Self-control is one’s ability to alter his or her own states and responses. Criminologist (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990), was known for purposing that low self-control was the cause of all crime. These two criminologists believed that low self-control are responsible for crimes ranging from petty crimes to homicide. They also believed that low-self control was the cause for rape and, white-collar crimes. In this general theory other than being the cause of all crimes they believed that it was the result of some types of behavior. They came to the conclusion that all crimes are simple easy acts targeted at fulfilling desires of the moment. Gottfredson and Hirschi general theory is connected to a classical or rational choice outlook. This
…show more content…
In the study on the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime (Geis, 2000) he looked at self-control theory in regard to many ways. The first way he looked at self-control in regard to the definition of crime. He quoted Gottfredson and Hirschi when they stated that there theory is meant to explain all crime, at all time. As well as for many forms of behavior that are not sanctioned by the state (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990:119). He then explained that a few pages later Gottfredson and Hirschi’s expressed that there are some crimes that are rare and complex and offer a weak basis for theory and policy. Geis then stated that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s basically contradicted themselves because now self-control theory do not explain all crimes, at all times. Geis then looked at self-control in regard to the matter of tautology, which is when something is said twice but worded differently. He stated that this is the most common criticism of Gottfredson and Hirschi theory. Geis then looked at self-control from a criminal law perspective. Since it was stated in the self-control theory that it explains all crime, Geis expressed how self-control can explain certain crimes such as cheating on taxes. He then looked into self-control and its exceptions. He expressed how a theory can claim to be a general theory but have a lot of exceptions. He also expressed how many exceptions it will take before the theory is disconfirmed or falsified (Geis,
In the study on the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime (Geis, 2000) he looked at self-control theory in regard to many ways. The first way he looked at self-control in regard to the definition of crime. He quoted Gottfredson and Hirschi when they stated that there theory is meant to explain all crime, at all time. As well as for many forms of behavior that are not sanctioned by the state (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990:119). He then explained that a few pages later Gottfredson and Hirschi’s expressed that there are some crimes that are rare and complex and offer a weak basis for theory and policy. Geis then stated that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s basically contradicted themselves because now self-control theory do not explain all crimes, at all times. Geis then looked at self-control in regard to the matter of tautology, which is when something is said twice but worded differently. He stated that this is the most common criticism of Gottfredson and Hirschi theory. Geis then looked at self-control from a criminal law perspective. Since it was stated in the self-control theory that it explains all crime, Geis expressed how self-control can explain certain crimes such as cheating on taxes. He then looked into self-control and its exceptions. He expressed how a theory can claim to be a general theory but have a lot of exceptions. He also expressed how many exceptions it will take before the theory is disconfirmed or falsified (Geis,