Edwin H. Sutherland who started out the differential connection theory thought that criminal habit is learned by discussion with other folks by interacting. Sutherland theorized that folks will either obey or violate the law depending how they specify their life situation (Sutherland, 1947). However, Southerland's theory had some major criticisms; one of which was the assumption that if you were to interact with criminals that you'll eventually become a criminal yourself. Sheldon Glueck criticized and questioned the idea claiming so it had not been testable. Glueck asked, "Has anyone actually counted the number of violation of rules, and exhibited that in the predelinquency connection with the vast majority of delinquents and criminals, the ex - exceed the latter?"
Additionally, there appeared to be a shortage of reason in Sutherland's theory to explain serves of deviance that are not learned or spontaneous. For instance, how does a kid who is raised in a good area with a good family and peers go and take off their local supermarket or commit violent offences? Simply put, Sutherland's ideas were just too much to put into action and measure quantitatively so Akers and Burgess revised Southerland's theory of differential association in their theory called the interpersonal learning theory. Akers and Burgess added the thought of reinforcement. Reinforcement would either increase or decrease the strength of habit (Akers, 1984). They also applied the principles of Operant Mindset. Operant psychology feels that behavior is a result of its effects (Akers). With the addition of the thought of "nonsocial situations" Akers and Burgess added that the surroundings alone can certainly help criminality somewhat than only "social connections" influencing a person to commit crime through direct connections with the environment without having interaction with people (Bernard, 2010).
3. Distinction two theoretical explanations of the age-crime curve. Which is the most convincing and why?
The age-crime curve is a routine that presents that public offences peak when one is just about their twenties and declines as one ages. It shows that people who become criminals start when they are young with non-violent crimes that can then progress and peak at about 18-20 years of age and can be non-violent or violent crimes and then the tendency for crime declines with the development of age. There will vary ideas that present different ideas in regards to what causes the learning of crime and how different variables can affect the tendency of you to definitely participate in crimes. Sutherland and Aker both present valid learning ideas for legal learning but they have different ideas as to how one happens learning criminal offense and taking part in crimes.
The idea of communal learning is learning that "is defined as behaviors and knowledge that develop as a result of experiences with the environment, as opposed to intuition, drives, reflexes, and hereditary predispositions (Hale, 2006)", and can be applied to the age-crime curve since it has variables which can account for the age of a perpetrator and their offense. Sutherland's theory is based on criminal habit being learned in social interactions, that it is learned in communities, and that the differential associations vary widely. Children usually commit non-violent modest crimes that can be related to "not knowing much better". Things such as putting a candy bar in their pocket and stealing it or taking a toy off of the shelf and placing it along with the rest of the already paid groceries. As children get older they must have learned that stealing is incorrect and discovered the difference between right and wrong. If their environment is one of lax parenting and their friends are children who misbehave and grab, they have significantly more of the risk to learn the same behaviors and also to follow along; even even though they have been taught that it is incorrect. If their activities teach them that they can get away with stealing plus they know others who steal, then they haven't any reason to resist when the temptation comes. Sutherland's theory is different from Aker's theory of differential reinforcement because Aker's theory is situated in the fact that criminal tendencies is learned through imitation, the severe nature of the unlawful behavior depends on the strength of reinforcement, and "the sort and rate of recurrence of learning is determined by the norms where these reinforcers are applied (Hale, 2006). " These young people who are committing crimes learn which offences carry a bulkier punishment than others and understand how to commit the offences without having to be punished by learning from their expected behaviors and abuse. In Sutherland's theory the kids do definitely not learn from abuse or anticipated behavior, but from other people in a group, from peers, from home or any other place where they can be seeing legal activity.
The more convincing of both ideas leans more toward Sutherland's theory. Most people who are around the age of struggling with what is right from wrong are in university where they are exposed to other folks from other backgrounds that carry different morals and have had other encounters. If they begin to hold around people who commit crimes there are any number of underlying reasons why they might interact, nevertheless they will study from these peers in their group.
5. Do you consent or disagree with the following claims? Why or why not? (You might agree with some rather than others. )
"As criminologists progressively more identify factors that are causally related to criminal offense, crime policies more and more will addresses these factors. We will gain increasing control over our world, and we'll use that control to reduce criminal offense. Some criminologists may alert against moving in this path, fearing that the expenses associated with this increased control will outweigh the huge benefits that should come from the reduced criminal offense. But regardless of these warnings, it appears clear that criminology and criminal offenses policy in the larger society are moving in this course" (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould 2010:364-5).
In this statement I agree that criminology and crime policies are getting increased control over the world. I disagree that the expenses of the increased control would outweigh the benefits. A safer modern culture is better for all as long as they remain given their freedoms and personal privacy. Addressing more variables that are related to crime does not necessarily mean intruding on the protection under the law of citizens to keep them safe but may be used to determine what factors (the parameters that criminologists are discovering) will lead to the prospect of crime. It really is already known that places with higher poverty also have higher offense rates. This is a changing that criminologists would use to know what type of neighborhoods or societies are usually more at-risk for criminal offense in their area. Using more factors they can determine what type of crime is much more likely to occur, and who is most likely to execute them.
The more parameters that criminologists can discover that will lead to a much better understanding of the sources of a crime and the encompassing factors, makes it easier to figure out who it was that was most likely to have committed the criminal offenses and also who's more likely to commit those types of criminal offense. By knowing in advance who might become more more likely to cause offences (for example children in low-income areas with high poverty in the inner-city will sign up for gangs and commit offences at a youthful time) can help prevent these folks from causing offences by using programs (programs that help kids stay from the streets, stay in school, and have after school activities will be a way to avoid these same kids from subscribing to gangs and committing offences). Understanding as much variables as possible allows criminologists to filter down who possible suspects for a criminal offense might be.
I concur that these variables will help take a growing control over offense, but I really do not think that the costs will outweigh the huge benefits. People prefer to know that everything has been done to ensure that their modern culture is a safer spot to live which criminals will be taken to justice. If you have to weigh the costs of safe practices versus the price of spending time researching variables that could increase safety then safety should be worthwhile.