Sociological Theories of Crime: Strengths and Weaknesses
This paper examines four major sociological theories of crime — social control theory, differential association theory, neutralization theory, and strain theory — reviewing the core claims, strengths, and weaknesses of each. Drawing on scholars including Larry Siegel, Edwin Sutherland, David Matza, and Gresham Sykes, the paper explains how each theory accounts for why individuals commit crimes and why they obey the law. The paper concludes by applying these theories to Bernard Madoff's large-scale investment fraud, arguing that differential association theory best explains his criminal behavior, given that he was already wealthy and thus motivated by internalized definitions favorable to law-breaking rather than economic strain.
- Introduction: Overview of four sociological crime theories reviewed
- Social Control Theory: Why people obey law through internal and external forces
- Differential Association Theory: Criminal behavior learned through interaction with others
- Neutralization Theory: Criminals neutralize guilt by denying moral responsibility
- Strain Theory: Unmet material goals create strain leading to crime
- Application to Bernard Madoff: Differential association best explains Madoff's fraud
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It systematically reviews each theory by presenting the core claim, supporting scholarly explanation, and a clearly identified weakness — giving the analysis a consistent, easy-to-follow structure throughout.
- The paper grounds abstract theory in concrete, everyday examples (e.g., mugging, pickpocketing, car theft) that make criminological concepts accessible without oversimplifying them.
- The concluding application to a real-world offender (Bernard Madoff) demonstrates the student's ability to evaluate competing theories and select the most fitting one with reasoned justification.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical analysis: rather than describing each theory in isolation, the student explicitly contrasts them (e.g., noting that strain theory does not apply to Madoff because he was already wealthy) and uses that contrast to argue for the explanatory superiority of differential association in the Madoff case. This kind of elimination reasoning shows higher-order critical thinking.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction identifying the four theories under review. It then dedicates one section to each theory, following a consistent pattern of explanation, scholarly citation, and critique. A final applied section uses the Madoff case as a practical test of the theories. The Works Cited list follows MLA formatting conventions. Total length is moderate, appropriate for an undergraduate survey essay in criminology.
Introduction
There are a number of respected sociological theories of crime and criminality. This paper reviews four of those theories — social control theory, strain theory, differential association theory, and neutralization theory — in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. Of the theories discussed, one or more will also be applied 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 that society offers multiple opportunities for illegal activity. The attraction for some people to deal drugs or steal cars, Siegel explains, is "the promise of immediate reward and gratification" (Siegel, 2011, p. 248). Given the attraction of crime for many, and the benefits it holds for some, Siegel asks: why do people obey the rules at all? Why don't more people break the law?
His answers draw on what other theorists would say in reply. The "choice theorist" would answer that people fear punishment for wrongdoing (Siegel, 248). The "structural theorists" would observe that "obedience is a function of having access to legitimate opportunities," while "learning theorists" would posit that obedience is learned through "contact with law-abiding parents," peers, and teachers (Siegel, 248).
Social control theorists, by contrast, believe that people obey the law because "internal and external forces" guide the passions and behaviors of individuals. 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). Under social control theory, a person also develops a "commitment to conformity," which becomes a requirement to "obey the rules of society."
One weakness of social control theory, Siegel notes (248), is that delinquents and gang members also have a commitment to conformity — but a kind of conformity that operates outside the law. The originator of the theory, Travis Hirschi, believed that "any form of social attachment is beneficial, even to deviant peers and parents." Siegel, however, argues that certain forms of social involvement and attachment "may support and nurture antisocial behavior" (249).
Differential Association Theory
Edwin Sutherland is considered one of the most important and respected criminologists of the twentieth century, according to Ronald Akers in his book Criminological Theories. Akers notes that Sutherland pioneered studies of professional thieves and white-collar crime. Sutherland's differential association theory, finalized in 1947, posited that "criminal behavior is learned" through "interaction with other persons in a process of communication" (Akers, 1999, p. 60).
When criminal behavior is learned, that process of learning includes: (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). The specific directions of those motives and drives are learned as "favorable or unfavorable" from the definitions of legal codes. A person becomes 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 this is that when illegal concepts in the mind of a criminal hold more appeal than warnings against breaking the law, that person will commit crimes. Learning criminal behavior through associations with criminals, and with "anti-criminal patterns," is no different from the ordinary processes one uses in any other learning situation (Akers, 61). The most important of Sutherland's propositions, according to Akers, is 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 law-abiding conduct. The weakness of this argument is that it does not explain why definitions favoring illegal actions are more attractive than those favoring legal ones. Where does that process begin? Is it rooted in ignorance?
Works Cited
Akers, Ronald L. (1999). Criminological Theories. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis.
Briggs, Steven, and Friedman, Joan. (2009). Criminology for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Siegel, Larry J. (2011). Criminology. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Teather, David. (2009). Bernard Madoff receives maximum 150-year sentence. The Guardian. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://www.guardian.co.uk.
Tibbetts, Stephen G., and Hemmens, Craig. (2009). Criminological Theory: A Text/Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Walsh, Anthony, and Ellis, Lee. (2006). Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.