A General Theory of Crime

Rating:
Summary: The Best Book On Crime and Criminals in the 20th Century
Review: "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.

Rating:
Summary: Not the "general" theory of crime
Review: 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."

Rating:
Summary: Perfect For What It Is
Review: 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.