narc's Blog

The General Theory of Crime
Date: Jan 14th, 2005 4:40:50 pm - Subscribe
Mood: on that COP high as usual


Hirschi & Gottfredon's General Theory of Crime


What causes crime? Is it one particular thing? Does one group of individuals largely take the deserved or undeserved responsibility for crime? Throughout the course of the assigned text reading, there have many numerous paradigms, theories, points, and sub-points all attempting to find the answer that gives reason for criminal behavior. However, it is highly difficult to deem one theory or paradigm the ultimatum for defining and explaining why crime occurs. Crime is a response to social strain. All individuals experience some sort of strain and from that strain, everyone reacts either positively, negatively, or simply is passive. This is summed up in the age-old cliché, “for every action, there is a reaction.” Even though there are certain elements in place from many different theories and ideologies, one common element in many theories is strain. From labeling, one experiences strain. From the displacement theory, we see that strain can cause criminals to become more intelligent. Conversely, from the absolute deterrence theory, we see that the strain and pressure of being caught can cause one to quit engaging in criminal behavior and possibly seek an education. However, out of all the theories and paradigms pertaining to criminology and attempting to explain crime, the one that explains criminal behavior the best is Hirschi and Gottfredson’s General Theory of Crime.
In Hirschi and Gottfredson’s general theory, analogous behaviors are explained. This theory tells researchers that all types of criminal and delinquent behavior are directly related to the subject having low self-control. This low self-control is undeniably gained or acquired via social contacts. All types of criminal behavior and character flaws inducing one to possibly engage in such illegal activity have been believed to be associated with biological factors. However, this is false. It is false due to the number of individuals whom are the offspring of deviant adults that conversely never engage in crime. These individuals disprove Lombroso’s biological approach to describing crime. Though Lombroso’s theory was ludicrous, he was nevertheless the first criminologist to use the scientific method in an attempt to explain crime. This lack of self-control is witnessed or gained by situations or circumstances the individuals frequently place themselves in. This sort of ‘interactionism,’ covered in chapter nine, creates deviant behavior. For example, if a relatively ‘middle-of-the-road’ guy is hanging out with a few lads that are known to display themselves as ‘hard asses,’ and show low self-control in the way they react to conflict, then that attitude will eventually be passed on to all in the group. This kind of mentality of being a ‘hard ass,’ is covered in Cloward and Ohlin’s opportunity theory. These two men defined three types of gangs; criminal, conflict, and retreatists; the conflict gang pertaining to the scenario mentioned above. This type of strain would lead to a low self-control, thus making the subject more likely to engage in criminal behavior according to Hirschi and Gottfredson.
When looking into crime and offenders, detectives and police officers can usually tell what kind of individual they are dealing with by talking to the perpetrator. In drunken bar fights, passion-fueled arguments that lead to brawls taking place at home over the electricity bills, etc, are all examples of conflict occurring between two people that do not have a decent amount of self-control. Perhaps one or both of these individuals do have some level of self-control however; the act of placing themselves in a risky environment for deviant behavior to break out speaks for that low level of self-control. It is known and cannot be disputed that Robert Agnew’s general strain theory has an intimately close tie with Hirschi and Gottfredson’s general theory of crime. Robert Agnew attested that, “strain produces anger, frustration, and/or depression and those negative emotions are the source of illegal responses to strain.” (Brown, 30 Such strain, according to Robert Agnew, can lead one to depression or aggression, both results of not having a superb level of self-control. Low-self control can stem from a variety of different things. Primarily, this lack of control comes from peers or situations that the suspect has placed him/herself in. It can also be stated that the act of one becoming victim to having a lowered self-control is partly his or her fault. According to Wolfgang’s victim precipitation theory, “the victim may be one of the major precipitating causes of his own demise.” In this case, the choices that an individual makes as far as whom he will entertain as friends and company could possibly play a part in his own downfall. A classical example of two individuals with low self-control that acted out of sheer rage and hate-fueled passion for death, were Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris from Littleton, Colorado. These two young men were constantly put down, made fun of by their classmates, and called obscene names (Labeling Theory), thus they played on their lack of self-control to rise above the adversity and decided to go on a death – trip through Columbine High School. In the weeks and months following the horrific atrocity at Columbine High School, the Denver Post was able to receive a wealth of information on the two assailants’ backgrounds. The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department released numerous websites, journal entries, and video to the press and public showing the true nature of these two boys. For anyone to assert there was any level of self-control within these boys after viewing such videos and journals is beyond ridiculous! Erin and Dylan were arrested a little more than a year prior to their deaths for automobile burglary of a business van; once again, a sign of ill thought criminal activity, ultimately stemming from a sub par level of self-control. The van burglary and numerous other daring stunts the duo pulled before their deaths proved their lack of self-control. While we can understand why Dylan and Eric were miserable and wanted revenge, it equally cannot be disputed that these two young lads had sub levels of self-control that, in some way, attributed to their demise. While numerous themes from the text pertain to Eric and Dylan (Labeling Theory, Differential Association, Social Strain Theories, Merton’s Modes of Adaptation, Secondary Culture Conflict Theory, etc), Hirschi and Gottfredson’s general theory of crime, by asserting low self-control has a primal involvement in the adjudication of a crime, is without a doubt the best description for criminal behavior.
When defining what self-control exactly is, it is mandatory that one mention a certain level of inner mediation between desire and action to be present. Equally important is the fact that what one individual may have complete self-control over, another person may have not the slightest glimpse of inner strength to keep themselves from engaging in that same behavior. Thus, self-control must be an ‘across-the-board,’ issue. This means that self-control must be universally defined. For if there are multiple definitions of what self-control truly is; Hirschi and Gottfredson’s theory may be based on shallow evidence. Another prime example in Hirschi and Gottfredson’s general theory of crime being a superb definer and explaining tool of crime is found in the case of Theodore Robert Bundy. Many know him as ‘Ted.’ Ted Bundy is one of the most notorious serial killers that has ever lived in the United States of America. As discussed in class, the ‘moral panic’ idea was instated during the terror reign of Bundy and rightfully should have been. Nowadays, the media and press blow up concepts and portray them to be far more harmful and detrimental to society than they truly are in actuality. Ted Bundy murdered some thirty odd women from coast to coast. Later, after he was final apprehended; some reports reveal that he confessed to over one hundred murders nationwide. The number of innocent victims that died from Bundy’s deviant sex-murder fetish is what makes him famous. However, Bundy was not always hell bent on murder. Ted Bundy was a sociopath. This means that he had insatiable desires that would strike him at certain times and he absolutely no way of fighting them off. Ted had no self-control over himself when it came to sex and murder. Hirschi and Gottfredson’s general theory of crime fits here perfectly. Ted Bundy’s lack of ability to control his desires for violent sex and murder was what allowed him to murder violently and ruthlessly time and time again.
Though many aspects and segments of the theories covered in the text throughout this course have valid and undeniable points of truth to them, not one of them describes and covers every single area in explaining crime. The closest theory to explaining crime on a very large scale is the General Theory proposed by Hirschi and Gottfredson. This theory covers almost every aspect of why individuals engage in delinquent or deviant behavior by kind of having a ‘joker card’ to play every round. That ‘joker card,’ is that every person who engages in crime has a lower level of self-control than those who choose not to engage in crime. However, the weakness present in this generalized theory of crime is that it does not explain the individuals who do have low self-control and still do not engage in deviant behavior. It does not pertain to the man who gets mad at his wife for cooking chicken when he desired turkey, so he storms outside and shoots his shotgun at his manmade target in the backyard. Though there is no violence committed here, this man would still be displaying a low level of self-control. The primary problem with Hirschi and Gottfredson’s general theory of crime is that it only applies to those who are caught or arrested for criminal behavior. For example, it would not cover the man who beats his wife every Saturday night when the Tennessee Vols get beat. The wife knows its coming and she just looks past it and never reports it. This man and his lack of self-control is not accounted for by Hirschi and Gottfredson’s theory.
Hirschi also proposed another theory by himself called the Social Bond Theory that attested that researchers should look at why law abiding citizens do not engage in crime rather than looking as to why criminals do. Some of his reasons were: intimate attachments (wife/husband), professional commitments (jobs), involvement in the community (rec-centers, YMCA, having a job, staying busy, etc…), and belief that the system (society) is good so you conform and obey the law. With all of these points as to why law-abiding citizens do not commit crime, it can easily be seen why the ones who do commit crime do. A lack of attachment can cause a feeling of loneliness, thus making one have a low self-esteem and lowered self-control. A lack of commitment to any decent job or company can lead to an attitude of, “I don’t have shit to lose by stealing this cash,” thus showing a redline level of no self-control. No involvement in a productive activity or upstanding belongingness can lead to innovation and illogical thinking, which are primary results of a lacking of self-control. As we know from Robert Merton’s Modes of Adaptation, innovators are the most potential criminals. This innovation is brewed and harvested by a lack of these elements comprising Hirschi’s social bond theory. Lastly, a lack of belief in the system is the ultimate negative in creating an innovation route for someone with lowered self-control. If the person does not believe that the system works, he or she is going to be more susceptible to engage in deviant behavior, hence innovation.
In the vast field and constantly growing study of criminology, new paradigms, theories, theologies, and ideologies are being tested and introduced to better define and explain why people engage in criminal behavior. Throughout the course of this semester and throughout the text as well, there were numerous references made to a number of theories and paradigms that shined a keen light on explaining crime. However, though no definition or theory explains crime completely, the General Theory of Crime proposed by Hirschi and Gottfredson best compiles the reasons and character traits shared by those who perform deviant acts.


-Clark Hollin Tucker
Comments: (0)

ReCaptcha:

Anonymous guest, why not register, or login now.