Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_2 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 64

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_3 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 65

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_4 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 66

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_5 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 67

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_6 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 68
SamplesExploratoryReaction and Control Theories of CrimeBuy essay
← Law of Diminishing ReturnsEnvironmental Factors →

Free Example of Reaction and Control Theories of Crime Essay

Control theory states that people have the ability to resist the pressure that is likely to make them deviant. It explains that each person has both inner and outer controls. Inner control involves one’s unwillingness to act in a certain way that is based on his or her religion or individual feelings. The latter are made up of people such as family members, teachers and socially prominent people who influence one’s desire to act in a certain way (Card 55).

According to all the motivational theories, all people are assumed to be good, and it is only under some special situations that people become bad. Going with the control theory, the rewards of crime and deviance are closely related. The advocates of control theory believe that all people desire pleasure, fun, profit and excitement. For control theorists, the major reason why most people refrain from crime and deviance is that they are prevented from engaging in crime. While the reason, criminals and deviants break laws and norms is because the social controls are insufficient to guarantee their conformity.

According to the reaction theory, negative behaviors and attitudes are caused by bad interactions that a person may be involved in his surroundings. He or she might acquire these types of behavior by observing them being used by other people. Thus, personal interpretation is said to shape  the behavior of the observer.

On the other hand, learning theory explains that the act of committing a crime comes from an individual’s interaction with those people who he or she frequently deals with within the society. It is mainly about the way   one interacts with friends, in big and small social groups, with teachers and people in authority.

The learning develop out of experiences with the entire environment, as opposed to drives, instincts, and genetic predispositions. Cognitive psychology as a learning theory is founded on the idea that the human mind organizes experiences. Behaviorism is based on the notion that the human mind needs a physical response from the body. According to Tarde (1904), crime starts as fashion and develop to a norm. The learning theory has the most influence on criminology.

Contributions of Matza, Hirsch and Lemert to the understanding of crime. According to Hirsch’s argument, the theory of the social bond is a branch of the wider theory of social control. This theory explains that criminal acts are caused by low connections within the society. It further argues that every person has the ability to commit a crime. However, he or she has a bond with the family members and friends and are reluctant to commit a crime for fear of what these people would say about them. The possibility depends on the connection that a person has with his family members, friends and the rest of the community. Hirshi saw the motivations to be so natural to human that no force is necessary to impose lawbreaking to them. Crime is the most immediate source of satisfaction and conflict resolution, though, there is no motivation that is needed to explain such behavior. According to Hirshi, human being is active organisms engaging in the range of activities to a point where such range is restricted by the processes of social learning and socialization.

David Matza, on the other hand, concentrated on juvenile delinquency and is known for the work he did on the theory of naturalization. His personal commitment ensured his better obtained explanations for the study of juvenile delinquency.

In 1951, Lemert, published a research paper illustrating the effects of labeling theory using the example of a naughty boy who commits class jokes. According to Lamert, when such a kid is berated by his teacher he commits another prank causing further reprimand. When he is blamed for a joke that he did not make, he feels blocked from playing his role. In this illustration, Lamert indicated that such person tends to assume that the role is naturally connected to the label. He argued that such an assumption is most significant in societal perspectives, and subjective counterparts are generalized leading to choices narrowing into a specific class. Therefore, Lamert illustrated this further by a scenario where a young lady had a dad who was a criminal. According to Lemert paper, this lady could only see herself on the side of the crime sector. Owing to this simplification provided by this perception to her life, she would be saved the struggle against the condemnation from peers. With no formal education on how to handle such a situation, the young lady was pressured to take negative role. In his support to labeling theory, Lamert concluded that labeling theory provides the connection to society’s expectation through association of normality.

Labeling process that supports continued delinquency and the role of primary and secondary deviance in becoming committed to delinquent lifestyle.

The process of labeling begins when a person commits a crime and is caught by the police and made public.   He is identified by people on the basis of the wrong thing he has done. This makes the person accept the label he has been given and results in deviation of his behavior towards that label. Despite the fact that some people are likely to pose high risks for the society, it is recommended that label should not be used in response to all people who have certain.         

Howard Becker (1963) believed that deviance resulted from creation of social ad hoc and not as a quality of some behavior. Becker criticized theories of deviance for supporting the theory of deviance and by extension supporting the value of the majority in a society. According to his argument, studying the behaviors of human kind was not important considering that deviance is a rule breaking act that is labeled deviant by individuals in a powerful position in society. Becker further urged that rule breaking behavior is constant, while it is the labeling behavior that varies. In his argument, Becker believed that rule was the reflection social norm as perceived by the majority in the society either formally or informally. The enforced rules are applied differentially facilitating certain desired outcomes for the majority. Therefore, the powerful group of the society labels rules breaking behavior depending on the level of reaction over time.

Becker views the people who are likely to break rule to be different from individuals who makes those rules and those who abides to the rules. Individuals who are likely to break rules sees themselves as odd with individuals who abides to the rules. This aspect of labeling led Becker to applying term “outsider” in describing the rulebreaker who accepts the labeling and views themselves as an outcast from the mainstream society.

Becker outlined the process of how the deviant outsiders are involved in the secondary deviance. The first step of this process is the primary deviance; the primary act may be intentional or otherwise. He believed that individuals tended to fantasize or think in a deviant manner. According to Becker, the process of being labeled deviant by individuals in position of power is crucial in developing secondary deviance.

The second step towards development of a career in crime and secondary deviance is based on the acceptance of the label as deviant. Some rule-breakers accept the labeling as their master status in their society. The individuals who identifies with the deviant labeling as the master status become outsiders and are sidelined from accessing the normal means of transacting in their daily endeavors. Some individuals when denied the chance to go on with their daily routines tend to engage themselves in illegitimate behaviors and acts to make a living.

Code: Sample20

Related essays

  1. Environmental Factors
  2. Adult Literacy
  3. Law of Diminishing Returns
  4. Creative Thinking Assignment
call-back-button
Live chat