Customer Reviews

A General Theory of Crime

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"A general theory of crime" represents a paradigm shift in the way we think about crime and criminals. Like any other scientific paradigm shift, there has been great resistance to the theory by sociologists who continue to blame crime on social deprivation, poverty and other social causes. The book discredits old sociological theories and illustrates that the cause of crime is poor parenting and the failure of parents to teach their children to delay gratification. Since the book's publication, it has been the most widely tested theory in criminology with substantial empirical support. If you want to understand the mind of a criminal offender and the nature of criminality, this is the book for you. The book also describes the necessary conditions for individual crimes to occur, a section that is valuable for readers who want to prevent their own victimization. In addition, the book demonstrates that offenders do not specialize in crime types like murder and sex crimes; instead, offenders tend to commit a wide variety of crimes and engage in a variety of self-destructive behaviors like drinking, drugging, speeding, traffic accidents, and promiscuous sex. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the general theory is the data presented that links age and crime, with peak arrest rates occurring between the ages of 17 and 19 and precipitously dropping off after the teenage years. The implications of the book for preventing crime are that we need to spend more money on early childhood programs that teach parents how to love their children and instill in them the self-control they need to delay gratification (such staying in school) and generally engage in long-term rather than short-term thinking.

Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of crime commission rests upon basic mostly unstated assumptions about human nature that people are essentially born selfish and with the desires to seek out pleasure and avoid pain. It is only through socialization that we learn how to control these impulses and delay gratification, so we can seek pleasure through society's legitimate means and avoid harming others. It is no surprise that they develop their definition of crime around this idea: "acts of force or fraud undertaken in the pursuit of self-interest." (p. 15).

There are, of course, several things wrong with this definition. They examine in their book behavior that does not meet this definition, such as drug use (not an act of force or fraud, although it fits the normally-conceived definition of a "crime" as being "illegal"). Furthermore, not all crimes are undertaken in the pursuit of self-interest (or at least ONLY in self-interest), for example, altruistic crimes and civil disobedience.

While studies that have actually tested it show it to be an important theory, many use behavioral measures lack external validity: they measure low self-control with the dependent variable itself by saying we can recognize people who have low self-control by their crimes and vise versa. This is a circular argument. Other studies question whether self-control is truly stable throughout the life course, which is one of the major premises of the book.

It's an interesting conceptual idea, but the theory as laid out in this book alone is hardly the "general theory of crime."

This book is the best presentation of control theory in criminology. If you are prone to Marxist criminology, this book will drive you nuts. The problem that G&H run into a lot, however, is what makes a crime a crime. If a man saved a baby from being inside a locked car by breaking the front window, how exactly is that different (in terms of property damage) from a gang member getting his kicks -- breaking a car window at random? Why is one act right, but the other act wrong? The consequences are the same. So is crime all about intention and not consequences? G&H could have clarified this point more.

The general theory of crime is part of neo-liberal discourse that finds its roots in panopticism. Panopticism is a method of social control that functions by having people watch themselves, so that no one else, such as the police, intervenes. In other words, people produce a self that, in turn, polices itself via self-control. In essence, people are their own police and, for this reason, they become extremely individualized.

As much as Gottfredson and Hirschi would like to think they have provided an "original" contribution to the literature in sociology/criminology, their thesis is nothing more than a reworked version of both panopticism and the christian religion. For instance, low self-control is the frail human who is sinful, opportunity is temptation, and guardianship (physical, self, or perceived) is god. High self-control, of course, is panopticism. Furthermore, their thesis completely dismisses class, culture, and power as explanations for why people "deviate." My suggestion is to read Foucault, and then read a general theory of crime as a way to situate it within a framework of panopticism. Gaining self-control only ensures that people will remain docile, obedient, and less resistant.

Finally, Gottfredson and Hirschi offer absolutely no critical analysis of how their theory discursively INVENTS people as subjects of themselves. In other words, their "theory" is not about "discovering" the "causes" of crime; instead, it is an attempt to map out a technique of power that can be used to confine, correct, discipline, and subtly punish people who "deviate" from "high self-control" and mainstream society. In other words, it is about maintaining control over people so they become better workers who fit in nicely with a capitalist society that is based on production. My recommendation is to read Discipline and Punish and move on to more informed and critical analyses of deviance and crime. Forget Gottfredson and Hirschi!

I haven't read the book, but I do intend to purchase it based on the unfavorable review of David Redmon. I hadn't encountered a thought process or vocabulary such as his since taking a couple of undergraduate sociology courses for easy A's in the early & mid'70's. I could not avoid breaking up & laughing out loud at my office when I read, "Gaining self-control only ensures that people will remain docile, obediant & less resistant." Far-f___ing out, Man! (I hope he doesn't bring his kids to any restaurant where I'm eating, as I'm sure his disdain for self-control & obediance will be reflected in their running wild & yelling, much to the displeasure of those of us who believe self-control & obediance are frequently virtues.)
This fellow is a caricature of the Leftist/Marxist-chic student so popular when Communism (not to mention a disregard for more traditional values) was perceived to be on the rise 30 some years ago. Although Communism has been consigned to the proverbial junk-heap of history since then--and a long lost respect for traditional values has emerged-- Mr. Redmon no doubt laments those developments, if he's even cognizant of them.
I can't wait to read his other reviews. It will be like entering a time warp & remembering my carefree college days.

who better to describe a theory than those who originated the thoery