Question #1: Criminology Theorizing
The process of theorizing is dynamic and flexible in nature. Much of our understanding of the world, including how we understand our societies and ourselves, rest on theories and knowledge. However, criminology theorizing and knowledge building are criticized for being male-centred and excluding consideration of issues particularly relevant to women. It does not account for female experiences, such as how they participate in crime and delinquency. This section will summarize the arguments put forward by critics as well as evaluate theories that purport to account for gender similarities and gender differences in crime.
Feminist critics claim that criminology theorizing is lacking in many aspects. First, criminology theorizing and knowledge building are male-dominated ( Chesney-Lind & Chagnon, 2016) . The theories almost exclusively focus on male subjects. This can be attributed to a number of factors, including the fact that majority of criminal offenders are male. Nonetheless, critics argue that a lot can be learned about crime and delinquency from studying both low-rate and high-rate offenders. In addition, critics argue that the use of all-male samples has led to male-centred criminology theories or theories that only apply to males ( Chesney-Lind & Chagnon, 2016) . The second argument put forward by critics is that criminology theories are androcentric when it comes to understanding and interpreting criminal acts. According to the critics, the theories fails due their insistence on interpreting criminal and delinquent acts against women from a male perspective ( Chesney-Lind & Chagnon, 2016) . Other points put forward by critics of criminology theorizing include: criminology theories pay little attention to crime victims when women are the primary victims; mainstream criminology either ignores or underestimates the impact of gender in criminology; and mainstream criminology disregard the dynamics of gender and power.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the theories that account for gender differences in crime is Robert Agnew's general strain theory. This theory has been used to explain a wide range of criminological phenomena, including male vs female offending patterns. According to Agnew, men are highly likely to respond to strain and resort to violence than women. Women are far more likely than men to internalize their conflicts. For this reason, men are highly likely to engage in violent crimes, while women tend to engage in self-destructive behaviours, such as drug abuse. Agnew's explanation of the gender difference offers valuable insight into criminal behaviour.
One of the theories that purport to account for gender similarities in crime is Ronald Aker's social learning theory. This theory holds that people develop the motivation to commit crime through interaction with close associates. According to Aker, both males and females can learn new behaviours, values, and attitudes after interacting with peers through a positive or negative stimulus. As such, through social interaction and behaviour modeling, both males and females can acquire criminal behaviour. However, from my evaluation, criminology theorizing is lacking in many aspects. Criminology theorizing is male-dominated, and it does not account for the dynamics of gender and power. Thus, future research ought to focus on this area to ensure criminology theories cover gender similarities and gender differences.
Question #2: The Historical Development of “Social Learning Theory”
The development of “social learning theory” is founded on the work of Robert Burgess and Ronald Aker's, entitled "Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior" (Akers & Jennings, 2016) In their work, Burgess ad Aker melded Sutherland's (1947) “differential association theory.” This formed the basis of Aker’s work. Aker modified Sutherland's differential association theory by integrating it with behavioural learning theories (Akers & Jennings, 2016). Aker published his work entitled "Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach." Since the theory was developed it has remained a vital part of understanding criminal behaviors.
Aker has retained a number of elements of differential association theory in social learning theory. Sutherland's differential theory contained a wide range of prepositions. Some of these prepositions include: criminal behaviour is learned, people can learn criminal behaviour through interaction, and people can develop the motivation to commit crimes, among many other elements. Sutherland referred to these elements as the principle of differential association. According to Akers, criminal behavior is learned through operating conditioning or differential reinforcement (Akers & Jennings, 2016). Individuals are highly likely to develop criminal behaviors when they differentially associate with others. Thus, it is clear that Aker retained some of the elements of differential association theory in social learning theory. Some of the elements retained include: criminal behaviour that can be learned, and people can acquire criminal behaviours through social interaction and behaviour modeling.
Arguably, Aker's social learning theory is one of the most tested contemporary crime and deviance theories. The model offers a great deal of explanation as to why individuals participate in a crime. It has made a substantive contribution to our understanding of criminal and non-criminal behaviour beyond that provided by differential association theory. This is because, other than explaining why individuals commit crimes, the theory explains why people continue to offend and why they desist from participating in criminal or delinquent acts.
Question #3: Deterrence Theory vs Labeling Theory
Deterrence theory and labeling theory help explain the behavioural patterns of offenders. These two theories also help explain how offenders are pushed to the point of committing criminal or delinquent acts. However, deterrence theorists and labeling theorists hold different positions when it comes to legal punishment. To understand those views, it is vital to understand both theories.
Labeling theory focuses on the role of social labeling in the development of deviant behaviors. This theory holds that an individual can develop a deviant behavior once he or she is labeled or defined as deviant ( Sjöström. 2017) . This is because such individuals often adopt the label by exhibiting behaviors, actions, or attitudes attached to the label. Thus, when a deviant label is applied to a person, the individual is highly likely to gravitate toward this label and exhibit behaviors, actions, or attitudes associated with the label. This is a contrast to the way deterrence theorists would view legal punishments.
Deterrence theory refers to the idea that the threat of punishment will deter an individual from committing criminal and deviant acts. Unlike labeling theory, deterrence theory sees labeling as an opportunity to deter crime. By labeling a person as a criminal, the deterrence theory can make an example out of the labeled individual with the type of punishment that is given. Thus, labeling theory and deterrence theory hold different positions when it comes to legal punishments. Labeling theory would see labeling as a form of social control that can have negative effects. On the other hand, deterrence theory would see labeling as a form of deterring crime.
The labeling theory has not yet been empirically validated. Some research studies indicate that labeling an individual a criminal increases subsequent crime, while other studies indicate that labeling an individual a crime deter crime. Labeling theory also ignores a wide range of factors that lead to criminal behaviours or acts. Some of these factors include differences in socialization, attitudes, and opportunities. The empirical status of deterrence theory, just like the labelling theory, is still problematic (Paternoster, 2010). Overall, both the deterrence theory and labelling theory have not yet been empirically validated. However, unlike labeling theory, deterrence theory most accurately captures the effects of legal punishments. This is because the theory has few limitations as compared to deterrence theory.
Question #7: The Current State of Labeling Theory
Labeling theory is a theory that focuses on the role of social bonding in the development of criminal behaviors. This was developed in 1963 by Howard Becker, an American sociologist. According to Becker, a person can develop a deviant behavior if he or she is labeled as deviant ( Sjöström. 2017) . By labeling the individual deviant, the individual is highly likely to exhibit behaviors attached to the label ( Sjöström. 2017) . There are a number of factors that can increase one's exposure to labeling. Presence of mental health issues and individual personal aspects is considered one of the main factors that increase one's exposure to labeling (Solomon, 2015). According to Solomon (2015), individual personal aspects, individual religious beliefs, role models, and environment can increase the individual's exposure to labeling. This is particularly true among individuals with the following: strict religious-based rules, poor role models, and abusive environment. For instance, if an individual's parent is a thief, the individual is highly likely to be called a thief as well.
Labeling affects later crime. This is because when a deviant label is applied to an individual, the individual highly likely to gravitate toward this label and exhibit behaviors, actions, or attitudes associated with the label. Thus, labels have significant effects on deviance. There are a number of factors that may amplify or diminish the effect of label on crime. Labeling may amplify subsequent crime if efforts are to not taken to reintegrate the criminal into the society. Labeling can also diminish future crime if measures are taken to reintegrate criminal criminals into the society. The society should make the criminal offenders feel guilty for their criminal acts as well as reintegrate them back into society.
References
Akers, R. L., & Jennings, W. G. (2016). Social learning theory. The handbook of criminological theory , 230-240.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Chagnon, N. (2016). Criminology, gender, and race: A case study of privilege in the academy. Feminist Criminology , 11 (4), 311-333.
Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? The journal of criminal law and criminology , 765-824.
Sjöström, S. (2017). Labelling Theory. Routledge International Handbook of Critical Mental Health .
Solomon, R. (2015). The Impact of Labeling in Childhood on the Sense of Self of Young Adults. Faculty of Social Sciences, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario
