Self-Control Theory of Crime One

Self-Control Theory of Crime

One of the most stringent criticisms of self-control theory of crime is that it minimizes the effects of race and economics and appears to target parenting as the source of low self-control in children and youth, often reaching into adulthood. This criticism is locked in the idea that not only do forces other than parents establish norms and standards in children but their overall environment and social status also significantly influence these standards and norms. In short it is clear that too much blame is placed on individual parents and not enough responsibility on society to create equal opportunities and avenues of success for all children. The basic premise of self-control theory of crime is that: "...the motivation for crime is a constant across all individuals. Therefore, the question changes from what causes crime to what leads to conformity. The search is thus not for pushes or pulls into crime but for sources of control imposed on the individual."

(Nofziger, 2001, p. 10)

Presumably, at the source of this theory is that the parent's as the most significant sources of teaching of morals and standards are the first, primary and nearly exclusive source of the teaching of external control measures that are then demonstrative of the individuals' ability to assimilate and absorb self-control as they move through various periods of their lives. In short the premise, often espoused by the "old guard" that modern parents are to permissive and fail to teach self-control to their children. Individuals, both expert and novice challenge the "softening" of society and the de-emphasis of punishment over praise for children as the source of modern deviance and crime. (Bartkowski, 1995, p. 97) Crime in modern society is often seen as a social condition that is claimed to be perpetually rising, even though real crime is not significantly or statistically higher than it has been at any time in history and in fact may be lower, despite the media hype and the proverbial and real, "war on crime," associated with sensationalism of the desire for ratings on the part of the media. (Krajicek, 1998, pp. 4-5) discussion of self-control theory of crime cannot be fully understood without at least some emphasis on converse theory, often associated with subculture or sociological theory of deviance or crime. Yet it is also clear that sociological explanations of deviant behavior, again take the responsibility of the individual out of the equation, focusing on the implied idea that individuals are unduly influenced i.e. controlled by outside sources, and make few if any of their own decisions, a concept that is clearly contrary to the truth. Either way, be it society or parents outsiders are more likely to be blamed than the more logical sources of the inability of the individual to control his or her actions or the focus of that control in a negative rather than positive social action. In other words many of these theories stress the individual rather than the negative social cues, such as the observation of and feelings of helplessness that pervade those in challenged social positions.

A subsulture]...culturally based theories are rooted within the positivistic tradition due to the emphasis on the malleable nature of human beings as well as the argument that some groups within society are predisposed toward criminal behavior due to their socializing influences. These individuals essentially have no choice or will of their own but their behaviors are determined by those whom they come into contact. In addition, one of the strongest claims of cultural theories is that there are different and pathological groups that exist within society. This differentiation and pathology may stem from poverty or other causes, but the end result is a subculture that develops values and behaviors in conflict with those of the larger society.

(Nofziger, 2001, p. 10)

All sociological (subculture) theories do not blame the parents of deviant children for bad parenting, some in fact say it isn't an abundance of bad parenting but a lack or limitation of positive parenting in a subculture that has peers training individual children, regardless of risk status to be deviant. (Brendtro, Mitchell & Mccall, 2007, p. 200) Most stress the need for parents to reassert focus on the family, and yet very few discuss much more difficult questions of social disparity and observed social helplessness, that contradicts the teaching of parents. When a parent tells a child that they can achieve anything they set their mind to and then they repeatedly see clues and cues in their environment that contradicts this observation, by omission when those who succeed in legitimate manners leave the community to by commission when society offers alternative (deviant) choices in abundance but limits positive socially acceptable decisions. One aspect of serious concern is the depiction of stereotypes of certain subcultures that stress their deviant nature, not only in appearance but in action over more positive role models.

A in order for this system to even begin, parents must be willing and able to devote time and energy to the individual child. Generally we hope and assume that parents will naturally want to protect and care for their children. However, as numerous studies of child abuse and neglect remind us (Buchanan 1996; Frehsee, Horn and Bussmann 1996; Straus and Gelles 1990; Zuravin 1987), this is not always the case. Estimates indicate that nearly 7 million children in the United States are abused every year by their parents (Straus and Gelles 1990). Putting aside this extreme lack of parental interest or concern for children, more subtle differences in the level of parental support and affection for children have also been found to be extremely important for predicting deviance (Kakar 1996; Baumrind 1991, 1978).