in a certain way, it does not explain the situations that must be met for a crime to occur (Brunet, 2002). On the other hand, routine activity theory describes the situational factors that must be present for a crime to occur, but it is more difficult to apply this theory to sexting because the offender and victim do not necessarily have to meet for the crime to occur (Wilsem,
According to one of the sub-segment of the development theory, the views Life-Course Fundamentals (Theories), even as toddlers, people begin relationships and behaviors that will determine their adult life course. Some however, are unable to mature in a reasonable and timely fashion because of family, environmental, or personal problems. In some cases, transitions can occur too early, such as when an adolescent girl who engages in precocious sex gets pregnant and is forced to drop out of high school. The Life course theory also highlight that as people mature, the factors that influence their behavior changes if their surroundings changes for the best. (Criminology, The Core, 4th Edition, page 227-228).
... Crime in the Life Course. Retrieved from http://criminology.fsu.edu/center/jjeep/pdf/annual2003/chapter7ar03.pdf Moffitt, T. E. (1993). A Developmental Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/ewaters/552-04/slidsets/brian_mcfarland_aggression/moffitt_aggression.pdf Siegel, L. J. (2000).
Trait theory views criminality as a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. It is based on a mix between biological factors and environmental factors. Certain traits alone cannot determine criminality. We are born with certain traits and these traits along with certain environmental factors can cause criminality (Siegel, 2013). According to (Siegel, 2013), the study of sociobiology sparked interest in biological or genetic makeup as an explanation for crime and delinquency. The thought is that biological or genetic makeup controls human behavior, and if this is true, then it should also be responsible for determining whether a person chooses crime or conventional behavior. This theory is referred to as trait theory (Siegel, 2013). According to Siegel (2013), due to the fact that offenders are different, one cannot pinpoint causality to crime to just a single biological or psychological attribute. Trait theorist looks at personal traits like intelligence, personality, and chemical and genetic makeup; and environmental factors, such as family life, educational attainment, economic factors, and neighborhood conditions (Siegel, 2013). There are the Biosocial Trait theories an...
The prevalence of criminal activities in our society draws my attention. Every day, whether it is on TV or the radio, there is always some new crime being reported. Some of these crimes are understandable, if we take into account the offender upbringing and circumstance(s). Others are inconceivable, and allow no room for tolerance because of the criminal men’s era. We are witnessing various crimes that impel us to question ourselves as to what might be the main factor of human criminal behavior -- nature or nurture. It is a debate that researchers have been tackling for years. With so many extraneous factors that may have a hand in influencing a person propensity towards certain things, it is sometimes hard to tell what is genetic and what has been shaped by the environment. My research is focused on understanding the stimulus behind a crime by answering, especially this question posed: Is culture
... 86). Hence why I believe that criminal behaviour is influenced by mixture of a persons social background, life chances and pathology
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.
The self-control theory is proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi in their work of “General Theory of Crime” in 1990. The self-control theory of crime suggests that self-control is naturally low in childhood, and therefore, individuals who were ineffectually parented before the age of eight will develop less self-control than those who were raised with better parenting (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Muraven et al., 2006). Low levels of self-control were correlated with criminal and impulsive conduct, and an individual’s self-control will influence his social bonds and tendency to criminal activities, not the other way around. Therefore, the self-control theory is fundamentally opposed the social bond theory proposed by Hirschi himself earlier,
Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behaviour. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment.
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