Criminological be control. Structural components incorporate social institutions,

Criminological research
has revealed a nearly limitless source of factors known to be connected with
illegal participation which is the bulk of them being social and environmental
factors. In order to explain crime, social and environmental theories for crime
have to be considered. There is a variety
of potential consequences of limiting crime explanations. This paper will explain
how social and environmental theories that have been provided as a foundation
for explaining criminal behavior. This paper will explain possible consequences
of limiting explanations of crime to social and environmental factors. This
paper will describe other factors that might be beneficial in explaining crime
and why.

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                    The Social
and Environmental Explanations of Crime

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            The concerns of a person’s
delinquency with the larger social structures and cultural values of society,
family, or peer group, play an essential role in social and environmental
explanations of crime. Delinquency is perceived from the point
of view of the social comprehension of delinquency and its social causes.
The objective
could create in higher State and Federal levels of government as well as
limited levels of government which include programs intended to assure equal
opportunities to all individuals (Lee & Ousey, 2012). If an individual participates in social programs, crime can be
control. Structural components incorporate social institutions, organization,
friendship and kinship networks, and demographic feature of the population such
as age structure, race and ethnicity, and social class characteristics (Lee
& Ousey, 2012).

            Age is believed to be one of the
strongest correlates when it comes to an individual participant in a serious crime. Involvement in criminal activity
usually starts quite early in life, with the rate of violent crime climaxing
when people are in their late teens and early twenties (Lee & Ousey, 2012).
Socioeconomic composition plays a significant role when it comes to illegal
participation. Communities with a countless part of their populations living in
poverty are expected to have greater violence rates for both instrumental and
expressive reasons (Lee & Ousey, 2012). Street codes are cultural
characteristics in a community that have an effect on crime. When there are no
good jobs presented in a neighborhood and socioeconomic deficiency is severe,
people create other methods to establish their place in the status of the order of the community. Street code is the
salience of upholding one’s respect, reputation, or social status in the eye of
others, and they shape behavioral norms intended to achieve that purpose (Lee
& Ousey, 2012).

            People combined neighborhood
features into individuality and depend on these areas to offer opportunities
and help create justifications for their own ruthless actions. Criminals in criminogenic
environments understand their world and how their locations contribute to
people choosing crime (Hochstetler & Copes, 2012). Carjacking is a crime
that is nearly continuously connected with violent career offenders who devote
much of their freedom in poor neighborhoods with open-air drug markets (Hochstetler
& Copes, 2012). Some individuals use their geographic as an excuse to
justify their crime; while others use the excuse that there is no way out.   Many individuals believe that their early
mastery of the street environment prevents, or at best creates more problematic
to acquire, viewpoints that would lead to success in other places (Hochstetler
& Copes, 2012). The streets feed them with the self-perpetuating reasoning
that plays a minor part in their extended histories of criminal choices. The
lived conditions of the streets seem inescapable to individuals. These
environmental conditions in the mixture
can play a minor role in reinforcing the last thinking by making despair seem
appropriate (Hochstetler & Copes, 2012).

            There are Socialization Theory and
Opportunity Theory perspectives that address reconsidering peers and
delinquency.  The Socialization Theory
perspective can be considered teenagers whose associates are more criminal will
participate in more crime themselves, even after scheming for selection processes
(Haynie, & Osgood, 2005). The relationship of peer delinquency to teenagers
owns crime will be tougher when teenagers are more devoted to those peers and
when they devote more time with them in free entertaining (Haynie, &
Osgood, 2005). Peer delinquency will referee much of the effect of other
variables that are dependably connected with the crime, such as age, attachment to parents and school grades (Haynie,
& Osgood, 2005). The Opportunity Theory perspective can be considered
teenagers who devote more time in free entertaining with associates, absent from
authority figures, will participate in more crime even when scheming for peer
delinquency (Haynie, & Osgood, 2005). Time consumed in free
entertaining may be more connected to crime if one’s associates are more criminal. 

BACK TO TOP
x

Hi!
I'm Nicholas!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out