Comparison Social Control Theory with Other Theories

Introduction

While Gettfredson and Hirschi’s general definition of a felony has gained widespread recognition over the past ten years, few people have looked into or researched Hirschi’s assumption of societal control. The theory of social control, which is based on Hirschi (1969), tries to explain why criminal behavior is a consequence of a person’s connection to society. It frequently occurs when a partnership is frail, if not completely destroyed. He went on to say that the theory of social control has four components: commitments, involvements, attachments, and views. Owing to the defects of the social control theory, many scholars have not been able to explain delinquency appropriately using the same approach. Thus, there was a need for collaboration between Gottfredson and Hirschi to formulate general supposition of crime. As a result of the same, there were some similarities and differences between these two theories. Therefore this research paper seeks to discuss the differences as well as similarities between social control and the general theory of misdeed.

Similarities

According to Hirschi’s (1969), the social control notion was developed from the assumption that individuals are motivated to break laws unless there are some restrictions by the strong bonds associated with different societies. This theory further explains that people will only commit a crime if they lack social environment bonding in the life they live. Individual’s norms, values, and beliefs motivate them not to deviate; they are tied to community codes, which limit them from committing a crime (Hirschi, 1969). As a result of the same, the theory identified four elements that can bring about the strong bond between an individual and the community. These items are a commitment, attachment, belief, and involvement. This was completely contrary to the general theory of crime which concentrated to emphasize that some people engage in crime as a result of multiple factors (Gottfredson& Hirschi,1990).

Mutually, the general theory of crime and social control have their origin in control systems which have been securitized for many years. In fact, both the theories explain all deviant behaviors and crime with a one-dimensional trait that they do bring about low self-control. Of course, self-control is attributed to many factors which emanate from one dimension. For instance, the self-control model suggests that persons with high self-discipline are capable of being involved in crimes whereas those with low self-control tend to avoid committing a crime (Gottfredson& Hirschi,1990).

One can also deduce that these two theories were inclusive to just meet the needs of the society. There were geared to seek justice of people irrespective of their age, gender, ethnicity, or social class. With the development of these two theories, one can not see the want to come up with more theories given that most aspects of the community were settled. Therefore, many still ask if the general theory of crime has the potential to override other criminal theories (Hirschi, 1969).

Differences

According to the social control theory, when individuals get attached to others example children to their parents or peers the level of being delinquent is low because there will be the strong social bond which is mostly attributed to the fact that the parents will socialize with their children. As a result of the interaction, they do instill good morals and values, and therefore, they will not think of committing a crime. Commitment is the energy and time one puts into everyday things; for example, education which makes one too busy hence unable to find time for taking part in crimes. Involvement is participating in important things such as curriculum activities and therefore, one may lack the time in engaging in deviant activities (Gottfredson& Hirschi,1990). Belief involves the aspect of respecting the laws laid down by the authority this law will prevent one from engaging in deviant behavior. However, the general notion of offense only concentrates on self-discipline as a result of personality and the immediate gratification. This often makes some people sound self-centered and may be insensitive to other people’s needs.

Based on the dynamic needs of the community, it is perhaps obvious that social control theory did not capture some aspects of the societal desires. The social control theory was only limited to the individuals and what is expected of one by the community. People were expected to have strong both with the community for them not to commit a crime. This was contrary to the general theory of crime which accounts nearly all aspects of crime as well as conflict among people (Gottfredson& Hirschi, 1990).

It is also clear that social control theory comprises of elements namely; commitment, attachment, belief, and involvement which are interrelated which is contrary to the general theory of crime that deals with factors that are one dimension on self-control. The theory accounts for one’s ability to involve in crime from one’s self-control; an individual with high self-discipline is likely to involve in crime compared to another individual with less self-control. However, there is still needs to accurately examine the measures of self-control and social need to meet the future needs of the community (Hirschi, 1969). By virtue that there are some noticeable differences between these two theories, it should be clear that scholar needs to compare the theories with a different perspective. However, there are concerns as to whether one needs to come up with other criminology theories other than the social control theory and general theory of crime? Of course, the needs of the society is dynamic, and there is a need for accurate results based on theories, one can only get an accurate result if he or she uses the appropriate theory. From this point of view, it is clear that there is a need for further scrutiny and development of other criminology theories (Hirschi, 1969).

Conclusion

In summary, the social control and general approaches of the offense need to be scrutinized to determine some of the shortcomings as well as strength about criminology. However, one common feature that differentiates social control from the general conjecture of misdeed is the resilience of addressing the criticism that has made its way into the community. Nevertheless, some criticism refutes some of the proposition being raised by these theories. The general theory of crime is directional which makes it possible for accurate results. This is contrary to social control theory that is not directly but depends on some elements. However, it should be clear that the research study relied on the behavioral scale to present the elements of social control theory as well as self-control of the general theory of crime.

References

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

Hirschi, T. (1969). A Control Theory of Delinquency. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers.