The self control theory of crime, also referred to as the social control theory, as championed by Travis Hirschi, is a basic theory of crime prevention wherein the blame is assumed to be entirely sociological, or outside the potential criminal’s realm of control. (1) It is proposed in this theory that social learning methods can reduce the likelihood of an individual to commit a crime, that the fear of negative reinforcement from a parent can halt a crime, and the want of positive reinforcement from a parent can convince a potential criminal to do good. In part this might be true, but as a presumptive theory of crime prevention in a minor capacity, there are far too many holes in the idea for it to carry too much weight as a leading theory of crime prevention.

There are many factors that go into the creation of a crime, and there are many motivations that go into the making of a criminal. To think that one theory or one practice can prevent or stop crime is not only ineffective, it could be dangerous. The first and most obvious argument against the self control theory is that children of good, solid, loving families have committed many crimes throughout history, from the murderers at Columbine to families besmirched with misconduct such as the Kennedy’s or Melendez brothers. The fact is, the criminal is an extremely complex creature as is any human being, but a criminal is one who is already going against the governing morals of society to do something that it knows it should not. Something that in most cases the criminal already knows it will be punished for if caught. There are always mitigating circumstances when it comes to crime. (2) Sometimes, yes, parental abuse or familial neglect can be the root cause of a criminal’s dissident behavior, but to place the blame solely on the upbringing of a child takes the blame from where it belongs, the criminal, and places it on an outside source, the parent. What’s next, are we going to blame it on the victim when this theory doesn’t pan out. To release the criminal from any blame for his or her own behavior is to give a blanket pass on things such as heredity, emotion, and human nature. If criminals were only a product of bad homes and bad environments, where then does white collar crime emanate from? Certainly Martha Stewart didn’t need the money and had a comfortable life when she pilfered $40,000 out of a dying stock, yet she proceeded to commit a criminal act. The fact is, a criminal is forged from many irons.

Throughout the pages of history, there are countless circumstances that have caused someone to commit a crime. Perhaps greed is the largest factor, or at least the most noted, and social neglect is the second, but what of the crime that is caused by an economic pinch? What of a good loving father who has a wonderful relationship with his parents yet lies about his taxes because he has troubles making ends meet or steals food to feed his starving children? How does the self-control theory come into play here? That certainly is a crime caused by economic need. Perhaps it is even an understandable crime, but it is a crime nonetheless. What of crimes of passion? A perfectly happy husband with a great upbringing comes home to find his wife having an affair, and kills someone in a blinding rage. At what point does upbringing come into play in this case? The fact of the matter is that there is nothing a parent could have done to prevent or cause this crime, short of arranging the marriage and then facilitating the extra marital affair, or cutting the affair off before it could occur. Crimes are complex instances with a myriad of causes. Ask any law enforcement officer who’s ever had to solve a crime. There are many more instances that can be quickly referenced, lust, anger, angst, racial intolerance, greed, and on and on and on. What of the worker who loses their job and snaps, going on a rampage? What of the complex referred to as “postal” these days? This reference is attributed to postal workers noted for going on crime sprees caused by the stress manifested in their daily work environment. It can be attributed to almost anything except a parent. Daily stress can devour a seemingly normal individual and drive them to great ends, often illegal, and sadly, most often violent ends. This syndrome doesn’t occur only in postal workers, it can affect anyone with a high stress, confusing, fast paced job. The point is that it is stress caused by work or peer pressure or a combination of both, but it has little if nothing to do with a person’s upbringing.

This does not totally devalue the place of self-control theory or of the work of Hirschi and his supporters in the realm of crime prevention, it has its place as a piece of the crime solving puzzle. The fact of the matter is that social stress or discord in any form can cause an individual to lead a life of crime. A bad upbringing, childhood abuse or neglect, or a traumatic experience can attribute to the committing of crime and the making of a criminal. It’s just not the sole cause of crime or dissident behavior. There are far too many root causes of crime. There are far too many contributing factors that go to the making of a criminal to think that any one theory can do much good by itself. To ascribe to one theory to curb or control crime is just not sound advice. In general Hirschi’s ideals are largely correct. (3) A happy childhood monitored by loving responsible parents in a sound and relaxed healthy environment is far more likely to produce a normal citizen and less likely to produce a criminal than is an unhealthy childhood, but notice the word likely. Society is not to blame for its criminals in all cases, not even the majority of them, nor is the parent. Deviance is a fundamental flaw of human nature. Frankly, looking to assign the blame of crime on everyone but the criminal could be a very dangerous practice. It would lead to far more crime if the criminal knew that he was off the hook from the get go because he wasn’t to blame for his own actions, therefore, why should he be punished. If he’s not to blame for his crime then he doesn’t have to pay for anything when caught, the guilty party, the parent or society is to blame after all, why shouldn’t the parent or society pay for the infraction? As you can see, it is a slippery philosophical slope at best. The determinant factor for deviance is impossible to pigeonhole because it differs from criminal to criminal. All humans are different with different motives, why would a criminal be any different?

The one positive assumption made in the self-control theory of crime is that positive reinforcement by the parent and society in general can be a good thing, a motivational factor to be used by an individual to foster good behavior instead of delinquent behavior. It cannot, under any circumstances, guarantee that a person will grow up and not commit a crime, but positive reinforcement is more likely to create a healthy, happy member of society than is negative reinforcement, or more accurately, no reinforcement at all. An ignored child can perhaps be as or even more dangerous than an abused child. Positive reinforcement, if nothing else, does offer a better chance of success that negative reinforcement. Someone who is loved is more likely to be a loving individual, and a loving individual is more likely to be peaceable individual, grounded and comfortable with the society that surrounds them.

Even with positive reinforcement, a positive result is not always possible. Many doctors believe that mental deficiency, a physical disorder, is the leading cause of crime. This also can be disputed in many cases, but again, it has some merit. There have been some noted crime families in the past. Take the mafia for instance, or the James Gang or Dalton gang of lore. (4) There are many indicators that point to the fact that some crimes are committed due to chemical imbalances such as PMS in some females and bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. These disorders of course have nothing to do with the way you are raised and everything to do with your physical body. (5)

Finally, general circumstances can cause even the most normal of individuals to commit crimes. War has led to many atrocities committed by seemingly normal people, as have natural disasters. What of the crime spree reported in the aftermath of Katrina? Would all of those people have committed those crimes had Katrina not occurred? Doubtful, some might have committed crimes, but many would have gone about leading their lives. It wouldn’t have occurred to them to loot, scam, or assault people as the need and the opportunity had not been presented to them. (6)

In the end, the root causes of crime are vast and varied. There is no one way to prevent crime because there is no one thing that causes crime. Many systems can be used to curb crime, with some success, and the self-prevention theory is one of these, but sadly, it would only affect a minimum amount of potential criminals, though even if it affects a few, it is worth implementation.

Bibliography

1.       Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control_theory

2.       Control Theories of Crime; http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect11.htm

3.       Two Major Theories of Travis Hirschi; Kelly Welch; 1998; http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/hirschi.htm

4.       Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, 2006,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Families

5.       Answers.com, Definition of criminology, The Nature and Causes of Crime, History, Sociology and Criminology, http://www.answers.com/topic/criminology

6.       Fox News.com, US News, New Orleans Residents Arming Themselves, 2006, http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar23/0,4670,NewOrleansGuns,00.html