CONTROL THEORY ESSAY

There are many theories of crime and delinquency and of what the causes are

as well as their idea of the best prevention techniques. One of the most

influential and coherent ones is control theories. It should be noted that there

is not one control theory but several and though they remain relatively similar

they each bring their own ideas and suggestions. There are many

criminologists who have come up with control theories but the prevalent ones

that will be explored are Reiss who looked at personal and social control,

Reckless’s containment theory, Sykes and Matza’s neutralisation theory,

Matza’s drift theory, Hirschi’s social bond theory and Gotfredson and Hirschi’s

self-control theory. The criticisms of these theories will be looked at in an

evaluation of their contribution to society and our understanding of crime and

delinquency.

Before evaluating the contribution of control theory to our understanding of

crime and delinquency crime and criminality must be explained. What is crime

and who commits it? According to the Oxford Dictionary crime is ‘an action or

ommission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.’ This is the

basic explanation of what crime is and is known by most, however there are

those who suggest this is too basic an explanation. According to the

Dictionary of Sociology crime is ‘an offence which goes beyond the personal

and into the public sphere, breaking prohibitory rules or laws, to which

legitimate punishments or sanctions are attached, and which requires the

intervention of a public authority.’ This is a much more detailed explanation

and illustrates the differences between the law and sociological views on

crime. The Oxford Dictionary suggests the law defines what is and is not a

crime while the sociological definition shows they approach the law in a more

social way and look not just at the law itself but at whose interests it protects.

These definitions show what criminologists look at when examining crime as

they look beyond the strict legal definition to examine social roots of crime and

question why some activities are labelled crime while others are not.

Criminologists also look at who commits crime? Statistics suggest there are

things more likely to influence who commits crime such as gender, race and

social class. Criminologists consider this when examining crime and creating

theories to explain it.

Unlike most criminological theories Control theory does not look at why

individuals commit crime but rather at what prevents them from committing

crime. This theory assumes crime is a natural phenomena and that it is

conformity that needs to be explained. It looks specifically at why individuals

do not conform and why the controls have broken down. It assumes people

are driven by desires and needs and that we are all predisposed to deviance.

Control theories look at patterns that suggest what areas control is more likely

to be broken and what can be done to improve this.

Control theory is the view that people refrain from deviant behaviour because

diverse factors control their impulses to break social norms, (Who?: When?).

Control theories go back as far as Aristotle but only became popular in the

late 1950’s and 1960’s. Although it has declined in popularity that should not

be taken as lack of influence. Control theory has continued to exert its

influence on contemporary criminology and still does today. Although it is

used primarily to explain juvenile delinquency it can be used to explain adult

crime too.

Reiss created one of the earlier control theories. He based his theory on

Freuds idea of the superego, although his theory has been developed and

enhanced since then. He suggested that individual’s were controlled through

two systems; personal control and social control. He suggested that personal

control was the influence that the individual had in controlling themselves from

committing deviant acts. Social control was the influence society had over

controlling them from committing these acts. Conformity suggested that these

controls were working and that the individual had a healthy superego, while

non-conformity suggested the opposite. Reiss’s work was mainly concerned

with predicting juvenile crime but could be applied to adult offending.

Reckless also created a theory that was intended to predict delinquency. His

containment theory suggested there are pushes and pulls which tempt a

person towards delinquency. He stated there were internal factors and

external factors that could push people into crime and delinquency. Internal

factors were psychological and included aggression which could account for

gender differences in crime. External factors were more social and included

poverty and lack of opportunities which could account for class differences in

crime.

Reckless focuses on inner containment which included self-concept, goal-

orientation, frustration tolerance and norm-retention. He suggested that if

individuals view themselves as law-abiding citizens, have legitimate goals to

work towards, have a coping mechanism for socially induced frustrations or

are committed to society’s norms then the likelihood of criminality is greatly

reduced, (Newburn:2013: p236). Reckless focused on the self-concept which

he said was the most important aspect of his theory. He suggested those with

a strong and favourable self-concept were less likely to turn to crime.

Reckless carried out a number of studies, which suggested his theory was a

great tool for predicting delinquency, however one carried out with Simon

Dinitz found that of those predicted to become delinquents only 40% had

contact with the police in the next four years and other studies also disputed

Reckless’s claims, (Williams:2001 p369).

There were other criticisms of Reckless’s theory including the fact it is difficult

to test empirically and can be quite vague however, despite the criticisms of

Reckless’s theory it has been used to reduce criminality by strengthening

individual’s self-esteem. Mcguire and Priestly (1985) claimed strengthening

self-esteem decreases likelihood of future criminality, which supports

Reckless’s theory and has been seen to achieve some cues, (Williams:2001

p369). This theory may have been criticised but it has been used to explain

crime and delinquency to some degree including an explanation as to why

there is a difference in class and gender of offenders. It has also been used

successfully to prevent crime and to rehabilitate offenders which does give it

some merit. It has also influenced theories developed by Hirschi and Matza.

Matza and Sykes developed a theory of neutralisation techniques that were

used to justify deviant behaviour although Matza suggested delinquents were

not committed to deviant behaviour but become involved through a process of

‘drift’.

During their early work Matza and Sykes found evidence that delinquency

was a temporary state, usually engaged in by juveniles and generally

diminished in adulthood despite the same pressures continuing to exist. They

suggested delinquency could be viewed as an unusual and temporary state

rather than something fundamental in an individual’s life. They used this to

create their idea of neutralisation techniques, which explained how social

norms could be abandoned on a temporary basis. These techniques justified

an individual’s actions and included things such as denial of responsibility and

denial of injury.

These techniques appear to have some merit as they have been used in the

court of law as defence cases citing provocation such as the case of Bronitt

and MacSherry, 2005. Although provocation has since been removed as a

defence these techniques have been adopted in to the courtrooms and are

used as defences even today such as in diminished responsibility cases.

Although this theory has been used successfully in court rooms and goes

some way towards explaining crime and delinquency it has been criticised by

Hirschi who rejected their theory when he conducted a study where students

who agreed with the statement that ‘it is alright to break the law if they can get

away with it’ also tended to have offended. This suggested that individual’s do

not use neutralisation techniques but rather seize the opportunity if they do

not think they will get caught.

Matza went on to create a theory of drift where he suggested that individuals

are not committed to delinquency and simply drift in and out of it. He said

juveniles are ‘sounding’ each other out so that a state of pluralistic ignorance

occurs where juveniles pretend to be ‘bad’ in order to gain esteem of peers.

Matza’s theory has been tested by others, most notably Albert J Velarde who

conducted his own research to test the validity of Matza’s theory. He did

interviews with a number of delinquents and devised eight questions to test

this validity. However, there were problems with Velarde’s research

techniques such as the sample group not being representative as it consisted

of lower class delinquents who were predominately black. There has been

research that suggests ethnicity can have an effect on crime statistics and by

not using a broader sample he could have influenced the results of the

research. His methods also could have led to interview bias or demand

characteristics as the individuals may have thought Velarde could help them

in to a better situation than they currently faced which could have influenced

their answers. Velarde himself confessed there was no way to test with

conclusion the credibility of their remarks, (Valerie:1978). This suggests there

were flaws in the methodology and therefore the results may be negatively

influenced.

Valerde’s research supported Matza’s theory and he used that research to

suggest ways to improve the juvenile-judicial system. The theory proposed by

Matza has been used to prevent criminality in juveniles by separating them

from the individuals they are ‘sounding off’ to. This has been used in some

places alongside counselling to guide the juveniles back to the right side of

the law.
One of the most influential theories came from Hirschi who identified four

elements of social bonds that explained conformity. He said people do not

commit crime as they have four controls in their life, which were; attachment,

commitment, involvement and belief, (Chapman and Steel:2011 p27). He

suggested we are all concerned with what others think of us and this can

control behaviour as we do not want to upset or disappoint those close to us.

He also proposed individuals are less likely to commit deviant acts if they

have invested themselves in something, such as their time and energy

invested in particular activities. Hirschi said younger people usually have less

to lose and that their reputation may be enhanced by criminality, which

supports Matza’s theory of drift.

The four elements together are the mindset and behaviour of a law abiding

citizen whereas a delinquent does not have such controls, (Who?:When?).

Hirschi tested his theory using a self-report surveys of 4,000 Californian high

school students and an analysis of their student records He discovered little

evidence that social class or race had any effect but found those who reported

strong attachments were less likely to be involved in delinquent acts. This

supports Hirschi’s theory, however the use of self-reports can throw doubt on

his findings as this method can be easily manipulated and there is no

guarantee that the students were telling the truth.

Hirschi has been regarded as one of the most influential control theories but

he has also been criticised as there are those who suggests Hirschi is wrong

about delinqency being caused by lack of attachment and that is actually

delinquency causing the lack of attachment. There is also evidence that

contradicts social bond theory and suggests offenders are not weakly

attached to social norms, which supports Sykes and Matza’s theory.

There are those who believe Hirschi’s theory is a good base point but that it is

only a partial theory as it gives us a set of criteria to test the idea of social

bonds but does not explain why particular forms of deviant behaviour occur

and why some may commit serious crimes while others commit only minor

deviance. This is supported by Braithwaite (1989) who said ‘it cannot explain

why some uncontrolled individuals become heroin users and some hit men.’

Evidence tends to support two of Hirschi’s four elements, attachment and

commitment but there is very little evidence for the other two. There is also

the suggestion that his sample is not varied enough, which may have affected

the results.

Gotfredson and Hirschi created a model based on low self-control where they

argued that it is having low self-control that leads to offending. They

suggested that the self-control required to govern behaviour needs to be

instilled early in the life course and that it is parental failure that leads to

children with low self-control. They stated that simply having low self-control

does not necessarily lead to offending and that oppurtunity is required.

A number of empirical studies appear to demonstrate a link between low self-

control and delinquency although the idea of low self-control is difficult to

research. One of the criticisms of this theory was that it is too general and
tried to explain all crime rather than specific ones. It also does not explain why

crime appears to decline as age increases if their self-control is learnt young.

It has also been criticised for ignoring the role of gangs on behaviour of

adolescents.

Control theory is good at explaining why people do not offend but is less so at

explaining why they do. It is only recently that control theory has become

influential and modern control theorists have had influence in policy circles in

modern industrial society. The theory that control through family and

education establishes self-control has given rise to early intervention policies

and there have been programmes introduced to support families and offer

parenting skills.

Control theories are controversial as its suggestion that increased control can

decrease deviance is a source of argument. Some believe it may lead to

oppressive and repressive policy responses, which will increase controls,

restraints and prohibitions. It is argued that control theory is not a theory of

crime causation at all but rather explains the conditions that make crime a

possibility rather than an actuality.

Control theories have been used a lot to influence modern society and can be

seen in action every day. They have given rise to detection, prevention and

punishment in order to stop offending. This includes the use of CCTV

surveillance, police and prisons.

Control theory has influenced the way society approaches crime and

delinquency and this begins affecting us from a young age. Families are

taught how to instil self-control in children, schools are teaching children

social norms and values and offered good them a strong educational base,

which may prevent them from having the oppurtunity to commit crime.

Theories by Sykes, Matza and Hirschi have also influenced the legal system

and are used to rehabilitate offenders and prevent injustices from occurring.

The problem society has with control theory is the question of when does its

influence change from preventing offending to controlling every movement.

There are those who believe society has taken protection too far and are

restricting free will and turning the country in to a dictatorship rather than a

democracy. If surveillance is everywhere and everything is a crime then how

can control theory be true as everyone must be committing crime at some

point in their lives, suggesting that nobody is truly conforming and there are

no real controls.