Social the widespread interest of criminal researchers. Since then,

Social
control crime is one of the three sociological viewpoints of contemporary
criminology. Sociologists believe that an abiding social rule is generated and
maintained by relationships with people and institutions – family members,
friends, schools and work. In short, crime and bad behavior can occur when
personal and social relationships are flimsy or easy to break. As social
security increases, the cost of individual’s crime also rises a lot. In the
book of The New Jim Crow mentions that poor black people is easier to get to be
violence, drugs and criminal because they are usually living in the gutters (Alexander, Michelle. 2012).

  The theory of social control dates back to hundreds
of years from now, it was not until the mid-20th century that the theory began
to attract the widespread interest of criminal researchers. Since then, it has
been one of the most common tests in the scientific literature and received
substantial empirical support. Its research and policy implications may lead to
controversy in modern criminal law theory. The influence of social control
theory on the actual crime control policy is not significant. Social control theory
does not support the expansion of criminal justice system. They do not like
large-scale police forces or long-term detention as crime control policies.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Instead, they tend to build stronger relationships between individuals and
society. I want to show two tasks, the first one about the importance parts of
social relations and the second one about the significance of social control
over crime and finding out the importance of people and institutions in social
control crime.

  Social control theory holds that one can see
the advantages of crime and be able to invent and execute all kinds of crime in
the field without special motivation or prior training. It assumes that the
impulse to commit a crime is rejected because of the costs associated with such
behavior. Let’s assumes that the major cost of crime is disapproval of those
who are concerned by potential offenders. If a potential offender is concerned
with anyone, he or she is free to commit the crime. Sociologists often explain
this sensitive result. They tell us that the sensitivities are continuous, some
more than the others, and others less than the others. This is the position
taken by the control theorists. They focus on how sensitive people are to
others’ opinions and predict that this variable will predict the crime rate.

Sociologists points out ideas to us that sensitivity is a continuum, some more
than others and some less than others. This is the position taken by the
control theorists. They focus on how sensitive people are to others’ opinions
and predict that this variable will predict crime and crime rates. Sensitivity
means emotions or feelings, and the elements of the social contract are trying
to capture the consistency and abnormal emotion involved. Social control theorists
use that attachment as the abstract generalization of the concept.

  In the Rio’s book of “Youth Control Complex”
said ” a system in which school, police, probation officers, families,
community centers, the media, business and other institutions systematically
treat young people’s everyday behavior as criminal” (Rios, Victor. 2011), this is point out that family,
school and other social environment can lead young people to be a good person
or a person who break law. I will focus on parts of family and school to
support Rio’s idea. There is
evidence that family relations are closely linked to (non) crimes. In a study
examining the impact of social control on crime, these studies found a negative
correlation between parental attachment and crime. Therefore, the greater the
attachment to parents, the less likely they are to engage in illegal
activities. It is noteworthy that in only one study of this report, only one
parent was found to have no influence on criminal behavior (Brannigan et al.,
2002). Also according to Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck’s article of “Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency”,
they found that the impact of fathers and mothers on children is one of the
five best predictors of crime. They also found that from another perspective,
emotional relationships between children and their parents tend to be weaker
among criminals. From this we can conclude that family attachment plays a role
in the child’s socialization and maintains his or her subsequent compliance
with social rules. Researchers report that home attachments may explain the
obvious impact of other variables.

These interrelationships are certainly
evidence of the importance of parental supervision. They are better seen as
evidence of the importance of communication between parents and children (Glueck,
S., & Glueck, E. 1950).

  Another evidence is the young
people how often attend to school also can be an accurate predictor of crime. The
study found that young people who performed so often came from classrooms that
lacked emotional support for their students. Students in classrooms that show
strong supportability and sociality between the ages of 10 and 11 are less
likely to perform furiously at 12 and 13 years of age (Sprott 2004). There is
one film that we took a look in class called Juvies Documentary shows many
interviews talk about their life in a special prison for teenagers and their
feeling and thoughts after those young teenagers break law. Those Juvies are
not attending to school very much or not go to school, and family connection
with them usually is very weak especially in their rebellious period. According
to Brookmeyer mentions in his article, he found that young people who committed
more and more violent crimes in the second survey were more likely than other
young people to express their connections with the school. In addition,
positive relationships were also found with feelings of parents and with
school. The findings highlight the potential role parents and schools can play
in preventing violence against young people (Brookmeyer et al 2006).

The theory of social control is called
the life course theory in the form of social division. The idea is simple:
individuals are controlled by their relationships with important people and
institutions in life. As they go through the stages of their lives, these
people and institutions change automatically. The power of their meaning and
their relationship may change. A favorite example is the transition from target
families, parents and siblings to spouse families and children. In principle,
the transition from one family to another may be a period of deregulation, with
relatively no social ties, leading to high crime rates. In principle, the
successful completion of this transition is problematic. Adolescents may
eventually be firmly covered by work, church, community and family or he or she
may be in the senior, short and adolescent stages that are closely related to
adult institutional centers. Minor criminals may easily become law-abiding
adults, while adolescent obedience may easily become late-adult criminals.

Social control theory is based on data collected over
time. Therefore, it cannot directly address the issues of change and
transition. However, the design of this issue of change and transition is
firmly in mind. If the link between juvenile delinquency and adult crime
depends on unforeseen events, there is no problem with the theory. It assumes
that strong bonds may weaken or break, and people and institutions may change
their character or cease to exist. It also assumes that weak keys can be
enhanced, and that they can be built where they did not exist before.

Therefore, the theory of social control is considered as the only major theory
that can deal with the changes of crime and crime in life. But existing
data suggest that the truth is not so complicated. The data shows that the
level of individual crime is relatively stable, and the distribution of the
crime age distribution is the same as that of the group. According to the
Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson rejected the idea of a crime life course
clearly, they said that once a criminal act was established in the late
childhood, the criminal behavior would be stable and constant.(Hirschi, Michael
Gottfredson, 1995) In other words, they said that if a researcher ranked a
child at age 8, he or she could find the same grade at any age at 15 and
beyond. They argue that no theory of criminology, including social control
theory, can explain the relationship between age and crime (Hirschi, Michael
Gottfredson, 1983).

  The current crime control policy in the
United States emphasizes the value of imprisonment and treatment or
rehabilitation on the one hand. A further increase in academic interest in
so-called “professional criminals” and the swift, definitive and
rigorous punishment of agents who believe criminal justice requires a criminal
justice system have exacerbated the incarceration rate. Politicians, the media,
an influential part of academic criminology and of course the focus of law
enforcement on their own to encourage punishment. Crime is a boon to them, and
they do not lose it. Care and the improvement of punishment will automatically
generate more potential offenders, probation, prisoners and parole – they are
considered to benefit from the modern treatment and rehabilitation scheme. Believe it to
punish provides a humane alternative, therefore encourage to treatment. It is
also encouraging to believe that it is effective in reducing the amount of
criminal and illegal behavior. Recently, where treatment has not been
considered effective, it is now possible to answer the question of validity in
advance by advocating evidence-based programs. Emphasis on treatment is from
the group of sociologists, psychologists, social workers and social services.

  Social control theory often does not provide
concrete and positive guidance on crime control policies. Those who attack
their policy implications tend to focus on the abhorrent implications of
“control,” suggesting that control theorists tend to be selectively
disabled and attach importance to the ignorance of individual freedom. Control
theorists may be partly unwilling to play a policy game for this reason, but
the policy implications of control theory may be self-evident. If weakening
social ties is a cause of criminal activity, the direct way to reduce the
problem of crime is to help individuals to strengthen their relationship with
society.