Compare and contrast at least two theories which purport to provide an explanation for offending Essays

Compare and contrast at least two theories which purport to provide an explanation for offending Essays Compare and contrast at least two theories which purport to provide an explanation for offending Essay Compare and contrast at least two theories which purport to provide an explanation for offending Essay Control theories try to explain that crime is more likely in the absence of controls. Some control theorists argue that people have a free choice whether to commit crime or not and are influenced by the likelihood of being caught or punished. Clarke (1980) argued that crime resulted from a rational choice on the part of the offender who assessed the risks of any particular situation (Croall 1998:73). These theories are closely related to anomie theories because they focus on regulating natural urges that people have to commit crime. There were four main theorists who dealt with control theories regarding criminal activity: Travis Hirschi, David Matza, Stephen Box and Harriet Wilson. Hirschi (1969) Travis Hirschi gave the statement, The question, Why do they do it? is simply not the question the theory is designed to answer. The question is, Why dont we do it?' (Maguire, Morgan Reiner 2002:57). He basically was saying that control theories were mainly focused on trying to explain why people did not commit crime but in doing so, these theories provided explanations for why people really do commit crime. Hirschi believed that crime comes about when social bonding processes fail. He provided four elements that related to these processes, which, if they failed, would result in criminal acts. * Attachment: relates to an individuals receptiveness to the ideas and opinions of others. * Commitment: the amount of time and effort that a person is willing to put in to ensure that they conform. * Involvement : the amount of participation in conforming activities * Belief: the amount of conviction that a person has to follow the rules. Hirschi later developed this theory even more, with Gottfredson, by introducing self-control and impulsivity into the equation. They believed that low self-control results in crime because crime provides a direct and simple gratification of desires that is attractive to those who cannot or will not postpone pleasure (Maguire, Morgan Reiner 2002:57). They also believed that crime can result from lack of sympathy for the victim and requires hardly any skill or planning in advance. This makes crime attractive (mainly to youths) because it can improve the offenders feelings of power. The benefits of crime are often short lived and can be described as quick fixes for the criminal. This, according to Hirschi, can appeal to the impulsive nature of criminals and provides a compelling argument stating that most criminals are risk-taking, short-sighted individuals. Matza (1969) In David Matzas book, Delinquency and Drift Matza theorises that criminals are not very different from the average human being because most of the time they conform with societys stipulations. He does however say that sometimes the grip of control (Matza 1969) loosens on these individuals and this compels them to crime because they feel that they are no longer responsible for their actions. David Matza and Gresham Sykes developed their theory concerning techniques of neutralization. These techniques provide offenders with a way of counteracting the guilt that they may feel while committing an offence. This relief often urged them even more to commit crime and can be an explanation for why people commit crime. Such techniques can be: * to condemn their condemners to blame the faults of the police or courts for their actions * to deny injury to say that there was no harm in their actions * to deny the victim to say that the victim of the crime was insignificant and that it was probably their own fault anyway * to appeal to higher loyalties to say that they were committing the crime for a good or worthy cause. Box (1971) Stephen Box linked the theories of Hirschi and Matza together by introducing his own set of variables that affect social control: * Secrecy the chances that a delinquent could hide his/her criminal acts * Skills the skills and knowledge that is required from the offender to commit the act * Social Support the encouragement that the offender gets to commit an offense by his friends and peers * Symbolic Support the encouragement that the offender gets from other areas of the culture Box concluded that the higher the access to these variables then the higher the likelihood that a person commits an offence will be. Wilson (1980) Harriet Wilson conducted her studies on families who were socially deprived in Birmingham, England during the 1970s and 80s. She believed that socialization within the family, the community and the school..were informal agencies of control (Croall 1998:73). She reported that chaperonage differentiated families with delinquent youths and families without. This showed that if youths did not have adults accompanying them around their areas then they were more likely to commit crime. The parents were effectively acting as guardians and preventing the youths from committing crime and this was seen as a form of social control. Routine Activities Theory This theory is mainly based on the works of Marcus Felson and focuses on how crime occurs during routine activities within normal, every day life. The main concepts of routine activities theory draws on the concepts of control theory and creates a different theory regarding these ideas. Felson (2002) * Believed that most criminals were not that much different from the average person not very skilled, petty and unremarkable. * Concluded that Crime is embedded in the very architecture of everyday life (Maguire, Morgan Reiner 2002:61) The basis of routine activities theory is that, according to Cornish and Clarke (1986), the offender seeks to gain quick pleasure and avoid imminent pain (Felson 2002:37). The whole point of crime is to obtain things without much effort and dedication. Crime is seen as a choice that every individual makes and different aspects affect these choices. Felson pointed out that most crime was fast and easy and that criminals were not required to be skilled or extremely daring in order to commit an offence. Choices are the central theory behind Felsons thinking and he theorised that everyone makes decisions whether or not to commit a criminal act but some factors affect these choices more than others. He compared the criminal act to a theatre setting as in the cue-decision sequence. The sequence emphasises that offenders respond to cues in their immediate surroundings as shown below: 1) An individual enters the setting 2) Cues within the setting communicate temptations and controls 3) Interpretations are made of these cues by the individual 4) The individual then decides whether or not to commit an offence. As you can see, normal, everyday stimuli affect the individuals decision and the environment out with of the individuals control influences their decision to commit a criminal act. It is important to note that some settings have high controls and some do not. Also, some settings have stronger temptations than others. Each different setting contains different factors that greaten or lessen the possibility that a person will commit a crime. Another sequence that influenced Felsons way of thinking is the disinhibition sequence. This mainly focuses on the blame and control factors that influence our choices. 1) An individual starts drinking some alcohol with friends 2) He/she starts to get a buzz but keeps on drinking 3) They start to smoke marijuana and get even more of a buzz 4) Some of the group decide to commit a crime. Some criminals tend to blame their criminal acts on the amount of alcohol that they have smoked or the amount of drugs that they have taken but these are not defences that will stand up in court. This theory of blame is more to alleviate the offenders from the guilt that they feel concerning the crime itself. Felson believed that self-control had quite a lot to do with why people commit crime. He thought that individuals who had low self-control were more likely to commit crime because they were not as fully in control of their minds, bodies and actions as normal individuals. He also thought everybody receives constant environmental cues that assist us in keeping our self-control. These reminders occur in lots of different settings and can come in verbal or physical forms.