Why The US Has Higher Crime Rates Than Other Nations - Case Study Example

Self Control Theory in US Crimes Abstract In crime prevention certain individual theories are believed to filter and affect how man perceives himself in relation to a social structure. This refers to the way one looks for ways to satisfy a certain need. Self-control in individuals has been equated as a strong restraining element in the incidence of crime. Thus this study aims to look into the opposing ends of self-control theory as a preventive factor in the incidence of crime in the United States. Introduction At birth, the individual human being is born blank and his identity is defined entirely by events that occur after…” as popularly adhered by the Tabula Rasa Theory. Man is considered neither good nor bad at birth yet the forces acting for and against him molds him into what he is to become as he grows up. Selfishness is also an inherent factor in humans despite the blankness of the slate upon birth. Rational decision is sometimes overridden by a greater need for self-gratification. Discovery of these needs sooner develops the different individual personalities that may later on portray an outcome of unacceptable behavior offensive to a civilized society. Punishment in varying forms and degrees are socially implemented with the impression that such actions are a deterrent to criminal behavior and limit violence. The idea on the equal protection of laws served to idealize the non-usurpation of pain infliction that questioned forms of punishment as contrary to ethical belief that crime can be prevented at its root cause. Alternative approaches to reform and behavioral modification theories gave rise to the discussion on a multi-disciplinary approach and theories to the human behavior to prevent the incidence of criminal deviation. This approach has gained wider acceptance as a preventive means in stark contrast to the allowance a certain crime to happen before society takes action and incur varying degrees of physical punishment to the individual. As an aspect of an individual’s personality, self-control reflects the ability to control and set up boundaries on oneself internally in response to certain stimulus in the environment. Myers (1995) believed that behavior and actions is affected by whether people perceive the control as internal or external in which the individual is at the mercy of the outside world. Studies have made evaluative comparisons between internal and external control which showed to a great extent that internal control subjects achieve better in a social structure and act more independently in Bennassi, et al (1998). Human behavior has shown control that is often perceived as an external force that triggers feelings of depression giving out an opportunity for avoidance. However individuals who have learned and experience self-control can easily avoid emergence of a disruptive behavior. Self-control helps a person to resist the momentary temptations of a socially unacceptable behavior. Basically, through social learning man learns to exercise personal restraints through positive and negative reinforcements through a normal cognitive processing. A greater degree of self-control helps a person to resist the momentary temptations of antisocial behavior in Gottfredson and Hirschi(1990:97). Further they showed in the General Theory of Crime, that the development of a criminal behavior in individuals point out that both the elements of ‘prudent and criminal behavior’ can be predicted through the evaluation and assessment of the lack of self-control alone. They argued that self-control does not necessarily require the presence of a crime but the trait itself can be changed according to the opportunities afforded and constraints effected. Although a relatively new theory in relation to criminology their theory adapts to the idea that criminal activity is gratifying and the key to understanding crime is discovering what prevents people from the errant behavior. In effect the authors grandstand on the idea that levels of self-control may predispose criminality. A research in Nigeria however pointed out an opposing view that self-control theory does not travel well because it contains ‘unacknowledged value assumptions’ that undermine its claim to universality according to Marenin and Reisig(1995: 501). As a consequence on the opposing views on the theory of self-control, we shall seek to discuss in theoretical perspectives how low self-control may best explain why the United States has a higher incidence of crime rates than other nations. Review of Related Literature Harmful consequences according to Gottfredson and Hirschi are matters of indifference to those with low self-control as they tend to be self-centered and insensitive to the needs of others. People with low self control authors Gottfredson and Hirschi exhibit an “impulsive, insensitive, physical, risk-taking, short-sighted, and non-verbal” which are compatible with the attributes of criminal behavior–that is, “short-lived, immediately gratifying, easy, simple, and exciting”. In summary, the general theory of crime makes three claims about self-control: that it is acquired in childhood, it is not simply a synonym for criminality, and can be defined independent of criminal behavior, and it is the major explanatory variable in crime (Longshore,1998). However the different criminal acts would show a list on where the elements of criminal activity are precisely affected by low self-control. Developmental criminology however opposes this view whereby both continuity and individual changes over time are recognized due to life transitions and other covariates in Laub and Sampson (1993: 350). Events and situational factors do not exist on a continuous level of occurrence therefore self-control does not necessarily have a constant stimulus. Akers(1991:204) observed that the assertion that low self-control causes low self control does not necessarily point out that low self-control is directly responsible for criminal behavior. But the elements of opportunity can include ease of access to the target in the likelihood of being observed or caught, and the expected reward that comes with committing the crime according to Vold et al (1998:153). To assume that people are rational beings that engage in a behavior of their own free will as in a nation like the United States showed crime figures in 2004 with a slight decrease in the overall crime ratings. However, the data showed that forcible rape has significantly increased in comparison to the 2003 data. In rape cases, the public’s fear of these criminals has charge the never-ending argument on the repercussions associated with the victims and families’ lives. Gottfredson and Hirschi described low self-control as the absence of a long range view and it is represented by the absence of a cluster of general characteristics that act as restraints on the behavior. There is no assumption however that low self-control will lead to crime but in order for that to happen, an opportunity must arise. Inner control isolates the individual from pushes or pulls in the direction of deviance. Serious criminal acts that are tied to the absence of self-control include terrorism for political ends; malversation of funds; finagling and prostitution as enumerated in Hoffman (1998:157). This errant behavior depicts a generally well-planned and premeditated action that necessitates a certain form of control in its preventive approach. Other acts include gambling, unconventional sex and alcohol. Criminal acts includes abortions (before its legalization), drugs and rape could be understood in terms of an absence of sufficient self-control. This result led Arneklev and his colleagues to suggest that “the theory may not be as general as the authors think” (Arneklev et al., 1993: 244). To discuss opportunity as a variable that affects the availability of a certain target and the possibility of criminally taking advantage of that availability. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory, as Reed and Yeager (1996: 359) observe, is probabilistic rather than deterministic. Admittedly, in pickpockets it would be difficult to do so if one has a lucrative job that supports his daily needs but the opportunity to steal, rape, and murder seems virtually uncalled for in the normal sense. Gottfredson and Hirschi grant that: criminal acts require no special capabilities, needs or motivation and are in this sense, available to everyone (1990: 88) which is definitely agreeable. Many individuals subjected to the same stimulus do not necessarily exhibit the same response. This point opposes the learning theories whereby “there is nothing in crime that requires the transmission of values or the support of other people” (1990: 151). For some individuals, “some acts will be outside the repertoire of some offenders (since no direct learning of those acts has been available) (1990: 156) which for Gottfredson and Hirschi explains an Marenin and Reisig’s opposing view that self-control theory does not travel well because it contains ‘unacknowledged value assumptions’ that undermine its claim to universality. In this context the criminal acts are problematically related and pinned on to the ability of the doer to practice self-control. Some people albeit exhibiting a low self-control tendencies may encounter few opportunities to commit crimes. For others, under better conditions people with high self-control may have many opportunities to commit them. If such people are mixed together in the same sample, differences in opportunities to commit crime will be confounded with differences of self-control such that the researcher may mistake the influence of one for the effects of the other (1990: 219–20). As one grows with age decline in criminal behavior is seen as a result of the “inexorable aging of the organism” (P.141). Gottfredson and Hirschi dismissed the idea of maturation that promotes desistance of criminal activity as people grow older. There is no valid scientific data that supports the explanation on learning or the acquisitions of self-control in the later years of an individual’s lifespan. Researchers just tried to maintain that “poor early behavior triggers hostile responses that feed into subsequent wrongdoing and that it is not the absence of self-control that is causative” (Simons et al., 1998). Other theories have not discussed stability of the individual bearing on criminal behavior (1990: 114). A possible view would also explain that as man ages, the person has develop certain skills and abilities that equip him to find a job; maybe attain a happy married life with children; an acceptable community and economic opportunity for growth that were simply unavailable to boost his ego during his youth. Delinquent behavior as a child conceivably alters the child’s life course, harming their social bonds to society even as an adult and through related contingencies of school failure and decreased opportunities from the effects of labeling.(Becker, 1963; Laub and Sampson, 1999/1993). Crime in the US and Low-Self Control The incidence of crime in the US gives us an explainable view which represents a variety of actions although non-criminal but widely tolerated as a fact in the United States for the total lack of self-control that promotes overeating that promotes a certain short term pleasure in individuals. In the documentary “Super-Size Me” the discussion clearly equated the lack of self-control and the availability of highly fattening foods as the likely culprit. The US Department of Health has recognized this and currently attributed most obesity cases pertinently relative to the lack of self control especially among children and teenagers. The incidence of maladaptive behaviors and dysfunctional responses has exposed the risks among individuals in the United States coupled by present-orientation and other factors that exists around the individual providing for a haven of deviant behavior. In all respect, this pronouncement is actually relative to the incidence of criminal behavior that accounts for the high ratio in the US. We can readily note that in the US, there are many persons who might not fit under the criteria of crime but nevertheless violate the law, smoke, gamble, and have illicit sex as well as having children out of wedlock (Burton, Jr. et al., 1999). Childhood is still the most important age group across the lifespan as it is easier to train and attain the advantages of a strong self-concept and practice internal controls, while improving chances for social bonding and social networks. Moreover, the turning points, as Laub and Sampson (1999/1993) call them, over an adult lifespan is too variable to properly include in a prevention program. Nonetheless, preventive techniques can attack the other variable, opportunity, a factor that is not as dependent on the potential offender’s age. For Gottfredson and Hirschi “it appears that ineffective child-rearing practices are not the only causes of crime”. The cure for crime involves training adults and adults ‘need only learn the requirements of early childhood socialization, namely to watch for and recognize signs of low self-control (269). According to psychiatrists, they have seen a higher percentage of children brought in for consultation and treatment that predisposes this age group to low self-control as actively seen through behavior observed in school and at home. Though it may be highly unlikely for these kids to turn into criminals, but it is likely that such children will do something else indicative of low self-control. Crime, as noted earlier, is but one of a number of behaviors that Gottfredson and Hirschi attest can be explained satisfactorily by their theory. The theory is said to embrace events such as ‘accidents, victimizations truancies from home, school, and work, substance abuse and family problems (1990: ix). Gottfredson and Hirschi agreed that the core characteristic of criminal behavior is ‘essential nature’ (1990: xiv) and that nearly all crimes are ‘mundane, simple, trivial, easy acts aimed at satisfying desires of the moment. Agreeably some crimes appear to possess similarities yet distinctive enough to require other kinds of explanations. If we aim to be able to understand them and predict their occurrence with some accuracy, we need the assurance of the possible outcomes of our endeavors. Evaluation and Analysis of Data Provided Gottfredson and Hirschi’s main reservation about studies that seek empirical data on their theory seems to involve the manner in which the investigators define self-control. Evans et al. (1997: 495) note that such measures would not be clear whether self-control is predicting crime or whether behaviors similar in nature are merely predicting each other. A look into three articles that tested the general theory of crime will most likely shed light on this argument. Longshore(1998) conducted a prospective test on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime and used self-control and opportunity as the predictors among drug abuse offenders. The results showed that property and personal crimes were more frequent among offenders who have a lower self-control and those with higher opportunity. About four percent of the variance in each type of crime was predicted by the low-self control variables (Longshore, 1998). The method used was unquestionable but the measurement of self-control is quite inconclusive with the use of statements like “you act in the spur of the moment”. This may create a tautology in which one acts on the spur of the moment when one has low self-control and one has low-self control because one acts on the spur of moment which is quite inefficient. In Gibbs et al, using a sample of university students, the findings created the relationship of parental management and deviance. In light of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s assertion that other variables such as status frustration, delinquent peers, disorganized communities, and many more are spurious as to explaining why people become delinquent throughout life implies a deviation from their own assertion. Marked tautology is again recognized with Gibb’s use of “cheating” as another measure of low self-control. Pratt and Cullen’s, “The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis” found out that low self-control is an important predictor of crime and analogous behavior. Regardless of measurement differences but, contrary to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s position, the effect of low self-control is weaker across longitudinal studies and variables. Aker’s social learning theory still receives support in their studies that use a measure of low-self control (Pratt and Cullen, 2000). Tony Ward and Stephen Hudson (1998) also break down recidivism in sexual offenders as identified in nine steps; life event, desire for deviant sex or activity, offense-related goals established, strategy selected, high-risk situation entered, lapse, sexual offense, post-offense evaluation, and attitude towards future offending (Ward and Hudson, 1998). Control may break down at any point within the cycle and does not necessarily conform to a linear fashion where decisions may be made at once. Hanson and Bussiere in a meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism identified sexual deviancy (i.e. sexual interest in children as measured by phallometric assessment) as the leading predictor of sexual offense recidivism. General psychological problems or alcohol abuse was neither related to the incidence of recidivism. Non-sexual violent recidivists tended to be young, unmarried, engaged in criminal behavior in their pasts, and have antisocial or psychopathic personalities (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998). Conclusion Self-control, despite the problems associated with the measurements encountered has actually supported with positive results that there is a certain hope for criminality to subside in the US. Self-control serves as an important factor in the making of a criminally deviant mind. This study has encountered a few hitches with the lack of attention to other important variables pointed out by Gottfredson and Hirschi, yet this researcher feels that some other explanations created a more cogent analysis on the study. At times, Gottfredson and Hirschi have clearly steered away from applying their theory to violent and/or sexual crime such as rape however it is suggested that a comprehensive behavioral modification program may increase the awareness to self-control could reduce the incidence of crime in the near future. On the incidence of crime, low self-control may predispose criminal acts such as forcible rape, terrorism, stealing among others. Violent crimes however do not necessarily account for the possibility of low self-control acting alone on the individual. A variety of factors is believed to enhance the incidence of the violence in mankind. Childhood programs that aim to encourage self-control in the individual can be implemented through its incorporation in the elementary education curriculum. Parental involvement provides the needed support especially among the less intelligent children. Communities can also help by implementing certain activities that ensure supervision for these children. Thrasher (1927) traces the origin of gangs to unsupervised, spontaneous play groups. Opportunities for other crimes in the US can be minimized by designing an environmental system that allow the community to participate in community policing initiatives can bolster social networks that provide informal controls for crime. Treatment programs for the youth who are likely to suffer from low self-control can provide psychological guidance that may bolster the necessary socialization skills. Further, reintegration programs for adults convicted of crimes or released from incarceration should focus on the issued promoting the attainment of employment, and enhancing relationships with co-workers, family members, and friends. The negative impact that a society paints or labels to persons who has committed criminal acts should be shunned by the American society to support their effective return to normalcy.   If Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime provides a bleak prediction for the practice of self-control at a young age. This research sets out to prove them wrong. Policy makers and the American society must take a look at an effective approach that promotes positive behavior in the individual. Futher research that aims to effectively discuss the other variables with collective quantifiable data will scientifically explain the deviations as a potential for further studies.   Works Cited Akers, Ronald L. “Self-Control as a General Theory of Crime”. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2001. 7(2):201–11. Arneklev, Bruce J., Grasmick, H., Tittle , C. R. and Bursik, Robert Jr. “Low Self-Control and Imprudent Behavior”. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1993.9(3): 225–47. Burton, Velmer S., David, T., Evans, Francis T. Cullen, Olivares, K. and Dunaway, G. “Age, Self-Control, and Adults’ Offending Behaviors: A Research Note Assessing A General Theory of Crime”. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1999. 27(1): 45–54. Evans, T. David, Francis T. Cullen, Velmer E. Burton, Jr, R. Gregory Dunaway and Michael L. Benson. “The Social Consequences of Self-Control Theory”. Criminology, 1997. 35(3): 475–501. Gibbons, Don C. “Talking About Crime and Criminals: Problems and Issues in Theory Development in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1993. Gibbs, Jack “The State of Criminological Theory”. Criminology 1987.25(4):821–40. Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever and James S. Martin. “Parental Management and Self-Control: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory”. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1993. 35(1):40–70. Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi. “A General Theory of Crime”. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990. Hirschi, Travis and Michael Gottfredson. “Commentary: Testing the General Theory of Crime”. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency,1993. 30: 47–54. Hanson, K.R., Bussiere, M.T. “Predicting relapse: A Meta- Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,1998. 66, 348-62. Hirschi, Travis and Michael Gottfredson. “Control Theory and the Life-Course Perspective”. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention: Annual Review 1993. 4: 131–42. Laub, J.H. and Sampson, R.J. “Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime”. In S.H. Traub & C.B. Little (Eds.). Theories of Deviance (2nd Ed). Itasca, Illinois,1998: F.E. Peacock. Longshore, Douglas. “Self-Control and Criminal Opportunity: A Prospective Test of the General Theory of Crime”. Social Problems, 1998. 45(1):102–13. Marenin, Otwin and Michael D. Reisig. “A General Theory of Crime: Patterns of Crime in Nigeria: An Explanation of Methodological Assumptions”. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1995.23(6): 501–18. Reed, Gary E. and Peter C. Yeager. “Organizational Offending and Neoclassical Criminology: Challenging the Reach of A General Theory of Crime”. Criminology,1993. 34(3): 357–82. Thrasher, F. “The Gang: A study of 1313 gangs”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1927.   Vold, G.B., Bernard, T.J., & Snipes, J.B.(1998). Theoretical Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.   FBI Union Crime Reports. The United States Crime Rate.2004. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm May 27, 2006. Read More