1. Control Theories

2. 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

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 – “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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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?

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 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

9. 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

10. 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”

11. 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