Gottfredson and Hirschi's Self-Control Theory: A New Perspective on Crime, Study notes of Criminology

Download Gottfredson and Hirschi's Self-Control Theory: A New Perspective on Crime and more Study notes Criminology in PDF only on Docsity! Self-Control Precis (Sara Wakefield) Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Chapters 2, 5, and 6. Summary: Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (hereafter GH) self-control theory (1990) pairs an argument about the nature of criminals with arguments about the nature of crime. GH argue that crime is like other reckless nonlegal behaviors (such as smoking, drinking, unprotected sex) in that it brings temporary instant gratification to the individual and is the result of low self-control. GH argue that low self-control is an internal condition that is primarily set by the age of 7 or 8. In keeping with their explanation of the criminal, GH describe crime as simple and seeking instant gratification – this vision of crime has several implications for other criminological theories. First, GH argue that crime is simple, does not require planning or specialized knowledge (vs. Cloward and Ohlin’s Illegitimate Opportunities Theory or Blumstein’s conceptual view of crime as like a career). GH also include in their theory of crime some elements of routine activities theory (Cohen and Felson 1979) – because crime is no different than other reckless behaviors and is unplanned, people with low self-control are sufficiently motivated and crime is controlled largely by external elements such as the lack of easy targets and the presence of capable guardians. GH’s argument that low self- control is largely set by age 7 or 8 also implies that the longitudinal study of crime is not needed and that age-graded theories of crime are misguided (Hirschi and Gottfredson 1983; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1983). GH’s theory also weighs in on a fundamental debate regarding age and crime raised in Sampson and Laub’s life course theory of crime discussed last week. Most undergraduate courses in criminology begins with a description of the age-crime curve and until GH’s arguments on age (1983; 1990; 1986), it was not questioned that the age-crime relation was in need of social explanation. In contrast, GH argue that the age-crime relation is so invariant across time, place, and culture that it is not in need of social explanation. GH also argue, in contrast to Sampson and Laub, that married offenders are as likely to “age out” of crime as unmarried offenders or that employed offenders are as likely to “age out” of crime as unemployed offenders. Overall, GH make essentially a spuriousness argument with respect to empirical research linking marriage or employment to desistance from crime. Because people with low self-control tend not to get or stay married and tend not to get or keep good jobs, self-control is primary causal mechanism predicting crime and most research in criminology does not control for this. Chapter 2: The Nature of Crime GH note that most theories of crime begin with theories of the offender. GH “wish to reverse that tendency” by beginning their discussion of the nature of crime. GH argue that crime is “trivial” resulting in “little loss and less gain.” Crime is less predicted by the characteristics of offenders than by the temporal and spatial distributions of people and situations. Most crimes require little preparation and leave few lasting consequences. Crime tends to occur late at night or early in the morning, between strangers, in the city, and be committed by young, poor, minority males who do not specialize in any particular type of crime. The main argument underlying their theory is that crime requires little preparation, training, or skill. Crime also “doesn’t pay” – most offenses yield little gain and those that do (such as auto theft) are highly likely to be unsuccessful or associated with high levels of risk (as in the case of robbery). Using these characteristics of crime as their base, GH outline the conditions necessary for crime to occur. Drawing heavily from routine activities or opportunities theories of crime (e.g., Cohen and Felson 1979), GH show that crime is substantially predicted by features beyond the individual offender. These features apply equally to property crimes (like burglary) and violent crimes (like rape). Crime tends to occur in situations where a victim or target is present, it is unlikely to be stopped (lack of guardians), and where the rewards outweigh the risks (motivated offenders). Theories which do not attend to these features of crime tend to predict things that are inconsistent with empirical knowledge about crime. First, they predict that we need separate theories for separate crimes (we don’t). Second, they predict that committing serious criminal acts require special skills or seriousness (they don’t). Third, many theories imply that offenders will tend to specialize in the types of crimes commensurate with their skills or temperaments (versatility, not specialization is the norm). Finally, classic theory gives special significance to crimes that are completed versus those that are only attempted (this distinction is unimportant for GH). Chapter 5: The Nature of Criminality: Low Self-Control This chapter adds GH’s theory of offenders into their conceptualization of crime described earlier. GH begin their discussion by noting that classical theories of crime assume no special criminal propensities among criminals (note that Hirschi’s 1969 control theory made no assumptions about individual variation in “criminality”, only variation in social bonds and stakes in conformity). Classic theory explains crime in terms of social location, social bonds, or subculture membership and emphasizes the deterrents for crime as the major determinant. Classic theories of crime describe criminals as asocial creatures who are weakly bonded to the rest of society (aimless drifters in Hirschi’s original conceptualization). In contrast, GH’s theory rests on the assumption that individuals vary in their tendency to commit crime, regardless of social location. GH place the major predictor of crime in the internal concept of self-control. Its placement in their theory is directly related to their conceptualization of crime. Elements of Low Self-Control • Self-control consists of the ability to delay gratification. People with low self-control have a “here and now” orientation and are unable or unwilling to delay gratification. • Crime is a situation which represents easy or simple desire gratification. Crime requires no skill or perseverance. • Crime is exciting and appeals to those with low levels of self-control. • Crime has no long-term benefits, thus, is only appealing to those with low self- control. • Crime requires no skill or planning and is especially suited for those who are unable to make long-term investments in skill development. • Crime results in pain or discomfort for its victims which fits with the correlation between low self-control and self-centeredness. GH’s low self-control argument rests on the idea that crime is like any other reckless act. Those with low self-control are as likely to commit other reckless acts; in addition, because low self-control is associated with all types of crime, offenders will tend not to specialize in particular kind of crime. Determinants of Low Self-Control: Low self-control is not produced by socialization. In contrast, it is produced in the absence of socialization, discipline, and training. Self-control, then, must be actively pursued. GH