Today's society grapples with consistent increase in crime rates.
The width of crime has broadened and today both adults and minors have fallen prey to criminal activities. Factors, such as technology, have been pivotal in facilitating the increase in the occurrence of crime. Multiple theories that offer reasoning and understanding of the consistent increase of criminal activities have been developed. This paper focuses on a case scenario of two teenagers, Tim and Lionel, who have been accused of the crime of distribution of child pornography. The two boys were reported after they were caught requesting nude images from four of their teen friends and subsequently sent them to other friends which constitutes the felony of child pornography. In an attempt to comprehend the factors and thoughts informing the criminal activities of Tim and Lionel, the paper will use two criminal theories, social disorganization theory, and low self-control theory. In accordance with this topic, the following thesis statements can be deduced:
The social environment has a sufficient impact on the propensity of an individual to engage in criminal activities.
The upbringing of a child has a notable impact on the ability of a child to commit a crime once they become a teenager.
Social Disorganization Theory
The theory was created in 1942 by two researchers, Henry D. McKay and Clifford Shaw, from the Chicago School of Criminology. The initial precondition of the theory implies that the physical and social environments impact seriously on a person’s behavioral activity, thus, affecting their decisions and choice-making process. Consequently, Shaw and McKay stress on location as the key factor in predicting the possibility of a person engaging in criminal activities and there are three problems associated high-crime-rate locations (Faubert, 2017). The problems include high levels of ethnic and cultural mixing/heterogeneity, poverty and physical disintegration/dilapidation (Bursik, 1988). The problems are mainly experienced in transitional neighborhoods, where factory activities encroach residential areas.
The three issues among others, such as unemployment and high mobility among a community, are termed as antecedent factors that contribute significantly to the disintegration of social organization. As a result, neighborhood residents fail to organize themselves, which leads to the collapse of the informal social controls that regulate social behavior and norms in the society from which children learn. The failure of the informal social controls leaves a void in the criminogenic environment, where older youths determine the behavior of younger children (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). In essence, children behavioral learning processes are through peer interactions on the street in situations known as “play activities”. The result is increased delinquency levels among those areas with high levels of heterogeneity, poverty and physical dilapidation.
The social disorganization theory can be employed to explain the delinquent behavior exhibited by Tim and Lionel. Whereas Tim and Lionel's scenario does not present their current environments, their actions can be used to deduce such conditions. First, the two minors convinced other teens to share their nude pictures with them which they resulted in sharing with their other friends. The chain of events reveals the behavioral learning process of the two teenagers, through interaction with peers on the technology devices in classical “sexting” scenarios. Evidently, the informal controls in their community to control the distribution of child pornography has failed. Tim and Lionel end up learning from older youths, who practice “sexting”, but in a legal capacity. The result is that Tim and Lionel might develop the child pornography criminal activities into adulthood.
Low Self-Control Theory
The theory is also called as “general theory of crime” and was conducted by criminology researchers Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi. The theory recognizes that the biological tendencies that individuals are born with are geared towards selfish activities (Faubert, 2017). Furthermore, the theory adds that the only way to establish self-control among individuals is through effective child rearing in the social setting. The theory also highlights that the optimal age, by which self-control among kids should have been established is the age of ten (Baron, 2003). Due to the natural aspect of selfish behavior alluded by low self-control theory, the criminality characteristics of children persist into their adulthood.
The key concept established to support the theory is that personal control impacts the perceptions of pleasure and shame among peers. Individuals with low self-control exhibit behavior that is oriented towards “gaining pleasure, taking advantage of resources and avoiding negative emotional feelings (shame)” (Tibbetts & Hemmens, 2015, p.321). Consequently, individuals with low self-control have lower internal sanctions leading them to be insensitive to others, have short-sighted mindsets, risk-takers, and impulsive. Baron (2003) argues that although self-control is not the primary factor in the commission of crimes, its absence leads to “other analogs behavior”. The increasing tendency of individuals who show low self-control to avoid shame and other negative emotional feelings underline the argument that behavior will be governed through its consequences, which implies that the best crime prevention approach is offense-specific (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001).
Additionally, the low self-control theory can be utilized to explain such criminal activities as child pornography possession and distribution, as shown by Tim and Lionel. The main premise of low self-control theory is self-centeredness among individuals. Tim and Lionel are selfish in the sense that they did not share their nude photos with their cohorts but only distributed those of other teenagers. The characters of selfish people of insensitiveness to others, risk-taking, and impulsiveness are evident in the actions of the two teenagers. The other argument presented in the low self-control theory is that individuals with a tendency towards criminal activities have limited internal sanctions whether they are moral, physical, legal or religious. The two minors do not show any form of restraint in their criminal activities of sharing child pornography materials which indicate that their perception of pleasure and shame has been greatly distorted by their limited self-control. The actions of Tim and Lionel reveal that they have low self-control, which implies that the societal rearing of the two minors as children below ten years was inadequate. Tim and Lionel's actions reveal that there was limited parental caution and guidance in their formative years regarding self-control in criminal behaviors such as the distribution of child pornographic materials.
Comparison and Contrast of the Theories
Social Disorganization Theory
Empirical validity.
This concept establishes whether a theory can be validated using data collected in the field, where the findings are congruent with the predicted outcomes of the theory. The empirical validity of social disorganization theory is very high as illustrated by the studies conducted by Shaw and McKay, where they witnessed that those regions that were characterized by high levels of transition from residential to industrial had higher levels of criminal activities (Faubert, 2017). Primarily, the theory can easily be validated by comparing the criminal levels of different neighborhoods, some containing social disintegration while the others are held as control studies.
Scope. The scope of the theory illustrates the variance that is expected among different criminality and crime rates. According to the theory, those neighborhoods close to factories and the inner cities exhibit higher levels of criminality, while the best neighborhoods are those farthest from the industrial complexes where little criminality incidents are observed.
Cognitive clarity. The social disorganization theory is cognitively clear as it can easily be measured by observing criminality rates among different neighborhoods. Additionally, it is easily understood that due to the social disintegration of informal controls that inform norms in the society, children learn from older youths and their peers which results to higher levels of delinquent behavior. Evidently, the concepts are clear, unambiguous, and make sense.
Sentimental relevance.
According to the personal reading of the concepts of social disorganization theory, it is clear and makes sense as it can be easily related to the real-life scenarios of Tim and Lionel.
Low Self-Control Theory
Empirical validity. The theory is low on empirical validity, as there are few studies in which data can be collected on selfishness that can be compared to the premises of the theory. Furthermore, few data collection modes can easily prove that self-control is best learned at the age of below ten.
Scope. Despite the low score on empirical validity, there is minimal variance between the arguments of the theory and criminality rates. Most of the individuals engaging in criminal activities will have their perceptions of pleasure and shame distorted by their tendencies towards self-centeredness, where they are highly inconsiderate to others and showcase impulsiveness in the behaviors (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001).
Cognitive clarity.
The low self-control theory makes sense regarding the predisposing factors towards criminality incidences in the society. However, the applicability of the concepts is in question as most crime prevention methods prescribed are offense-specific, which makes it difficult to study large groups of crimes differ according to the individuals.
Sentimental relevance.
In analyzing the case scenario of Tim and Lionel, I was able to base my arguments on this theory easily. Evidently, the theory makes sense to me.
Strengths
Social disorganization theory. The most identifiable strength of this theory is its ability to be measured through data collection means and analysis of findings in comparison with the premise of the theory. Additionally, the concepts are easy to understand, and the variance between the arguments of the theory and criminality rates is minimal.
Low self-control theory.
The low self-control theory is also characterized by quite small variance between theoretical arguments and crime rates. Moreover, the concepts are easily understandable as they are clear and unambiguous. Self-control theory is also supported by previous works such as that of neurologist Freud, where he established the role of self-control theory in his “reality-principle and pleasure-principle” (Geis, 2000).
Weaknesses
Social disorganization theory. The weaknesses presented by this theory is the fact that criminality rates in good neighborhoods are not explained. Another weakness of the theory is the reality that in societies that have experienced disorganization, there are children, who grow up outside the influence of criminogenic environments and become productive members of the society. The theory also lacks propositions off measures that can be employed to mitigate and ameliorate the causal factors of criminality in the affected neighborhoods. The other weakness in social disorganization theory is that today it is observed that disadvantaged communities bring-up individuals who are focused on community development and work towards improving life as opposed to criminal activities (Sampson & Groves, 1989).
Low self-control theory. The main weakness of the theory is the lack of means to measure field data to compare with the arguments of the theory. Other weaknesses of the theory include the ability of specific measures to address given offenses on a large scale and the flawed logical structure of the theory.
Theory Integration
The integration of the two theories is facilitated by their theoretical arguments which are derived from the manner in which both focus on social relationships in their conceptualization of crime (Bernard & Snipes, 1996). The social disorganization theory is a learning theory while the self-control theory falls under the social control theories (Faubert, 2017) As a result, the theoretical integration applied in these two theories is an intradisciplinary integration, as both theories are in the same category of sociological crime theories.
The approach taken in the intradisciplinary integration is the end-to-end integration of the theories where the independent variables of one theory are linked to other variables in other theories, where they form the dependent variables. In the integration of the two theories, the learning activities of children from older youths and their peers result in the acquisition of low self-control traits in the formative stages (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). As a result, low self-control learned by individuals in a community leads to the selfish activities such as inconsiderate actions characterized by low levels of internal sanctions. The use of an end-to-end approach maintains a clear relationship between the two theories and preserve their equal input in the criminology field (Messner, Krohn & Liska, 1989).
Policy Implications
The implications of the social disorganization theory are that substitutes to peer learning processes and informal social controls need to be established. Consequently, recreational programs and community youth services should be established to effectively incorporate adults in the learning process of children, which increases the chances of positive socialization opportunities, especially in those areas, where such activities are not possible in the current conditions (Leavitt, 1999). The policy implications of self-control theory include the development of positive reinforcements of good behavior through rewards. Rewards that function as reinforcement of good behavior through the consideration of other people ensures the development of self-control among individuals. The establishment of positive reinforcements ensures that the criminologists bypass the offense-specific mitigation of criminal activities (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001).
In the case of Tim and Lionel, the identified policies can easily be employed to mitigate their behavior. Recreational programs and community youth services will augment the learning process of the two teens where they will learn the criminality of their actions and better ways to mitigate those actions. The measures employed in the policy may enable the teens to focus their efforts towards school achievement and development of new phone apps instead of the distribution of nude photos of their teen friends. Positive reinforcement of behavior will be employed where Tim and Lionel will be rewarded after spending periods of time without seeking naked pictures of other people where if they enroll their friends to such program they earn bonus rewards. The rewards reinforce the development of self-control among the teens against the criminal behavior of distributing child pornography materials.
Conclusion
The social disorganization reveals the criminal behavior learning process when there are minimal, informal controls of social norms. The low self-control theory presents evidence that limited sanctions of criminal behavior in tender ages can result in persistent criminality in older ages. In the contemporary environment and society, there are increasing crime rates among underage teenagers. The case of the child pornography distribution by Tim and Lionel is a good example to highlight the implications of social disorganization theory and low self-control theory on such minors. These theories, therefore, explain how the society may affect the prosperity of a teenager as well as the ways of upbringing, which may negatively influence and push the child to engage in criminal activities.
References
Baron, S. W. (2003). Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 403–425.
Bernard, T. J., " Snipes, J. B. (1996). Theoretical integration in criminology. Crime and Justice, 20, 301–348.
Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26(4), 519–552.
Faubert, J. (2017). Unit 5: Routine activities theory and social ecology: The contributions of
environmental criminology [SFU Canvas]. Retrieved from https://canvas.sfu.ca/courses/35219/pages/required-reading-unit-5?module_item_id=799996
Faubert, J. (2017). Unit 7: Contemporary social learning and strain theories [SFU Canvas].
Retrieved from https://canvas.sfu.ca/courses/35219/pages/required-reading-unit-6?module_item_id=800005
Geis, G. (2000). On the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime: A critique. Theoretical Criminology, 4(1), 35–53.
Leavitt, G. (1999). Criminological theory as an art form: Implications for criminal justice policy. Crime " Delinquency, 45(3), 389–399.
Messner, S. F., Krohn, M. D., " Liska, A. E. (1989). Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects. SUNY Press.
Paternoster, R., " Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Sampson, R. J., " Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.
Tibbetts, G. S., " Hemmens. C. (2015). Section IV: Early positive school perspectives of criminality. In Criminological theory: A text/reader (2nd ed.). LA: SAGE.
