Life Course Crime: Two Theories, Contradictory Approaches
This paper examines two influential but contradictory criminological theories explaining criminal behavior over the life course. Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime argues that low self-control, established by early childhood, is the primary driver of criminal behavior throughout life, rendering later social factors largely irrelevant. Sampson and Laub, by contrast, demonstrate that adult social bonds — including marriage and occupational achievement — significantly influence criminal behavior regardless of childhood patterns. The paper compares these competing frameworks, identifies points of genuine contradiction, and argues that their findings are not as mutually exclusive as initially appears. A synthesis incorporating both psychological and sociological factors may offer a more complete understanding of criminal development across the life course.
- Introduction: Framing contradictory criminological research perspectives
- Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime: Self-control as childhood-determined driver of crime
- Sampson and Laub on Crime and Deviance Over the Life Course: Adult social bonds shape ongoing criminal behavior
- Comparing the Two Contradictory Perspectives: Points of conflict and unexpected convergence analyzed
- Conclusion: Call for a unified criminological theory
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper frames a genuine theoretical tension in criminology clearly and early, giving readers an immediate sense of purpose and stakes.
- It handles two contradictory bodies of research fairly, presenting each on its own terms before drawing comparisons — avoiding the common student error of dismissing one theory too quickly.
- The comparative analysis section goes beyond simple contrast to suggest a plausible synthesis, demonstrating higher-order critical thinking.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates theoretical reconciliation — a technique where apparently incompatible frameworks are examined for overlooked common ground. Rather than declaring one theory correct, the author identifies how findings from Gottfredson and Hirschi's psychological model and Sampson and Laub's sociological model could be integrated. This approach is especially valuable in social science writing, where competing grand theories often capture partial truths rather than complete ones.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic compare-and-contrast structure: an introductory framing of the problem; two sequential summaries of the competing theories (one psychological, one sociological); a comparative analysis that identifies both contradictions and points of convergence; and a brief conclusion calling for a new synthetic theory. Each section builds logically on the last, and the analytical payoff arrives in the comparison section rather than being deferred to the conclusion.
Introduction
Studies of criminal behavior have necessarily been required to define the terms of their investigation, limiting the scope of observations and establishing a concrete perspective from which to conduct inquiries. This is a necessity in all areas of social research; there are very few (if, indeed, any) agreed-upon constants and absolutes when it comes to human or social development and behavior, and each researcher or research team must choose which assumptions it will rest its investigation upon. This makes for research that is necessarily somewhat subjective, and often these subjectivities are never explicitly acknowledged. All responsible research is grounded in the background and theories of researchers who came before, of course, but this does not mean that all responsible research into a specific subject area — or even a detailed research question — is consistent.
When it comes to criminology, many factors must be defined, and often they can be defined in contradictory ways. The different perspectives held by researchers are not necessarily exclusive of each other, nor is one necessarily more correct than another. The very mutability of research perspectives and methodologies in the social sciences is a consistent problem that must be accounted for in order for research findings to be meaningful. This paper examines two different perspectives on a highly specific issue in social research as a means of analyzing the contradictions that can be found in research perspectives, even when those contradictions do not necessarily appear in the research results themselves.
Specifically, two different theories regarding the factors influencing criminal behavior over the life course will be analyzed. Two very different overarching theories of criminality are examined, and though they are contradictory in their approaches — and even in some of their conclusions — both have sets of facts that appear to uphold those conclusions. The basic difference between these two bodies of research lies in the primary object of inquiry: one theory looks inward to the individual criminal, while the other looks outward to the society in which crime occurs. Despite the highly contradictory methodologies employed by the two sets of authors, and even some of the contradictory conclusions at which they arrive, there are similarities in their research findings that suggest these perspectives could eventually be unified through more extensive research.
References
Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1986). The true value of lambda would appear to be zero. Criminology, 24(2), pp. 213–234.
Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Laub, J., Nagin, D., & Sampson, R. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending. American Sociological Review, 63, pp. 225–238.
Sampson, R. & Laub, J. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), pp. 609–627.
Sampson, R. & Laub, J. (1992). Crime and deviance in the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, pp. 63–84.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.