Introduction
Crime is a phenomenon that is highly complex which changes through time and across cultures. As such, there is no one cause of crime. Activities which are legal in one culture or country may be illegal in another country. As there are changes in cultures over time so do the behaviors which were once not criminalized can turn to be criminalized. Due to this, no simple answer to the question crime exists and as a result, there is no answer to the causes of crime. Different theories have emerged to try and explain the causes of crime. On this background, this paper focuses on discussing theories of the causation of crime. The first section will discuss the social bonding theory and self-control theory. The next part will compare and contrast the differences and similarities between the two theories, while the third section will any improvements required to enhance each theory.
Social Bonding Theory
Social bonding theory is a control theory developed by Travis Hirschi in 1969 on the assumption that individuals are integrally self-interested; thus, it strives to illuminate why some individuals refrain from criminal behaviors instead of engaging in crime (Hodwitz, 2014). According to Zembroski (2011), the theory posits that delinquency and crime are caused by an individual’s weakened or broken ties to the normative standards or conventional order. The theory contends that all individuals from the time of birth are basically bad people who must be controlled by laws, regulations, and rules to keep in check the society. As such, it goes to maintain that those who participate in criminal or deviant behaviors have a weak bond to these societal controls (Zembroski, 2011).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Hirschi, social bonds comprises four basic elements: attachment, belief, involvement, and commitment, which people develop and determine whether or not they will engage in criminal behavior. The attachment bond refers to the psychological affection level one has for prosocial institutions and others, and it relates to peers, family, and school (Hodwitz, 2014). Commitment refers to which a person’s self-interest (investment) in certain activities connects that person to moral codes of the society (Zembroski, 2011). Hodwitz (2014) adds that the commitment bond cites the significance of social relationships in which people value that they would not wish to risk endangering it by committing deviant or criminal acts. For instance, a person may invest energy and time in a particular activity line like education, and when the person thinks of deviant behavior, he/she realizes that it is not worth jeopardizing his/her investment (Hodwitz, 2014).
Involvement bond, on the other hand, relates to the opportunity costs linked with how individuals spend their time, for instance, idle minds or hands are the workshop of a devil and can lead to the commission of a crime (Hodwitz (2014). Finally, the belief bond refers to the degree of consent or authorization to certain societal customs and values (Zembroski, 2011). Therefore, according to Hodwitz (2014), it refers to the degree to which an individual adheres to values linked to behaviors which conform to the law. As such, the more important the values of a person are in relation to a particular crime, then the less likely are to commit such crimes (Hodwitz, 2014).
Overall, the social bonding theory asserts that people are not born with a conscience but instead it is something developed over a period of time as people interact with other important individuals and places in their lives (Hodwitz, 2014). Parents, schools, churches, and police and courts teach individuals social norms, values, morals, laws, and religious beliefs which are major influence to the behavior and decisions of people, and therefore, individuals who lack these influences in their lives are the ones who end up committing crime or deviant acts ((Hodwitz, 2014).
Self-Control Theory
Self-control theory is a choice theory proposed by Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson in 1990, developed under the focus of differences in individuals in attention to one’s actions consequences as a cause of crime, analogous behaviors, and delinquency (Gottfredson, 2017). According to Tittle, Ward, and Grasmick (2013), this theory contends that individual’s variation in their capacity to practice self-control in the times of temptation accounts for the differences in people’s deviance/criminal act. Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that those who learn to exercise self-control in their early life will have much less involvement in the criminal acts, delinquency or other behavioral problems such as substance abuse and employment issues later in their lives. Those people who develop high self-control levels in childhood will be less likely to be criminals in their adolescents and less likely to be convicted as adults; obtain employment that is more successful; get higher incomes; and experience many better health results throughout life (Gottfredson, 2017).
Self-control, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi refers to the ability to forego short-term pleasures which consist of some consequences that are negative and to the ability to behave in favor of interests that are long-term. As such, this theory posits that most delinquency and crime can be viewed as pursuit or relatively easy and immediate benefits or monetary pleasures, and therefore, crime and delinquency have a tendency to be disproportionately undertaken by people with relative self-control that is low (Gottfredson, 2017). As such, this theory is not regarded as a personality attribute or predisposition to a crime but rather as an inclination to focus on immediate term gratification of wants, needs or desires, and not on the longer term behavior negative consequences. Since self-control is a choice theory and not a deterministic one, it is not a concept that is specifically focusing on crime, thus, low self-control does not need to produce crime or delinquency always, nor does it induce it and many situations may possibly affect whether it does or not (Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2013).
Compare and Contrast Between the Two Theories
The social bonding theory asserts that weaken bonds like attachment can lead an individual into committing a crime. For instance, a weak parent-child attachment during childhood and adolescence is likely to lead to an increase in peer association level. This is also true for the self-control theory which asserts that self-control levels are predicted based on the parenting type experienced by a child. As such, children whose parents gave them parental supervision that is weak will have relatively low self-control levels; thus, are more probable to engage in deviant or criminal acts. Both the theories relate to beliefs as a reason why do not engage in crime. For instance, in social bonding theory, parents, schools, churches, and police and courts teach individuals social norms, values, morals, laws, and religious beliefs which are the major influence to the behavior and decisions of people, and counter crime temptations. On the other hand, for self-control theory, having a value provides incentives which are strong for self-control and as such restrain individuals from engaging in criminal acts.
However, the social bonding theory falls under control theories built on the on the assumption that individuals are integrally self-interested, and thus tries to expound why some individuals do not engage in crime. In contrast, self-control theory is a choice theory build on the assumption that focuses on differences in individuals in attention to one’s actions consequences as a cause of crime, analogous behaviors, and delinquency.
Improvements Required to Enhance Each Theory
Self-control theory poses that self-control alone cannot determine whether or not someone will commit a crime since other factors such as opportunity and other traits. Besides, other studies have revealed that a link between self-control and genetics exists, which disputes Gottfredson and Hirschi claims of self-control theory that there is no genetic component to self-control variation. Additionally, other criminological researches have shown that genetic factors greatly influence self-control (Wells, 2017). Therefore, based on these findings, the self-control theory requires redefinition to include genetics, that is, its components need to be integrated with other genetic factors to improve the theory.
Regarding social bonding theory, one main element is involvement which can also lead adolescents to engage in crime. For instance, the theory suggests that teenagers who are involved in some sort of sporting activity or extracurricular activity would be less likely to engage in crime as they will not have idle time to do so. However, a delinquent act is something that one takes a matter of minutes to commit and therefore, being involved in social activities alone is not sufficient to guarantee deterrence of delinquency. Thus, I hold a belief that more research needs to be carried out to generate essential information in an inquiry of criminology and the findings of these studies should be incorporated in the theory.
References
Gottfredson, M. R. (2017). Self-control theory and crime. Explaining criminals and crime , 81-96
Hodwitz, O. (2014). Social bonding theory. The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice , 1-5.
Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2013). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 19 (4), 333-365.
Wells, L. E. (2017). Social control and self-control theories of crime and deviance . Routledge.
Zembroski, D. (2011). Sociological theories of crime and delinquency. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 21 (3), 240-254.
