As crime continues to occur, criminologists begin to define new theories to explain our seemingly naturalistic tendencies on what mental processes take place for an individual to actually partake in criminal activity. The symbolic interactionist perspective defines itself by its strong beliefs in the fact that criminals are defined by their social processes. The social process theory states that criminality is a function of people’s interactions with various groups, organizations and processes in society.
For example, an individual’s connection with family, school, friends, religion and media would all be main factors in determining how their criminal structure within their personality came into existence.
A section if the symbolic interactionist belief that I most agree with is the definition that not all criminals come from poverty stricken places- that the individuals key institutions play a large role in shaping the individual, not the income level of the household or neighborhood.
The social learning theory suggests that people learn the techniques and attitudes of crime from close relationships with criminal peers: Crime is learned behavior.
Underneath the social learning theory, two prominent sub- theories exist: differential association theory and neutralization theory. First, differential association theory, created by Edwin Sutherland and his associate, Donald Cressey, truly focused on the detail that crime was not a product of a low income environment, but of the individual’s key institutions.
Criminal behavior is a byproduct of interacting with others; similar to how many citizens believes criminals who emerge from jail time are more-so corrupted than when they entered in for their sentence, however long.
The theory also believes that people learn criminal behavior in adolescence from close, trusted friends or relatives. People that are not in their first group have less of an effect on their socially learned behavior. In addition to the differential association theory, the neutralization theory falls within realms of the social learning theory.
Produced by David Matza, the neutralization theory believes that criminals must first neutralize accepted social values before they are free to commit crimes. The theory believes that all criminals live a normal life at least some of the time. They attend school, church, lead families, and drift between a criminal lifestyle and a normal lifestyle, much like the box office hit Mr. & Mrs. Smith. As we conclude both of these social learning theories, we begin to realize that while the origin on crime has been carefully examined, a missing link could be the accountability of the origin of criminal definitions.
Where did these ideas come from to begin with? The social control theory suggests that individuals all have the potential to violate the law and that modern society presents many opportunities for illegal activity. It bases itself off of self control, a strong moral sense that renders a person incapable of hurting others or violating social norms. Isn’t it true, then, that other’s define morals differently and in a different manner, therefore defining their own sense of self control? (Much like the functionalist disadvantage that not everyone has the same beliefs! For example, self control to me would be to refrain from quitting my part time nanny job due to the amount of stress it places on myself and my immediate relationships. Self control to someone else would be to refrain from stealing money from their place of work. Big differences, yet still, fall under the same definition. Social control theorist Albert Reiss studied delinquents and their connection with weak ego’s and lacking self control. However, in the more popular and dominant version on control theory, Travis Hirschi links criminality and delinquency to the weakening of the ties that bind people to society.
Hirschi’s theory links society, whom develops our rules and regulations to follow, to criminals in the respect that the individuals whom have a stronger tie to society also have a stronger ability to conform to its rules. He also believes that our social bonds as a society are weakening. Who actually sits down as a family and eats dinner together? Whose schedule is so wide open that they can take the kids to the park or go for a family outing on a weekend (and leave the cell phone at home? Hirschi also believes that youths who are strongly attached to their parents were less likely to commit crime- however; I must directly disagree with that belief structure. As the symbolic interactionists believe, criminal behavior is learned- and therefore, if a youth is tied in closely with their parental units, and they are criminals themselves, how would the child most likely not be a criminal? Next, we will discuss the social theory of labeling in the social reaction theory. Within this theory, Howard Becker defines those in power as constituting our laws and what should be labeled “deviant” and what should not.
He believes also that society creates the criminals- that there is no such thing as deviance, sin or criminal behavior. If a person lives on an island alone, nothing he or she does can be considered a sin because there is no one there to judge it. It is only through judgment that deviance can occur. In addition to Becker’s views on deviance, labeling theory also has an additional aspect that I find important to discuss. If an individual is labeled deviant, “bad”, a criminal, or any negative stigma, and the individual accepts that as a part of their personality, they suffer from labeling theory.
They may tend to hang around other “bad” people, places, or form their own groups like the trench coat mafia in columbine high school. Unfortunately, labels are not evenly distributed across class and racial lines- that the poor and powerless people are often victims. Labels amplify deviant behavior rather than deter future criminality. For example, if I was labeled a criminal, and the world (and myself, most importantly) connected that label with my personality(which would make me a secondary deviant), why on earth would I exert any amount of effort, never mind the large amount required, to change that view- without any guarantees?
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
