Social Theories on Criminology Essay Example

crime and delinquency. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that identifying the specific causes behind crimes poses substantial difficulties despite widespread attempts to elucidate their occurrence.

The concept of relative environmental determinism is exemplified by a theory that implicates different environmental factors as the reason for criminal activity, lacking credible proof. The social disorganization theory associates swift societal changes with disruptions in community social regulations and a rise in misconduct, establishing itself as an essential aspect of criminology (Taylor 2001, p. 126).

The debate revolves around whether crime is caused by social changes or failures in social institutions. While the social disorganization theory lacks clarity in distinguishing cause and effect, two assumptions provide insight into the true motivations behind criminal behavior. Firstly, community-based control and institutions are identified as the primary sources of crime and delinquency, as previously noted (Akers 2000, p.).

The social disorganization theory posits that individuals living in socially impaired surroundings are inclined to engage in criminal activity as a result of their circumstances. Furthermore, the theory proposes that urbanization and industrialization indirectly impact social institutions, contributing to crime variation. Nevertheless, the theory does not provide a comprehensive explanation for the root causes of criminal behavior.

One reason for the misinterpretation of social disorganization theory is its inconsistency towards broken institutions and lack of constraints against crime. Cohen (1971) argued that the theory does not offer causes or solutions for the issue of crime and delinquency, and does not fully explain the motives behind criminal behavior. I agree with Cohen's perspective.

The social disorganization theory provides a foundation for comprehending crime in society by suggesting that the absence of inhibitions against criminal conduct is what leads

to crime (Taylor 2001, p. 128). Consequently, when communal connections deteriorate, individuals are prone to committing crimes. Nonetheless, this theory does not provide a conclusive response as to whether this always occurs. In essence, the social disorganization concept is somewhat ambiguous and challenging to understand.

The term "socially disorganized" does not imply a complete absence of social organization within a community, despite the lack of conformity with common standards. Cohen (1971, p. 51) notes that each community possesses its unique form of organization. Hence, the social disorganization theory cannot fully elucidate criminal motives nor provide an all-encompassing comprehension of crime. However, Travis Hirschi's social bond theory partially correlates with the notion of social disorganization in this theoretical framework.

The essential similarity in the two theories lies in their dependence on community bonds between individuals and society. These bonds function as crucial motivators for individuals in engaging in criminal behavior. Hirschi's social bond theory specifically defines social bond as "the connection between the individual and society" (Hirschi 1969, p. 20).

The theory posits that when the bond between an individual and society is severed, any deviation occurs. This concept has been previously criticized in the social disorganization theory; however, Hirschi expanded on this idea by introducing the notion of the social bond. The social bond encompasses a diverse range of sociological ideas that impact the strength and quality of connections between people and society. Attachment is identified as the first element of the social bond by Hirschi, referencing individuals' relationships with their "significant others" (Hirschi 1969, p. 7).

The likelihood of engaging in delinquent or criminal behavior is directly related to a person's emotional attachment to significant others. A

stronger emotional bond results in a lower chance of deviant behavior, especially for young people who can be shaped by their attachment to parents or close relatives. Hirschi identifies commitment as a crucial factor in social bonds, which is measured by the energy, time, and other conventional investments made by an individual. For instance, pursuing higher education and investing time in scientific studies can deter individuals from criminal activity.

As per Hirschi (1969, p. 32), there is a positive correlation between the amount of resources invested by an individual and the risk involved in committing a crime with regards to their personal achievements. Additionally, Hirschi explains involvement as a third attribute wherein individuals who are more active in conventional activities exhibit lower tendencies towards engaging in deviant behavior (Akers, 2000, p. ).

Belief plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of three other factors - commitment, attachment, and involvement - in molding a person's adherence to the traditional values mandated by their society. As emphasized by Hirschi in 1969, this component of belief includes both a broad acceptance of the moral validity and binding nature of societal rules and respect for authority. However, while the social disorganization theory and Hirschi's theories both failed to account for the possibility of alternative environmental standards, it is important to recognize that just because a society differs from commonly accepted norms does not mean that these alternative standards are nonexistent.

The social disorganization theory oversimplifies the causes of crime. If we acknowledge the existence of numerous organizations with varying motives, we must investigate each of them to determine the roots of criminal behavior. This process may prove challenging, but it will yield

more objective and useful results. Similarly, Hirschi's argument opposes the idea that subcultural milieus linked to social class automatically lead to delinquency. While Hirschi emphasizes attachment and "significant others" in his theory, he does not limit attachment to family ties.

According to the text, criminological theories do not adequately explain the reasons behind criminal behavior. The theorist did not take into account the possibility of forming bonds with deviant or delinquent individuals, which could affect one's motivation towards crime. While broken social bonds increase the likelihood of crime, it remains unclear what drives individuals without these bonds to engage in criminal activity.

According to Sutherland in 1939, the issue of different social norms was addressed through the theory of differential association. Sutherland posited that cultural conflict and social disorganization are essentially two sides of the same coin, and that differential association occurs due to the presence of diverse groups with unique cultures within society (Sutherland 1939, p. 1).

The theory of differential association explores how individuals acquire the necessary skills to commit criminal acts and become criminals, but it does not fully explain what motivates them to engage in such behavior. Through exposure to different environments, individuals develop a propensity for crime and delinquency, particularly in settings that predominantly involve law-breaking. This theory combines social bond and social disorganization theories, positing that an individual is more likely to pursue a criminal path when their inclinations towards breaking the law outweigh those for abiding by it. The influence of high-status group members can prompt an individual's decision-making early on (Taylor 2001, p.).

According to the differential association theory, criminal conduct is acquired mainly through close social groups, aligning with both

the social disorganization theory and the social bond theory. While it does not specify particular factors that encourage or discourage crime, this theory still provides insight into how individuals learn about and participate in criminal activities.

Sutherland (1939, p. 43) suggests that the theory attributing deviant behavior to cultural influence may contain erroneous assumptions about human behavior. Instead of overlooking individual personality traits when analyzing criminal motivation, social theories should consider them as they often contradict each other. Rather than relying on external factors to explain criminal motives, more attention should be given to the internal factors of both potential and actual criminals.

The theory of differential association argues that an individual's deviant behavior is heavily influenced by their social group's cultural characteristics. However, it overlooks the unique differences among individuals in the group and cannot explain why some conform to norms while others violate them. Therefore, this theory falls short in explaining criminal behavior as it suggests that culture may contribute to deviance but cannot solely cause crime or delinquency.