Social structure theories

The problems caused by poverty and income inequality are not lost on
criminologists……….rich..>w.c….poor..>violent crimes…there are three independent yet overlapping
branched within social strcture prespective….Social disorganization, strain and cultural theory

Social Disorganization theory

1. Chicago sociologists Cliffard Shaw nad henry Mckay linked crime rates to neighbourhood
2. In mid 19th ,there was pop turnover in Chicago, immigrants sought to reside there in the central
city inside samm old homes,as a result , problems such as health issue, job creation , low
livelihood, deteriorating conditions of social institutions forged and shaped two distinct class
communities: affluent and wreched
3. Amid poverty there was little communication among neighbors, for they had different values,
beliefs and norms and ethnicity so owing to these factors everyone wanted t move out so as to
live a healthy life style. In the wake of these circumstances , the nomads usually juveniles would
opt for crime as sole purpose to become well off
4. Using spatial maps to examine the residential locations of juveniles referred to the Chicago
courts…..not evenly dispered…previously “crime-pronged groups” X
5. Economic deprivation…> pop turnover,ethnic heterogeneity,weak social institutions …>high
crime rates(lack social control)
6. Aside from behavorial regulation, they have criminal tradition passing to youth.

Effectiveness

Logical consistency, scope,parsimony , testability , empirical validity

Critique

It went in vain, but Bursick (1998) redevelop it.

The criticisms were :

1) Theory on concentrates on groups, not individuals as later studies were based on socio-psy
2) Longitudinal data (data collected over time) are expensive,cross-sectional designs(data collected
at only one point in time) represented static view of urban life that seem inconsistent
3) Mayhem about nature,extent and measurement of S.D + confusion in distinguishing S.D from
Delinquency …….”tautological”
 Rebirth

1) Social sources of delinquency (Ruth Koranhauser..1978) put S.D as a macro-level control theory
whereby residents of certain neighborhoods….not commit crime +controlled by env….while other
commit crime due to poverty,edu etc. She and others focus on structural aspect of theory
…..while founders discussed the sub culture found in socially disorganized neighborhood
2) Bursik (1988) documented the reasons for the decline in the popularity of the S.D theory and
suggested several lines for pursing theory

Importance

 Services should be offered to community residents

 Recreation programs and other community orgs shoud be created to deter delinquent activity
 Charis E. Kubrin and Ronald Weizer ,” S.D has experienced a renaissance in recent years

Recent research on S.d put forth 2 distinct but related directions: systemic model of S.D(Bursik and
Grasmick) and social capital/collective efficacy framework (Robert Sampson)

1. The systemic variant of social disorganization focuses on the structural variation of three basic
types of networks and the effects of these on crime. These networks relate to the private
sphere (intimate friendship and kinship relations), parochial networks (less intimate and
secondary group relationships), and the public sphere (groups and institutions outside the
neighbourhood). This variant focuses on the effects of social disorganization on these three
sources of behaviour regulation.
2. The social capital/collective efficacy framework of Sampson and his colleagues argues that
social disorganization can reduce social capital and collective efficacy and thereby increase
crime and violence rates. Social capital fosters trust and solidarity among residents, while
collective efficacy relates to the belief that residents can effectively control the likelihood of
undesirable behaviour within their neighbourhood. Especially important in this variant of social
disorganization theory is the development of intergenerational networks, the mutual
transferral of advice, material goods, and information about child rearing, and expectations for
the joint informal control, support, and supervision of children within the neighbourhood.

Strengths

1. Identifies why crime rates are highest in slum areas. Points out the factors that produce crime.
Suggests programs to help reduce crime
2. Accounts for urban crime rates and trends. Identifies community-level factors that produce high
crime rates.

Strain theory
 1. US sociologist Robert K.Merton
2. “people engage in deviant behavior when they can’t achieve socially approved goals by
legitimate means.”
3. Deviance is the result of the strain an individual feels when s/he can’t achieve legitimately

Larry J. Siegel opines that strain theory holds that crime is a function of the conflict between the goals
people have and the means they can use to obtain them legally. Most people in US desire wealth,
material possessions, power etc. And although these social and economic goals are common to people in
all economic strata, strain theorists insist that the ability to obtain these gals is class dependent.
Members of the lower class are unable to achieve these symbols of success through conventional means.
Consequently, they fell anger, frustration, and resentment, which is referred to as ‘strain’. Lower-class
citizens can either accept their condition and live out their days as socially responsible, if unrewarded,
citizens, or they can choose an alternative means of achieving success, such as theft, violence, or drug
trafficking.

lower strata feel frustrated and angry and this condition is “strain”

only affluent live out American dream

Psychologists warned that those who considered themselves losers begin to fear and envy
“winners”….aggressive tactics……feelings of relative deprivation are precursors to criminal behavior

Sharp division creates envy and mistrust that may lead to violence and aggression….lower ones observes
social inequality, injustice etc…pent-up aggression and hostility

Two distinct formulations of S.T

1. Structural Strain: economic and social sources of strain shape collective human behavior
2. Individual strain: individual life experiences cause people to suffer pain and misery ,feelings
which are then translated into antisocial behavior.

The basic components of strain theory

The concept of Anomie

1893 French Sociologist Emile Durkheim

Durkheim indicated that the rules of how individuals interact with one another were
disintegrating and therefore people were unable to determine how to act with one another. As
a consequence, Durkheim believed that anomie was a state where the expectations of behavior
are unclear, and the system has broken down. This is known as normlessness. Durkheim
claimed that this normlessness caused deviant behaviors, and later, as claimed in his 1897
work, Suicide, depression and suicide.

Durkheim's theory was based upon the idea that the lack of rules and clarity resulted in
psychological status of worthlessness, frustration, lack of purpose, and despair. In addition,
since there is no idea of what is considered desirable, to strive for anything would be futile.

In criminology, the idea of anomie is that the person chooses criminal activity because the
individual believes that there is no reason not to. In other words, the person is alienated, feels
worthless and that their efforts to try and achieve anything else are fruitless. Therefore, with
lack of any foreseeable alternative, the person falls into criminal activity.
Preindustrial to post ……tradition,values changed …>this shift creates social turmoil…>if division occurs
what pop expects nad what realistically delivered to them, a crisi situation develops that can manifest
itself as anomie

Anomie undermines society’s social control function….every society works to limit people’s goals and
desires……break legal code……crime becomes inevitable

Disordered division of labor

Merton’s theory of Anomie

He used modified version of anomie concept to fit social, economic and cultural conditions

He found 2 elements of culture interact to produce potentially anomic conditions: culturally defined
goals and socially approved means. Wealth,power and money + edu, work and thrift

Stratification …..>criminal behavior

Social adaption: each person has his own concept of the goals of society and means at his disposal to
attain them.

His diagram of the hypothetical model showed relationship b/w ‘social goals’, ‘the means for getting
them’, ‘the individual actor’.

Merton argued that when individuals are faced with a gap between their goals (usually
finances/money related) and their current status, strain occurs. When faced with strain,
people have five ways to adapt:

1. Conformity: pursing cultural goals through socially approved means.

2. Innovation: using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain culturally

approved goals. Example: dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security.

3. Ritualism: using the same socially approved means to achieve less elusive goals
(more modest and humble).

4. Retreatism: to reject both the cultural goals and the means to obtain it, then find a
way to escape it.

5. Rebellion: to reject the cultural goals and means, then work to replace them.
 Criticisms

The debate on Merton has continued, even after his death last year. Among those who have
pursued his anomie theory in the study of crime and delinquency, one of the major criticisms has
been what truly constitutes "legitimate means" or opportunities. Does provision of equal
opportunities actually limit crime rate?

Another is perhaps on the concept of "conformity" as a requirement for a stable society. When
observed at the extreme, conformity can be as deviant as non-conformity itself. In some
societies, over-conformity has become a mild form of deviance.

o He was criticized for taking official stats at face value interactionists would argue that
crime figures are social construct.
o His theory is also deterministic ,for all working class people are not deviant
 o Marxists would argue that “Merton fails to consider the power of the ruling class to make
and enforce laws, oppressing the working class.
o Strain theory only really explains economic crime, it doesn’t really explain violent crime.
o He focuses on the individual response to strain; he doesn’t consider the influence of the
groups such as delinquent subculture.

According to Larry J.Siegel

 A.T does not answer why people commit certain types of crime: mugger and drug dealer
 Only explain differences in crime rates, not explain why young criminals desist from crime as
adults. ..perception of anomie dwindle with age?....Short-lived?
 Critics suggested that people pursue different goals such as educational, athletic, cricketer etc.
Achieving these goals is not only matter of social class alone; others factors, including athletic
ability, intelligence, personality, and family life, can either hinder or assist goal attainment. So,
assumption of A.T that people pursue same goal is false.
 Some say that theory achieve triumph in US only. There are also micro-level versions of the
theory, which focuses on how an individual is effected by feelings of alienation and strain.

Evaluation of Anomie theory

Social inequality leads to the perception of anomie to resolve the goals, people adopt different avenues.
Some people innovate by stealing or extorting money, others retreat into drugs and alcohol, others
rebel by joining revolutionary groups, and still others get involved in ritualistic behavior by joining a
religious cult.

1. A.T answers that deviance develops because of societal pressure to achieve common goals,
which unfortunately provides unequal opportunity that eventually leads to the frustration,
anger and resentment. So, an individual having these traits leads to criminality.
2. A.T suggested that social conditions, not individual personalities, produce crime.

Evaluation of Merton’s theory

 The theory shows that how both normal and deviant behavior can arise from same
mainstream goals
 His idea explains that crime rates tend to be higher amongst the working class as they have
the least opportunity to obtain wealth legitimately
 It also helps why most crime in US is property crime because material wealth is valued by US
society.

The Continuing Relevance of Strain Theory

 Merton’s strain theory is an important contribution to the study of crime and deviance – in the 1940s it
helped to explain why crime continued to exist in countries, such as America, which were experiencing increasing
economic growth and wealth.
 Baumer and Gustafson (2007) analysed official data sets in the USA and found that instrumental crime
rates were higher in areas where there was a ‘high commitment to money success’ alongside a ‘weak commitment to
legitimate means’..
 It is possible to apply Merton’s theory of anomie to explain White Collar Crime – white collar criminals
(those who commit fraud at work, for example) might be those who are committed to achieving material success,
but have had their opportunities for promotion blocked by lack of opportunities – possible through class, gender or
ethnic bias, or possible just by the simple fact that the higher up the career ladder you go, the more competition for
promotion there is.
 The (2009) applies Merton’s strain theory to explain rising crime rates during a period of economic growth
in Malaysia, suggesting we can apply this theory to developing countries and that a ‘general theory of crime’ may
thus be possible.
 Philip Bourgeois (1996) In search of respect shows us that some of the most despised criminals have
actually internalised Merton’s success goals.
 Carl Nightingale: On the Edge – Carl Nightingale developed Merton’s Strain Theory, applying it to inner
city youths in the 1990s

Coping with strain

Those who have self-control, strong family bond, less impulsive nature, less negative in emotionality,
call on good friends, families and social institutions.

 Violence…>relief
 Self-defense…>self worth among inadequate and less intellectual

Sources and impact Anomie

Social Control theory

Story: What if human set free

 SC refers to the control of society over the individual

 US sociologist E.A Ross….> book SC…1906

Def by him,” Sc refers to the system of device whereby society teaches its members into comformity
with the accepted standards of behavior

Manheim: the sum of those methods by which a society tries to influence human behavior to maintain a
given order

Orgburn and Nimkoff: the pattern of pressure which a society exerts to maintain order and established
rules.
Bruce J Cohen and Terri L.Orbuch defined it as: “all means and methods used to induce a person
to confirm to expectation of a group or society”

C.N.Shankar Rao. “various means by which a group or society attempts to achieve a social order.
Steps to attain social control

Nature of SC

1. It denotes some kind of influence: It can be in various ways by means of public opinion,
coercion, religion, ideology etc
2. The influence is universal: Everywhere in uncivilized, barbaric and Cannibalistic
societies
3. Promote welfare: Serve interests and curb danger

Types

Formal : Deliberately created via laws, legislation

Need staff

Punishment if not abide by

Informal

No specific punishment

Gossip, public opinion ….home before 10pm

Belief, Folkways, Mores, Customs, Religion, Art and literature, Coercion

Agencies of SC

Law, education and public opinion

Steps to attain SC

1. Socialization of Parents
2. Orphanage homes
3. Protection of loss and kidnapped children
4. Socialization of beggar and unemployed persons
5. Recreational activities
6. Education
 7. Correction of offenders
8. Religious education
9. Role of media

 Focus on policies not on police

Why an individual confine to social norms?

1. Choice theorists: Fear of punishment

2. Structural theorists: Obedience is a function of having access to legitimate opportunities
3. Learning theorists: Bcoz of contact with law-abiding parents, peer etc

 Social Control: Becoz his passions are being controlled by internal and external forces.They are
properly socialized, have strong moral sense that renders them incapable of hurting others…
they develop “commitment to conformity”….loss scholarship, job etc.

Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory

 In his 1961 book “causes of delinquency”

 When an individual’s attachment to society is weakened. This attachment depends on the
strength of social bonds that hold people to society.
  Elements of the social bond: he argues that S.B a person maintains with society is divided into
four main elements: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief

Testing of SBT
According to theory, one would predict typical delinquent to be young, single, unemployed and
probably male. Conversely, those who’re married, employed, involved in recreational activities are
unlikely to commit crime.

Supporting research:

Mother who keep child….less crime

Positive belief is inversely prop to criminality

One study of Canadian youth found that perceptions of parental attachment were strongest

Opposing views

 Social control theory posits that an individual's behavior is determined by the relationships that he makes with others and the social
ties that bind him to a greater community. Theorists of this school see themselves as continuing a tradition started by the
philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who understood society as existing through an implicit social contract made among all its members.
This is a coherent approach to behavior that nevertheless has certain well known weak points.

Delinquency

Social control theorists seek to explain delinquency, when an individual breaks with social norms and commits a crime. They argue
that a people under normal conditions are averse to crime because they have too much to lose in their social ties. People then
commit crime when they are isolated and to join criminal groups that offer new ties. This approach has merit but also fails to account
for factors such as economic status and intelligence.

Family

Social control theory considers the family to be the basic building block of society, relating the individual to a greater whole.
Individuals are well adjusted when they receive the proper socialization from their parents. This understanding has explanatory
power but often fails to adequately account for the variety of family situations and their effects. For instance, social control theory
has little to say about the effects of an extended family with aunts and uncles.
Self-Image

Many social control theorists posit that an individual forms a self-image of himself during childhood that he then carries forward and
determines whether he thinks of himself as a good person or a bad person. People who have a positive self-image are less likely to
commit crime. This theory is often hard to test as it involves much vagueness as to what it is exactly that a person believes when
they build a self-image.

Age

Most social control theory is concerned with explaining youth behavior and the ways that a lack of proper development when
younger can lead to crime. This has value, in the sense that most petty crime is committed by the young. This leaves social control
theory without much to say, however, when it comes to explaining most adult crime. As most violent crime is committed by adults,
this leaves social control theory with a significant gap.

-Effects of social bond elements are only moderate in strength

-supporting research focuses on minor deviance among fairly law-abiding groups
-ignores motivation/rewards of crime
-underestimates influence of delinquent peers

Friendship

o Might be delinquent relations are not strained + affected by friends …..drug abuse etc

Not all elements of social bond are equal…… involvement of children outside home

Deviant peers and parents

o Attachment to peer is beneficial as per SC; criminologist Michael Hindelang found that
attachment to delinquent peers escalated rather than restricted criminality.

Restricted in scope

o Explain only minor acts

o Control variables are more predictive of female than male behavior

Changing bonds:

o SB seems to change over time. At some age weak bonds or at another strong bond
leads to delinquency that was ignored by Hirschi.

Crime and social bonds

Might relation between weak bond and criminality miscalculated, children who broke laws find
their bond to peer, parents and friends becomes weak and attenuated.
Similarities and Differences Between Social Control Theories and Other Major Theories
of Crime

As we have seen, the underlying assumptions of social control theory are in many respects similar to those of classical theories of
crime, theories that have come down to us under such names as deterrence theory and rational choice theory. The differences
among them are often differences in emphasis. Deterrence theory claims that the key to crime control is found in the swiftness,
severity, and certainty of the punishments administered by the legal system. Rational choice theory focuses on the costs and
benefits of crime. Control theorists accept the importance of punishment, but they ignore the punishments of the legal system and
thereby question their role in the control of crime. They do the same with benefits of crime—that is, they ignore them on the grounds
that the benefits of crime are the same as the benefits of non-crime.

The assumptions of control theories contrast sharply with those of other sociological explanations of crime. Cultural deviance or
social learning theories assume that there is no natural capacity for crime. In their view, all human action, whether crime or
conformity, is the product of a combination of socializing influences. Peers exert influence on the individual, as does the family and,
more broadly, the prevailing culture. Where the sum total of influences directs the individual in particular instances to engage in
crime, then that person will do so. Where these influences are absent, crime cannot occur. The offender is thus a conformist, albeit
not to the rules of the dominant society.

Strain theories (sometimes called anomie theories) assume that an individual is naturally inclined to conform to standard cultural
values but can be pushed into crime when the social structure fails to provide legitimate opportunities to succeed. These theorists
emphasize the influence of the American Dream, which produces aspirations and desires that often (all too often, scholars say)
cannot be satisfied within the limits of the law. These sociological perspectives have proved popular and adaptable. They continue
to provide a foundation for critiques of social control theory.

 A Critical Issue
One question that social control theory has faced from its inception relates to the role of delinquent peers. Walter Reckless (1961), a
prominent theorist whose work is usually associated with control theory, concluded from the Gluecks’s (1950) data that
“companionship is unquestionably the most telling force in male delinquency and crime” (p. 10). If this conclusion were allowed to
stand unquestioned, whatever debate there might be between social control theory and social learning theory would be settled in
favor of the latter. From the beginning, control theorists have questioned the meaning of the admittedly strong correlation between
one’s own delinquency and the delinquency of one’s friends. Their major counterhypothesis was that advanced by the Gluecks, who
interpreted their own data as showing that birds of a feather flock together, so to speak. In control theory terms, this argument is that
weak bonds to society lead to association with delinquents and to delinquent behavior. Companionship and delinquency thus have a
common cause. The limits of this argument were readily apparent. The correlation between companionship and delinquency was so
strong that no combination of its supposed causes could possibly account for it. Social learning theorists naturally saw this as
evidence against social control theory and in favor of their own theory. A compromise solution was to integrate the two theories, the
idea being that lack of social control frees the adolescent to be taught crime and delinquency by his or her peers.

Hirschi resisted this compromise, observing that the two theories, if combined, would contain fatal internal contradictions. Social
control theories assume that crime is natural. Social learning theories assume crime must be learned. The two assumptions cannot
peacefully coexist, because one assumption must necessarily negate the other. Yet the delinquent-peer effect would not go away.
Its presence forced social control theorists to confront a fact seemingly in contradiction to the theory’s internal logic. Attempts were
then made to explain the role of delinquent peers without violating the assumptions of control theory. Perhaps peers do not teach
delinquency, but they make it easier or less risky, thus increasing the temptation to crime by lowering its costs. Assaults and
robberies and burglaries are, after all, facilitated by the support of others, just as they are facilitated by muscles and guns and agility.

Another tack was to question the validity of the measures of peer delinquency. If the data collection methods were faulty, then the
seemingly strong evidence supporting the delinquent peers–delinquency correlation could also be faulty. Most studies of the
delinquency of peers ask the respondents to describe their friends. The results, some researchers argued, could reflect the
phenomenon of projection, whereby study respondents, apparently describing their friends, are in fact describing themselves. Dana
Haynie and Wayne Osgood (2005) tested this hypothesis. They reported that standard data do contain a good quantity of projection.
Using measures of delinquency collected directly from the peers in question, they found that what was once the strongest known
predictor of crime turned out to have only a modest effect, an effect that could be accounted for by alternative theories of crime. This
story teaches several lessons. Persistent attention to a theoretical problem may produce unexpected results. The facts that are at
the root of the problem may themselves fail to survive, and the end results of criticisms of a criminological theory do not necessarily
take the form imagined by its critics.
 Social learning theory
Emphasizes that people learn by observing others whom they believe are credible and knowledgeable

Albert Bandura: people learn behavior through the observation of others, then impersonate what they
have observed.

4 types of cognitive and behavioral processes

Attention, retention, motor reproduction, and reinforcement…..eg “teacher”

Similarly, in Criminology, as per theory crime is a learned process. A delinquent learns crime by observing
and imitating criminal peers, parents and friends. A delinquent learns techniques and attitude of criminal
behavior from criminals, which are part of society. Therefore, crime is a learnt phenomenon. So,
proponents of social learning theory believe that crime is a product of learning the norms, values. And
behaviors associated with criminal activities. How we learnt from “Shars”

1) Differential Association theory

 Edwin Sutherland 1939 “Principle of Criminology” …..>final version 1947……Donald Cressey
carried forward his work
 Criminality occurs not bcoz of personal trait or personality or his socioeconomic condition but
due to learning from others, so anyone can be affected from despite any particular culture.

Principles of Differential Association

Criminal Behavior is learned: ……writing, painting

Learning is a by-product of interaction…… step by step learning
Learning occurs within intimate groups: ……alcohol from parents deemed socially, morally, and
physically correct
Criminal techniques are learned: ….how to smoke well or lock breaking to clear out evidences
and lessen consequences….learn to how to react properly such as defending, rationalizing or
remorse.
Perceptions of legal code influence motives and drives: people have different perception
towards certain laws, norms or values so when a vulnerable individual could adopt those
reaction particular to that law and Sutherland calls “culture conflict” when they’re exposed to
different and opposing attitudes towards what is right and wrong, moral or immoral. This
conflict of social attitudes and cultural norms is the basis for the concept of D.A.
 Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity: whether a
person learns to obey the law or disregard it is influenced by quality of social interaction
The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal
patterns involves all of the mechanisms involved in any other learning process….not mere
imitate…e.g Picture from mentor
Criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, but it’s not excused by those
general needs and values because noncriminal behavior is also an expression of those same
needs and values

Analysis

 D.A.T takes a social psychological approach to explain how an individual becomes a criminal.
When he resides with those who deem violation of law favorable. E.g This is a public property,
so I have right to own it. Therefore, it’s definition depends upon nature of environment, early
interaction with people, frequency, intensity and duration. Furthermore, Schools and media also
play pivotal role, for example, media romanticize criminals such as “God Father”.
 D.A.T fails to predict that individual trait also play role in criminality, not all environments are
deteriorated.
 D.A.T had gaps that led to the development of new theories. “Glaser pointed out that it was not
number of people with deviant behavior, but rather the degree of identification with one or a
few people.”
 D.A.T does not take into account instinctive and affect crimes, nor does it take into account the
fact that cognitive abilities of different individuals can also be varying.
 D.A.T thesis assumes a purely behaviorist view: The human being reacts automatically and
reflexively to stimuli in the environment. Cognitive or unbiased aspects are not sufficiently
considered here, yet theory can be regarded as a far-reaching anti-biologist theory. According to
theory, the consideration of social processes in the search for the causes of crime has only really
taken its course and has certainly long since become predominant in criminological research
alongside social-structural aspects. The idea that crime can be learnt has turned the previously
very perpetrator-oriented perspective into socio-psychological one.
 D.A.T, according to” cultural deviance critique”, is” invalid” because it suggests that criminals
are people properly socialized into a deviant subculture and learnt criminal behavior by others.
Proponents of D.A.T argue that theory also recognizes that individuals can embrace criminality
because they have been improperly socialized into normative culture.
 D.A.T” fails” to account that why one youth succumb to criminality and another not, given the
fact that both are sharing same conditions? Origin of delinquent definitions? How first
“teacher” learn?
 D.A.T assumes criminal and delinquent acts to be rational and systematic and ignores
spontaneous and wanton acts of violence and damage that appear to have little utility or
purpose, such as the isolated psychopathic killing or serial killing.
  “birds of a feather flock to gather……Research on gang boys shows that they’re involved in high
rates of criminality before they join gangs.

Strength

 D.A.T provides a consistent explanation of all types of delinquent and criminal behavior ranging
from lower-class gang activity to middle and upper class unlike social structure theory.
 D.A.T change people views about criminality origin. Early theories were based on biological
approach. So, this theory change focus from an individual to society, for the genes of an
individual can’t be altered, but this views presents that alteration in environment lessens
criminality.
 D.A.T work also contributed to highlighting the transgressions of middle class people rather
than lower
 Osborne and West (1979) found that being a criminal father, a son has 40% probability to
commit crime……..> could be b/c of shared genetics which undermines this explanation, while
13% on non-criminal father. Therefore, research shows that crime tends to run in families.

Weakness

o D.A.T has difficulty in testing it. It did not able to provide a scientific and mathematical
framework to predict offending and it’s hard to see how pro-criminal attitudes a person
has could be measured and compared to pro-social attitudes to see where the tipping
point would be. It is unclear what ratio favorable to unfavorable influences would be
required to tip the balance for a person to become a criminal. Another methodological
issue is disentangling learned and inherited influences to say for certain how behavior is
being influenced. This theory is unable to provide a satisfactory solution to these issues
which undermines its scientific credibility and validity as a psychological explanation for
offending.

2) Differential Reinforcement Theory

In 1966, Ronald Akers in collaboration with Robert Burgess

A version of Social learning theory that employs D.A.T along with elements of psychological learning
theory

The same process is involved in learning both behavior, and people learn to neither all conformist nor all
deviant but rather strike a balance b/w two poles. This balance is usually stable, but it can undergo
revision over time
Direct conditioning…..persistence depends upon reward or punishment…proved justified else
extinguished…..influence on behavior comes from those groups which control individuals’ major sources
of reinforcement

+ve reinforcement increases status, money, awards and achieved by peer approval …..Is ko maaro phir
humse friendship

-ve can increase the  likelihood that a behavior will be repeated if the act allows the individual to
escape or avoid adverse or unpleasant stimuli. E.g avoid speed trap come early and leave early

In contrast to reinforcers (positive and negative), there are positive and negative punishers that
serve to increase or decrease the probability of a particular behavior being repeated.

For example, While drinking Rami drove himself and got positive punishment

For example, Mom says I will let u buy a car but no smoking in car…..His behavior bas now been –ve
punished(removal of driving privileges)
 Positive and Negative
Reinforcement
Reinforcement theory provides two methods of increasing desirable behaviors.  One is positive
reinforcement and the other is negative reinforcement. 
To avoid any confusion we can think of positive as a plus sign (+) and negative as minus
sign (-).  In other words:
Positive Reinforcement:  Give (+) what individuals like when they have performed the desired
behavior (Griggs, 2009).
Negative Reinforcement:  Remove (-) what individuals do not like when they have performed the
desired behavior (Griggs, 2009).

In the case of negative reinforcement, it is important to remember that negative does not mean
"bad", just the removal of an unpleasant stimulus. Positive and negative have similar connotations in
the application of punishment.

Negative Punishment, Extinction, and Positive Punishment

Reinforcement theory provides two methods of eliminating undesirable behaviors.  One is negative
punishment and the other is positive punishment. 
"Punishment creates a set of conditions which are designed to eliminate behaviour" (Burns, 1995).
Again, to avoid any confusion we can think of positive as a plus sign (+) and negative as a minus
sign (-).  In other words:
Positive Punishment: Give (+) individuals what they do not like when they have performed the
undesired behavior (Griggs, 2009). Positive punishment is what we think of when we think of a
"punishment". What most people refer to punishment is typically positive punishment. This is
when something aversive is added in order to decrease a behavior. The most common
example of this is disciplining (e.g. berating) a child for misbehaving. The reason we do this
is because the child begins to associate being punished with the negative behavior. The
punishment is not liked and therefore to avoid it, he or she will stop behaving in that
manner.
Negative Punishment: Remove (-) what individuals like when they have performed the undesired
behavior (Griggs, 2009). When you remove something in order to decrease a behavior, this is
called negative punishment. You are taking something away so that a response or
unwanted behavior is decreased. Putting a child in a time-out until they can decrease their
aggressive behavior, for instance, is an example of a negative punishment. You’re removing
interactions with others in order to decrease the unwanted behavior.

3) Neutralization theory

Neutralization theory was developed as means for explaining how criminal offenders

engage in rule-breaking activity while negating their culpability, or blame. The theory was
first introduced in 1957 by criminologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza, who contended
that juvenile delinquents actually drift between law-abiding and law-breaking behavior.
What this means is that there is an assumption in place that juvenile delinquents know the
difference between law-abiding and law-breaking behavior, and that they understand that
law-breaking behavior is wrong. Regardless, these juveniles' actions and behavior drift
between the two. Since Sykes and Matza first introduced the theory, it has expanded
beyond juvenile delinquents to include all criminals.

This contrasts other theories regarding criminal behavior. Some criminologists believe
that certain people are predisposed to law-breaking behavior, while others believe that
people who break the law do so exclusively, without ever obeying the law.

Subterranean values are morally tinged condemned in public e,g gambling, porn
Matza argues that even most committed criminals attend school, festival etc.
So, because of the techniques they have acquired, they drift back and forth and thus
neutralize behavior.
Bad behavior switch off good behavior and vice versa
Deny responsibility, injury, victim,condemn condemner and appeal to higher loyalties
…………………………….…………………………….…………………………….…………………………….…………………………….
…………..
 Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)

Labeling theory states that people come to identify and behave in ways that
reflect how others label them. This theory is most commonly associated with the
sociology of crime since labeling someone unlawfully deviant can lead to poor
conduct. Describing someone as a criminal, for example, can cause others to treat
the person more negatively, and, in turn, the individual acts out.

The Origins of Labeling Theory

The idea of labeling theory flourished in American sociology during the 1960s,
thanks in large part to sociologist Howard Becker. However, its core ideas can be
traced back to the work of founding French sociologist Emile Durkheim.
American sociologist George Herbert Mead's theory framing social construction
of the self as a process involving interactions with others also influenced its
development. Scholars Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, Albert Memmi,
Erving Goffman, and David Matza played roles in the development and research
of labeling theory as well.

Labeling and Deviance

Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding
deviant and criminal behavior. It begins with the assumption that no act is
intrinsically criminal. Definitions of criminality are established by those in power
through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of those laws by police,
courts, and correctional institutions. Deviance is therefore not a set of
characteristics of individuals or groups but a process of interaction between
deviants and non-deviants and the context in which criminality is interpreted.

Police, judges, and educators are the individuals tasked with enforcing standards
of normalcy and labeling certain behaviors as deviant in nature. By applying
labels to people and creating categories of deviance, these officials reinforce
society's power structure. Often, the wealthy define deviancy for the poor, men
for women, older people for younger people, and racial or ethnic majority groups
for minorities. In other words, society's dominant groups create and apply
deviant labels to subordinate groups.

Many children, for example, break windows, steal fruit from other people’s trees,
climb into neighbors' yards, or skip school. In affluent neighborhoods, parents,
teachers, and police regard these behaviors as typical juvenile behavior. But in
poor areas, similar conduct might be viewed as signs of juvenile delinquency.
This suggests that class plays an important role in labeling. Race is also a factor.

Inequality and Stigma

Research shows that schools discipline black children more frequently and
harshly than white children despite a lack of evidence suggesting that the former
misbehave more often than the latter.1 Similarly, police kill black people at far
higher rates than whites, even when African Americans are unarmed and haven't
committed crimes.2 This disparity suggests that racial stereotypes result in the
mislabeling of people of color as deviant.

Once a person is identified as deviant, it is extremely difficult to remove that

label. The individual becomes stigmatized as a criminal and is likely to be
considered untrustworthy by others. For example, convicts may struggle to find
employment after they're released from prison because of their criminal
background. This makes them more likely to internalize the deviant label and,
again, engage in misconduct. Even if labeled individuals do not commit any more
crimes, they must forever live with the consequences of being formally deemed a
wrongdoer.

Critiques of Labeling Theory

Critics of labeling theory argue that it ignores factors—such as differences in
socialization, attitudes, and opportunities—that lead to deviant acts.3 They also
assert that it's not entirely certain whether labeling increases deviancy. Ex-cons
might end up back in prison because they have formed connections to other
offenders; these ties raise the odds that they will be exposed to additional
opportunities to commit crimes. In all likelihood, both labeling and increased
contact with the criminal population contribute to recidivism.
.