The quantity of publications created over several centuries on the many proposed explanations of crime is simply colossal. However, the world of criminology is distinguished from other concentrations by the lack of concrete and accepted conclusions and premises. Countless theories have been developed targeting several distinct points of validity. However, none of them has yet managed to integrate the majority of these points into a single theory. There is little consensus in the field of criminology and the need to increase interdisciplinary collaboration is overwhelming. However, it has been noted that although their approach or assumptions are contradictory, the majority of these theories overlap in one area or another. Therefore, it is difficult to dismiss one as unconvincing without somehow discrediting those who share similarities with it, and even more difficult to declare superiority when the subject of crime and behavior human remains such a vast subject with infinite possibilities of approach. Nevertheless, some still reflect a level of inadequacy that merits correction, while others have advanced the field of criminal studies. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In a sense, human interaction is the purpose behind the existence of laws; it is therefore also an inevitable aspect of its violation. As a result, many criminologists have oriented their studies towards sociology. Among the concepts of this branch of criminology, the rise of social process theories in the 1930s introduced an approach to explaining crime that highlighted the power of sociological influences. He attempted to avoid isolating the single criminal by focusing more on the interactions of humans among themselves and among their social institutions. The original theory identified processes, including socialization and cultural conflict, that contributed to the development of criminal behavior. Subtheories developed as extensions of this primary basis, but many of them resulted in contradictions in their subsequent conclusions and hypotheses. One in particular posited ideas that differed significantly from the others in his criminological hypotheses. In 1990, Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson proposed a theory that crime was the result of several factors, particularly emphasizing man's selfish nature. and insensitive. Low self-control theory was described by first describing how most criminal acts occur, which they claimed were spontaneous acts committed by criminals seeking some form of immediate, selfish benefit. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of opportunity, which they defined as situations that result in some form of reward in exchange for an offense. Because of this stated basis of a typical crime, Hirschi and Gottfredson concluded that the lack of self-control in such situations was the key characteristic leading to criminal action. The term "self-control" has been defined in theory to represent a person's sensitivity when faced with certain incentives. It is evident that their ideas strongly reflected the classical approach attributing crime to uninhibited human impulsivity manifested in instinctive attempts to increase pleasure and escape pain. Hirschi and Gottfredson therefore postulated that self-control was a socially acquired skillearly in development to combat these natural human tendencies. As a result, they agreed that effective parenting is vital in the fight against crime. Inadequate parenting and inappropriate development, according to this micro-theory, are the direct causes of low self-control and, in turn, the potential for criminal behavior. . They explained this by observing that the levels of self-control adopted early on remained consistent beyond childhood and throughout a person's life. Although the theory broke new ground in the mainstream debate between development and propensity, it is based on the controversial idea that all humans are predisposed and inevitably inclined to a criminal nature, which can only be controlled through social learning throughout. throughout early development. With such a general approach as the basis for such an individual-centered theory, low self-control theory is simply lacking. It relies entirely on focusing on a single type of crime and its specific aspects, ignoring all other types of crime, other potential influences and the impact of circumstantial factors. With such an obvious social consensus attitude, combined with a very restrictive mentality, the theory-derived proposition on the whole issue is only an enhancement of parenting which is supposed to create a stronger individual intrusion into the situations facilitating opportunities for crime. This limited and inadequate resolution is a consequence of the limited foundation on which the theory rests. Unlike Hirschi and Gottfredson's theory of low self-control, the developmental branch of crime theories allows for a much more adaptable and encompassing assortment of potential explanations. It seeks to integrate a multitude of disciplines by analyzing the progression of crime throughout an offender's lifespan. Specific theory within this group still maintains recognition of sociological and environmental influences, while also incorporating the psychological aspect of criminology. Terrie Moffitt presented a model in which she distinguished two different types of offenders, life-time persistent repeat offenders and adolescent-limited offenders, known as dual-track developmental theory. The model of these projected pathways innovatively demonstrated the inclusion of multiple factors, such as psychological, environmental, and social effects. The main distinction between the two categories is the continuation or cessation of criminal behavior in adulthood. Those who begin to abstain from such activities are known as adolescent delinquents, who she believes do not develop due to neuropsychological deficits or disadvantaged societal circumstances. Due to peer association and the frustrations of not yet possessing the freedom of adulthood, Moffitt's theory reveals that young people in this category are on a positive trajectory from which they only briefly derail over the course of this period of adolescence. In contrast, characteristics not found in adolescent offenders due to neuropsychological discrepancies and disadvantaged environments are the main characteristics that differentiate the category of persistent recidivists over the course of their lives. The theory emphasizes that those who continue to offend after adolescence and adopt a criminal identity commit offenses earlier and share various critical factors, such as abnormal temperaments, lower IQ, disrupted families or poor parenting, social status lower socioeconomic status and behaviorsantisocial. Dual-track developmental theory focuses on the pervasiveness of juvenile delinquency and the significant differences among those who continue to commit crimes into adulthood. However, this is done through the simultaneous collaboration of several disciplinary factors. Furthermore, the model also achieves a balance on many topics of debate within criminal studies. It recognizes offenders who act of their own volition, while identifying those who are less willingly predisposed to criminal tendencies. It studies individuals and proposes how criminal behavior can develop, but does not exclude the social structural impacts on these individuals and the criminal propensity that some of them already possess. Although micro-theory pays such attention to the influence of social conflict and has justified a multitude of varied strategies, the theory primarily advances solutions in the area of ​​effective, preferably family-centered, foster care by putting emphasis on early intervention. Unlike self-control theory discussed previously, this innovative study tactic provides a general account of criminal development more appropriate to the complexity involved in criminal studies. Not only is the model truly applicable to a much wider variety of cases than others, but Moffitt's theory has also advanced the efforts of many workers in criminology by evolving it into a multidisciplinary field. As contradictory as these two explanations of crime may seem at first glance, it is more obvious that one simply outweighs the other in depth when the theories are applied to actual criminal cases. This is the case when analyzing the documented stories of two men in The Other Wes Moore. Both Wes Moores shared a name, were born in the same deprived neighborhood, and had mothers who were both dedicated to improving their children's futures. However, the author of the book, Wes Moore, defied all odds by achieving incredible success, while the other Wes Moore embarked on the path of crime at an early age and currently resides in a prison cell. According to Hirschi and Gottfredson's theory, the ultimate determining factor in this matter between the two was the individual's inability to control his impulses when he had the opportunity to achieve what he sought by means external to the parameters of the law. Moreover, this difference in men's self-control reflects the fact that Wes managed to properly develop the skills necessary for such constraints, which in this case came for the author in the form of education in l Valley Forge Military Academy. Although the other Moore's mother is also devoted to her children, her choice to refrain from taking direct action on the issue of her son's behavior is what the low self-control theory would assume to be the direct cause of what happened to the other Moore. Wes Moore's theory. Moffitt would also agree that the author attended the military academy at the first signs of deviance. However, the dual-pathway development model allows analysis from various aspects, allowing for a more in-depth explanation. To begin with, the neighborhood described by the author would be the first addition to the causal factors as an explanation for the development of criminal behavior. Alongside the low socio-economic status of his family and its ineffectiveness, the absence of a father figure also theoretically contributes to a path towards delinquency. However, both Wes Moores were born in exactly the same circumstances. What saved the scholar from.