Social Control Theory

Muhammad Farooq Lecturer Institute of Social & Cultural Studies University of the Punjab Lahore

CONTROL THEORIES OF CRIME

Control theories take the opposite approach from other theories in criminology. As their starting point, instead of asking what drives people to commit crime, they ask why do most people not commit crime. Why people obey law. They focus on restraining or "controlling" factors that are broken or missing inside the personalities of criminals.

 People who obey the law do so because they are responding to appropriate social controls. They are socialized to obey rather than to disobey the law, and this socialization process requires a lot of work. Those who violate the law do so because the social controls are not working; their bonds to law-abiding persons have been broken or were never developed. Thus, criminals are not different kinds of people; they are not people who learned the wrong kind of behaviors; they are people who live in the wrong neighborhoods; they are people for whom social controls have, for whatever reason, been ineffective. Crime results when social controls are weakened or broken down; when controls are strong, crime does not occur. The problem is

Social Control Theory

Control theories maintain that all people have potential to become criminals but that bonds to conventional society prevent them from violating the law.
Self-control: A strong moral sense that renders a person incapable of hurting others or violating social norms Personal controls: individual conscience, commitment to law, positive self-concept Social controls: attachments to and involvement in conventional social institutions (i.e. family, schools, religion)

Reiss and Nyes Control Theory

Albert J. Reiss Jr., who maintained that criminal behavior results from the failures of personal and social controls.
Personal controls are internalized, while social controls result from formal controls (such as laws) and informal controls (such as social sanctions from parents, schools, etc.).

Shortly after Reisss work was published, sociologist F. Ivan Nye analyzed delinquency using three control categories:
1. Direct control, by which punishment is imposed or threatened for misconduct and compliance is rewarded by parents. 2. Indirect control, by which a youth refrains from delinquency because his or her delinquent act might cause pain and disappointment for parents or others with whom the youth has a close relationship. 3. Internal control, by which a youths conscience or sense of guilt prevents him or her from engaging in delinquent acts.50

Social Control Theories

Reckless containment theory a strong self-image insulates a youth from crimogenic influences. Hirshis social bond theory onset of criminality is linked to the weakening of social ties or bonds.

Hirschi Social Control Theory

Also known as Social Bonding Theory People are usually kept under control because they fear that illegal behavior will damage their relationships with others Individuals become free to commit crimes when their ties to society are broken or diminished

Elements of Social Bond Theory

 Attachmentthe emotional and psychological ties to another person Commitmenttime energy and effort expended in conventional action such as a good job. Involvementsignificant time and attention spent in conventional activities Beliefacceptance of moral legitimacy of law and authority.

Hirschi Social Control Theory

Wrote Causes of Delinquency in 1969 We are all animals and thus all naturally capable of committing criminal acts. Hirschi describes four basic social bonds that act as barriers to a youths involvement in delinquency. 1. Attachment 2. Commitment 3. Involvement 4. Belief

Used self-report surveys to sample about 4,000 junior and senior high school youths in the San Francisco Bay Area.

He used the results of this study to test his theory as well as challenge theories that argued delinquency is caused by social strain or cultural norms.

Hirschi found no relation between reported delinquency acts and social class. These findings did not agree with strain theory because strain is a class-based theory which explains that crime is a function of a lack of social status. Hirschi also found that the educational and occupational aspirations of delinquents were lower than non-delinquents, as well as their expectations for success. It contradicts strain theory in that youths most prone to strain are those with high aspirations but low expectations.

Regardless of race or class and regardless of delinquency of friends, boys who were more closely attached to their parents, whether they were prone to criminal activity or not, were less likely to report committing delinquent acts. Boys who reported more acts of delinquency were less attached to their peers than boys who reported fewer delinquent acts. These two findings contradict cultural theories, such as learning theory, which states that attachment to deviant friends or deviant parents would theoretical lead to increases in reporting of delinquency.

Social Control Theory

Testing Social Control Theory
Empirical studies revealed a strong support for Hirschis control theory Youths strongly attached to parents were less likely to commit criminal acts Youths involved in conventional activities were less likely to engage in criminal behavior Youths involved in unconventional behaviors such as drinking and smoking were more prone to delinquency Youths who maintained weak relationships with others moved toward delinquency

Containment Theory
PREMISE Society produces pushes and pulls toward crime. In some people, they are counteracted by internal and external containments, containments, such as a good selfself-concept and group cohesiveness.

Containment Theory
Weak Outer Containment
CAN lead to

Subject to the pulls of the environment which include distractions, temptations, advertising, and propaganda. Subject to the internal pushes which include frustration, restlessness, disappointment, rebellion, hostility, and inferiority.

Weak Inner Containment

Reckless Containment Theory

Both internal and external forces operate on individuals as make decisions to commit or avoid crime
Combination of
(a) pushes and pulls and (b) containments

Containments inhibit crime Pushes and pulls encourage crime

Reckless Containment Theory

1) External pushes
Adverse environment Poverty unemployment Lack of opportunities Economic insecurity or institutions that dont satisfy your needs Inequality

Reckless Containment Theory

2) Internal pushes
Extreme restlessness Feeling hostility Tension Anxiety Disappointment Frustration Rebellion Inferiority

Some organic pushes are Mental retardation Brain damage Epilepsy, Psychoses, neurosis

Reckless Containment Theory

3) Internal containment
Composed on self components
A favorable image of self High level of frustration tolerance Strongly internalized morals & values Well developed ego & super ego An awareness of being inner directed, goal oriented person

Reckless Containment Theory

4) External containments
Attachment to family, community& other parts of social structure Greater strength of each will reduce vulnerability to crime & delinquency, but inner containment is more important in mobile, industrialized settings

 Inner pressures and pullsdesires, needs, and wants, as well as feelings of restlessness, hostility, and the need for immediate gratification Inner containmentsself-esteem, responsibility, moral codes, tolerance of frustration Outer pressures and pullsinfluences of peers, unemployment, living conditions Outer containmentsparents, police, schools, juvenile justice system

Reckless Containment Theory

A persons self-image is a major predictor of which of these forces will dominate ones behavior

SOCIAL REACTION THEORY or LABELING THEORY

This theory holds that criminality is promoted by becoming negatively labeled by significant others.

 In contrast, labeling theory asks why the person was designated deviant. The critical issue is not the behavior itself but why the behavior is labeled deviant. Not all who engage in certain kinds of behavior are labeled deviant, but some are. What is the reason for this distinction? Sociologist Kai T. Erikson described this approach as follows: Some men who drink heavily are called alcoholics and others are not, some men who behave oddly are committed to hospitals and others are not . . . and the difference between those who earn a deviant title in society and those who go their own way in peace is largely determined by the way in which the community filters out and codes the many details of behavior which come to its attention.

 Tannenbaum (1938) was perhaps the first labeling theorist. His main concept was the dramatization of evil. With it, he argued that the process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, and emphasizing any individual out for special treatment becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, and evoking the very traits that are complained of. Lemert (1951) is regarded as the founder of what is called the "societal reaction" approach. Briefly, this approach distinguishes between primary deviance (where individuals do not see themselves a deviant) and secondary deviance (which involves acceptance of a deviant status). Primary deviance arises for a wide variety of reasons, biological, psychological, and/or sociological. Secondary, or intensified deviance becomes a means of defense, attack, or adaptation to the problems caused by societal reaction to primary deviation. According to Becker (1999), being caught and branded as deviant has important consequences for ones further social participation and self-image,

Labeling Theory: The Basis for Self-Concept

Detection by the Justice System

Decision to Label

Initial Criminal Act

Creation of a New Identity

Acceptance of Labels

Deviance Amplification

Slide 31

5.4 Social Reaction Theories

Social reaction theories examine the role that societal institutions play in perpetuating delinquent behavior. These theories argue that the reaction of society to delinquent behavior may lead to continuation of the behavior.

Slide 32

Labeling Theory
Labeling theory argues that the law represents the values and interests of individuals and organizations that are able to organize resources to influence legislation.

Slide 33

Labeling Theory
Labeling theory is not concerned with what causes the initial delinquent act, but is concerned with what leads to continued delinquency.

Slide 34

Lemerts Labeling Theory

Edwin M. Lemert proposed that the reaction to delinquency is what causes it in the future. Most juveniles commit acts of primary deviance, and are not considered delinquents.
primary deviance: Initial acts of delinquency that go undetected by parents, family, friends, and the juvenile justice system.

Slide 35

Lemerts Labeling Theory

Once a youth has been processed by the juvenile justice system, they are considered delinquent. Now that the person has been labeled delinquent police, teachers, peers, and others treat the individual as a delinquent.

Slide 36

Lemerts Labeling Theory

The youth internalizes the label, sees themselves as delinquent, and secondary deviance occurs.
secondary deviance: Continued delinquent behavior because the individual is now acting according to the delinquent label.

Slide 37

Lemerts Labeling Theory

The label of delinquent is a self-fulfilling prophecy, the process is a status degradation ceremony.
status degradation ceremony: Term coined by Garfinkel to describe the labeling process.

Slide 38

Labeling Theory
Labeling theory has had a significant impact on the juvenile justice system, including programs such as: Diversion Confidentiality standards for records Deinstitutionalization

Slide 39

Labeling Theory
diversion: The practice of removing juveniles from the juvenile justice process and providing them with treatment services outside of the juvenile justice system.

deinstitutionalization: The removal of juveniles from institutions because of the labeling effects and their placement in community-based corrections.

Slide 40

Conflict Theory
Conflict theorists state that delinquent behavior is due to conflict in society that arises from an unfair distribution of wealth and power.

QUESTION
According to the previous diagram, is labeling a cause of crime or, the result of crime?