Discuss about the social learning and control
Read and reply to the postings made by your classmates. I have included four postings. Can you respond to each one? Each one has to be more than 100 words with one reference each. I need it by tonight. Thanks in advance.
The social bonding, social learning, control, strain and differential association theories are the tenants that make up the life course theory. Pulling from each of these theories assisted criminologists in being able to piece together more effectively the warning signs in someone’s behavior that could possibly lead them down the wrong path.
Early detection of warning signs would greatly increase the effectiveness of interventions during vital stages of an individual’s life. This integrated approach to the life course theories has contributed to the field of criminology by bringing all the approaches together in order for one to view the causation of crime from all the different angles which leads to a more effective outcome or prevention approach.
In an effort to better explain childhood and juvenile crime many life course theories were created. Integrated theory is an “explanation of crime that attempts to merge the insights from two or more theories”. (Lilly,2015) This method was a common way to explain behaviors and actions of youth involved in criminal activity. Common theories used in integration were the strain theory, control theory, social bond theory, and the association or social learning theory.
Although there are positive aspects to each theory they can only explain a portion of the whole picture. The pitfalls of integration are the risk that it will not create many competing ideas, as well integrating can cause “sloppy theorizing” in which many ideas look good but do not fit well together. Proper integration of theories will allow for a more accurate explanation of crime and will allow for growth and change with time.
My humble opinion is I think society and politics are more concerned with programs that will produce monetary results rather than results that will benefit society in the long run. People complain about having their tax dollars used to pay for the care of prisoners, but to develop the programs that will benefit society takes time, trial and error, dedication, and individuals who care about mankind and not their salary. Putting the offenders in jail and forgetting about them is easier (then they complain).
The goal of early intervention is to decrease the risk factors for the onset of offending and to increase the protective factors that foster resilience in the face of these criminogenic risks (Lilly, Cullen, Ball 2015). Attracting people to the social services career field is a challenge because the salary isn’t impressive and sometimes the locations where social services are needed the most are places one wouldn’t normally visit as well.
I think most Americans associate incarceration with punishment rather than reform, so to use resources as an early intervention program may seem like a waste of resources since there is not much research to show the successfulness of early intervention in the overall prevention of crime. Per Gottfredson, et al (2000), and Tolan & Guerra (1994), “Hundreds of youth violence prevention programs are being used in schools and communities throughout the country, yet little is known about the actual effects of many of them” (as cited in Office of the Surgeon General, 2001, ch. 5, para.1).
Part of the issue is that while many American’s have personal views about effective crime control practices, only few are up to speed on current research to show their effectiveness. Views on early intervention programs are no different. I think a lot of agencies have a history of using research to justify their current policies and initiatives, so it is not uncommon to hear positive and negative reviews on their effectiveness which only serves to leave public opinion divided.
For early intervention programs to be the most effective, I believe it will require full support from communities. If people believe that early intervention programs are facade for increasing taxes or cutting corrections officer’s jobs, then these principles will be socialized to our youth and our youth won’t buy-in to the programs either.
