Control Theories

Control Theory is different Most other theories assume that people naturally obey the law and that special forces drive people to commit crime Biological Psychological Social Control theory is different Assumes that people would commit crimes if left to their own devices Crime caused by weaknesses in restraining forces NOT by strength of driving forces

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

Matza – “Delinquency and Drift” Most delinquents not essentially different from non-D’s 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 do not reject conventional mores but neutralize them with excuses and justifications “Sense of irresponsibility” – can still commit crimes and consider self guiltless “Sense of injustice” – wrongly dealt with by the CJ system Once bond is weakened, positive causes take over that make the juvenile choose delinquent behavior D’s beset by hopelessness and lack of control over future D’s gain a sense of power through acting BUT -- serious D’s may not be “drifters” - may be committed or compulsive

Hirschi – Social Control Theory Individuals tightly bonded to conventional social groups less likely to be delinquent Family School Non-delinquent peers There are four elements of the social bond Attachment: affection for and sensitivity to others Commitment: to conventional society Involvement: in conventional activities Belief: in obeying conventional rules

Hirschi’s Test of Social Control Theory -- Self-report survey of 4,000 junior & senior-high students Findings (attachment to parents, school, peers) Boys more attached to parents report less delinquency Boys less attached or 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 Findings (commitment, involvement, belief) D’s have low educational and occupational aspirations The higher the aspiration, the lower the D 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 had higher D Youths who thought it o.k. to break the law reported more delinquency No support for a “lower-class culture” - D beliefs held by academically incompetent youths from all strata

Hirschi’s control theory - issues Hirschi tested only for relatively trivial misconduct - few seriously delinquent youths in 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?

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 social control (Hirschi’s prior 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

Cause of low self-control: Poor child-rearing practices 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 at which people commit crime determined by opportunities to commit crime Low self-control explains many relationships Delinquent peers  delinquency: Those with poor self-controls 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

Issues with control theories Theory is tautological: only way to determine if people have “low self-control” is to determine if they engage in “low self-control” behavior Can low self-control explain white collar crime? How can low self-control explain variation in crime rates? Difficulty on testing causal connection between poor child-rearing and self-control Is self-control really over by age 8? Just 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”

Control theories -- policy implications Support... Curfew laws After-school activities Job programs Head-Start & early-childhood education Parental instruction Assistance to struggling families Oppose... Adult programs (too late) Police tactics that create opportunities to commit crime