Control Theory Sherrie R. Muasau Department of Criminal Justice April 25, 2011 Introduction 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?” Social control theories tend to demonstrate a view of human nature that reflects the beliefs of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), a seventeenth-century English philosopher who was convinced that humans are basically evil. In Hobbes best-known work, Leviathan (1651), he argued that the desire for money and fame was part of human nature. The scholars who developed control theories see delinquency as a somewhat normal behavior emerging from unmet wants and needs (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Their focus is on the control factors that prevent people from committing criminal or delinquent acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969; Nye, 1958; Reckless, 1967; Reiss, 1951; and Sykes & Matza, 1957).
The aim of sociological research is to establish causal explanations of social behaviour and the functions of social facts, this means if you can find the causes of negative behaviour, you can eliminate it and better the human condition. Durkheim’s theory on social facts is based on the belief that sociology can be treated like the natural sciences i.e. that laws and trends can be established that apply to everyone. The answer to this question depends on your interpretation of the term ‘science’ and your sociological perspective. According to Parsons, society is based on a value consensus, which is a set of agreed goals, values and roles that standardise and determine behaviour.
Assess the usefulness of functionalist approaches in explaining crime The functionalist approach to analysing deviance and the causes of crime looks at society as a whole. It explains crime that the source of criminal behaviour lies in the nature of society itself rather than in psychology or biology. Functionalists such as Durkheim see deviance as an inevitable and necessary part of society and too little is unhealthy. Some also consider crime to have positive aspects for society. In this essay we will assess the usefulness of these functionalist theories, and look at how it helps us explain crime.
Within biological and environmental Psychology both fields share varied beliefs as to where criminological behaviour is derived. Is criminal behaviour inherited or is it down to effects of the environment? Biological psychology theorists (BPT) believe that the criminal is born that way whereas environmental psychology theorists (EPT) believe criminal behaviour is learned. There is a range of research studies that support both these arguments. Cesare Lombroso (CL) was a Psychiatrist that believed that criminals had common facial characteristics and that they were “born criminals” which he also referred to as “atavisms”.
Sinnott defines consequentialism as: Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same
Within the rational actor model, the foundation of which is based around the classicist belief that criminal behaviour is a matter of conscious choice, exists 3 theories, namely ‘contemporary deterrence theories’, ‘rational choice theories’ and ‘routine activities theory’. The contemporary deterrence theory focuses on the swift and certain punishment that would guide a rational person to see that punishment far outweighed any benefits gained from committing a crime. This deterrent ideology is divided into two areas, namely general deterrence and specific deterrence. General deterrence is a display of what happens to offenders if they break the law to the general public, whilst specific deterrence uses punishment to discourage re-offending. High rates of recidivism however would suggest that this theory is somewhat ineffective.
Consensus Theory CRJU: 4300-992 Dr. David Montague June 18th, 2012 Introduction The consensus theory of criminal law states that society makes its own path and that path is an outcome of social needs and values. The consensus theory’s main purpose is to satisfy a majority at large. The consensus model depends on the idea that society is an integrated whole that seeks stability. There are some laws that represent consensus among people, such as [homicide].In a consensus model, law becomes more important as society becomes more impersonal, because the law is a formalized way of enforcing previously informal social norms. Consensus theory means any area dealing with a problem where several objects must be simplified to one.
PROPOSITION 1: CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR IS LEARNT This proposition removes the roles of heredity, human nature and innovation as causes of deviant behaviour (Joubert et al., 2012:106). This suggests that behaviour is not inherited (genetic) or simply created, but rather it is learnt. By suggesting that criminal behaviour is learnt it is implies that such behaviour can be classified in same categories as any other behaviour that can be learnt (Siegel, 2002:237). This proposition
I would ask those delivering the final judgment to first consider the man’s background and character. Both will show what type of person or employee he really is. If they reflect a spotless background, in my opinion judgment should be lenient. Before passing a final verdict I think the review panel that makes a decision about how to handle the situation should take into consideration the rules of the institution because that will set the degree of punishment to be served. In addition, the review panel should be aware of the punishment for the first offence, second offense and so on because the degree of the offense will determine the severity of the punishment.
What arguments would a sociologist use to counter the idea that “Biology is destiny”? The idea that “biology is destiny” is an intrinsic element of what is known as the genetic self, the nature part of the nature or nurture debate. A sociologist will use points with grounds in social influences on the self to argue that rather than biology, there are other elements such as socialization that affect how we behave and are “destined” to be. This paper demonstrates the ideas and research of several sociologists to counter the ‘destiny of biology’ as it were, to show that development and behaviour are not pre-determined by genetics but instead by other, social-related factors, and goes on to level the argument with the notion that perhaps both are mutually influential on one another in the outcome of the self. Determinism is the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.