Running head: THINKING ABOUT CRIME

Thinking About Crime

University of Alabama

THINKING ABOUT CRIME

The question of why people break the law has, in my view, yet to be adequately answered
by criminologist. The reasoning behind this may be due to the fact that a persons motivations to
commit crime seem to be as various as the crimes themselves. Nevertheless, I find myself
sympathetic towards the control theories of Travis Hirschi. In Hirschis 1969 book, Causes of
Delinquency, he develops the social bonding theory. Hirschi later collaborates with Michael
Gottfredson, and the two develop the general theory of crime or low self-control theory (Akers &
Sellers, 2009). These two theories of crime provide a satisfactory explanation of crime and have
helped shape my own personal views towards crime. This paper will communicate what my own
personal views on criminal and delinquent behavior are, as well as discuss Hirschis two
prominent control theories, social bonding theory and general theory of crime.
It seems clear that the reason for someone breaking the law depends on which law the
person actually breaks. For example, a women planning and carrying out the murder of her
husband is going to have vastly different motives for breaking the law than the teenager who
shoplifts from the mall. The women, perhaps, only married her husband for his money, and she
now has a plan that will result in her husbands death, and her becoming the legal owner of his
billion-dollar estate. The teenager, however, has completely different motives behind his crime.
He steals sneakers from the mall in order to fit in with his more well-to-do peers. His mother
cannot afford to buy him $100 sneakers, so he resorts to theft of property to fill the void of his
impoverished mother.
Although the wife and the teenager have differing motives behind each of their crimes,
they do, however, seem to have a common underlying impulse behind their actions. This
impulse is defined as hedonism. Rebecca Howell, in the notes for her spring 2012 CJ 300 class,
describes a person born hedonistic as one that is self-centered. The concept of hedonism holds

THINKING ABOUT CRIME

that a person has the predisposition to participate in behavior that maximizes the amount of
pleasure and minimizes the amount of pain (Howell CJ 300 Class Handout, 2012). The wife and
the teen are both selfishly engaging in actions they see as maximizing the amount of pleasure
received. Hedonism is in stark contrast with the concept of tabula rasa. Tabula rasa embraces
the notion that people are not born selfish, rather, they are born with a blank slate (Howell CJ
300 Class Handout, 2012). Criminal or deviant pleasure increasing behavior is not inherent in
us; we learn it from others. It seems intuitive, to me, that people are not born tabula rasa. A
newborn child, surely, has the motivation to increase the amount of pleasure and decrease the
amount of pain he or she receives, and this behavior cannot be learned. The newborn does not
even know what he or she is doing, the newborn simply likes pleasure and dislikes pain.
The teen is hedonistic in the sense that he views obtaining a new pair of sneakers as the
course of action that will bring about a larger amount of pleasure than the course of action that
does not lead to his possession of a new pair of sneakers, so he chooses the course of action that
gives him new sneakers. However, hedonism does not explain why the teen actually commits
the crime and steals the sneakers. I find myself inclined to side with determinism as an
explanation of the teens behavior. Although, my conception of determinism may differ, slightly,
from that found in Rebecca Howells CJ 300 notes, the notes suffice for a basic understanding of
the view. Determinism holds that our behavior is not 100 percent voluntary. Internal and
external forces, outside of our control, determine our actions (Howell CJ 300 Class Handout,
2012). There are two types of determinism, hard and soft. Hard determinism is the view that
there is no such thing as voluntary action, and we therefore are not responsible for our actions.
While soft determinism allows for some free choice and holds that our behavior is only partially

THINKING ABOUT CRIME

determined by internal and external forces, and we can be held partially responsible (Howell CJ
300 Class Handout, 2012).
I favor the view of the soft determinist. However, I need to make clear my reasoning for
this. In my view, I see the term free choice as being a choice that is made without being
coerced, tricked, or forced. No one is holding a gun to the head of the teen, forcing him to steal
the sneakers. In that sense, the teen is making a free choice; yet, it not as if the teen could have
not stolen the sneakers. The events of the teens life (all of them) coupled with the teens internal
factors (that he also has no say over in the matter) have left him in a situation where he will
always steal the sneakers. That is not to say that he will always go into malls and steal sneakers;
but that, in a situation where, if the events could somehow be rolled back, and the teen again
finds himself outside the mall in the exact moments before the theft, the teen would always walk
into the mall and steal the sneakers. No matter how many times you put the teen outside the
mall, I contend that he will always walk inside and steal the sneakers. Nevertheless, this does
not leave me with the view of the hard determinist, that we are not accountable for our actions.
The teen was not coerced or forced into stealing the sneakers, he made, in my view, a free choice
to engage in the theft and therefore should be held accountable for his actions. It becomes very
difficult when you try to understand your motives behind any course of action you took. I do not
see how we can be said to be the arbiter of our wants, desires, and motives which drive our
actions. Nonetheless, I side with the soft determinist and see assigning responsibility for our
individual actions as not being an issue. Ultimately, if we are to praise and reward one another
for our actions, I see it as a necessity. With my view of human nature and behavior thoroughly
conveyed, I now turn my discussion to the criminal theories of Travis Hirschi.

THINKING ABOUT CRIME

The criminologist with views towards human nature and behavior similar to my own is
Travis Hirschi. Hirschi is responsible for two major theories of crime, social bonding theory and
general theory of crime. Social bonding theory argues that the determining factor behind if
someone breaks the law or not is how strong of a social bond he or she has (Akers & Sellers,
2009). The social bond is ones tie to society. Hirschi describes the social bond as being
composed of 4 elements, attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. If any of the 4
elements is weak or nonexistent, then delinquent behavior will occur (Akers & Sellers, 2009).
Many years later, Hirschi seems to jettison the social bond as the key factor in criminal behavior
in favor of low self-control. General theory of crime, while preserving the concepts of hedonism
and soft determinism, argues that low self-control is the sole factor in criminal behavior (Akers
& Sellers, 2009). According to Hirschi, humans are born selfish and must be taught self-control,
because without a high level of self-control, we will resort to criminal behavior when presented
with the opportunity. However, there is one aspect of Hirschis general control theory that I tend
to disagree with. Hirschi argues that ones level of self-control stabilizes at the age of 8, and
remains at that level throughout life (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The primary cause of a person
committing less crime as he or she ages is, not a change in self-control, but rather less
opportunity for criminal behavior. While there are aspects of Hirschis two theories that I do not
agree with, I find them as the best explanation of crime that I have studied. I, also, am not
convinced that Hirschi completely disregarded the social bond when forming the general theory
of crime, and for that reason, I find the two theories more harmonious than one might first glean
from their descriptions, however, this paper is not the place for such a discussion.
Together, Hirschis criminal theories explain a large amount of crime. Many murders,
assaults, and harassments can easily be explained with the general theory of crime. A person has

THINKING ABOUT CRIME

a low level of self-control, becomes angry, and resorts to criminal actions to solve the matter. I
see this type of action in my brother. He easily becomes angry and often finds himself in
altercations that sometimes turn violent. After the fact, he can reflect on the situation and realize
that violence was not the best answer. If he had a higher level of self-control, he would have
been able to reflect on the situation, as it was occurring, and prevented himself from performing
the illegal action. It is not as if my brother decided to have a low level of self-control, he simply
does. Hirschis social bonding theory offers an explanation for a number of crimes as well.
Social bonding theory explains why people commit crimes that are illegal in one state or county,
but not the next. The United States of America has different laws for each for each state, as well
as federal laws. Not only are there 50 different state laws that one must follow, but also within
each state, there are different county and city laws or ordinances to abide by. There are literally
thousands of different laws that one is required to abide by. If, like many of my friends, you
believe that there is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana, and you live in a state that
criminalizes marijuana possession, you are required, by law, to not have marijuana in your
possession. The element of belief can be employed here. If the individual does not believe that
the laws are correct, he or she looses respect for authority. The authority that tells the individual
that smoking marijuana is illegal, and therefore the individual will commit illegal acts.
There are many other types of crimes that Hirschis two theories help explain. Many
more than this paper can, or will, properly discuss. However, until I learn about a theory of crime
that provides better explanations of crime than Hirschis social bonding theory and general
theory of crime, I will continue to subscribe to the views.

THINKING ABOUT CRIME

7
References

Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and
application (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Howell CJ 300 Class Handout. (2012, Spring). CJ 300: Survey of Criminological Theories.
University of Alabama, Department of Criminal Justice: Dr. Rebecca Howell.