Crime Theory Evaluation - Essay Example

Running head: CRIME THEORY This paper on crime theory has illustrated the extent to which the theory of Sutherland: differential association; through environmental, peer influence, and strain theory by Robert Agnew can prove the sources of criminal troubles of Jimmy and factors that may be important in his history to understand the reason for his criminal behavior. Loopholes as well as empirical support to these two theories relevant to the case in issue as posited by other school of thoughts have been visited. As a result, all the possible causes of Jimmy's behavior has been ascertained and recommendations to treat Jimmy to enable him quit delinquency that underpins the two theories have been advanced. The theories of Differential Association and Strain posited by Edwin Sutherland and Robert Agnew respectively, explains with clarity the source of an individual's criminal problem and factors that are vital to understand his criminal behavior. A perfect understanding of Jimmy's criminal behavior, would enable specific recommendations to be made to deter him quit delinquency. Edwin Sutherland explains why any individual gravitates toward criminal behavior. (Sutherland, 1937) He argues that criminal behaviors are learned in the same way that all other behaviors are learned. Criminals learn criminal deviant behaviors such as motives, drives, rationalizations and attitudes. Deviance is not inherently a part of a particular individual's nature. Further, he asserts a person's association with others who are delinquent will increase the likelihood of becoming and remaining delinquent. (Sutherland, 1974) In this view, peers can be crucial role models for the development of values and beliefs favorable to law violation. Though he agrees that strain has a part to play, he does not seek to know why people become criminals. From the foregoing, and in relation with the case in issue, his assumption on the one hand will be that the source of Jimmy's trouble is association; peer influence. This is evident with Jimmy's association with Bill in which he looks up to him. (Sutherland, 1974) He claims that incidents between Jimmy's mother and father and the strain that produced a negative relationship with his mother, are irrelevant when considering the source of his problem. As per his assumption, for example, although Jimmy had strain; a negative relationship in his house, he would not have been involved in the troubles he is involved in if he had no association with a person who has a deviant behavior and influence over him; (Bill). Therefore, even if strain; negative relationship was absent in Jimmy's home, he would have still had the problems he has since he had an association with Bill who has a deviant behavior. (Sutherland 1937) Robert Agnew's disposition is that strain is the central in explaining the source of Jimmy's troubles. (Agnew, 1992) His emotions and immediate social environment has a lot to determine the source of his troubles. Strain emerges from negative relationships with others. If individuals are not treated in the way that they expect or want to be treated, they will lose their belief in the role others play for realizing expectations. Agnew, (1992) Anger and frustration confirm negative relationships and may persuade any individual to adopt deviant behavior. This will often involve more unilateral action because there will be a natural desire to avoid unpleasant rejections, confirming more general separation. Thus, Robert Agnew assumption in this case will be that the source of Jimmy's troubles are as a result of strain in the form of Anger accumulated due to incidents that occurred in his home from when he was 7 years old, strain developed because of negative relationship with his mother, and neglect his mother. She was always hostile when at home and berated him as worthless. Moreover, in an attempt to determine the factors in Jimmy's life that are important to understand his behavior Edwin Sutherland will dwell on what he termed peer influences among deviant youths (Sutherland, 1974). He will contend that Jimmy's environment provides the opportunity to associate with a criminal as such he learned the skills of becoming a criminal. Bill to whom he looked up to was a criminal. The frequency and duration was so instrumental for Jimmy's behavior, as criminal behavior is learnable and learned in interaction with other deviant persons, (Sutherland, 1974). His association with Bill obliged him to behave like him as he then learnt not only modus operandi of certain crimes, but also precise basis and motives. These included shoplift and how to break into cars to steal stereo equipments. He was frequently truant from school to hang out on the streets with friends, thus had sufficient time to acquire criminal knowledge through verbal communication and gesture, experimental practice on the streets through shoplift with friends. Jimmy's behavior rooted to peer's influence and malingering from school. Robert Agnew will settle on two deviance-producing strains: Removal of positively Valued Stimuli and confrontation with Negative Stimuli to be the factors in Jimmy's life important to understand his behavior. Positive value stimuli occurred in Jimmy's adolescent age when two dramatic changes occurred: stressful impact felt when his father went to jail and never returned upon his release; his mother seldom had time for them. Akers, (2000, p. 159) Confrontation with negative stimuli applies most to adolescents than any other age group. Jimmy was forced to remain among negative actions that were anger-induced as a result of the negative relationship he had with his mother (Agnew, (1997), and child abuse. His behavior emanated from the fact that he wanted to relief himself from pains. (Agnew and White, 1992). For instance, his mother told him off that he was worthless and her being hostile when at home. All these led to anger that sustained a deviant behavior and as a result, Jimmy began avoiding the house as a means to disassociate with his mother which resulted to his involvement in crimes of various types. (Akers, 2000, p. 159) Nevertheless, to help Jimmy quit his delinquency; Edwin Sutherland will recommend changing Jimmy's disposition towards offending. Peer influence over Jimmy must be cured through counseling to negate the values and beliefs favorable to law violation. He must be convinced that delinquency is a vice to society and consequently attracts sanctions. He must no longer look up to Bill and avoid the company of peers such as Bill who poses deviant behavior. As concerns Robert Agnew, he will recommend that Jimmy's mother should educate him on the fact that it is against the law to hurt others and the need to understand what type of behavior is acceptable in society. And lastly, she should not be hostile with him. Instead, she should adopt to be considerate and encourage him to do what is right as corrective measure when he does a wrong thing. If this is done properly, it will go along way to help him quit delinquency. This is most likely to be true for younger individuals like him, and Agnew suggested that research focus on the magnitude, how recent, duration, and clustering of such straining events to determine whether a person copes with strain in a criminal or conforming. Nevertheless, these theories have received criticisms from social learning theorist. They hold on the contrary that a young person learns how to behave based on how his parent, respond to his abuse of and compliance with rules. The source of Jimmy's troubles, are as a result of lax and erratic discipline or by unduly harsh discipline he received from his mother as opposed to the negative relationship he had with his mother; and his association with Bill. Another child with same history would not involve in crime if there was no negative social learning. (Charles R. Tittle, Mary Jean Burke, Blton F. Jackson 1986). The same is true, as his association with Bill would not have been possible if he had strict and consistent discipline at home. If his mother spent time at home and constantly sanctioned him for his wrong doings it would lead to the internalization of such standards. Over time the misbehavior becomes associated with the sanction, and it produces anxiety even when no one is present to administer sanctions. Had it been Jimmy went through this process he have began to control himself in a manner consistent with moral and legal codes. These standards, he would have upheld them even if his mother no longer had time for them or was not at home and consequently, would not have looked up to Bill. In addition, Proponents of "school status theory", (Polk 1969) claim that poor performance in school alone is responsible for crime and deviance. School failure in terms of grades, spelling ability, language usage, and general intelligence has been found to lead to crime and deviance even when perceived deprivation, familial based class, and outside misconduct were controlled. These researchers argue that ascription based stratification and tracking systems in schools lead poorly skilled students to reject being taught and create their own failure (Polk & Schafer 1972). This means that to them the factor necessary to understand Jimmy's behavior is that of his school attitude and not the negative relationship at home. Yet he did not contest the idea that peer influences can provide the belief that crime will be status rewarding. Moreover, these two theories obtain support from the Italian school of thought when one of Cesare Lombroso's students, Enrico Ferri accepted criminal behavior also results from unfortunate family or environmental circumstances, (Charles R. Tittle, Mary Jean Burke, Blton F. Jackson (1986). The differential association theory has some empirical evidence which the social learning theory lacks. A survey for the differential association theory found that association with deviant social groups or individuals sustain deviant behaviors, and that those youths that continue to associate with deviant peers continue in deviant behavior (Siegel, 2006, p. 205). According to Tittle (1986, 429), despite some important anomalies, our findings support the major theme of Sutherland's thinking. Association with criminal definitions does seem to be a generator of crime, and it appears to exercise its influence indirectly through its effects on a learned symbolic construct-motivation to engage in criminal behavior. Again a survey which questioned 3065 males and females who had or did engage in drug and/or alcohol use, establish a practical union between drug and/or alcohol use. Still, it was found that learning deviant manners was an ongoing process; denoting it continues as individuals continues to spend time with their deviant social group (Akers, et al. 2006p. 206 - 207). Agnew and White (1992) have produced empirical evidence suggesting that general strain theory was positively able to relate delinquents and drug users, and that the strongest effect on the delinquents studied was the delinquency of their peers. Other theories, such as that of Roger Merton emphasized on the macro and micro stress that talks on lower and higher social classes which is irrelevant here. Generally, theories attributing criminal behavior to biological or congenital (inherited) defects of the offender, those relating crime to psychological factors or mental disorders, and theories relating crime to environmental, or social factors with emphasis on social class; social values and culture groups, are irrelevant considering the surrounding circumstances of this case. Thus, the two theories used here are the best because strain as posited by Robert Agnew and as opposed to that posited by Robert Merton, and differential association through peer influences as held by Edwin Sutherland has relevance as far as the points for consideration in this case are concern. They equally have support from other school of thoughts and empirical evidence which the other theories lack. In a nutshell, Jimmy's troubles emanates from lax, neglect, hostility, and peer's influence. Jimmy needs to be rehabilitated before he can quit delinquency. References Sutherland. (1937). the professional thief. The University of Chicago. Sutherland. (1974). Criminology. J.B. Lippincott Company. Siegel, (2006) Outlines & Highlights For Criminology Agnew, R. (1992). "Foundation for a General Strain Theory". Criminology Agnew, R. & White, H. (1992). "An Empirical Test of General Strain Theory" Criminology 30(4): 475-99. Akers, R. (2000). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Los Angeles. Charles R. Tittle, Mary Jean Burke, Blton F. Jackson (1986). Modeling Sutherland's theory of differential association: Toward an empirical clarification. Social Forces. Polk, K., & Schafer, W. (eds.). (1972). Schools and Delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Polk, K. (1969). "Class, Strain and Rebellion Among Adolescents" Social Problems Read More