Open Access Research Article
ANALYTICAL CRIMINOLOGY: DELINQUENCY, CRIMINALITY AND THE SELF CONTROL THEORY BY: ISHAAN DEEPAK JOSHI
Published Paper
Article Details
ANALYTICAL CRIMINOLOGY:
DELINQUENCY, CRIMINALITY AND THE SELF
CONTROL THEORY
AUTHORED BY: ISHAAN DEEPAK JOSHI
Institutional Affiliation: NALSAR University of Law and MIT-WPU
Faculty of Law
Email: ishaanjoshi2k@gmail.com
Phone no: +91 9158636644
Abstract
The self-control theory, introduced
by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in their book A General Theory of
Crime, is an extensively studied viewpoint in criminology that examines
how individual variations in the consideration of the outcomes of their actions
can lead to delinquency, crime, and similar behaviours. Advocates contend that
individuals who acquire self-discipline at a young age will exhibit
significantly lower rates of engagement in delinquency, criminal activities,
and other maladaptive behaviours in their later years. Individuals who cultivate significant levels
of self-discipline during their childhood are less prone to engaging in
delinquent behaviour during adolescence, as well as being less susceptible to
arrest or conviction in adulthood. Additionally, they exhibit greater academic
achievement, secure more prosperous employment, earn higher incomes, and enjoy
improved health outcomes throughout their lifespan.
The Notion
of Self-Control
According to Gottfredson and Hirschi,
self-control is the capacity to resist instant or short-term gratification that
may result in bad outcomes, and instead, prioritise long-term benefits. It
pertains to psychological notions such as self-regulation as well as
impulsivity, economic ideas like time discounting and skill formation, and
sociological concept of social control. In the context of self-control theory,
significant adverse outcomes may encompass physical injury, legal penalties,
expulsion from educational establishments, as well as disappointment or
disapproval from family, teachers, and friends.[1] Gottfredson
and Hirschi contend that the majority of criminal behaviour and juvenile
delinquency can be interpreted as the quest for immediate and effortless
rewards or momentary and fleeting gratification. Consequently, individuals with
comparatively low self-control are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviour
and crime.
Self-control is not considered to be
a predisposing factor or a personality characteristic associated with criminal
behaviour or delinquency. Self-control is commonly defined as a tendency to
prioritise present needs, wants, and desires over long-term considerations,
without considering the potential negative outcomes of such behaviour. Self-control
theory is a notion of choice rather than determinism.[2] Self-control,
contrary to popular belief, is not exclusively associated with criminal
behaviour. Low self-control does not necessarily lead to delinquency or crime,
nor does it inherently drive individuals to engage in illegal activities. High
self-control can be considered a component of social capital or social
advantage, as it contributes to achieving positive outcomes in many life
situations and favourable results in social institutions such as school, the
job market, and interpersonal relationships.
Control
Theories
Self-control theory is categorised
within a broader group of crime theories, which encompass social control theory
& deterrence theory. These theories all draw upon the foundational
principles of the classical approach in criminology.[3] These
ideas suggest that individuals typically behave based on the principles of rationality
& self-interest. These models do not posit the inherent malevolence or
immorality of individuals; instead, they posit that all individuals strive to
pursue shared motives in alignment with their personal perception of
self-interest, with the aim of maximising pleasure and minimising misery.
Control theories in criminology are
based on the idea that certain controls can prevent individuals from engaging
in antisocial and problematic behaviours that serve their own self-interest. Control
theories aim to forecast variations in the arrangement of controls among
individuals and groups, thereby indicating the individuals, groups, and
environments that are most likely to exhibit higher levels of delinquency and
crime.[4] Gottfredson
and Hirschi assert that personal and societal restrictions are the primary
determinants of delinquency and crime.
Control theories are commonly known as restraint theories, as the lack
of effective restrictions is what leads to variations in criminal behaviour and
delinquency across individuals, rather than differences in reasons or
incentives for crime.
Self-control theory posits that
individuals do not possess an innate inclination towards criminal behaviour,
nor are they influenced by socialisation to engage in crime. Instead, persons
vary in the degree to which they have cultivated self-control and pay attention
to the inhibitory factors in their surroundings that deter criminal and
delinquent acts. Self-control & social control theories can be classified
as socialisation theories, as they primarily examine the influences that instil
conformity to societal norms and rules. These theories operate under the
assumption that children need to be educated on how to adhere to these
expectations.[5]
Self-control theory posits that there
is variation in the degree to which individuals are successfully instructed in
these principles during their development. The theory of self-control posits
that variations in socialisation during childhood result in a spectrum of
individuals' capacity to concentrate on long-term objectives. It suggests that
those with lower levels of self-control are more prone to engaging in
delinquent & criminal activities compared to those with higher levels of
self-control. Once established, variations in self-control persist basically
unchanged over the course of one's lifetime. It is undisputed, however, that an
individual's self-control can vary, especially before reaching adulthood, and
it is not necessarily firmly established at an early age - stability is
primarily based on empirical observation.[6]
An
Overarching Theory of Criminal Behaviour
Gottfredson and Hirschi expounded
upon self-control theory in their book A General Theory of Crime and further
substantiated, expanded, and defended it through several subsequent
publications. Self-control is a crucial component of their crime theory, as it
is the primary factor at the individual level that leads to delinquency and
crime.[7] While
they acknowledge many other elements contributing to crime in their theory,
they assert that self-control is a fundamental cause of crime due to its
significant impact and its influence on numerous other factors. Consequently,
it is a primary area of emphasis in their overall theory.
The purpose of constructing
self-control theory was to establish a connection between contemporary control
theories of crime and significant findings from empirical research on crime and
delinquency. Aside from the well-established associations between delinquency
and family, school, and peers, there is a significant emphasis on the impact of
age, generality, and variety on crime and delinquency. The concept of
self-control theory originated from an analysis of the relationship between age
and criminal behaviour, as explained by Hirschi and Gottfredson. The
distribution of crime by age follows a consistent pattern—delinquency/crime
rates experience a significant increase during adolescence, reach their highest
point in late adolescence and early adulthood, decrease significantly in early
adulthood, and then progressively fall for the rest of one's life. Extensive
research indicates that this distribution is commonly observed across various
measuring techniques and among individuals, locations, time periods, and types
of crimes. The enduring nature of this link renders it resistant to
explanation, thereby posing issues for the majority of criminological theories.[8] This
is particularly accurate when it is assessed in conjunction with the stability
factor: as individuals age, crime decreases, but variations in the inclination
to engage in problematic behaviours continue. The generality or versatility
effect refers to the absence of specialisation in the types of delinquencies or
crimes committed by offenders. It also refers to the tendency for problem
behaviours to occur simultaneously with criminal activities in the same
persons.
Hirschi and Gottfredson proposed that
the issue of age and stability in theory can be addressed by differentiating
between crime, which varies with age, and criminality, which remains constant. Consequently,
both ideas are required for a theory to be considered valid. These disparities
made them realise the significance of the personal trait of self-control and
the need to develop a revised perspective on how crime should be defined in the
field of criminology. The idea outlined in A General idea of Crime has gained
significant attention and recognition in the field of criminology, being
extensively studied and referenced.[9]
Crime, as defined by Self-Control
Theory, refers to any behaviour that violates societal norms and laws,
resulting in harm or potential harm to others or society as a whole.
Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of
crime encompasses several essential components that set it apart from other
approaches. The dependent variable for the theory is defined as crime. In the
context of self-control theory, crime is characterised as actions that yield
immediate gratification but result in eventual adverse outcomes. They have
contended that crimes are fundamentally acts of coercion or deception carried
out in the quest of personal gain.
Gottfredson and Hirschi adopt a behavioural perspective when defining
crime, rather than relying on a legal framework. It is important to note that
while the majority of criminal and delinquent behaviours meet their criteria,
not all of them do.[10] Furthermore,
other noncriminal behaviours, such as various types of accidents, substance
addiction, bullying, and school misconduct, can be classified as actions that
yield immediate advantages but result in eventual drawbacks.
Based on their overarching argument,
the majority of delinquent and criminal behaviours are characterised by being
impulsive, spontaneous, and reliant on chance occurrences, with minimal need
for premeditation. Generally, they can be readily discouraged by barriers like
as locks, illumination, or the proximity of other individuals. They frequently
entail temporary benefits in interpersonal relationships or the assertion of
self-interests. Typically, these promises offer few benefits for the wrongdoer,
demand minimal creativity, and do not lead to achievement, social standing, or
the resolution of underlying psychological problems. Instead, they offer typical human
satisfactions or desires in a seemingly effortless manner, but only by
disregarding expenses.
With this description in mind, it
becomes apparent that self-control is the underlying factor that explains the
correlation between delinquencies, crimes, and other problem behaviours. These
behaviours tend to attract persons who possess a relatively low level of
self-control. Furthermore, it takes
into consideration the absence of specialisation in different forms of criminal
activities and the impact of versatility: interpersonal aggression, theft, drug
use, accidents, and school misbehaviour are frequently observed to be
interconnected due to variations in an individual's self-control.[11] Engaging
in these problematic actions yields immediate advantages for the individual
involved, but also entails the potential for detrimental outcomes for both the
individual and others.
The Genesis
of Self-Control: Early Childhood
and the
Role of the Family
The self-control idea is based on the
premise that human nature inherently possesses a universal inclination to seek
fulfilment of personal needs and desires. When not regulated, the pursuit of
these needs and aspirations inevitably leads to conflicts with others and
potentially severe effects for the person involved. Consequently, individuals
who are concerned about the well-being of the child endeavour to educate the
child to refrain from engaging in actions driven by self-interest that may lead
to harm, either to oneself or to others, and to prioritise the needs and
desires of others. In self-control
theory, socialisation is the process where parental care for the child's
well-being or conduct is a crucial requirement for effective child-rearing. During
the child's development, attentive and caring carers observe and penalise
behaviour that is detrimental to the child and others.[12] Consequently,
children are instructed to be mindful of the enduring repercussions of their
acts. When a compassionate adult is present in the environment of a growing
child and actively participates in their socialisation, it leads to the
establishment of strong self-control abilities that persist throughout the
individual's life. Occasionally, the kid's environment lacks early caregiving
due to the absence of an adult who prioritises the child's long-term well-being
or because the present carer lacks the required abilities or resources to
foster self-control in the child.
As the kid transitions into formal
educational settings, the school can have a significant impact on the
cultivation of self-discipline. Undoubtedly, self-discipline significantly
improves the likelihood of achieving excellent educational outcomes. This idea
proposes variations in the level and effectiveness of the socialisation process
among different groups, nations, and over time. Control theory posits that
these disparities give rise to variations in the prevalence of crime, violence,
and other deviant behaviours among people, communities, and cultures, as well
as over different time periods.[13]
The focus on developing self-control
during early childhood, as well as recognising the significant influence of the
family and school, aligns with findings from extensive research on the impact
of family dynamics on delinquency. Additionally, control group studies have
demonstrated that variations in family socialisation methods have an impact on
both self-control and delinquency.
Several scholars challenge the
validity of these environmental factors and assert that they have identified
robust biological factors that contribute to self-control. Gottfredson and
Hirschi contend that the available evidence does not substantiate the assertion
that biology compels or dictates certain persons to partake in delinquency or
criminal behaviour, or in the specific expressions of the versatility effect.[14] Their
self-control theory unequivocally dismisses the notion of a biological
inclination towards criminal behaviour or delinquency, while simultaneously
acknowledging the existence of biologically influenced variations in
susceptibility to contextual factors affecting self-control. However, the
compelling evidence for the influence of family and the absence of support for
biological compulsion strongly endorse the assertion of self-control theory
that socialisation is often achievable, provided that a favourable environmental
context exists to foster the cultivation of self-control during childhood.[15] The
research in education and economics is increasingly showing that the early
familial environment plays a crucial role in the development of individual
skills, such as self-control.
The development of self-control
theory was prompted by the recognition that individuals exhibit significant
variations in their inclination to disregard the future consequences of their
behaviour, and that these disparities emerge prior to puberty. The most major
consequences of establishing self-control are the fear of disappointing
parents, feeling ashamed in front of family and friends, and losing the
affection, respect, and acceptance of important individuals in one's life.[16] Over
time, these concerns become ingrained and influential aspects of one's
identity, persisting throughout one's entire life. Self-control regulates both
conscious and unconscious behaviours, preventing unrestricted self-interest,
which includes engaging in delinquent and criminal behaviours. This paradigm is
supported by a significant amount of recent research from the fields of
psychology, sociology, education, and child development.
Essential
Information for Self-Control Theory
The construction of self-control
theory was initially influenced by extensive study & literature on crime as
well as delinquency spanning several decades. This literature serves as a
crucial basis for theory, and hence the empirical status of self-control theory
is inevitably linked to the ongoing validity of these factors associated with
crime and delinquency. The following items are included:
The age distribution of crime,
regardless of the type of crime or the individual's attributes, reaches its
highest point during late adolescence or early adulthood and then steadily and
significantly decreases from this peak.[17]
One of the most well-documented
findings in delinquency research is that delinquents are less likely to have
strong connections with their parents compared to non-delinquents.
The individuals involved in criminal
activities exhibit a wide range of diversity in the types of crimes and
delinquencies they commit. This adaptability also applies to similar
behavioural expressions of limited self-control, including absenteeism,
premature termination of education, job insecurity, alcohol misuse, substance
abuse, domestic violence, traffic accidents, and unintended pregnancies. The
association between the subject's criminality as well as the delinquency of
their friends is highly robust in the field.
Based on extensive evaluations of
developmental studies on antisocial & delinquent behaviour, it is widely
accepted that the variations in antisocial behaviour tend to be quite
consistent after they are initially detected. Antisocial behaviour exhibited at
a young age is a reliable indicator of future antisocial behaviour in maturity.[18]
Academic performance is a powerful
indicator of engagement in delinquent and criminal behaviours. Individuals that
excel academically are improbable to engage in criminal activities.
The correlation between early
delinquency and later delinquency offers two essential components that
differentiate the general theory from other perspectives. Firstly, it
emphasises the significant role of early childhood in the development of
criminal behaviour and delinquency. Secondly, it highlights how childhood
factors contributing to problem behaviours can have a lasting impact on
subsequent causes later in life. The phenomenon known as the versatility effect
can be attributed to the nature of self-control. This effect refers to the
observation that several delinquent behaviours, crimes, and other problematic
actions tend to occur together. Specifically, interpersonal aggression, theft,
drug use, accidents, and school misbehaviour are frequently observed in
conjunction with one another.[19]
All of these challenges are accompanied with behaviours that yield immediate
benefits for the individual involved.
However, each option also entails the potential for adverse
repercussions. The distinguishing factor among individuals lies not in the
potential advantages that such actions may offer, but rather in the tendency of
some individuals to disregard the possible drawbacks associated with these
actions and nevertheless carry them out.
The robust and enduring associations
between parental attachment and delinquency, as well as school and teacher
attachment and academic achievement, strongly indicate that self-control is
nurtured through these relationships. Furthermore, the ability of parents and
schools to effectively instil self-control or cultivate children's concern for
and commitment to their long-term goals plays a significant role in this
process.
The empirical validity of these
fundamental facts has been widely accepted by empirically focused
criminologists for many years. Recent
study consistently confirms their validity.
Empirical
Experiments Assessing Self-Control Theory
The notions of self-control &
self-regulation are extensively studied in various disciplines, including
psychology, public health, education, and criminology. For instance, in the
extensively referenced Dundin, New Zealand, longitudinal research, the ability
to govern oneself throughout childhood was found to be a strong predictor of
the participants' future financial and social status, income, substance abuse,
overall health, and criminal records.
Summarising the substantial study
literature on many aspects of the notion of self-control is challenging. A
significant portion of the research primarily examines the quantification of
self-control and its correlation with delinquency, criminality, or similar
behaviours. Additional work examines the characteristics that contribute to
self-control and the familial aspects linked to crime in a broader sense.[20] However,
there is further relevant work that specifically examines Hirschi's previous
explanation of social control variables. These elements are crucial in
understanding self-control since they establish the primary consequences of
unrestricted pursuit of personal interests. Some evidence is obtained from
research that initially focused on variables unrelated to crime, such as
education or health. The hypothesis is pertinent to policy studies that
specifically examine the effects of deterrence, incapacitation, & other
presumed impacts of the criminal justice system. Similarly, studies that
directly investigate the impacts of age, stability, and adaptability in
criminology are also present. Consequently, the subsequent summary is not
intended to be comprehensive, but rather to encompass evidence types that are
highly pertinent to the overall credibility of self-control theory in relation
to crime and delinquency.[21]
Research on
the Causal Connection between Self-Control
and
Criminal Behaviour
Contemporary research consistently
shows that measures of self-control in childhood are strongly correlated with
problem behaviours across many measuring methods, study designs, and professions.
According to Franken, Moffitt, and their team, impaired childhood self-control
is extremely significant because it is linked to a multitude of negative life
experiences, including substance use, criminal behaviour, dropping out of
school, unplanned teenage pregnancies, and negative long-term health and
financial outcomes. Additionally, adolescents with lower self-control are more
prone to associating with delinquent peers.
The existing body of research has
mostly examined the correlation between self-control and individual traits, as
well as the intensity of this correlation across various geographical locations
or cultures, different categories of criminal activity or other problematic
behaviours, and during different time periods.[22] Vazsonyi
et al. demonstrate the impact of self-control on both males and females across
four distinct nations and five different age cohorts. Vazsonyi and Crosswhite
demonstrate comparable findings among African American and Caucasian
adolescents. DeLisi demonstrates the impact of self-control on those who have
committed offences, while Baron presents evidence of this impact specifically
in relation to property crime, drug use, and violent crime among homeless
juveniles. Tittle et al. demonstrate that the association between self-control
and diverse demographic groups, including nonstudent adults, college students,
youths, males and females, individuals with and without official criminal
records, and individuals from different nations and locations, remains
consistent. Tittle and colleagues contend that various measures of self-control
are indicative of a wide range of behaviours. Several indicators of
self-control are found to be predictive of various forms of misconduct in
cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, as well as in experimental
participants.
Vazsonyi and colleagues demonstrate
consistent self-control effects among teenage samples in the United States,
Switzerland, Hungary, and the Netherlands. Moffitt et al. establish the
significance of self-control in New Zealand. The concept of self-control has
been employed to elucidate variations both within Japan and in Spain. Vazsonyi
et al. demonstrate the impact of self-control in 11 distinct nations.
Perrone et al. reference 13 research
that examine various types of crimes and similar behaviours, providing evidence
for the correlation between self-control and criminal activity. Vazsonyi et al. demonstrate the impact of
theft, assault, substance abuse, vandalism, and overall deviant behaviour. DeLisi
examines misconduct among active offenders, Junger and Tremblay focus on
serious delinquency, Sellers study intimate violence, Brownfield and Sorenson
along with Gibbs et al. analyse crime, Wright and Cullen explore occupational
delinquency among juveniles, LeBlanc and Girard investigate various delinquent
acts and drug use in French-speaking Canadian samples, DeLisi also examines
general delinquency in a national probability sample of adolescents, Blickle et
al. study white-collar offending, and Gibbs et al. analyse general
deviance.
The literature has remarkable
examples showcasing the wide range of adaptability effects and the correlation
between self-control and problem behaviours in general. Junger and Tremblay
present compelling evidence linking accidents to delinquency and self-control
to other problem behaviours. Perrone et al. have extensively documented the
correlation between self-control and various analogous behaviours. These
behaviours include cheating, drug use, accidents, traffic risks, school
truancy, misbehaviour, dropout rates, and school problems.[23]
Nakhaie, Silverman, and LaGrange have specifically studied school problems,
while Keane et al. focused on accidents and Gibbs and Giever examined cheating.
Zhang et al. explored the relationship between self-control and drinking, drug
use, and delinquency among adolescents. Tangney et al. investigated the impact
of self-control on grade point averages, self-esteem, binge eating, alcohol
abuse, interpersonal relationships, and optimal emotional responses.[24]
Martino et al. found a connection between self-control and cigarette use, early
unwed parenthood, and early marriage. Unnever and Cornell studied the
relationship between self-control and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
and bullying. Jones and Quisenberry examined the impact of self-control on
risky sexual behaviour, driving behaviour, academic dishonesty, and gambling
among college students. Lastly, Baron explored the connection between
self-control and unemployment and homelessness. Pinker asserts that the
significant factor behind the overall decrease in violence over the course of
millennia is primarily attributed to changes in self-control.[25]
Systematic
Reviews and Comprehensive Evaluations of Self-Control Research
Several meta-analyses have
particularly examined the correlation between self-control, as defined by
Gottfredson and Hirschi, and delinquency or criminality. All of this research
consistently demonstrate that self-control is linked to delinquency,
criminality, and other problematic behaviours. The study conducted by Pratt and
Cullen focused on rigorously conducted research published from 1993 to 1999,
which has been highly referenced. Self-control theory has emerged as a highly
important theoretical framework over the past century, demonstrating its
durability via numerous thorough empirical examinations.[26]
Therefore, when examining reviews of
the most rigorous studies, it is regularly found that self-control theory
demonstrates robust validity across all fields and approaches. Reviews indicate that the theory has one of
the most robust empirical foundations in the field of criminology.
The empirical evidence has shown a
remarkable link between low self-control and numerous antisocial consequences. Multiple
studies have specifically examined the theory and have discovered that
individuals with low self-control are likely to experience difficulties in
various aspects of their lives.[27] These
include family relationships, dating, religious involvement, education, career
status, risky driving behaviour, misconduct at work, association with
criminals, adherence to criminal justice system rules, and living in disorderly
neighbourhoods. In addition,
individuals with low self-control exhibit a considerably higher propensity to
partake in activities such as alcohol consumption, substance abuse, smoking,
gambling, as well as engaging in various forms of criminal behaviour including
violence, property crimes, white-collar crimes, and nuisance offences.
Furthermore, they are also more susceptible to being victims themselves.
Evidence of
Validity Derived from Policy Studies: A Comparison between Criminal Justice
Programmes and Childhood Prevention Programmes
Gottfredson and Hirschi assert that
self-control theory has significant ramifications for public policies
concerning delinquency and crime. The emphasis on early-childhood socialisation
and the family offers a distinct public policy alternative to the prevailing
approach of incarceration and law enforcement in addressing criminal behaviour.
Given that the primary factors contributing to crime often stem from early
childhood experiences, there is significant potential in initiatives that
allocate resources towards providing child care services for populations with a
higher risk of engaging in criminal behaviour. Abundant empirical research
examining the impact of parenting or child carer interventions on delinquency
and other problematic behaviours consistently demonstrates significant
reductions in delinquency rates.[28]
Gottfredson, Hirschi, Moffitt, and
others contend that the enduring nature of self-control offers a compelling
rationale to explore the possible advantages of prioritising early life and
fostering self-control in the context of crime prevention strategy. The
emerging body of research, which is based on robust research methodologies,
unequivocally confirms that significant and enduring preventive outcomes can be
attained by influencing early childhood experiences with the intention of
improving socialisation and monitoring. Greenwood's meticulous examination
offers a categorization of six distinct types of efficacious programmes,
spanning from in-home visits conducted by nurses to parental instruction. Piquero
and colleagues conducted meta-analyses on research examining parenting
practises with children aged 5 and below. Heckman discovered a range of data on
early-childhood education that supports his theory that different family
contexts contribute to the development of abilities that are crucial for crime
and health, as well as success in school and the workplace. As an economist, he
strongly asserts that the societal financial benefits of early intervention far
surpass those of later interventions, such as those provided by the criminal
justice system.
Gottfredson contended that these
investigations, which intentionally create differences in socialisation and
monitoring experiences and include thorough follow-up assessments, should be
regarded as validation studies for self-control theories. These studies change
the levels of self-control in experimental groups and compare the results with
randomly selected non-intervention groups.[29] The
self-control improvements clearly demonstrate an impact on delinquency,
providing strong support for the theory and its focus on early familial ties.
Considering the age, stability, and
generality impacts, it is evident that early intervention-based prevention
would be a more economically efficient and impactful approach to reducing crime
compared to adult interventions like policing and incarceration. The prospect
of imposing stringent future consequences is unlikely to significantly
influence the conduct of those who are unaware or indifferent to their
existence. Studies on law enforcement support this anticipation, as does the
commonly accepted conclusion that extended incarceration has no impact on crime
rates. The latest findings of a panel from the National Research Council are
enlightening in this regard. One of the key conclusions is that the additional
deterrent impact of longer jail sentences is, at most, minor. The Research
Council also criticises the use of imprisonment as a means of incapacitation.
This is because as inmates age during their time in jail, the likelihood of
them reoffending decreases significantly. Therefore, long prison terms are an
ineffective method of preventing crime through incapacitation. Considering the
alignment between these findings and the forecasts of self-control theory, it
is suitable to regard the absence of severity effects and incapacitation
effects in criminal justice as a confirmation of the theory.[30]
The hypothesis of self-control aligns
well with the substantial research about situational crime prevention. These
policies aim to exploit the concept that certain criminal activities can be
decreased by diminishing the appeal of the target to potential offenders or by
implementing visible obstacles to deter them. The plausibility of
crime-specific approaches aligns with self-control theory, which posits that
most crimes are opportunistic behaviours driven by environmental factors rather
than strong, individual drives. Indeed, the efficacy of programmes that clearly
establish immediate consequences might be seen as validation studies for
predictions of self-control.[31]
Current
Studies on the Effects of Age, Generality, and Stability
Considerable study interest has
focused on examining the effects of age, generality, and stability during the
past few decades, partly due to the conflicting assumptions between general
theory and the criminal career viewpoint. Consequently, a substantial body of
empirical research has emerged, employing diverse methodologies, definitions,
and sample sizes. Multiple recent
studies in each of these domains have aimed to consolidate the existing body of
literature on these subjects within the framework of self-control theory.
The findings from the extensive
search conducted over several decades for significant deviations from the
commonly accepted age-crime pattern, especially among serious offenders or
individuals whose level of criminal activity remains high as they age, support
the age-invariance hypothesis and its consequences for theory as well as
policy.
The criminal career paradigm posits
that the rate of offending remains consistent over the duration of the criminal
career. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of crimes are perpetrated by
adolescents, reaching their highest levels in the mid-teenage years for
property offences as well as the late teenage years for violent offences.[32]
However, these rates rapidly decrease afterwards. By utilising group-based
trajectory modelling, it has been observed that the criminal behaviour of all
identified groups experiences a sharp decline as they age.
Laub and Sampson's study, which is
considered one of the most significant investigations into criminal
professions, provides additional precise details on this matter: The typical
age trend is observed even among individuals who were specifically chosen for
their involvement in major and chronic delinquent behaviour. Laub and Sampson
characterise the relationship between age and crime among major offenders in
their data as a fractal pattern inside the larger distribution.
The interpretation of age data for
offenders might be problematic in certain samples, especially in research that
utilise statistical trajectory approaches. Recent, unbiased evaluations of this
statistical classification literature do not discover consistent evidence for
significant variations in distributions based on age. Ershova, Matsueda, and
Telesca conducted a comprehensive analysis of taxonomic research spanning
twenty years. Their goal was to identify distinct groups of serious offenders
who deviate from the typical age distribution of criminal behaviour. The
researchers found that the trajectory groups in criminology generally display
shapes that are weakly unimodal, meaning they have a single peak. However,
there are variations in the intensity and timing of offending among these
groups. This discovery aligns with the age-invariance hypothesis put out by
Hirschi and Gottfredson. Empirically identified trajectory groups fail to
demonstrate the life-course persistent group, which exhibits a consistent rate
of criminal behaviour as predicted by criminal career and dual taxonomy
approaches.
The self-control theory posits that
the impact of age on criminal behaviour and similar actions remains consistent
regardless of social and cultural circumstances, and is applicable to all
demographic groups. It may be inferred that it produces stability and
versatility effects, and it facilitates the development of a comprehensive
theory by demonstrating that many actions occurring throughout one's life are
driven by shared factors. This has ramifications for social policy and the
design of research. This suggests that self-control methods that are similar in
concept will have comparable benefits across different age groups, and that
policies such as incapacitation are not useful in reducing crime rates.[33] Therefore,
it systematically arranges a vast array of criminological discoveries in a
coherent manner. The extensive range of studies that supports age invariance
consistently indicates that it is the most plausible interpretation of the
scientific findings.
Despite the presence of some
statistical evidence indicating a minor level of specialisation in crime-type
among large groups of repeat offenders, the prevailing trend in research still
emphasises generality or adaptability. According to Farrington, criminal
behaviour is characterised by versatility rather than specialisation,
encompassing activities such as excessive alcohol consumption, dangerous
driving, engaging in several sexual partners, bullying, and skipping school. A
substantial corpus of empirical research has expanded the scope of the flexibility
concept beyond its conventional meanings of crime and delinquency, encompassing
accidents, health, and welfare behaviours.[34] According
to DeLisi and Piquero, there exists a substantial body of study on the concepts
of offence specialisation and/or adaptability. One key finding is that the
majority of criminals, or almost all offenders, are generalists.
The stability idea of self-control
theory has garnered study scrutiny, as certain scholars have raised doubts
about the robustness of the finding as a foundation for self-control theory.
Self-control theory is founded on the well-established observation of a
significant association between early delinquency measurements and future
criminal behaviour.[35]
The enduring nature of variations in criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency,
and problematic actions throughout one's life is a widely documented
observation in the area. However, it is important to note that this association
is not without exceptions or flawless consistency. The empirical finding provides
strong evidence that a persistent individual attribute or skill is a
significant source. Gottfredson and
Hirschi emphasise that the fact that self-control is not caused, cannot change,
can be judged by the same indications at all points in life, or cannot be
purposely manipulated. The available
research strongly supports the hypothesis that variations in self-control may
be assessed at an early stage of development, and that these variations are
indicative of future involvement in criminal activities as well as transitions
between various social, educational, and interpersonal roles during the course
of one's lifetime.
The stability of the personal trait
of self-control, as proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi, and the long-lasting
effects of self-control, as claimed by Moffitt and her colleagues, are deduced
from the assessment of problem behaviours at various time intervals. Researchers
often rely on self-reported attitudinal or personality tests to study
short-term fluctuations in self-control. However, it is important to note that
these instruments themselves have significant inaccuracy. The lack of reliability is intertwined with
the consistency of self-control, leading to inaccurate assessments of stability.
Regardless, new research does not modify Farrington's assertion that there is
significant consistency in criminal behaviour and antisocial actions from
childhood through adolescence to maturity.[36]
This indicates that there is a consistent pattern in the ranking of individuals
based on their level of antisocial behaviour across time. It also suggests that
individuals who engage in a significant number of offences during one stage of
their life are very likely to continue doing so throughout another stage of
their life.
Assessing self-control is a dynamic
and significant field of study and discussion on self-control theory. The
superiority of behavioural measurement of self-control over self-reported
measures can be convincingly argued. An important area for future research is
determining the appropriate methods for assessing self-control at various
stages during one's life.[37]
Investigation
on the Effects of Self-Control Selection vs Treatment
Self-control theory posits that an
individual's level of self-control has an impact on their decision-making,
social connections, and group memberships to varying extents over the course of
their life. Personal traits such as self-control will impact the choices
individuals make when selecting friends, lovers, and institutional
affiliations. Nonexperimental research that lacks random assignment faces
challenges in determining the impact of affiliations, such as peers, marriage
partners, or jobs, on individual crime rates compared to the influence of
self-control. It is difficult to ascertain whether these affiliations are the
main cause or if they simply contribute to the expected decline in crime rates
with age. Due to the inherent challenges of conducting random allocation
studies, researchers seek alternative matching designs or noncontrol group methodologies
to establish causal effects of treatments. Currently, impartial evaluations
contend that the findings of this study on adult transitions can be equally
utilised to substantiate both interpretations. Peer groups play an equally
dynamic and contentious role in the empirical literature.[38] Gottfredson
and Hirschi highlight various implications of self-control theory for
investigating peer influences, including limitations associated with
self-reported assessments of peer delinquency and selection biases. The most
robust current research supports their views, nevertheless, due to the
fundamental importance of peer impacts in numerous delinquency theories,
ongoing research on this subject will continue.
The
Significance of Self-Control Theory in Criminology
Following Gottfredson and Hirschi's
original assertion, self-control has emerged as a fundamental theoretical
notion in the field of criminology. The majority of texts in the field of
criminology and juvenile delinquency extensively discuss the assertions made by
the general theory of crime, the influence of self-control in the aetiology of
crime, and, more recently, the practical implications of self-control theory in
policy-making. The self-control theory is widely recognised for its simplicity,
clarity, broad applicability, and ability to stimulate further research and
discussion among scholars.[39]
Self-control theory has demonstrated exceptional performance as a scientific
hypothesis in the field of criminology.
The incorporation of control theories into various integrated theories
serves as an indication that significant benefits can be obtained by adhering
to the principles of the theory.[40]
In the field of social and
behavioural sciences, there is a growing recognition and empirical evidence supporting
the concepts of self-control and self-regulation, which also have significant
policy consequences. The significance of early-childhood surroundings for
long-term positive outcomes and the acquisition of benefits for individuals in
society warrants attention.[41]
According to Moffitt et al., communities expect children to possess the ability
to defer pleasure, control impulses, and regulate emotional expression. This is
a fundamental and widespread requirement, and the ability to exercise
self-control is crucial for success in various aspects of life.[42]
[1] Vazsonyi, Alexander T., Jakub
Mikuška, and Erin L. Kelley. 2017. “It’s Time: A MetaAnalysis on the
Self-Control-Deviance Link.” Jour
[2] Akers, Ronald L. 1991.
“Self-Control as a General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Quantitative
Criminology 7(2): 201–211.
[3] Alwin, Duane F., and Ryan J.
McCammon. 2004. “Generations, Cohorts, and Social Change.” Pp. 23–50 in
Handbook of the Life Course, edited by Jeylan T. Mortimer and Michael J.
Shanahan. New York: Springer.
[4] Tibbetts, Stephen G., and David L.
Myers. 1999. “Low Self-Control, Rational Choice, and Student Test Cheating.”
American Journal of Criminal Justice 23(2): 179–200.
[5] Betsch, Tilmann, Susanne
Haberstroh, and Cornelia Höhle. 2002. “Explaining Routinized Decision Making. A
Review of Theories and Models,” Theory and Psychology 12(4): 453–488.
[6] Simpson, Sally S., and Gilbert
Geis. 2008. “The Undeveloped Concept of Opportunity.” Pp. 49–60 in Out of
Control: Assessing the General Theory of Crime. Assessing the General Theory of
Crime, edited by Erich Goode. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[7] Britt, Chester L., and Michael R.
Gottfredson (Eds.). 2003. Control Theories of Crime and Delinquency. New
Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
[8] Seipel, Christian, and Stefanie
Eifler. 2010. “Opportunities, Rational Choice, and Self Control on the
Interaction of Person and Situation in a General Theory of Crime.” Crime &
Delinquency 56(2): 167–197.
[9] Burt, Callie H. 2015.
“Self-Control and Crime: A Sociological Perspective.” Pp. 143–171 in The
Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology, edited by K.M. Beaver, J.C.
Barnes, and B.B. Boutwell. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
[10] Seipel, Christian. 1999.
Strategien und Probleme des empirischen Theorienvergleichs in den
Sozialwissenschaften. Rational Choice Theorie oder Persönlichkeitstheorie?
Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
[11] Burt, Callie H. 2020
(forthcoming). “Self-Control and Crime: Beyond Gottfredson & Hirschi’s
Theory.” Annual Review of Criminology 3.
[12] Sampson, Robert J., and W. Bryon
Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime; Testing Social-Disorganization
Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94(4): 774–802.
[13] Cullen, Francis T., James D.
Unnever, John Paul Wright, and Kevin M. Beaver. 2008. “Parenting and
Self-Control.” Pp. 61–74 in Out of Control: Assessing the General Theory of
Crime, edited by Erich Goode. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[14] Pratt, Travis C., and Francis T.
Cullen. 2000. “The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory
of Crime: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminology 38(3): 931–964.
[15] De Buck, Ann, and Lieven J.R.
Pauwels. 2019 (forthcoming). “Are Impulsive Adolescents Differentially
Vulnerable to Normative or Situational Peer Influences? A Partial Replication
Study.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 35.
[16] Pratt, Travis C., and Jonathon A.
Cooper. 2009. “Self-Control Theory.” Pp. 288–295 in 21st Century Criminology. A
Reference Handbook, edited by J. Mitchell Miller. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
[17] Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen.
2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior. The Reasoned Action Approach. New York
and Hove: Psychology Press.
[18] Piquero, Alex R. 2008. “Measuring
Self-Control.” Pp. 26–37 in Out of Control: Assessing the General Theory of
Crime, edited by Erich Goode. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[19] Goode, Erich (Ed.). 2008. Out of
Control: Assessing the General Theory of Crime. Assessing the General Theory of
Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[20] Opp, Karl-Dieter. 2018. “Can
Attitude Theory Improve Rational Choice Theory or Vice Versa? A Comparison and
Integration of the Theory of Planned Behavior and ValueExpectancy Theory.” Pp.
65–95 in Einstellungen und Verhalten in der empirischen Sozialforschung.
Analytische Konzepte, Anwendungen und Analyseverfahren. Festschrift für Dieter
Urban zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Mayerl. Jochen, Thomas Krause, Andreas
Wahl, and Marious Wuketich. New York: Springer VS
[21] Gottfredson, Michael R. 2006. “The
Empirical Status of Control Theory in Criminology.” Pp. 77–100 in Taking Stock:
The Status of Criminological Theory, edited by Francis Cullen, John Wright, and
Kristie Blevins. New York: Routledge.
[22] Nagin, Daniel S., and Greg
Pogarsky. 2001. “Integrating Celerity, Impulsivity, and Extra-legal Sanction
Threats into a Model of General Deterrence: Theory and Evidence.” Criminology
39(4): 865–891.
[23] Gottfredson, Michael R. 2011.
“Sanctions, Situations, and Agency in Control Theories of Crime.” European
Journal of Criminology 8(2): 128–143.
[24] Nagin, Daniel S., and Raymond
Paternoster. 1993. “Enduring Individual Differences and Rational Choice
Theories of Crime.” Law and Society Review 27(3): 467–496.
[25] Gottfredson, Michael R. 2013. “A
Note on the Role of Basic Theory in Thinking About Crime Prevention.” European
Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 19(2): 91–97.
[26] Milyavskaya, Marina, Elliot T.
Berkman, and Denise T.D. De Ridder. 2019. “The Many Faces of Self-Control:
Tacit Assumptions and Recommendations to Deal with Them.” Motivation Science
5(1): 79–85
[27] Gottfredson, Michael R. 2017
(online publication). “Self-Control Theory and Crime.” Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Criminology: 1–25.
[28] Meehl, Paul E. 1950. “On the
Circularity of the Law of Effect.” Psychological Bulletin 47(1): 52–75.
[29] Gottfredson, Michael R. 2018.
“General Theory and Global Criminology: Childhood Environments, Problem
Behaviors, and a Focus on Prevention.” Asian journal of Criminology 13(4):
347–365.
[30] Mamayek, Chae, Ray Paternoster,
and Thomas A. Loughran. 2017. “Temporal Discounting, Present Orientation, and
Criminal Deterrence.” Pp. 209–227 in The Oxford Handbook of Offender Decision
Making, edited by Wim Bernasco, Henk Elffers, and Jean-Louis Van Gelder.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[31] Gottfredson, Michael R., and
Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
[32] Malzkorn, Wolfgang. 2001.
“Defining Disposition Concepts: A Brief History of the Problem.” Studies in
History and Philosophy of Science 32(2): 335–353.
[33] Gottfredson, Michael R., and
Travis Hirschi. 2003. “Self-Control and Opportunity.” Pp. 5–20 in Advances in
Criminological Theory, Volume 12, edited by Chester L. Britt and Michael R.
Gottfredson. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
[34] Malzkorn, Wolfgang. 2000.
“Realism, Functionalism and the Conditional Analysis of Dispositions.” The
Philosophical Quarterly 50(201): 452–469.
[35] Grasmick, Harold G., Charles R.
Tittle, Robert J. Bursik Jr., and Bruce J. Arneklev. 1993. “Testing the Core
Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 30(1): 5–22
[36] Loughran, Thomas A., Ray
Paternoster, and Douglas Weiss. 2012. “Hyperbolic Time Discounting, Offender
Time Preferences and Deterrence.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 28(4):
607–628.
[37] Hay, Carter, and Ryan Meldrum.
2016. Self-Control and Crime Over the Life Course. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
[38] Lösel, Friedrich. 2017.
“Self-Control as a Theory of Crime: A Brief Stocktaking after 27/42 Years.” Pp.
232–238 in Liber Amicorum for Gerben Bruinsma, edited by Catrien Bijleveld and
Peter. Van der Laan. The Hague: Boom.
[39] Hempel, Carl G. 1952. Fundamentals
of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
[40] Ishaan Deepak Joshi,
‘Psychoanalysing Delinquency: Object Relations, Aggression and the Unconscious
Mind’ (2023) 2 IJHRLR 187-201. Available at
www.humanrightlawreview.in/vol-2-issue-4/.
[41] Ishaan Deepak Joshi,
‘Self-Identity, Symbolic Interactionism and Criminal Behavior: The Labelling
Theory Standpoint’ (2023) 2 IJHRLR 165-175. Available at
www.humanrightlawreview.in/vol-2-issue-4/.
[42] Joshi, I. (2023). Critical
Analysis & Reformulation Of The Frustration-Aggression Theory. Indian
Journal of Law and Legal Research, V(III).
https://www.ijllr.com/post/critical-analysis-reformulation-of-the-frustration-aggression-theory
Article Information
ANALYTICAL CRIMINOLOGY: DELINQUENCY, CRIMINALITY AND THE SELF CONTROL THEORY BY: ISHAAN DEEPAK JOSHI
Authors: ISHAAN DEEPAK JOSHI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/11/07
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.