The amount of publications created over several centuries on the numerous proposed explanations of crime is nothing short of colossal. However, the world of criminology differs from other concentrations due to the lack of concrete and accepted results and premises. Countless theories have been developed targeting multiple distinct points of validity. However, none of them have yet managed to successfully incorporate most of these points into a single theory. Little is unanimously agreed upon in the field of criminology and the need to increase interdisciplinary collaboration is titanic. However, it has been noted that although they conflict in their approach or assumptions, most of these theories overlap in one area or another. Therefore, it is difficult to exclude one as unconvincing without somehow discrediting those who share similarities with it, and even more difficult to declare one superior when the topic of crime and human behavior remains such a broad topic with infinite possibilities of approach. However, some still reflect a level of inadequacy worth addressing, while others have made progress in the field of criminal studies. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In a sense, human interaction is the purpose behind the existence of laws; therefore, it is also an inevitable aspect in its violation. As a result, many criminologists have focused their studies in the direction of 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 emphasized the power of sociological influences. He attempted to avoid isolating the single criminal by focusing more on the interactions of human beings with each other and 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 led to contradictions in their further conclusions and hypotheses. One in particular postulated ideas that differed significantly from the others in its criminological assumptions. In 1990, Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson proposed a theory that crime was the result of several factors, most notably emphasizing human nature born with selfish interests. and insensitive. The low self-control theory was outlined by first describing how most criminal acts occur, which they argue are spontaneous acts performed by criminals seeking some form of immediate, selfish benefit. Furthermore, they accentuated the meaning of opportunity, which they defined as situations involving some type of reward in exchange for an offense. Because of this assumed foundation of a typical crime, Hirschi and Gottfredson concluded that the absence of self-control in such situations is the key characteristic that leads to criminal action. The term “self-control” was defined in theory to represent how susceptible a person is when presented with certain flattery. It is evident that their ideas strongly reflected the classical approach that attributed crime to uninhibited human impulsiveness demonstrated during instinctive attempts to increase pleasure and evade pain. Hirschi and Gottfredson, therefore, postulated that self-control was a socially learned skill early in development to combat these natural human tendencies. As a result, they agreedthat effective parenting is vital as a means of fighting crime. Inadequate parenting and improper development, according to this micro-theory, are the direct causes of poor self-control and, in turn, the potential for criminal behavior. . They explained this through the observation that initially adopted levels of self-control remained constant beyond childhood and throughout a person's life. Although the theory has innovated the prevailing debate about development versus propensity, it does so with the controversial idea that all human beings are predisposed and inevitably prone to a criminal nature, which can only be curbed through social learning during early life. stages of development. With such a general approach as the basis for such an individual-focused theory, the low self-control theory is simply lacking. It is completely based on the focus on a single crime type and surrounding aspects specific to it, ignoring all other crime types, other potential influences and the impact of circumstantial factors. With such an obvious social consensus attitude, combined with a highly narrow mindedness, the theoretical proposition of the whole issue is simply an improvement in parenting that will presumably create a stronger individual intrusion for situations that facilitate opportunities for criminality. This limited and inadequate resolution is a consequence of the limited foundations on which the theory is founded. Unlike Hirschi and Gottfredson's theory of low self-control, the evolutionary branch of crime theories achieves a much more adaptable and comprehensive array of potential explanations. It seeks to incorporate a multitude of disciplines as it analyzes the progression of crime over the course of an offender's life. A specific theory within this group still maintains recognition of sociological and environmental influences, while also incorporating the psychological aspect of criminology. Terrie Moffitt introduced a model in which she distinguishes between two different types of delinquents, life-course persistent delinquents and delinquents limited to adolescence, known as dual-pathway 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 into adulthood. Those who begin to abstain from such activities are known as adolescent-limited delinquents, who she says do not develop due to neuropsychological deficits or disadvantaged social circumstances. As a result of peer association and the frustrations of not yet possessing the freedom of adulthood, Moffitt's theory holds that youth in this category are on a positive trajectory from which they are only briefly derailing during this period of adolescence . In contrast, characteristics not found in delinquents limited to adolescence due to neuropsychological discrepancies and disadvantaged environments are the key characteristics that differentiate the category of life-course persistent delinquents. The theory emphasizes that those who continue to commit crimes after adolescence and adopt a criminal identity find themselves committing crimes early and share various critical factors, such as abnormal temperaments, lower IQ, broken families or inadequate parenting, lower socioeconomic statuses, and behavioral antisocial. Dual-pathway developmental theory focuses on the pervasiveness of juvenile crime and the significant differences among those who continue to commit crimes into adulthood. It does, however,through the simultaneous collaboration of multiple disciplinary factors. Furthermore, the model also achieves balance on many topics of debate within criminal studies. It recognizes offenders who act of their own free will, but still identifies those who are less 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 close attention to the influence of social conflict and has justified a number of different strategies, the theory primarily advances solutions in the context of effective, preferably family-centered, foster care with an emphasis on early intervention. In contrast to the self-control theory previously discussed, this innovative study tactic provides a general account of criminal development more appropriate to the complexity that criminal studies entail. 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 working in criminology to move it toward a multidisciplinary field. As contrasting as these two explanations of crime may initially seem, it is more evident that one simply surpasses the other in depth when the theories are applied to real criminal cases. This is the circumstance when analyzing the documented stories of two men in The Other Wes Moore. The two Wes Moores shared a name, were born in the same disadvantaged neighborhood and had mothers who were both dedicated to improving their children's futures. However, the author of the book, Wes Moore, defied the odds to achieve incredible success, while the other Wes Moore soon fell into a criminal path and now currently resides in a prison cell. According to Hirschi and Gottfredson's theory, the determining factor in this case between the two was the inability to control one's impulses while presented with the opportunity to obtain what one sought by means outside the parameters of the law. Furthermore, this difference in men's self-control reflects Wes' success in having adequately developed the skills necessary for such restraints, which in this case came for the author in the form of an education at Valley Forge Military Academy . Although the other Moore's mother was equally devoted to her children, her choice to refrain from acting directly on the issue of her son's behavior is what the low self-control theory would hypothesize to be the direct cause of what happened to the other . Wes Moore. Moffitt's theory would also agree in the essentiality of the author attending the military academy at the first signs of deviance. However, the dual path development model allows for the analysis of 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. Along with his family's low and ineffective socioeconomic status, the lack of a father figure also theoretically contributes to a path to delinquency. Yet both Wes Moores were born into these exact circumstances. What saved the Rhode scholar and author of the book, according to Moffitt's theory, was his isolation at the academy that caused him to flee from the drug- and crime-infested environment of his neighborhood and away from any interaction with delinquent peers. Through the opportunity to learn positive social alternatives, his path limited to adolescence allowed him to desist from a style of.