Thus, if moral codes are internalized and individuals are tied into and have a stake in their wider community, they will voluntarily limit their propensity to commit deviant acts.
The theory derives from a Hobbesian view of human nature as represented in Leviathan, i.e. that all choices are constrained by implicit social contracts, agreements and arrangements among people.
Thus, morality is created in the construction of social order, assigning costs and consequences to certain choices and defining some as evil, immoral and/or illegal.
[2] Another early form of the theory was proposed by Reiss (1951)[3] who defined delinquency as, "...behavior consequent to the failure of personal and social controls."
Reiss' version did not specify the sources of such "abilities" nor the specific control mechanisms leading to conformity, but he did assert that the failure of primary groups such as the family to provide reinforcement for non-delinquent roles and values was crucial to the explanation of delinquency.
"[6] acknowledging "gang socialization" as part of the causal, motivational dynamic leading to delinquency, but introduced the concept of stakes in conformity to explain "candidacy" for such learning experiences.
The notion of stakes in conformity fits very well with concepts invoked in later versions of social control theory.
[8] Although he acknowledged motivational forces by stating that, "...some delinquent behavior results from a combination of positive learning and weak and ineffective social control" (1958: 4), he adopted a control-theory position when he proposed that, "...most delinquent behavior is the result of insufficient social control..." Walter Reckless (1961)[9] developed containment theory by focusing on a youth's self-conception or self-image of being a good person as an insulator against peer pressure to engage in delinquency.
They also asserted that most delinquents eventually opt out of the delinquent lifestyle as they grow older, suggesting that there is a basic code of morality in place but that the young are able to deviate by using techniques of neutralization, i.e. they can temporarily suspend the applicability of norms by developing attitudes "favorable to deviant behavior".
Akers (1991)[14] argued that a major weakness of this new theory was that Gottfredson and Hirschi did not define self-control and the tendency toward criminal behavior separately.
Hirschi and Gottfredson (1993) rebutted Akers argument by suggesting it was actually an indication of the consistency of general theory.
Nevertheless, many of the conclusions are intuitively convincing, e.g. that individuals will not engage in crime if they think that this will sacrifice the affection or respect of significant others, or cause them to lose employment or their autonomy if they face imprisonment.
Davies (1994 and 2004), reports that in late-nineteenth century Britain, crime rates fell dramatically, as did drug and alcohol abuse, and illegitimacy became less common.