Self Control And Self Discipline

Control as the central element of the theory. Siegel & McCormick (2015) indicate that Gottfredson and Hirschi redefined some principles in Hirschi’s social bonding theory by adding some elements of the trait and rational choice theories and moving away from social control top self-control. The theorists’ assumptions are shaped by observing the society at the time and linking self-control, or lack thereof, to criminal acts and what the theorists refer to as “analogous acts” (Akers, 2012). Cohen & Vila (1996) indicate in their study that the Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that most theories failed to distinguish between crime and criminality. The rationale behind this choice to attempt to solve the empirical predicament in criminology – “the fact that crime everywhere declines with age, while differences in crime propensities across individuals remain relatively stable over the life course” (Cohen & Vila, 1996, p.130). Thus, they theorist sought to come up with a theory that can not only distinguish between crime and criminality but also be used to explain all sorts of deliquent and analogous deviant deeds.

The self-control theory delineates that there is an extremely low probability for persons with high self-control to participate in illegitimate acts while those with low self-control are exceedingly likely to commit crimes. Despite appearing somewhat impractical, Gottfredson and Hirschi attribute all crimes and delinquent behaviors to self-control. They do not limit the type of crimes that cannot be explained using the self-control theory of crime. They also define crime as forceful or fraudulent acts undertaken in pursuit of self-interests (Cohen & Vila, 1996). This definition suggests that crime is intended to satisfy desires and require no specialized training to undertake. It also assumes that individuals are not naturally predisposed to put the interests of those they interact with over their self-interests. In addition, the definition indicates that people act rationally when they commit a crime and when they do not engage in criminal activities.

The theory explains that criminal behavior is often gratifying and provides immediate short-term pleasure that individuals can secure with few skills. Individuals give in to this temptation due to low self-control. Low self-control also explains other non-criminal abnormal actions such as smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, and unprotected and illicit sexual behaviors that are often immediate sources of pleasure. This can also explain why most criminals also engage in these non-criminal deviant behaviors. The theory also continues to emphasize that criminal propensity is established in childhood. According to Siegel & McCormick (2015), Gottfredson and Hirschi believe that crime occurs through a process that involves having an impulsive personality to lacking self-control, to breaking or weakening of social bonds, to the opportunity to commit a crime, then to deviant behavior. Simply, it means that the basis of low self-control is incomplete or ineffective socialization, particularly ineffective parenting.

The general theory of theory suggests that crime is simply a way of securing instantaneous pleasure, and the capacity to delay or forgo these desires is associated with self-control. Effective parenting, thus, is basically training children to have high self-control. Children with low self-control are inclined to be insensitive, thrill-seekers, risk-takers, impulsive, shortsighted, and highly physical (Cohen & Vila, 1996). These traits are observed to appear together in the same people and tend to persevere throughout the individual’s life. In this theory, an offender is viewed as someone with low self-control that appears in absence of discipline, nurture, or training.

Every treatment program, criminal justice practice, therapy, and police policy is somehow based explicitly or implicitly on observations and explanations made by criminologists regarding criminal behavior. One vital importance of the self-control theory, just like of any theory, is the ability to put it into practice being able to apply these concepts and principles. According to Akers (2005, p.25), “if theory is to earn its bread and butter, it should be applied and if practice is to earn its bread and butter, it should be theoretically informed.” Akers, a criminologist, clearly indicates that all policies, programs, and practices develop to combat crime and delinquency are founded on one or a combination of major criminological theories or they tend to make theoretical assumptions about criminal behaviors along with theoretical ideas of what is required to stop, reduce, or reverse these behaviors. Since the root of low self-control is parenting, the theorists call for parents to monitor their children, recognize bad behavior, and rectify it.

They also postulate that if self-control does not develop by the time individuals reaches ages eight to ten, then it is doubtful to develop, and self-control is expected to be remain reasonably stable in the course of life of that person. Akers (2005) delineates that Gottfredson and Hirschi provide ways the theory can be put into practice. The theorists suggest that interventions to combat crime and delinquency using this theory can be considered as prevention rather than treatment. They suggest that the best way is to train children to delay or waive instant gratification for the concern of long-term benefits. Adults, especially parents, need to observe and identify signs of low self-control and correct this behavior. The punishment does not need to be too lenient or harsh since it might degrade the efforts to train the children.

Simply put, the minimum requirements of effective parenting includes three elements; watching a child’s behavior adequately, identifying deviant and analogous behaviors when they occur, and administering reasonable and consistent punishment when such behaviors transpire (Cohen & Vila, 1996) Gottfredson and Hirschi’s recommendations appear to be consistent with efforts in early childhood intervention efforts and offer decent advice to parents. The general crime theory might not be explicitly adopted but it implicitly applied or recommended in many programs and policies such as those applied in schools.