

Most theories assume that people naturally obey the law
and 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...

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




Most delinquents (D’s) not intrinsically different from
non-delinquents

D’s engage in law-abiding behavior most of the time

Most D’s usually grow out of delinquency
http://youtu.be/RGVXzsTf-U0
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


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 to conventional others (affection,
sensitivity to their feelings and needs)

Commitment to conventional society

Involvement in conventional activities

Belief in following conventional rules




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


Hirschi tested only for relatively trivial
misconduct – few seriously delinquent youths
in the sample
http://youtu.be/MKHlzp-bf3U
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.)

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 in
Hirschi’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



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
http://vimeo.com/15514634
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

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”


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 commit
crime (e.g., decoys, undercover work)