Criminological control theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminological control theories (also called attachment or hold theories ) differ from other theories of crime in that they reverse the original question. This is not about the question of the causes of deviant and criminal behavior. Control theorists start from the assumption that criminal behavior corresponds to the original nature of humans and investigate why most people nonetheless behave socially compliant . Their explanation lies in the development of a person's internal and external control or his ties to society or in the ability of an individual to control himself. Conversely, the occurrence of crime can be explained by (self-) control or loyalty deficits; Another assumption for conforming behavior is seen in the largely balanced relationship between a person's control power and subordination to control.

All criminological control theories were drafted by researchers from the United States . Early stop theories by Albert J. Reiss (1951), Francis Ivan Nye (1958) and Walter C. Reckless (1961) have only historical significance in textbook criminology. Reiss and Nye put crime-inhibiting inner support at the center of their approaches, Reckless added the element of outer support to the inner support . The attachment theory of Travis Hirschi (1969) is still the most influential control theory. It names four types of bond to society that guarantee behavior that conforms to standards. In 1990, Hirschi published together with Michael R. Gottfredson a self-control theory which , in the opinion of its authors, explained all criminality and its avoidance. This theory received a lot of attention, but could not meet the claim to be a general theory of crime . Charles R. Tittle offered a new and atypical perspective in 1995 with his theory of control balance . It is about the effects of differently distributed possibilities of control over others as well as the degree of exposure to control of others. From the point of view of theory, only a balance between these elements promises conformal behavior. This approach meets the demands of a general theory of crime more than that of Gottfredson and Hirschi.

Basic assumptions of control theories

"The question:" Why do they do it? "Is simply not the question, the theory is designed to answer. The question is: "Why don't we do it?" "
(German:" The question: "Why do you do that?" Is simply not the question to which the theory should give an answer. The question is: "Why don't we? ".")
- Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency , 1969.

Criminological control theories require a consensus of values ​​and norms to which the members of the respective community are more or less strongly bound. But they also assume that there is a general human tendency to act that violate this consensus . The reason for this is that such acts can be particularly attractive and there are many opportunities for them. In this way they orientate themselves on the classical approaches of Thomas Hobbes , Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria , rejecting the positivistic crime theories of the 20th century . Accordingly, humans are not naturally good, but primarily aim to satisfy their needs and avoid pain and suffering.

According to Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Tobias Singelnstein, control theorists are primarily interested in "how the appetite for unconventional, criminal satisfaction of needs within the vast majority of those who abide by the law is curbed". The only thing that needs to be explained is the reluctance to conform to the norms when acting out criminal impulses. This is definitely revolutionary for a crime theory, since crime no longer needs an explanation from this perspective of perception.

Maintenance theories (containment Theories)

The early representatives of control theory listed in criminological textbooks formulated explanatory approaches, which are characterized by the designation Containment Theory used by Reckless ( containment theory or hold theory ). They describe what keeps impulses for deviant behavior in check. These older theories are at best dealt with cursory in the textbooks, often just Reckless is mentioned or they are not presented at all.

Albert J. Reiss (1951)

Albert J. Reiss published a first criminological hold theory in the American Sociological Review in 1951 . According to this, socially compliant behavior depends to a large extent on the influence of intact relationships between children and parents and on parental upbringing. Deviant behavior is therefore the result of a failure of the family as the most important primary group in the educational process. If the child does not succeed in communicating his social role in a binding manner and in teaching him how to reconcile it with his needs, the likelihood of deviation increases. The theoretical approach falls back on psychoanalytic categories: Social deviation is therefore related to weakly developed ego and superego instances. There is a lack of inner stability and thus immunization against criminal temptations.

Francis Ivan Nye (1958)

The family sociologist Francis Ivan Nye argues similarly in his 1958 monograph Family Relations and Delinquent Behavior . The tendency to crime potentially lurking in all people should be contained with four forms of control: direct control, such as coercion and punishment; internalized control exercised by the conscience; indirect control through affective identification with parents and other non-criminal persons, as well as the availability of alternative means to achieve goals.

Walter C. Reckless (1961)

With the third edition of his book The crime problem, Walter C. Reckless published the Containment Theory in 1961 . He provides the self-concept (inner support) with the external support that the individual experiences from family, friends and acquaintances. In doing so, he draws on the findings of the Chicago School of Sociology , to which he himself belonged. From their concept of social disorganization and personality traits, he developed his containment theory .

He identifies social constraints (pushes) and social incentives (pulls) as criminogenic (i.e. crime-promoting ) factors . Social pressures are social inequality and the resulting reduced social opportunities. Social incentives include factors that divert people from their daily routines and encourage them to choose other lifestyles. These include influential deviants from their circle of friends and delinquent subcultures . Barriers known as containment mechanisms protect against the influence of such factors. These are families and social groups that convey positive social values. The next barrier is the inner containment factor, consciousness . A strong sense of self-worth and developed self-confidence , a high level of frustration tolerance and a pronounced sense of responsibility prevent delinquency .

Hirschi's Theory of Attachment (Causes of Delinquency)

Statements of the attachment theory

With his monograph Causes of Delinquency , Travis Hirschi presented the most influential control theory to date. It makes the adoption is elaborated that social bonds (social bonds) discourage people from criminal acts. Hirschi names attachment , commitment , involvement and belief as elements of such social ties . That means:

  • Attachment to meaningful persons - emotional attachment of the individual to relevant caregivers. This bond leads to the fact that the person consciously and unconsciously orientates himself to the behavior of the caregiver and takes their interests, needs and expectations into account in his actions.
  • Commitment to conventional goals - the orientation of the individual's life planning towards conventional goals, such as professional success and security. This also includes weighing up what could be personally gained or lost through deviant behavior.
  • Involvement in conventional activities - temporal and spatial involvement of the individual in conventional activities such as school, work, structured leisure activities. There is no deviant behavior due to a lack of time and opportunity.
  • Belief in social rules - conformity of the individual with social norms and values.

The stronger these elements of attachment to society are, the more likely it is to conform. The elements are closely related, the weakening of one of them leads to the weakening of the other.

With regard to the avoidance of juvenile delinquency, Hirschi concludes: Young people behave less deviantly, the more they are integrated into their family, the better their school performance and the more they are embedded in conforming structures - regardless of the deviating behavior of their peers . There is no significant causal link between social class and crime.

Criminological reception

Frank Neubacher counts Hirschi's concept of attachment to the core of criminological theories. It is also of lasting importance for Michael Bock , because it has integrated essential findings from older criminological research. Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Tobias Singelnstein rate similarly : The attachment concept is a superficially acting “everyday model” and general enough to integrate a multitude of personality and socialization theory assumptions. The integrative power and easy verifiability of the theory have given it great attention and acceptance.

After the publication of Causes of delinquency , numerous research papers have empirically verified Hirschi's concept . In these studies, the connection between the four elements of attachment and various forms of criminal activity was confirmed. However, the correlations found were only moderate for light crime and low for more serious crime. Thus, Hirschi's attachment theory seems to be more capable of explaining easier forms of criminal activity than more difficult ones. Some research has also found that adolescents tend to commit criminal acts when they are tied to peer groups who do the same, but that they act compliant when tied to peer groups where compliant acts are common. This contradicts Hirschi's assumptions and is an anomaly in terms of his theory .

Wolfgang Stelly and Jürgen Thomas point out that, although causes of delinquency is conceived as a general theory of crime , Hirschi only operationalized and empirically checked his concept of attachment for childhood and adolescence. An explanation for continuity or changes in crime in the further course of life cannot be found with him.

Self-Control Theory (A General Theory of Crime)

Statements of self-control theory

Michael R. Gottfredson
"It is meant to explain all crime, at all time, and, for that matter, many forms of behavior that are not sanctioned by the state."
(German: "All crimes should be explained at all times, including many behaviors, which are not sanctioned by the state. ")
- Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime , 1990

With A General Theory of Crime , Gottfredson and Hirschi presented a theory in 1990 that claims to capture crime in the cross-cultural wholeness of its manifestations. It is expressly intended as an originally criminological approach, the usual recourse in this scientific discipline to the reference disciplines of biology , psychology , economics and sociology is dispensed with because such theories are too closely related to the original disciplines and do not allow a perspective adequate to the research subject. The nature of crime postulated by Gottfredson and Hirschi differs significantly from traditional explanations. Their definition of crime goes well beyond the usual definition and includes delinquency, deviance and risky lifestyle. According to the theory, criminal acts in this broad sense have the following characteristics:

  • They promise immediate and easy rewards (for example, money without work or sex without a partnership).
  • They contain characteristics typical of a milieu, traditional concepts of masculinity, such as aggressiveness, body emphasis and willingness to take risks.
  • They have little long-term benefit.
  • They require little cognitive effort and little manual effort.
  • They are associated with inflicting pain and discomfort for the victim.
  • They also carry the risk of suffering pain as a perpetrator. People with greater pain tolerance are therefore more likely (regardless of their level of self-control) to be involved in crimes.
  • They make it easier to deal with situations that are perceived as stressful in a satisfactory manner in the event of momentary confusion or cognitive overload.
  • Subjectively, there is usually a low risk of punishment for criminal acts.

The essence of crime is thus determined solely by a lack of self-control ; in reverse, this results in the exclusive answer to the question of how and why people are held back from such actions. Self-control in the sense of the theory has the following properties:

  • It is the result of an interplay of disposition and upbringing. The less self-control is innate, the more education is needed.
  • It is a stable personality trait.
  • Because everyone strives for short-term satisfaction, self-control is primarily the ability to consider the long-term consequences of an action.
  • Crime is an expression of a lack of self-control (overemphasis on short-term satisfaction).
  • Lack of self-control is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for criminal activity. It is also important to have a tempting act.

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, people who do not have sufficient self-control tend to be impulsive, poor in sensitivity, physical rather than mental qualities, short-sighted willingness to take risks and moderate linguistic expression. Since these characteristics can already be determined at an age when individuals are not yet officially held responsible for criminal acts, countermeasures can still be taken in childhood through education (in family and school). Conditions for this are: child behavior is supervised; deviant behavior is identified as such when it occurs; deviant behavior is effectively punished. Such an upbringing is best guaranteed in intact small families. It is also recommended to limit unsupervised activities by young people.

A later strengthening of the self-control is no longer possible, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi; low self-control, and thus the tendency to criminal acts, remains lifelong.

Criminological reception

The theory has received a lot of attention in recent years, which, according to Frank Neubacher, is not surprising in view of the self-imposed goal of presenting a generally valid theory of crime. The demanding project aroused expectations that would be disappointed. The theory is certainly not a comprehensive one, at best it can explain parts of the crime scene, but not economic crime or the crime of the powerful . In addition, the continuity of problem behavior assumed in the theory can hardly be reconciled with the findings of criminological life-course research .

According to Kunz and Singelnstein, the theory is based on a neoconservative model of society. It corresponds to a puritanical ethic that condemns the spontaneous gratification of instincts and propagates postponement of needs. The model for the individual is an adapted, self-disciplined person who is tamed in his instincts and who adopts the standards of parental upbringing. The responsibility for socially undesirable and criminal behavior would essentially be placed on the parents and thus society would be relieved of responsibility for anti- sociality . Criminal policy is reduced to preventing criminal opportunities. Several recipients in the USA criticized the fact that such offenses play an important role in Gottfredson and Hirschi's concept, but are neglected in the context of the theory.

For Wolfgang Stelly and Jürgen Thomas the theory raises the question: “Which abnormalities are an expression of poor self-control and which are not?” Gottfredson and Hirschi would only answer this question by listing various abnormalities. This not only makes the connection between cause and effect very blurred, but also gives the explanatory approach tautological features: social abnormalities are explained with a low level of self-control, which is only recognizable in these social abnormalities. The US criminal sociologist Ronald L. Akers had already raised the charge of tautology a year after the General Theory of Crime was published.

Theory of control Balance (Control balance. Toward a General Theory of Deviance)

Statements of the control balance theory

With Control Balance. Toward a General Theory of Deviance , Charles R. Tittle presented a theory in 1995 that focuses on the control ratio . This arises for each person individually from the relationship between the degree of his ability to exercise control over others (autonomy) and the degree of control he is exposed to (repression). Conforming behavior can only be expected if the control ratio is halfway balanced . If the control balance is disturbed, however, criminal acts are to be expected. Such imbalance can consist of either an excess or a deficit of control.

People with a high social status have a surplus of control options in the absence of control. Their abundance of power, which is experienced as a matter of course, harbors the risk of being misused. This can be reflected in capital-accumulating property and property crimes , but also in domestic and sexual violence against children or older people in need of care.

People with a low social status, on the other hand, have a lack of control that is associated with feelings of powerlessness and poor self-esteem . The likelihood of criminal behavior increases with strong submission to control and a simultaneous lack of control options. The theory does not assume that the likelihood of criminal conduct increases with the intensity of the control imbalance. Rather, it is assumed that a severely disturbed control balance favors forms of deviance that can be interpreted pathologically . Smaller imbalances, on the other hand, tend to lead to rationally motivated deviations (e.g. acts of enrichment by the less well-off). If the repression is strong, it leads to submissive and resigned behavior (such as tolerating abuse, passive acceptance of sexual harassment).

Criminological reception

According to Michael Bock, the strength of the control balance theory lies in the fact that a large number of criminal phenomena can be explained with a uniform and simple basic pattern. In contrast to other control theories, the Tittle approach has the advantage of including the crime of the powerful, economic crime and political offenses more than before in the criminological investigation.

Kunz and Singelnstein ascribe a socio-political position to the control balance theory, which differs from the conservative standpoint of traditional attachment theories: “Beyond criminal interventions, the aim is to create the conditions for an egalitarian republican society that redistributes social power and income, and control more uniformly and applies more humane and promotes communitarian ties under the sign of the balance of power. "

literature

Primary literature

Secondary literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Travis Hirschi : Causes of delinquency . University of California Press, Berkeley 1969, p. 34.
  2. ^ Stefanie Eifler : Criminal sociology . Transcript, Bielefeld 2002, p. 44.
  3. ^ Siegfried Lamnek , Susanne Vogl: Theories of deviant behavior II: "Modern" approaches. 4th edition, UTB - W. Fink, Stuttgart 2017, p. 97.
  4. ^ Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Tobias Singelnstein : Criminology. A foundation . 7th, fundamentally revised edition, Haupt, Bern 2016, p. 129.
  5. ^ For example, in Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Tobias Singelnstein: Kriminologie. A foundation . 7th, fundamentally revised edition, Haupt, Bern 2016, p. 130.
  6. ↑ For example with Michael Bock : Kriminologie. For study and practice . 4th edition, Franz Vahlen, Munich 2013, p. 50. - In the section on attachment and control theories , Bock first mentions Travis Hirschi's (original) theory of the four bonds .
  7. ^ Albert J. Reiss : Delinquency as the Failure of Personal and Social Controls . In: American Sociological Review , Volume 16, Issue 2, April 1951, pp. 196-207, JSTOR 2087693 .
  8. ^ Hans-Dieter Schwind : Criminology. A practice-oriented introduction with examples . 18th edition, Kriminalistik, Heidelberg 2008, p. 116.
  9. ^ Francis Ivan Nye : Family Relations and Delinquent Behavior . Wiley, New York 1958.
  10. ^ Tilmann Moser : Juvenile delinquency and social structure. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1987, p. 154.
  11. ^ Walter C. Reckless : The crime problem . 3rd edition, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York 1961.
  12. ↑ Helmut Janssen and Friedhelm Peters: Criminology for social work . Votum, Münster 1997, p. 84 f.
  13. ↑ Travis Hirschi: Causes of delinquency . University of California Press, Berkeley 1969.
  14. ^ Stefanie Eifler: Criminal sociology . Transcript, Bielefeld 2002, p. 45.
  15. ↑ Travis Hirschi: Causes of delinquency . University of California Press, Berkeley 1969, p. 16 ff.
  16. ↑ In the presentation by Wolfgang Stelly and Jürgen Thomas: Once a criminal - always a criminal? Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden 2001, p. 62.
  17. ↑ In the representation of Helmut Janssen and Friedhelm Peters: Kriminologie für Soziale Arbeit . Votum, Münster 1997, p. 88.
  18. ^ Frank Neubacher : Criminology. 3rd edition, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, p. 101.
  19. ↑ Michael Bock: Criminology. For study and practice. 4th edition, Franz Vahlen, Munich 2013, p. 51.
  20. ^ Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Tobias Singelnstein: Criminology. A foundation. 7th, fundamentally revised edition, Haupt, Bern 2016, p. 131.
  21. ^ Stefanie Eifler : Criminal sociology . Transcript, Bielefeld 2002, p. 46 f.
  22. ↑ Wolfgang Stelly and Jürgen Thomas: Once a criminal - always a criminal? Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden 2001, p. 62 f.
  23. ↑ Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi: A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford 1990, p. 117.
  24. ↑ The presentation of the theory is based on: Siegfried Lamnek and Susanne Vogl: Theories of deviating behavior II. "Modern" approaches . 4th edition, UTB - W. Fink, Stuttgart 2017, pp. 96-134.
  25. ^ Frank Neubacher : Criminology . 3rd edition, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, p. 103 f.
  26. ^ Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Tobias Singelnstein: Criminology. A foundation . 7th, fundamentally revised edition, Haupt, Bern 2016, p. 161.
  27. ^ Stefanie Eifler : Criminal sociology . Transcript, Bielefeld 2002, p. 64.
  28. ↑ Wolfgang Stelly and Jürgen Thomas: Once a criminal - always a criminal? Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden 2001, p. 110.
  29. ↑ Ronald L. Akers : Self-Control as a General Theory of Crime . In: Journal of Quantitative Crim & ology , Volume 7, Issue 2, 1991, pp. 201–211, here p. 210.
  30. ^ Charles R. Tittle : Control Balance. Toward a General Theory of Deviance . Westview Press, Boulder 1995.
  31. ↑ The presentation of the theory is based on: Michael Bock, Kriminologie. For study and practice . 4th edition, Franz Vahlen, Munich 2013, p. 51 f .; as well as Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Tobias Singelnstein, criminology. A foundation . 7th, fundamentally revised edition, Haupt, Bern 2016, pp. 135 ff.
  32. ↑ Michael Bock: Criminology. For study and practice. 4th edition, Franz Vahlen, Munich 2013, p. 51.
  33. ^ Karl-Ludwig Kunz and Tobias Singelnstein: Criminology. A foundation , 7th, fundamentally revised edition, Haupt, Bern 2016, p. 136 f.
This article was added to the list of articles worth reading on March 12, 2018 in this version .