Control Theories

1. Control Theories

2. Control theories are different • Most theories assume that people naturally obey the lawand that special forces drive people to commit crime • Biological • Psychological • Social • Control theories (there are more than one) are different • Assume that people would commit crimes if left alone • Crime caused by weaknesses in restraining forces • Crime NOT caused by driving forces • Not by biology, not by psychology, not by social structure • Therefore, to prevent crime, must have, devise and apply “controls” • Need cops, judges, parents, social rules, law-abiding friends and groups...

3. Early control theories • Reiss – personal and social controls • Personal controls thru ego and superego • Failure to submit to social controls • Skipping school, disciplinary problems • Toby – control through “stake in conformity” • Students who do well in school have better prospects, thus have more to lose • Contagion through peer support • Nye – social control through family • Direct control through punishment • Internal control - conscience • Indirect control (ID with parents & others) • Control depends on availability of means to satisfy needs

4. Matza – “Delinquencyand Drift” • Most delinquents (D’s) not intrinsically different fromnon-delinquents • D’s engage in law-abiding behavior most of the time • Most D’s usually grow out of delinquency • Drift: Weakening of the moral bind of the law • D’s don’t reject conventional mores: they neutralize them with excuses and justifications • “Sense of irresponsibility” – commit crimes but think they’re guiltless • “Sense of injustice” – wrongly dealt with by the CJ system • Once bond is weakened, factors take over that cause juvenile to choose delinquency • D’s beset by hopelessness and lack of control over future • D’s gain a sense of power through acting • Concept may not apply to serious D’s • They may not be “drifters” – may be committed or compulsive http://youtu.be/RGVXzsTf-U0

5. Travis Hirschi:Social Control Theory • Individuals tightly bonded to conventionalsocial groups less likely to be delinquent • Family • School • Non-delinquent peers • There are four elements of the social bond • Attachment to conventional others (affection, sensitivity to their feelings and needs) • Commitment to conventional society • Involvement in conventional activities • Belief in following conventional rules

6. Hirschi’s test of social control theory –self-reports by 4,000 high-school student • Attachment to conventional others • Boys more attached to parents report less delinquency • Boys less attached to or less successful in school report more delinquency • Boys more attached to peers reported less delinquency • Attachment to D peers can increase D if other controls not in place • Commitment to conventional society • D’s have low educational and occupational aspirations • The higher the aspiration, the lower the D • Involvement in conventional activities • Youths who spent more time working, dating, watching TV, reading, etc. had higher D (inconsistent with control theory) • But: youths who reported being bored, spent less time on homework, more time talking to friends & riding around in cars also had higher D • Belief in following conventional rules • Youths who thought it OK to break the law reported more delinquency • No support for a “lower-class culture” – Delinquent beliefs held by academically incompetent youths from all social strata

7. Hirschi’s controltheory – issues • Hirschi tested only for relatively trivialmisconduct – few seriously delinquent youthsin the sample • Are different causal processes at work for serious delinquency? • Hirschi’s delinquency takes little time – it is not an all-consuming lifestyle, such as an active criminal gang • Hirschi assumes that control applies to all D behavior, trivial and serious • Hirschi assumes that D behavior does not need a specific cause – it is “naturally motivated”, requires no explanation other than it is “fun” • Are shootings “natural”? • Do individual pathologies matter? Aggression? • Much support for Hirschi’s theory is tautological • “Youths who thought it OK to break the law...reported more delinquency” • What’s the difference between one group and the other? (It’s like saying that delinquency causes delinquency.) http://youtu.be/MKHlzp-bf3U

8. Gottfredson and Hirschi – “General Theory of Crime” • All types of crime can be explained by low self-control + opportunity to commit crime • Self-control is internal • Affected by external factors such as mentioned inHirschi’s social control theory only to age 8 • Ordinary crimes have similar characteristics • Immediate gratification, few long-term benefits • Exciting, risky, require little planning or skill • Heavy cost to victim • Ordinary criminals have “low self-control” • Impulsive, insensitive • Physical, non-verbal rather than mental • Risk taking, short-sighted • Above cause smoking, drinking, involvement in accidents

9. Gottfredson & Hirschi –poor child-rearing  lowself-control • Adequate child-rearing properly “socializes”a child by imposing controls • Monitoring and tracking child’s behavior • Recognizing deviance when it occurs • Consistently punishing the behavior when recognized • Controls are ultimately internalized • By age 8 self-control is essentially set • After age 8, change in rate of offending determined by opportunities • Low self-control explains many relationships • Delinquent peers  delinquency: Those with poor self-control seek each other out • School performance  delinquency: Those with poor self-control avoid school • Unemployment  crime: Those with poor self-control have trouble keeping jobs http://vimeo.com/15514634

10. Issues with control theories • Tautological: “low self-control” defined by “low self-control” behavior • Can low self-control explain white collar crime? • Can low self-control explain variation (differences) in crime rates across time and place? • Difficulty testing causal connection between poor child-rearing and self-control • Is self-control really set by age 8? • How do opportunities interact with low self control to produce crime? • One test found a relationship between low-self control and opportunity for crimes of fraud, not for crimes of force • Another test found that low self-control and opportunity have an explanatory effect on crime, but it’s very small • Hirschi altered definition of self-control to be the “tendency to consider the full range of costs of a particular act”

11. Policy implications of control theories • Support... • Curfew laws • After-school activities • Job programs • Head-Start & early-childhood education • Parental instruction • Assistance to struggling families • Oppose... • Adult offender programs (may be too late) • Police tactics that create opportunities to commitcrime (e.g., decoys, undercover work)