Introduction
Theories are central to any discipline. It provides a framework and parameter for how objects of study are interpreted to find the meaning of complex phenomena. According to Kraska (2006) theory “gives us our organizing concepts, frames our research questions, and guides our scholarly interpretations.” A good theory, therefore, is “intended to be controversial, to stimulate investigation, and to be tested and examined and ultimately may be indeed be discredited based exclusively on the data collected in testing it “(Kraska, 2006). In criminal justice, theories are essential especially in establishing causes and appropriate controls for a crime. The theories are created to pinpoint why individuals behave the way they do and determining how well to respond to the actions and the actors.
Rational Choice Theory (RCT)
It is one of the theories that are instrumental in explaining criminal justice and criminology. The approach draws its roots from the expected utility model in economics. Its utility premise has “an obvious affinity for the deterrence doctrine” found in criminal law (Akers, 1990). Under this theory, it is assumed that man is a logical actor that knows how best to weigh benefits and costs. This means that an individual can easily evaluate the consequences of his or her actions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Deterrence can be said to be a sub-theory of the RCT as they share some core concepts. The RCT is usually deemed to be more general than deterrence. The latter theory argues that many criminal acts or crimes are deterred or inhibited due to the existence of punishment. The “rational calculus of the pain associated with legal punishment offsets the motivation for crime (presumed to be constant across offenders but not across offenses), thereby deterring criminal activity” (Akers, 1990). The RCT, on the other hand, postulates that one pursues actions lawful or criminal, which maximize or promote payoffs and reduce or minimize costs.
Under the deterrence theory, two types of deterrence are noted namely: general and specific. General deterrence takes place where a person that has not yet been punished refrains from carrying out a crime due to the punishment that he or she may receive if the offense is committed. In this scenario, what hinders a would-be offender from committing a crime is the fear of facing legal punishment (Grasmick & Bursik, 1990). Special deterrence takes place where an individual who has just been punished avoids committing a crime since he or she fears similar punishment as in the past. A good example is a freed convict who contemplates committing a crime but avoids doing so due to his past interactions with the law.
Deterrence theory is traced back to legal/moral philosophers of the 18th century such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham (Kraska, 2006). The two thinkers conceived the theory in the sense that the existence or rather the threat of legal punishment (penalties or sanctions) that are applied by some legal authority or by a state. Over the years, the theory has found a central place in the criminal justice study with the development of new deterrence measures to promote crime-free societies. It has been expanded to incorporate non-legal types of sanction threats such as the threat of social censure by the rest of the society members if one were to commit a crime. This social censure may be in the form of fear of embarrassment or even feelings that are usually self-imposed such as feelings of shame and guilt (Grasmick & Bursik, 1990). The modern deterrence theory integrates both formal and informal sanctions. The formal sanctions entail legal punishments which include conviction, arrests, and imprisonment while the informal sanction is threats which emanate from the society and self.
In many societies, various crimes have considerable legal punishments or sanctions associated with them. However, it is only through the existence of an appropriate moral system that some of these sanctions can exist or thrive. These sanctions are severe for crimes deemed to have profound implications or to be too deviant (Grasmick & Bursik, 1990). Additionally, the existing social and legal institutions may establish a system of laws to curb the emergence of new crimes or even to reduce high rates of such crimes. For example, driving under the influence is a common crime whose frequency can be countered through strong concerted efforts and sanctions targeting criminals or would be criminals.
Social Control Theory
This theory gained much prominence in the 1960’s with different sociologists focused on evaluating different conceptions of crime. It encompasses some theories which attribute crime to sociological elements such as family, peers et cetera. Control theorists assume that conforming to society rules is subject to the effects of socialization and perpetuated by different society members (Gottfredson, 2006). Therefore, delinquency and crime take place when an individual possesses a weak or broken bond with the society. This means that as an individual’s bonds with the society increase or become strengthened, the costs associated with crime increase as well.
It is prudent to note notable intellectual roots of the theory can be traced back to some centuries. However, it was until the 20th century that theory managed to raise interest among criminologists. From then on, the social control theory has become one of the most established theories within the realm of scientific literature and has continued to garner significant empirical support. Additionally, the studies have had a profound impact on policy surrounding criminal justice (Gottfredson, 2006). This theory, however, does not support the expansion of the criminal justice system but rather policies that enhance or boost stronger bonds between society and individuals.
For a criminal justice expert or control theorist, it is key to establish or pinpoint the core elements of the bonds established with a society. According To Hirschi, there are four types of bonds. Firstly, attachment to other people is the first bond which entails one avoiding crime for the sake of others or out of respect of these parties. The sensitivity of individuals to the opinions of others is also appreciated when it comes to control (Gottfredson, & Hirschi, 2005). However, it is a relative element as different individuals are sensitive differently. Sensitivity, therefore, happens to have a variable that the criminal justice experts can use to determine the rates of delinquency and crimes. Much evidence highlights the correlation between family attachments and (non)delinquency. A 1950 research by Eleanor and Sheldon Glueck is in agreement with the aforementioned assertion (Gottfredson, & Hirschi, 2005). They noted that the affection of the parents for a child were key delinquency predictors. Among delinquents, the bond between children and parents seemed to be weaker.
The second bond happens to be the commitment to following set rules. An individual must fully comprehend the essence of set rules for him to forge the needed commitment and avoid committing crimes. The control theorists focus on capturing the idea that conforming conduct preserves and protects capital while crime and delinquency destroy it. In this case, a potential criminal poses the question “what do I have to lose or risk losing from crime?” The appropriate but short answer may be freedom, life, and property. Conversely, a longer answer would be dependent on one’s prospects and assets or even on one’s aspirations and accomplishments (Gottfredson, & Hirschi, 2005). A good example is the school set up where individuals can pinpoint the areas they are good at. Students that perform well in studies will desire to progress with their education with less focus on vices. This is because they realize the consequences of such acts and how they may affect their aspirations as individuals.
The involvement by normal social conduct or behaviors captures the accepted behaviors in the society and how well an individual is in sync with the said behaviors. The strength of the bond may either make one vulnerable to crime or not. Involvement to a great extent pinpoints that crime occurs due to the opportunity to commit them. Therefore, involvement in conventional activities such as sports, homework chores et cetera may limit the possibilities of the commission of a crime. Previous studies indicate that youth in jobs are less likely to be delinquent than those that aren’t.
Lastly, belief or value system is the next bond which is characterized by ethics or perspectives that one holds in regards to crime. Beliefs may either fuel the commission of a crime or its deterrence. For instance, if individuals hold the belief that those who break the law always get caught and face legal punishments. Commitment to such a belief determines various things. Firstly, a delinquent may fail to see the truth in such a statement and therefore forge on with the commission of crime unperturbed in the short run. A long-term orientation, on the other hand, may see one hold on to belief and avoid being sucked into the world of crime.
Self-Control Theory
The above theory happens to be part of the social control theories. Its key proponents are Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi. They defined self-control as “the tendency of people to avoid criminal acts whatever the circumstances in which they find themselves in” (Gottfredson, 2006). The two advanced this theory due to the limitations associated with criminologists and control theorists to avail plausible explanations for criminal behavior. They merged two schools namely positivist and classical. The former school attributes crimes to external elements or circumstances such as social, biological, and psychological factors. The latter school, on the other hand, associates crime to an individual’s free will. Their research revealed that many crime events occur due to individuals’ pursuit of easy and immediate gratification and whose behavior incorporates some deviant behaviors and crimes. The two theorists, therefore, sought to highlight the contagious nature of the crime and criminal elements.
In the occurrence of criminal events and criminal, there is one observable stable paradigm –low levels of self-control. This was a basic element that both Gottfredson and Hirschi asserted expounded on criminal acts and behavior across gender, time, ethnicity and other crime types. Additionally, low self-control was linked to other behaviors that were comparable to criminal acts such as deviant, antisocial and risk-taking behavior. Many of the individuals deemed to have low self-esteem are said to have a “here-now orientation” and lack the persistence and tenacity. They also happen to be self-centered and insensitive (Gottfredson, & Hirschi, 2005). Additionally, individuals that are deemed to lack self-control are also said to be adventuresome. They also have unstable social ties which can be observed in their friendships, professional lives, and families. The same individuals are noted to have a low tolerance towards frustration and usually respond to conflict physically rather than being amicable. They lack the appropriate people skills that can enable them to avoid the commission of avoidable crimes.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (2005) agree that low self-control “manifests itself in the absence of nurturance, discipline or training.” In a nutshell, self-control is a product of how an individual is socialized. The onus of carrying out the socialization was placed by the two theorists on parents. This is because they are the first contact that a child has or rather the template that child bases his social understanding on. This means that for self-control to be achieved in children parents must focus on being consistent when it comes to discipline and supervision which should be accompanied with adequate affection. This, in the end, brings about proper self-control-development. However, some elements may impede the said process of socialization. This may occur when children are not extended to enough affection or parents lacking time to avail consistent discipline and supervision (Gottfredson, & Hirschi, 2005). In some instances, the parents may fail to process their children’s inappropriate conduct and thus may fail to punish them. Such scenarios may be enhanced, especially where parents engage in behavior which may indicate that they have low self-control.
Criticism has been leveled on the theory and its framers for some reasons. Firstly, critics have questioned the extent of low self-control can allude to all manner of offending. They note that “it is doubtful that criminal and analogous (or deviant behaviors) will be correlated strongly among all offenders, including, for example, white-collar criminals who have evidenced delayed gratification in acquiring high-status occupational positions “ (Gottfredson, & Hirschi, 2005). The theory remains unclear on how expounds on other types of crime to some critics. Additionally, critics are not very confident in the causal relationship between low-self-control and criminality. It may not be the key factor but rather part of other variables that could impact criminality.
Conclusion
In light of the above theories, criminal justice experts may arrive at necessary measures in combatting crime and deviant behaviors. Rational choice theory advocates for informal and formal sanctions that can, in turn, promote appropriate behaviors while deterring deviance. Therefore, there is a need to advance mechanisms which will see to it the above goals are met. Firstly, a criminal justice policy must focus on enhancing the cost of crime. This will be captured in the form of formal penalties that are leveled on wrongdoers. The increase will see a reduction in commission. In many criminal justice systems, policymakers focus on enhancing the certainty of punishment and the said severity of the punishment (this can be either explicitly or implicitly). It is in the expectation that potential offenders are rational beings who balance the cost and benefits of their conduct that they will choose deterrence over crime. Additionally, there is a need to increase the benefits non-commission of offense where law-abiding citizens feel appreciated for maintaining law and order. For youthful individuals that are at high-risk of sinking in crime, the government may focus on empowering through scholarships and vocational training. This will ensure that they derive more benefits from leading crime-free lives. Additionally, there must be the focus on reductions of the costs of non-commission of crimes. Individuals must not be forced to feel that being law-abiding is more tasking that pursuing crime. In the case of ex-convicts, there is the need for the establishment of programs that will ensure they are effectively integrated into their respective communities and connected with available employment opportunities.
To enhance social control and self-control, there should be concerted efforts targeting critical players within the society. Social programs tailored to create communal cohesiveness and integration are essential. Key stakeholders and institutions can be incorporated in encouraging conversations aiming the nurturing of children. Pro-parenting programs will see to it that parents understand the importance of their involvement in their children’s lives leads to crime deterrence. Early interventions are critical in molding the characters of individuals. Therefore, at an old age, parents can instill the core qualities of self-control that go a long way in promoting crime-free societies. The measures undertaken by the criminal justice department must, therefore, capture the spirit of these two theories, i.e., understanding what attracts criminal events to potential criminals. Thus crime prevention is central to avoiding the likelihood of criminality or even repeat offending in some cases.
References
Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology: The Path Not Taken. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) , 81 (3), 653. doi:10.2307/1143850
Gottfredson, M. J. (2006). The Empirical Status of Control Theory in Criminology . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (2005). A general theory of crime . Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik Jr., R. J. (1990). Conscience, Significant Others, and Rational Choice: Extending the Deterrence Model. Law & Society Review , 24 (3), 837. doi:10.2307/3053861
Kraska, P. B. (2006). Criminal Justice Theory: Toward Legitimacy and an Infrastructure. Justice Quarterly , 23 (2), 167-185. doi:10.1080/07418820600688735
