First, in Gottfreson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime, they argued that the causes of crime is found in self-control, which is a psychological personality trait (Beaver, 2015).
Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that people who lack self-control tend to be more impulsive, insensitive, physical, risk-taking, short-sighted, and non-verbal and therefore are more likely to engage in criminal acts. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990. p.90). They do not believe that it is the fear of punishment that deters criminal act but yet the ability for the individual to have enough control to not commit the crime. Their logic here is when there is low self-control, criminal acts often are impromptu and have had little planning so there is not time to really evaluate the consequence of their actions. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990. P.89) Thus concluding the fear of punishment is not on the minds of the individual while committing the crime, which makes it almost irrelevant here because individuals with low self-control often seek “immediate gratification of desires” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990. p.89).
To the contrary, Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that if an individual has self control then they a tendency to avoid criminal acts whatever the circumstances in which they find themselves” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990. p. 87). Unlike their counterparts, those with high self control tend to be cautious, cognitive and verbal. They are more likely to evaluate the situation and make a sound decision.
This view can be unified with Tyler’s view of why people obey the law. Tyler takes the position that if a citizen views legal authority as legitimate then the citizen is generally more likely to comply with the law. (Tyler, 2006. p.62). Further Tyler’s believes, “The most important normative influence on compliance with the law is the person’s assessment that following the law accords with his or her sense of right and wrong; a second factor is the person’s feeling of obligation to obey the law and allegiance to legal authorities” (Tyler, 2006. p.64). Here according to Tyler’s view, if the individual views the law as fair and just then they are more likely to obey the law by not engaging in criminal activity. This means that they will have to evaluate the law and make a decision if they feel the law is fair enough to put their self-interest aside and obey it. Now if we look at the two concepts together. In order for a person to be able to evaluate a law for legitimacy before they decide whether to obey or break the law, this individual is one that is cautious and cognitive of the law. These are trait of an individual with high self-control. They are not engaging in impromptu acts but rather making a logical decision on the legitimacy of the law. These individual are less likely to commit a crime, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, thus will obey a legitimate law. This is evident in the fact that they can engage in the decision-making process of obeying a law. So according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, they do not lack self control.
Tyler gives an example in his book about the use of cocaine.( Tyler, 2006. P. 25). Some people decide not to use drugs because they feel the law should be obeyed thus legitimate authority is influencing their behavior. But this person also has to be one with high self control to not immediately use the drugs without thinking of the consequences or whether the law legitimate. This is good way to see how both theories are in play in one example. It shows how one person’s self-control and ability to see a law a legitimate could be a cause to not commit a crime.
Next we will look at Gottfredson and Hirschi’s view on how ineffective child rearing effects a child level of self control. They believe ineffective child rearing leads to a more likelihood the child will suffer from low self control. (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990. p. 97). Some characteristics associated with low self control include lack of discipline, supervision
