Control theories make a little more sense to me. Reckless" containment theory says there are predispositions that make people commit crimes. He uses the terms pushes and pulls. Pushes can come from troubled psyches, or stressful circumstances outside the individual, whereas pulls can be from family, friends, etc. His point is however that these pushes and ulls are not evenly distributed between society. He recognizes these pushes and pulls but says there is more needed to completely explain. Not all youths in socially disorganized areas that are exposed to these pushes or pulls commit crimes. Hence the factor of control. He studied inner and outer containement. Inner involves a strong conscience, conventional beliefs, commitment to goals, etc. Outer containment is an array of forces that limit exposure to criminal pushes and pulls. I like this theory a lot. I think it's hard to test, because we"re talking about a lot of inner questions like morals and goals. He recognizes the "pushes and pulls" which can explain a lot of crime, but not all. Then he factors in these containment factors which push the theory further. I think it's very valid and important to study these types of factors, but at the same time I think it's hard to study it. All in all, I like this theory and I think it makes a lot of sense. .
Hirschi's a bit different with the social bond theory. He didn't attempt to explain why individuals engage in criminal acts, but rather why individuals choose to conform to conventional norms. He shows four social bonds which promote socialization and conformity. These include attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. He claimed that the stronger these four bonds, the least likely one would become delinquent. Hirschi first assumes that everyone has potential to become delinquent and criminal and it is social controls, not moral values, that maintain law and order. Without controls, he argues, one is free to commit criminal acts.