Criminological theories exist in order to explain what is considered criminal or delinquent behavior. They also exist in order to explain why people engage in delinquent behaviors, and by what functions and processes they learn these behaviors. There are micro level criminological theories, which look at behaviors within individuals, and macro theories, which look at whole communities and differences within and between communities that could contribute to delinquent behavior. These theories set out to explain why people commit crimes, and also why people do not or would not commit crimes, which is also very important to look at, especially in the area of crime prevention. If why someone chooses not to commit a crime when they could have is defined, it could be used to stop more people from committing that crime. Many different theories can be applied to individual cases or scenarios in order to explain the behaviors, thoughts, and attitudes that a person has that drive them to commit a crime.
Scenario
In this case, we are looking at 56 year old David Hernandez, who was arrested (most recently) for sexual assault. He does have an extensive criminal history, with charges such as assault on a family member, robbery/theft, aggravated assault, and two counts of sexual assault of a child. He also has a history of alcohol and drug abuse, dating back to the age of 15. From the ages of 15 to 18, he was homeless. As a juvenile, Hernandez was arrested for shoplifting. He was first imprisoned for 2 years for assault at 18, and, within 6 months of being released from prion, he was arrested again for robbery. A few years later, he was charged with aggravated assault and sexual assault of a child (two counts), and was subsequently incarcerated for 23 years. He was released 9 years ago, and does not have any criminal charges since then. The details of his most current arrest for sexual assault are as follows: he met with a woman on the bus they both ride, they went to dinner and left the restaurant at about 9:30. At 10:45, dispatchers received a call from the victim, and Hernandez was arrested. He reported that he did not know what happened, but did admit to being under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the crime. There are many different theories that we can use to analyze this situation, but, first, we must understand some theories that could be applied to this case.
Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory is a theory that focuses on how people pick up their behaviors. The theory suggests that people learn from their environment, and what they learn is what forms their thoughts and behaviors (Leonard & Blane, 1999). Social learning theory is based on a theory called differential association theory. This theory proposed that criminal behavior is learned through interactions with other people. Criminals learn, through their social groups, two main things in relation to criminal behavior: the actual mechanics as far as how to commit crimes, and the attitudes and beliefs that would drive them to commit those crimes. People commit crimes because their attitudes and belief systems align with delinquent behavior (Akers, Sellers, & Jennings, 2017). Social learning theory takes this a step further and tries to explain and define exactly how these attitudes and behaviors are learned. The first concept that social learning theory proposes is differential reinforcement, which means that the conscious behaviors and actions of a person are shaped by how their actions are rewarded or punished. The second concept is classical or “respondent” conditioning, which means that unconscious behaviors are encouraged or discouraged by rewards or punishments. The third concept is called discriminative stimuli, which means that we pick up on and display certain behaviors based on internal and external stimuli. The last concept that the theory proposes to explain how behaviors are learned is schedules of reinforcement, which is the term used to discuss how quickly and how much behaviors are rewarded or punished(Akers, Sellers, & Jennings, 2017. Both differential association theory and, since it is a continuation of this theory, social learning theory talk a lot about “definitions.” Definitions are attitudes or beliefs that a person has about specific behaviors. There are different types of definitions that can be used to explain different attitudes and beliefs and how they relate to the behaviors. The first type of definitions are general definitions, which are broad definitions that could cover a wide range of behaviors. Someone’s religion could shape how they feel about many different things, such as premarital sex, same sex marriage, working on certain days of the week, and many other things that, alone, do not relate to one another. Specific definitions are attitudes and beliefs about particular, individual behaviors, such as drinking, drug use, and specific crimes, such as speeding or stealing. Negative definitions are attitudes and beliefs that would make a person disagree with certain behaviors. If someone does not steal from a store because they believe that stealing is wrong, they have a negative definition of stealing. Positive definitions, on the other had, are attitudes and beliefs that would make it more likely that a person would engage in certain behaviors. If someone drinks and drives because they see nothing wrong with it or they have seen the people around them do it with no issue, they have a positive definition of this at. Neutralizing definitions are attitudes and beliefs that can be used to justify a behavior that they have negative definitions of in order for them to engage in that behavior. Examples of this would be speeding through a school zone because one is late for work, or someone saying that, because of their personality or the way they were raised, their behavior is excusable. In the case of David Hernandez, we know that he grew up in a foster home in which abuse occurred. He says that he was in trouble a lot in the foster home, but says that he was never abused like his foster siblings were. We cannot say for certain whether or not that is true, but, even if it is, he still grew up in an environment where abuse is seen as acceptable. In his home, he learned positive definitions of abuse, which, according to this theory, would have gone on to shape his behaviors and attitudes as an adult. This would explain his repeated offenses against other people; if he has positive definitions of patterns of abuse, he would see nothing wrong with abusing others. Alternatively, he may not have positive definitions of abuse, but he may have neutralizing definitions of abuse. He may understand that what he is doing is wrong, but he justifies his actions with his home situation growing up. He was charged for beating his girlfriend up at 18, which is behavior that he saw and learned in his home growing up. He robbed a gas station for food and money, behaviors that he could have learned from his foster siblings or from others during his time living on the streets.
Rational Choice Theory
Rational choice theory is a relatively straightforward theory that says that people commit crimes because committing the crime is the rational choice to them (Akers, Sellers & Jennings, 2017); the potential benefits or gains the person would get by committing the crime outweighs the potential consequences or costs, or the risk of being caught is not high in proportion to the benefits. This is obvious in premeditated crimes, such as premeditated murder, robbery, white collar crime, etc., but can still be theoretically true in spur of the moment crimes too, because the person committing the crime still makes the active choice to commit the crime, even if they had not planned on it in advance. This is not to say that someone who is planning to commit a crime takes time to sit down and go over each and every pro and con to committing a crime, but humans are rational, thinking creatures, so there is thought that goes into every decision whether consciously or not. To demonstrate this concept, say that someone is driving home from work and they are trying to decide whether or not to get McDonald’s for dinner instead of cooking food at home. There are many factors that go into the decision – going to McDonald’s could cost money, the food is not healthy, they could get stuck in the drive through, the restaurant could get their order wrong, etc. On the other hand, the food at home will not cost any money, it is healthier, but it would take more time and effort to make food at home versus going through a drive through. They will come to a decision either way, and, more than likely, they did not take the time to list every question and answer it in their head before making a decision. That does not mean that they did not make a rational choice – a conscious choice where the pros outweigh the cons, and which choice is the rational choice depends on the person themselves. That example, of course, does not relate to committing a crime, but the same basic idea applies. Say that you have two people in the exact same situation but in different places. They are walking down the street, completely alone, when they see a wallet up ahead on the ground. They both pick up the wallet and look inside, and the owner’s information is inside the wallet. Person A called the owner of the wallet and arranges to return it to them as soon as possible. Person B looks around and sees that no one has seen him before pocketing the wallet. When Person B gets home, they take all the cash out of the wallet and trash everything else. In this case, two people were faced with the exact same situation but responded in opposite ways; both made the rational choice. The distinction is that what is the rational choice to one person may not be the rational choice to another person. Person B did not plan their crime in advance; rather, they decided on the spot to keep the wallet that did not belong to them rather than returning it to its rightful owner. They also did not consciously list out all the pros (getting money) and cons (getting caught and getting in trouble) before making the choice to steal the wallet. Instead, they quickly assessed the situation and made the decision that getting the money was worth the risk of getting caught, especially since no one else saw them take the wallet. Rational choice theory deals with conscious or unconscious choices and weighing out pros and cons in order to arrive at that choice. Hernandez has an extensive criminal history and has been punished for his crimes, yet he keeps reoffending. According to this theory, this means that during each offense, he has weighed out the potential gains versus the potential consequences and decided that the crime was worth the risk of going to jail. According to the criminal history we have, it has been nine years since Hernandez was released from prison, and 4 years since his parole ended, and, as far as we know, he has not committed a crime since then. He was coming up on a decade without committing a crime, yet he threw that all away to commit the most recent offense.
Labeling and Reintegrative Shaming Theory
Labeling theory argues that if people are given labels, regardless of whether or not those labels are true, and then treated how anyone with that label would be treated, the person will start to take on the attitudes and behaviors of whatever label they were given. Most theories talk about the enforcement and punishment of crime as very important parts of crime prevention, such as deterrence theory. Deterrence theory says that if crimes are punished quickly, severely, and consistently, that will be enough to deter both the individual criminal from reoffending and the community as a whole from committing crimes. Labeling theory suggests that this could be counterintuitive, and that labeling everyone as a criminal will, in turn, cause more criminal behavior.This theory talks a lot about the dynamics of power in our society. The more powerful people or groups in society decide what behaviors are considered delinquent behaviors, not the less powerful people. The less powerful people are more likely to have these labels placed on them than the more powerful people. The act of labeling someone in and of itself takes away power from that person, so it can be used by more powerful people in order to make sure they stay more powerful. Things like race, sex, and social class can play a part in what label someone is given because they can affect whether or not someone is arrested and punished, and can also impact how severely they are punished. One concept that can explain the process by which someone becomes what they are labeled as is the looking-glass self. The looking-glass self means that who we are is a reflection of what others think that we are. When we are given labels, we take on the attitudes and characteristics of those labels. Especially with criminal labels, it can be easy for a person to revert back to the same labels that they have been given because many people look down on people who have committed crimes before, there are less opportunities for those who have committed delinquent acts, and even those closest to them can begin to treat them differently. Why change who you are when you can just be what everyone expects of you? And, if everyone around you believes you are what you are labeled as, it can be hard not to believe it too.
This can be particularly damaging to younger people, because who we are as young people can go on to define who we become. This is why radical nonintervention is an important concept in our criminal justice system. Radical nonintervention means that, in certain cases, the deviant acts of young offenders are ignored, because if people are labeled as criminals, it could affect them for the rest of their lives.
One example of this would be how the country currently deals with low level drug crimes, such as possession of marijuana. In some states, this is perfectly legal and will not put a person in jail or have them labeled as a criminal. In other states, the same exact act/behavior could land a person in jail, and they would be labeled a criminal and that stigma would follow them well after their punishment is served; it could affect their ability to get jobs, apartments; this one act, that just across state lines would not be an issue, could affect the entire course of a person’s life. They would be seen as a criminal and could resort to more serious deviant acts, even though they may not have committed any more crimes if they had not been labeled a criminal. David Hernandez is arrested for the first time as a juvenile, and most of his subsequent crimes were committed at a relatively young age. This means that he was first labeled as a criminal at a very young age (his age when he is arrested is not specified, but we know he was under 18 years of age) which could have very well affected his behavior into adult life. Most people would not rob a gas station just to survive – they would find another way, but, if everyone already thinks you are a criminal, then committing a crimes to get what you need seems more reasonable.
Social Disorganization Theory
Social disorganization theory say that where a person is located can be a defining factor as to whether or not they commit crime, even more so than personality traits or characteristics. Areas with higher levels of disorganization (which can be defined by neighborhoods that are in bad shape, broken families, and an unstable, constantly changing diverse population) tend to have higher levels of delinquent behaviors, regardless of the time period or what behaviors or acts were considered deviant. These areas are consistently areas that are in or near industrial areas, and are referred to as zones of transition. One defining factor in theses zones of transition is a high level of instability due to people constantly moving in and out of these areas, due to the fact that the members of the community are moving out to get new jobs and new members are moving in. Social disorganization theory is a macro level theory, that is to say that this theory focuses on interactions on a large scale, such as within and between communities rather than in an individual person. Regardless of that, the same concepts can apply in the case of David Hernandez, especially in respect to the effect of instability as a contributing factor to delinquent behavior.Social disorganization theory is a macro level theory that focuses on these industrial communities as a whole, but the same concepts and ideas can be scaled down and applied to the individual. Some of the defining characteristics of this theory are characteristics present in Hernandez’s life. He lived in a household that is, mentally and emotionally, in a bad state. There is a large, diverse population in the house, with nine brothers and two sisters. After he left his foster home at the age of 15, his life became even more unstable, since he was homeless and living on the streets.
Different theories look at different aspects of crimes and the individuals who commit them in order to explain why these crimes happen. Some theories look at the decision making process behind committing a crime, whereas some look at the underlying attitudes and behaviors that would cause someone to commit a crime, as well as how these attitudes are formed and what drives the behaviors.