Use anomie, differential opportunity, and general strain theories to explain exiting a criminal career. Use social control theory to explain exiting a criminal career
What will be an ideal response?
Answer: Anomie and differential opportunity theory would suggest increased access to legitimate opportunities could explain desistance from crime. General strain theory suggests that desistance from crime is the result of a reduction in objective and subjective levels of strain or a decrease in coping with existing strains through crime. Social control theory suggests that desistance results from attachments to conventional institutions and people.
You might also like to view...
The people who expounded the Protestant work ethic and supported the rehabilitation model were known as:
A. Child Savers B. Reformers C. Conservatives D. Christian Healers
In teen courts, youths are often sentenced to write apology letters to their victims.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Which of the following was the first scholar to propose the idea that criminal behavior is learned like any other behavior?
A. Albert Bandura B. B. F. Skinner C. Gabriel Tard D. Edwin Sutherland
Joey bought a ticket to the Sugar Bowl game in New Orleans. Joey had a car but did not have enough money to buy the gasoline for the trip to the game. He stopped at an old-fashioned “full service” gas station near Birmingham and said to the attendant
“Fill ‘er up.” The sign at the station said “No credit.” The moment the attendant finished pumping the gas into Joey’s car, Joey sped off without paying. On these facts the state of Alabama charged Joey with robbery. Which of the following statements indicates the most likely outcome of Joey’s trial? a. Joey would be convicted of robbery since he carried away personal property of another in a forceful manner. b. Joey would likely be convicted of theft. c. Joey would likely be convicted of burglary on the basis that he entered the station with the intent to commit a felony therein. d. Joey would likely be found not guilty of any crime because there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that he harbored a criminal intent.