Today’s society and the increase in crimes
Today’s society is grappled with a consistent increase in the crimes. Crime has broadened its width and today both adults and children below the age of 18 years have fallen prey to criminal activities, and factors such as technology have been pivotal in facilitating the occurrence of crime. Researchers have gone the extra mile to create theories that try and offer an understanding of the reasoning behind the occurrence of these criminal activities. In this paper, we will focus on a case of two teenagers, Tim and Lionel, who have been accused of the crime of distribution of child pornography. In this case, the two boys were reported when 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 thought behind committing of this crime, the paper will use two criminal theories, social disorganization theory, and low self-control theory to analyze the factors behind the crime committed by Tim and Lionel. In line with the topic at hand, the following thesis statements can be deduced:
The social environment has a significant influence 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 developed in 1942 by two researchers, Henry D. McKay and Clifford Shaw, from the Chicago School of Criminology. The theory works on the foundation that the physical and social environment which a person associates with has a significant influence on the person’s behavioral activity and affects the decisions or choices the person makes. The theory by Shaw and McKay focuses on the location as the key factor in predicting the possibility of a person to engage in criminal activities. In the research conducted, Shaw and McKay established that there are three distinct problems which are associated with the locations which have the highest crime rates, they include high levels of ethnic and cultural mixing, poverty and physical disintegration(Bursik, 1988). The theory forwarded by the scholars support the established thesis that individual’s criminal activities are influenced by their environment since it bases its understanding that “delinquency is not caused at the individual level, but a normal response by normal individuals to abnormal conditions”(Bursik, 1988). Social Disorganization theory would relate to the provided case of Tim and Lionel since the crime they have been accused of is the distribution of child pornography which the media just termed is as “sexting.” The description by the media suggests that this is not a new crime but it is more of a trend conducted by many adults where they share intimate text messages and nude images as means of spicing intimacy.
From the understanding of social disorganization theory, we can establish that this act of sharing nude images takes place frequently in the community and Tim and Lionel through the impact of the norms in their environment found this to be okay which led to them committing the offense. The theory assists us to understand comprehensively the scenario faced by Tim and Lionel. In the social environment where Tim and Lionel were brought up, sharing nude images of teens was more of a trend, and it was viewed as a social activity which one has to engage in as a precondition to fit in the society(Bursik, 1988). The first assumption contained in theory is the “collapse of community-based controls especially for people living in disadvantaged neighborhoods”. In case the two were brought up in such a disadvantaged community, the implications of sending nude images might not have been instilled in them, and they may have learned that it way, not a crime to share such images which led them to perform the same(Bursik, 1988). Therefore, from this theoretical point of view, Tim and Lionel committed the crime not out of sheer will but as a consequence of the influence of their primary backgrounds which is supported by the theory by Shaw and McKay on “Social Disorganization and Delinquency.”
Self-Control Theory
The Self-Control Theory was formulated by two criminology researchers, Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson and it is also identified as “General theory of crime” based on the understanding that the theory is the principal factor behind criminal behavior. The theory offers the recognition that the ability of individuals to commit crimes is associated with their levels self-control. One perspective of the theory highlights that individuals who received ineffectual parental care during their upbringing up to the point they were about age ten tend to develop diminished levels of self-control when compared with individuals who received better parental care during the same period(Baron, 2003). In the research by Hirschi and Gottfredson, the diminished levels of self-control due to the absence of proper parental care are one of the leading causes of the criminal tendency in individuals as they transition into their teen and onwards. The general theory of crime applies in the case of Tim and Lionel since both of them are in their teens, and the self-control theory can best explain the reasoning behind their decision to share the nude images of the four teens from their school knowing the possible implications of their actions.
The research by Hirschi and Gottfredson further propose that most of the crimes require little planning to commit and have no long-term benefit(Baron, 2003). The description offers the conclusion that persons with low self-control are believed to be insensitive to others, have short-sighted mindsets, risk-takers, and impulsive which can be linked to the notion that diminished self-control is not the primary factor in the commission of crimes, but its absence leads to “other analogs behavior”(Baron, 2003). Upon close examination of the theory, we can identify the manner in which the theory plays an influential role in facilitating the comprehension of the case for Tim and Lionel. The general theory suggests that individuals who have low self-control have a tendency of being impulsive and act in a manner that is insensitive to others. In the provided scenario, Tim and Lionel opted to share the nude images of the four teens from their school without consideration of the impact sharing the nude photos may affect the four teens. If we consider a situation where Tim and Lionel were brought up in an environment where they did not receive adequate parental care, the two teens will transition into teenhood having low self-control(Baron, 2003). Basing on the understanding by Gottfredson and Hirschi, Tim and Lionel would develop criminal tendencies by taking risks and becoming short-sighted in their acts which would explain why they opted to share the nude images of the four teens from their school with their friends. The absence of the caution of parental care in preventing children from doing unreasonable offensive acts is manifested in this case where the two are accused of possession and distribution of child pornography.
Comparison and Contrast of the Theories
In the theories discussed, they both offer comprehensive reasoning to the reasoning behind the commission of the crime by Tim and Lionel. However, upon close examination on the concept that best fits in describing the underlying issues in this case and the hypothetical situations, I find the theory forwarded by Gottfredson and Hirschi, “Self-Control Theory” more compelling. The reason behind this choice is based on the fact that self-control theory traces the process that led to the two teens acting in a manner that was impulsive(Geis, 2000), and the absence of concern for the impact of their actions primarily on the four teens from their school who they distributed their nude images. Additionally, the self-control theory analyzes the effects of a child’s upbringing with the choices they make as they become teens and later adults. The theory incorporates the elements of the social environment where the role of caregivers is observed as a factor that can deliver either a positive or negative impact on the tendency of children to crime.
For self-control theory, the strengths can be summarized by these two points. First, self-control theory has a firm foundation based on its conceptualization from the bonding theory by Gottfredson and Hirschi(Geis, 2000). The theory is further emphasized where it proves the relationship between age and criminal tendencies. Second, self-control theory is 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). Despite the strengths associated with self-control theory, we can identify some weaknesses based on the theory. One is the fact that the theory is based on the understanding that poor childhood parenting is a leading cause of delinquency. However, this is not regularly the case since a significant number of children who experience ineffectual parenting developed into proper character in the society(Baron, 2003). Two, self-control theory does not offer sufficient evidence to prove its absence in a person is a leading factor in the need to commit a crime, but it suggests that when it is nonexistent, it is a contributing factor.
Social disorganization theory has a strong foundation in creating a link between broken community-based control impacts negatively the view of children in the community towards crime which is evidenced by the increased crime rates in disadvantaged neighborhoods(Sampson " Groves, 1989). Second, the theory acts as a reference point in criminology based on the fact that the theory offers empirical research to support the propulsion of crime in neglected neighborhoods. Several limitations can be deduced from this theory. First, the theory provides one point of view on location and its negative impact on crime. There is a weakness in this argument since it is observed today that these disadvantaged communities bring-up individual who are focused on community development and work towards improving life as opposed to crime(Sampson " Groves, 1989). Second, the theory focuses primarily on location as a factor in propagating delinquency, this cannot be adequately substantiated since not all individuals in these neighborhoods respond to the breakdown in the community by engaging in crime.
The cognitive clarity brought forth by self-control theory supports the case for Tim and Lionel since it is easily quantifiable and establishes a clear understanding. Additionally, when we observe the sentimental relevance of social disorganization theory, we can determine an absence of correlation on the ability of Tim and Lionel to engage in an irrational crime based on their disadvantaged background. Based on the criteria of the evaluation conducted on the two provided theories, self-control theory appears convincing upon focusing on empirical validity(Geis, 2000) since the theory can be supported by tests and evidence presented.
Theory Integration
The two theories selected for this paper, self-control theory and social disorganization theory can be integrated. The theories can be integrated based on the understanding of the reasoning behind the chosen theories. The two theories have a common conclusion which can facilitate their integration by focusing on the manner in which they both focus on social relationships in their conceptualization of crime(Bernard " Snipes, 1996). In this case, I would apply the use of Theoretical integration for self-control theory and social disorder theory. My choice for Theoretical Integration for the two theories is emphasized by the understanding that this method offers a substantial reliance on control and learning theories. In this case, there are issues of learning where based on the locational background in the social disorder theory, the child can learn how crime is socially acceptable and the need to adapt by engaging in criminal activities(Bernard " Snipes, 1996). Also, the aspect of control arises in self-control theory where the low level of self-control is identified as a supporting factor in the perpetration of crimes.
For proper integration of self-control and social disorder theory, I would propose the use of an end-to-end approach since this method would maintain a clear relationship between the two theories and preserve their equal input in the field of criminology(Messner, Krohn, " Liska, 1989). The end-to-end approach in integrating the two theories is best suited in this case since it offers the integration of the two scholar works while maintaining the “temporal ordering of the variables encompassed within the theory” (Messner et al., 1989). The end-to-end approach allows for the independence of variables where they propel their roles as causes and consequently offer a platform for the dependence of the variables through their effects.
Policy Implications
Based on the provided scenario of Tim and Lionel and the application of the two chosen theories, we can establish the policy implications of the two theories. The social disorganization theory calls for a major policy implication to come up with substitutes to crime control and incarcerations based on the role the theory applies in crime occurrence. Based on the provided scenario, the theory through the stated policy advocates for recreational programs, community youth service to create “positive socialization opportunities for the youth that the community is unable to offer on its own”(Leavitt, 1999) One of the policy implications associated with self-control theory suggests that conventional measures followed to control or deter crime in adults have a less chance of having a significant effect. Based on the policy, the theory implies that once a person commits a crime, their operations will be compromised based on the irrational belief that once one engages in a crime, they will never cease or deviate from a life of crime(Leavitt, 1999). Based on the policy implications of self-control theory in the case of Tim and Lionel, the policy offers a prediction of the possibility of the two to commit future crimes and their criminal susceptibility.
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.
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.
Sampson, R. J., " Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.
