Social Interactionist Perspective &; Crime
Social Interactionist Perspective &; Crime
As crime continues to occur, criminologists begin to define new theories to explain our seemingly naturalistic tendencies on what mental processes take place for an individual to actually partake in criminal activity. The symbolic interactionist perspective defines itself by its strong beliefs in the fact that criminals are defined by their social processes. The social process theory states that criminality is a function of people’s interactions with various groups, organizations and processes in society. For example, an individual’s connection with family, school, friends, religion and media would all be main factors in determining how their criminal structure within their personality came into existence. A section if the symbolic interactionist belief that I most agree with is the definition that not all criminals come from poverty stricken places- that the individuals key institutions play a large role in shaping the individual, not the income level of the household or neighborhood.
The social learning theory suggests that people learn the techniques and attitudes of crime from close relationships with criminal peers: Crime is learned behavior. Underneath the social learning theory, two prominent sub- theories exist: differential association theory and neutralization theory. First, differential association theory, created by Edwin Sutherland and his associate, Donald Cressey, truly focused on the detail that crime was not a product of a low income environment, but of the individual’s key institutions. Criminal behavior is a byproduct of interacting with others; similar to how many citizens believes criminals who emerge from jail time are more-so corrupted than when they entered in for their sentence, however long. The theory also believes that people learn criminal behavior in adolescence from close, trusted friends or relatives. People that are not in their first group have less of an effect on their socially
As crime continues to occur, criminologists begin to define new theories to explain our seemingly naturalistic tendencies on what mental processes take place for an individual to actually partake in criminal activity. The symbolic interactionist perspective defines itself by its strong beliefs in the fact that criminals are defined by their social processes. The social process theory states that criminality is a function of people’s interactions with various groups, organizations and processes in society. For example, an individual’s connection with family, school, friends, religion and media would all be main factors in determining how their criminal structure within their personality came into existence. A section if the symbolic interactionist belief that I most agree with is the definition that not all criminals come from poverty stricken places- that the individuals key institutions play a large role in shaping the individual, not the income level of the household or neighborhood.
The social learning theory suggests that people learn the techniques and attitudes of crime from close relationships with criminal peers: Crime is learned behavior. Underneath the social learning theory, two prominent sub- theories exist: differential association theory and neutralization theory. First, differential association theory, created by Edwin Sutherland and his associate, Donald Cressey, truly focused on the detail that crime was not a product of a low income environment, but of the individual’s key institutions. Criminal behavior is a byproduct of interacting with others; similar to how many citizens believes criminals who emerge from jail time are more-so corrupted than when they entered in for their sentence, however long. The theory also believes that people learn criminal behavior in adolescence from close, trusted friends or relatives. People that are not in their first group have less of an effect on their socially