SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für micro/macro

micro/macro

Defiance Theory (Sherman)

According to the Defiance Theory, punishment can have three different effects.

  1. Punishment can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired success.
  2. Punishment can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the subsequent committing of crimes.
  3. Punishment can cause a reaction of defiance. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour.

Which of the reactions causes a punishment depends on various factors. Factors that make defiance more likely are perceived injustice, doubts about the legitimacy of the punisher, injured pride and a lack of social commitment to the punisher.

Main Proponent

Lawrence W. Sherman

Theory

Sherman’s Defiance Theory is not a labeling theory in the true sense of the word. What it has in common with the labeling theories, however, is that it tries to explain the paradoxical effect that punishment can have. Unlike labeling theories, Sherman does not focus exclusively on the negative consequences of punishment. He assumes that punishment sometimes acts as a deterrent and sometimes as a reinforcer to the committing of further crimes.
According to Sherman, sanctions can have three different effects:

  1. Sanctions can provoke future defiance of the law. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour. (Defiance)
  2. Sanctions can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired effect. (Deterrence)
  3. Sanctions can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the further committing of criminal offences. (Irrelevance)

The Defiance Theory aims to uncover the patterns according to which the different modes of action occur. For Sherman, this includes correlations found in empirical studies, such as:

  • that a connection can be established between personality type and mode of action of punishment,
  • that punishment works better on working men than it does on the unemployed,
  • or that it works better on older people than on younger people.

Sherman sees his theory as a ‘General Theory of Crime’, but he uses this term differently from Gottfredson and Hirschi. Sherman makes no claim that his theory alone could explain deviance. However, he assumes that it can be applied to any form of deviance.

If defiance occurs in response to punishment, this may lead to further and more severe acts being committed, with future acts directed against the sanctioning group and explained by a proud, shameless reaction to punishment. Defiance is therefore a state of angry pride.

Defiance is caused by the following factors:

  • A sanction is perceived as unfair.
  • The type of punishment is perceived as unfair. This can happen if the punishment is perceived as arbitrary, discriminatory or excessive, or if the offender has no respect for the punisher.
  • The perpetrator is not integrated into or even alienated from the community.
  • If bonds to the community and in particular to the sanctioning authorities are weak, the willingness to recognise the sanctions also decreases. (At this point, Sherman’s theory corresponds with Braithwaites’ Theory of Reintegrative Shaming.)
  • The punishment has a stigmatizing effect.
  • When the perpetrator feels rejected as a person.
  • Shame is not recognized.
  • When weakness is perceived in the punisher or for other reasons the shame normally caused by the sanction is rejected.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Sherman’s defiance theory is extremely well integrated. This means that it takes into account the findings of other theories and includes elements from various other theories. In particular, it is a continuation of John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.

Sherman himself extensively criticized, refined, and expanded his own theory in 1993. He particularly emphasized that defiance can lead to an interaction between police and perpetrators. Police officers, judges and other sanctioning actors themselves react harder when they perceive defiance in their counterparts. If someone appears insightful and respectful, he is more likely to be met with clemency than if someone obviously rejects the punishment. The same processes take place in courts when judging. A judge will impose a harsher punishment if he/ she perceives a defendant as being unreasonable. Someone who perceives that he/ she will receive harsher punishments than other people who have committed the same crime will in turn perceive this punishment as unfair, leading to further defiance. This can create a vicious circle.

Sherman also criticized his original theory for using the term ‘defiance’ with two different meanings. On the one hand, it stands for the emotion of injured pride, from which further crimes are committed. On the other hand, it is also used for the criminal acts themselves. This implies that whenever the emotion defiance occurs, other crimes follow.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Sherman and Braithwaite: Restorative Justice

Sherman and Braitwaite’s recognition that sanctions can both inhibit and reinforce criminal behaviour has clear implications for the design of an ‘ideal’ judicial system.

Sherman and Braithwaite are both advocates of restorative justice. This refers to forms of alternative conflict resolution that respond better to the needs of the individual participants than traditional criminal proceedings. Restorative Justice’ wants to impose more than just a one-sided punishment for a misdemeanour. Instead, a healing process should take place in which the needs of all those involved are heard. In addition, ‘Restorative Justice’ attaches particular importance to respect and communication between all participants, so that stigmatisation or disintegrative shaming can be avoided. This should be replaced by communication between all participants, in which both perpetrators and victims have the chance to explain themselves.

But Braithwaite’s and Sherman’s theories also provide many clues within the classical judicial systems on how to deal more effectively with (potential) perpetrators. It is important to avoid arbitrariness, humiliation and stigmatization, e.g. by the police or the courts.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sherman, Lawrence H. (1993) Deviance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of Criminal Sanctions. In: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), S. 445-473.

Secondary Literature

Weiterführende Informationen

Deterrence theories

Deterrence theories argue that the punishment of crimes results in both actual and potential perpetrators avoiding crime in the future.

Main Proponents

Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, Franz von Liszt, Jack P. Gibbs, Alex Piquero, Raymond Paternoster, Stephan Tibbetts, M.C. Stafford, M. Warr, etc.

Theory

A so-called skull beam is an example of deterrence theory in practice.
A so-called skull beam: In the 15th/16th century the heads of executed pirates were nailed to a beam as a deterrent and exhibited in public.
Quelle: Von Bullenwächter – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20898787

Deterrence theories are based on the classical and neoclassical assumptions of a free and rationally thinking individual who strives for utilitarian principles of pleasure gain and pain avoidance (or rational principles of choice maximization and cost reduction). If criminal actions accommodate this aspiration (i.e. if crime can increase one’s own desire), it makes sense to choose them. However, if the offence is punishable, it is likely that the expected costs will outweigh the expected benefits. It is also decisive with what probability and with what delay the sanction is actually enforced on the criminal act.

The deterrence hypothesis states that people can be deterred from criminal acts if threatened punishments follow the delinquent act with certainty and without delay and are so severe or so harsh that the expected pain (cost) from the punishment is greater than the expected pleasure (benefit) from the criminal act. A distinction must be made between macro-general deterrence (corresponds to negative general prevention in German criminal law) and micro-specific deterrence (corresponds to negative special prevention in German criminal law):

  • The former causes the general public, i.e. potential perpetrators, to refrain from criminal acts. Making the sanction visible to the public is therefore extremely important so that the general public also knows what consequences would follow a criminal act and therefore refrains from delinquent behaviour.
  • Micro-Specific deterrence, however, refers to the effect of the sanction on the punished person, who is now deterred from further criminal acts out of fear of further punishment. The German scholar von Liszt envisages this form of punishment for the so-called casual criminal, who must be given a lesson to show him the boundary between conformity and crime for the future.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Obviously, in the opinion of deterrence theorists, there is a demand to always react to crime and possibly without time delay, so that it becomes irrational to act criminally.
It should be noted, however, that it is not the actual punishments that act as a deterrent, but the perceived deterrence, which is influenced by the sanctions actually imposed and their media coverage.
In addition, deterrence theories do not only refer to criminal sanctions, but are also reflected in other policy preventive concepts such as video surveillance and personal checks. The focus here is less on anticipating a harsh punishment than on the increased risk of discovery, which is part of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The deterrent effect of sanctions has been discussed in criminal policy for many years. In the USA, where deterrence theories are widely supported, the death penalty is a comparatively extreme form of deterrence. It is questionable whether the implementation of criminal executions is actually based on the idea of deterrence, or whether concepts such as ‘just deserts’, ‘retribution’ or ‘incapacitation’ provide the actual justification.
Even the assumption that the imposition of death sentences has a deterrent effect has been widely studied and empirically disproved in recent years. However, there are also studies that prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
On the whole, however, it seems extremely doubtful whether the deterrence theories can be upheld. In the case of video surveillance, there is also an increasing number of voices denying the deterrent effect of cameras and speaking of a spatial shift in crime combined with a reduction in subjective fear of crime. In any case, a rational decision for or against committing a crime requires a rational actor. It therefore seems unlikely that an emotionally aroused – possibly alcoholized – perpetrator would consider the long-term consequences of his action at the time of the crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

 

Further Information

Theory of differential opportunity (Cloward & Ohlin)

The theory of differential opportunities combines learning, subculture, anomie and social disorganization theories and expands them to include the recognition that for criminal behaviour there must also be access to illegitimate means.

Main proponent

Richard A. Cloward und Lloyd E. Ohlin

Theorie

Cloward & Ohlin’s theory of differential opportunities represents a link between learning, subculture, anomie and social desorganisation theories.

On the one hand, the approach is based on Sutherland, starting from the assumption that criminal motives, techniques and rationalizations are learned through criminal associations. On the other hand, Cloward and Ohlin share with Merton and Cohen the notion that deviant behaviour is a consequence of the stratum-specific pressure to adapt, or more precisely of blocked access to legitimate means, and that this adaptation (according to Cohen) typically takes place collectively through interaction processes in groups.

Cloward and Ohlin see the answer, which is why not all persons suffering from adaptation problems become criminals, in the fact that access to illegitimate means can also be blocked for criminal action – the opportunities differentiate. For example, drug trafficking is more difficult to access in some parts of the city than in others. A person who intends to become a drug dealer not only requires drug suppliers, but also a customer base and a street corner where he can sell his drugs. Access to these means, however, is not open to everyone. It requires relationships with experienced people who are willing to share their knowledge and professional network.

The opportunity to break into cars also depends on the social situation of the environment, the car owner and the presence of possible accomplices. Socially disorganized neighbourhoods thus, according to Shaw and McKay’s theory, offer more access to criminal behaviour than others.

However, the theory of differential opportunities can also be applied within subcultural structures. So it seems obvious that delinquent gangs can only commit crimes if they have the means to do so.

At both the macro-social and subcultural levels, after Cloward and Ohlin, it can now happen that an individual has neither legitimate nor illegitimate means at his disposal. Since in such a case neither the legitimate nor illegitimate means are available to an individual, the authors speak of double failures.

According to Cloward and Ohlin, members of subcultures in such a dilemma react with random violence and intensified territorial expansion.

Altogether it can be said that Cloward and Ohlin aim more at the crime opportunity and less at the motivation for the crime. Crime is only possible if society, certain neighbourhoods, or delinquent subcultures provide illegitimate means. A certain kinship cannot be ignored with routine activity approach where, for example, the presence of an alarm system prevents the opportunity to commit a crime.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Just like the theory itself, the political demands and conclusions are a mixture of different approaches.

According to the theory of differential opportunities, rehabilitation is achievable by learning to conform to behaviour, good social policy, moral education, the resolution of problematic neighbourhoods, but also, to a certain extent, deterrence and situational crime prevention.

Above all, Cloward and Ohlin demand more education and improvement of the economic conditions for the US underclass in order to enable cultural and financial success for all members of society. This includes the establishment of social and political structures within vulnerable or socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Cloward’s and Ohlin’s theory shares some strengths as well as some weaknesses of their related theories, which, however, are partly resolved by their combination.

What remains in any case is the criticism that not every offence needs specific opportunities or certain illegitimate means to be executed. Pure violence or kleptomaniac behaviour is obviously always and everywhere possible. The basic assumption of Cloward and Ohlin that criminal acts are in principle always reactions to status and adaptation problems is and remains debatable. Merton, Cohen and others have already been accused of this narrow view.

Nevertheless, the theory of differential opportunities succeeds in making clear the illegitimate means necessary for most crimes. This underlines situational elements in the criminological discussion on the one hand, and on the other hand plays with the idea of whether everyone would not end up acting criminally if they had the necessary access to it.

Literature

  • Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: a theory of delinquent gangs. New York: The Free Press..

Further information

Cultural Criminology

Cultural criminology is not a crime theory in the narrower sense. Rather, it is a theoretical current that has emerged in the English-speaking world and, based on cultural studies and critical theories of criminality, understands deviance and phenomena of crime control as an interactionist, symbol-mediated process and analyses them with recourse to primarily ethnological research methods.

Main proponents

Jeff Ferrell, Mike Presdee, Keith Hayward, Jock Young

Theory

Cultural Criminology examines and describes crime and forms of crime control as cultural products. Criminality and actors in crime control are understood as creative constructs that find expression in symbolically mediated cultural practices. Members of subcultures, control agents, politicians, state and private security agencies, media producers and recipients, commercial enterprises, and other social actors attribute meanings to these cultural practices that become the meaningful and justifying basis for their own actions. Cultural criminology sees its task in the analysis of this never-ending process of interpretation, reinterpretation and de-construction. Cultural Criminology does not see itself as a theory of crime in the narrower sense, but rather as a paradigm or perspective approach to phenomena of crime and criminalization, paying particular attention to images, symbols, representations and self-staging.
In analogy to Cultural Studies’ claim to point out and analyse the reciprocal, symbol-mediated relationships between actors, Cultural Criminology is located as a qualitatively oriented social science that draws on the methods of ethnography and textual and content analysis (see: Ferrell, 1995):

  1. Crime as Culture
    Deviante subcultures are characterised by a system of symbols (slang expressions, appearance, style – “stylized presentation of self” – Ferrell, 1999). Belonging to a subculture requires the ability to construct and deconstruct this system of collective codes and practices. In addition, symbolic communication often takes place outside face-to-face interactions (e.g. hackers, graffiti sprayers, drug couriers, etc.).
  2. Culture as Crime
    This thematic area includes the criminalisation of cultural products and artists. The analysis focuses on the one hand on the distinction between so-called high culture (i.e. forms of culture that are primarily popular with the dominant social classes) and popular culture on the other. The criminalization of cultural products and forms mainly affects popular culture. However, there are isolated examples where criminalization also affects art products of so-called high culture (e.g. photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe and Jock Sturges are branded as pornographic). On the other hand, this stigmatization and criminalization mainly affects artists who belong to social minorities or subcultures (e.g. punk musicians, black rap musicians, gay and lesbian artists, etc.).
  3. Media Constructions of Crime and Crime Control
    This third major thematic focus and is dedicated to the analysis of the reciprocal mechanisms of action of the media and the judicial system.Building on the works of Howard S. Becker on “Moral Entrepreneurship” (1963) and Albert Cohen (1972/1980) on his concept of moral panics and the construction of folk devils, media coverage of crime phenomena is analysed. The interdependence of the media and law enforcement agencies is at the centre of this analysis. While the media are based on statements and data provided by police and courts, the media reports resulting from this information convey the delivered (desired) reading. In addition, this relationship of dependency plays a role in relation to agenda setting, i.e. the determination of which crime phenomena are given news value and – equally relevant – to which phenomena and events no media attention is paid. As a final aspect in this thematic focus, to which cultural criminology pays specific attention, the media construction of crime as an entertainment product must be mentioned.
  4. Political dimension of culture, crime and cultural criminology
    The fourth major thematic area, Cultural Criminology, is dedicated to the analysis of power relations in which media, social control, culture and crime stand:Deviant subcultures become the object of stately surveillance and control or are subject to a process of commodification and become the object of hegemonic culture.In “cultural wars”, the alternative art establishment and established artists argue about the aesthetic value of the works, declare alternative art a crime, and take action against the artists. The censorship of politically motivated artists represents the extreme case of these arguments about the hegemonic interpretation of aesthetics.Mass media succeeds in focusing on crimes and forms of social control by focusing on or, alternatively, ignoring certain themes. In an alliance with the state system of crime control, thematic fields are trivialized or dramatized, thus supporting a desired discourse/political agenda.The television landscape constructs “hundreds of tiny theatres of punishment” (after Focault in Cohen 1979: 339) in reality shows, court documentaries and crime series, in which ethnic minorities, followers of youthful subcultures, gays and lesbians play the villains who deserve just punishment.

    Cultural Criminolgy makes the subcultural counter-movements the subject of discussion, in which social criticism and resistance are shown and which in turn are the subject of counter-movements (resistance as counter-movement to hegemonic culture but also as thrill-seeking activity).

Key terms of Cultural Criminology

Cultural Criminology: Pleasures of the body (Carneval in Rio)
“Pleasures of the body” (here: Carneval in Rio) By krishna naudin – Unidos da Tijuca, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Transgression/ Carneval of Crime/ Edgework

In almost all societies one finds ritualized and to varying degrees institutionalized forms of excess. From the celebration of Osiris in ancient Egypt, to the Greek festival in honour of Dionysus, to celebrations in ancient Rome in honour of the deities Kalends and Saturnalia, to the carnival period still celebrated today (whose direct origins date back to the Middle Ages), all these festivities have in common that an institutionalised free sphere is created. During this fixed period of time, otherwise valid norms and power relations are abolished: Class differences, gender differences and the social order are turned upside down (fool becomes king, laymen preach as bishops, women storm the town hall and take over the government, etc.). All irrational, senseless and ordinary behaviour is legitimate and the participants do not have to fear sanctions.

The time of carnival is a time of delimitation, ecstasy and excess, facing the dominant attitude of limitation and reason. The authors of Cultural Criminology argue that these ritualized times of delimitation have lost their meaning and power in modern societies and can at best serve as a commodified confirmation of the ruling order.

Instead, postmodern societies have produced a series of cultural practices and activities that have a carnivalesque character (satire events on television, body modification, S&M practices, raves, consumption of soft drugs/ party drugs, gang rituals, festivals, extreme sports, partly also political demonstrations, joyrides (reclaim your streets) – activities are not originally carnivalesque but contain elements of performative pleasure and oppose the dominant attitude towards reason and sobriety.

Criminological verstehen

The concept of criminological Verstehen (Ferrell & Hamm, 1998) goes back to the German sociologist Max Weber (here: Verstehende Soziologie). At the centre of understanding (or interpretative) sociology/ criminology is social action. Social action is constitutive for social development. The focus is on the acting actors and their respective constructions of meaning that underlie their actions. The task of understanding or interpretive sociology/criminology is to analyse these subjective constructions of meaning and their deconstruction, taking into account the social and historical framework conditions.

Style

The term style refers to the sociological theoretical tradition of symbolic interactionism (George H. Mead). According to symbolic interactionism, interactions are characterized by symbols that express themselves primarily in social objects, relationships and situations. The symbols have no meaning as such. Only in interaction do social actors communicate through language, gestures and facial expressions about the interpretation and assignment of meaning to the symbols. The meaning of a symbol or the interpretation of the meaning structure of this symbol is synonymous with the adoption of values and motifs, which goes hand in hand with the socially predominant meaning structure of a symbol. Both the conferring of meaning (i.e. the construction of symbols) and the perception and decoding (i.e. the deconstruction) of symbols is learned in the course of the socialization of a member of society.

Männer in Zootsuits
A soldier inspecting men in “Zoot Suits” on the sidelines of a Woody Herman’s Orchestra concert (Washington, D.C., 1942)

“Style” in the sense of Cultural Criminology could be described as a collection of symbols and their respective attribution of meaning. Above all (youthful) subcultures are characterized by a complex system of symbols and their shared attribution of meaning. Style is thus far more than just an aesthetic category. Belonging to the subculture rather requires knowledge about the meaning of the respective symbol and thus the ability to decipher this symbol according to the meaning ascribed within the subculture (e.g. the “reading” of graffiti, but also e.g. the meaning of certain sports and training jackets as a sign of a gang membership). The construction and meaning of symbols within a subculture often takes place in a conscious departure from the usual hegemonic attribution (e.g. the oversized suits of the “Zoot Suiter”, see illustration) and refers to the social situation of the subculture members and their attitudes towards systems of norms and values that are shared by the majority of society.

Implication for Criminal Policy

With the explicit reference to the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies and the tradition of (British) Critical Criminology (“New Criminology”), and not least to interactionist (American) sociology, the authors of Cultural Criminology place themselves in a left-wing political spectrum. In agreement with representatives of labeling theory, Marxist and feminist theories of crime (see: Conflict-oriented theories of  crime), Cultural Criminology understands crime and crime control as the result and consequence of attribution processes. The main implication of this analysis in terms of criminal policy is a departure from the punitive turnaround in criminal policy. Instead of increasingly criminalizing and (increasingly harshly) punishing other persons (groups) and actions, the authors of Cultural Criminology advocate an understanding of socially marginalized groups and for more social justice.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Although cultural criminology does not claim to be a self-contained theorem, it is subject to various criticisms: the program is too vague, the methodological approach too arbitrary, crimes are played down, and integration with Marxist theories is inadequate. For a detailed discussion of this criticism, see e.g. Hayward, 2016 and Ilan, 2019.

Literature

Primary literature

Secondary literature

  • Hayward, Keith J (2010): Framing crime. Cultural criminology and the image. New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
  • The journal “Crime, Media and Culture: an international Journal” provides an excellent insight into the manifold topics of cultural criminology.

Further Information

The website CulturalCriminology.org, maintained by the University of Kent, contains numerous references to publications, films, conferences and websites relevant to cultural criminology.

Video

Control Balance Theory (Tittle)

According to the Control Balance Theory, both the probability of deviant behavior occurring and the characteristic form of deviation are determined by the relationship between the control that a person is exposed to and the control that he exercises himself.

Main proponent

Charles R. Tittle

Theory

The Control Balance Theory has its starting point in the observation that other control theories only consider forms of control that affect an individual from the outside. Charles Tittle’s Control Balance Theory, on the other hand, emphasizes that every human being is not only passively exposed to control, but also actively exercises control over others. The relationship between actively exercised and self-experienced control is important here. Tittle describes this relationship as a ‘control ratio’. This “control ratio” can be either balanced or unbalanced. For Tittle, the type of imbalance affects the specific expression of the deviance it causes. It distinguishes between three states:

  1. If the experienced and the exercised control are in balance, “Control Balance” exists. In this state, deviant behavior is unlikely.
  2. If someone exercises more control than he or she experiences, there is a control surplus. In this state, individuals tend to engage in autonomous forms of crime. This refers to acts of a more indirect nature. There are few direct confrontations with the victim.
  3. If an individual experiences more control than he or she exercises, there is a control deficit. Repressive forms of deviance occur. These are characterized by direct confrontations with the victim.

Tittle assumes that every person strives for the greatest possible degree of autonomy – in other words, wishes to influence the relationship of control in his favour. An imbalance in the control ratio therefore creates a predisposition to deviant behaviour. If there is a control deficit, an attempt is made to compensate this by deviant behaviour. If, on the other hand, there is a control surplus, there is the temptation to extend it even further.

However, a predisposition to deviant behaviour alone is not sufficient for this behaviour to occur.

Two prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the predisposition to become a motivation for deviance:

  1. An individual must perceive the control deficit or control surplus and recognize that his own control ratio can be influenced by a certain deviant behavior. The deviant behaviour must therefore be regarded as suitable to reduce the deficit or to further increase the surplus.
  2. The individual must experience a negative emotion, especially humiliation. This is perceived as provocation, which in turn justifies deviance.

Deviant behaviour occurs when a motivated individual has an opportunity to act and constraints can be overcome. Such inhibitions can be moral convictions, self-control or fear of punishment.

Tittle links very specific forms of crime to different levels of control ratio, as shown in the table below.

Control-deficit
(Repression)		 Control-Balance Control-surplus
(Autonomy)
strong medium small small medium strong
Forms of deviance „submission“Sexual submission, as a form of oppression of others „defiance“Disobedience to authorities, strikes „predation“e.g. theft, assaults, rape none

conformity

 „exploitation“e.g. targeted influence on politicians, contract killings, price agreements „plunder“e.g. environmental pollution by oil companies, arbitrary taxation of dependents „decadence“torture for sexual satisfaction, sadistic humiliation of others

Tittle integrates several other theories into his Control Balance theory. In particular, he borrowed from Agnew’s General Strain-Theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.

Critical appreciation & relevance

A big advantage, but at the same time a weak point of the Control Balance theory is its complexity. Unlike most other theories, it is able to explain many different forms of crime. One of the reasons for this is that it integrates other theories and thus provides a framework in which the different factors of effect can be seen in relation to each other.

One problem with Control Balance Theory is that its complexity makes it very difficult to evaluate. Tittles focus on autonomy as a driving motivation of people can also be criticized. He does not take into account that people also have other drives and needs.

Implication for criminal policy

According to Tittle, (social) control only has an inhibitory effect on deviant behaviour if it finds a healthy mediocrity. On the one hand, social structures should be strived for in which social control and self-control can be developed in the sense of Hirschi’s Bond Theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime. This would mean that the classical institutions (e.g. family, school) must be promoted to the extent that they can effectively exercise control over the individual. On the other hand, the theory also implies that this control must be limited. Oppression and steep hierarchies, which distribute power very unequally, should therefore be avoided.

According to the Control Balance Theory it is therefore not enough to address only certain target groups. It must be possible to shape the reality of people’s lives in such a way that as few control deficits and control surpluses as possible arise.

Literature

Primary literature

  • Charles Tittle (1995): Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance. Boulder, Colorada: Westview Press.

Secondary literature

Feminist Criminology

Theory

A large part of feminist criminology has arisen as a result of radical crime theories. Feminist crime theories investigate the influence of gender differences on crime phenomena. The advocates of this approach criticize that in other approaches and crime theories a transferability of the postulated connections – which are mostly based on the behavior of male perpetrators/test persons – to women is simply assumed.

The feminist-etiological approach assumes that the low crime rate among women can be explained by the gender-specific socialisation background. The values and norms set by society and the ‘intended’ female role model mean that women have less opportunity to commit criminal acts.

In addition, biological and anthropological approaches link the factors of physical weakness and psychological passivity with female crime. Inequalities in the treatment of women by the criminal justice system have been studied by both conflict theorists and radical theorists.

Feminist criminology sees itself, among other things, as a further development of critical criminology and is unanimous in its view that the criminal justice system is based on an asymmetrical relationship of power (powerful vs. powerless; woman vs. man). However, to date there are no comprehensive theories that explain the lower number of women convicted of delinquency compared to delinquent men.

Gerlinda Smaus and Monika Frommel can be called important feminist criminologists who deal with critical criminology, labelling approaches and biological factors in the feminism debate.

Critical appreciation & relevance

By explaining female crime through biological, psychological or socialisation factors, the ” female weakness ” is focused as a cause. The attribution of the “weak sex” has a blocking effect in times of emancipation and assigns a subordinate role to women.

Implications for criminal policy

The view of feminist criminology is strongly represented today. Since the 1990s, the role of women has once again moved to the centre of attention. Far from the question of why women become less criminals than men, women as victims of crime have become the main focus of attention. Violence against women, laws to protect against violence, prostitution and forced marriage are fields of attention that are increasingly being considered by criminal law scholars and criminologists.

Further Information

Video