The Differential Association Theory Criminology Essay

Theories within criminology attempt to explicate why and how offense occurs. This is done through analyzing assorted facts that are related to the persons condemnable behavior and the offense they commit. There are a broad scope of theories which can be used to explicate the causes of offense and deviant behavior from young persons. Youth offense is a major issue in society ; this essay will discourse three theories, the differential association theory, the labelling theory and the rationale pick theory. The theories will discussed and how they can explicate offense will besides be discussed, so a comparing of the theories will be given in order to place their strengths and failings in explicating young person offense.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!


order now

The differential association theory is one of the most valued theories within criminology. This theory was foremost discovered by Edwin Sutherland ( 1947 ) , he developed the differential association theory in order to explicate how youths engage in Acts of the Apostless of condemnable behavior. This theory defines condemnable behavior as learnt behavior which is acquired through societal contact with other persons ( Hollin, 2007: … ) . This theory explains how persons learn how to prosecute in condemnable behavior through their attitudes, thrust and motivation behind the condemnable act. An person is most likely to be involved in condemnable behavior if they spend legion sum of clip with a individual who has a condemnable background and believes that interrupting the jurisprudence is acceptable. Furthermore Sutherland ( 1974 ) identifies nine chief factors that can be used to explicate why a individual engages in condemnable behavior. This essay will now explicate the nine factors in item.

The first factor that Sutherland believes is the ground as to why an person engages in condemnable behavior is because the behavior is learned. Sutherland and Cressey ( 1960 ) believe that the actions of an person are influenced by the people they associate with. It is believed that because the single chief association is with their household, as that is whom they have grown up and unrecorded with, so hence the single societal values and norms are formulated from them. Sutherland besides stated that learned behavior is non invented, nor is it inherited The accomplishments and techniques required for an person to prosecute condemnable activity are non automatically obtained from birth, or through association with felons, alternatively they are acquired through a procedure of acquisition ( Sutherland & A ; Cressey, 1960: 123 ) .

The 2nd rule refutes the thought that condemnable behavior is learned through the single witnessing pervert or condemnable behavior. Alternatively this believes that criminalism is learned behaviour though interaction with others in the procedure of communicating. At a really immature age kids are accustomed to the norms of society, they are learning the functions of both a genders by people around them. They besides learn these functions by detecting the male or female features associating to the specific gender. For illustration an person may larn about harlotry through witnessing the gestural responses of these others towards the activity, such as turn overing the eyes or staring and through treatments with people who engage in that activity ( Sutherland & A ; Cressey, 1960: 123 ) . Besides Curran ( 2001 ) stated that communicating is an illustration of how felons are misled into a life of offense and deviant behavior ( Curran, 2001: 143 ) . The 3rd rule provinces that persons commit offense because they are influenced by the behavior of intimate people such as household members and close friends. Methods of communicating from telecasting and or media are less effectual in act uponing the person ( Sutherland and Cressey, 1960: 123 ) .

The 4th factor from Sutherland ‘s theory is that larning condemnable behavior involves larning specific techniques, thrusts, motivations and rationalisation. Having a primary group of people around does non needfully intend that the person will prosecute in offense, but it does intend that they have the resources into the condemnable principle. For illustration being around a individual who is has been convicted of sexual offense, may give the person cognition into how to prosecute in the same offense, but the person may take non to prosecute in that offense because they know from their socialisation of social norms that a sexual offense is unacceptable ( Sutherland and Cressey, 1960: 123 ) . Curran ( 2001 ) believes that the specific way of motivations and attitudes is learned from definitions of legal codifications such as favorable and unfavourable.The 5th factor can be noticed when sing civilizations form the United Kingdom and the United States. Both states have assorted civilizations within them and each civilization has different perceptual experiences as to what is favorable and unfavorable within society and this can do a cultural struggle. The persons pro-criminal or anti-criminal purposes are developed based on erudite constructs of the jurisprudence as either favorable or unfavorable ( Sutherland & A ; Cressey, 1960:123 )

The most of import rule within the differential association theory is the 6th rule, which is when persons associate themselves with people that engage in condemnable behavior and believe it is acceptable. Sutherland argues that an single becomes delinquent merely when “ definitions favorable to misdemeanor of jurisprudence ” exceed “ definitions unfavorable to misdemeanor of jurisprudence ” ( Sutherland & A ; Cressey, 1960: 123 ) .The 7th and eight factor provinces that the association vary in continuance, precedence, frequence and strength. ( Sutherland & A ; Cressey, 1960: 123 – 124 ) . For illustration, if a immature kid is raised by a drug user they will be exposed to stronger definitions of aberrant behavior and will be more to likely to prosecute in aberrant behavior, than a adolescent who has informants person taking drugs at a party.The concluding rule believes that even though condemnable behavior is an look of demands and values, it can non be explained by those demands because condemnable behavior is an look of the same demands and values ( Sutherland & A ; Cressey,1960: 124 ) . For illustration if two persons where both motivated by a demand to derive money and regard, but one individual engage in condemnable behavior in order to acquire the money and regard. Whereas the other individual engaged in conforming behavior. So therefore the demand for money and regard can non be used as an account for an person to perpetrate offense.

The 2nd theory that will be discussed is labelling theory. This theory claims that aberrance and conformance does non emerge from the person ‘s actions, but instead from how others respond to the actions. Marcionis and Plummer ( 2005 ) province that labelling theory high spots societal response to offense and aberrance. The labelling theory became dominant in the early 1960s and the late seventiess when it was used as a sociological theory of offense influential in disputing Orthodox positiveness criminology. The chief faculty members in this theory were Becker and Lement. Lement ( 1951 ) foremost established the position of pervert, and subsequently developed by Becker ( 1963 ) . Labeling theory has become a dominant paradigm in the account of aberrance. This theory is created by the premise that aberrant behavior is to be non merely by the misdemeanor of norms within society, but besides by any behavior which is defined as labeled or aberrant. Aberrance is non the act itself, but the responses other persons give to the act. Becker ( 1963 ) believed that societal groups create aberrance by doing the regulations whose misdemeanor constitute aberrance, and by using those regulations to peculiar persons and labelling them as foreigners. He besides stated that aberrance is non the act that the single commits, but the effects of the application of others by regulations and countenances to an wrongdoer. And the aberrant 1 is whom the label has successfully been applied to.

Aberrance has been distinguished into primary and secondary aberrance by Lement ( 1951 ) . Lement described primary aberrance as small reactions from others which have small consequence on an person ‘s self-concept and secondary aberrance as people forcing the pervert single out of the societal circle, which can therefore do the person to seek the company of people who condone aberrant behavior. Lement ( 1951 ) further argued that alternatively of sing offense as a taking to command, it may be more productive to see offense as something with control bureaus structured. Secondary aberrance leads Goffman ( 1963 ) to specify aberrant calling. Goffman stated that people who get a ‘stigma ‘ which is a powerful negative label which changes a individual ‘s self-concept and societal individuality. Condemnable prosecution is one manner in which an person is labelled in a negative, instead than positive manner. Scheff ( 1984 ) believes that stigmatising people can frequently take to retrospective labelling, which is the apprehension of an person ‘s yesteryear with the present aberrance. Scheff ( 1984 ) besides believes that retrospective labelling distorts an person ‘s life in a damaging manner guided by stigma and this is an unjust thing to make. Stigmatizing immature people may really take them into a aberrant calling.

Howard Becker ( 1963 ) claimed that societal groups create aberrance by labelling persons as foreigners. Through an application of misdemeanor constitute aberrance. Furthermore labelling theory ‘s attack to deviance chiefly concentrates on the societal reaction to a aberrant act committed by an person every bit good as the interaction procedure that leads up to the labelling. This theory therefor suggests that excessively much attending has been given to felons by criminology because criminology positions felons as types of people alongside the deficient attending to the aggregation of societal control responses. This therefore means that the constabulary, jurisprudence, media and public association aid form offense. This is supported by the struggle theory which shows how deviance reflects on inequalities and power. This attack may besides mean that the cause of offense may be linked to inequalities of race, category and gender. The struggle theory links aberrance to the power of norms and the imagination of the rich and powerful, which the jurisprudence society supports.

The construct of secondary aberrance, stigma and aberrant calling all show how persons can integrate the label of aberrance into a permanent self-concept. Becker ( 1963 ) believes that labelling is a practical act that has made politicians cognizant of which regulations to implement and what behaviour they should see as pervert. The effects upon an single being publicly labelled pervert have been examined by Becker ( 1963 ) he believes that a label is an indifferent onion, which contains an rating of the person to whom it is applied. The labelling theory will be a maestro label in term of capturing over all other statuses the persons are under. For illustration if one is labelled as a pedophile, condemnable or homosexual it will be hard for the person to overlook these labels and see themselves in positive functions such a parent, friend, worker and neighbor. Other people will see that single and respond to them harmonizing to the label, besides they will presume that the person has the negative features associated with the label. Finally the person will see themselves in that label because their self-concept is derived from the responses of others. This can so bring forth a self-fulfilling prognostication where the pervert becomes the commanding one.

The 3rd theory that will be discussed is the strain theory. Unlike the differential association and labelling, this theory believes that societal constructions within society can act upon persons to perpetrate offenses. Merton ( 1938 ) suggests that there are two types of of import elements of societal construction. These elements are the cultural ends, the map of the ends and involvements The 2nd component is how stages of the societal construction specify how society can travel about accomplishing these ends, by puting ordinances and making Torahs ( Merton, 1938: 673 ) . Merton ( 1938 ) demonstrates four responses to this strain. The first, conformance, Merton suggests that people who take this way subscribe to cultural ends and travel about accomplishing these ends by utilizing society ‘s “ institutionalised means. ” The 2nd way, invention, suggests that when a individual finds that an obstruction inhibits the ability to accomplish the cultural ends, the individual will non utilize institutionalised agencies ; instead, they will use other agencies. The 3rd way, ritualism, describes a individual that will reject the civilization ends of society, but use its establishments as an avenue for promotion. The 4th, is the polar antonym of the way of conformance such that a individual who is retreatist will reject cultural ends and its institutionalised agencies, people that take this way are people who basically are non portion of society ( Tim Newburn, 2007: 176 ) . The American dream is a popular culturally defined end, Merton argued, which through honest-dedicated work, anyone can accomplish this “ dream ” of wealth. Society defines what avenues are to be considered legitimate to accomplish this end, for illustration, gaining a college grade and gaining a high paying occupation would be a legitimate way as defined by our society. Since wealth in American is non distributed every bit Merton ( 1938 ) argued that strain frequently occurs for those who are undercapitalized and do non hold entree to these legitimate agencies. ( Tim Newburn, 2007:175 – 176 ) .

Strain theory can do negative feelings from the outside environment. These feelings include fright, licking and desperation, the most applicable feeling that can happen is anger. Agnew ( 1992 ) emphasised that persons become angry when they blame their negative relationships and fortunes on others ( Agnew, 1992: 59 ) . An person is incited with choler, low suppressions and they begin to make a desire for retaliation ( Agnew, 1992: 60 ) . Agnew stated that persons who are subjected to repetitive strain are more likely to prosecute in delinquent and condemnable Acts of the Apostless, this is due to the fact that the single becomes aggressive because they are unable to get by and the negative strain may go excessively much for them ( Agnew, 1992: 61 ) .

Overall all three theories give a good account of young person offense. The similarity between these theories is they all aim to give a elaborate account as to why persons engage in offense and aberrance. Differential association theory believes that all behavior is learned and so hence aberrant behavior is besides learned. This theory focuses on cardinal variables such as the age of the scholar, the strength of contact with the aberrant individual whom they learn from and the sum of good and bad societal contacts they have in their lives. Whereas the labelling theory explains aberrance as a societal procedure where persons are able to specify others as pervert. This theory emphasises on the fact that aberrance is comparative and the single merely becomes aberrant when they are labelled. Alongside this strain theory explains aberrance as the result of societal strains within the manner society is structured.

Not all theories give a good account for undertaking young person offense, the labelling theory provinces that the label is the path of condemnable behavior, this is non a good account because there is a ground an person becomes a burglar, non because they have been labelled as one. The person is cognizant that their actions are aberrant and that they are interrupting the jurisprudence. Some faculty members believe that there should be more research into the labelling theory and why persons engage in condemnable behavior. The left realist have stated that the thought of avoiding labelling in order to avoid aberrance is unrealistic. Besides Aker ( 1967 ) criticised the labelling theory for claiming that perverts are normal persons who have been labelled. However the labelling theory fails to explicate why some persons are labelled and some are non. Another unfavorable judgment of the labelling theory is that it is possible to reject the label. Becker ( 1963 ) claimed that one time an person is labelled and accepts the aberrant behavior, all their other qualities become irrelevant and the label becomes their maestro position. However there are illustrations that show it is possible to reject the label. This illustration comes from Reiss ( 19610 survey on immature male cocottes. Although the males engage in homosexual behavior they regard this behavior as work and still keep their ‘straight ‘ image despite working as cocottes. This survey shows that the labelling theory is unfastened to dialogue as some persons reject the label.

Differential association theory and the strain theory can be used to undertake young person offense. The differential association accepts that condemnable behavior is apparent across all societal categories, and that condemnable attitudes and behavior is learned through interaction with influential groups. In order to undertake young person offense the authorities will necessitate to present organisations that aim at utilizing positive function theoretical accounts to promote immature persons who do non hold positive function theoretical accounts in their life ‘s. By making so persons can larn positive behaviors alternatively of aberrant behavior from people who engage in unacceptable behavior. The differential theory has been criticised in Glueck ( 1956 ) article on ‘Theory and fact in Criminology ‘ . Glueck stated that it is hard to mensurate the frequence, continuance, precedence and strength of an person ‘s association, so hence this males it impossible to foretell and mensurate how associations result in the acquisition of condemnable behavior. It could be argued that the person did non larn condemnable behavior from an intimate societal group, because the continuance, frequence, precedence and strength was non sufficient. Glueck ( 1956 ) argued that if there is no sufficiency so the theory is non confirmable which therefore males it faulty.

Finally the strain theory can be used to undertake young person offense because it explains the strains with society that may act upon persons to prosecute in condemnable activity. This theory can enable the authorities to better the societal construction within society, for illustration supplying more employment and better instruction chances. Strain theory has been criticised by Cohen ( 1955 ) who stated that the theory can be accounted for some but non all aberrant behavior. Cohen besides criticised Merton ‘s theory of strain for being excessively individualistic in depicting the versions to strive ( Pfohl, 1994: 269 ) .

x

Hi!
I'm Heather

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out