Sociological theories of crime: strengths, weaknesses, and contemporary relevance

Sociological Theories of Crime

There are a number of respected sociological theories of crime and criminality, and in this paper four of those theories -- social control theory, strain theory, differential association theory and neutralization theory -- will be reviewed in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. Also, of the theories discussed, one or more will be referenced in terms of the relevance to a recently convicted offender.

Social Control Theory

According to professor Larry Siegel social control theories put forward the notion that everyone has the potential to become a law-breaker, and the society offers multiple opportunities for illegal activity. The attraction for some people to deal drugs or steal cars, Siegel explains, is that there is "…the promise of immediate reward and gratification" (Siegel, 2011, p. 248). And so, Siegel continues, given the attraction of crime for many, and the benefits for some, his question is: why do people obey the rules at all? Why don't more people break the law?

His answers include what other theorists would reply to that question. The "choice theorist" would answer that question by saying people fear getting punished for wrongdoing (Siegel, 248). The "structural theorists" would observe, "…obedience is a function of having access to legitimate opportunities"; and "learning theorists" would posit that obedience is learned (acquired) through "contact with law-abiding parents…" peers and teachers, Siegel explains (248).

But the social control theorists, in sharp contrast to the other theorists, believe that people obey the law because "internal and external forces" are guiding the passions and behaviors of people; and moreover, because most people have been thoroughly socialized, they have developed "a strong moral sense, which renders them incapable of hurting others and violating social norms" (Siegel, 248). Moreover, Siegel asserts that under the social control theory the person develops a "commitment to conformity" which becomes a requirement that they "obey the rules of society." One weakness of the social control theory, Siegel writes (248), is that delinquents and gang members also have a commitment to conformity too, but it's a kind of conformity that is outside the law. The originator of the social control theory, Hirschi, believes that "any form of social attachment is beneficial, even to deviant peers and parents"; but Siegel believes certain forms of social involvement / attachment "may support and nurture antisocial behavior" (249).

Differential Association Theory

Edwin Sutherland is considered one of the most important, most respected criminologists in the twentieth century, according to Ronald Akers writing in his book Criminological Theories. Akers notes that Sutherland pioneered studies of professional thieves and white-collar crime. His Differential Association theory was finalized in 1947 and it posited that "criminal behavior is learned" and it is learned in "…interaction with other persons in a process of communication" (Akers, 1999, p. 60).

And when criminal behavior is learned, that process of learning, in Sutherland's theory, includes the following: a) techniques of "committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple"; and b) the specific direction of "motives, drives, rationalizations and attitudes" (Akers, 60). As to the motives and drives, their "specific directions" are learned as "favorable or unfavorable" from the definitions of legal codes; and a person turns into a delinquent because of what Sutherland called "…an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law" (Akers, 60).

What Sutherland means by that last statement is that when there are illegal concepts in the mind of the criminal that have more appeal to him than warnings against breaking the law, he will then commit crimes. Learning criminal behavior through associations with criminals, and with "anti-criminal patterns" is really no different than the usual processes that one employs in any other learning situation (Akers, 61). The most important of all the propositions that Sutherland expressed, according to Akers, is the principle that a person commits criminal acts because he has learned definitions (including rationalizations and attitudes) that are more powerfully linked to law-breaking than to definitions urging people to obey the law. The weakness of this argument is that it doesn't explain why definitions for illegal actions are more attractive than definitions of legal acts. Where did it start? Is it based on pure ignorance?

Neutralization Theory

The neutralization theory takes the position that criminals actually become non-criminals in their self-image, and then they move back to being criminals. Steven Briggs and Joan Friedman suggest that those committing crimes actually "…fluctuate back and forth between criminal conduct and law-abiding conduct" (Briggs, et al., 2009). David Matza and Gresham Sykes, developers of the neutralization theory, suggest that after committing a crime (and before returning to a law-abiding mode) the criminal that just mugged someone might say, "It's not really my fault -- my dad abused me my whole life" or, "It was an accident." In other words, the criminal tries to neutralize any sense of guilt or shame by denying moral responsibility.

The weakness in this theory is that for most criminals they justify their actions in some corrupt way in any case. It doesn't take a theory to rationalize an illegal act. "I did it because my aunt really needs the money" is a statement in justification of a pickpocket's theft of a wallet with $300 in it. Author Anthony Walsh explains that the self-justification of an illegal act, "the loosening of moral constraints," increases the probability of "further antisocial behavior if offenders start to believe their own excuses" (Walsh, et al., 2006, p. 130).

Strain Theory

The word "strain" tells the story in this theory. Criminals become criminals because they had a goal of material success -- they believed the "American Dream" that if you work hard you'll be rewarded and achieve your goals -- and did not achieve that goal, causing a "strain." Hence they now break rules to achieve what they couldn't in a law-abiding lifestyle. The "American Dream" turns out to be "not true for most people" and that causes "the strain and frustration in American society" (Tibbetts, et al., 2009). The weakness in this theory is that it would be too easy to justify criminal behavior just because you didn't get the well-paying job your applied for, or you worked for 8 years for a raise and they didn't give it to you -- so go out and steal money from a cash register at a 7-11.