Essay, Research Paper
Can more than one theory be used to explain crime? Absolutely. From a liberal viewpoint, there exist two fundamental theories to explain the causal factors behind juvenile delinquency. Those theories are Social Deviance Theory and Developmental Theory. Young people become socially deviant by non-conforming. They become juvenile delinquents, and turn against the very system that is trying to help them. Society has made many laws and many standards have been set. The social deviant does not follow those rules and regulations. He/she lives a life of crime instead. An overview of approaches explains deviant behavior.
Social Deviance Theory can be further broken down into five theories including anomie, differential association, social control theory, conflict theory, and labeling theory. Social Deviance Theory is an important explanation in the theory of crime. Without this explanation, it would be impossible to explain a great deal of the factors involved in juvenile delinquency.
Social Deviance Theory and Development Theories are the umbrellas under which other theories used to explain juvenile delinquency fall. Depending on the criminal and the type of crime committed, different theories are used. Social Deviance is acting against the norms of society. Development Theory deals with the manner in which a child develops into adulthood. This includes any insults or trauma, the individual’s behavioral response, problems in school, problems in society, etc. When a child experiences trauma that child may act out. this acting out for attention can easily become delinquent behavior.
Developmental Theory is not the only theory that explains crime. Social Deviance Theory is another theory that can explain crime, of which juvenile delinquency is a type. According to Hoffman, et al, (1997), R. K. Merton had certain psychological theories about crime and criminal behavior. In fact, “Merton recognized that a conceptional framework was needed to better explain social deviance and criminality” (180). Anomie is one kind of social deviance. Anomie represents social instability. The person’s standards and values are broken or non-existent (Hoffman, et al, 1997). It is not surprising that many young people today have broken or non-existent standards. Both parents work, or there is only one parent.
Some crime can be explained by developmental theory. Female delinquency is one that can. According to empirical research, interpersonal problems cause subjective strain or a response of distress. The literature concerning development points to the adolescent period as the time in which this behavior is particularly strong. Adolescents lack the skills that adults have available, such as coping skills, social supports, and coping resources. Males are not as concerned with interpersonal goals as females are. This points to the evidence that relational or interpersonal problems are more likely to lead to female deviance. This type of deviance manifests in delinquency (Agnew & Brezina, 1997). Many young people see themselves as mature, however, they are simply not mature enough for their coping mechanisms to have properly developed. This leads to problems.
According to Thoits (1995), sociologists spend a great deal of time attempting to explain the deviant behavior of juvenile delinquency. Their etiological theories have generated extensive research in the areas of anomie theory, conflict theory, control theory, differential association/learning theory, and labeling theory, which are forms of Social Deviance Theory. Sociologists have used the research of such psychologists as Asch (1955), Cartwright (1968), Milgram (1969), and Sherif (1988) (Thoits, 1995, PG). Social Deviance Theory is used as a gauge in the studies of juvenile delinquency. There has to be some kind of devise for measuring social structure. This is believable from a liberal point of view. Without the cumulative work of both sociologists and psychologists, very little would have been done with regard to finding the causative factors for juvenile delinquency.
Sampson and Laub (1993) posit that a better understanding needs to be made of the social forces involved in creating the juvenile delinquent. Empirical evidence was studied utilizing in excess of 200 counties in the United States in the structural context of conflict theory, which is a type of Social Deviance Theory, and its ideas concerning juvenile delinquency (285-311). There was found racial inequality and poverty (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Any liberal can understand that racial inequality and poverty would lead to conflict.
Leiber and Stairs (1999) said that a form of Sampson and Laub’s conflict perspective was used in three Iowa juvenile courts in order to comprehend the racial influence on decision-making within the criminal justice system. Emphasis was placed on punishment, racial stereotyping, and structural contingencies. It was found that in an area where there is a large amount of racial and economic inequality along with employees in the system that are racially different and a proponent of that race, that greater social control would be placed on minorities, especially those that have been charged with drug related crimes. Leiber and Stairs (1999) find that there is a need for broadening the scope of this research. Many research methodologies should be utilized. Conflict theory, a type of Social Deviance Theory, should be refined, according to Leiber & Stairs (1999). Conflict theory has a great deal to do with “punishment, racial stereotyping, and structural contingencies” (Leiber & Stairs, 1999, 56). Liberals disagree with racial stereotyping. One must ask whether minorities are punished more severely than others are.
Frazier and his colleagues (1992) suggest that those supporting traditional conflict theory find that minorities get harsher treatment by the criminal justice system. This is purportedly because they lack both the resources and the power to make sure that their treatment is equal to others. Hawkins pointed to a revision of this paradigm. In this instance, minorities are given qualities that are harsher when another groups control is threatened in a social situation. Data was obtained from 32 counties in Florida in order to study the competing models (447). They found the result consistent with the traditional conflict theory, which is a type of Social Deviance Theory, where there is a higher proportion of whites in the area (Frazier, et al, 1992). The minority juvenile offender has always had conflicts and will continue to do so in the system because of the way in which the system is set up. Minorities are not the only ones who have conflicts, however. There are a great many people living from hand to mouth in this country today. The American Dream for some is just to put food on their tables.
It has been shown that youths in America and Canada have more delinquency than those in China do. Wong (1997) suggests that this is because the Chinese culture puts an emphasis on positive influences. A study was done comparing adolescents in Canada with those in China using the three perspectives of “opportunity, control, and intergeneration conflict theories” (112). It was found that connection to the culture in China was able to reduce the potential for involvement in delinquency. Opportunity and control theories had no findings in these results. However, it was found that when one becomes acculturated, there is a chance of increasing delinquency, particularly if their parents were not acculturated. This would suggest a discontinuity between the generations that is widened by acculturation. Because of this, the official conclusion is that intergenerational conflict theory, a type of Social Deviance Theory, is supported (Wong, 1997). From a liberal viewpoint, it is surprising that there is less juvenile delinquency in China than either America or Canada. One would assume that the reason for this is that the Chinese customs do not leave much room for conflict until the child goes to another land and attempts to live within the culture of the new land. This brings social conflict and the conflict theory to the Chinese American.
According to Collins (1993), social conflicts can be resolved by sociologists if they apply the principles of conflict theory while minimizing the damage that the conflict causes. He posits that there are divisions within society. Ideology and self-interest are the basis for those divisions. Those elements increase as there is an increase in “resources to sustain conflicts and animosities” (289). He further posits that in any conflict absolute victory is not a possibility. Each group within the conflict must compromise. Only partial achievement of goals is attained (Collins, 1993).
Wolfe and Spencer (1996) examine forms of prejudice and stereotyping that are subtle and overt. Overt prejudice is explained by social identity theory and realistic conflict theory. Overt prejudice, however, seems to have decreased. Another theory, aversive racism theory explains why subtle stereotyping continues to exist (Wolfe & Spencer, 1996).
Ortiz (1996) posits that Baron formulated the distraction-conflict theory. The distraction-conflict theory is “the conflict that results when a person tries to attend both to other individuals and to an ongoing task leads to drive/arousal and stress, engendering social impairment on difficult tasks and social enhancement on simple tasks” (PG). Using middle-class fifth graders in a suburb of the South West, a study was done (PG). Approximately 30 percent of the participants were minorities (PG). The children learned to work through their conflicts based on the manner in which they were taught (Ortiz, 1996). The liberal person would be correct in the assumption that conflict theory is one of the theories that is correctable.
Junger and Marshall (1997) posit that the most volatile topics among academic criminologist are crime, ethnicity, and race. This is also a political issue. In a sample of 788 boys that were living in the Netherlands, social control theory was used to model their self-reported delinquency (79). The boys in the study were Dutch, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Turkish. It was found that conflict was one of the variables that related to their delinquency most consistently (Junger & Marshall, 1997).
Hagan (1993) suggests that reform and renewal are ahead for criminological theory. The research system will be changed significantly by these. Hagan posits that the struggle between consensus theory and conflict theory should be revived, and that differential association theory and strain theory, a type of Developmental Theory, should be further explored. There is a prediction that the criminological theories will veer toward mutual support and reciprocal stimulation as research designs and methods veer toward both diversity and flexibility (Hagan, 1993). This is important to anyone interested in criminology.
Saulters-Tubbs (1993) gives an account of the research in which conflict theory and social control theory were tested. Conflict theory maintains that females receive more lenient treatment than males do. Social control theory maintains that female offenders are treated more harshly. The conclusion reached was that the gender of the offender had little influence on the criminal justice system. Conflict theorists maintain that when a female receives treatment that is more lenient it is due to the “chivalrous and/or paternalistic nature of the criminal justice system” (Saulters-Tubbs, 1993, 37-42). Although both of these theories fall under Social Deviance Theory, they have conflicting views on female offenders.
Unfortunately, there is always going to be conflict of some sort. Additional research must be done in order to determine coping mechanisms so that young people will not turn to a life of criminal activity because of the conflicts they experience. Class struggle is a part of conflict theory, but it is not the only element. Other factors are important as well. There has been a lessening of the gap between social classes, but there will never be one social class. There will never be one race. Conflict will never be done away with. Utopia is not possible. Coping mechanisms are a viable answer to the conundrum of conflict theory.
In “Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency (Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 7)” Terence P. Thornberry gets to the important aspect of why more than one theory can explain crime. He presents empirical research as evidence. Delinquency is criminal behavior. It is advantageous to look at the developmental stages of a person that turns to a life of crime/delinquency. This has a major role in explaining juvenile delinquency. Chapter 1, which was written by Terrie E. Moffitt, discusses developmental theory as a part of offending limited to adolescents and offending that is persistent for the course of one’s life. Rand D. Conger and Ronald L. Simons discuss life-course contingencies in the development of adolescent antisocial behavior in Chapter 2. The other chapters are valuable, as well, particularly Chapter Eight in which Kenneth Adams discusses the developmental aspects of adult crime (Thornberry, 1996). This shows that the developmental theory of crime is an important one. This theory makes a lot of sense from a liberal viewpoint.
The developmental stages of one’s life are a precursor to whether that person becomes a criminal. Childhood behavior escalates when the child becomes an adult. He or she has not learned the proper behavior and crime is the result. Numerous criminals were casualties of the problems, which are encompassed in the developmental theory of behavior.
According to Sampson and Laub (1993), a person’s life-span development must acknowledge the importance of one’s behavior in childhood, but it is apparent that adult social factors have relevance to this issue as well (Sampson & Laub, 1993). A child can become greatly affected by things that happen during his/her developmental stages. Those incidences that happen to a person in the formative years have a lasting impression. When a child is abused, insulted, or traumatized in any way, it sticks with him/her.
According to McCarthy (1996), Sutherland said, “When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes complicated,, sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes” (McCarthy, 1996, 135-147).
According to Agnew & Brezina (1997), measures of social control, as well as differential association, which are Social Deviance Theories, are important gauges into delinquent behavior. It is possible for a person with a low level of social control to adopt deviant behavior. Agnew and Brezina (1997) posit that social control may be reduced by peer association and deviant beliefs. Strain measures, which are Developmental Theory, have a reciprocal relation to both social control and differential association (Agnew & Brezina, 1997).
Empirical research has been used in order to examine delinquent’s explanations for their having committed miscellaneous offenses. Those findings are significant. They illuminate the “origins of specific delinquent acts or events . the results provide information on the relative utility of three theories of delinquent events: rational-choice theory and modified versions of strain and subcultural-deviance theory” (267). Drug offenses, property crimes and crimes of violence were discussed as crimes of juvenile delinquency (Agnew, 1990).
It is posited that youths that see themselves as bad kids, deviants, or rule violators are more likely to engage in delinquency than those seeing themselves as conformers. This is, in effect, the process of informal labeling or social identification. Etiological statements of labeling theory, which is a type of Social Deviance Theory, tend to focus on the negative consequences of labeling individuals as delinquent. Beginning with parents, teachers, and peers and then moving on to members of the criminal justice system, the response to initial acts of primary deviance is to label the youth as “bad” or “delinquent” (Bartusch & Matsueda, 1996, PG).
Once a child is labeled a certain way, the label remains with the child. It is a negative reinforcement that constantly rears its ugly head.
Theorist William Julius Wilson puts conflict theory into terms that can be understood. He said, “Both formal institutions and informal networks reflect social organization. In other words, neighborhood social organization depends on the extent of local friendship ties, the degree of social cohesion, the level of resident participation in formal and informal voluntary associations, the density and stability of formal organizations, and the nature of informal social controls” (Wilson, 1995, 3).
Early psychological and sociological theorists tended to equate homelessness of young people and delinquency. They used the terms homeless, runaway, and delinquent interchangeably. External environmental influences were generally emphasized by sociological theories. Strain theory, a type of Developmental Theory, for example, portrayed delinquent youths acting out in anger and frustration over their limited opportunities in an unequal class structure. According to this perspective, disorganized environments contribute to delinquent subcultures. Those subcultures arise out of collective attempts to achieve material success (Schweitzer, 1994).
According to Mears and his colleagues (1998), Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso said that female criminals were “of less typical aspect than the male because she is less essentially criminal” (251). This has led some to assume that the theories of delinquency were for the identification of the male delinquent and not the female delinquent. Smith and Paternoster, however, suggested that the majority of empirical tests have used male subjects in order to study deviance. Because of this, female theories are not as readily known or understood. This does not mean that the same theories do not apply to females. It only means that the theorists are uncertain whether they are the same or different theories (Mears, et al, 1998).