Social Process Theory: Social Control Theory

Why is crime such a large part of our everyday society? Since the beginning of time, crime has been a large part of history, which gradually increased throughout the years, and continues today in everyday life. Crime is something that people do out of either force, impulse, fun, by accident, or their environment. Some people have been raised since childhood in areas where crime rates were at an high and maybe that caused them to follow what they learned while growing up and pursuing crimes as well. Malcolm Gladwell, author of Power of Context: Bernie Goetz and the Rise and Fall of New York City Crime, mentions how these key concepts shape the way in which crimes are performed through their involvement with their environment and communities.

Social structure theorist believes that the solutions to why criminals commit crime is the neighborhoods they grew up in (Criminology and Justice). All the theories that fall under the social structure theory helps theorist determine why individuals join gangs as well. Significant studies by theorist was researched that the subcultural values affect a person decision (Criminology and Justice). Theorist believe that once a person is bought up in such a deviant environment they feel they have no other way

For social control theory, the underlying view of human nature includes the conception of free will, thereby giving offenders the capacity of choice, and responsibility for their behavior. As such, social control theory is aligned more with the classical school of criminology than with positivist or determinist

Criminal and conflict gang whose primarily intent of crimes for tangible gains. Social structure theorists consider that the main components to illegal behavior are the ascendancy of social and economic influences that are distinguished in rundown communities where the population is predominantly lower-class citizens (Siegel, 2010). This following theory goes into helping us comprehend ways the human behavior, is the result of physical

A person is not born as a criminal, it is watched and picked up on by the individual through social influences. The theory can predict whether an individual will turn to a criminal path rather than one that abides by the laws. If a person watches crime be committed and is around crimes and deviant behvavior during their impressionable years, it is much more likely that they will follow in those footsteps and become a criminal themselves. The motivation for crime could be heightened by being low-class or living in a high-crime community. One of the main critiques is that people can be individually motivated.

The bonds are between the two main characters, Brian Taylor and Miguel Zavala, the Los Angeles Police Department, and Miguel and Bloods gang member, Tre. In this essay, I plan to demonstrate a working knowledge of the social control theory and how it relates to the main characters of the movie. Social Control Theory

Social structure theories look at the formal and informal economic and social arrangements of society that cause crime and deviance. The negative aspects of social structure such as disorganization within a family, poverty, and disadvantages because of lack of success in educational areas are looked upon as the producers of criminal behavior (Schmalleger, 2012). The three major types of social structure theories are Social Disorganization, Strain, and Culture Conflict (Schmalleger, 2012). Social disorganization theory is based on the idea that changes, conflict, and the lack of social consensus in society are the reasons for criminal behavior. This theory views society as a living organism and that criminal behavior is compared to a disease.

Social learning theory combines cognitive learning theory and behavioral learning theory. Social learning theory contributes many other theories. Most crimes come from people who was influenced by their peers who also do crimes. Crimes are illegal acts against the law. The social learning theory criticisms are individuals and especially children.

Social learning theory and social bonding theory are two theories that may be compared and contrasted because they both overlap and differ. Although these theories have their similarities and differences, one theory may prove to be more convincing in terms of applying the theory to the understanding of crime and delinquency. Social learning theory refers to Akers’ theory of crime and deviance. Akers attempted to specify the mechanism and processes through which criminal learning takes place by explaining crime and deviance; he did this in such a way that the likelihood of conforming or deviant behavior based on the influence of an individual’s history of learning was accounted for. This theory was based off Sutherland’s differential association theory, which had nine propositions outlining the process by which individuals acquire attitudes favorable to criminal or delinquent behavior with the basic idea that people tend to associate with others in which they come into contact.

Why did Mr. Hernandez turn to crime, even though he shouldn’t be a criminal, according to social control theory? Though this theory formulates some valid arguments, it does not tell the whole story when it comes to crime.

Hirschi presumed that the answer to his question is that individuals who are highly socially integrated, or have a strong bond to society, are less willing than others to exhibit criminal, delinquent or deviant behaviours due to the risk of negative repercussions (Costello, 2010). Among the most influential of these repercussions are the informal punishments, such as the disapproval of those whose opinions are valued, rather than the formal punishments administered by the criminal justice system (Costello, 2010). It is further outlined that there are four elements to social bond. The first element of social bond is known as attachment, referring to the level of sensitivity an individual is seen to exhibit in reference to the opinion of others

Social control feels the underlying view of human nature includes the idea of free will which gives offenders the freedom of choice, and responsibility for their behavior (Kempf-Leonard & Morris, 2017). Even those who do choose to commit crimes are likely to share the general idea that the rules they broke should be followed (Kempf-Leonard & Morris, 2017). Social control theory feels that crime and deviance are predictable behaviors that society has not curtailed particularly the process where people are socialized to obey the laws and rules of society (Kempf-Leonard & Morris,

This is where the social theory comes in to play and approaches this relationship in a different way. Developed in 1969 by Travis Hirschi, social control theory attempts to answer the ultimate question of why we all do not commit crimes. Social control theories are theories of socialization in which they consider the extent to which individuals learn certain habits, attitudes and perspectives of a society. Hirschi suggests that individuals who have a strong and flexible bond to society will be far less likely to engage in criminal activities or delinquent behaviors, whereas those who have weak bonds will. In other words, the health of a group is determined by how well all the members of that group conform to the group’s norms.

One of the most analyzed theories in criminology today is the social learning theory. The social learning theory derives from the differential association theory by Dr. Edward Sutherland. The social learning theory of criminology says that individuals learn from the community around them. This happens in two ways by differential association and differential reinforcement. Differential association is the theory that individuals learn values and behaviors related with crime.

As far as crime is concerned, it is defined by the law. Deviance is unexpected behaviour, but not exactly considered criminal. Many consider crime as a social problem – a problem as defined by society, such as homelessness, drug abuse, etc. Others would say crime is a sociological problem – something defined as a problem by sociologists and should be dealt with accordingly by sociologists. This essay attempts to discover the boundaries between these two and ultimately come to an appropriate conclusion.