AFP L2

Strain theory

•explain why there is a concentration of crime in lower class, minority and urban areas.

• believed that there was cultural pressure to succeed and achieve (economically). This creates a ‘strain’ for some disadvantaged groups and in order to succeed leads some individuals to engage in antisocial behaviour. 

How can we respond to strain?

•We could conform

•We could ritualise our behaviour

•We could innovate

•We could rebel

•We could retreat

Problems with strain theory

•Weak/mixed empirical evidence – & strain hard to measure

•Why do only some strained individuals resort to crime or delinquency?

•Narrow in scope: how can strain theory explain ‘white collar crime’, rape or hooliganism?

GST: Agnew (1992)

took into account wider (non-economic) & more personal types of strain:

oAn inability to achieve an individually valued goal

oThe removal of individually positively valued stimuli

oThe presentation of stimuli with noxious or negative values.

SLT  (Akers, 1977)

•People tend to learn how to behave criminally through differential associations with criminals in intimate personal groups & beyond.

•Like other behaviour, crime is learnt through a process of interactions with others – including modelling & imitation.

•When people learn about criminal behaviour, they don’t just learn how to do it, they learn about the motivations (consequences) for doing it.

•If someone spends time with people who justify or support deviant behaviour, they are more likely to internalise similar definitions (attitudes, beliefs, values, and moral orientations).

what does it mean that SLT Incorporates differential reinforcement?

Frequent reward in the form of excitement and/or acquisition

Infrequent punishment due to low resources to detect crime

Explanatory Limitations (Milner, 2011) of SLT

•No consideration to genetic or biological influences – individual differences in criminal predisposition and in learning.

•Does not explain why crime is not always passed down generations or why someone with no history of criminal modelling starts offending.

Causal Ambiguities of SLT

•May develop deviancy and then seek out similar peers but…

•Reciprocal relationships peers & delinquency

•Unstructured socialising itself provides opportunity for crime (even if not criminal peers)

SCT (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990)

•Committing crime is due to low self control, but only when the opportunity becomes available.

•Due to poor parenting & wider socialisation (family, teachers – not peers) before 8 -12 yrs.   

•Those with low self control focus on short-term benefits.

•The level of self control remains stable across lifespan (explains why minority of people commit majority of crime and why career criminals exist).

•They claim only explanation for all types of crime (!)

criticisms of SCT

•Research supports idea that high impulsivity is a strong predictor of criminal behaviour and other analogous negative behaviours (eg. excessive drinking) BUT...

•Self-control accounts for only 19% variance in crime

•Ignores genetic influence

•Ignores positive (active) learning of crime

•Impact of poor parenting on low self-control and delinquency is more complex than predicted by SCT

•Idea that self control remains constant across life span was not found using longitudinal studies

•A lot of youth/adult CBT programmes delivered in forensic settings focus on training offenders how to regulate their emotions/be less impulsive (can be taught after 12 yrs)

•Claims definition of Self Control tautological (goes in circles→ crime + low self control)

Labelling Theory
(Lemert 1951, 1967; Becker, 1963, 1973)

1.Crime is a label assigned to behaviour (by those in power) for social, economical and political (control) reasons.

2.Such responses by the CJ sys are governed by the characteristics of the person committing the crime (e.g. race, class) rather than the features of the crime itself.

3.Once a person is labelled as criminal, stigmatised reactions of self (identity) and others (rejection) lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of increased subsequent crime (“Secondary Deviance”). This is opposite to deterrence view of CJS intervention.

4.Not concerned with explaining cause of the initial “Primary Deviance”

Maternal Deprivation
(Bowlby, 1950, 1969)

The importance of a warm, responsive, consistent relationship

    (attachment) with primary care-giver in first 3 years

Impact on relationships with others in later life

Personality Theory
(Eysenck, 1964, 1977)

Extraversion + Neuroticism + Psychoticism

Crime = high E + high N + high P ?

Research on ENP & crime mixed

Theory & method issues

Moral Development Theory
(Kohlberg, 1984)

Pre-Conventional→ conventional→ post-conventional

Delinquents use largely Pre-Conventional reasoning (childhood level)

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)- MDT

(External rewards/punishments)

Stage 1. Obedience and punishment orientation (Follow rules. How can I avoid punishment?)

Stage 2. Self-interest orientation (Gain rewards.What's in it for me?)

Level 2 (Conventional)-MDT

(Social expectations)

Stage 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity (Social norms, approval and good relationships. The good boy/good girl attitude)

Stage 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (Law and order morality. Respect authority – do one’s duty)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)- MTD

(Internal values and beliefs)

Stage 5. Social contract orientation– community principles

Stage 6. Universal ethical principles (Abstract. Principled conscience)