A GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME” AND PATTERNS OF CRIME IN NIGERIA: AN EXPLORATION OF METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS
ATTENTION:
BEFORE
YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000
ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
A GENERAL
THEORY OF CRIME” AND PATTERNS OF CRIME IN NIGERIA: AN EXPLORATION OF
METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS
ABSTRACT
The general
theory of crime proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) claims to be valid
across time and space. That claim is assessed through an analysis of three
categories of Nigerian crime—normal, political-economic, and riotous. Logical,
empirical, and theoretical shortcomings in the theory are iden¬tified and
discussed. Factually, many individuals who act imprudently (and criminally) in
Nigeria do not seem to fit the low self-control characterization required under
the theory. Logically and theoreti¬cally, unacknowledged value assumptions
built into the theory undermine its claim to universality.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990) claim that their general theory of crime has universal
sta¬tus, that it is valid across time and space. They note that cultural
imbalance theories, which they define as those theories that apply only to a
particular culture, dominate traditional comparative criminology. Advocates of
such theories argue that each culture has its own def¬initions of crime as well
as historically specific root causes of criminality and deviance. Hence, a
theory explaining common criminogenic factors across cultures cannot be
developed. Breaking from this reasoning, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue
that: cultural variability is not important in the cau¬sation of crime, that we
should look for con¬stancy rather than variability in the definition and causes
of crime, and that a single theory of crime can encompass the reality of cross-
cultural differences in crime rates. (Gottfred¬son and Hirschi, 1990:174-75)
Reliable and valid data concerning the pat¬terns of crime and deviance in
Nigeria are non¬existent. As a result, an evaluation of the general theory
cannot be based on statistical analyses and tests of specific empirical claims
and propositions within the theory. Rather, a general critique is offered which
analyzes how well the theory’s assumptions and logic fit the contexts and
patterns of crime in Nigeria. This article argues that the claim to
universality is unsubstantiated for two reasons: (a) the vari¬ety of crime in
Nigeria makes it highly unlikely that one explanation fits all (except at a
level of abstraction that cannot distinguish forms of behavior and, hence, does
not have a de¬fined dependent variable); and, more impor¬tant, (b) the basic
concepts employed in the theory —force, fraud, opportunities, social consensus,
deviance, prudence, self-control — are saturated with culturally specific
mean¬ings. Having been expelled from the theory by fiat, cultural imbalance
creeps back in, like Robert Frost’s fog, on many little definitional feet
through the back door. To make this argument, three general categories of crime
in Nigeria (normal, political-economic, and riotous)1 first will be outlined.
Second, the theories and explanations normally associated by researchers and
pundits will be evaluated with each type of crime, and whether Gott¬fredson and
Hirschi’s (1990) theory is capable of explaining the three types of crime will
be examined. Last, some underlying limitations of the general theory will be
identified, and an integrated approach to the study of crime will be called
for.
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Can the
general theory of crime explain the patterns of crime observed in Nigeria?
2. What can
it explain and where does it fail?
3. Which of
its claims are more universalistic and which reflect the contexts from which it
was developed — observations of American crime and delinquency?
4 In short,
do the assumptions and logic of the general theory, when examined in the
con¬text of a developing country (Nigeria in this case), support a claim to
universality?
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount
(#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after
we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE
Comments
Post a Comment