The Implications of Life Course Theories of Crime, Essay Example

As Carlsson and Sarnecki (2016) explain, there are two primary forms of life course theories on criminality: static and dynamic. Static theories are, generally speaking, based on the idea that crime and criminal behavior arise from individual traits and personality features, and the factors that motivate criminal behavior remain largely the same (i.e., static) over the course of the lifetime of an individual. These theories tend to be generalizable, according to the researchers who developed them, and criminal behavior is linked to issues such as self-control. Socialization plays a role, but in static theories criminals are formed and they remain likely to be criminals for a lifetime. In dynamic theories, there are more factors at play, with the factors that motivate crime changing and evolving over time (Carlsson and Sarnecki). An individual who might be prone to criminal behavior in adolescence, for example, may change over time, and different decisions and have different perspectives on themselves and their behavior at different periods of their life. The most fascinating aspect of these two types of theoretical frameworks is that neither of them appear to function as generalized frameworks that can be used to explain all crime. The evolution of the life perspective theory over the course of the past century demonstrates that our understanding of criminal behavior is still incomplete (Kraska). Despite the advances in research and the evolution of the criminal justice system and the ideas it is based on, we still have more to learn about how to understand, explain, and hopefully learn to prevent at least some criminal behavior.

All theories of criminal behavior are ultimately concerned with these issues are identifying and minimizing criminal behavior. Earlier theories, such as the general theory of crime developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi, now appear to be too limited due to their focus on the individual. Gottfredson and Hirschi do not assert that people are born criminals, but they did argue that the propensity for criminal behavior is largely shaped early in life, through family socialization. In their view, virtually all criminal behavior can be explained by an individual’s degree of self-control (Gottfredson and Hirschi). Theories such as this leave little room for examining crime through larger sociological frameworks, such as the impact that poverty or race or other factors have on crime. For example, if some research indicated that African American adolescent males from the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, a static theory proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi would likely ignore the socioeconomic aspect that shaped criminal behavior. If those same adolescent males and their families lived in upper middle class neighborhoods, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime would likely predict that they would still engage in the same behavior. This seems unlikely to me, because it simply does not account for broader social forces. There is no question in my mind that social forces shape criminal behavior across a lifetime (Kraska), yet there are still no theories I have encountered that can be applied generally to every type of crime and every type of criminal behavior. The fact that the search for a unified theory of criminal behavior is still underway is the most interesting aspect of this field of study.

Works Cited

Carlsson, Christoffer, and Jerzy Sarnecki. An Introduction to Life-Course Criminology. Los Angeles, Sage, 2016.

Gottfredson, Michael R, and Travis Hirschi. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1990.

Kraska, Peter B. “Criminal Justice Theory: Toward Legitimacy and an Infrastructure.” Justice Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, June 2006, pp. 167–185, 10.1080/07418820600688735. Accessed 26 Apr. 2019.