Jackson Toby (1957), argued that ‘the uncommitted adolescent is a candidate for gang socialization.’ Toby acknowledged youths who had few stakes or investments in conformity were more likely to be drawn into gang activity than youths who had a lot to lose. A variety of conventional social relationships and commitments could be jeopardized by involvement in delinquency, however youths without such stakes were free to be recruited into crime. Toby’s theory focused on explaining criminality, however it was limited in that it only really addressed juvenile street crime, thus neglecting to consider criminals that committed other types of crime.
F. Ivan Nye (1958) focused on the family as a source of control; he also specified different types of control, differentiating between internal, direct and indirect controls. He stated that youths might be directly controlled through constraints imposed by parents, limiting the opportunity for delinquency, through parental rewards and punishments. However, they may still be deterred away from crime when free from direct control by their anticipation of parental disapproval (indirect control), or through the development of a conscience, an internal constraint on behaviour. Youths choose not to commit crime therefore, through fear of parental disapproval or through fear of guilt towards committing the crime. Although this focused around youths, this theory could also be applied to other forms of deviancy as apposed to just juvenile delinquency, for example adults may not commit crime through disapproval of peers, co-workers or even families. The element of control therefore is not just limited to street crime or even youths, it could explain why many individuals throughout society choose, or rather refrain from committing crime. (Burke, 2005)
David Matza's (1964) suggested delinquent youths could be depicted as “drifters,” relatively free to take part in delinquency. According to Matza, the delinquent "flirts" with criminal and conventional behaviour while drifting among different social worlds. Matza did not identify any specific constraints or controls that keep youths from drifting, but drifters were depicted as youths who have few stakes in conformity and are free to drift into delinquency. In contrast Vold et al (2002:183) advocates that delinquents ‘age out’ of delinquency and settle into law-abiding lives. He explained that the factors used to explain delinquency (e.g. lack of legitimate opportunities) are still present; it’s just the delinquency itself that disappears. Proposing that this theory can only account for youth crime and delinquency when explaining criminality.
Hirschi argued that there were four basic “social bonds” that could be constituted as significant barriers to control youths these are; attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. Attachment encompassed the emotional bonds of youths to other people and attachments to parents and teachers were viewed as particularly crucial. Attachment encompassed the interpersonal, emotional barriers to delinquency. Commitment was measured in terms of the aspirations and goals of youths, encompassing rational as well as emotional investments. Involvement referred to behavioural investments in conventional lines of action that could prevent involvement in delinquent behaviour. He proposed that each type of social bond should have its own separable effect in the explanation of delinquency.
Hirschi challenged differential association theory with regard to the impact of delinquent peers on delinquency. One of the most consistent findings in research on delinquency was that; increases in association with delinquent peers were associated with increases in delinquency. Hirschi argued that similarly unattached youths drifted together into delinquent groups. It was weak social bonds that resulted in both delinquency and association with delinquents.
Gibbs is critical of Hirschi’s social control theory because it does not define social control, but merely presumes that social relationships, personal investments and beliefs that discourage delinquency are social controls. However Gibbs’ argues that “the conditions themselves are not control (Gibbs, 1981: 147).”
According to Gibbs (1981:130), any attempt to get someone else to do something or refrain from doing something can be considered an attempt at “control.” To qualify as “social” control, such attempts must involve three parties. Social control is an attempt by one or more individuals to manipulate the behaviour of another individual or individuals by or through a third party (by means other than a chain of command). Gibbs’ “third party” can be an actual person or a reference to "society," "expectations" or "norms." This points out that control comes in many forms such as, CCTV; the laws of society, family commitments, and status in a certain community can prevent people from committing a crime.
Two of the early control theorists included some form of “internal” control or “inner” containment in their theories, and many of Hirschi’s social bonds can be conceptualized as part of the personality, character, identity, mind or self-conception of individual youths. Youths who want to “do well” in conventional contexts “care” about their parents and teachers and “believe” that acts hurting others are wrong are unlikely to become seriously delinquent. While these characteristics are embodied in desires, feelings, and ideas “mentally” embraced by youths, they are “social” in the sense that they constitute constraints on choices established in interaction with other people.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) published a general theory of crime, which emphasised variations in “self-control”. They argued that the crimes people could commit varied by age, but that the individual “tendency” to do so is a product of self-control established in interaction with parents and others during childhood. They stated that people low in self-control are ‘free to enjoy the quick and easy and ordinary pleasures of crime without undue concern for the pains that follow from them’ and people who learn to ‘consider the long term consequences of their acts’ have self-control (Hirschi and Gottfredson 2001: 90).
Variations in self-control are established through interaction and socialisation processes involving parents who care about their children, monitor their activities, recognise disobedience when it occurs, and take steps to correct their children whilst teaching them the values of society. As a result, the child learns to avoid acts with long term negative consequences (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 2001: 90).
This ‘self-control’ theory retains the logic of the ‘social control’ theory in that no special motivation is necessary to explain deviance, crime, or delinquency. Low self-control is identified as the “natural” state and actions that hurt others need no special motivational explanation. Furthermore, the theory retains the emphasis self- control as a barrier that deters individuals away from delinquency and deviance. Again it is said that early socialisation and relationships with parents and other conventional role models acts as a barrier that controls an individual not to commit crime. Self-control is conditional to be the stable underlying factor that explains the continuity of deviant behaviour or conformity over the life course. The relationship between childhood disobedience, and more serious offences later in life is taken as evidence of an underlying lack of self-control. In contrast, conformity at various ages is attributed to the early establishment of self-control. Suggesting that control theories are not limited to justifying juvenile street crime alone. (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 2001: 90)
Theories on the causes of crime have a tendency to focus on youth crime, as adult criminals will have likely started offending when they were younger (Burke, 2005). Taking differential association as an example, proposed that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal . Suggesting that youths also learn crime as well as having controlling factors that encourage them not to commit crime. This suggests that although control theories may focus on youths and youth crime as a basis for which to test out their theory, and therefore not limiting the explanation of crime to delinquents and street crime. Merely suggesting that most crime results from earlier, or past experiences of crime. This is suggested also by Hirschi’s view on crime, going back to his 4 variables of control.
The use of social control in today’s society has become a growing phenomenon with the use of surveillance. Surveillance has become very popular in the UK and is used to prevent crimes of all natures. It has become socially acceptable to have the use of CCTV operating everywhere within society. The idea of surveillance came from the design on the Panopticon. The Panopticon is a type of building designed by English philosopher and social theorist in 1785. The concept of the design is to allow an observer to observe all prisoners without the prisoners being able to tell whether they are being watched. The underlying principle of the panopticon is to keep order and control of inmates, workers, patients or pupils through. The idea is that people regulate their own thoughts and actions before misbehaving or acting in a way that is socially unacceptable, because they assume they are constantly being watched. Bentham believed this approach could be successfully adopted in any environment, which involved some level of supervision. A key to the effectiveness of the system is uncertainty. Even if no one is watching, the possibility of somebody watching them creates a sense of control. In terms of control, this method of surveillance arguably could be centred around controlling juvenile street crime and social misconduct. This is evident in terms of today’s society and the government’s aims and objectives towards youth crime, and anti social behaviour. CCTV has become increasingly popular when trying to control youths of today and street crime. As Bentham (1975) argued, the external illusion of an all-seeing eye would become an inner reality of self-policing. In terms of whether this method again can only be applied to Juvenile Street crime would be inaccurate to assume. This method has been used in order to reduce levels of street crime however it has been proven to be extremely effective in terms of terrorism. The use of CCTV has enabled us as a society to combat terrorism much more effectively. (Arrons, 2007)
In conclusion control theorists illustrate compelling arguments as to the limitations of the theories and the fact that control theories focus on youth delinquency. However to state that the element of control can only be applied to young delinquents and juvenile street crime would be irrational and unrealistic, given that the use of CCTV, has such control over individuals of today’s society. Following Bentham’s line of argument when he stated that the use of CCTV force people to regulate their behaviours and thought processes. Control therefore it would seem is not limited to youths and street crime, yet it can be applied to adults of whom could commit crimes of any nature. Where youths may have parental controls or commitments to future aspirations, adults may also have other elements or forms of control such as status, or job commitments, social acceptance within that community or family commitments, even CCTV acts as a forms of control.
References
Akers, R..L (2000) Criminological Theories 3rd Edition, Roxbury Publishing Company. p194-196
Arrons, C. (2007) The benefits of CCTV [Online] Available at: [Accessed 10/04/2009]
Ashworth, A. (2004) Social Control and Anti-Social Behaviour: the subversion of human rights?. Law Quarterly Review. p263-291
Briar, S. Piliavin, I. (1965) Delinquency, Situational Inducements and Commitments to Conformity. p23-26
Burke, R. (2005) An Introduction to Criminological Theory 2nd Edition, Willan Publishing.
Gibbs, P (1989) Control: Sociology’s Central Nation 12th Edition, University of Illinois Press. p45-57
Gottfredson, M Hirschi, T. (1990) A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press. p7-14
Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of Delinquency. University Californian Press . p34-45
Jensen, G. Rojek, D. (1998) Delinquency and Youth Crime 3rd Edition, Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press. p45-52
Khron, M. Massey, J. (1980) Social Control and Delinquent Behaviour: An examination of the elements of social bond. 21st Edition, Sociological Quarterly. p23-78
Lilly, J. Cullen, F. Ball, R. (2002) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences 3rd Edition, Sage Publications
Liska, A. Reed, M. (1985) Ties to Conventional Institutions and Delinquency 50th Edition, Sociological Review. p2-46
Marsh, I. (2006) Theories of Crime 2nd Edition, Routledge Group
Matsueda, R. (1982) Testing control theory and differential association. 47th Edition, Sociological Review. p5-16
Matza, D. (1964) Delinquency and Drift. 4th Edition, New York Press p6-7
Nye, I. (1958) Family relationships and delinquent behaviour. 3rd Edition, Stanford University Press. p6-17
Sampson, R. Laub, J. (1993) Crime in the making: Pathways and Turning points through life 5th Edition, Harvard University Press
Vold, G., Bernard, T. and Snipes, J. (2002) Op Cit. Chapter 4 ‘Psychological Factors and Criminals Behaviour’ p55-83