In this theory, the level of self control exercised by individuals in the presence of a strong or a weak incentive to commit a crime explains why some people commit crimes while others do not. The inability to exercise adequate levels of self control produces people with impulsive behavior. These are the people who engage in criminal activities. People with low self control but are in circumstances where they are not able to participate in criminal activities have higher chances of not engaging in crime. But this does not mean that the inclination or potential for crime is not in them. On the same note, people with a fairly high sense of self control who are taken to environments where the temptation or pressure to engage in criminal activities is high may end up participating in criminal actions.
This theory of self control makes sense and it is possible to explain most of the criminal activities that are taking place in society today. For example there is a tendency to think that the Hispanics and African Americans who are involved in criminal activities are inherently bad people whose genetic disposition makes them criminals. This is a fallacious argument that gets rendered irrelevant by the self control theory since it allows us to look at the environment in which these groups of people live. Most African Americans are poor after long periods of enslavement of their ancestors. As much as they may be having astronomically high levels of self control, the pressure of poverty pushes some of them into crime. The same applies to Hispanics. This is why I agree with the self control theory.
Response to Jose’s Post
I agree with the assumption that people with low impulse to commit crime will not commit crime while those with a high impulse to commit crimes will commit crimes. However the example you gave of fifty-fifty percent in committing crime and not committing crime is not clear. Also, on the issue of channeling the impulsiveness to useful areas like business and the housing market in particular, I do not agree at all. This is because people who do things on impulse will rush and invest money in risky areas where it is bound to lead to heavy losses. If the resources being invested belong to the family, then the family is going to become bankrupt. I instead think that such people should be carefully identified and directed to areas where the pressure to commit crime is low. For example if poverty is a source of strong pressure, then economic assistance to such individuals would be one of the ways to help them avoid crime.
Response to Janette’s post
The ideas raised by Janette cover what the theory describes as the sources of pressure that makes those with high impulsiveness and therefore low self control to get into the habit of committing crimes. Janette mentions the influence from the media which according to me is a source of pressure that can make someone with impulsive tendencies to move out and try to do what the media has portrayed. Also, three or four families can fall victim to the effects of a bad economy such as the recession that has left so many Americans and other people around the world in economic ruins, only members of one family decide to do things that can be considered criminal. Does this mean that the families whose members have not engaged in crime were less affected by the economic woes? This is not the case. The issue is that self control plays a role; but the overarching element is that economic problems created the pressure that fed the people’s low self control.